What is it with 'exclusive' torrents?

**kukushka** · 01-22-2010, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by IdolEyes787

Originally Posted by kukushka

i fail to see the big difference between conception of exclusive torrents and conception of private trackers in general. both are oriented to organize better conditions of sharing by placing the whole process in limited and controllable atmosphere, both have the goals to create something like black holes, places that will automatically attract uploads, seeding and all related stuff

I'm sorry but I don't see what limiting availability has to do with sharing.If you want to make a case for security fine,.If you wish to say that it forces certain individuals not inclined to otherwise do it fine but as soon as you started to use words like limited and controlled in regards to sharing you lost me.

Same argument regarding controlling content of forums .To limit is to deny the whole point.

simple: for average user who has his hdd full. what stuff that he seeds he'll delete first to free some space that he need - stuff from demonoid or from bmtv? my wild guess is that majority of ppl if they will face similar problem will keep bmtv stuff. black hole effect. with other aspects it's just like that.. those who can get access to a place with quality stuff, uploaders, longest seeding etc etc will do it and will bring their own resources there. and exclusive content is one of the things that makes place attractive. and keeping it exclusive attracts more quality users that can't get it otherwise. pure sharing just don't work that good, it's just like communism failure

**Burnsy** · 01-22-2010, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by kukushka

simple: for average user who has his hdd full. what stuff that he seeds he'll delete first to free some space that he need - stuff from demonoid or from bmtv? my wild guess is that majority of ppl if they will face similar problem will keep bmtv stuff. black hole effect. with other aspects it's just like that.. those who can get access to a place with quality stuff, uploaders, longest seeding etc etc will do it and will bring their own resources there. and exclusive content is one of the things that makes place attractive. and keeping it exclusive attracts more quality users that can't get it otherwise. pure sharing just don't work that good, it's just like communism failure

I see some of the logic in what you are saying here. I take it you mean that if a user can only get a certain kind of upload at a certain tracker (ie exclusivity), then they'll use that tracker and bring along with them their bandwidth, HD space and whatever else they have in their collection and effectively help to make that tracker a little bit better?

It's a fair point, and if it worked in practice then it might be true, however, and just like the example you used with sharing... exclusivity doesn't work that well either... doesn't matter who you are or what you encode/upload or try to limit to a certain type of tracker, it rarely stays there. I've actually been on trackers where upload comments have mentioned certain packs being sourced from 'tracker a' and "against the rules", only for another member to say that it is actually from 'tracker b' and arguments to ensue that way... it's crazy. The exclusivity just doesn't work either imho.

I think the original point the OP was making though was that it was kind of hypocrytical for 'pirates' to release packs/encodes or whatever else onto a tracker and to then have the cheek to say that their contribution hasn't to go anywhere else, despite the fact they 'pinched it' in the first place.

And I have to say I agree with them.

**kukushka** · 01-22-2010, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by Burnsy

It's a fair point, and if it worked in practice then it might be true, however, and just like the example you used with sharing... exclusivity doesn't work that well either...
I think the original point the OP was making though was that it was kind of hypocrytical for 'pirates' to release packs/encodes or whatever else onto a tracker and to then have the cheek to say that their contribution hasn't to go anywhere else, despite the fact they 'pinched it' in the first place.

And I have to say I agree with them.

it doesn't work absolutely but it's not a matter of absolute, it's just a matter of different factors and their % of being effective.

as for hypocrisy - there's no absolute moral around and sharing pirated stuff isn't an exclusion so any moral thesis that is being used around is from more global point of view can be found quite relative, in other words - hypocrytical

**puckface** · 01-22-2010, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by nextom

as if anyone gets his stuff because of leeches like you and their morality bs, when in reality you're just pissed you don't get -everything- for free.
no, i don't think you understand it takes work.

Originally Posted by pretend

You talk like someone makes you join sites with exclusive content or packs. Don't download it and be happy.

Ok, I woke up on the wrong side of the bed so excuse me, but no one said that I was moral, or that I was against it... there is no need for any accusatory tone and calling me a leech, for that I will tell you to fuck right off.

Secondly, I was asking a question, if you dont like my questions.. again, fuck right off.

Thirdly, as a couple people have pointed out, I was wondering this because I do find it against the spirit of torrenting itself, also in my original post I conceded that it does take work to encode a film or create a pack (read for once in your lives), and coincidentally I have done both. But, keep in mind you are encoding someone elses original work, what now makes it 'yours' is the question.

Also, I do agree with one post saying that exclusivity on packs are total bullshit, which is one reason I dont use my f** account....

**IdolEyes787** · 01-22-2010, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by kukushka

Originally Posted by IdolEyes787

I'm sorry but I don't see what limiting availability has to do with sharing.If you want to make a case for security fine,.If you wish to say that it forces certain individuals not inclined to otherwise do it fine but as soon as you started to use words like limited and controlled in regards to sharing you lost me.

Same argument regarding controlling content of forums .To limit is to deny the whole point.

simple: for average user who has his hdd full. what stuff that he seeds he'll delete first to free some space that he need - stuff from demonoid or from bmtv? my wild guess is that majority of ppl if they will face similar problem will keep bmtv stuff. black hole effect. with other aspects it's just like that.. those who can get access to a place with quality stuff, uploaders, longest seeding etc etc will do it and will bring their own resources there. and exclusive content is one of the things that makes place attractive. and keeping it exclusive attracts more quality users that can't get it otherwise. pure sharing just don't work that good, it's just like communism failure

Communism failed at the top not at the bottom.Those that had access to power abused it and it then became very much a class ( or worse) system, the antithesis of what was originally intended( see any parallels here).
Great for the proletariat but not so good for the workers.

Historically Communism may not work but neither does the type of isolationism you support. Not equating the two but you do realize that the" limited access to a select few "mentality is basically at the heart of all prejudice and social injustice.

**Castronaut** · 01-22-2010, 05:07 PM

I don't mean to take this into a political semantics discussion, but the communism that failed was far from that encouraged communal activity (the kind Marx would envisage), what failed was democratic centralism. (An organised revolution carried out by professional revolutionaries is a recipie for despotism, afterall). The fact that people make their stuff available to only a select few is in fact what killed the idea of Leninism and then Stalinism (their bastardised idea of communism/Marxism) and had absolutely nothing to do with the lack of sharing at the proletariat class level. Idol says it nicely.

**kukushka** · 01-22-2010, 05:25 PM

the thing is that open, "good" systems are working exactly in cases where they don't get abused. which requires either self stable system or exclusively good people to participate in. since open stable systems are hard to impossible to build and people in general aren't that good, it brings us borders and other shit which can be called injustice, but it's just trying to filter stuff in selected areas from the mess that is all around

and please don't misunderstand me, i don't support such kind of systems, i just see that it's working and i use it to some extent.

**ca_aok** · 01-22-2010, 05:53 PM

I mostly agree with dvdasacd's post. My personal opinion is that the rule (especially in the case of packs of scene or previously released content) is a cancer on the BT community. In the case of the music exclusivity sites, I think it's a cancer not because the rule itself is terrible, but as a sign of a larger problem with the uploaders themselves. When I upload a rip there, it's because I want to present my upload to the community... have it shared, have it whatever. It's for the enjoyment of the music.

Many other uploaders have this sense of entitlement about themselves. It's my rip, therefore I own it. I deserve upload credit on my own upload, I deserve to show the staff no respect, I deserve to keep these files exclusive and not shared elsewhere, despite the entire SPIRIT of what we're doing is to share our files with others.. Sure, putting together scans and a nice description may take hours, but you chose to do that to share them with others, I don't see why the files being on another site should detract from that.

It all ends up with these people with ratios of around 16 complaining about how the guy with the seedbox and a ratio of 1.13 is "overseeding"