Comments for The Website and Blog of Joshua R. Kagan http://joshkagan.com Counsel for Technology, Entertainment, and Business Mon, 10 Aug 2009 13:57:42 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 Comment on The Singularity Law Podcast Episode 8: Virus by William Jacobson http://joshkagan.com/2008/12/07/the-singularity-law-podcast-episode-8-virus/comment-page-1/#comment-1210 William Jacobson Mon, 10 Aug 2009 13:57:42 +0000 http://joshkagan.com/blog/?p=220#comment-1210 Hello, Nice work on the Singularity Law Podcast; I am looking forward to listening to all the back episodes in my car on the way to law school this fall. I have been selected as a finalist in a scholarship contest for my YouTube video "Law v Tech: The Inspiring Faceoff" (youtube.com/watch?v=gwYicJedEE4). I don't really mean to be a vote grubber, but I thought you might enjoy it. I even made a reference to the technological singularity (though mostly as a joke since I don't know many folks will be aware of Vinge or Kurzweil, etc.) Anyway, thanks for your work on this blog and podcast. Kind regards, William Jacobson Hello,

Nice work on the Singularity Law Podcast; I am looking forward to listening to all the back episodes in my car on the way to law school this fall. I have been selected as a finalist in a scholarship contest for my YouTube video “Law v Tech: The Inspiring Faceoff” (youtube.com/watch?v=gwYicJedEE4). I don’t really mean to be a vote grubber, but I thought you might enjoy it. I even made a reference to the technological singularity (though mostly as a joke since I don’t know many folks will be aware of Vinge or Kurzweil, etc.) Anyway, thanks for your work on this blog and podcast.

Kind regards,
William Jacobson

]]> Comment on 3rd Party iPhone Email App Rejected By Apple. What Next? by stella http://joshkagan.com/2008/09/21/3rd-party-iphone-email-app-rejected-what-next/comment-page-1/#comment-1201 stella Thu, 21 May 2009 09:06:08 +0000 http://joshkagan.com/blog/?p=97#comment-1201 Exactly. More and more cases of rejected apps, because the "duplicate" Apple apps. What's that? Developers get screwed for their hard work. On this point, Google already made s statement: Anyone can sell his software on their marketplace. Nice posting, and so true. Exactly. More and more cases of rejected apps, because the “duplicate” Apple apps. What’s that? Developers get screwed for their hard work. On this point, Google already made s statement: Anyone can sell his software on their marketplace. Nice posting, and so true.

]]> Comment on Battling Licenses by Michael Scott http://joshkagan.com/2008/11/05/battling-licenses/comment-page-1/#comment-1012 Michael Scott Thu, 06 Nov 2008 06:10:58 +0000 http://joshkagan.com/blog/?p=193#comment-1012 These incompatibilities remind me of railroads that use different width tracks (different gauges). The trains that run on one gauge can't run on the other. So although both trains are trying to achieve the same result (transporting people and freight from point A to point B), one type of train can't use the other railroad's tracks. Very inefficient use of resources. Open source advocates should work toward compatibility. These incompatibilities remind me of railroads that use different width tracks (different gauges). The trains that run on one gauge can’t run on the other. So although both trains are trying to achieve the same result (transporting people and freight from point A to point B), one type of train can’t use the other railroad’s tracks. Very inefficient use of resources. Open source advocates should work toward compatibility.

]]> Comment on Win For Open Source in Jacobsen v. Katzer by Battling Licenses | The Josh Kagan Blog http://joshkagan.com/2008/08/13/win-for-open-source-in-jacobsen-v-katzer/comment-page-1/#comment-1009 Battling Licenses | The Josh Kagan Blog Thu, 06 Nov 2008 05:12:19 +0000 http://joshkagan.com/blog/?p=35#comment-1009 [...] Copyleft licenses all have one big thing in common: they remove particular common copyright law restrictions on copies of works. For most works protected by U.S. copyrights, the owner of a copyright uses the law to prohibit others from reproducing, adapting, or distributing copies of his work. But copyleft licenses work to grant some or all of those rights to every person who receives a copy of the work. It’s wrong to think of this as the copyright owner surrendering one or more of his exclusive rights. The copyright owner is simply offering a license to use the work in one of a certain number of ways. Subsequent uses of the work are then “licensed uses” so long as they comply with the terms of the license selected by the copyright owner. But if someone uses the work without complying with the license, then his use is an infringing one.1 [...] [...] Copyleft licenses all have one big thing in common: they remove particular common copyright law restrictions on copies of works. For most works protected by U.S. copyrights, the owner of a copyright uses the law to prohibit others from reproducing, adapting, or distributing copies of his work. But copyleft licenses work to grant some or all of those rights to every person who receives a copy of the work. It’s wrong to think of this as the copyright owner surrendering one or more of his exclusive rights. The copyright owner is simply offering a license to use the work in one of a certain number of ways. Subsequent uses of the work are then “licensed uses” so long as they comply with the terms of the license selected by the copyright owner. But if someone uses the work without complying with the license, then his use is an infringing one.1 [...]

]]> Comment on The Singularity Law Podcast Episode 6: Happy Birthday, DMCA! by Battling Licenses | The Josh Kagan Blog http://joshkagan.com/2008/11/04/the-singularity-law-podcast-episode-6-happy-birthday-dmca/comment-page-1/#comment-1008 Battling Licenses | The Josh Kagan Blog Thu, 06 Nov 2008 05:10:24 +0000 http://joshkagan.com/blog/?p=191#comment-1008 [...] Perspectives on Technology and Internet Law « The Singularity Law Podcast Episode 6: Happy Birthday, DMCA! [...] [...] Perspectives on Technology and Internet Law « The Singularity Law Podcast Episode 6: Happy Birthday, DMCA! [...]

]]> Comment on The Emerging Market for Used Video Game Discs: Nothing to Fear Here by Sachin Agarwal http://joshkagan.com/2008/10/05/used-video-game-discs-2/comment-page-1/#comment-958 Sachin Agarwal Sun, 05 Oct 2008 11:32:28 +0000 http://joshkagan.com/blog/?p=128#comment-958 Good backgrounder. A couple points to consider and a rejoinder: 1) Games in different genres have wildly different resale values. Sports games are all but worthless a year out, as they've been replaced by the next season's games, with all their attendant roster updates and micro-improvements. 2) Games with the *most* replayability keep their value - RPGs and fighting games. I suggest that many people purchase games in these genres knowing that they'll retain value on resale, the same way that consumers look at potential resale value when purchasing a new car. This means that publishers actually see increased revenue because of the resale market - specifically, they'll have sales they otherwise wouldn't because the perceived risk in purchase is much lower. 3) Downloadable content will kill the golden goose. Eventually, the hard drive space and bandwidth will be there to allow for a user-acceptable experience in downloading 50GB. That's a given. However, eliminating the ability of people to reduce perceived risk by eliminating physical resale will destroy the industry. If we move to a downloadable universe, we will lose the many types of games we have now. Even with Steam and other download platforms for PC, the PC gaming market is all but dead. All that are left are casual games and MMOs (either subscription or freemium). The PC hardware for these games aren't the souped-up gamer rigs. The PC hardware for MMOs is subsidized by the fact that the same PC will run Office just fine. There's no cross-utility subsidy in console gaming; the risk of purchase will be higher, meaning fewer sales will occur. The notion that bypassing retailers for digital distribution will put more money in publishers' pockets is beyond moronic - it's insanity (doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome). Cheers, Sachin (Disclosure: I run Dawdle.com, a dedicated online marketplace for new and used (yes, both) video games, systems, and accessories. Good backgrounder. A couple points to consider and a rejoinder:

1) Games in different genres have wildly different resale values. Sports games are all but worthless a year out, as they’ve been replaced by the next season’s games, with all their attendant roster updates and micro-improvements.
2) Games with the *most* replayability keep their value – RPGs and fighting games. I suggest that many people purchase games in these genres knowing that they’ll retain value on resale, the same way that consumers look at potential resale value when purchasing a new car. This means that publishers actually see increased revenue because of the resale market – specifically, they’ll have sales they otherwise wouldn’t because the perceived risk in purchase is much lower.
3) Downloadable content will kill the golden goose. Eventually, the hard drive space and bandwidth will be there to allow for a user-acceptable experience in downloading 50GB. That’s a given. However, eliminating the ability of people to reduce perceived risk by eliminating physical resale will destroy the industry. If we move to a downloadable universe, we will lose the many types of games we have now. Even with Steam and other download platforms for PC, the PC gaming market is all but dead. All that are left are casual games and MMOs (either subscription or freemium). The PC hardware for these games aren’t the souped-up gamer rigs. The PC hardware for MMOs is subsidized by the fact that the same PC will run Office just fine. There’s no cross-utility subsidy in console gaming; the risk of purchase will be higher, meaning fewer sales will occur. The notion that bypassing retailers for digital distribution will put more money in publishers’ pockets is beyond moronic – it’s insanity (doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome).

Cheers,
Sachin

(Disclosure: I run Dawdle.com, a dedicated online marketplace for new and used (yes, both) video games, systems, and accessories.

]]> Comment on Shhh! The Anatomy of a Hacker’s Prior Restraint by Michael D. Scott http://joshkagan.com/2008/08/10/shhh-the-anatomy-of-a-hackers-prior-restraint/comment-page-1/#comment-398 Michael D. Scott Mon, 11 Aug 2008 19:16:11 +0000 http://joshkagan.com/blog/?p=18#comment-398 Another reason that the injunction should not have been issued is the fact that the paper the student's planned to give had been distributed to delegates on Thursday -- two days before the court hearing. While the paper did not contain the code, it did contain most of what the students intended to talk about. Another reason that the injunction should not have been issued is the fact that the paper the student’s planned to give had been distributed to delegates on Thursday — two days before the court hearing. While the paper did not contain the code, it did contain most of what the students intended to talk about.

]]>