Comments on: Spamming file sharers won’t work

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 17:04:38 +0000

Davsi, hadopi, loppsi, oopsi. . . . .

These are the garbages produced by old fogies who have no clue of what is going on.

The Asteroid struck and the dinosaurs died.

History repeat itself but never exactly.

Still there is always some dinosaurs somewhere in the story who can not make it in the next curve.

By: Jakykong

Jakykong — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 01:54:19 +0000

I love their statistics! 80% of people would stop sharing files if the internet were cut off from them! Doesn’t it seem a bit low? You know, because if they’re cut off from the internet they can’t exactly use the internet? Shouldn’t that be 100% (or maybe 95% — to cover those folks who are willing to rip CDs from the library to get their fill)?

Of course, with neighborly wifi freely available in many urban areas, I’m not sure they could have enforced taking someone off the ‘net anyway. But also, I can’t imagine all the online retailers not completely related to music (eBay, Amazon, ThinkGeek.com, to name a few) would be happy with a law forcibly removing their customers. This was all doomed from the start.

Last, but not least. Spam? Of all things — how many people actually listen to spam? And fileshare? Not many, I presume. If you’re stupid enough to actually listen to a spam message and think that it’s a serious threat, you probably don’t know how to open a torrent client and keep your computer on while it finishes.

By: Sukasa

Sukasa — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:58:19 +0000

the other 20% would just use their neighbor’s wireless

By: MSMD

MSMD — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 18:33:18 +0000

hadopi? loppsi? What, are they in competition for the stupidest name or something?

No wonder it’s fallen flat on its face.

By: surfer

surfer — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:51:04 +0000

you mean 80% of users would switch to vpn if they received an infringement letter?

stw