I direct you to an excellent article pointing out that the success of sites like Google has absolutely nothing to do with music or any other “intellectual property.”

No it doesn’t and you know it.

Telling me what I already know, that AS A WHOLE $45 billion was generated on web advertising, but that does not address the premise you put forward, or my question, about which specific sites are you saying are rolling in the dough off of copyright infringement. I didn’t ask how much revenue ads generate for the entire web.

I am asking you specifically which web sites are you saying are profiting off of you and your contemporaries, and where is your proof ? Everyone else seems to understand the question.

@Dreddsnik, I answered your question in the other post. Basically, which sites are making money? In 2008, around $45 billion was generated on the web via ‘advertising’. Does that make sense?

Otherwise, another example would be the TPB case. But, it’s sufficient to see that sites are serving ads and generating income. It’s also obvious that it costs less to run a p2p network than it does a traditional site serving the same media simply because a the files are not hosted on the operators servers.

Hope that answers your question. (As I stated in the other thread, I didn’t understand why you would be asking me which sites on the web make money).

The internet is primarily about communication, person to person. The fact that what you call “media” got involved is secondary.

What previous posters have been saying is that p2p sites that do make money through ad revenue put it directly into hosting the site. The idea that sites are making tons of money is false. In fact, many of the best sites are supported entirely by user donations, or selling things like shirts.

Indiana Gregg says:. Trust that I have a clue about that one, I run a social network and fully understand the cost of bandwidth… but, p2p doesn’t require the same kind of bandwidth because they don’t ‘host’ the files. So, in theory, it should be even easier for a p2p site to generate advertising revenues. Who are you trying to fool here kids?

‘Argument from Authority’ is a logical fallacy. I know something about bandwidth too, as do many others. This fallacy does not answer my questions. once again they are …

Precisely which ’share sites’ are making money ?
How much are they ‘making’ ?
Where have you acquired this information ?.

You have made a claim. All i asked is for you to back it with citable facts, not logical fallacies. If you have no citable data on which to base that claim, then it is an opinion, and how is it right to base legal policy on opinion ?

Also, once again, the first side of the debate to turn to ad-hominem is the Artist side of the debate. I gave you no ‘cheek’ I asked an honest question. If you want to know who is trying to fool who, ask the ISP’s that are claiming that p2p uses so much bandwidth that they NEED to throttle because of network congestion. Someone is definitely trying to fool someone. Besides, I didn’t ask about bandwidth. You’re deflecting me to a different direction and not addressing the questions that I really asked.

Can you answer my three questions or not ?

The labels aren’t trying to persuade me about how much ‘bandwidth’ cost’s @Dresdnik. Trust that I have a clue about that one, I run a social network and fully understand the cost of bandwidth… but, p2p doesn’t require the same kind of bandwidth because they don’t ‘host’ the files. So, in theory, it should be even easier for a p2p site to generate advertising revenues. Who are you trying to fool here kids?

p2p sharing is not a means of making money, regardless of what the labels want you to believe. They are vibrant communities of people passionate about a topic and devoted to sharing freely available information with each other and the world. The internet made information free. Trying to tie it up in artificial scarcities because that was the way to make money in the past isn’t going to work.