If sites like iTunes, amazon etc actually charged a fair price for their content, P2P would suffer anyway.
How can Apple jusify £10 for an album that only exists in the virtual world - when I can get the actual physical CD from HMV for the same price.
Apples margin on this must be massive.
The music and film industry messed this up years ago and a re now throwing hissy fits and seeking court orders to cover up there greed an mistakes.
I'm not sad to hear this news. P2P is the root of about 80 percent of the problems I am asked to repair. I'm sure I'll still get business, though. People always find new and creative ways to foul up their PCs. I'll tell those certain clients that when they use P2P, they're opening up their computer to the world and saying, "Come on in and look around! Take whatever you'd like. Leave me an 'upper decker' if you want."
I just don't see a need for P2P these days. There are many options for free on-line storage that renders P2P obsolete. Skydrive, for example, can host files for sharing. As long as your not doing any illegal sharing, that is.
Slightly off topic but I've always thought it's a bit strange that the "Entertainment Industry" (movies and music) has the clout to get whole governments to act on it's behalf.
What's that about?
It's hardly a crucial industry in any terms.
Yet if someone steals James Dyson's idea for a vacuum cleaner;he has to take the other party to court himself and fund the case himself.
Similarly, if one pharmaceutical company copies another's drug the two companies settle the matter in court. At their own expense.
Instead we get pressure bought to bear on country's like Sweden to shut down The Pirate Bay by legislation.
In the UK there is legislation on it's way to oblige ISPs to somehow stop bittorrent piracy. If they don't they will be fined etc.
Arcane terms like "Deep Packet Inspection" are muttered.
Apart from the fact that it's a bit like making a travel company responsible for drug smuggling by it's passengers, I don't see why tax payers should fund the protection of such an economically, strategically and socially, insignificant industry.
Let show biz pay it's own court costs.
That is old and crappy p2p anyway.Its pretty funny it took them this long. This is not a big blow to piracy, trust me on this. This should have been shut down years ago.
Except even at that it could be argued that piracy only hurts multi-million or billion £/$ companies and artists. Where as a site to promote paedophilia is just straight up sickening and wrong. I'm not saying that piracy is right, but I don't think many people would complain if paedophilia promoting sites are targeted more aggressively than file sharing ones. Point being, whilst still "wrong" in a sense the people affacted by file sharing can probably afford to take the hit. A child being abused cannot.Using your logic, the same could be said of any nefarious site ... lets say one that promote pedophilia, the list, using your logic, would be endless... While there are perfectly legitimate files that are available via torrents, 99% of them are files that are pirated, plain and simple.. To think otherwise, IMO, is ludicrous ...
Maybe I didn't put it clearly when I said...
I can undertsand people being upset and activly seeking the closure of a paedophilia site because of what it is and that makes sense. But what I can't understand is anybody crying over the millions of £/$ that multi-millionaire artists are loosing out on. So it's not really the same thing.
