Cliff Notes Version

Here is an experiment at being concise, the highly condensed version of my previous post on the Grokster decision.

This decision by the Supreme Court creates an imbalance in the risk and reward of creating a new P2P technology and makes it a bad bet to even be involved at all. Anyone with enough on the ball to do this work should have enough on the ball to turn their attentions to less risky problem sets.

6 Replies to “Cliff Notes Version”

  1. OK, it’s concise, succinct, and I wholeheartedly agree. Where’s the passion? To me, this post, and its immediate predecessor, are the difference between a 15-minute “get it done” podcast, and the “take the time it needs” version. I enthusiastically endorse the latter.

    –Ken–

  2. Ken, I posted the boiled down version because some of the comments on the florid one made me think people were missing the core point here. Just in case the purple prose hid it, I wanted to post the glowing nugget of my argument stripped of everything else.

  3. Dave:
    Yep, I re-read the original post and the comments, including mine. And ol’ Cliff Notes version is right on the money.

    I think that the point you made in the more lengthy post is the prime one though, that open source artists, and the open source distribution of their works, are gonna win this battle, as long as there are people who simply want some better alternative to the pap with which big media have seen fit to regale us. And if it means that the over-hyped, under-talented, so-called “news media stars” go begging, then tough noogies for them.

    “You can’t sue what you can’t see.” – until it’s way too late.

    –Ken–

  4. Yes, I agree with the core point. The risk makes the cost of development prohibitive. Only company’s that make deals with Hollywood/Music Industry could afford to create such software.

Comments are closed.