Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Bogus argument, but valid conclusion (Score 2) 112

If you are representative, then you are right -- the argument that "content providers will learn that people who watch a pirated stream will not pay for the content when the pirate stream is somehow prevented" is not valid.

But if you would pay if you could, then the conclusion that "money spent on preventing piracy has a negative ROI" is still true -- perhaps they would make more money rearranging things so that you had a chance to acquire the content legally.

FWIW, I believe you, and I believe you are fairly representative, yet I can believe there are others for whom the original argument does actually apply.

A restated version of the argument is this: money spent on content protection (a) may coerce some pirates into paying for content, (b) will deter some pirates who wouldn't pay anyway and who will simply stop watching, thus giving your content less mindshare in the world and reducing your available free advertising, (c) will deter some who only pirate because they have no available legal means of acquiring the content, and (d) may actually encourage some to pirate because now it's a challenge.

This means that content protection is only viable if its cost exceeds the revenue gained from (a) by more than the lost revenue and lost opportunity costs from not dealing with (b), (c), and (d) properly.

Submission + - Image enhancement specialists or software?

pem writes: Here's a video of a package thief. The license plate is visible in a gazillion frames, so I was surprised to see a plea to call the police "if you've seen the man in the video."

Surely someone around here is expert enough on superresolution photo stacking to enhance the license plate from continuous video frames, no?

Comment Re:Ahh, one of those links (Score 1) 19

Now, since the ISP does own the trademark

That assumes facts not yet in evidence. Yes, the ISP has filed an application, but they haven't yet been granted an actual trademark. I have no idea what will happen here, but a lot of courts and national trademark registrars would take a dim view of someone finding out that somebody else just started using a name, and then rushing out and trademarking it and claiming to the world that they were there first.

they do get to decide who can use it, right?

Copyright trolls like righthaven and prenda and this new Swedish one) need to die, but this isn't the right way to kill them.

To the uninitiated (especially the uninitiated who conflate copyright law with trademark law, which the ISP is stupidly encouraging here by saying "nyah, nyah, nyah, you guys don't respect intellectual property so you have no moral standing"), the ISP's actions could look a lot like someone stealing an unreleased (or just-released) song and claiming they wrote it.

It's really hard to imagine that the ISP just happened to come up with that name themselves, that they really had a plan to use it "in commerce" (which is, after all, what trademark law is all about), and that they had no idea the the troll was planning on using the same name. All of these things will come out in an official setting, and it won't be pretty, and it could set back the cause of fighting copyright trolls a bit, because it really makes the ISP look like it's run by douchebags.

Slashdot Top Deals

/* Halley */ (Halley's comment.)