Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


+ - Study Claims 0.3% Of BitTorrent Files Are Legal-> 1

Submitted by Andorin
Andorin (1624303) writes "It's common knowledge that the majority of files distributed over BitTorrent violate copyright, though the exact percentage is unclear. The Internet Commerce Security Laboratory of the University of Ballarat in Australia has conducted a study and found that 89% of files examined were in fact infringing, while most of the remaining 11% were ambiguous but likely to be infringing. Ars Technica summarizes the study: "The total sample consisted of 1,000 torrent files—a random selection from the most active seeded files on the trackers they used. Each file was manually checked to see whether it was being legally distributed. Only three cases—0.3 percent of the files—were determined to be definitely not infringing, while 890 files were confirmed to be illegal. " The study brings with it some other interesting statistics; out of the 1,000 files, 91 were pornographic, and approximately 4% of torrents were responsible for 80% of seeders. Music, movies and TV shows constituted the three largest categories of shared materials, and among those, zero legal files were found."
Link to Original Source
This discussion was created for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Study Claims 0.3% Of BitTorrent Files Are Legal

Comments Filter:
  • It is reasonable to suspect most P2P data is illegal, but I think it is also convenient to parade the results of a supposed study that can't even be linked to. In addition to neglecting a link to the actual study, TFA says the total sample consisted of 1,000 files. I am not a statistician, but doesn't it seem reasonable to have used a larger sample size given the ease at which it could have been processed?

You know you've landed gear-up when it takes full power to taxi.