Comments on: Grokster?

By: thebroodwich

thebroodwich — Tue, 28 Jun 2005 18:16:50 +0000

Absolutely fascinating. I listened to the show this morning and loved it.

Sarah

By: Next Build - Iterations in Business Technology by Jason Lewis

Next Build - Iterations in Business Technology by Jason Lewis — Tue, 28 Jun 2005 16:26:40 +0000

MGM v. Grokster

By: alexbarnett

alexbarnett — Tue, 28 Jun 2005 06:15:35 +0000

Brilliant show, thank you.

(P.S., hilarious line: “File-swapping sounds like wife-swapping”!)

By: anson

anson — Tue, 28 Jun 2005 02:43:07 +0000

It is just plain silly (yes I use the word “silly”) to even attempt to fight P2P File sharing… Is this another war on drugs which cannot and will not be won? Really, even the discusion of trying to stop it is useless …

By: vanbertozzi

vanbertozzi — Tue, 28 Jun 2005 00:08:07 +0000

Here's an open roundtable discussion at the Wall Street Journal discussing the Grokster case

By: fconte

fconte — Tue, 28 Jun 2005 00:01:24 +0000

Answer to Brendan

Look at the problem the way an economist looks at it. Because the marginal costs of producing one more copy of an album, one software package or one pill is zero, you will find that piracy or claims “in the public interest” increase. After development costs for software, drugs or digital music or film are met, the costs for distribution are zero. The internet extenuates this problem (even for drugs). Government using the tools of property rights law extends the value of these products far beyond what’s economically viable so that firms or artists can extract rents. These are powerful incentives to create. Otherwise we would have few new products.

Drugs are the perfect analog to this. (Isn’t Brazil — and India for that matter — allowing its citizens/firms to reverse engineer drug therapies? That’s definitely analogous.

I hope I was able to explain my original post.

Cheers

By: vanbertozzi

vanbertozzi — Mon, 27 Jun 2005 23:53:59 +0000

DMCA

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a controversial United States copyright law which criminalizes production and dissemination of technology that can circumvent measures taken to protect copyright, not merely infringement of copyright itself, and heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet. Passed on May 14, 1998…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA

By: Brendan

Brendan — Mon, 27 Jun 2005 23:51:19 +0000

Fconte, I’m a little confused; can you explain what you mean by extending the analogy to drugs and software?

By: Chris Williams

Chris Williams — Mon, 27 Jun 2005 23:44:53 +0000

In response to Jack Valenti, it can’t be an acceptable result if the only legitimate downloads come from commercial services. This very radio show can be freely uploaded and downloaded by anyone who wishes, because the creators have granted their permission. How would Jack Valenti propose that I exercise this freedom?

By: ebsherman

ebsherman — Mon, 27 Jun 2005 23:43:39 +0000

The media companies are hypocritical. Look at the story of Peter Jackson suing New Line Cinema for lowering the payments owed him by undertaking licensing deals with other Time Warner companies and providing them with sweetheart pricing. The overall corporation keeps the same level of profits, but makes the apparent amount owed Jackson look smaller. This happens with book publishers and I’d be surprised if the practice didn’t extend to music. That is the corporate equivalent of sharing files without paying. If the principle bothers them so much, why do they continue doing it?