Is god telling you that Dunbal's answer is wrong?
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.
I'd tell you where it is, but then we'd have to move it.
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.
Scroll down to "Swedish trademark database" and click the link first.
Be warned that it's one of those websites that tries to put your browser to sleep.
But since you pointed out the paucity of my research, I went ahead and spent another 10 minutes on this. I found out that if you enter "Spridningskollen" in the box at:
you will, in fact, find out that the trademark was applied for on August 31st.
I know nothing about Swedish trademark law, but most countries are not amused by this sort of stunt.
And this valid experience obviously colored Torvalds' worldview.
Linux showed that the benefits of a common foundation far outweighed the marginal dollars lost from lock-in. So much so that if you waved a magic wand and got rid of the GPL restrictions, you'd still have everybody and his brother trying to push changes upstream. Because it's a hell of a lot easier to accept new version of code if you don't have to keep merging your customizations.
1.79 x 10^12 furlongs per fortnight -- it's not just a good idea, it's the law!