Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Pirates Will Always Win, Says UK ISP

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the except-in-pittsburgh dept.

The Internet 241

TheEvilOverlord writes "The head of UK ISP TalkTalk, Charles Dunstone, has made the comment ahead of the communications minister's Digital Britain report that illegal downloading cannot be stopped. He said 'If you try speed humps or disconnections for peer-to-peer, people will simply either disguise their traffic or share the content another way. It is a game of Tom and Jerry and you will never catch the mouse. The mouse always wins in this battle and we need to be careful that politicians do not get talked into putting legislation in place that, in the end, ends up looking stupid.' Instead he advocates allowing users 'to get content easily and cheaply.'"

cancel ×

241 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

They hit the nail on the head (5, Insightful)

Simon (S2) (600188) | more than 5 years ago | (#28231889)

It is really refreshing to see someone, sometimes, who understands the situation and puts it down this clear in an unbiased manner.

we need to be careful that politicians do not get talked into putting legislation in place that, in the end, ends up looking stupid.

or even worse, introduces new problems without solving the intended ones.

Re:They hit the nail on the head (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28232019)

Politicians need to start relying on other field experts rather then a company's benjamins to get answers.
Obligatory comment: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1258397&cid=28227665

Re:They hit the nail on the head (1, Interesting)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232083)

He said 'If you try speed humps or disconnections for peer-to-peer, people will simply either disguise their traffic or share the content another way. It is a game of Tom and Jerry and you will never catch the mouse. The mouse always wins in this battle and we need to be careful that politicians do not get talked

You may be right. However, if you are indeed right, big productions are done for. Authors will be thrown back 500 years and be dependant on external sources of income. They will be dependant not on their skill but on their patronage.

I'm sure some will survive. But artists will become progressively more dependant on government handouts, ads, or other such indirect sources of income.

As technology kills the last real differences between "home-tv" quality and cinema quality, it will become progressively harder to sell entertainment (since you're fighting against the economic force that free represents), until it can barely be done at all.

It will be, at best, like TV is today. Music fans will go from being the customers to being the product, sold to advertisers, or ideological causes, and you will hardly see any singers, actors or ... without a pepsi or cola light in hand.

Re:They hit the nail on the head (5, Insightful)

A coward on a mouse (238331) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232343)

Nuts to this argument. The packaging, extras, quality, and convenience that are offered as part of non-pirated media will keep the honest artists and publishers going strong.

The music industry as it exists today is horrifically ineffecient and has had to settle price-fixing litigation as a result. Even after this wake-up call, they refuse to lower their prices signficantly. Do you honestly believe that it costs more to produce a 45 minute CD than it does to produce a 90 minute DVD?

Finding decent quality rips and downloading them takes time and effort. A lot of people would rather not go through the hassle and instead just buy the product from a legitimate retailer if the prices weren't artificially twice as high as they ought to be. This is not a case of people not wanting professionally produced works or of people not being willing to buy them for a fair price. It is a case of the media industry refusing to sell things for a fair price.

When CDs came out, they were fifty to a hundred percent more expensive than vinyl, but we were all told that the prices would come down because CDs are cheaper to make than vinyl or cassettes. Guess what - that didn't happen. Instead, the music industry just decided to charge as much as they wanted to charge and dare us to find a way around them. We found a way around them, and now they're trying to lobby and sue the entire world into submission. This guy is not the first one to tell them there's no way it works and that they'd better just start making the adjustment now to a less-lavish lifestyle now that large parts of the contribution they used to make to music production and distribution are no longer needed.

Re:They hit the nail on the head (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28232723)

If what you said was true, there would simply be less sales. Instead we see more piracy. Hence the fallacy of your argument comes crumbling upon itself. It was never about prices being "unfair" and you know it.

Re:They hit the nail on the head (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#28233033)

The companies did get sued y the U.S. government for price-fixing and forming an illegal cartel. My family (and millions of others) got a ~$50 refund as a result of that court decision.

In other news:

Charles Dunstone has meant an untimely death in a car accident in a tunnel. Witnesses report seeing a van drive-away with the word "RIA" on the side.

Re:They hit the nail on the head (4, Insightful)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232453)

Things will even out, again thanks to technology...
A few years ago, high quality cameras and equipment for producing special effects cost huge sums of money, as did decent audio sequencing equipment... These days, a lot can be done very cheaply... Powerful computers with complex 3d modeling software are affordable and most special effects are computerized... Same for audio, a lot can and is done in software these days.

Big productions can be good, but they do come at a cost... Big name actors don't come cheap, and aren't necessarily any more talented... There are so many layers of management, corruption and greed that the production actually costs far more than it should.

Singers i think will do just fine, especially those who enjoy doing live shows... Technology is still no substitute for a live show. I guess other forms of live entertainment such as sports will also do very well. The effect it will have tho, is that being a singer will no longer be seen by people as an easy path to riches (as exemplified by all the talent shows on tv these days).. It will be seen as hard work, and only people who have a true passion for art will go for it.

There are also other avenues for actors, big name actors like patrick stewart do live plays, professional wrestling is also a form of acting, and the fame of being the star of popular (not necessarily profitable, most widely viewed is what matters) movies can propel people into other fields such as politics (see arnold schwarzenegger).

Incidentally, movies and music are already heavily used for advertising, not because they need the money to survive but because the producers are often greedy and only care about the money, not about the art.

Re:They hit the nail on the head (1, Insightful)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 5 years ago | (#28233135)

Unfortunately technology advancements work both ways. Technology innovations will indeed make it cheaper to produce movies, BUT they will also eventually enable "live piracy", which would devastate sports events' income.

Live shows are nice for accomplished singers. But relying on live shows will mean that no kid, no matter how promising a musician he or she may be, will get what every girl that can just barely hold her boobs in while holding a note gets today. 99,9% of musicians will need a day job, until live performances bring in enough money.

Fame is not edible, sorry for stating the obvious but do you seriously think stars will still be admired if they have to have a "you want fries with that ?" job on the side ?

Movies in a piracy world will be one of three things :
-> ideological advertisement (like the Sistine chapel, but in movie form. What you call "art")
-> commercial ads
-> political advocacy

They will not contain ads, they will BE ads, and nothing more. Every single aspect of the movie will only serve to advance the commercial(/political/ideological) interests.

Re:They hit the nail on the head (3, Funny)

Truus (1570877) | more than 5 years ago | (#28233141)

In the Middle Ages the life of an actor was a lot harder than what it is likely to be when no movies are sold anymore in these periods of time. Cinema's, live concerts, and theatres will do the job for these still ridiculously rich group of people. So hit that download button, and save your money for the theatre.

Re:They hit the nail on the head (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232603)

Or they will have to do more live performances.

I spend about £250 per year on concert tickets. I wouldn't consider spending anything like that amount on CDs.

Re:They hit the nail on the head (4, Insightful)

psnyder (1326089) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232163)

we need to be careful that politicians do not get talked into putting legislation in place that, in the end, ends up looking stupid.

or even worse, introduces new problems without solving the intended ones.

Charles Dunstone's wording is better when talking to politicians.
Politicians know that new problems will always arise, so it's not much of a deterrent. But they do NOT want to look stupid.

Re:They hit the nail on the head (4, Interesting)

janwedekind (778872) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232193)

You can't stop copyright infringement but you can inhibit free culture.

Yep you can stop P2P (-1, Redundant)

TheLink (130905) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232455)

Yes it's hard to stop copying, but it's not that difficult to seriously clamp down on P2P.

To me it's easy to spot P2P, the characteristics are:
1) Lots of connections to multiple other IPs
2) High upload AND download

So if you see that, you can just leave the first 4 "conversations" that are downloading alone, and the first 2 "conversations" that are uploading, and squish down the rest till the first bunch are done.

By conversation I mean IP to IP. Doesn't matter how many TCP/UDP connections between two IPs, it's still one "conversation".

If you see small packets, both ways but at low to medium speeds, that could be voice or video chat.

PLEASE MOD PARENT REDUNDANT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28232659)

Yes it's hard to stop copying, but it's not that difficult to seriously clamp down on P2P. To me it's easy to spot P2P, the characteristics are: 1) Lots of connections to multiple other IPs 2) High upload AND download So if you see that, you can just leave the first 4 "conversations" that are downloading alone, and the first 2 "conversations" that are uploading, and squish down the rest till the first bunch are done. By conversation I mean IP to IP. Doesn't matter how many TCP/UDP connections between two IPs, it's still one "conversation". If you see small packets, both ways but at low to medium speeds, that could be voice or video chat.

From the fine summary:

He said 'If you try speed humps or disconnections for peer-to-peer, people will simply either disguise their traffic or share the content another way.

See that "disguist their traffic" bit? Yeah. It was right there in the summary and you didn't even need to read the fucking article to see that someone already addressed the point you think you're making. You'll look like much less of a douchebag in the future if you at least read the summary.

Re:Yep you can stop P2P (4, Insightful)

Swizec (978239) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232813)

Yes it's hard to stop copying, but it's not that difficult to seriously clamp down on P2P. To me it's easy to spot P2P, the characteristics are: 1) Lots of connections to multiple other IPs 2) High upload AND download So if you see that, you can just leave the first 4 "conversations" that are downloading alone, and the first 2 "conversations" that are uploading, and squish down the rest till the first bunch are done. By conversation I mean IP to IP. Doesn't matter how many TCP/UDP connections between two IPs, it's still one "conversation".

1) What if I open 20 different websites in a few seconds because I happened upon a cool wikipedia article?

2)What if I'm chatting, uploading a video, opening websites and running a dev server? Many many connections.

3) How do you define "high" transfer? Firstly I can tell my torrent client to curb how fast it's going to just a few kilo per second. Secondly, I could be doing something funky, like, I dunno, running an ftp server to share photos and video between people in a design shop.

I don't see the problem (0, Flamebait)

TheLink (130905) | more than 5 years ago | (#28233107)

1) The websites would tend to load eight by eight. You would read the first one that loads up. There aren't that many people in the world who can read 20 websites at the same time AND do it quickly.
In fact with my suggestion at least the first few websites would load up quick rather than all 20 websites contending for bandwidth.

2) Uploading a video = 1 upload stream. Opening websites - 8 downloads. chatting = 1 voice stream. I don't see a problem there. It does not look like P2P.

What does your dev server do? If it's a webserver for the public it will get squished down if there are many people downloading from it but that's supposed to happen - go figure out why yourself.

3) How do I define it? That's up to the ISP.

If you curb your P2P to a few kilo a second it stops being such a "big problem" right? At 5KB/sec it takes 11 days to transfer a 4.7GB DVD ISO. You may not consider that as "seriously clamp down on P2P" but I'm sure lots of P2P users will think otherwise.

If you are running an ftp server to share photos and video between _many_ concurrent people in a design shop, I'm sure the ISP can offer you a commercial package.

Otherwise 2 people downloading from your server at full speed and the rest getting throttled to crap till one of the two are done isn't such a big problem.

It hurts bittorrent since each connection will be transferring different pieces.

Re:Yep you can stop P2P (1)

andy.ruddock (821066) | more than 5 years ago | (#28233067)

But P2P isn't inherently illegal. You may well argue that the majority of P2P traffic is of copyrighted material which the recipient isn't legally entitled to download.
I may, or may not, agree that this probably the case. However, you are automatically labeling all P2P as illegal.

Re:They hit the nail on the head (4, Interesting)

joaobranco (55662) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232391)

we need to be careful that politicians do not get talked into putting legislation in place that, in the end, ends up looking stupid.

or even worse, introduces new problems without solving the intended ones.

Trouble is, some of the new problems it introduces (namely overbearing policing of actions online, bordering on a police state) are not usually seen as problems by the politicians (at least those in power or which hope to achieve it soon), but rather goals that they date not describe publicly...

Re:They hit the nail on the head (1)

McGiraf (196030) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232489)

Hardly "unbiased" it's and ISP, how can they sell their high speed if you have the choice of
1) paying the same price as the store for you download

or

2)go to prison for "illegal" downloading?

for 1) you pay your ISP on top of the "content" and you will not get 10 movies or what ever a month, too expensive.

and 2) not many people want to go in prison

so without "illegal" downloading and cheaper price for download than physical goods you do not need high bandwidth. You go to a ISP that offer 256k "basic DSL" and pay less than the super high speed adn it cost them about the same to provide it.

yeah unbiased.

Re:They hit the nail on the head (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28232631)

I had custom made hardware and software to crack games. I had filing cabinets full of copied, cracked games. This was in the C64 days. When I would spend 20 times the cost of the computer on the hardware and software to break copy protection and would do it for 'fun' they can't easily win. When I'd spend six months breaking a dongle, they can't win.

Now some kid has 100,000 dollars worth of hardware debuggers, 20k worth of software debuggers, 100k network analyzser/scope, 20k waveform generate and a 5k multimeter. You can't win. You might slow them down and their friends my have to remind them to EAT but you can't win.

Yea his dad knows and he just snickers and buys him more. I'm so proud.

Re:They hit the nail on the head (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232863)

The problem is that he will be considered biased : ISPs are known to be on the side of "pirates" by politicians. They even make profit from them !

Yep, now explain that to the politicians please. (1)

siphbowl (1220872) | more than 5 years ago | (#28231893)

Accurate, and correct. Although it's not (or shouldn't be) an ISP's job to police what goes through a phone line.

Re:Yep, now explain that to the politicians please (4, Informative)

jginspace (678908) | more than 5 years ago | (#28231931)

Exactly what he said:

TalkTalk has always maintained the defence that it is merely a broadband pipe and not an online policeman for the content industry.

Re:Yep, now explain that to the politicians please (4, Insightful)

Kokuyo (549451) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232023)

Making ISPs police the users and the content is as if they wanted to make BMW and others responsible for all the illegal activities people commit in their cars.

How come it's so hard to differentiate between offering access and being responsible for what people do with it?

Re:Yep, now explain that to the politicians please (4, Funny)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232311)

I wish my ISP would filter out all the car analogies for me.

Re:Yep, now explain that to the politicians please (1)

Kokuyo (549451) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232905)

In light of the waterpipe analogy I wanted to say something along those lines, I just didn't know the English word for the ones delivering the water to the people.

Re:Yep, now explain that to the politicians please (4, Insightful)

superskippy (772852) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232445)

The problem is that TalkTalk sabotage their own arguments by being one of the biggest proponents of Phorm and traffic shaping. If it's just a pipe, and "oh we can't possibly be expected to look inside the packets and find out what they are", why are you planning on inserting adverts into my web pages at the ISP stage?. Why do you open up my packets and make some of them go slower or faster?

The truth of the matter is that ISPs secretly love pirates- they pay the broadband bills. Modern piracy has been a big loss for the content industries and a big win for telecoms companies. Please don't pretend that Dunstone is resisting this because he is a huge fan of civil liberties, he is resisting this because it is good for his business.

Re:Yep, now explain that to the politicians please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28232833)

If large portions of people who came into BMW dealerships then went out and ran people down right in front of the dealership, and this happened consistently and was almost always the same group of people doing it, I'd want BMW to do something about it too, even if at the very least that meant being willing to hand over security camera footage for the proper authorities to do the work for them. When you hand people a tool that is able to let people run amok committing crimes, no that doesn't make you responsible. When they do it blatantly, in front of your eyes, repeatedly, the same people all the time, and you don't do anything about it, yes, you have a moral and legal responsibility to do something about it. That's why gun stores are bound to follow gun licensing processes, stores with a liquor license are bound to serve drinks responsibly, and pet owners are responsible for the actions of their pets.
Why is it so hard for some people to accept a little responsibility in their lives? If you believe yourself to be so inadequate to be able to handle any moral or legal repsonsibility, why haven't you killed yourself yet?

Of course... (4, Insightful)

XPeter (1429763) | more than 5 years ago | (#28231909)

As long as there is internet, there will be piracy. Plain n' simple.

Re:Of course... (4, Insightful)

Lillesvin (797939) | more than 5 years ago | (#28231975)

I'm inclined to correct that, because long before the internet there was piracy too. I remember copying the new Guns n' Roses album (Use your Illusion I) and lots of other stuff to tape. Yeah, that was 1991 - internet did technically exist, but let's be realistic, it wasn't a common thing to see in a house hold.

So how about we say, "as long as art exists, there will be piracy"?

Re:Of course... (4, Insightful)

Ginger Unicorn (952287) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232063)

back then piracy was what people did when they made hundreds of dupes and sold them on a market stall. taping an album off your friend was just taping an album off your friend.

half of my dad's music collection was lp's and recorded tapes, half were dupes an blank tapes. the same went for everyone i knew. there was never even the inkling that there was something wrong with this.

now all of a sudden anyone who obtains dupes for free is a vicious evil greedy selfish thieving pirate and deserves to be financially ruined and/or imprisoned.

fucking absurd.

Re:Of course... (4, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232121)

So how about we say, "as long as art exists, there will be piracy"?

No. Not at all.
You can't pirate something which is freely given.

As long as copyright exists, there will be piracy.

If and when society discards the crutch of copyright in favor of modern means of funding creative endeavours, piracy will end.

Getting rid of copyright is the only way to end piracy.

Re:Of course... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28232191)

Name one modern mean of funding those creative endeavours.

Re:Of course... (2, Interesting)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232519)

Advertising... It's already happening, how many movies have sponsors or product placements these days? Tho most of these movies have their traditional revenue streams as well, adding the advertising is pure greed to get a bit of extra cash. That's one method right there, as requested.

Modern technology makes production costs much cheaper than they used to be.

Live shows.

And many others..

Re:Of course... (4, Insightful)

impaledsunset (1337701) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232279)

And making killing people legal is the only way to end murder....

Current copyright law is FUBAR, which doesn't mean we should get rid of copyright completely. Even a sane version of copyright will still be infrinded just as any other law out there, which doesn't mean that one shouldn't exist. Sane copyright laws should exist, however they should be beneficial to art and culture, not to the RIAA's pockets, and shouldn't thread down on almost everybody's and their wishes.

Currently many people want and have the opportunity to remix and share art, so they will do it. On the other hand, current copyright laws make almost everything you can do with a work illegal. It's simply inconsistent with reality.

P.S. What's this piracy are you all talking about? Why would you bring sea-robbers in a discussion about copyright?

Re:Of course... (2, Insightful)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232543)

More sane copyright laws would massively reduce the level of infringement that occurs... If you make media easier and cheaper to obtain, while removing nasties such as DRM then people will have far less reason to infringe.

People do it because it's easier, substantially cheaper and often yields a superior and more usable product.

Re:Of course... (2, Interesting)

impaledsunset (1337701) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232171)

Works of art were copied long before your tape recorder existed. Hell, they were copied long before the printing press. I would guess that monks were copying lots of literary works by hand without any permission.

Re:Of course... (1)

eugene2k (1213062) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232487)

I don't think software can be called art...

As long as the creators of products use a business model that is built on the concept of selling copies of a product they created once, there will be piracy. Moreover the cheaper it is to create a copy of the original product and the closer this copy is in quality to the orignal, the more this product will be copied. Which makes digital products the most copied, and things like the design of coke bottles or tables the least copied.

Re:Of course... (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232491)

Anywhere that mass duplicated media is sold for far less than it costs people to duplicate their own, there will be "copyright infringement"...

CDs were not commonly copied when computers didn't have enough disk space to store them, processing power to compress (mp3) them, and writable CDs cost as much as pre pressed ones containing music. Instead, people made lower quality copies onto audio cassette.

If you want to stop copyright infringement, make the originals better value for money such that it isn't viable to obtain a copy. Make them cheaper, make them more easily available and without onerous drm schemes that reduce the value of the product to the consumer.

I bought tons of genuine games for various old machines (amiga, c64, sinclair etc) long after those machines were outdated, because the cost of blank media outweighed the bargain bin games.

Re:Of course... (3, Interesting)

msouth (10321) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232525)

but you were copying to crap cassette tapes. You didn't have digital audio tape. Why not? Cuz the RIAA won that one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Audio_Tape [wikipedia.org]

As long as the technology was localized, where they could attack a single format, target manufacturers, etc, they could keep it under their thumb. Things are, I think, fundamentally different now that digital copying and digital redistribution is ubiquitous.

You weren't making anything like the quality of copy that is possible now, and you had no way to anonymously dump a million crappy cassettes for other people to pick up, either.

Although technically you might have called what you were doing piracy, I think the Internet has fundamentally changed the game. He might have needed to say "piracy at this scale" vs. just piracy, but functionally it's just a minor quibble.

Re:Of course... (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232637)

Or, as long as copyright exists, there will be piracy.

Re:Of course... (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232759)

So how about we say, "as long as copyright exists, there will be piracy"?

Fixed that for you.

Re: There will always be piracy (2, Interesting)

Baron_Yam (643147) | more than 5 years ago | (#28231981)

I'm not so certain...

At some point, as with Prohibition in the States, the law may cave to reality at some point and we'll give up on the concept of owning strings of 1s and 0s.

Some other mechanism for paying creators will have to emerge - I think it'll end up being patrons for most things and live performances for others (like band tours and book readings), with a smattering of physical merchandise related to the original content.

Some things may end up being free, done as labours of love. It's not like those of us in the First World don't have enough resources and time to burn on things we enjoy without necessarily requiring pay.

We're not doomed (4, Insightful)

arctanx (1187415) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232045)

You speak as though the industry of buying and selling recordings of music legitimately is bound to die. That's not the case at all -- it's just that consumer expectations are changing. Once, we bought our music on cassettes or CDs. These days people want digital recordings from the 'net, and they want them now and reasonably priced. Standard formats too, good quality and no DRM, depending on how tech-savvy the buyer is.

Look at Magnatune, which lets you easily sample music before you buy it and download it in the format you like, with a significant amount of what you pay going to the artist. Look at Rhapsody, which lets you stream whatever you like from their huge library for a pretty low monthly fee. These are the sorts of services which the industry needs to embrace.

Frankly, torrent-hunting is a lot bigger waste of time than effectively buying it if it's available through either of those services (though sadly Rhapsody is not available in Australia). The pirates have to work in the dark to an extent so the legitimate industry has a much better chance to make it easy for people to buy their goods. Make it work, make it good value, and the money will come.

Re:Of course... (1)

Youngbull (1569599) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232017)

As long as there is internet, there will be piracy. Plain n' simple.

keep it down man! we don't want them to shut down the net!

Re:Of course... (1)

SeaHunter (838892) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232129)

If there was no Internet people would still have pirated software. I remember playing pirated video games on my Commadore 64.

Re:Of course... (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232707)

As long as there is internet, there will be piracy. Plain n' simple.

Because before the Internet, when we just had home computers and tape recorders, there was none.

Same goes for child porn (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28231953)

As much as the general populace hates it they should stop trying to suppress child porn. If it was freely available there would be less incentive to kidnap little kiddies to produce more. Now I'm saying that free p2p kiddy porn will reduce the revenues of the kiddy porn industry, maybe I'm wrong and a study will come out that says p2p kiddy porn downloaders purchase more of the stuff but at least if the people who look at the stuff are decriminalised the source should be easier to track down using Echelon, GCHQ and all that bad stuff. and they will have a better idea of who to look out for as a potential kiddy rapist as kiddy porn viewers will no longer go through much effort to cover up their tracks

Re:Same goes for child porn (3, Insightful)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232601)

Your post is clearly flamebait, but...

What the hell makes you think that a child's right to not be abused by a pervert is of equal or lesser importance than a corporation's desire to have a profit margin higher than any traditional industry?

These companies are greedy and want to produce infinite copies of something for virtually no money so that they can sell them at 99% profit, and gouge consumers for multiple copies of the same thing. Do these companies have more "right" to this level of profit than a kid does to not be abused?

Why should companies in markets like this make such massive profit margins when anyone else selling food, physical goods or services etc must make do with a few percent?

I don't think that's actually the industry's goal. (4, Interesting)

Pollux (102520) | more than 5 years ago | (#28231961)

I believe the industry knows that you cannot stop 100% of software piracy. I don't think that's their goal.

I remember back in 2000 when I went to my dentist. He sat me down and started making the usual small-talk, asked me where I worked, what I was majoring in in college, etc. When I told him I was a comp sci major, he brought up Napster. My dentist was using Napster. He went on and on about how computer illiterate he was, but he had no problems using Napster, and how he was finding songs on there from back when he was a kid, how he could find anything he wanted, and how simple it was to get whatever song he wanted...

I believe the industry is just trying to make sure my dentist doesn't start downloading songs again.

Re:I don't think that's actually the industry's go (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232003)

Well, the British, for one, can always send Lemming of the BDA to check on their naughty dentists.

Re:I don't think that's actually the industry's go (1)

PakProtector (115173) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232203)

Lemming, Lemming, Lemming of the BDA!
Lemming, Lemming, Lemming of the BD- Lemming of the BD- Lemming of the BDA~!

Re:I don't think that's actually the industry's go (1)

Krneki (1192201) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232015)

Unless they offer a better service then Napster, your dentist will keep using it. Besides a dentist might not be good with computers, but he ain't a stupid person.

It was clear from the start of the Internet that free sharing can't be stopped. They need to accept it and move forward.

Re:I don't think that's actually the industry's go (1)

Ginger Unicorn (952287) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232087)

tell the dentist about spotify and whatever the one is that lets you pay a quid to download an mp3

Re:I don't think that's actually the industry's go (1)

ickleberry (864871) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232051)

"Cloud computing" is the new way of stopping software piracy. Client-side security such as DRM is doomed to fail but server-side has half a chance. Web applications can be filled with ads and user-tracking but nobody complains because it doesn't have the same invasive mechanism as client based spyware. but as the browser is given more control, more access to hardware and more 'sploits surface the over all effect will be the same.

of course there should always be enough legitimate client-side FOSS around that people won't actually *need* to use web-apps

Re:I don't think that's actually the industry's go (2, Interesting)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232071)

I believe the industry is just trying to make sure my dentist doesn't start downloading songs again.

That's what they like to think. But knowledge of how to use the latest piracy tools is just as unstoppable as the piracy itself. It is a variation on the same phenomenon that results in virus-construction-kits and script-kiddies.

They can only go so far to make piracy harder. What they can do without practical limit is to make alternatives to piracy easier. If typing a song name into google gets you 10 different places you can legitimately download it in various ways for various payments (outright purchase, or advertising supported, or streaming, etc all with different pricing based on the seller) then that goes a long ways to keeping the dentist from even thinking about piracy.

Re:I don't think that's actually the industry's go (4, Insightful)

Yacoby (1295064) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232081)

he had no problems using Napster, and how he was finding songs on there from back when he was a kid, how he could find anything he wanted, and how simple it was to get whatever song he wanted...

I believe the industry is just trying to make sure my dentist doesn't start downloading songs again.

Then the solution is not to sue the dentist, but to give him options to get the music he wants cheaply and easily. By cheaply, I don't mean the current prices that they are ripping me off with. 12p a track sounds reasonable. 10p to the artist, 1p to the publisher, and 1p to the distributer.
When they try and sell me a digital album for £8 - £10, I just give up. Do they think I am made of money? Why should I pay a large amount of money for something that costs them nothing to reproduce?

One big issue the industry will hit is that when people my age (late teens) get to the point when we are the dentist, we won't have any problem pirating things. We won't have any problems with computer illiteracy. We will know where to find the programs that encrypt the traffic. If we don't, we just ask a friend who does.

Re:I don't think that's actually the industry's go (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232781)

Meh, its more like 1p to the artist 10p to the label and 1p to the distributor (to the latter if often rolled into the label).

Re:I don't think that's actually the industry's go (1)

Jawn98685 (687784) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232133)

I believe the industry is just trying to make sure my dentist doesn't start downloading songs again.

And that will be their undoing. Never mind the fact that, at the price point in place before electronic distribution became reasonable the dentist would never have purchased all those songs (thus putting the lie to all the "lost revenue" bullshit), the record companies, if they had had any fucking vision at all, would have seen that this was a money making opportunity and built it (Napster) first, along with a pricing model and payment scheme that leveraged the almost zero distribution costs. Instead, they have tried to protect their buggy-whip industry to through litigation.

Yes, the mice are going to win.

Re:I don't think that's actually the industry's go (2, Interesting)

david.given (6740) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232189)

Napster was awesome, and I regret its passing. There is nothing like it today.

The great thing about Napster was that it let me find new music that I liked. I'd see a reference to a song in, say, a book; I'd search for it on Napster, download the track, and play it; and then, if I liked it, I could go back to the same place and see what else the guy had. I discovered They Might Be Giants that way; I downloaded Rock To Wind A String Around from a recommendation, then went back and dug out more of their tracks, then ordered the Apollo 18 CD.

Okay, Napster was pretty slow and BitTorrent has it beat technically in pretty much every way, but no other music sharing service had the same sense of exploration and community. You could explore people's music collections, find interesting new rare stuff, and then actually talk to them about it (if they were on). It was, in fact, all social networking and Web 2.0-y before the terms had even been invented. I wish something like it existed today.

Re:I don't think that's actually the industry's go (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28232843)

There are tons of services that accomplish this and much more. Private bittorrent communities often have ways of finding similar artists to the ones you downloaded, and soul seek is basically built on that foundation.

Lots of other people felt the way you did, you just have to look harder. If anything, today's solutions are much more elegant.

Re:I don't think that's actually the industry's go (1)

S77IM (1371931) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232289)

I believe the industry is just trying to make sure my dentist doesn't start downloading songs again.

I believe the industry wants to extract as much money from your dentist as possible. For example, he can download a song, but every time he listens to it, they get money. Or better yet, he downloads a song, and then has to pay them recurring fees for the rest of his life. (I haven't heard that one actually suggested yet, but it is only a matter of time.)

There's nothing wrong with a business wanting to make money. But they should be doing it by trying to create value for the customers. Any other means (anti-competitive measures, deceptive marketing practices, cooking the books, etc.) is immoral and unethical.

  -- 77IM

Finally (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28231983)

Some one who has a handle on things. "to get content easily and cheaply". You mean charging 80 dollars CAD is is too much, No shit.

The ways in which TalkTalk gets it (3, Insightful)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 5 years ago | (#28231991)

Here's a few snippets from the article, selected to show how TalkTalk gets it:

TalkTalk has always maintained the defence that it is merely a broadband pipe and not an online policeman for the content industry. Dunstone said any technical measures to try and clamp down on sharers of copyrighted material would soon be bypassed by pirates.

"If people want to share content they will find another way to do it," [...] This idea that it is all peer to peer and somehow the ISPs can just stop it is very naive."

TalkTalk is testing BT's new fibre-optic super-fast broadband network in north London [...] Dunstone [of TalkTalk] reckons super-fast broadband â" offering speeds of up to 40Mb a second â" will be more expensive than current-generation broadband but less than the sort of £39.99-a-month prices being asked for basic broadband a few years ago.

Fast cheap internets, "we can't stop the pirates"...

Exchange your currency into British pounds and vote with it.

(I'm not paid to say that)

Geographic Limitations (2, Insightful)

S77IM (1371931) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232231)

Can anyone convince these TalkTalk guys to start a branch of their business in Austin, Texas? I know a number of current Time Warner Cable subscribers who would be eager to switch.

  -- 77IM

Re:Geographic Limitations (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232699)

They may be the 2nd largest ISP in the country, mainly by buying up everyone else - OneTel, AOL, Tiscali etc, but I don't think they are particularly good as an ISP.

Re:The ways in which TalkTalk gets it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28232323)

I've just today got my broadband service through virginmedia activated. placed the order about a week ago.

If i'd known this a weeks ago, I would have gone to talktalk.

Wow! Someone with a clue?!?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28231999)

Price media at a REASONABLE price and make it so simple and easy for us to get it in a form we want. and you'll make all the money you deserve. And hey. not pissing off millions of people is good too.

Amazon! (3, Interesting)

Rick Richardson (87058) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232001)

Amazon has 89 cent downloads. And .99 to 3.99 albums (one per day). Pirates should check out Amazon!!!

Here is what I've gotten (albums for less than $3.99) in 6 months:

$ ls -d */* |cat
Aerosmith/Big Ones
Alanis Morissette/Flavors Of Entanglement
Amy Grant/Heart In Motion
Bob Marley/Live At The Lyceum
Bon Jovi/Cross Road
Boston/Boston
Butch Walker/Sycamore Meadows
Cary Brothers/Who You Are
Creedence Clearwater Revival/Chronicle_ 20 Greatest Hits
Creed/Greatest Hits
David Bowie/Heroes
Eagles/One Of These Nights
Elvis Costello/My Aim Is True
Forgive Durden/Forgive Durden Presents Razia's Shadow_ A Musical
Heart/Make Me
Inxs/Kick
Jack's Mannequin/The Glass Passenger (Amazon Exclusive)
Jackson Browne/The Pretender
James Morrison/Songs For You, Truths For Me
Jimi Hendrix/Electric Ladyland
Joan Jett & The Blackhearts/I Love Rock N' Roll
Joe Bonamassa/The Ballad Of John Henry
Joshua Radin/Simple Times
Kate Voegele/A Fine Mess
Katy Perry/One Of The Boys
Led Zeppelin/Led Zeppelin
Madonna/Like A Virgin
MC5/Kick Out The Jams
Metric/Fantasies
Mieka Pauley/Elijah Drop Your Gun
Neil Diamond/Sweet Caroline
No Doubt/The Singles Collection
Pink Floyd/Animals
Prince/Purple Rain [Explicit]
Queen/News Of The World
Robin Trower/Bridge Of Sighs
Rod Stewart/The Definitive Rod Stewart
Seether/Finding Beauty In Negative Spaces Spaces (Bonus Track Version) - [Explicit]
Seth Walker/Leap Of Faith
Shiny Toy Guns/Major Tom
Soundgarden/Superunknown
The Apples In Stereo/New Magnetic Wonder
The Band/Greatest Hits
The Benjy Davis Project/Dust
The Go-Go's/Beauty And The Beat
The Pussycat Dolls/Doll Domination
The Weepies/Hideaway
The White Tie Affair/Walk This Way
The Who/Who Are You
U2/No Line On The Horizon
Van Halen/Van Halen
Van Halen/Van Halen II
Various Artists/Motown Number 1's Vol. 2
Whitesnake/Whitesnake
Yes/The Yes Album

Re:Amazon! (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232067)

Here is what I've gotten (albums for less than $3.99) in 6 months:

Is this lossless encoding of 16-bit stereo 44.1KHz?
If not, then I still prefer a FLAC torrent.

For old time classics like these, a price of 0.49/track 1.99/album for lossless compression is about where the price needs to be to compete.

Re:Amazon! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28232717)

Wah wah wah. I can't get what I want in the format I want and it's not as cheap as I want so I'm going to devalue someone else's hard work and just take their finished product for nothing. Hear that? It's the sound of the world's smallest violin.

Re:Amazon! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28232089)

$ ls -d */* |cat

Please tell me you're doing that on purpose to piss of the Useless Use of Cat people. Please.

Re:Amazon! (3, Interesting)

Crookdotter (1297179) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232175)

If I got that right, that's 54 albums, so in cost that's $215 you've spent right there. I bet I could have the majority of that on a torrent in a day or two, for nothing.

What's the incentive for pirates to look at amazon?

Re:Amazon! (3, Insightful)

mightyteegar (1516653) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232915)

If I got that right, that's 54 albums, so in cost that's $215 you've spent right there. I bet I could have the majority of that on a torrent in a day or two, for nothing.

What's the incentive for pirates to look at amazon?

Of course you could find all those via torrents -- with no guarantees that an album in a discography won't be incomplete, there won't be any pops, skips or warps in the song files and that your download won't stop at 98% for eternity. Part of the reason I quit pirating is because, just like getting anything else on the black market, the quality often left a lot to be desired.

Furthermore, Amazon has a massive catalog of great albums that aren't freely available as torrents. Some of them you'd be lucky even to find on Soulseek. And all of it downloads quickly; almost all the albums I've purchased from Amazon MP3 were in my music library less than 2 minutes after I bought them. It's 192k MP3, which isn't lossless, but it's not bad.

What was my incentive? Amazon eliminated my desire to pirate by offering me cheap music, the lack of which led me to pirate in the first place.

Re:Amazon! (1)

akanouras (1431981) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232197)

$ ls -1d */*

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Amazon! (1)

Thundarr Trollgrim (847077) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232431)

You could have downloaded those for free and saved yourself a whole load of cash!

Re:Amazon! (5, Insightful)

adona1 (1078711) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232557)

Yes, pirates should check out Amazon. I've checked it out. However, because I don't live in America, they wouldn't let me give them my money. Credit card out, mp3s selected, and bam...sorry, you're in the wrong country (nothing stopping me buying the CD from Amazon though). And the record companies wonder why they're dying...

Re:Amazon! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28232667)

In these enlightened times I understand that homosexuality does not carry the stigma it once did, but I am puzzled at your decision to come out on Slashdot. Aren't there more suitable websites for this kind of thing?

Re:Amazon! (4, Funny)

caluml (551744) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232985)

What, exactly, are you thinking that | cat on the end is adding?

He's right but... (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232021)

I agree with him but part of me thinks he's only saying that because Talk Talk is a cheap service and he'd easily change his mind if the government offered them a cheap or free solution to police their service.

In the end I guess it doesn't matter as long as he's on the sensible side but it would be nice to know he'll stay on the sensible side.

Part of me thinks (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232117)

part of me thinks he's only saying that because Talk Talk is a cheap service and he'd easily change his mind if the government offered them a cheap or free solution to police their service.

And part of me thinks he's confident that if the government makes such an offer, he can show how it is an ineffective solution.

more subtle (1)

Weezul (52464) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232057)

It's not true, the news media isn't vulnerable to piracy. Well, obviously their product is ad supported, but only some small minority of "pirates" blocks the ads. An easy solution is : (1) change internet radio consist of separate mixing instructions and content, so the original song is immediately available to users, but (2) include banner as in the ogg/mp3 comments and get player to attempt to induce purchases. But there are numerous other frameworks where users "usually pay".

The Pirates Will Always Win... (3, Funny)

pboechat (1568853) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232065)

Take that, ninjas!

Re:The Pirates Will Always Win... (1)

kno3 (1327725) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232181)

I for one welcome our new pirate overlords.

Wow, progress being made, but ... (5, Interesting)

soporific16 (1166495) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232091)

they're still calling us pirates. I like to think of myself as someone who likes to walk around the tollbooths the entertainment industry puts in front of everything, not walk through them. Haven't they got enough money? How many copies of my favorite albums do i have to buy to replace the ones i lost, or had stolen or whatever? Because the tollbooth owners don't care about that sort of fairness, how can i be expected to WILLINGLY put up with the hassle of the tollbooth experience when i can just walk around? The ISP guy got it spot on in one regard -- the only way to combat the culture that has developed to avoid this hassle (ie filesharing) is to make stuff dirt cheap and mega accessible. But there's no or very little profit in that is there, and so here lies the contradiction of trying to own something in digital form and make "good healthy profits". Normally i would sarcastically say "good luck with that" but its simply not funny that while they're trying to make these healthy profits we have to put up with all the associated nastiness of their stand-over tactics and absurd propaganda... can we have the revolution now please?

Re:Wow, progress being made, but ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28232179)

buy to replace the ones i lost, or had stolen or whatever?

Why should the "tollbooth owners" have to pay for your lack of care of your possessions or your lack of insurance cover? There are valid arguments for the current state of piracy but neither of those are remotely relevant. Lost and uninsured stolen goods have nothing to do with greedy publishers and everything to do with your own incompetence.

Re:Wow, progress being made, but ... (1)

Migraineman (632203) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232887)

The entertainment industry is notorious for creating an artificial scarcity. They squeeze the distribution pipe between the content creators and the customers. There's plenty of content, and the economics dictate that the price should drop. However, that prevents the media cartels from making "good healthy profits" (as defined by *them*.) Their solution isn't to flood the market with lots of content ... that would entail more work for them for the same return. They have chosen to choke-off the supply line, separating the product from the customer such that they may dictate the market price for a given set of products. This method is only sustainable if no one is allowed to circumvent their choke hold, which is why legislative actions are so important to them. If there are no repercussions to you bypassing the toll booth, their economic model fails.

The revolution is upon them. It snuck up in the darkness of the internet, and the media companies are scrambling to kill it. If they had any vision a few decades ago, we would be begging Paramount-Verizon or Universal-Bell-South to deploy video-on-demand services through the government-restricted 2B+D ISDN services residential customers are allowed to have. (Corporate customers may petition the Federal Digital Communications Commission for higher bandwidth access ... and trust me, you don't want to run afoul of the FDCC.)

Piracy is not the problem (1)

lc_overlord (563906) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232095)

"The mouse always wins in this battle and we need to be careful that politicians do not get talked into putting legislation in place that, in the end, ends up looking stupid."

yea, the thing that politicians has yet to understand is that piracy is not a behavior created for it's own self fulfillment, but rather a function of how parts of the surrounding society firmly and grossly overestimates the value of their product.
In these cases people say "if you won't sell me the thing i desperately need that you have a gazzilion of for a fair price, and if i take one you won't actually loose one, then i guess I'll just have to take it for free without you knowing".

It wasn't long ago where a single track was worth a couple of bucks, likewise a album, and even i paid for that since it was worth it, but now they are basically worthless, the music is still great but i can get is anywhere for free whether i want to or not, so it shouldn't take a years salary to fill an ipod, but rather like $50.

It's the same with almost anything though, so if i where them i wouldn't count pirates as a problem but as a competitor, especially if i already am in a monopoly situation, which most recordlabels and move studios are.

DRM free and I'll buy it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28232097)

I was going to buy song from apple the other day- I have an account I opened with a £20 iTunes voucher I was given, but instead opted for the effort of finding (it was quite an unknown song) and downloading it illegally so I had a DRM free copy.

Now if someone like me who WANTED to pay for it, HAD THE MEANS to pay for it, and found it EASIER to pay for it, but didn't- how will record companies ever compete with piracy?
Cheap, DRM and hassle free media is the only way forward in my opinion.

Re:DRM free and I'll buy it (1)

jonwil (467024) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232629)

Didn't iTunes go DRM free for all their music?
Or is there still music on iTunes thats DRM protected?

This is why i respect TalkTalk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28232105)

And also why i switched to them from BT.

Hopefully they can convince the idiots in power of this and maybe actually figure out a way to offer easy access to media at a "decent" price.
If iTunes and similar services can work, i don't see why they won't implement things like this.

Just make the process as seamless as possible, but not to the extent that people will end up spending without realising it.

Imagine if you will, Youtube, but with paid videos, and if you click into a paid video, it will show a frame before playing that states that this is a video you need to pay for, you click Yes or No, simple. No numbers, no addresses, nothing. (this is all done in the user account settings beforehand)
The number of people who would accept this system is surprisingly high, if it is made simple enough to register an account and cheap enough.

A suit with a clue (1)

vosester (1163269) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232151)

A suit with a clue, might have to switch form current ISP Virgin Media.

Who's CEO is a tool of the highest order, by saying Net Neutrality was bollocks.

Really it should be Illegal for content providers to own an ISP.

The amount of power these content providers are getting is scary.

If I played a song down my phone line and the other person recorded it, that would be like retro file sharing.

But they would never get a judge to sign a wire tap for that, so why do they have the power to do it to my internet connection?

W00T 7dp (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28232243)

implementation to GNAA and support achieve any of the coomunity. The for election, I The BSD license, our chances in any way related be a lot slower fellow travellers?

I didn't know TalkTalk were like this. (1)

lattyware (934246) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232277)

I live in an area where TalkTalk have an LLU, It may be worth switching to them in the near future.

on the same side as the P2P app devs (1)

Cyko_01 (1092499) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232303)

both have the same logic in mind:
we have a great network/protocol with large amounts of legal content! Why should we destroy a perfectly good network/protocol just to keep out the pirates?

hes right (1)

Bizzeh (851225) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232459)

the thing is, hes right. all companies are doing when they are trying to stop pirates is presenting them with a new challange. the way to stop, or at least curb piracy is do what dvd's did, be cheap. i bought about 5 dvd's from asda about 2 hours ago because they were all good, and they all cost less than £7 each, one was £3. im sure the companies involved are still making money from these dvd's, infact, im sure they are making more, because when a dvd cost so little, it makes it not worth the time of downloading it.

Torrents are just more convenient (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28232483)

Digital music stores can't compete with the community based private torrent trackers for me. I'm heavily into electronic music and even dedicated stores like beatport do not offer me the choice i get on torrent sites, not to mention how much easier it is to select the good releases from the bad ones because on torrent sites i can recognize the appreciated uploader and know i'm downloading something good. On beatport i should go listening to crappy quality short previews and hope for the best and also pay them at least 1,29 per track.

TRUE for almost all crime (1)

mrnick (108356) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232725)

The best the police can do is try and stay only a few steps away from the criminals, instead of miles. With computer crime FUGET ABOUT TIT!

Copy protection doesn't work. Never has, never will.

It used to take someone with GURU computer skills to be a pirate, now all it takes is a kid with access to the Internet.

The problem is not piracy, it is the distribution and cost of media (content not storage).

I would feel confident in saying that the majority of American homes have one, likely more, instances of pirated content in their homes. That sounds like a referendum on piracy. Though, if you could buy a new DVD movie for $1 then who would wait hours for a movie to download?

They are not criminals they are just tired of working within a system that is broke. FUDGE the system!

Downloading is the future, and the present. (1)

TheMightyFuzzball (1500683) | more than 5 years ago | (#28233083)

I think this person is the only person of his position that is actually seeing reality. All he has done is stated the plain obvious. But it goes further than that, he (and everyone else) needs to realise that downloading is a very convinient method of distribution, I would much rather download a film or album than go out and look for it, or even order it from Amazon. Within the next few years ISPs should be providing (from what I read) 10Gb/s speeds, this is faster than USB 2.0... With that kind of speed it will take people less than an hour to download a full Blu-Ray disk, I think you get my point...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>