"They knew it was silly to think that they could monetize that stream."
And yet, recently they've started making money from the likes of Pandora or iTunes. If they'd would have thought "hey, what can we do to have the internet work for our industry" instead of "how can we shut this thing down", they would have been in a much better spot right now.
There was a giant distribution forming and they chose to let it ride on plan A.
Yeah. 1.8M seems a bit high to me too. If a scanner can do two scans a minute and do so constantly for say... 12 hours a day, rounding down, that's 1400 scans/machine/day. That means that it would take 1285 machines operating constantly all day. Is that in the ballpark?
"But if people can get the same thing for free, they of course take that route."
Your logic is flawed here. Anyone can get any movie for free, but millions of people subscribe to Netflix anyway. Anyone can get any song for free, but millions of people subscribe to Pandora anyway. There are thousands of games that anyone could steal for free but Portal 2 has sold something like 4 million copies. I think it's pretty clear that your statement is just wrong.
There is enough free stuff (legal and otherwise) on the internet to keep people busy for lifetimes, and yet people still happily pay for stuff all the time.
Give someone a compelling reason to pull out their wallet and they will. Complaining that people will always steal if given the chance isn't productive (and it's clearly wrong).
This is the second article in a row where commenters compared current US policy with Soviet downfall. I just read (on slashdot) that NASA is effectively banned from collaborating with China - which a couple of people compared to USSR practices.
Of course I doubt that anyone (domestic) is intentionally working towards the downfall of the USA... it just struck me as interesting.
I did just that in 2007 with two hosting services*. I set up password protected account that I could stream from when/wherever I wanted. The hosting services both deleted all my files because they couldn't be sure that I was the only one using it.
*Hostmonster and another that I don't recall the name of.
Re: Re: Re: Never pay a man to do the job of an inatimate object...
The objective isn't to kill everyone on a plane. The objective is to terrorize. Why spend so much effort getting explosives, weapons, and people on a plane when you could just set off a bomb in the security lines of the US's ten biggest airports?
The idea is to go for high yield with the greatest possibility of success. Even though TSA is a bunch of bumbling idiots they are still a risk; why take a risk when there are equally sexy targets with much less risk?
Added bonus: attacking security gives potential for the attackers to escape.
Never pay a man to do the job of an inatimate object...
Whenever my dad drives past someone holding a sign on a street corner he always quips: "I wonder if his boss realizes that guy could be replaced by a stick and a staple gun".
Whenever I go through TSA I am infuriated that we didn't just lock the cockpit door and call it good.
We are paying vast hordes of idiots to do a job that has already been accomplished by inanimate objects (cockpit doors). Who's dumber... the TSA employees that let weapons flow onto planes or us taxpayers who are paying them for the non-service?