"... when transporting and copying information has a cost approaching 0." The cost is relatively approaching 0. The true cost of copying and transporting infor

"... when transporting and copying information has a cost approaching 0." The cost is relatively approaching 0. The true cost of copying and transporting information is phenomenal, I mean I want to copy a VHS it used to cost me $400 max if I bought everything new! If I do similar for a DVD it's running me at least past $1000. However that's the actual cost, the relative cost is in fact near zero. We all have computers/laptops now because we need them, which means the extra cost to rip a DVD now is all of about $2.99 for the rental fee from Blockbuster with an additional like $0.50 to burn copies for people. It's also the value of the object you're ripping. It'd still be considered cost-effective if you bought a $1000 computer to use once to rip the full Adobe suite rather than actually buy the Adobe suite! The FT shouldn't be suing a single user, it's absurd and will cost them money. They should be using a business model that forces institutions to pay. Adobe doesn't expect me to pay $2000 for CS3, they do however expect a design firm to pay probably a hell of a lot more than $2000 to kit out all of their computers.