Leaked MediaDefender Emails Show Student P2P Traffic Down 197
An anonymous reader writes "The MPAA and the RIAA have been targeting universities in a fury claiming that college students are causing them huge losses. However, some leaked MediaDefender emails show that may be a huge exaggeration. 'I also want to state that I am not for the illegal sharing of files. I am absolutely against it. I just want to make sure that the numbers presented in the media are fair numbers. I have a feeling they aren't fair at all.
'"
Actually... (Score:5, Informative)
Problem solved. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Problem solved. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I realize some of the EDU IP addresses may be from a private NAT (Network Address Translation) which enables multiple hosts on a private network to access the Internet using a single public IP address. It is safe to say the numbers are probably a bit higher than the data shows but I wouldn't imagine it would be significantly higher.
My 10000 student school has only a few dozen IPs. Yeah, a "bit higher"."
This is the point I was making. I know it is higher but how much higher? Do you hav
Re: (Score:2)
That and there's plenty of mis-leading information. Not to say I'm for the MPAA or RIAA (I'm not, I believe piracy is a response to excessive prices in attempt of the market to correct itself), but here's another stupid comment he seems to be listening to...
Er... 20% living on campus isn't a 1:1 correlation
Re:Actually... (Score:5, Funny)
RIAA fudges numbers, exaggerates case, claims huge losses; no plans to reimburse the artists in question. News at 11.
Re: (Score:2)
And why should they? The artists in question sold their souls and their copyrights when they signed on with a record label. Unless they refused to sign over their copyrights, they have no stake in this. Whoever holds the rights now is entitled to any revenue (presumably the various labels), so that's not really the issue.
The problem is the fundamental hypocrisy of the RIAA's stance, which is that they're vigorously defending artist's rights, when in fa
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if the *AA are using "piracy" as an excuse to negotiate lower payments for artists, though. Are they just passing the "loss" on to the artists? That would be a problem for me.
Re: (Score:2)
Also court settlements and stuff like that never gets to the artists.
It again lines their pockets.
Re: (Score:2)
They are, aren't they? Wouldn't you be hurt if your job security was threatened? The more the record industry loses, the less generous they can afford to be in other areas, including artist signings, bonuses, and CD prices. Everyone loses except the pirates (who don't get caught).
BTW, why was my post flamebait anyway? The illusion of empiricism and fairness in the moderation system is becoming simply laughable.
Re: (Score:2)
Gah. It's just yet another remake of a classic. Hollywood only recycles idea these days.
BTW, are the writers still on strike? Would explain it.
Peer Guardian Use Up. (Score:4, Interesting)
I think perhaps they are experiencing a little bit of Heisenberg's at the macrolevel: By observing it, they are changing it. Send enough annoying letters saying X had Y media on X's computer on a P2P site as discovered by this IP address: Z, well, you're going to get programs cropping up to prevent any connections to Z.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Actually... (Score:4, Interesting)
04/12/07 291001 7175 2.50% 2.47
06/14/07 265504 2475 0.93% 0.93
07/14/07 199333 1303 0.65% 0.65
Most colleges, on semesters, empty out in early May (1st or 2nd week). I want to see the data for 5/07 and then every month up through 12/07 when it lets out again.
This blogger might have found the cycle of enrollment flow and nothing more -- as much as I don't like to admit it
Bogus (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a bogus claim anyway, everyone knows college kids (aka Students) are piss poor and couldn't afford to buy the music even if they didn't download it.
Now they're just piss poor and bored.
Re: (Score:2)
Pissed, poor, bored, depressed and worried because they are just wating to be sued for some songs they downloaded in 2000.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Bogus (Score:5, Insightful)
I call bullshit wishful thinking.
I am in college, and I've been to the campuses of MANY others, for one reason or another, and while it's true that you've got some college students eking by on savings and loans, being very judicious in their spending, the vast majority are supported by middle-class parents, and have plenty of disposable income.
No, indeed, while I am no fan of the MAFIAA, there IS a very real problem with our young people and their perceptions on copyright. The general consensus is that if they didn't have to filch if off a store shelf, it's morally a-ok, and this mentality pervades every college campus I've ever been to. I'll leave the psychological analysis of the why to people better qualified than I, but it is undeniable that the average college student thinks nothing wrong with piracy. It's perceived as a victimless crime.
Seriously, if you can spend thousands boozing yourself up each year, you can't make the excuse that you're too poor to buy DVDs.
Re:Bogus (Score:5, Insightful)
Either that, or there is a real problem with our copyright law.
Re: (Score:2)
Either that, or there is a real problem with our copyright law.
Because it's just not possible that both are true.
Seriously, you're right, in that copyright law has become fairly draconian in the U.S. at least, but this is at least partially due to the perception that people view acquiring music (that you used to have to pay for) without paying for it as perfectly ok. Most artists wish to be remunerated for their work, and while the de facto model of distribution maybe isn't completely fair to them, it worked pretty well until the paradigm shift occurred.
Now, I'll
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh come on. You can roll out an online music store that charges a quarter per track with zero DRM, and you still wouldn't make so much as a dent in music piracy. You can also create a fast, instantly-streaming download service for movies at, say, $5 per movie, and you still wouldn't make a dent on BitTorrent traffic. Most people aren't pirating as some form of protest for draconian anti-consumer policies, they pirate because it beats paying money for it.
The vast majority of the world, when it comes to pir
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Most people aren't pirating as some form of protest for draconian anti-consumer policies, they pirate because it beats paying money for it.
You're trying to simplify it into something very narrow. There are more things that influence people's behavior than it simply saving money. Otherwise, these people who don't want to waste money would not be listening to nearly as much music, and certainly wouldn't be running out to buy albums they've never heard from bands they've never heard. I know people who like listening to their music through their high end stereo system, or on their computer while they work, that have wasted $15-20 on a new album o
Re: (Score:2)
Something seems fishy here. A cheap bastard who pays $2,000 for a laptop from one of the limited number of companies that sells it without a Windows license, then pirates Windows because he can't afford it?
No, in this case I'm referring to the guy who paid $2K for his laptop, but a year down the line is impressed by the glitziness of Vista, but instead of paying the $100 or so to buy a copy, just chooses to download it.
I do agree that copyright law as it stands has a lot of problems that require fixing. But I do not agree that copyright as a concept is fundamentally broken. If content can be copied and redistributed at will, there will be little purpose for creators to keep on creating. For music you can
Re: (Score:2)
If I have to pay then I simply wont watch it. Movie quality is absolute shit these days.
If I pirate it then they may get lucky and I will tell others to watch it.
Most movies arent even worth the bandwidth required to pirate them.
If they started making some actually decent original movies then sure I'd pay.
And yes I do buy all the movies I really enjoyed. My DVD collection consists of a whopping 4 DVDs.
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, it's that "when I can get it for free, why bother buying" attitude. We're getting told time and again that we're stupid if we pay too much for the goods we want, because we can SAVE, SAVE, SAVE. It's not what you pay, it's what you pay LESS. And the ultimate saving is to not spend a buck at all.
Then there's the ease of use. It isn't hard to do it. Fire up that P2P program and go ahead.
Then there's the lack of risk. If you get caught, you get caught way after the act.
Re:Bogus (Score:4, Interesting)
Except these people have tens, if not hundreds of movies stored on their hard drives. I know of some outliers who even have thousands. Clearly they consume the media, and the vast majority have paid nothing for it. This isn't the case of the MAFIAA going after people who have no supposed interest in their products, trying to extract money out of them.
Ah, the old "new stuff is crap, I don't pay for crap" excuse, which is valid so long as I can't catch you with the new Britney Spears album on your disk. If you're serious about only buying stuff you like, then only CONSUME stuff you like. Don't justify your piracy of a movie or album because "it's not worth the $X". For movies especially, there are plenty of avenues to avoid paying full-price, including renting the DVD.
Except the vast majority of college students aren't on a moral crusade against labels and studios that rip of the actual creative artists. Most students I've discussed this with don't even bother using it as an excuse, much less actually believing it. Like I said, piracy on campus is treated as a victimless crime, not "sticking it to the Man" of any sort.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahhh yes, the "movies suck, I'm not gonna pay for things that suck" argument. If it sucks so damned much don't watch them. Sheesh, you would think that wouldn't be so difficult.
But of course it is, because movies these days are not that bad, and you're just trying to morally justify your pilfering. God, I hate this sense of entitlement people have, and I'm surrounded by it every day. If you don't want to pay for movies, then don't watch them! If you watch them, pay for them! If you have something against
Re: (Score:2)
What about the excuses
1. that cost of DVD/(enjoyment) is way way higher than the cost of booze/(enjoyment) and
2. DVDs are often crippled with DRM an unplayable to would-be customers
3. industry provides no legal mechanism to obtain such enjoyment without extra time and needless money expenditure on middlemen/their wallets/immoral suing of children
Then boycott their products.
Like I've said, I'm no fan of the RIAA/MPAA, or really just bad business tactics in general. I boycott EA games for my own reasons, etc etc. But boycott doesn't mean pirating their wares, it means not *listening to* or *watching* them.
If you object to the practices of your local hardware store, does that justify you breaking in and stealing their products? Hell no. The right thing to do is clearly to lodge complaints (done and done), and stop shopping there, and spread the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When I was in college plenty students had large CD collections - that was when Napster was just getting on the scene, though. Have you ever been to college?
Anyway, being poor doesn't give a right to pirate/steal.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I know this because I am, in fact, one of these students from a poor background and I know that on multiple occasions I was literally counting the pennies to try and make it through to the next loan instalment. An
Not where I live.... (Score:3, Funny)
Just yesterday someone was talking about how they have 6000 illegal downloads. Someone else said "Only 6000?!"
Not kidding.
Re: (Score:2)
Tongue in Cheek? (Score:3, Interesting)
I only kid. I do however think this is less than noteworthy. I'm pretty sure it's been widely known that the RIAA types have inflated their statistics for some time now, what with their formula of x number of pirated copies = x number of sales lost and then x sales lost * y unreasonable charge == z unrealistic losses.
Gives a new meaning to extortion. (Score:2)
That's the formula they use for PR to make them look sheepish. The formula they use in court is z unrealistic losses + c counts of infringement * s statutory damage = d claimed damage. However, since z / d is very close to 0, you can consider the actua
Re: (Score:2)
In Soviet Russia ... (Score:3, Funny)
What is the next headline? (Score:2)
Hopefully more data can be gathered and published showing not only what the real numbers are, but how the RIAA/MPAA get their numbers. If the EDUs of the world understand that piracy isn't as prevalent as claimed, we can hopefully see fewer DMCA letters and more advances in the fair
Damned if we do, damned if we don't. (Score:5, Informative)
If the numbers didn't go down, the MAFIAA will claim that piracy is rampant, and use that as an excuse to do even more DRM, and get even more laws passed for them.
It's called spin. Let me try some of my own:
If the numbers went down, I claim that this proves that piracy isn't as much of a threat to their profits as they thought, and therefore, DRM should end.
If the numbers didn't go down, I claim that this proves that people are so sick and tired of the MAFIAA's bullshit on their legitimate products that they're willing to turn to piracy.
Here's my trump card, though: If we really can't tell who's right, the default position should be consumer freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's my trump card, though: If we really can't tell who's right, the default position should be consumer freedom.
Have you tried taking back a freedom you gave someone? It's a lot harder than not giving it in the first place. There's a reason pretty much all the consumer rights have come through law - if it was up to the corporations they wouldn't let you do anything except the perscribed use. Anything and everything could be a potential revenue stream, so why give away something for "free" at all? And DRM does a wonderful job of making sure people have to pay for everything they do. There's a reason it's not copyrigh
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Can we just assume that no one wants their shitty products and move on? There are literally only three bands I have bought the CD's for in the past 7 years and one of them is from Europe. As for DVD's except for the LOTR extended box and Disney (I'm an addict I need help) I haven't bought a single new dvd in the same time.
Seriously the only thing I've even thought about pirating recently is porn and a couple computer games cause in Iraq if it isn't digital delivery it's a pa
Re: (Score:2)
I predict that it would take a year or two of piracy falling before the **AA would start backing down. After that, I would expect more and more DRM-free downloads to become available, but I would doubt the DMCA would be redacted. We would certainly see less CBDTPAs [wikipedia.org] being pu
There's still a lot of copyright infringement (Score:5, Insightful)
Even the GPL and all copyleft mechanisms rely on copyright laws. If people want their wishes as content creators to be respected (whether that is to allow some forms of redistribution, like CC-NC, or not, like "All rights reserved"), they need to respect copyright law and not subvert it.
--
Educational microcontroller kits for the digital generation. [nerdkits.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:There's still a lot of copyright infringement (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Second, even with GPLv2 or v3 code on the bread-making machine, the software is not monolithic. You can comply with the terms on the GPL-licensed portions and retain your own proprietary code. How else could non-GPL software ship with a Linux distribution?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You say 'subvert,' I suggest 'revise.' If a large portion of a community disregards the copyright laws as currently written, does that imply that a large portion of a community needs to be punished/made to pay, or that the copyright laws need to be re-written?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:There's still a lot of copyright infringement (Score:5, Insightful)
Every time the law has been used as a club to force the public to accept a minority moral position, it's failed to have the desired effect. Remember learning about the prohibition?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Every time the law has been used as a club to force the public to accept a minority moral position, it's failed to have the desired effect. Remember learning about the prohibition?
Prohibition, otherwise known as the Eighteenth Amendment, required 2/3rds of both houses of Congress, and 3/4ths of the states to pass it(Rhode Island was the only state to reject it). It was hardly the minority moral position. That said, it was subverted by the minority position, but not before we got the wonderfully powerful FBI to fight them. It was ultimately repealed with the Twenty First Amendment after twenty some years as citizens grew tired of the racketeering and other problems it was causing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. One would hope though that the smarter people would make compelling arguments, and the even smarter people tear those arguments to shreds, and the smarter still people... etc, etc. That's the way the fairytale works. Unfortunately, it's relatively easy to make beneficial laws that infringe on perceived rights look bad in an age of sound bites and slogans. How are you meant to explain the subtle bri
Re:There's still a lot of copyright infringement (Score:4, Insightful)
But what you're missing here is that society itself defines right and wrong. We think slavery is wrong today, but when it was popular, it wasn't considered wrong. When public opinion changed hard enough, for long enough, slavery ended. (Granted, a little less elegantly than we would have liked.)
You can't judge a past society by our own morals. What are we supposed to do, live our lives based on what people 200 years from now will think? What if we guess wrong?
I don't know why you brought the holocaust into this discussion. That program was a secret project concocted by an insane, totalitarian government. It was not a popular movement.
Also, copyright is not property [gnu.org]. At best, it's a pragmatic bargain between artists and the public, and it terms are no more fixed, and no more sacred, than the income tax rate.
If the terms of this contract really did constitute a "fundamental" right, what would give Disney, err, Congress the authority to extend copyright by 20 years, every 20 years?
Point is, like you like it or not, we live a representative democracy. And public opinion is rapidly shifting in favor of weakening copyright. If those in power continue to ignore that shift, they will not long remain in power.
Re:There's still a lot of copyright infringement (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:There's still a lot of copyright infringement (Score:5, Interesting)
Lawmakers often write lofty goals such as "to promote the progress of science and useful arts", but merely writing this doesn't make it so.
For example, if somebody wrote that we must subsidise deep underground gold mining operations "to promote the progress of technology to fly to mars", it would be obvious that they are full of shit.
The fact is that "promoting the progress of science and useful arts" is not verifiably helped by copyright law, there's no evidence: nada. zip. zilch.
Instead, copyright is simply one of the arbitrary economic rules we live under and that we inherited from our ancestors. Some people like it, because they have lucrative property contracts based upon it. Other people don't like it, as they don't have lucrative contracts.
What's changed in the 21st century is that those who don't like it are finding it easier to simply ignore copyright, and those who like it are whining about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if it was a good idea in the "first place", that dosn't mean that it is a good idea now. There are plenty of things which were good ideas 2-300 years ago, which would be considered otherwise now.
The fact is that "promoting the progress of science and useful arts" is not verifiably helped by copyright law, there's no evidence: nada. zip. zilch.
Thus the question needs to be asked "
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright finally allowed to create art that the "common man" enjoys without going piss poor in the process. Before copyright came into existance, you had to have one filthy rich p
Re: (Score:2)
Or it could mean that a noble patron has been replaced by a publishing corporation.
Copyright finally allowed to create art that the "common man" enjoys without going piss poor
Err, what are you complaining about again? (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, some of us understand just fine. It's the part where people don't agree with how the law is written or enforced that get you into problem territory.
In fact, some will even try to explain that physical property is the only kind that should have value. It's totally mind-boggling, even when these students are the ones who will be going out and making the next generation of intellectual works.
No, they usually say that IP isn't really property because it's not truly rivalrous. Sure, the law creates rights that are in rivalrous in an artificial way, but you can have two people listen to the same tune whereas two people can't eat the same grape. You may have heard people refer to IP as "imaginary property" recently. It's not because they don't know what IP is supposed to stand for, but because they don't agree with it.
It's totally mind-boggling, even when these students are the ones who will be going out and making the next generation of intellectual works.
Mind-boggling? That sounds more like a statement of ignorance to me. I don't have any trouble understanding why they'd think that, nor do I have trouble understanding those with views like yours. When I hear that something is "mind-boggling" I usually find out that people are trying to ascribe intelligence to something (or someone) that lacks it, or that they haven't thought something through. In this case, it would appear to be the latter.
Even the GPL and all copyleft mechanisms rely on copyright laws. If people want their wishes as content creators to be respected (whether that is to allow some forms of redistribution, like CC-NC, or not, like "All rights reserved"), they need to respect copyright law and not subvert it.
The GPL IS a subversion of copyright law after a fashion. RMS wrote against that notion that we need copyright because it's used to enforce the GPL quite specifically in one of his essays [gnu.org] (yes, you can't enforce the GPL without copyright law, but you don't really need it, either). You might want to talk to the man who wrote it before you make claims like that. I did. [1]
Anyhow, to get back on topic, I don't see how you can say that not supporting copyright law makes them an infringer. I also don't think that that essay you linked to was written out of ignorance. It's written because people are fed up with this crap.
Perhaps you haven't yet realized this, but the more laws we make, the more criminals there are. Obviously, the more we criminalize the things people are already doing, the more people who are going to break them. And you can't have fewer than zero people breaking a law, so adding to the laws will certainly never create fewer criminals. The point isn't the ridiculous notion that we could just abolish all laws and have "zero" criminals. Some things, after all, are worth the cost of criminalizing them. But it's a mistake to think that laws are without cost. And here, a reasonable person can make the case that we're simply better off if we don't criminalize something, whether or not we like or agree with it.
Of course, you seem to find that "mind-boggling"
[1] To prove it, I'll point out that I also read the confusing words manifesto. Whereas RMS would like us all to stop using the word, I have chosen to subvert it with the term "Imaginary Property" not unlike how RMS chose to subvert copyright with the GPL rather than hoping to abolish it. RMS disagrees with me about that term, BTW, in that it still lumps together at least three disparate areas of law, but you'd have a hard time finding someone with whom he agrees about everything
Re: (Score:2)
Actually you could easily argue that it is a "back to basics" revision.
Perhaps you haven't yet realized this, but the more laws we make, the more criminals there are. Obviously, the more we criminalize the things people are already doing, the more people who are going to break them. And you can't have fewer than zero people breaking a law, so adding to the laws will certainly never create fewer criminals. The point isn't the ridiculous notion that
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're thinking too narrowly. You see us as working against our own best interests, undermining the very thing, copyright, that will empower us to make a living. But copyright is only a means, and a poor one at that. We need a better means. We aren't going to get a better means as long as we keep fighting over the impossible task of how to enforce copyright rather than hash out and try other ways. Another way, much older than copyright, and with plenty of its own problems, is patronage. Mozart didn't
Re: (Score:2)
Now, while this might mean the end of rap music and "gangsta rap" especially, it also has its downsides. Whether it's worse than getting the "mainstream crap" we have today as music is debatable, but you can rest assured that the charts would be filled with praise songs about government and Bill Gates.
Re: (Score:2)
It's pretty simple really.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What would happen to OSS without copyright? Well, the biggest threat, i.e. someone taking GPL'ed code and claim it as his own, to be used by him and only him, cannot happen, due to a lack of copyright. The other problem, that someone takes OSS code, uses it and doesn't rerelease the source, is minimal compared to that. So it's not open. If it's good enough, either someone will create an OSS clone or simply reverse the CSS
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, try this on for size:
I spend a year (or more) writing a novel. My income depends on the advance my publisher gives me (if I am lucky), as well as royalties from additional sales. The novel is published and put in the book stores, priced at $25.
You come along and copy it, then sell it in the same book stores for $20.
I now have to pay my publisher back the advance due to lack of
Copyright is good...if you're the the publisher. (Score:2, Insightful)
Your publisher really wants you to think copyright is the only thing protecting you from starvation. The truth is that artists and authors made decent livings long before copyright laws came into being. Furthermore, the artists and authors who work outside the copyright model today can
Re: (Score:2)
Now, is copyright good or bad?
It's bad because somebody comes along and makes a mashup of your work and others that pokes fun at you and others like you. The mashup is funny and is seen by millions and enriches all their lives leading to a vast net benefit because such things are non-rivalrous.
See? I can make arbitrary assertions too.
Please, stop implying benefit to the author is benefit to the general population. They are not the same, no matter how often entrenched interests whine and try to disse
Re: (Score:2)
So you pretty much have to make a deal with the publisher. The only deal the publisher will make with you is that you MUST transfer your copyright to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Both you and your publisher are taking a gamble on how many people want to buy/read your book in the first place.
The novel is published and put in the book stores, priced at $25. You come along and copy it, then sell it in the same book stores for $20.
Maybe your publisher overpriced the book in the first place.
maybe there are other explanations (Score:5, Insightful)
- students have found ways to not be discovered
- the students have got all the stuff they want
- there's nothing much worth downloading at present
- (my favourite) The RIAA are getting tired of the "war" so they're engineering a victory. Look! our stats say we've won - we can stop now.
- possibly the stats are over the summer, when the colleges were empty
Just like house prices, you can't draw any real conclusions from a single data point. Give it a year and see if there's still a downward trend or if this was just a blipRe:maybe there are other explanations (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd bet that the vast majority of college students who don't live in dorms still have broadband internet access via Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon, AT&T, local ISPs, whoever. I certainly did when I lived off-campus during college.
[1] http://www.alternet.org/rights/70021/ [alternet.org] - tracing this quote back a couple of articles: "since less than 20 percent of college students live
Re: (Score:2)
students have found ways to not be discovered
I would argue that this is the largest reason.
On my campus, p2p traffic is traffic shaped for residence subnets, and everyone that cares at all about filesharing is on the campus DC++ node (or the super, 100GB+ shared node). Why use p2p when you can grab things at full 100mbit speeds locally? Plus, the people that have cable internet in their rooms are pulling all the latest TV episodes in for you, doing the work of hunting for good files for you.
This campus hub has only been around for about 3 years, and
I wonder. (Score:5, Insightful)
I know that's what I use it for (no, I'm not kidding).
Re: (Score:2)
That happened to me... (Score:2)
Of course, I wasn't downloading Linux ISOs with that.
I am shocked (Score:3, Funny)
I gotta go shower now, for some reason I feel so dirty....
out of touch (Score:2)
someone wake me from this dream.
Business plan (Score:4, Insightful)
As a University Student... (Score:2, Insightful)
Gnutella market became huge when I was in highschool.. which was Napster... that is when most students learned and starting using this tool. It has really been the last few years that most people I know are using other means of downloading besides Gnutella network; but still a majority do that are not computer literate. I have taught several pe
fail (Score:2)
The only real way to combat this generation of downloading is to partner with the ISP's because only they can really throttle the connections and stop this.
which would be isps that noone would ever choose.
i personally wouldnt choose no college that would be 'throttling' my activity on the net for whatever reason, and as an adult i would definitely not choose any failed isp that tries to 'throttle' its users for whatever reason.
its free market against mercantilism my friends. spanish have tried it in 16th century, as well as all other nations, it failed. putting a stranglehold on market by forceful or legal means and then selling overpriced goods never s
Re: (Score:2)
This gives
zOMG - Student numbers drop in summer (Score:3, Insightful)
Huh? (Score:2)
While I suspect that his suspicions are correct, pretty much anybody could say the same thing and post it to their weblog. Why is it notable in this context? Could someone tell me how the last five minutes o
the answer is: hard drives and ipods (Score:4, Interesting)
Silly MAFIAA - trix are for kids!
And the kidz will always be three steps ahead of you. Face it. Your business model is done. Go figure out some other way to make a living.
RS
Re: (Score:2)
"Not for file sharing?" (Score:2)