Australian P2P Sites Disappear Overnight 355
An anonymous reader writes "In the wake of a raid on an Australian ISP, local P2P site operators are shutting down operations in droves, according to community site Whirlpool. The raid was the result of an investigation by Music Industry Piracy Investigations (MIPI), who claim they have a number of targets lined up for future raids. Overnight, a number of sites have shut down or been shut down, and ISPs are reporting major drops in bandwidth usage."
Dang It! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Dang It! (Score:5, Interesting)
Amazingly enough, I quit aMule and everything came good again instantly. Equally amazingly enough, all the downloads which I had queued and were going fine last night had disappeared.
I don't actually think it's really linked (especially since we're not exactly talking about emule networks, are we?), but it's certainly odd.
Re:Dang It! (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, I wasn't stealing music or movies - maybe what I was doing wasn't exactly 100% legal, but... I was downloading some episodes of something I taped off the TV. The tape was completely stuffed when I went to watch it, though. As for music... every mp3, m4a and ogg on my computer, I own the CD for. So there.
Is it actually legal to download a copy of something you taped or not? In Australia it could be an issue, but what about in the States?
Re:Dang It! (Score:3, Informative)
In the US it is illegal to violate the exclusivity of any of the rights of copyright holders enumerated, among other places, in 17 USC 106. One of these is reproduction, which is what occurs when you tape something off of TV, and also when you download.
However, it is possible that this conduct may, in some or all cases, fall under an exception in the law. One such excepti
Re:Dang It! (Score:4, Funny)
It breaks down like this: it's legal to buy it, it's legal to own it and, if you're the proprietor of the CD, it's legal to sell it. It's legal to carry it, which doesn't really matter 'cause -- get a load of this -- if the cops stop you, it's illegal for them to search you. Searching you is a right that the cops in America don't have. [imdb.com]
Next: Legal Defense Fund (Score:4, Funny)
I think I know the drill here. Set up a legal defense fund, collect tens of thousands of dollars and then disappear. [slashdot.org]
Re:Next: Legal Defense Fund (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Next: Legal Defense Fund (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Next: Legal Defense Fund (Score:3, Interesting)
I was as big a fan of Lokitorrent and BitTorrent in general as anyone, but collecting tens of thousands of dollars as a legal defense fund and then mysteriously "settling" and effectively disappearing after the fact does not sit well with me. What were the terms of the settlement? Did Lokitorrent have to turn over all the money they collected from their legal defense fund? I find th
Anti-piracy may hurt ISP business? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Anti-piracy may hurt ISP business? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Anti-piracy may hurt ISP business? (Score:3, Insightful)
Admittedly not all of it is illegal (i.e. iTunes) but the media companies so far haven't done a great job of leveraging broadband for legitimate services.
Re:Anti-piracy may hurt ISP business? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Anti-piracy may hurt ISP business? (Score:2)
According to TFA, most of the P2P networks were using uncapped bandwidth, between users on the same ISP, or same state. Downloading from overseas is going to burn their caps pretty quickly. Or maybe people will revert to sneakernet and have CDR swapmeets.
Re:Anti-piracy may hurt ISP business? (Score:5, Interesting)
I would say you're completely backwards here. Most users discover the ability to pirate large movies/music/files AFTER they get broadband. They don't usually buy broadband just to start pirating, it's just a side effect. So based on that theory, they will still keep their broadband to surf the web or whatever their original intent was. Perhaps the ISP's will be able to increase each user's "available" bandwidth if the select few stop sucking it all up with PSP crap?
I for one, have vowed never to give up my high speed internet ever since the first day I had it 6 years ago. A lot of things have changed since then, but it sure hasn't gotten easier to surf the web on a dial up connection. There are so many pointless graphics on most sites these days, that a dial up connection is becoming useless.
Re:Anti-piracy may hurt ISP business? (Score:2)
Also, I really doubt my ISP doesn't make a profit otherwise they wouldn't be so lax about it.
The web might be slow, but I'm on a budget too. I've got to spend limited entertainment dollars wisely.
Re:Anti-piracy may hurt ISP business? (Score:2)
Re:Anti-piracy may hurt ISP business? (Score:2)
Other losers in the fallout:
Re:Anti-piracy may hurt ISP business? (Score:2, Interesting)
ISPs may look at P2P traffic the same way some people looked at smoking at one point.
Somewhere in the world, governments still look at smoking and tobacco sale as a good revenue source, and so they are willing to "sacrifice" the people's health, or put differently, "mortgage" the people's future health costs to get cash upfront. Eventually, as we get more serious about public health and the danger of tobacco use is just so blatantly obvious and the health insurance industry
Re:Anti-piracy may hurt ISP business? (Score:3, Insightful)
That being said, insurance companies and government sponsored health care will look to actively reduce smoking because of the health implications and the health care costs associated with them.
Re:Anti-piracy may hurt ISP business? (Score:2)
Re:Anti-piracy may hurt ISP business? (Score:2)
Oops, forgot to add another point. If people can afford broadband then they'll definitely switch. Especially the kind of people who would download warez/movies (I'm implying that people who download warez/movies also use the Internet a lot for other purposes and hence they would prefer speed.)
Re:Anti-piracy may hurt ISP business? (Score:2)
Unless you have some sort of Aussie-Comcast. Then you'll get "special super stupid cool improved rates" where you can upgrade to 1 Mbps for an extra $10 per month or downgrade your email storage capacity to keep your current rate. (Which is what Flet's ADSL recently did to me here in Japan)
Re:Anti-piracy may hurt ISP business? (Score:2)
Re:Anti-piracy may hurt ISP business? (Score:3, Funny)
Marge: Does anyone need that much porno?
Homer: (drooling) One million times...
But after the raid? (Score:2, Interesting)
We shall go on to the end, (Score:5, Funny)
Re:We shall go on to the end, (Score:3, Informative)
Give it a rest already. I've talked to Europeans who thought WW2 was fought against Soviet Russia.
Well... (Score:5, Funny)
--grendel drago
Re:We shall go on to the end, (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:We shall go on to the end, (Score:2)
Sovinists, the people you're referring to, on the other hand want to take advantage of other countries, or bash them just to make their own country look or be better.
Re:Why wasn't that typed in *GERMAN*? (Score:2)
Do you have the same amount of evidence to the French bribe case as you have had for WMD which turned out to be a logical loophole, magically disappearing?
There never were pro-american demonstrations on the Middle East, at least not significant ones. Actually, 2/3 of Iraqies would have preferred if americans wouldn't have invaded their country and toppled Saddam. The religious leader who got elected in Iraq is a quite enlightened on
Winning occupations and the nature of power (Score:2, Offtopic)
Sometimes fear of getting bombed doesn't and sometimes it does, and sometimes actually get bombed does lead to real, long-term reform. The poster children for this kind of rehabilitation are Japan and Germany, which rose from the rubble they wrought around themselves during WWII to become first-world nations and excellent global citizens. It took millions of lives and an almost unfathomable amount of ordinance, however,
Re:We shall go on to the end, (Score:2)
They were even on the winning side (eventually) for four out of five.
Won't stop anything (Score:4, Insightful)
Fact: If it's not legal in X it's legal in Y
Fact: If company is hassled in X, it goes to Y
You cannot stop P2P, you can only hassle it in the short term.
Re:Won't stop anything (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Won't stop anything (Score:3, Interesting)
Looking at the most recent tactics of the RIAA/MPAA and their pals around the world, I would say that they are no longer targetting P2P directly anyway, or the companies that develop/host the P2P applications. They are now going after P2P users who upload materials owned by them. Uploading such material is illegal in most countries, and most P2P clients will upload as well as download (that's the whole point of them). Witness the recent flurry of cease-and-desist letters sent to user
I know P2P is here to stay... (Score:2, Insightful)
...when I see that six of the "Top Downloads" on Sourceforge's front page [sourceforge.net] are P2P clients.
I think the RIAA, MIAA and friends are fighting a battle that they'll inevitably lose, no matter how expertly they play the governmental and legal systems.
King Canute didn't have much luck either.
Draconian business practices (Score:2, Funny)
Before you know it, other Australian territories like Fiji or New Zealand will be cracking down on P3P sites. I will no longer do business with Australian web sites.
At least there is hope in that the House of Commons in Melbourne is debating applying the CD levy towards the MAPI demands.
Which is nice.
Re:Draconian business practices (Score:2, Informative)
Australia not a Republic (Score:5, Informative)
1) Australia is NOT a republic. We are a constitutional monarchy. With the exception of people in the retired services league and the governor general (the Queens figure-head in Australia) this doesn't mean much. The only thing that would change if we did become a Republic would be the stripping of the Union Jack from our flag.
2) Fiji and New Zealand are NOT Australian territories. While we may claim many famous Kiwi's (New Zealanders) to be Australian (Russel Crowe, Mel Gibson), they are a completely independent country.
3) House of Commons??? There is no House of Commons, in Melbourne, or in the whole of Australia. You are thinking of the British system. While we are a monarchy we do not have the same system as them such has the House of Lords, House of Commons, etc.
4) What has cracking down on warez sites got to do with you doing business with Australian websites? Before you try to say these sites had legitimate downloads, they didn't. The vast majority of what was available was copyrighted material.
5) MAPI is not the acronym of Music Industry Piracy Investigations, that would be MIPI as stated several times in the article.
6) P3P?!?! WTF is P3P?
7) Why is a CD levy a good idea? How would you like a levy on screwdrivers and crowbars because a small minority of people use them to break into houses? Or a levy on tea spoons because junkies use them to cook up? The idea of CD levies is ridiculous!
How the hell did you get Score 1???
Free the bandwidth! (Score:5, Funny)
Yes but . . . . (Score:2, Insightful)
And couldn't we expect the ISPs, especially some of the state owned(?) ones to start pushing against a crackdown when they start losing money? dDOS excluded, more traffic == more business for an ISP.
Re:Yes but . . . . (Score:2)
The most profitable users of broadband are not the ones constantly downloading music online 24/7.
This may not be so bad for the ISPs.
Re:Yes but . . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yes but . . . . (Score:2)
Most accounts are either limited bandwidth then pay extra or unlimited but you get shaped back to 64k or something after you use a certain amount.
Am I a pirate? (Score:5, Interesting)
I have a very busy work schedule with a lot of travel. There are 2 or 3 broadcast TV shows that I like so I download episodes when I miss them. Is there any real difference between that and just programming my VCR to do the same?
Frankly, if they make this impossible, it won't make me watch more TV. It will just mean I'll miss the episode(s) in question. With the exception of the times I am home for "my shows," I simply refuse to watch TV anymore due to the 15+ minutes of commercials to watch a one hour show. Hell, I don't even keep the file after I've watched it since I don't want to fill up the hard drive on my computer.
So I'm not really sure what the broadcasters hope to gain, other than trying to protect their advertising revenue as they lose eyeballs to people who are tired of the noise level on broadcast TV.
So I just hope they don't shut down my favorite tracker site and keep my fingers crossed.
Re:Am I a pirate? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Am I a pirate? (Score:2)
If you skip commercials, most of the movie/tv show people already consider you a pirate.
Maybe so, but where did they get my signature that I'd agree to watch their shows only along with all the crap around?
Their wishful thinking doesn't make it reality.
Re:Am I a pirate? (Score:2)
Yeah... but if the networks made their shows available for download WITH commercials, guess where I'd be getting my shows from?
Unfortunately for them, the only place I can get them (and I mean, The ONLY place, since I live outside of the US) provides them commercial free.
I'm not complaining though.
Actually, considering the fact that I can't find any players/codecs combination that will allow me to actually fast forward easily and accurately through most of the video I download, if the networks releas
Re:Am I a pirate? (Score:2)
Re:Am I a pirate? (Score:2)
Re:Am I a pirate? (Score:2)
programming the VCR and watching it later is 100% legit. no questions, no strings, no iffys. so why not use it?
i think the real question is, what is the difference between programming the VCR and p2p/downloading for you?
Re:Am I a pirate? (Score:2)
Yes, with P2P, you have access to content that you didn't pay for. You have access to HBO/Showtime/Spice/etc. Not all things are broadcast in all areas. Sporting events get blacked out in areas. Local advertisers lose out when you download a show because you probably didn't do
That's not what he said (Score:3, Insightful)
Second, at least this way someone gains: if he does not watch the shows, the benefit for the station/provider/advertisers is zero. If he downloads a file made elsewhere, that station/provider/advertiser combo benefits. The mean effect of people who paid for the content downloading it instead of watching directly is probably nil.
Re:Am I a pirate? (Score:2)
No, the US providers where not paid.
Furthermore, US ads where replaced with local ads.
Niiice.
And now that industry has the HUTZPAH to complain that I download TV shows!?!
And, its offtopic - and I don't anything about Aussie IP law, anyway.
Ratboy
Re:Am I a pirate? (Score:2)
Blackouts exist because of clauses in the agreement between the league/team and the TV station/network. They do not exist because of any law or any agreement with the ultimate customer (the viewer). "Violating" a blackout, as a viewer, is completely legal. People who live in shared markets are frequently able to get around blackouts (i.e., people who live in areas that get signals from both the NY and Philly markets can watch the national NFC game on Fox 29 instead
Re:Am I a pirate? (Score:2)
Unless you download shows from the channels you don't have access to, come up with a good reason why it's illegal or immoral. I'm not the only one who pays good money for cable TV, and if I download a show I could have watched on the TV (sans commercials), it's content I have paid for in full, as far as I am concerned.
Re:Am I a pirate? (Score:2, Insightful)
So I'm not really sure what the broadcasters hope to gain, other than trying to protect their advertising revenue as they lose eyeballs to people who are tired of the noise level on broadcast TV.
Look, advertisement is the current way these shows get paid for. If you're not watching the ads, you're not really a "customer" of the TV show producer anyway, so why should they care if you get to see their show
Technically - Yes (Score:2)
Do the courts agree with us or the industry? That will be the real question.
Re:Am I a pirate? (Score:2)
Not always true. I once had a VCR that did not display picture when FF/REW in certain recording modes.
Furthermore, and more importantly, the VCR was accepted for time-shifting because SCOTUS said so, not because the industry acquiesced.
Re:Am I a pirate? (Score:2)
Start with the idea that we are not serfs whose duty is to solemnly serve the will of companies we buy services from, nor the companies those companies buy services from. When it comes to Cable TV, we are the customers. We're in charge. If you don't like it, ra
a little misleading (Score:3, Interesting)
So this really has little effect except on the uber-leechers who are in any case breaking the law (this is of course a gross generalization, but one I am quite confident making).
and the nazi boot in the computer (Score:2)
This is why... (Score:2)
Wait until ISPs get accounts cancelled (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait until ISPs start getting accounts cancelled. It's simply not possible for people to receive less value from a service and be willing to pay the same price. The interests of ISPs and copyright holders are NOT aligned, and the ISPs that don't realize that they must oppose the copyright crackdown will go out of business.
-russ
Re:Wait until ISPs get accounts cancelled (Score:2, Insightful)
P2P (I include NG's here, if not strictly p2p) has been one of the 'killer apps' that make broadband a commodity worth paying big bucks for. ISP's have known this and were quite happy to accept payment for users of their infrastructur
all-you-can-eat bandwidth part of the problem? (Score:2)
It works very well for me, and I understand the other advantages, but if the home ISPs made money per Kb downloaded, they'd no doubt see file sharing as a good source of revenue and would find more ways to support it, technically and politically.
Now, usually I would have no problem with this.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Time for a community response (Score:4, Interesting)
It hasn't been shown that downloading music hurts the music companies, quite the opposite HAS been shown in fact.
So we have to send the industry a message by no longer buying their product.
If they don't have our money to use against us like they are now, they won't be able to pull these kind of totalitarian abuses.
OK, you argue it might force all the music companies out of business. So what? With the Internet, they are no longer necessary; artists can market their music to clients directly.
And in any case, the music companies no longer represent us, they are forcing horrible formulaic content down our throats.
Put an end to these abuses, boycott the music industry!
Re:Time for a community response (Score:2)
New revenue model for ISPs (Score:3, Interesting)
"major drops in bandwidth usage" (Score:4, Insightful)
If you have nothing to download, then why have broadband? So you can get faster popus?
Good for them... (Score:3, Insightful)
As for the decrease in bandwidth usage, I'm all for that if it is able to lower the cost of consumer broadband to a more reasonable level. The exessive use of broadband for questionably legal activity slows down networks for people who need to legitimately download their ISOs (or have their Windows boxen be spam zombies.) With the lower nominal use of networks, maybe prices will drop (as opposed to killing of the broadband market like one poster suggested.)
Re:But surely (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.xandros.com/products/home/desktopoc/ds [xandros.com]
http://distribution.openoffice.org/p2p/bittorrent [openoffice.org]
http://www.ferrago.com/ [ferrago.com]
http://syd2.ausgamers.com:6969/ [ausgamers.com]
http://www.filerush.com/ [filerush.com]
http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/info/faq/blizzardd [worldofwarcraft.com]
http://www.slackware.com/torrents/ [slackware.com]
Who is the one living in the bubble here? Personally, I love being able to download popular files quickly. I guess you'd prefer to pay fileplanet for the privilege, hmm?
Re:But surely (Score:2)
and legaltorrents is mostly creative commons music. That's the one I thought of right away.
Re:But surely (Score:2)
As someone commented in another post, it may be insignificant in amount, but that doesn't mean it isn't important. In the case of BitTorrent, the legal uses occur because it really is useful for legal purposes (just non-mainstream ones like the fabled "downloading Linux ISOs").
Re:Yay Finally (Score:2)
What I meant to say is that it'd be nice with all the P2P traffic gone - as for a change the other sites on the net will appear to come down at a decent speed.
Of course, irrespective of it being a tongue-in-cheek humor commonent and because I
Re:Good ridence (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, the effect has been the opposite on music, the price went down due to piracy.
As far as software goes, why dont those companies offer SERVICE such as real support and charge for that? The reason whysoftware costs so much isnt due to piracy (damn do we have to go here again???), its due to becomming a sta
Re:Good ridence (Score:5, Insightful)
That is weapons grade FUD and you know it. You pay "higher" prices for software and music because the companies know they can get away with charging those prices. If anyone questions it they can just claim that they were "forced" to raise prices because of piracy.
When was the last time you saw anything come down in price after yet another "successful crackdown on piracy"? In fact, with the exception of the recent drop in CD Album prices (Because they realised that people really aren't willing to pay £15 for one), when was the last time that the price of *any* media product went down instead of up?
Re:Good ridence (Score:2)
Bandwidth: Used to be $20/month + $3/hour for dialup access. Now it's $42/month for unlimited broadband.
Removable Storage: Used to be $1/1,440 kB floppy. Now it's $.30/4.4 GB DVD-R.
The only thing going up is pre-recorded media.
Re:Good ridence (Score:2)
God forbid someone spends their time and efforts creating a product and attaches a price that they feel it's worth. If you don't think it's worth it, don't buy it, but don't imply that it makes the creator evil or somehow becomes justification for stealing it.
Re:Good ridence-P2P refugees. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Good ridence (Score:5, Insightful)
The issue here is that software is not a "limited commodity" in that when I'm using a piece of software I am not preventing someone else from using that piece of software. This is different than, say, a hammer: if I'm using a hammer, you can't use the same hammer. The solution is to create a second hammer, which has an appreciable cost. The replication cost of software / music is almost zero though. A DVD, however, is a limited commodity, because if I'm watching a DVD at my house, the guy down the street can't be watching the same DVD at his house. That's why I'm willing to pay for a DVD; I like the quality and exclusivity of the thing.
Because software / music / etc. is not a type of thing where use is exclusive, the traditional models people use to set prices and make purchases breaks down.
This is like folks saying, "We lost $5M last year due to downloads"; that's not true, that's "we couldn't convice people to pay us for our product." That's not "lost sales" or anything, that's "poor marketing" (I include price setting in "marketing").
That's the real core of the matter though: ownership rules on software and such aren't the same as for automobiles. The old idea of copyrights and stuff isn't going to work any more and we're seeing the first sign of it. What "authors" and "performers" need to do is say, "I'll keep making stuff as long as I get enough people to pay me enough for me to keep doing this." This is a change of outlook from "I want to get as much money as I can from this". Put it this way, if I write a decent piece of software, and people want me to keep writing software, they will be willing to pay me for my programming services. If they don't pay me, I will do something else - supply and demand at its simplest. Under this new scheme, people will still pay musicians because a performance is an exclusive thing - you can only get the experience of being at the performance by, well, being at the performance.
The higher prices you pay for software are to pay for the enforcement of rules, not to protect the software! The other way to look at it is this: If I'm building cars and I need to sell 1,000,000 to pay for the people to make them, I better hope to get that many sales. With software, if I need to sell 1,000,000 to pay for the people to make them, I'd better set my price so that 1,000,000 people pay for it. If I get that sales volume at the price I set, I've done my job; if I want more profit I'd be better to adjust the price / features to get more people to pay me. If some people *don't* pay me, though, I should not care because it doesn't actually cost me anything if they don't pay me. Note that this only applies to downloads and copies, not purchased media (because of the exclusive nature of media)!
While I would advocate a massive reform of intellectual property law in general (including trademarks - what's up with the crazy trademarks I see on logos and stuff?), I also submit that there are currently laws on the books that should be honored. The appropriate course of action isn't to ignore or openly disobey the laws, but to put pressure on the appropriate channels to change the laws.
Re:Good ridence (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree pirating isn't stealing in the traditional sense (someone else losing usage of the item), but the comment "We lost $n last year due to downloads" certainly can be true. It certainly could be lost sales. Imagine this scenario I suspect is not all tha
Re:Good ridence (Score:2)
An example is Unreal Tournament 200x. I love the game, but I won't buy it (for a variety of reasons). I have not pirated it, but I have played the demo
Re:Good ridence (Score:2)
Illegal copies are, from a purely economic point of view, nothing more than "the same product, but cheaper". And if they're stripped of copyprotection, they're "the same product, but cheaper and without ugly restrictions". Or put the other way, the original is "the same product but more expensive and with restrictions"... Go guess what the market will
Re:Good ridence (Score:2)
What a strange statement. I am not sure if it is really valid. Because in one scenario money is transacted, and in another it isn't. Maybe you mean that if the game is bought or pirated in both cases the company still has the product and the consumer still has the game. Most of the statements in this thread strike me as intelligent bull shit (not so much the parent, but the grand grand parent).
Re:Good ridence (Score:2)
In the absence of the cheaper (and in this case illegal, but in practice the probability of actually suffering legal consequences approaches zero for anybody but a massive sharer or a business that gets raided) alternative, the willingness to pay a higher price for a legal product may drop remarkably.
Re:Good ridence (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good ridence (Score:3, Insightful)
Brings up the notion of something like, I lost $1 billion last year because sales of my dryer lint were lower than anticipated due to people stealing their dryer lint from the laundromat. (Price per item: $500 million)
Re:Good ridence (Score:2)
Perhaps now, with more of these File sharers servers going dark, I will be able to start to enjoy lower prices on my software and music [...]
Dream on. Most likely, this will never happen. The music industry didn't lower the prices of CDs since their initial rollout in the 80s, like they wanted us to believe. They are actually thinking about increasing the
Re:Good ridence (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it's not. It's illegal, it's just not stealing. Arson isn't stealing. Trespassing isn't stealing. Murder isn't stealing. If they're wrong, they need to be wrong for reasons that stand on their own, rather than by trying to stuff them into a category in which they don't belong.
Generally, I find that there are good reasons for copyright infringement to be illegal, but that most people who throw around loaded terms like 'stealing' don't know what they are, and can't actually make a good argument for their position. They're just appealing to emotion. Don't do that. Appeal to reason.
Simply make the people that are caught pay double the full retail price for each piece of stolen software.
Heh. You should take a look at 17 USC 504. The level of damages you suggest are tremendously low (and kind of vague) in comparison.
Re:Good ridence (Score:2)
There are many points to consider, but here are two:
Supply and demand: At zero or very low price there will be greater demand for a product. Most of the people who get the product this way would not pay the going market price and so it is not fair to say that the producer has lost any money. The number of people who are willing to pay the going price but acquire the product via P2P or
Re:Good ridence (Score:2)
There are two important economics points that one should remember when thinking about these kind of situations:
1 - Market price is related to marginal revenue, not marginal cost. In a free market the two are the same, but not in this situation.
2 - The ideal price (where marginal revenue equals marginal cost) is heavily influenced by the elasticity of the demand curve. In particular, when marginal cost is next to zero (as in CDs and DVDs), the ideal price is when the elasticity is 1.
Bootleggin
Re:Good ridence (Score:5, Interesting)
This is just wrong, it essentially allows MIPI to be judge, jury and executioner. They don't need to bother to PROVE anything, they just cause everyone to stop using BitTorrent and P2P out of fear, even in cases where they were going to share something legal.
I pay higher prices for software and music because of the rampant theft.
Contrary to what the prevailing attitude seems to be here, the vast majority of the public does pay for their software and music.
There is however a large minority that feels otherwise and continues their criminal practices. They are the ones driving software companies to add more and more layers of security to our software. They are the ones that are causing the honest amongst us to have to jump through increasingly more difficult hoops to install, register and maintain our software.
And don't be fooled by the music industry and BSA's ravings,
Re:Good ridence (Score:2)
Re:Good ridence (Score:2)
How can there be a vast majority AND a large minority?
Re:Good ridence (Score:2)
And it may be quite possible that you could
Re:what is it with australia? (Score:2)
Rupert Murdoch owns NO Australian free-to-air television stations. Stick to the facts.