
You can take down Pirate Bay, but you can’t kill the Internet it created - Libertatea
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/12/10/you-can-take-down-pirate-bay-but-you-cant-kill-the-internet-it-created/
======
userbinator
I see a lot of the antipiracy efforts now being directed towards end-user
devices; in particular, mobile. I think the trend of walled-garden
environments with app stores, the app-centric model of interaction, and all
the increasingly locked-down (always in the name of security) features of
modern OSs are where the real battle is being fought, and it's one that they
seem to be winning: with data being managed by and hidden behind apps, touted
as a feature of convenience, the users of these new consumption-oriented
devices are being distanced from direct control of their data, and this
greatly increases the effort required for them to pirate. If the majority of
the population eventually only has access to one of these heavily locked-down
devices (and traditional desktops/laptops become a niche product), then it's
easy to see how file sharing could become virtually nonexistent - almost
everyone will not even know what a file is, much less see any ways to copy and
share the contents of one. The only sharing they would know of is that
explicitly featured in the apps they use. It wouldn't be too dissimilar to the
world of Stallman's Right To Read ( [https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-
read.html](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html) ).

Fortunately most computer users today still know about files and torrents, and
hopefully that knowledge continues to thrive, but I do see large-scale
attempts at fundamentally changing how we interact with computing devices that
could eliminate that knowledge and those freedoms associated with it in the
future. Taking down TPB and chasing the other torrent sites isn't quite as
effective as systematically eliminating the knowledge that makes those sites
possible; in other words, remove the concept of filesharing and "the Internet
it created" will essentially kill itself.

~~~
SCHiM
I think you're wrong. All my non-technical friends are very fed-up with how
apps, apple, android, <walled-garden-buzzword> work.

I constantly hear them chattering about how they would like to do <action> but
stupid <apple/android> doesn't allow them do said action. A recent example of
the other day was something about how apple blue-tooth is somehow not
compatible with a windows devices or something along those lines.

Perhaps right now walled-garden devices are still profitable, but if they
continue to become more limited it won't take long for a suitable (more open)
alternative to appear.

As for your second point, I find it somewhat paradoxical, I assume you would
agree with me that computers are becoming more and more common (including
smart phones). And yet you think that the knowledge _about_ computers will
decrease?

Perhaps the obliviousness of the people around you have become more apparent
because of the ubiquitousness of computing these days. But to say it has
_increased_ would imply that that group was knowledgeable in the first place,
which is not the case. Also since more and more people are born that have been
around computers their entire lives, I find it very doubtful that less of
those people will end-up learning about computers than before when it was
strictly the domain of "nerds".

~~~
girmad
I think the point was the UX of mobile devices is very different from that of
'traditional computers'.

Cars have also become more and more ubiquitous throughout the years, but I
would not say that the % of population willing to open the hood and get down
and dirty has grown at the same rate.

If pirating requires "opening the hood" and users' experiences with technology
trend towards simplicity, it's not unreasonable to conclude that piracy will
decrease.

~~~
pekk
This post shows how words like "UX" and "simplicity" are frequently used as
euphemisms for "designing with a goal of depriving users their rights
concerning devices they own" and "designing with a goal of making devices more
attractive for sale at the expense of the interests of the user".

My life isn't simpler as a result of things like DRM on my motherboard and
video card. It doesn't make a user's life simpler if their computer is fused
shut to prevent service, or if they have to buy ink and coffee of a specific
brand in order to use their existing printer and coffee machine.

When people are given options like (say) replaceable batteries, and this isn't
associated with some other giant disadvantage (as it will be if you don't even
try to design FOR the user, but just to sell)... most will prefer that.

~~~
ori_b
> My life isn't simpler as a result of things like DRM on my motherboard and
> video card.

Isn't it? I don't like it, but I can admit that if you tell the user "These
are the video services that work, you don't get to grab them elsewhere", or
"You _must_ buy this brand of ink", instead of giving them an array of viable
options. Or saying "You _must_ bring this computer in if you want service".

Fewer options, and having the decisions on what to do mandated for you is
simpler. It means you don't have to think. It's paternalistic and encourages
helplessness, but it's simpler.

~~~
noonespecial
It doesn't end up simpler though in the end. I've had to explain to my
grandfather how the unopened inks still in the boxes on his shelf have somehow
"expired" and the ink that his printer takes is no longer commonly sold so
really does need to scrap that working printer and buy a new one.

Its anything but simple. I'm a geek and the only thing I really know for sure
about the whole debacle is that "plays for sure"... didn't.

~~~
marincounty
If that printer doesn't require cartridges with an individual chip attached,
and the printer still works; I wouldn't toss the printer. I have taught older
individuals how to drill cartridges and refill their own ink. If they are
slightly mechanically inclined, and on a budget--they print like it was the
ninties. I don't like to run out of pricey chipped ink cartridges. The bigger
point I'm trying to make is I don't like limitations/restrictions on hardware
or software. I don't like the "locked down" trend that I guess was inevitable?

~~~
noonespecial
Not only were these chipped, but they were also DATED so that if they weren't
used within a specific amount of time they would "expire" and the printer
would refuse to use them.

It was diabolical. I didn't just toss it, I actually went "Office Space" on
the thing in the driveway first.

~~~
seanp2k2
That's pretty horrible (about the expiration). What brand was that? I wouldn't
be surprised to see pod-based coffee machines go the same route (e.g. Keurig).

~~~
noonespecial
An HP. Read all about it right from the ugly horse's mouth.

[http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/document?docname=c0176416...](http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/document?docname=c01764161&cc=us&dlc=en&lc=en)

I love how the "small percentage of older HP ink supplies" is a list of
printers as long as my arm.

------
Illniyar
"Before the birth of the torrent protocol in the early aughts, sharing big
files, like TV shows or movies was virtually impossible"

This phrase is a bit misleading.

While not discounting the power of the torrent protocol, there were many p2p
software before it which were more popular then it (napster, kazza,
edunkey/eMule) .

The reason why sharing tv-shows and movies is so easy now then before is that
we have broadband. In 2000 most people had dial-up.

If at all, the greatest achievement of the torrent protocol is allowing for
discovery of files without a central repository.

~~~
josefresco
The BT protocol was a significant change in technology allowing files
previously too large to share on traditional P2P networks to be shared.

Napster and the like were great for 3-4MB files, but anything larger would
cause issues. You'd rely mostly on one-source, and if the connection to that
source was shaky, the download would take days/weeks, even longer. BT changed
this, and turned the idea of _popular file=congested networks_ on it's ear
completely. With BT, the more popular the file, the faster your download would
go.

~~~
Illniyar
I used to download huge files in eMule(eDonkey) and Kazza.

I've never used Napster, so I can't say about it, but eMule had (and has) the
ability to download the same files from multiple users simultaneously.

I'm pretty sure Kazza had such an ability as well (the more popular files
downloaded faster).

~~~
vinceguidry
I used both Napster and Kazaa, both were entirely too slow to download large
files on. I mean, you _could_ , but you'd be waiting a long time.

I don't think it really had a whole lot to do with the protocols themselves
though, but rather that broadband penetration in the States ramped up really
quickly at about the same time Bittorrent came onto the scene. There was
probably a short period of time where you could have downloaded TV shows on
Kazaa, but that protocol died really fast.

Not many people used eDonkey back then. I tried. It was hard to find the stuff
I wanted. Right after Kazaa died, both eDonkey and Bittorrent started taking
off. Bittorrent just became the most popular protocol.

~~~
k__
What I used back in the days:

IRC, there where bots you could talk to. You could ask them what they got and
download it. Worked like a charm, even for bigger files.

DDL, direct downloads, simple websites where you got links to download what
you want.

eMule/eDonkey, those where running on my brothers machine day and night and
rather good. There were links like bittorrent links back then. AFAIK you could
start a DL pause it and switch to another hoster if the first one died.

~~~
thefreeman
I know there was a large piracy scene centered around AOL chat rooms. With
AOL, once an attachment was uploaded to an email once, it could be forwarded
endlessly without re-uploading the attachment.

Therefore there were dedicated "uppers" who would be given access to private
scene FTP dumps. These uppers would create sequences of emails with files
attached for various releases (usually individual rar or zip files).

They would forward the emails to people who ran bots in the chat rooms. You
could request a list of files, and then a sequence of emails based by typing
commands in chat. Since the files had already been uploaded, it was very fast
for the chat bots to forward the emails as they were requested.

It was actually a pretty cool system. I remember calling AOL and giving them a
story about how I needed to send email newsletters for my church, so could
they please "whitelist" my account. Once that happened, you could send as much
email as you wanted without being flagged.

~~~
daveloyall
I love this thread because it peels back layers of time. I'll go next: There
was piracy on the BBSes! :) And let's not forget the binaries groups on
Usenet.

~~~
marcosdumay
Yes there was, but by that time piracy happened mostly be people carrying
floppies around.

~~~
paulhebert
Human nature's funny. Societies have been fighting about the same things for a
long time. My sister's friend used to burn and sell CDs and had pretty much
all of the popular music from the time. If we go back further we can point at
examples of 'piracy' brought about by the Gutenberg Press. (A beautiful
machine by the way if you ever get a chance to see one operate.)

~~~
e12e
> My sister's friend used to burn and sell CDs and had pretty much all of the
> popular music from the time.

I think "piracy" is usually two different things: illicit copying for profit,
and illicit copying for sharing. My first introduction was through sharing:
cassette tapes for the vic20 and c64. Then floppies for the Amiga. Then BBSs
(that where free to access, less the fee the phone companies took).

I think my first introduction to copying for (small) profit was around the
time of the first affordable cd burners. Some people financed their cd burners
this way -- and some made real money.

I never used Napster -- so I can't really comment. But with IRC and ftp sites
-- things were again back to copying for sharing (no fee). Same for
DC++/Direct Connect -- people ran hubs out of love, for fun -- and in many
ways I'd say they were more distributed than torrent sites -- in the sense
that there were many small (compared to the Pirate Bay) hubs, and there was
more of a sense of community.

And again, no ads, no money involved.

I hope we'll see the rise of more distributed networks (eg: freenet) run by
the users themselves, without any central orchestration -- and without an
artificial ad-financed gateway like TPB. We'll see.

It's a shame Netflix can't just change to distributing torrents, as they'd
never be allowed to license the content like that.

------
larssorenson
I think the article misses the point of why piracy was a big thing. It was not
always (necessarily) about getting what you want free of charge, but the free
flowing access to the media and content. For instance, the reason Game of
Thrones is watched via torrent downloads more than via HBO is because a large
portion of the audience wants to either just watch HBO or just watch Game of
Thrones. But to do that, you have to have an HBO subscription through some
cable provider, who does not provide a direct subscription for only HBO. Thus,
if all you want to watch is Game of Thrones and nothing else, your only option
is to torrent/pirate it.

~~~
k-mcgrady
>> "Thus, if all you want to watch is Game of Thrones and nothing else, your
only option is to torrent/pirate it."

I get your point but that's incorrect. Alternatives include:

\- paying for the cable + HBO subscription and only watching GoT.

\- waiting for the blu ray/dvd/iTunes release

Both those options allow you to watch GoT and nothing else. The problem is
that people don't want to wait for an official release or want a cheaper way
to get it 'right now' (i.e. a cheaper HBO only subscription). I think GoT is a
big torrent is because it's not available on TV in a lot of countries or there
is a big delay between the US airing and the local airing. Another reason is
that people don't pay for something when they can get it for free. I would
like to see how many people who torrent GoT (but say they would pay for it if
it was available to them on their terms) would pay $3-5 for an episode via a
torrent if there was a button to pay (and get it legally) and a button to get
it for free (illegally).

~~~
Morgawr
>Another reason is that people don't pay for something when they can get it
for free

I would like to say this is wrong, but I have no evidence to support my
claims. However what I can say empirically is that myself and many other
people I know have stopped pirating games and/or music ever since easy-to-use
services like Steam and Google Music came out.

Personally, nowadays I find myself with so many legit games on Steam that my
first thought when a new game comes out is "meh, I don't have time to play
that, I'll buy it later when it goes on sale". Years ago it would've been
"let's hop on XXXX to see if there's a torrent ready!".

It simply is not worth it, to me, to pirate games, set up cracks, be sure I
have all the proper files, set up backups in case I want to replay it later,
etc etc. With Steam I can just click "download" and it just works.

I firmly believe that if you make something easy-to-access, cheap enough
(steam sales, anyone?) and immediate in delivery, you will soon realize piracy
really does not matter. The market just needs to evolve and adapt to newer
technologies.

~~~
mattmanser
It's going to be a sliding scale isn't it? There will definitely be some sales
lost, but not all of them would have bought it.

I love how easy it is to get a book on my Kindle from Amazon at the click of a
button, but given my voracious reading and the bill it generates it might be
that I would consider looking at alternate sources for some of those books. So
I might consider buying some and torrenting some. The alternative would be
reducing the amount I read. And if I went the torrent route, I might suddenly
notice that the volume of bought books might reduce from 5-10 legitimate
purchases a month to 1 a month.

------
marrs
I'm really curious to see how productions of the future are going to be
funded, because I think the current business model is on borrowed time.

I simply don't watch a lot of TV any more because I can't cope with all the
adverts, and everyone I talk to about this says that they don't watch TV in
real time any more and just skip all the adverts. So I have to wonder what the
actual value of advertising is in the first place; probably a lot less than
what retailers are currently paying.

And if the value of advertising _is_ inflated, TPB might well become the least
of the industry's worries.

~~~
butwhy
They'll get funding, but the models will change and adapt. Ie. Spotify and
Netflix are early carnations of what what could come.

~~~
e40
_Spotify and Netflix are early carnations of what what could come._

Yet both of these companies you mention are reviled by the content producers.
What the content producers want is their own walled garden. You want their
content, you come to their app or website.

It's pathetic. I would pay a reasonable fee for TV and movies (and often do,
btw). There are some movies you can't get in any format but DVD.
_Ghostbusters_ , for example. The owners of that particular title refuse to
let it be licensed for streaming of any kind. So, I downloaded it (in a
completely safe way, of course).

Much has been written about the licensing nightmare for content, though. It's
going to be the undoing of Netflix, unless they can get enough of their own
content to keep them alive. I'm not sure they can. Whenever I look, it's very
hard to find stuff that I want to watch. All the newly added stuff is really
2nd and 3rd tier stuff.

~~~
jaredsohn
>There are some movies you can't get in any format but DVD. Ghostbusters, for
example. The owners of that particular title refuse to let it be licensed for
streaming of any kind.

While your general point remains valid, Ghostbusters was a poor example. It
was available for streaming on Netflix earlier this year.
([http://www.ibtimes.com/netflix-movies-
disappearing-2014-over...](http://www.ibtimes.com/netflix-movies-
disappearing-2014-over-50-films-4-tv-shows-expiring-october-1696521))

~~~
bluedino
"was"

------
pervycreeper
Is it just me or has the Washington post been kicking a lot of ass these past
few weeks? Is traditional journalism on the cusp of getting disrupted... from
the inside?

~~~
mrfusion
Why do you say that?

~~~
pervycreeper
Maybe Bezos streamlined things somehow. Quality seems up, and also appears to
be bucking a number of intangible journalistic trends (content-wise).
Disclaimer: pure uninformed speculation.

------
mkoryak
> Before the birth of the torrent protocol in the early aughts, sharing big
> files, like TV shows or movies was virtually impossible

Unless you knew about usenet

~~~
beedogs
or IRC channels

~~~
rullgrus
or FTP:s or Direct Connect...

~~~
icebraining
Or eDonkey.

~~~
Syssiphus
Or your local trader who would fill up a harddisk with warez, movies and
series for you each week (for a fee).

~~~
btown
This is still the way it's done in many cities in Africa and South America!

~~~
crucialfelix
very true. I was in zimbabwe and I could go to a shop where the guy would
select music for me and fill up a 1GB USB stick for $2. that's how many people
distribute music there. they plug the USB stick into a TV or into a little
player in their car that plugs into the cigarette lighter jack.

some music labels in that area have gone back to making cassettes because its
much harder to copy those. CDs get ripped right away

~~~
e12e
> some music labels in that area have gone back to making cassettes because
> its much harder to copy those

I love the image of reverting to cassette tape as an illustration of DRM:
intentionally selling an inferior product - because you buisiness model no
longer fits with reality.

OTOH: I challenge the notion that it is "much harder" to copy cassettes. At
least if you're doing it as part of an (illicit) distribution business.
Presumably casette decks are a available (why else distribute on cassette?) --
an all you really need is a decent deck, line-out and line-in -- and then you
can easily sample and encode how you please. It's easy to detect gaps between
songs (silence) -- and the digital recording isn't likely to sound much worse
than the same song, playing on a cassette deck.

Now, ripping and giving a copy to a friend, the overhead of the process would
probably make more of a difference.

~~~
crucialfelix
no, its much harder to get gear set up to dup cassettes at any kind of scale.
that's exactly why they are doing it.

CD dup is much much much faster, it only takes a few minutes to burn.
cassettes are real time, or at best 2x. bigger tape dup machines can dup by
projecting radio waves at the tape and do it 100x. but the cafes and internet
shops in that are that do pirate copies don't have those. they just do USB
sticks and CD rips.

its also a kind of throwback retro thing - cassettes in Africa have been a way
of life for a long time and the older generation misses the joy of buying a
tape. The labels doing this are real labels recording real bands in proper
studios. Its expensive to record and release a record.

> I love the image of reverting to cassette tape as an illustration of DRM:
> intentionally selling an inferior product - because you buisiness model no
> longer fits with reality.

Just to be honest, as a musician I find this kind of statement rather rude.

~~~
e12e
I didn't consider the idea of 12/24+ ripping speed. That's a very good point.

>> I love the image of reverting to cassette tape as an illustration of DRM:
intentionally selling an inferior product - because you buisiness model no
longer fits with reality.

> Just to be honest, as a musician I find this kind of statement rather rude.

How's that? CDs worked fine w/o DRM. LPs work fine w/o DRM.

Regressing to lossy media in order to extort (as opposed to solicit) money
from fans seems regressive to me. It's a little like banning radio plays of
songs, because people can (and did/do?) tape radio... while this is all more
akin to libraries:if the product is any good -- free copies/samples will lead
to more sales.

~~~
crucialfelix
> Regressing to lossy media in order to extort (as opposed to solicit) money
> from fans seems regressive to me.

Small record labels in Zimbabwe are not extorting anything from their fans.
This is a preposterous statement.

I've known literally thousands of musicians and labels and none of them have
ever done DRM on any medium whatsoever. I'm not even sure why you are bringing
up DRM. It is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

~~~
e12e
> I'm not even sure why you are bringing up DRM. It is completely irrelevant
> to the discussion.

Well, technically, choosing cassette tapes as a medium over CDs, because tapes
are harder to copy than CDs would be deploying "Analog Rights Management",
rather than "Digital Rights Management". What they have in common, is that
both DRMed distribution channels, and "ARMed" (like VHS, cassette tape) are an
inferior product to the alternatives (such as CDs, non-DRMed laser disks/DVD
etc).

The sub-thread was started with a comment to the effect that labels were
choosing tapes over CDs, because CDs were to easy to rip (and hence were
pirated). I think the point is relevant.

We can of course disagree on whether or not an industry (small or large) that
needs to cripple its products in order for people to be willing to pay for it,
is a sound one (no pun intended) or not.

~~~
crucialfelix
> an industry (small or large) that needs to cripple its products in order for
> people to be willing to pay for it

you are very strange. your goal appears to be primarily to annoy me. I
admitted that I found your comments rude, and you still keep going. do you get
pleasure from this ? do you just look for any argument on the internet about
piracy and then show up to argue ?

you even purposely INCLUDE small music labels in your statement above. this
comes after me pointing out to you that none of the thousands of labels and
musicians that I have known and worked with have done any of this DRM stuff
that you are so obsessed about. none of them.

none of them "cripple" their product.

that's sociopathic behavior. just so you know.

~~~
e12e
I'm sorry if I've offended you. My intention was to discuss the merits and
demerits of rights management. My follow up comment was an effort to clear up
my point of view, not necessarily to change yours. I'm not sure I did a good
job of the former, considering your response -- but I don't think I've much to
add at this point.

------
zwetan
I don't agree that TPB created this Internet, it was existing before.

Internet, de facto (kill 1 server and the network still works), and web sites,
social network, and people using them are a lean mean copying machine,
everything is build around that very same principle: how to distribute (and
share) data fast and efficiently to the biggest number.

Before TPB, you had ppl cracking software, other ppl organising "copy party",
then burning CDs, FTP, IRC, binary usenet, etc.

After TPB, a lot of "mini" pirate bay all over the place by the thousands.

And even more ways to copy and share files on the Internet.

To me, it's Napster happening again.

------
scrrr
Coming up: peer to peer chat (tox.im), hidden services (tor), distributed
social networking, yadayada.. dont see how you can stop this, unless you turn
off the power grid.

~~~
icebraining
Simple; you force ISPs to block any incoming connections to services/machines
that don't have the proper governmental license. Any servers that allow two
client nodes to communicate freely (like a proxy, or VPN) won't get a license.

To prevent smartasses from using servers in countries without these
restrictions, you further force ISPs to prevent any large amounts of data from
being uploaded to those countries (cumulative, to avoid tricks like uploading
small parts to many servers). E.g. back in the early 00s, some of our ISPs
used to have different traffic caps for national vs international connections,
here in Portugal.

It's not that hard if you're willing to go the full mile.

~~~
scrrr
There's still peer to peer networks (see firechat and hong kong protests),
there's still the whole field of steganography (hide data in pictures of cats
for example), finally, there's still offline transport. (usb sticks with
copies of wikipedia in Cuba for example)

------
mahouse
Unfortunately, lately TPB was something which is far away from what it should
have been; too many ads, the lack of daily archives of magnet links and buggy
and closed software.

------
mkoryak
a few months ago I read an article posted here about how the cloud/vms has
made TPB _virtually impossible_ to take down.

What happened to that?

~~~
eloisant
I think they boasted to be raid proof but aren't such good sysadmins.

Or maybe they could bring it back by switching the DNS of one of their
numerous domains to a server still up, but don't really want to/feel like
they're done with TPB.

Basically, I think the raid took down their load balancers. So they probably
still have servers up in the cloud, but without load balancer as an entry
point it's useless.

------
tomp
Apparently, it's online again:
[http://thepiratebay.cr/](http://thepiratebay.cr/)

~~~
fathertime
TF claims it's just a proxy. Seems like it's got fresh content though.

[https://torrentfreak.com/the-pirate-bay-has-not-been-
resurre...](https://torrentfreak.com/the-pirate-bay-has-not-been-resurrected-
yet-141210/)

------
UhUhUhUh
Internet provided people with way to much freedom, a fact that could not be
left un-addressed by powers around the globe. People's freedom needs to be
constrained, controlled and supervised because if it isn't, it will eventually
invade more concerning areas than music, porn etc. It will leave the realm of
distractions to that of action. It will suck the profit out of everything,
negate merchandise and generate so many ideas and praxis that the center of
power will eventually shift away from its current centers. Free connections
between people and free access to uncensored, unlimited knowledge resources
therefore is a present and significant threat to the way human affairs are run
at this time. It will be met with staunch opposition and will need a constant
guerrilla around hardware, software and networks to plough its way through.
That's the bottom line.

------
furyg3
I can't wait for new tracker services developed with inspiration from
decentralized services like bitcoin.

~~~
agorabinary
I don't see why you couldn't put trackers on the blockchain (or a sidechain?).
Goodluck taking that down.

~~~
forgottenpass
There are plenty of p2p protocols, why complicate the adoption of bitcoin by
tying the blockchain to piracy?

~~~
DennisP
Right, we only need blockchains when we need global consensus.

------
Nux
It looks like IsoHunt has revived the TPB "content" at
[http://oldpiratebay.org/](http://oldpiratebay.org/)

------
karsus
I was a little surprised by this take down. I thought they'd put major effort
into making sure there was nothing much constant to take down.

------
wazoox
Tangentially related, read Cory Doctorow's "Pirate Cinema". An excellent read
about our near future.

------
known
[https://proxybay.info/list.txt](https://proxybay.info/list.txt)

------
joeblau
Does anyone know what percentage of the Internet the torrent protocol is
responsible for using?

~~~
xtracto
3.35% according to [this webpage](
[http://researchcenter.paloaltonetworks.com/app-usage-risk-
re...](http://researchcenter.paloaltonetworks.com/app-usage-risk-report-
visualization/#sthash.8wYww5gT.dpbs)( cited by [BitTorrent wikipedia
article]([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent))

Impressive how it went from being the 35% of traffic in 2004.

~~~
jstanek
That's also partly due to Netflix' extreme web market share: They account for
~31% of all global aggregate internet usage, and combined with Youtube, the
major video streamers account for ~43% of all global aggregate internet usage.
That's probably because their business models necessitate a lot of traffic,
since content needs to be re-downloaded on each viewing/listening.

~~~
kalleboo
Well according to xtracto's link, Netflix is only 0.85% (and YouTube is 5.7%),
so I don't think numbers can be compared across sources - the methods of
measuring traffic seem to vary wildly.

------
chrishawkes
Apparently it's already back up

~~~
fathertime
I'm not so sure.

[https://torrentfreak.com/the-pirate-bay-has-not-been-
resurre...](https://torrentfreak.com/the-pirate-bay-has-not-been-resurrected-
yet-141210/)

Although for being just a proxy, it has fresh content.

------
avodonosov
You can do both

------
biomimic
The dandelion principle... Factory Records
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIXz80LnDjo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIXz80LnDjo)

