I have often wondered why it is that there are no torrent files used on AudioZ.

Is there any particular reason why people prefer to use FS, FSN etc. etc. rather than download/share software via Torrents?

Just a Question - interested to know if there is a reason!

 

Real simple, They make money by posting links, they do not have to share back, Where as with torrents everybody has to share or get kicked from the site if their ratio falls below the sites rules.

 

I find torrents painfully slow.

Only bother for files under 10Mb

 

Depends on the site,I know of one that has 3 dedicated seed boxes and it's super fast. the others seem to depend on users to upload and that can take forever.

 

Haha, second post on this forum ...

Simple answer ... TRAFFIC/BANDWIDTH SHAPING ...

So, when a piece of info (a part of your torrent) travels across the web, the data about the packet of info says it is a torrent and your ISP can read that and cut your bandwidth down ... happens all the time here in Canada ...

The other sites use http: protocols and therefore, are not shaped, though Bell was definitely shaping the bandwidth I was getting on hotfile ... sat at 150kb during the day ... late at night/ early morning, totally open ...

So that is why, for the most part, the file sharing sites are used ...

Cheers, hope that helps answer some questions ...

 

Great, this answers the big question that I've had in mind for some time now.

Reagrding whether or not torrents are slower, from my experience, no, they are not.

I can get 300kbps on a single torrent download BUT nothing more than about 100 for a freebie via the usual suspects of file storage sites (FS, FSC, UL, WUP etc.).

I think things here in the UK are VERY different than they are in the US and in Germany.

Also, I think that this exact subject is worthy of separate discussion regarding Internet control via different Countries.

Myself, I prefer torrent files because one can simply fire the torrent file off into the ether and pretty much forget it until it's finished downloading.

Sadly, it appears that I am pretty much in the minority now as the US, Canada, and Germany cannot use P2P due to their Countries Govts clamping down on said technologies, and using litigatory techniques to threaten their citizens to cease using P2P.

Thats a BIG shame as P2P, without doubt, is way faster and efficient than using file store downloads without having to pay subscription fees.

Here's a question to US and Canadian Members.

Bittorrent allows a connection to, in effect, obfuscate all connections so as to confuse an ISP into believing that the P2P connection is nothing more than harmless.

Has anyone within the US continental Domain had threats from, or even been prosecuted by Authorities on the basis that they downloaded copyrighted material via a P2P Client such as BT and/or other P2P Clients?

I would be interested to know.

Also, I would be interested to know how easier it would be for Users on AudioZ to share content via P2P if they knew that they could fudge their IP address to circumvent any sort of ISP spying.

What I guess I'm trying to do is start a discussion thread that perhaps is pretty much the most important issue that file sharers, such as us, will have to deal with since the beginning of the Internet. And it's affecting ALL users (not just musicians such as ourselves) adn I think, is about to become the BIGGEST issue, secondary to Internet Pornography, in the Internets brief History.

I Invite all educated opinions and comments from my fellow AudioZ Members........

 

I routinely get 4-5 mbs on torrents on my 12 Mbs connection.

 

Well, It's my opinion that torrents are safer and when properly seeded are also faster.Now before anyone gets all crazy and swears up and down about their method of obtaining stuff, You have to ask your self if your method is safe. Some think torrents are better, some think direct links are better, both have flaws. Torrents can be slow at first and many countries tend to limit the bandwidth if connected to a torrent sites IP. Where as direct links are never limited by a government only the "Host' provider does that.But remember premium unlimited bandwidth,wait times etc... is how they make their money. BUT do you really know where you money is going, are you assured that if the "host" goes down that they will not sell off your info or simply take your money.Same goes for a torrent site, unless it's one of the cool ones that lets you know what is going on , you still have no clue. I myself prefer Torrent sites, Everybody chips in , everybody shares and if the site get closed down, oh well to bad. Now if a "hosting" site gets closed down they are guilty of more crimes than the average user is because they indeed are the ones hosting the illeagal files and I have seen many give up user info in order to get a better deal from the cops. It's all apples and oranges. You need to figure out what is best for you. FTP is still the safest of them all, but that is one of those deals where you need to know somebody that knows somebody.

 

Fuck the torrents. I prefer to make music and not to sit day and night in the net surfing, uploading, downloading, waiting... Everyone should have a choice. I like audioz just for news and community. And I download software very rear. So, if we switch to torrent I should swim to net 24/7? No guys, it is a very bad idea.

 

A interesting approach would be to scrample the names of the files, excrypt them and store the name in a protected database.
Saving those names should be legal ? no?
Something like this: MySecretProject.rar -> c3poxyz_ta4eh63co.rar
The file itself could be stored anywhere since it is supposed to be save from being opened as long as the key is strong enough.
You could even save them on skydrive? or anywhere else.
This approach would be less public than a blog and the files are supposed to live much longer !

Why by the way is Audioz indexable by search engines ? wouldn't it be smarter to keep it more private ?

Toirrents are as fast as the seeders but do you really enjoy running a server with dying harddrives , electric costs , permanent used bandwith so that you cant game or even surf ?

 

Ive reached a point now where I think I have more than enough to do what I need to do.

Now I only get something if its a "must-have" in my view...

 

Hey:

1. Yes, I think encrypting the RARs and giving them unrecognizable names (like what is done for some files) - ie.: Loopmaster Electro House Volume 3 ... LEHV3.rar ... perfect! That means files can last longer. However, like in VSTClub, you will always have rats ... we must watch out for these ...

2. Torrents, they are the past ... I like my HTTP, for safety and speed ... I can download a 2.5 gig share in less than 25 minutes ... much better than torrents ... yes, my downstream is about 4 Megabytes per second ... torrents can kiss that!

Josh

 

also found this article saying a couple of things:

Ellacoya Networks, makers of deep packet inspection gear for carriers, has pulled together some statistics on one million broadband users in North America, and its findings show that HTTP traffic accounts for 46 percent of all broadband traffic. P2P applications now account for only 37 percent.

Yes, they are watching your packets! And I don't think it is just youtube ... its us using filesharing sites, haha ... suckers!

The not so cool part:

Looking over all the numbers, one of the most surprising result is the continued success of NNTP (newsgroups) traffic, which still accounts for nine percent of the total. Clearly, newsgroup discussions (and, ahem, binaries) are still big business.

The data may provide some ammunition for companies that favor traffic shaping on their networks. Between P2P, newsgroups, and streaming HTTP video traffic, the vast majority of Internet traffic is non-critical (i.e., no one's going to die or lose $20 million if they don't download a YouTube clip or a new song in under a minute). Networks that want to ensure priority transmission of VoIP calls, traditional HTTP web browsing, medical imaging, etc., have a strong incentive to throttle back that flood of non-critical traffic when the network is experiencing heavy loads. That could bring them into conflict with proponents of strict network neutrality, though, who don't want to see any sort of packet prioritization.

I say, no way ... the net remains neutral ... already here in Canada the government has allowed the companies to treat us like their bi--ches, and made us be subject to limits per internet package we purchase ... so I have to pay out of my nose for the amount of downloading I do ... and it is ridiculous how much they charge if you go over!

Too much power in the hands of the telecommunications networks and they will think they are God ... they need to be brought to their knees every so often ...