But there was lost profit in that the infringers chose to freely download material instead purchasing it. Calling it a non-profit use doesn't apply. Moreover, what about the precedent set by the rulings of SCOTUS justices that fundamentally alter the intended purpose of statutory damages? It's one thing to be disappointed by a ruling and another to protest that which is judicially sound.
I agree that the data (being open) is not the culprit in this instance; but if we can anticipate an undesirable end use caused by an open structure, then should we entertain alternative, stricter architectures that could achieve a more positive end? It doesn't make sense to remain committed to an ideal when it fails to achieve the ends the idealists desired in the first place. That is, do we think that open architectures are always desirable?
By this logic, what is to keep a tennis instructor from seeking IP protections for a particular serve motion or volleying technique? The notion is absurd and reflective of the problems inherent in a society that does not have proper understanding of IP's purpose or structure. Sad.
Preface: war is necessary, as is the development of a formidable military presence.
The notion of a trade war (playing to win) waged in an effort to keep jobs or industry in the state to which some individual or group is loyal is counterintuitive. The inherent destruction associated with said act (war) generates too many external damages (negative externalities) to a system of technology based innovation. Behaving with such aggression does not serve an efficient end and should be avoided.
This is not to say that Mr. Grove's paper does not make a series of valid points. The idea of a job-protectionist war (however casualties are defined within this setting) in service to technological innovation does not serve a worthwhile end. Nationalist bias doesn't help either but is inevitable. Just a thought but I hope it resonates.
University of Chicago science historian, Adrian Johns, contributes significantly to this debate in his book, Piracy. It is a must read for anyone who wants to be an informed contributor to this particular debate.
I'm all for broadband investment in rural areas, but would much rather $602 million go to pay for the wars. It makes all the economic/fiscal sense in the world. Thinking otherwise demonstrates an irrational bias. That said, in the interest of full disclosure, I'm a supporter of the war in Afghanistan and of a strong U.S. military. Not saying that's the only way to be, but that is where I stand. Happy 4th Techdirt!
As to Hulu's plans to monetize their site further by charging a subscription fee, I say ok. I'll happily pay it, especially if it means that shows like Thr Daily Show and Colbert Report will be reintroduced to the service, as has been eluded to on Charlie Rose. Moreover, I don't own a television, so $10 doesn't feel like much considering the money I'm saving on not having cable.
Now, all of that said, they are missing an opportunity by not significantly upgrading the service they provide. Apple showed us what the market will pay for guaranteed product quality and thoughtful content organization.
This is the point of greatest opportunity for Hulu. While I doubt that much will be done to follow through on this promise given the networks they are in cooperation with, I will hope that the spark that birthed this innovative service will continue to direct it's course. The fee is only bad in relationship to the outcome we have yet to see. Moreover, what should we expect from a company (Hulu) that colludes with such perennial media behemoths. Not innovative. But not surprising.
Agreed; the actions of the NY Times are not new (I like to say tired and boring) and their approach is antiquated.
This bit in particular bothers me:
"We want our readers to respect intellectual property," says Samson. "Intellectual property is arguably the biggest asset of this company. We value others' IP rights, and we want their IP rights to be respected."
The question has nothing to do with readers respecting their IP, rather the principle issue is one of permitting subsequent journalistic pieces the freedom to draw from the work of the Times' writers. We're talking about derivative works. We're debating the legitimacy of remix.
The Times position is synonymous with that of other media companies and is mind-numbingly boring, not to mention aggravating. How are we to have any sympathy for their plight in the age of globally-networked-information (i.e.their struggling business models) when their actions seek to limit innovation and perpetuate a broken, non-sharing system?