Invisible wrote:
> "They have priced themselves as cheaply as possible on the assumption
> that people were just going to use e-mail and do a bit of web surfing.
> ISPs needed to stop using the term 'unlimited' to describe their
> services and make it clear that if people wanted to watch hours of
> downloaded video content they would have to pay a higher tariff."

	All the ISP's I've signed up for had explicitly stated the limitations
of their service.


-- 
"I owe, I owe, so it's off to work I go!" - Bumper Sticker


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> In other words, if you're 
> buying blank CDs and putting them in a music CD recorder, it *must* be 
> because you're trying to illegally copy music. Not because, say, you 
> happen to be a musician and you want to record your performances. :-P

  You just more or less described the situation in Finland.

  Finland doesn't have only one, but *two* versions of "RIAA", independent
of each other, each one extorting money from the same things several times.

  "Fortunately" only one of them is allowed to extort money from recordable
media, including casettes and CD-R's.

  (And these two organizations are not the only ones who will screw you
for even the slightest copyright infringement here. They just are the two
which are allowed by the government to extort money from people. However,
if you ever get sued for copyright infringement, you might end up having
to defend yourself against three or four different organizations. Besides
the original author, of course, assuming the author still has any rights
to his own works, which usually is not the case.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:

> 	They're not punishing anybody. They couldn't care less who is breaking
> the law. They want to keep their costs down, and Bittorrent (legal or
> otherwise) will put a strain on their infrastructure. However, it's
> convenient for them to frame it in a legal sense, so that people don't
> argue.

That would seem the case, yes. Much easier to say "only criminals use 
this" than to admit that they don't like losing their cushy profit margin.

I love how some of the articles I've read make it sound like 
"downloading" is illegal. Um, and the service that ISPs exist to provide 
is...? ...the ability to download stuff. :-P

Post a reply to this message

You know, this problem actually goes away with metered internet usage.

When you're paying by the GB instead of a monthly flat rate, suddenly 
the ISPs have every incentive in the world to give you as much bandwidth 
as possible (and then to get you to use it!).

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> You know, this problem actually goes away with metered internet usage.
> 
> When you're paying by the GB instead of a monthly flat rate, suddenly 
> the ISPs have every incentive in the world to give you as much bandwidth 
> as possible (and then to get you to use it!).

Hmm. It has a flavour...

Post a reply to this message