Piracy Still Rampant After MegaUpload Takedown

    February 8, 2012
    Zach Walton
    Comments are off for this post.

Did anybody seriously think that the take down of MegaUpload would deter people from piracy? I didn’t think so.

DeepField Networks posted a study on their blog titled, “File Sharing in the Post MegaUpload Era.” They say that file sharing traffic collapsed on January 18, the day that MegaUpload was shut down and its founder arrested.

They say that MegaUpload downloads represented about 30 to 40 percent of all file sharing. In the span of an hour, global Internet traffic dropped by a huge 3 percent. The copyright industry saw it as a great day for them and a bad day for pirates everywhere.

To preface, the study found that piracy has not decreased. No big surprise there. Pirates just moved to other services. They always have and they always will.

The study is far more interesting than that, however, as it sought to map the infrastructure behind file sharing. They say that the general consensus is that file sharing is spread across the entirety of the Internet where everybody is involved in the business of piracy.

The fact of the matter is that file sharing is located in a centralized part of the Internet. There may be hundreds of file sharing sites, but they all pull from the same six Web sites that drive over 80 percent of all file-sharing traffic.

They found that on January 18, before MegaUpload was taken down, MegaVideo was pushing 34 percent of all file sharing traffic. Most of that traffic was locally hosted in the United States on the servers in Virginia.

For comparison, they looked at file-sharing traffic on January 19. File-sharing traffic did not decrease, it just moved elsewhere. Sites like Putlocker saw a massive jump in their file-sharing traffic.

They conclude that the MegaUpload take down did nothing to combat piracy. All it did was force massive amounts of data to now be transferred from Europe over “expensive transatlantic links.”

  • ted

    I don’t see why we should be sympathetic to the music industry for their so called losses to file sharing, they should get their revenue from live concerts, which means they get paid by earning it. Just as the film industry used cinemas before the internet was born, they seemed to survive. You here tales of so called music writers who admit they wrote such and such on the bus on their way to the studio, as an 80 year old retired carpenter and joiner, I got paid to make a door, staircase or window, I don’t get paid every time someone uses them, back to the movie makers, do the chippies or the sparks and prop people get repeat payments if a film makes millions? signed Ex Studio chippy

    • Pete

      So you’re saying a band/artist/musician should go ahead and pay for equipment, studio time, producer, etc and release the music they wrote and paid for to you for free? I’m pretty sure it costs a lot more cash to make and release a song to ungrateful people like you than it does to make a door.

      And you know what? Jesus was a carpenter, and I’m sure if he were alive today, he’d go to a locally owned CD store and BUY his copy of System Of A Down. I don’t know why, but I think the J man would be a SOAD fan.

      • Sin

        No, he’s saying that expecting to get paid over and over and over and over for 1 task that you did years ago is an archaic business model.

        The actual bands and artists don’t see the largest parts of money that comes in from their talent, the people in the recording industry see it. It’s also not the bands that are pissed off at us for “stealing profits”, but these same industry executives that are fearful of losing their exorbitant paychecks.

        With the advance of technology, large studios and buying off radio stations for exposure is no longer the required avenue for success, and smaller bands running things out of their garage and basement are capable of worldwide exposure based off their own merit. I have absolutely no problem paying the band themselves for their work, but the recording industry can choke on their own handiwork for all I care.

        • KhanS.GDA

          *exactly.* The industry is afraid of the internet–it means they are no longer needed. When you have tremendous access to billions of people simply by posting videos on YouTube, people are going to get interested.

          The music industry once controlled the distribution of music. Now the musicians can do it on their own, thanks to the internet and the digital world, where the only cost to distribute a song is the bandwidth to upload it. The RIAA and the Music Industry are operating on an outdated platform that *will* fail. Their pathetic attempts at censorship will only stall the inevitable.

        • Duh

          Are you paying every time you listen to the song? Then I don’t see how “getting paid every time they use your staircase” is relevant at all.

      • ben

        Well if you look in the bible you find that when people following Jesus got hungry, rather than sending the people out to legally buy their own food from established vendors he simply took some loaves and fish and made a few thousand copies for everyone to have and share for free… I’d say that’s pretty strong evidence for Jesus supporting file sharing!

    • Eduardo

      I don’t see any artist starving or getting poor because of piracy. They want to get billionaire with one fucking song, come on, its like cheating people.

  • http://www.usaonlinecasinos.org Michael

    If there is money to be made from crime, its always going to be around. Although the takedown of MegaUpload has not stopped online piracy, I hope it has at least sent a strong message to the general public. With any luck, this bust will at least discourage or slow down online piracy.

  • Zman

    The future is here! Either u wake up and understand what is going or we waiti till the generation past dies off and maybe a new one mite flourish. Pirates lol yes indeed I would love these so called artists carried by the corruption of the corporate dollar to tell me how to live what to eat where to go how to dress because other wise I mite turn to a life of real crime which we all know carries less of a jail term. Exploit or be exploited. Pirate or privateer?

  • Peke

    I’m tired of hearing all the apologists for piracy. Pray tell, explain how artists are supposed to be paid for their work, if piracy is so rampant? Yes, they can be DISCOVERED by more people, but how do they get paid? By touring all the time? (and the concerts pirated?)What about artists that aren’t performers?
    The last decade has seen the decline in music (think about it, how many artists that began in the last decade do you think will have staying power–or be considered great artists), and its almost certainly due to music piracy.

    • Josh

      Whilst I can see your point about full-on piracy apologists being rubbish, also are the reactionaries who, rather than looking at the larger picture (bigger than just piracy – yes it exists!), look at a part of the problem that suits them, and blames it for everything.

      Moving away from music, to videogames, as an example: the Steam platform designed by Valve for distributing games, with the idea of having a fast, efficient service that offers games for reasonable prices (and regular price drops), and a user-friendly layout, without (I think, might need to double-check) restrictive crap like DRM, which has been used an awful lot by digital distributors. It was pretty much designed to fight piracy, just by offering a better service than pirating sites do, and it’s huge: http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/10/25/gabe-newell-on-piracy-and-steams-success-in-russia/

      Back to music – have you perhaps considered that it isn’t just piracy that prevents artists from getting ‘huge’ now? The internet, as you put yourself, is a global platform, meaning that near enough any band can just begin uploading music to an audience of billions: there is simply too much choice in new bands, too many niches being filled for many, if any, acts to be as all-encompassing as previous generations. And just because an artist doesn’t get huge, doesn’t mean they a) don’t have staying power, or b) be considered greats.

  • Sara

    What happens when you really want to see a movie, but you can’t seem to find it online anywhere? Personally, I will search and search until I am absolutely convinced that it has been removed from every conceivable video streaming and file sharing website. Does actually paying for it ever cross my mind? Nope.

    In other words, pirates aren’t going to pay for the stuff they “steal,” even if it is otherwise made unavailable to them. Therefore, the industry is not losing profits to pirates and needs to stop acting like butt hurt billionaires.

  • Godel Fishbreath

    There was a bit of news, a new way to file share that does not involve a central site having to keep any records of who shared what. It went up the day the big site went down.

    Can we make a distinction here? The companies are not the artists. Most artists make money on tour. Most companies do terrible things to the artists especially in poorly read contracts. If the companies were not there, the artists would not suffer. They would still have gigs in local places, they could still tour, and by giving the record/CD/book away, the tour is likely to be more successful. The internet has potentially freed the artist from the fangs of the companies.

    Lets look at another media. Do book writers make less money because the libraries give it away for free? Generally not.

    There was at least one writer/composer who has found that obscurity is worse than piracy: that giving something great away for free will create fame, and create downloads and purchases of the rest of the books. See Baen’s books.

    • crazyray

      That’s, because someone is paying for those tours, that publicity. The main people if you notice that are saying they don’t mind their music being pirated and were for Megabox were the big name artists.