DISQUS

Interesting to note that much of that innovation was in the dialup environment, where multiple ISPs could effectively compete because of line sharing requirements. Oh, to have an actual choice in ISPs again.

As long as ISPs have traffic nationwide traffic management policies, even those users in areas lacking meaningful broadband competition

By which you mean nearly every area in the United States.

will be protected from discriminatory network management practices by pressure in other markets.

What does this even mean? That people are going to move because the lone network provider in their area is abusing that market power? Or are they to bootstrap up their own ISP with all of the efficient network paths already dominated by the current monopoly?

I use boxee at home and it will play everything I have so far thrown at it including DvD media.

It is really a bigger threat to cable companies rather than content owners. Two years from now when a $100 set-top box is available that will stream Hulu, Netflix, the new TV.com, and perhaps even premium channels, why buy a remarkably overpriced bundled cable package?

"Corporate intranets may be designed for IE, in which case rolling out an alternative browser might cause confusion among less tech-savvy employees."

Of the reasons you mentioned, this is probably the biggest. Sharepoint only grows in popularity and is apparently quite the cash-cow for Microsoft. It's heavy use of Active-X controls can make it difficult to use with alternative browsers for less advanced users.

It would be difficult to imagine major music labels signing on to an equitable deal on a voluntary music tax. If we assume for the moment it is possible to effectively and fairly distribute the income from this tax to the copyright holder, is there any compelling reason for new artists to sign on to a label that takes a lion's share of the profit from this pool?

You don't need them for advertising. They are, if anything, less effective at finding (or manufacturing) artists/trends than the internet. If you needed funding there are other methods of obtaining venture capital (with probably better terms). And you don't need them to tour.

If individual artists are allowed to share in this pool the major labels are finished. If they limit it to their music the ISPs in question could run foul of antitrust issues. And if they keep going without effectively monetizing internet music they are dead.

I'm sort of surprised they aren't trying to compete with free via something like Hulu. It wouldn't be too difficult. Let the user create a playlist and occasionally toss in some targeted audio ads. X number of ads for a given hour of streaming audio.

What country's libel/slander law?

Even the hardcore pirates buy stuff like the Orange Box. Quality games that you get immediately and easily, effectively are always backed up, and very moderately priced? Hell, there is more effort in pirating it.

If I am ever tempted to pirate games, it is when the publishers feel the need to make them more difficult to get and play - offer them only in stores, bundle them with highly invasive DRM schemes, and offer no support after purchase in the form of patches.

Short answer: If pirates are offering a more convenient, secure, and friendly buying experience than you are, the problem isn't pirates, it is your business model.

Regardless of the stance taken on the issue, the article in question doesn't really have an argument beyond "don't listen to people that disagree with this article," adding "they aren't important, except when they are important since they are killing PC gaming."

Great article and I look forward to seeing your response.

The only solution I can envision- beyond the utter destruction of copyright or of a dystopian privacy-free state - is one a compulsory license tacked on to general internet bills, the rewards of which are assigned to content holders based on download statistics.

It is already talked about by both sides of the issue and is somewhat similar to the compromise that occurred with radio. In this case, music labels, studios, and publishers are relegated to marketing, advertising (chiefly product placement and short sponsored ads before the primary content) and initial loans for start up shows/movies/bands/books.

While quantifying the whole thing is more complicated than the Nielsen system, that is a problem less difficult to solve than restricting software tools or compensating artists without any copyright at all.

Just think of the possibilities had the FCC not been around since the 30s stymieing innovation! The telcom industry would be very different, but also likely much better and furiously competitive.

Why? It was my understanding that until pretty recently telecommunications basically amounted to a natural monopoly due to barriers to entry (similar to water/power distribution - there are only so many optimum network paths and recreating them is terribly inefficient). Would we not just have a giant nationwide, unregulated telecommunications giant (or nearly equally inefficient local monopolies) in the absence of regulation?

We have that now in terms of cable, but I would attribute that to the shortsighted removal of common-carrier regulations - recall how many ISPs you had a choice of during the days of dial up and how competitive their pricing was.

I like this. However the fourth paragraph is a repeat of the third.