Comments on: P2p study flawed says RIAA

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 31 Oct 2004 02:13:52 +0000

Isn’t it ironic, that when usage goes up on P2P networks, so do record company sales and profits?

Why are we still belabouring the point?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 29 Oct 2004 06:35:33 +0000

Who cares what they say. They say ‘this’. You say ‘that’. There may be fakes but what you have to measure is P2P ‘usage’. There is the difference. You can say ‘this much data was transfered’ on P2P. They can say ‘much of that data is fakes from Overpeer etc’. But so what? It’s how much usage of P2P is important. If the user base across all P2P is on the UP and the data transferred is up across those networks - whether it be fakes or not - then the RIAA and it’s goons are losing in that respect (Although perhaps not in the information war but P2P’ers couldn’t give a toss about what comes out of the Recording Ass of America spin doctors). Downloads of P2P apps from download.com are continually going up also.

P2P ‘usage’ is what counts and it’s healthier than ever.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 29 Oct 2004 01:29:48 +0000

I am allowed to express my opinion, isnt this what the comment section is for? I did so in a mature way, I would expect the courtesy returned.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 29 Oct 2004 00:48:41 +0000

I’m sure Jon will reply if he wants to, but as a regular p2pnet-o-phile (I’ve been a reader almost since the beginning), I don’t ever recall p2pnet claiming to be objective. It has a very definite point of view, and that’s what makes it what it is. As Anne Seville posted here (http://p2pnet.net/index.php?page=comment&story=2620&comment=6114) “This site reports from the ‘left’ if you don’t like the perspective find a site that reports from the ‘right’ and happy trolling.”

As to your thoughts on journalism - No Comment.

Happy trolling.

Morg

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 29 Oct 2004 00:40:49 +0000

Huh, whoever the anon having a flame at the site is, why? if you dont like the way it is written dont read it. no one is making you come here.
I dont understand in the world today why people are soo fussy over pathetic little things. come on, grow up and enjoy the site or find a new one, we dont care if the statement isn’t 101% acuratly written as long as the info is a good read. plus the fact you belive what the riaa says over regular people astounds me. like the other person says, try searching for torrents and you will find there is far more going on with this style of sharing than ever was with kazaa emule or bearshare.

worry about what your told in the instance by ‘expert authorities’ not what other people have made freely available for your general knowledge

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 29 Oct 2004 00:34:30 +0000

Its just eth fact no one reports or records torrents. i would say over 50% of all public( non private ftp’s which regular people can’t get access to anyway ) trades are done via torrent, its amazing the new growth of these sites and ammount of info i see flying around

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 29 Oct 2004 00:00:40 +0000

“”I should also point out that ‘accuracy’ and ‘credibility’ aren’t normally spoken in the same breath as ‘RIAA’. “”

That is completely irrelevant. The point is that the RIAA has not made a statement regarding this issue, and your story is written as if they have. Since you cannot prove they made that statement, it is nothing more than putting words in the RIAA’s mouth.

I am sure the source and credibility are accurate, but as a news site you have to learn how to actually report the news in an ethical manner. Otherwise, and no offense, you really are not a news site and just a frequently updated blog site. You should also think about being a bit more objective in your posts.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 28 Oct 2004 22:36:43 +0000

You’re addressing the response to your first post as if it was mine.

It wasn’t.

In the meanwhile, I stand 100% behind the accuracy of the story and the credibility of the source.

I should also point out that ‘accuracy’ and ‘credibility’ aren’t normally spoken in the same breath as ‘RIAA’.

Cheers!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 28 Oct 2004 21:27:57 +0000

Also, again I hate to sound like a flamer…but the title of the article is not accurate. Since the RIAA has not officially commented, you cannot say “P2P study flawed SAYS the RIAA”

They have not said anything…If the RIAA wanted to push things…they may have a libel case since what you are publishing is not accurate.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 28 Oct 2004 21:14:57 +0000

This site’s credibility…I hate to get into this because I dont want to be misunderstood as just a flamer. I am just offering some constructive criticism…

While I personally believe that what you are telling me is the truth, using such “sources” can hurt a site’s credibility. This is especially true if the RIAA says they dont know what the heck you are talking about.

Check out this article on the overuse of such ‘unnamed’ sources. http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0812/p03s01-usju.html

Also check out the general feeling regarding ‘unnamed’ sources per journalism ethics..

http://www.justicejournalism.org/crimeguide/chapter06/chapter06_pg04.html

This story would be more appropriately written if you contacted the RIAA and asked them to comment on the “source”. Perhaps they already have an official statement on the issue, and you can avoid using questionable sources all togeather.

Just my two cents…

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 28 Oct 2004 20:52:56 +0000

huh? dangerous? who to?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 28 Oct 2004 20:06:00 +0000

“A source” told you?!??!?

You should stay away from such “sources” until the RIAA or MPAA make an official statement…they could be dangerous!