Comments on: Kaboom! http://blogmaverick.com/2005/06/27/kaboom/ the mark cuban weblog Sat, 20 Mar 2010 07:04:31 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: lianzy http://blogmaverick.com/2005/06/27/kaboom/#comment-9557 lianzy Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:02:57 +0000 http://blogmaverick.wordpress.com/2005/06/27/kaboom/#comment-9557 article for asp.net,asp,jsp,php,xml ect. welcome come to http://lzy.home.bj001.net http://blog.csdn.net/lianzy http://lanjian.home.bj001.net article for asp.net,asp,jsp,php,xml ect.
welcome come to http://lzy.home.bj001.net
http://blog.csdn.net/lianzy
http://lanjian.home.bj001.net

]]> By: lianzy http://blogmaverick.com/2005/06/27/kaboom/#comment-9558 lianzy Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:02:57 +0000 http://blogmaverick.wordpress.com/2005/06/27/kaboom/#comment-9558 article for asp.net,asp,jsp,php,mysql,mssql xml ect. welcome come to http://wwww.china-buysell.com article for asp.net,asp,jsp,php,mysql,mssql xml ect.
welcome come to http://wwww.china-buysell.com

]]> By: whales http://blogmaverick.com/2005/06/27/kaboom/#comment-9559 whales Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:02:57 +0000 http://blogmaverick.wordpress.com/2005/06/27/kaboom/#comment-9559 Criticism MPAA and RIAA it is very bad. And even it can not like the some! Criticism MPAA and RIAA it is very bad. And even it can not like the some!

]]> By: Litfaßsäule http://blogmaverick.com/2005/06/27/kaboom/#comment-9560 Litfaßsäule Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:02:57 +0000 http://blogmaverick.wordpress.com/2005/06/27/kaboom/#comment-9560 great site with very good look and perfect information...i like it great site with very good look and perfect information…i like it

]]> By: jss http://blogmaverick.com/2005/06/27/kaboom/#comment-9534 jss Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:02:56 +0000 http://blogmaverick.wordpress.com/2005/06/27/kaboom/#comment-9534 Gayla, Why should they be liable? There is a very useful and legal community that uses Grokster. Of course, they could make it more clear that it isn't intended to be used for illegitimate purposes, they don't say "download all the major label music and movies you want for free!" (Like Kazaa used to). The difference between a file sharing utility, and the fake penis is that a file sharing utility has valid and legitimate uses. I use BitTorrent quite extensively to download various things, including movie trailers and authorized software. It's really quite handy and useful. History is just repeating itself -- this isn't going to deter unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material at all. Zero. None. Nothing will except for having a cheap alternative, and iTunes isn't cheap. A dollar per track when you get nothing of value like you do with a CD (like a non-DRM music file that I can copy on to all of my computers through my house, my portables, and leave the CD in my car's CD changer). I'd pay $0.10 for a crippled file, but nothing more. Now I buy my CDs used for about $2 a pop, rip MP3s and go from there. When the RIAA stops this silly nonsense and lets me buy music on the internet for the equivalent price of a used CD, I'll probably shop it. Gayla,
Why should they be liable? There is a very useful and legal community that uses Grokster. Of course, they could make it more clear that it isn’t intended to be used for illegitimate purposes, they don’t say “download all the major label music and movies you want for free!” (Like Kazaa used to).

The difference between a file sharing utility, and the fake penis is that a file sharing utility has valid and legitimate uses. I use BitTorrent quite extensively to download various things, including movie trailers and authorized software. It’s really quite handy and useful.

History is just repeating itself — this isn’t going to deter unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material at all. Zero. None. Nothing will except for having a cheap alternative, and iTunes isn’t cheap. A dollar per track when you get nothing of value like you do with a CD (like a non-DRM music file that I can copy on to all of my computers through my house, my portables, and leave the CD in my car’s CD changer). I’d pay $0.10 for a crippled file, but nothing more.

Now I buy my CDs used for about $2 a pop, rip MP3s and go from there. When the RIAA stops this silly nonsense and lets me buy music on the internet for the equivalent price of a used CD, I’ll probably shop it.

]]> By: Wade http://blogmaverick.com/2005/06/27/kaboom/#comment-9535 Wade Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:02:56 +0000 http://blogmaverick.wordpress.com/2005/06/27/kaboom/#comment-9535 I don't pay attention to MGM stock, but as a TWMC shareholder, I was pleased to see the effect of the Grokster ruling on the stock price. (TWMC is the parent company of several Music/Video retail chains). Anyway, to be nitpicky, it seems like some of us investors gave a damn about the ruling. I don’t pay attention to MGM stock, but as a TWMC shareholder, I was pleased to see the effect of the Grokster ruling on the stock price. (TWMC is the parent company of several Music/Video retail chains).

Anyway, to be nitpicky, it seems like some of us investors gave a damn about the ruling.

]]> By: anton http://blogmaverick.com/2005/06/27/kaboom/#comment-9536 anton Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:02:56 +0000 http://blogmaverick.wordpress.com/2005/06/27/kaboom/#comment-9536 I agree that the limited scope of this ruling is truly what's surprising, essentially limiting itself to how a product is marketed. Reading the ruling, you can tell that SCOTUS examined the business model of StreamCast, which was ad-based (rather than subscription-based), and basically figured out that they were mainly going to provide the exact same service as something which was shut down. This is the exact reason that BitTorrent is successful (not commercially, of course) - there IS no business model. Bram Cohen (i hope that's his name) just has a paypal donation button, and for those who can't contribute, a Hot or Not link. I think he's like a 9.5 now or something. But he's not selling anything, he just came up with a brilliant new distribution medium which can be taken advantage of by ANYONE and IMO will eventually change the entire client-server dynamic of the web. And not to be pushy, but I've written more here: http://antonymous.blogspot.com/2005/06/grokster-case.html I agree that the limited scope of this ruling is truly what’s surprising, essentially limiting itself to how a product is marketed. Reading the ruling, you can tell that SCOTUS examined the business model of StreamCast, which was ad-based (rather than subscription-based), and basically figured out that they were mainly going to provide the exact same service as something which was shut down.

This is the exact reason that BitTorrent is successful (not commercially, of course) – there IS no business model. Bram Cohen (i hope that’s his name) just has a paypal donation button, and for those who can’t contribute, a Hot or Not link. I think he’s like a 9.5 now or something. But he’s not selling anything, he just came up with a brilliant new distribution medium which can be taken advantage of by ANYONE and IMO will eventually change the entire client-server dynamic of the web.

And not to be pushy, but I’ve written more here:
http://antonymous.blogspot.com/2005/06/grokster-case.html

]]> By: Adina Levin http://blogmaverick.com/2005/06/27/kaboom/#comment-9537 Adina Levin Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:02:56 +0000 http://blogmaverick.wordpress.com/2005/06/27/kaboom/#comment-9537 Charles, what evidence do you have that the p2p players weren't pursuing business partnerships with the major content providers. It seems a lot more plausible that the content providers just keep ignoring opportunities to use the new technology to make money, and instead are pursuing a maximalist legal strategy to put the new technology out of business. More opportunities for content distribution innovators like Mr. Cuban. Charles, what evidence do you have that the p2p players weren’t pursuing business partnerships with the major content providers.

It seems a lot more plausible that the content providers just keep ignoring opportunities to use the new technology to make money, and instead are pursuing a maximalist legal strategy to put the new technology out of business.

More opportunities for content distribution innovators like Mr. Cuban.

]]> By: Jorge Rodriguez http://blogmaverick.com/2005/06/27/kaboom/#comment-9538 Jorge Rodriguez Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:02:56 +0000 http://blogmaverick.wordpress.com/2005/06/27/kaboom/#comment-9538 The RIAA and MPAA guys doesn't seem to learn the lesson. Yesterday Wired News (and the blogosphere) published a story about the TV Pilot for a series called Global Frecuency, which was rejected by WB to be developed for next season. The pilot was leaked to the BitTorrent network and it has trived there, and now viewers are pushing so the network accepts the series. Something that would've been impossible if P2P didn't exists. The story is here: http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,67986,00.html?tw=rss.TOP The RIAA and MPAA guys doesn’t seem to learn the lesson. Yesterday Wired News (and the blogosphere) published a story about the TV Pilot for a series called Global Frecuency, which was rejected by WB to be developed for next season. The pilot was leaked to the BitTorrent network and it has trived there, and now viewers are pushing so the network accepts the series. Something that would’ve been impossible if P2P didn’t exists. The story is here: http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,67986,00.html?tw=rss.TOP

]]> By: SmartMoneyDaily http://blogmaverick.com/2005/06/27/kaboom/#comment-9539 SmartMoneyDaily Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:02:56 +0000 http://blogmaverick.wordpress.com/2005/06/27/kaboom/#comment-9539 So silly all this stuff. I mean if the music biz hadn't stuck it's head in the sand of denial when this "Internet" thing started [Napster 1.0] and had any common sense they could have owned this space and we'd all be downloading songs legally for [agree with jss] $2 a cd [what they are actually worth in the digital era] and the lawyers could all be fighting over Microsoft, or Diet pills or something else... Do you think the music business is actually run by the lawyers? That's really the only viable explanation. So silly all this stuff.
I mean if the music biz hadn’t stuck it’s head in the sand of denial when this “Internet” thing started [Napster 1.0] and had any common sense they could have owned this space and we’d all be downloading songs legally for [agree with jss] $2 a cd [what they are actually worth in the digital era] and the lawyers could all be fighting over Microsoft, or Diet pills or something else…
Do you think the music business is actually run by the lawyers? That’s really the only viable explanation.

]]>