Shifty study proclaims Brits a nation of freetards An estimated seven million Brits are involved in illegal downloads of music, movies, software or games. This digital piracy is resulting in "huge economic losses" and confusion about copyright law, according to a study by UK government advisers published on Friday. The 85-page study, commissioned by the Strategic Advisory …
From this observation the researchers make some dizzying statistical assumptions to draw up a guesstimate of overall piracy losses, which they claim run into the billions:
I hate it when they say that !!
each download does not equal a sale!!!
the amount of times ive bought a game and regreted not checking it first !!!!
The logic they employ is rather silly. Many people download things for free that they would never pay for. Things like niche movies or commercial software for personal use. One would never stump up several grand to use imaging software for their own use, so to say that is lost revenue is silly. I bet many people dont even use some of the stuff they have downloaded more than a couple of times and then uninstall it.
Just who has paid for this study?
You guessed it! Billions lost in revenue ? My arse. Why not clamp down on all of them by shutting all the ISP and file Sharers.
The billions recovered will pull Britain our of recession within a month!
Even Paris can be counted on to make rational judgements.
So out of those 7 million, how many make purchases based upon the 'free trial'?
I suspect the vast majority are like me, download it, check it out, and then go buy the CD or DVD unless it really is pure crap. Even the new Star Trek film, saw it on a 32" TV and then went to the cinema (kept the ticket stub, as I do with every film I see at the cinema). It is possible that the slightly younger generations (16 to 21) may not have built up enough moral fibre at that stage in their lives, but rest assured by the time they're 30 they'll know that if they want to continue watching good movies and listening to good music then they have to pay for it.
Being a nation of try-before-you-buytards is not quite the same as a nation of freetards. Are there really 7 million people in the UK who are dumb enough to harm the individual artists who prepare the visual and audio media we so thoroughly enjoy?
....but can we have it both ways?
So if I stump up for a CD on which only 20% of the tracks are worth listening to, or a film that is effectively unwatchable but has selective review phrases on the packaging, or a game that does not work on my machine even though it easily meets the spec I can return it for a free refund?
Thought not...
> The report helps put the scale of the problem into context
The report puts some perspective on the problem of how irrelevent current copyright laws are in the information age and the futility and counterintuitive nature of dubious efforts to sustain legal frameworks designed to support outdated business models based around distribution and protection of physical media.
You have got to love how these studies assume that the millions of people downloading this music would actualy pay for it if they had no other choice.
The fact of the matter is that if you can download for free (or nearly free) then you will listen to everything even the stuff you dont really like or jst random music. If you have to pay for it then you download specific individual songs/movies.
Personaly I liked the idea of paying what you think something is worth. If artist put whole albums up for sale on their sites then I would purchase those albums (admitably not for much) but I am sure so would humdreds of thousands of those illegal downloaders. The fact of the matter is that they only look at the small numbers. Make it so cheep people dont mind spending money on it and you will make millions.
The authors have ingored the supply-demand curve to their own ends and pretended that the number of copies is a constant. Therefore each free distribution is lost income.
If we apply the same logic but state that consumers' disposable money is constant; then they are overcharging by £130 billion, as this is the money being made by them that they should be earning by distributing these copies themselves (at a lower cost per consumer).
Since copyrights are government sponsored monopolies it appears that the copyright owners are guilty by their own admission of monopoly abuse and should be punished.
It's only logical.
David Lammy, Minister of State for Intellectual Property, said, "Illegal downloading is not an issue confined by national boundaries."
Doesn't inspire confidence in the powers that be when even the tit-in-charge doesn't recognise that there is a difference between 'illicit' and 'illegal'.
Here's hoping he's on the Daily Torygraph's expenses list.
I walk to the train station - that must mean I have denied income to a taxi driver,
I am not ill today - that must mean that I am denying a doctor a living,
I am listening to a radio - that must mean that I'm not buying 100 CDs a day and listening to one track a time.
so on and so on.
If, of the worlds population, a quarter is Chinese, does that mean I have a Chinese leg or something?
Statistics need to be presented and thought about very carefully otherwise they are meaningless.
The cult of the copyright is not serving it's customers, but itself, lets hope that things change to actually embrace the practice of file-sharing rather than trying to fight it.
ttfn
"Hollywood studios, meanwhile, have recently focused on keeping cinema attendances up via the promotion of 3D films."
Yeah, I saw a Nightmare on Elm Street 6 in 3D.
It sucked.
So did Jaws 3D.
My dad laughed, he said "We had 3D films in the 60s and they don't really work". How right he was.
...and how like Hollywood to attempt to flog another nearly forgotten gimmick to death when they've run out of other ideas.
My view is this, everything on the internet is logged, tracked, archived, nothing damming will be done about it because allowing use of this information would mean enforcments are necessary, which no authority in the matter would ever do anything about.
plus, what is more important to the "real" authority is the fact that millions of people are still (even if its freely) ingesting the contaminated and highly hypnotic entertainment, put out by that SAME AUTHORITY.
if it was me i would think (well, we are still getting what we want, and i can just start a fake war if need more cash).
when the s*!t hits the fan, noone will be able to do anything without complete approval from those that feed us.
if only everying that was down loaded was what it was meant to be.....
...........how many times when downloading the 'for review' copy of "Formulaic Hollywood Blockbuster Movie part 32" - do you actually end up with the 1001st copy of "Debbie does Dallas" or "animal Farm"?
Once upon a time, artists used to actually tour and play live to make their money. Now they release a single or two a year and spend the rest of the time on holiday. I really hope that file sharing completely destroys the music industry as it stands today, maybe then we'll have a return to real musicians rather than the fakers that fill the industry at the moment, just trying to make their quick buck and get out. Remember what music is about!
Offset by the entertainment industries reselling the same stuff in different formats - don't we all know people who bought their favourite album on LP, cassette, 8-track, 180g vinyl, CD, 20-bit remastered CD, extended CD, enhanced CD, Super Audio, DVD audio, anniversary edition with outtake tracks, Japanese gold cd with mini LP cover, the album as a singles collection, then the tracks as video, vcd, dvd, hd-dvd, blu-ray. Great and £15 quid or so each time.
(Legal) downloading is gonna hurt the industry cos you just get the track(s) you want from an album not all the filler crud.
For some things you can't be a customer - albums that haven't been reissued - how does the entertainment industry intend to help meet our needs with those?
Did the art industry throw their dummy in the dust over the invention of the camera and the photocopier?
Suppose the music industry fat cats now realise they can't line their pockets as easily by rolling another over priced, generic template out of the sausage machine and expecting us all to lap it up in our millions. Oh boo hoo, so Simon Cowell can only afford a gold plated swimming pool instead of a diamond encrusted one filled with Bollinger.
Anyhoo, file sharing gives smaller bands the chance to reach a worldwide audience at the click of a button so it's not all bad.
let me look at this way,
1st, is there a new movie coming out everyday of the year or a new game or a new song, if not then then the estimate is wrong.
2nd, I believe that many people download movies for a single viewing then remove it, last time I checked this is the equivalent of renting. Do people pay 25 quids to rent a movie or game in the UK?
3rd, there is no proof of the age of the downloaders, they can't prove that the download is not some kid (not even 15 years of age) who can't watch the said film legally let alone afford it.
4th, 25 quids x 30 days a month = 750 quids..... how many people out there are going to spend 750 quid on movies and games every single month? ( I know no one who does that and the only person I know who can afford it does _NOT_ watch anything but the news. READ: workaholic businessman)
Isn't he also a minister for Higher Education? Since he's more concerned about BitTorrent that could explain the state of universities right now.
He talks about 'future sustainability of our copyright industries.'
Easy answer. There isn't a future for copyright. Time for a new model.
'the amount of times ive bought a game and regreted not checking it first !!!!'
Absolutely agree. And don't forget this government is a huge fan of DRM which means under a strict interpretation of the law I can't watch many movies that are region coded. I fail to see how downloading a movie only available in Region 1, or an eBook who's publishers have forbidden it to be sold in the UK, constitutes a lost sale.
Big story yesterday about a blind woman who bought an eBook version of the Bible from Amazon. The publisher had decided it would not work with voice synthesis software so she was unable to use her book. Amazon do not offer refunds on eBooks and the publishers refused to budge. What did she do? She downloaded a cracked version of the Bible that did allow for spoken word.
i don't tend to download music though, the main thing i download are tv series as i really can't be bothered to wait 6months to a year for some of them to appear, only to miss it because i happened to be out. I'd much rather get it on demand and watch it when i want. I'd even be willing to pay a subscription for it like i did with virgin, before getting annoyed that all the stuff was several series behind what was available for free on teh net.
Same thing with Films, i refuse to wait 6 months to see something, just because some fool decided that the cinema in my town would be more profitable as a nightclub.
Notice a trend here? all the stuff i download illegally, i do because i have no legal alternative! Is there any good reason for dvd releases to be months behind the cinema release, instead of a week or two?
10 years ago, the first incarnation of Napster was just finding it's feet and the record industry was making a huge fussabout suing people etc. etc.
if they had just opened their fricking eyes back then to the idea that people were looking for new ways of obtaining their music they could have built up the infrastructure to deliver it at low cost to the consumer and keep their customer base secure.
unfortunately now, with the growth of the internet over the last few years the common man has had a peek into what geeks have been doing for the last 10 years and cottoned on to the idea that they can have all the music they ever wanted without paying for it.
all they have to do to get it is mentally smudge the lines of what is right and wrong and what is and isn't stealing and now the genie is out of the bottle and everyone has had a good taste of what 'fee' music is and thre's no way that the industry will be able to turn the whole thing back round to their way of thinking.
Paris cos she knows how to copyright her assets.
"reviewed the available literature and spoke to entertainment industry representatives and regulators" ... so they didn't bother to ask ANYONE who uses these p2p services anything, yet they can decide what and why we do it..
i could write so much about how stupid this study is, but i have to get over to PB and find the latest [insert your free download here]...
This is the usual run of comments from a bunch of copyright thieves.
Yes you are stealing. Yes it is illegal.
Here are your usual flawed justifcations:
1) It was a rip off to buy...
2) It's a TV series broadcast on TV so it's okay to download
3) They make squillions anyway
And a new one for today
4) The statistics are flawed.
Well if it makes you feel better than well done you. If you want to steal then steal but don't wrap it up in some bullshit "power to the people" rant.
A few suggestions for the music / video / entertainment industry.
1) Don't assume that everything downloaded is a lost sale. It isn't. Rightly or wrongly, many folks "try before they buy", and if they like it, they will buy it - if it's reasonably priced. Which leads to:
2) Don't keep ripping off the consumer with silly prices and then whinging when they download off the internet. If the UK really is the "freetard" capital of Europe, maybe this is ever-so-slightly connected with the fact that UK consumers pay through the nose for everything. This is called "cause and effect". ;-)
3) Don't release on DVD months after a major film comes out. If people can legally buy at a fair price, then they will. If you stop 'em buying, don't be surprised when they turn to other tactics.
4) Get rid of this lame, brain-dead region encoding crap. Everyone knows how to get round it. By continuing to do it, you do yourselves no favours.
So if you have £17,000 a year to spend on digital entertainment thats disposale income after tax and living costs. Average house price is £150000 (approx) so mortgage payment on that would be £700 per month based on a 100% mortgage payed back over 25 years with interest @ 3%
Are there 7 million people living in Britian (11% of the population) who can afford £750 per month on digital media !
don't think so somehow .
...what about the rightsless content that is also on P2P networks, e.g. Linux ISOs, home videos, public domain sound recordings? What about all the movie trailers that are dumped out by the movie studios? Are they now worth 25quid a pop?
Yet another completely pointless, self-serving junk report that proves only that the "researchers" suckled deeply on the corporate teet and hardly bothered to actually research at all.
And of course the report then becomes the foundation of "policy"... policy that the electorate does not want, need or support. Worse, the content of the report is never questioned by those deciding the rules; I bet they only read the summary page and then claim the time on expenses......
So "If each “peer” from this network" of "1.3 million users sharing content (not the largest) downloaded one file per day the resulting number of downloads (music, film, television, e-books, software and games were all available) would be 4.73 billion items per year."
N_Items = 1.3 Musers * 1item/d * 365 d/y x*1y = 474.5 Mitems
Darn, I still don't understand statistics!
No point making the point every other commentator already has.
But remembering the old saw "don't get mad, get even", I have to wonder if there's a legal counterattack possible. Given its historical antecedents, the government of the UK is a very high-handed outfit, but reading the news carefully, it appears that various actions of the nomenklatura nonetheless can be subjected to judicial review.
Who's got the deep pockets necessary to hire a good lawyer and go before a learned judge demanding that this shabby bunch of cooked statistics be condemned, disowned, and withdrawn?
It might also be fun to solicit the attentions of would-be moles and find out just who actually wrote this steaming pile of bullshit, then name and shame them.
Or perhaps they've simply plagiarized from propaganda emitted by the RIAA and/or MPAA. A revelation along those lines in one of the fiestier dailies might be good for a few laughs.
Special memo to Jacqui Smith and her subordinates: this kind of bullshit no longer works. No right-thinking person believes a word you say anyway, but when you issue lengthy reports that are so obviously biased in favor of pre-determined positions, you simply throw more shit at your own tattered reputation. Resign now, you horrible little ex-cooking teacher, you.
The report actually says
"On one peer-to-peer network we found that at midday on a weekday there were 1.3 million users, sharing content. If each “peer” from this network (not the largest) downloaded one file per day the resulting number of downloads (music, film, television, e-books, software and games were all available) would be 473 million items per year. If the figure for each individual is closer to five or more items per day, the lowest estimate of downloaded material (remembering that the entire season of the Fox television series “24”, or the “complete” works of the rock group Led Zeppelin can be one file) is just under 2.4 billion files. And if the average value of each file is £5 – that is a rough low average of the price of a DVD or CD, rather than the higher prices of software or E-books – we have the online members of one file sharing network consuming approximately £12 billion in content annually – for free"
The figure is still bogus but maybe The Reg would like to correct their article.
http://www.sabip.org.uk/sabip-ciberreport.pdf
If the media industry is losing millions, so far they don't seem to be starving as a result.
And if they are losing out, it's caused by nothing more than their own greed. There's money in digital media, but the days of making easy millions out of 2nd and 3rd rate entertainment are gone - and they're not coming back no-matter how much the fat-cats and their bought-and-paid-for politicians howl. People are basically honest, but they're sick of being screwed over by vested interests.
We're not going back to the old business model - that's dead and it's never going to be resurrected, any more than we'll ever start writing on parchment again with a quill or keeping accounts in ledgers.
It must have been nice while it lasted, but the party's over - time to face the facts and think of a new business model. Those who can't or won't will go the way of monastery scribes and hand weavers. And bloody good riddance.
When is someone going to put a stop to this absurd "P2P kills puppies" theatre?
At the most generous estimate, 20% of downloads are lost sales. Example, Adobe Photoshop - if it wasn't possible to download dodgy versions then a few thousand designer-types would have to go out and buy it. The other half-million or so unlicenced users would just shift to PaintShop Pro or whatever, and barely notice the difference.
This makes me *nearly* as cross as the road safety nuts who post alarmist stories about speeding, mobile phones etc. It's plainly a campaign with a desired outcome, and I dearly wish that our shabby, discredited government would reclaim some dignity by noticing this.
Hmm. Conclusion: UK is a nation of freetards costing an industry bajillions. Source? Ah, right, the very people who would like to convince us that this is the case, with the same lies being trotted out ad-nauseum.
Why is the Reg running this as "news" when it's nothing more than another press release by a propaganda group?
I can only wonder what these folks think of the other study that showed that downloaders are also the most frequent buyers?
I think the above posts adequately show a strong divide along "them and us" basis.
I suppose quite a few points are valid (particularly the one about music industry blind to opportunities in Napster 10 years ago?) and so there appears to be justifiable cause to both parties.
It seems a difficult nut to crack for sure plus older people (-ahem-) might also recall that cassette tapes and sound systems made it easy to copy from one source to tape with top-of-range kit making it easy for hi-speed transfers from one tape to another.
I'd guess that the problem has roots going back some 25 years or so and it ain't gonna be easy bringing people round to more modern appreciation of copyright and IP.
I am what some would call a freetard ( copyright thief ) and I can assure you that I don't give a flying feck what you or anyone else thinks about my online activities. :) I download movies, music, software and games, and have done for the past 10 years. The vast majority of the downloaded content is utter tripe, but the small minority of the good stuff I have bought with my hard earned pennies.
I have spent many hundreds of pounds over those past years on good products. I must be honest and say that I haven't bought any music in the past 7 or so years as imo there hasn't been any real music produced.
The last game I bought was Tom Clancy's Hawx ( after playing the demo ) and tbh I wish to goodness I hadn't, it is an unplayable game as it has not been tested properly at all, worked ok at first although it was impossible to play online, but since they patched the game it no longer works.
If this is the industries definition of quality content then you can't blame people for downloading first to see if it actually does what it says on the tin, don't forget in the past if it was possible to try before you buy then most would have done so. You wouldn't buy a new car without a test drive would you? They do infact need to up their game and stop churning out the same over rated, under produced shite.
If the product is good then the vast majority of people will pay for it!
You miss the point entirely. "Pirates" don't give a crap about the lines that you so passionately walk. You call it "stealing", we type "lol". P2P isn't going anywhere. They buried Napster, and from the rubble emerged even more "insidious" technology.
They can go after Torrents all they want. More advanced technology is around the corner. Nothing fuels innovation like oppression. Even now, I pay 5/mo (a subscription basically), just to proxy my downloads to keep the Inter-snoops off my ISP's case. If there was a service where I could just get whatever I want, legally, for even 20/mo, I would probably end my evil ways and go legit.
But you can't beat the FACT that its more convenient to simply "pirate" what you want, when you want it, regardless of the money involved. Until the copyright holders realize this and capitalize on it, pirates are always going to be a significant issue. In other words, huge reform is needed to solve this problem, not a bigger brother.
Since the people enforcing these copyrights are the real "tards", the pirates will always be a step ahead.
Penguin because the best stuff is free anyways.
A) Real Law is based on the consensus of the community or society that something is or is not wrong, Laws constructed by a small minority for their own benefit constitute invalid laws. Indeed there have been many Laws in this country which at one time or another have constituted economic or physical slavery, People rose up against them, People are doing the same now
That is All.
"They can go after Torrents all they want. More advanced technology is around the corner. Nothing fuels innovation like oppression."
Trying to keep you from stealing my stuff is not oppression.
I work in the video games industry, PC games specifically. If you steal one of my games instead of buying it, that literally takes money away from me. Don't give me that try-before-you-buy bullshit argument. It's up to me if I want you to be able to try my game before you pay for it. That's called a demo. Download it. Like it? Buy my game.
No, each download does not equal a lost sale. But anyone who thinks that illegal downloads do not have an equivalent in lost sales is dreaming. How many lost sales because of downloading is too many? One. Yep, if you're an employee at a small development studio, every sale counts.
I think there are plenty of comments to cover the absuridity of this so called "study", so I'll only add another context.
I would be interested if you took their "magic wish" figures and instead of making them into "we lost this dough for each download", how about calculating how long it would take to actually *listen*/*watch*/*play* all the stuff they claim we have? And what about DVD's of linux etc.., for which peer2peer (e.g. Bitorrent) is by far the most effect way of sharing *data*?
There is *so* much media stuff ( and most of it is toss), that even sampling a very small amount (Radio1, Virgin, Pandora, Hulu, You tube, etc...), takes a large amount of the very finite amount of time we all have. And every year there is more and more to choose from, since by definition , there is also last years as well. So exactly how much is possible to own, and play on any regular basis? Any guesses on saturation point?
It is very clear that the industry large lost the plot, when they ignored the fact the internet was a global tool, and consumers cold see they were being ripped off both in price fixing (usa vs uk - cd 14$ uk atleast 14 quid.), bogus marketing for crap content, reselling mouldy old stuff, the price of media scam (can I turn in my LP's?;-/ ), really pointless and *expensive* control freak DRM , and so on , and so on.... It did not take long for the "world is flat" to become "we will show you what we want from where you sit, so we can charge you more".
The point is, now the horse had bolted they will punish *everyone* until they can collect as much money as they can from *every* consumer willing or not. Notice how quick "unlimited" broadband became a complete joke, and the shallow attempts to prevent posting links to links (e.g. Pirate Bay) being equated with some sort of nuke threat.
OK, I am going to go back to watching my ad-laced online content....
today in the news we discovered that statistics can be manipulated to say whatever you want.
@nic
you forgot
5 - I bought the game and the drm wouldnt let me play it , so I also downloaded a copy
(bioshock)
6 - The media I am looking for is not available for purchase in my country so while I wait for my mail order from germany/america/japan Im going to download the album (too many to list)
7 - The media I download is simply not available legally (for years there was no way to buy boxed compilations of certain old tv shows)
I would point out to anyone in legal standing that these examples are illustrative
As to those proud pirates:
I make it my business to buy music direct from bands - wumpscut and kmfdm arent millionaires and I enjoy their music so it is a GOOD thing to actually pay them for their work.
while it is nice to say that we need a new business model , etc and that until that time
I will just download what I want -its a very narrow view and ignores the reality that you are parasitising off someone elses work .
when it comes to small bands + independant video game producers (running with scissors) you SHOULD buy direct.
The advancement of technology has allowed us the ability to cut out the middle men , but we shouldnt forget that all the great music and those games actually come from somewhere - and the people that make them - deserve to eat .
Lets not talk about how 7 million people are downloading files for free. Lets get on with life keep on buying what is worth buying and download what is shit for free.
I'm sure that if a game or movie is good enough then people will go out and buy it to get online play or get the dvd extras etc.. so if you make a shit film/game then expect it to get downloaded and very quickly deleted!
"The word "fucked" springs irresistably to mind."
At £25.00 per item, maybe they're talking about the porn industry!
@re and another thing......I've got a copy of "Debbie does Dallas", if you want it.
...Paris, well ...because she's a hardworking girl that deserves her residuals.
"Illegal downloading is not an issue confined by national boundaries. I am sure other EU States and their copyright industries will find this report of use in the development of policy."
No they won't, because most other EU states prefer to use factual, evidence-based material for their research and publish results based on sound statistical analysis. Mandelsonian mathematics, based on wishful thinking where you start with a conclusion and prop it up with NuLabour bullshit has no credibility in the real world. Bit unethical, really - like most of the corporate cocksuckers in parliament today.
Some of the more astute reg readers and/or journalists might recall a study done (some years ago now) that outlined a new online economic model for the entertainment industry. I wish I could find it again but have been unsuccessful.
As I recall, the economist/author argued that:
1) Copyright should be abolished for physical entertainment media
2) In its place a universal royalties pool could be implemented.
3) All consumers would contribute a nominal sum every month to this pool, let's say 10 bucks. This could even be extracted from their monthly broadband fee.
4) All entertainment content would be distributed online from a central source or sources and all downloads/views etc, would be metered by a central authority (or authorities).
5) Every month/day/hour/ whatever these entertainment downloads would be tallied and the artist would be given his or her proportion of royalties from the pool mentioned above.
Of course, this would make enormous parts of the current business model completely useless. It would seriously empower consumers and producers. It would save a hell of a lot on money on lawyers fees. Which would explains why such studies never seem to catch the attention of the powers that be.
But seriously, what would happen if the world went with a business model like that ? People could then watch whatever they wanted for a set fee and the artists (or even a studio's) compensation and revenue would be directly proportional to their popularity.
Piracy would become a waste of time, because everyone could watch whatever they wanted for a nominal fee. Enormous networking and storage economies of scale could also be realized because no one would waste their time constantly and repeatedly download and storing multiple copies of stuff they will never watch.
I wish I could find that study and the author's name again but he is probably now wearing cement overshoes in the Pacific somewhere. Can anyone help ?
Isn't the music industry the very definition of a Ponzi scheme.. after all millions of people pump billions of pounds into it but it has nothing to show for it?
Simon Cowell single handedly sells millions of records each year on behalf of BGT winners and runners up, all the profit from that can't go to pay for his ex-girlfriends to accompany him on holidays to botox clinics, surely.
"This is the usual run of comments from a bunch of copyright thieves."
And yours is the usual response of the ignorant :
"Yes you are stealing. Yes it is illegal."
No it isn't and no it isn't. In the UK, it's called copyright infringement and it's unlawful. The difference in law is very important. Copyright infringement does not come under the Theft Act. It is a civil matter. If you think otherwise, you're free to arrest me for theft - I'll be happy to sue you for false arrest.
Whether you're just plain ignorant or an outright liar I don't know, but it's precisely because people like you perpetuate these untruths that nobody listens to your impotent keyboard rage.
Why should anybody debate the issue with somebody who clearly hasn't got the first idea what they're talking about?
Okay, here's the plan.
1. Make up some 'song' (rap is easiest, it would seem).
2. Record it onto your pc.
3. Burn it onto some cds.
4. (THIS IS THE CUNNING PART) sell your cds for a penny each (In other words, AT A LOSS).
5. Leak them onto all the P2P networks.
6. Profit!! Since every download is a lost sale, every download saves you money!
(Public Immunity from Stupid Bungling Arseholes)
You can do the real maths now, "at midday on a particular weekday, there were 1.3 million users sharing content".
So your ISPs stands to lose more than 1.3 million customers per day ! More great business models from the recording industry. They should be in government not advising it.
ALF
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
