Decreasing Sharing
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)Posted by: meudeuf
:( I'm a veteran in kl but this is the first time i'm using the forum because i have noticed that the number of users online has decreased more than a few in those 3 past months.
When i first started to use Kl we were >3,5 millions sometimes 4 to 5.
3 months ago i could steal see that 2 millions up to 3 millions where connected
and now it seems that we are less than 100 000!!! :ghostface:
What happened???
I still share more than ever, I will resist, Alamo !!
Posted by: nukemdomis
Well I do know that the number of sources has decreased tremendously...which is depressing.
Whos knows if we get the truth about number of users at our level.
About an hour ago there were over 2 million users on KL........
Right now it says theres 84 thousand........
I have no clue?
Posted by: zippy_frog
It's those damn song cops who are scaring everyone away with tales of being sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars and being put on Death Row for downloading some music. And the way these assholes are coming down on some people are just so wrong. In fact, I'm going on a rant.
*RANT! TURN AWAY, WEAK OF HEART*
These singers are making countless millions of dollars, live in houses like size of a small moon, and still bitch and complain that their songs are being stolen and they are getting "ripped off." What the fuck do these people have to worry about? Seriously? Banana Republic out of khakis? The cappacino machine at Starbucks is broken? These are people that demand $20 million dollars per film (when they can't even fucking act) and they STILL want free stuff. How the fuck does that work? Shouldn't you get free stuff when you have LESS money? And then these "musicians" (can't even call them that anymore. Usher? How does a one note, one syllable song stay at the top of the chart for weeks?) complain that their losing CD sales because of downloading. Let's take Metallica's Lars Ulrich for examplea and I quote, "Nag nag nag we're losing sales nag nag nag bitch whine nag nag nag". You're not losing album sales because people are downloading your music. You lost album sales because your album sucked ritcheous ASS! It was worse that Load AND Reload! COMBINED! And then "artists" complain again "were not getting as many album sales as before". What about Avril Lavigne? If 10 million records is a "loss", than I don't know what is. :angry:
RANT COMPLETE.
Sorry about that.
Posted by: Broken
I've just opened Kazaa on my computer for the first time in almost a year.
Only 84,000 users online.
For anyone that thought kazaa wasn't dead,
http://img23.exs.cx/img23/6301/TOMB.jpg
Posted by: Mr. Blunt
Originally posted by Broken@11 July 2004 - 16:19
I've just opened Kazaa on my computer for the first time in almost a year.
Damn, you still have it installed? :P
Posted by: Storm
Originally posted by zippy_frog@11 July 2004 - 21:30
It's those damn song cops who are scaring everyone away with tales of being sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars and being put on Death Row for downloading some music. And the way these assholes are coming down on some people are just so wrong. In fact, I'm going on a rant.
*RANT! TURN AWAY, WEAK OF HEART*
These singers are making countless millions of dollars, live in houses like size of a small moon, and still bitch and complain that their songs are being stolen and they are getting "ripped off." What the fuck do these people have to worry about? Seriously? Banana Republic out of khakis? The cappacino machine at Starbucks is broken? These are people that demand $20 million dollars per film (when they can't even fucking act) and they STILL want free stuff. How the fuck does that work? Shouldn't you get free stuff when you have LESS money? And then these "musicians" (can't even call them that anymore. Usher? How does a one note, one syllable song stay at the top of the chart for weeks?) complain that their losing CD sales because of downloading. Let's take Metallica's Lars Ulrich for examplea and I quote, "Nag nag nag we're losing sales nag nag nag bitch whine nag nag nag". You're not losing album sales because people are downloading your music. You lost album sales because your album sucked ritcheous ASS! It was worse that Load AND Reload! COMBINED! And then "artists" complain again "were not getting as many album sales as before". What about Avril Lavigne? If 10 million records is a "loss", than I don't know what is. :angry:
RANT COMPLETE.
Sorry about that.
1)lol, its still stealing......
if i had though up the plans to a time machine, and you stole em, ud be stealing right?
if i had those plans on my comp, and you hacked into it and downloaded it, wouldnt that be the same? if i was homeless (i know it would be kinda hard to have an internet connection, but hypothetically speaking) would it be more stealing than if i had more money than Bill? If i was rich an someone broke into my house to steal 10 bucks id turn his face into a bloody pulp as much as if that was my last 10 bucks, stealing is stealing
fuck that shit, stealing is stealing........ if you walked out of a mall with a CD w/o paying for it, you wouldnt be surprised if you get stopped, but if you do it on the net, you bitch about it????? weird.......
you're just trying to justify your wrongdoing........ say "its ok for me to steal, the sob im stealing from is rich anyway"
2)that Usher song ruled........ well, he dint, the beat did ;)[/BITCH]
now im off to download/steal an album from some artist that CANT afford it, and feel perfectly fine about it :devil:
Posted by: Jibbler
Originally posted by Storm@11 July 2004 - 20:36
fuck that shit, stealing is stealing........ if you walked out of a mall with a CD w/o paying for it, you wouldnt be surprised if you get stopped, but if you do it on the net, you bitch about it????? weird.......
So stupid... once again your logic is flawed. Theft of intellectual property hasn't been clearly defined, and thus we have these issues.
Walking out of a CD store without paying for an album, is theft of Physical property.
Downloading an album on the internet is stealing Intellectual property.
I would be willing to agree, that in some form, they are both a version of stealing, however 'bytes of data' are NOT the same as a 'packaged item'. The cost of production far outweighs the difference in product between one and the other.
I won't argue the logistics of the situation with you, but I'd be hard pressed to find a court in the land, that will say that an MP3 is the same as a store bought CD. Sorry, but even here in the US, we recognize that these two things are very different, and the laws always evolve slower than the technology. :music1:
Posted by: zippy_frog
Originally posted by Jibbler+12 July 2004 - 02:47--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jibbler @ 12 July 2004 - 02:47)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Storm@11 July 2004 - 20:36
fuck that shit, stealing is stealing........ if you walked out of a mall with a CD w/o paying for it, you wouldnt be surprised if you get stopped, but if you do it on the net, you bitch about it????? weird.......
So stupid... once again your logic is flawed. Theft of intellectual property hasn't been clearly defined, and thus we have these issues.
Walking out of a CD store without paying for an album, is theft of Physical property.
Downloading an album on the internet is stealing Intellectual property.
I would be willing to agree, that in some form, they are both a version of stealing, however 'bytes of data' are NOT the same as a 'packaged item'. The cost of production far outweighs the difference in product between one and the other.
I won't argue the logistics of the situation with you, but I'd be hard pressed to find a court in the land, that will say that an MP3 is the same as a store bought CD. Sorry, but even here in the US, we recognize that these two things are very different, and the laws always evolve slower than the technology. :music1: [/b][/quote]
THANK YOU!
Posted by: REALITY
My Thoughts Over A Year Ago...
http://www.sharemation.com/realitysponge/KZQ.jpg
Posted by: [Spam]
Originally posted by nukemdomis@11 July 2004 - 19:19
Well I do know that the number of sources has decreased tremendously...which is depressing.
Whos knows if we get the truth about number of users at our level.
About an hour ago there were over 2 million users on KL........
Right now it says theres 84 thousand........
I have no clue?
You're connected to a bad supernode. Use Kazupernodes to switch supernodes.
Posted by: Snee
Originally posted by [Spam]+12 July 2004 - 07:57--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE ([Spam] @ 12 July 2004 - 07:57)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-nukemdomis@11 July 2004 - 19:19
Well I do know that the number of sources has decreased tremendously...which is depressing.
Whos knows if we get the truth about number of users at our level.
About an hour ago there were over 2 million users on KL........
Right now it says theres 84 thousand........
I have no clue?
You're connected to a bad supernode. Use Kazupernodes to switch supernodes. [/b][/quote]
Yeah, jump the damn supernode.
The number you get isn't the total number of all users on the network.
Posted by: worldpease
Hi Snni, you realy caught my atention there,
:helpsmile: Abaut what you said,
jumping supernodes,
could you give me a little help here,
I think I did that once, but just ¨to see
what would happen¨. How can it benefit me
when Im downloading something,
I mean, for example, if Im downloading
a video clip, but it doesn´t seem to find a
good ¨source¨, could I use the ¨jumping supernode thing¨?
I would very much like
to know that, and thank You.[FONT=Times][COLOR=blue]
Posted by: zippy_frog
Originally posted by worldpease@13 July 2004 - 04:09
Hi Snni, you realy caught my atention there,
:helpsmile: Abaut what you said,
jumping supernodes,
could you give me a little help here,
I think I did that once, but just ¨to see
what would happen¨. How can it benefit me
when Im downloading something,
I mean, for example, if Im downloading
a video clip, but it doesn´t seem to find a
good ¨source¨, could I use the ¨jumping supernode thing¨?
I would very much like
to know that, and thank You.[FONT=Times][COLOR=blue]
Is this a joke?
Posted by: juanxtreme
:01:about what you said that we were 84000 thats not true if you join all the supernodes we are over 4 000 000
Posted by: Neven
Just click; File - Jump Supernode... and all will be well in the world again. :P
Posted by: Snee
Originally posted by Neven@13 July 2004 - 11:53
Just click; File - Jump Supernode... and all will be well in the world again. :P
Yeah, do that.
Really simplified you can think of a supernode as linked to a lot of other 'puters on the network.
When you start kazaa you connect to one 'node on the network and can reach all other 'puters in contact with the same 'node, and jumping supernodes puts you in contact with all the 'puters the new 'node is in contact with instead.
Posted by: orcutt989
STOP POSTING ABOUT THIS, JESUS CHRIST.
http://filesharingtalk.com/index.php?showtopic=117896
Posted by: Resident_Evil255
If you are searching for files, yeah jump supernodes.. if your just d/l'ing files just let the accelerator work, otherwise if your searching for files.. keep jumpin supernodes..
Posted by: executive
Get with the times people, jumping supernodes doesnt work anymore. Read a few posts, you'll discover that the network really is going downhill. Anyways...
On the subject of ethics..
Yes, some artists are rich. Stealing from the rich is still stealing but I think in this case we have a Robin Hood scenario. The record labels are the crooks in this story, and charging what they do for their sorry excuses for music is the real crime, not swapping music. People are fed up of the insane prices they pay and technology has finally caught up. Instead of keeping up with the times, record companies hide behind their archaic ideals and because of connections to media and government (look it up, most of the media is part of the same congolmerates) they easily get bills passed which take away from our freedoms. Freedom should only be sacrificed when there is a greater benefit to everyone, but in this case it just makes rich people richer and poor people poorer. If albums are the only source of income for these artists, maybe they should consider other options. Most of them suck so nobody is going to come to their concerts. Why don't they set up some sort of digital subscription service with reasonable prices that the average person can afford? They would cut down production costs on all those CDs.
This is not a legal issue people. Multinationals have the government in their pockets. This is a moral issue and the only solution is to boycott and to not get caught. ;) Cheers.