Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Two very different things (Score 1) 305

by gilroy (#34970474) Attached to: British ISPs Embracing Two-Tier Internet

Plus, of course, the idea that you could "sue" if blocked depends on a legal consensus that common carriers have to, you know, carry you. If two-tiered internet is OK, then why shouldn't an ISP be allowed to block those who won't pay up?

We really need to get back, or get to, the idea of ISPs as common carriers, disallowed from discriminating among packets based on content or, worse, on payor.

Comment: Re:"That's what she said..." (Score 1) 163

by gilroy (#34875946) Attached to: Capcom 'Saddened' By Game Plagiarism Controversy

So the punishment was to do exactly what they were supposed to do. Exactly how is that justice? Or, for that matter, punishment? How does it discourage them from doing the exact same thing over and over again, knowing that sometimes, they'll get away with it and that when they don't, they lose nothing over what they would have paid anyway?

And that's not even counting that this was a settlement, most likely for far less than they actually owed.

Comment: Re:MBA programs now teach this kind of approach. (Score 1) 163

by gilroy (#34875926) Attached to: Capcom 'Saddened' By Game Plagiarism Controversy

Really? Do you ride in cars at all? Because then you're just as culpable. We could make cars much, much safer, but they would then be much, much more expensive... perhaps so expensive that no one could afford them, or at least a very few.

Everyone is making this trade-off all the time. It's harsh to see it laid out so explicitly, but it's actually there all the time.

Comment: Re:Ahhh... I Finally Get It! (Score 1) 973

by gilroy (#32800976) Attached to: A Composer's-Eye View of the Copyright Wars

if the market accepts that his show is worthwhile, he'll make his time and money back.

I cry foul. You can't extol the market in one breath then defend a market-distorting structure (i.e., state-sponsored monopoly, i.e., copyright) in the other. "The market" prices things on the margins -- what it makes to create the last good created, not all of them. For digital works, the marginal cost is functionally zero. Therefore zero is the "correct" (that is, market-driven) price. Charging more than zero requires state intervention into the market -- the creation of artificial scarcity. That is what copyright does; and it is a legitimate point of debate as to whether it achieves the social ends sought at the best allocation of resources.

Comment: Subtle distinction (Score 5, Interesting) 161

by gilroy (#32702576) Attached to: Creative Commons Responds To ASCAP Letter

ASCAP is (almost) correct. While copyleft doesn't undermine copyright, it does undermine the copyright cartel. If artists begin to license worthwhile, popular, and (monetarily) successful works under copyleft -- if artists succeed while granting people more rights than they, strictly, have to -- then consumers might begin to wonder why more artists -- and big companies -- don't do that. Using copyleft could become a competitive advantage. And then how will Big Music justify restricting users?

If the sheep wake up, the whole industry -- as currently organized -- falls apart. And that's what ASCAP is worried about.

Comment: Gonna sound snarky.... (Score 3, Interesting) 327

by gilroy (#32051316) Attached to: Apple Raises E-book Prices For Everyone

... but I'm genuinely interested: What exactly does a publisher of e-books "publish"?

I'm serious. You've written the book, you've put it in whatever form you decided on. I understand that you need some vehicle to distribute it -- isn't that what Apple and Amazon are doing? So what is your publisher doing? What value does he/she/it add?

Optimism is the content of small men in high places. -- F. Scott Fitzgerald, "The Crack Up"

Working...