Downloading content illegally vs. getting away with it

By | August 3, 2009, 3:49am PDT

Summary: I have mentioned a few times before my somewhat controversial view on Internet piracy - the end-user downloading (and uploading, to some extent) of mostly videos, music files, software - and the issues which surround it. As this generation of students are the forerunners of the technological age, born into an era where technology has [...]

I have mentioned a few times before my somewhat controversial view on Internet piracy - the end-user downloading (and uploading, to some extent) of mostly videos, music files, software - and the issues which surround it. As this generation of students are the forerunners of the technological age, born into an era where technology has surrounded our upbringings and shapes our future, when the two collide, it makes for interesting news.

To read up on my previously mentioned controversial views of this topic, you can find more here:

Some time ago, my editor-in-chief, Larry Dignan, sent me a personal email after I asked how I was doing. As a student employee, it’s important to receive feedback from your superiors to receive praise but also ways of improvement. He said:

“…broadly speaking you represent the next generation of IT workers” and “what do the older generation need to know about your generation?”

Well this is for you, slightly-older generation. Piracy and downloading videos, music files and software without paying for it is illegal; there is no doubt about that. But it is a way of life, and it’s not going to stop us doing it. Yes, you can throw ridiculous and disproportionate fines at students especially, thinking you’re terrifying the bejesus out of the rest of us, but it doesn’t. And frankly, it just makes you [the RIAA in this, and many of the cases] look powerful yet oxymoronically impotent.

Is it the cost of media?

Chris Dawson, counterpart in education/student blogging and good friend, makes a good point:

“Our students largely understand Internet safety. If creepy guys try to convince you to meet them in person after chatting you up on MySpace, don’t do it. Fine. But what nobody seems to understand is that just because a torrent for your favorite band’s latest album is available doesn’t mean you should download it and seed it.”

But generally what he says, that “kids should knock it off“, I can’t believe in. I can agree with him on a legal front because to reiterate, it is illegal, but in a strange way it is now part of our culture. It’s not as if we are loaded or have plenty of money to splash out on a £29 ($48.50) Blu-ray disk for a one-time bout of entertainment. When I saw The Simpsons: Movie at this price in my local HMV, I didn’t stop ranting about it for ten minutes. The price doesn’t outweigh the high-definition goodness. I could download a reasonably small 250mb version of the movie and stick it on my iPod to watch on the morning commute, and still be happy with it.

An interesting twist; the video below is available on BBC iPlayer, the BBC’s free on-demand service to UK citizens, but was also separated into four WinRAR files and uploaded to RapidShare. Because iPlayer content is protected, I opted for the RapidShare approach.

Even though the RIAA have taken a chunk out of RapidShare in a lawsuit two years ago and now proactively removes flagged content as copyrighted, if you search hard enough for something, you can still find it. Not to mention, it downloads over HTTP which runs at your maximum bandwidth, as opposed to torrents which can be flaky at best.

Confusing but equally valid case study

Consider this interesting thought. I pay my TV licence which allows me to watch any terrestrial or digital broadcast on my television in my home. This TV licence is a tax on television, basically. This funds the BBC and in return, the taxpayer owns it (like most of the banks nowadays). BBC iPlayer lets us download television programmes onto our computer after the broadcast it should we miss it or wish to watch it again.

My friend also has a TV licence but has a slow Internet connection. So, I download a programme from BBC iPlayer, stick it on a flash drive, go over to their house, have a cup of tea and transfer the programme from the flash drive to their computer. It would take them days to download it with their connection, so I thought I would help them out.

The twist here is that you don’t actually need a TV licence to download a programme from BBC iPlayer. But in essence, we still helped pay for the broadcast and the general running of the corporation. But I just shared a copyrighted television programme with a friend. Is that illegal? Honestly, I don’t know - but if it is, that can only be described as utterly mental.

But then again, not only does the BBC endorse file sharing with BBC iPlayer, it actively uses peer-to-peer technology to reduce the loads on its servers.

The viable alternatives and solutions

Currently there are two main players when it comes to music and video downloads. Software and games are in a league of their own, especially after digital rights management software has caused more problems with the gaming industry.

iTunes lets you download exactly what you want at a fraction of the cost of an album in the shops, which has a bunch of songs on you really can’t stand. Instead of spending £8.99 ($15.15) on an album, you could spend roughly £2 picking out two songs you actually like from the album. This literally is the best example I can give for value of money.

But then we have Spotify. Not only did Neowin provide an in-depth review of Spotify, it defines it as an “iTunes killer”, which so far, it seems to be slowly chipping away at the service. It looks and feels like iTunes, works on both Mac OS X and Windows, but provides the content for free.

But when researching how Spotify make their money without getting the virtual crap beaten out of them by the RIAA and other corporations, it didn’t seem to make much sense, nor could I find myself disagreeing with this reply.

To throw all of this into summation, downloading something which you haven’t paid for is illegal. The laws are still unclear and frankly, especially with the Gary McKinnon case, I personally thought if anything went hideously wrong, at least I would be able to face sweet, sweet British justice. But avoiding using torrents is one way to avoid legal battles for the time being, and while it’s not entirely free, RapidShare and other HTTP hosting services offer a relatively cheap deal for what you can get.

But if you can find services which offer a subscription service, similar to the HTTP hosting services - RapidShare, MediaFire, etc. - then go for it. Because iTunes is clearly too expensive and at least this way you fight a good chance of saving your pennies in the long run.

Will this make the slightest bit of difference to you? Are you going to continue downloading illegally just because you can? It’d be interesting to see what you think.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Zack Whittaker, a criminologist who studied at the University of Kent, Canterbury, is a journalist, writer and broadcaster.

Disclosure

Zack Whittaker

I worked briefly with Microsoft UK in 2006 but no longer have any connection with the company. Regardless, I remain impartial and unbiased in my views.

I don't hold any stock or shares, investments or industrial secrets in any company, but have signed confidentiality agreements with a number of UK and U.S. organisations, whose names I am not at liberty to disclose.

I was involved with Kent Union, the University of Kent's student union, undertaking voluntary, non-salaried, elected positions between early 2009 and mid-2010.

No other company, body, government department, non-governmental organisation or third sector organisation employs me or pays me a salary in any capacity whatsoever.

As a freelance journalist, whenever expenses are given and taken by a company that is not CBS Interactive, these will be disclosed in each relevant post to ensure transparency.

I currently work with a UK law enforcement unit, but this is an entirely separate position which bears no connection to other work.

(Updated: 23rd October 2011)

Biography

Zack Whittaker

Zack Whittaker, criminologist who studied at the University of Kent, UK, is a journalist, writer and broadcaster.

After studying criminology at university, though still in his early-20's, he has already had a series unconventional work and voluntary positions. He has worked with researchers studying neurological illnesses like Tourette's syndrome (which he suffers from), has given lectures on the nature of disabilities in the public community, and occasionally ends up speaking on television and radio discussing the events of the day.

He first had academic work published at the age of 22, then still an undergraduate, and has been cited by a wide range of publications: from the Huffington Post, Business Insider, AllThingsDigital, The Atlantic Wire and CBS News.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
25
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Downloading content illegally vs. getting away with it
SlaveSynthesis 15th Sep 2010
I was reading through comments and waiting to make a few points, but it looks like at long last, Chrispytwist has made them for me.

I may not be a professional, but I am a musician myself. I have performed, and I have written electronic compositions. I have friends who are musicians. We are in our twenties. We generally agree that the actions of the RIAA and MPAA are indefensible and not in the interest of the consumer or artist. We applaud the men behind The Pirate Bay for not being afraid to make a high profile stand.

As chrispytwist has explained, the internet has been indispensable, and has allowed for consumers to take back their power as "dictator of value". I want to point out that it is usually NOT the artists who are crying and whining about pirating on the internet. They are often taken advantage of by the record labels, and often have no sympathy for this dying business model.

The internet hasn't only given power back to the consumer, but it's going back to the artists. Artists don't desperately need record labels just to be heard anymore. Independent record labels now have the internet as a resource to help them compete with the corporate behemoths. This is now a world where I discovered practically all of my favorite artists in the past half decade via the internet and word of mouth. I dropped out of BMG Music at about that time, because I couldn't find enough music I would actually want to BUY in their major label lists. You better believe I'm willing to pay for music. I have, and I do, but I'm careful to try to support only the business model that benefits me.

You crotchety whiners up there talking about how "kids" don't appreciate things don't really understand what's going on here, and I consider your opinions to be very foolish. I've spent nearly $400 on music in the past year, and some of that would have never been spent if I didn't get a few copies of records from friends, or acquire an album or two at no cost. My generation doesn't want work for free, you jerks. We just spend our money differently than you do. Wake up.

The RIAA can keep fighting this, but they aren't going to win.
Their world is focussed on their own wants and desires, rather those those with whom they do not share much thinking-wise.

It is only after having to appreciate the value of their own efforts that values change and respect for what others spend of their time and money grows. In other words, they grow out of it.

Unfortunately, the major media producers, especially music, have abused their artists and so their 'anguish' about lost artist income seems like 'crocodile tears'. With their guilt, they seem to be reticent to explain the full accounting that goes on behind the few hits and the great, great many losses. Read 'Confessions of a Record Producer' by Moses Avalon for a much better insight into the music business mechanations.

The fact is, to make our CD on our own, it took us 100s of hours and $1000s of dollars, and we did not have the $50k budget to market it, so we still have most of the first batch left, despite getting a few sold into the biggest music/viseo retailer in Australia.
On CD Baby, we are just one of too many. We cannot do live gigs, so are limited in the evenues for promotion. Therefore, talk of 'music should be free' rings rather hollow and sounds more like lack of respect and laziness of thought.

If a student can make rough music and be happy with it, the added costs of making music for wider circulation do not gel with them.

Different realities mean that students are in their own world, and will not change until they have to make it in the wider world. Therefore, there will always be a subclass that wants free. The problem occurs when such thinking endures beyond the enclaves of learning and clouds the reasoning towards others. Then selfishness rules and others suffer.

0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
We do...
zwhittaker 3rd Aug 2009
But it costs too much, and if you can download it and get away with it - why not?
0 Votes
+ -
... with it - why not? If you can kill someone and get away with it - why not?

If getting away with it is the only justification you need to break the law then the world is in deep trouble.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
I see your point, and raise it...
zwhittaker 3rd Aug 2009
Ultimately, when a crime is committed - someone, somewhere, gets hurt, either physically or emotionally. Same with illegal downloads - yes, some people get hurt like the recording artist. But they've got merchandise, advert deals, sponsorships, all kinds of things keeping them afloat. They are literally raking it in, which is one of the reasons why music is cheaper than it has ever been. But it's not cheap enough.
0 Votes
+ -
Zack, Zack, Zack
oncall Updated - 3rd Aug 2009
I'm shaking my head here. You started out good there then just fell to pieces at the end. Because "they are raking it in" is not a justification that works, it's what most folks (like parents) would call a "lame excuse" for doing something you know you shouldn't. These excuses, they sound like something a kid would say to his/her parents when they found an "unexplained" (read shoplifted) toy in the house.

P.S. and yes this happened to my brother and my parents taught him a lifelong lesson by taking him back to the toy store and explain to the manager, and police, what he had done.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Ahh, see I knew I lost it
zwhittaker 3rd Aug 2009
Then again, I wrote what I wrote and have made my thoughts and opinions clear. I'm not saying one is right and one is wrong - I have clearly said that it's illegal - but I'm merely reflecting the views of our generation happy

In regards to your brother - yeah, I understand that. I've never shoplifted, but had I done, my parents would have done the same thing. My sister on the other hand... woah don't get me started on that screwup!
0 Votes
+ -
I know
oncall Updated - 3rd Aug 2009
I do understand that. I just worry quite a bit, in a society that manufactures very little these days, services and intellectual property are almost all we have left. This really concerns "your" generation, the one that wants careers in the computing industry. If the members of our own society cannot bring themselves to respect IP then how can we expect the rest of the world to. Like I said below, it's going to come back to bite us in the rear.
0 Votes
+ -
I guess for the same reason that someone else will have
GuidingLight Updated - 3rd Aug 2009
when breaking into your house and robbing you blind - Why not?

Laptops cost too much, so if I can acquire yours for free, my actions are one hundred percent justifiable, as my needs definitely outweigh yours.

And no, you do not appreciate the effort going into music anymore then the person who steals your laptops appreciates the effort you put into purchasing it.
0 Votes
+ -
What should media cost?
Rob Oakes 3rd Aug 2009
Hi Zack,

A very interesting article, not to mention response. I'm curious,
though, what is an appropriate price for media? As you might guess,
free is not a good answer.

Content (particularly good content) costs a tremendous amount of
money to make and someone has to pay for it. While we may loathe
the record companies, their original business model is not a bad one.
They create a packaged recording of music and then sell it to
consumers directly.

When you say that package is too expensive, what is a more
reasonable price? And how should artists/distributors be
compensated? Because even though the record industry will fail, there
will always be distributors. The next generation of such will probably
be iTunes, Amazon, and CD baby.

In the larger picture, how do content producers deal with the internet?
One of its byproducts is that the value of content has plummeted to
near zero. Consider how the internet has devalued the IP of
newspapers, for example. It has literally gutted a multi-multi billion
dollar industry overnight.

What comes next? Because these problems will only get worse.

Cheers,

Rob Oakes
0 Votes
+ -
Well yeah...
oncall 3rd Aug 2009
If your argument that paying for music/movies etc. is "too expensive" compared to your alternate plan of downloading illegal copies for free then really any expense will seem excessive. I guess here in the US $.99 for music is downright highway robbery compared to free. You can't beat free if all you have to do is "bend the rules a little".

Then again some folks claim the moral high ground around here "RIAA is evil therefore my actions are justified" etc. How altruistic of them, fighting the good fight against "the man" because it sounds good and justifies, in their minds, what they already decided to do, or have been doing for years and now, grown up a little, they need to find justification. Reading posts from other articles I am pretty sure the core justification for downloading illegal content is "Why not because I can get away with it" or for those blissfully unaware of the law "Because I can".
0 Votes
+ -
The Oldest arguement.
rnlightle 13th Nov 2009
Time and time again I see posts like this one. It seems everyone sees this arguement in black or white. The real problem starts with social inequallity. for everyone who was able to get their BS or higher degree and get into the respectable paying areana that provides a respectable amount of pay, good for you. But what of the rest of us. How does one see a new movie when like a majority of people we are struggling to pay rent? I am not advocating piracy, but if you are hungry and broke what are your options? Starve, not likely. So how do we equalize the playing field. Employeers will not/can not pay there workers more, and the industries (music, movie etc..) will not/can not lower their prices, what are the rest of us left with? Something has to break between the haves and have nots before a problem like this will go away.
Does anyone actually proof-read your work? I hope ZDNet is not paying you because it's painful trying to follow you.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
It is
zwhittaker 3rd Aug 2009
..proof read. Every article, without fail. (It's so I don't secretly put surreptitious messages in there to the occult, or communicate with the FSB).
Their is no justification for it. I keep seeing how just because something can be stolen then it means the providers need to change their model so they make money other ways. While they do need to do this it not a justification for being a thief. I always hope that somewhere down the line it affects you. Maybe you write a piece of software or become an artist hoping to make money and people only steal it leaving you broke. Students need to grow up and fast.
0 Votes
+ -
Oh they will understand it
oncall 3rd Aug 2009
When these "next generation" folks who want jobs in the computer industry go out into the real world and find jobs lacking because no one wanted to pay for something that could be pirated for free.
0 Votes
+ -
IF
oncall 3rd Aug 2009
Your goal is to make a "political" statement against a true injustice and not to justify your continued access to free music. I just don't buy the "civil disobedience" excuse, that may work for a few. IMHO I suspect most down-loaders are doing it because they just don't feel like paying for it.
0 Votes
+ -
blank
Bodazapha Updated - 4th Aug 2009
blank
0 Votes
+ -
Neither did those who fought FOR prohibition, Against abortion, and Against civil rights....



0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Not sure really... maybe proportionally. Have you ever been on a night out where the more drinks (of a certain drink) you buy, the cheaper it gets? It's essentially stock-market drinking. You buy a Smirnoff Ice at $4.20. Because you bought one, it goes down $0.20. The more you buy, the cheaper it gets. That happens now to some extent but it happens over the course of years - and as soon as Jackson kicked the bucket, his albums, singles and whatnot shot back up tenfold. If it's done by electronic means - the more people who buy it, the cheaper it gets. Overall, it's not fair on the people who first bought it - those spending more from the word go - but that's the price you pay for getting it straight away.

Perhaps it wouldn't work - knowing me, it wouldn't - but that's all I can come up with on short notice.
0 Votes
+ -
Perspective and oversimplification
Economister Updated - 3rd Aug 2009
When only natives lived in North America, its inhabitants did not own the land. They may have just used it for a while and moved on. When the Europeans arrived, they granted ownership rights for land and other physical property.

A long time ago, intellectual "property" could not be owned. Ownership rights were gradually conferred by society. In the beginning, the ownership periods were quite limited, but have been extended repeatedly.

In the past, certain activities between consenting adults in the bedroom were illegal, and some still are in certain jurisdictions I belive.

In the past, individuals could be owned by other individuals legally (slavery) and people of color did not have the right to use "whites only" facilities, sanctioned by law.

The point of all this is to counter the mindless banter about "stealing" and "illegal", without much understanding or perspective. I understand perfectly well that if you break existing laws, you may get punished. That does NOT however mean that the law you broke is just or fair, or that it is to the benefit of society. If a certain property right was for 20 years, and after 20 years plus one day, you make a copy, you are acting legally. If on the next day, Congress extends the property right another 20 years retroactively, it would then be illegal to copy that same material.

As a (supposedly) democratic society, the US makes and changes laws all the time. That is the role of Congress. If laws no longer serve their purpose, they should be changed/repealed. That is in my view what this is all about: How to find new and fair ways to compensate the creators of intellectual (or artistic) property while at the same time allowing society to benefit from the tremendous potential of the internet, both in terms of knowledge/learning and entertainment.

Those with a vested interest in the current system (RIAA/MPAA in particular) will fight hard and dirty to prevail. Those who wish to see the rules changed must fight equally hard to succeed. This burden will fall mostly on the younger generaton, as it appears that most of the "older" generation have been brow beaten out of independent thought.

That is the foundation of a democratic society - to be able to continually change the rules to the benefit of society. The mindless "stealing" arguments, in light of relevant history, are getting rather tiresome.

For and long, but interesting piece on intellectual property history, go here:

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property99/history.html

And thanks Zack, for trying to enhance the debate.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
You're more than welcome
zwhittaker 3rd Aug 2009
But I'm here merely as a starting pistol. The one thing I enjoy most about my job is writing something that gets people thinking and commenting. I couldn't care less if people disagree with me - if anything it spurs on the conversation more happy
0 Votes
+ -
Fantastic!
all9 13th Oct 2009
A very well written and informed piece of writing from Economister. And i have to say the link you provided was a very interesting read.
I myself am a student also studying at kent.
Just this morning i received a letter from a film production studio, accusing me of various things, and you know what the first thought that popped into my head was? Oh crap, my bad. Why? Not because of the illegality of it, i knew what i was doing, more because i was stupid enough to be caught.
File sharing is indeed illegal, i don't think its 'right' for me to take other peoples work for free, but i don't take it to save myself money, if that makes sense. I still spend the same amount a year on varying forms of multimedia as i always have, and its a sizable chunk of my disposable income, so i do support artists and developers. Just not all of them. Not fair no, but i purchase the truely standout ones, my favourite bands, the ones i listen to regularly, the games i'll go back to over and over. But there are plenty of things i've downloaded and thought to myself "Well thank god i didn't pay for that" the majority of filesharers have done it, downloaded an album and then never listened to it again, it maybe gets played once a year if you leave your itunes on shuffle. The game you finished in 3 hours.... (and they were expecting ?40 for this?) At the end of the day truly substantial pieces of work are still paid for. No matter what you say, i don't know a single filesharer who doesn't buy some multimedia, just not all of it.
The only solution is a new business model frankly, i particularly like how i understand the new google books online library to work. They set aside a massive chunk of money, and every set period of time, some of that is dispersed to contributors to the collection dependant on how popular their work was.

I mean it may seem like nothing at all. But i'd be quite happy paying ?10 a month if i could download any music i wanted, and it was all there to choose from. Now yes that may not sound like much. But when you multiply that by the millions, and lets face it, whos not going to sign up to a service where you can have as much music as you want for the price of a CD? I have fileshared, but lets face it, it is becomingly increasingly difficult, the other day it took me 2 hours to find the file i wanted, now ?10 is easily less than 2 hours of my wages, so certanly i'd sign up to it and i think a large amount of people would, perhaps not ?10 but somewhere in the region where it is not extortionate. And another benefit from this would be allowing anyone to upload their work, it will encourage more creativity more freedom and flow of information and thought. And we won't just get the manufactured stuff deemed worthy of the record companies advertising.

Thats my incredibly incoherent ramble for today, i'm sorry if it hurts the eyes, but i'm a hungover student who got a lovely letter this morning regarding piracy and hasn't had breakfast yet.
It's too bad there are so many conservatives/traditionalists here. This situation is a sign of the times. A movement from traditional markets into digital/virtual markets. No that I'm condoning the pirating of other people's hard work but I think we're missing the point here.
For too long, the "publishing" companies dictated the value of products.
How?
Because they were the only players in the game. They owned the physical media and reaped profits on a single portion on an ultimately unfinished or under-par product.

The common digital user has cleverly used the internet to suss out this garbage media and are now pirating things of REAL value. They aren't uploading and downloading the advertisements of the next "Scary Movie" regurgitation.

My point is, that the average consumer have once again taken their power back as a customer and dictator of value. Some marketers and artists have already become conscious of this and are making valuable dollars (see Radiohead, Muse, NIN, Facebook, Google, GrooveShark).

With regards to the student, Mr. Patanjali, they live in the same unfair world as the rest of us consumers. The reason, I think, Mr. Whittaker feels that students are more prone to digital piracy is because their pocketbooks are already drained from a (typically) flawed education system (http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20100507211002996).
Fortunately, we have a sane copyright system here in Canada and we are only penalized for profiting from someone else's work. I also buy digital products that I feel are of value to me, whilst those full albums by an artist will get a quick listen via BitTorrent before I fork any money over (msg to artists, you solve this problem and you certainly wouldn't need $50k for marketing, FB and MySpace are free!)

There's my two cents
0 Votes
+ -
I was reading through comments and waiting to make a few points, but it looks like at long last, Chrispytwist has made them for me.

I may not be a professional, but I am a musician myself. I have performed, and I have written electronic compositions. I have friends who are musicians. We are in our twenties. We generally agree that the actions of the RIAA and MPAA are indefensible and not in the interest of the consumer or artist. We applaud the men behind The Pirate Bay for not being afraid to make a high profile stand.

As chrispytwist has explained, the internet has been indispensable, and has allowed for consumers to take back their power as "dictator of value". I want to point out that it is usually NOT the artists who are crying and whining about pirating on the internet. They are often taken advantage of by the record labels, and often have no sympathy for this dying business model.

The internet hasn't only given power back to the consumer, but it's going back to the artists. Artists don't desperately need record labels just to be heard anymore. Independent record labels now have the internet as a resource to help them compete with the corporate behemoths. This is now a world where I discovered practically all of my favorite artists in the past half decade via the internet and word of mouth. I dropped out of BMG Music at about that time, because I couldn't find enough music I would actually want to BUY in their major label lists. You better believe I'm willing to pay for music. I have, and I do, but I'm careful to try to support only the business model that benefits me.

You crotchety whiners up there talking about how "kids" don't appreciate things don't really understand what's going on here, and I consider your opinions to be very foolish. I've spent nearly $400 on music in the past year, and some of that would have never been spent if I didn't get a few copies of records from friends, or acquire an album or two at no cost. My generation doesn't want work for free, you jerks. We just spend our money differently than you do. Wake up.

The RIAA can keep fighting this, but they aren't going to win.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix