[Commons-Law] The MiddlePerson Problem...

[Andrea Glorioso]

Dear Hasit,

you raise some very interesting questions, which at the moment I am
unfortunately unable to comment meanigfully.  I just have a little
question that will (hopefully) help me to better frame your reasoning.

>>>>> "Hasit" == Hasit seth <hbs.law at gmail.com> writes:

    > Hi All, Recent Grokster decision awakens us to the need for
    > thinking about distribution models for music (and any other
    > creative outputs as such). The players in this great game are
    > media, commerce (the recording industry) and activist-hobbyists
    > (the download-for-all/copying-mixing-for-all (d-f-a/c-m-f-a)
    > voices). To me the commerical recording industry and
    > d-f-a/c-m-f-a both function as middlepersons with two different
    > objectives.  The recording industry wants to maximize its
    > revenues per copy and through the volume of copies paid for.
    > The d-f-a/c-m-f-a wants to minimize or eliminate the cost of
    > copying for the end-user because as a middle person
    > d-f-a/c-m-f-a has no revenue maximization goal of itself
    > (exception are Grokster types which want to maximize their
    > revenues vicariously through piggy-back advertising).

Why  are you stating that  d-f-a/c-m-f-a (can we just write "dfacmfa"?
All  the   hyphens  just  make  my eyes   cross  :)  have  no  revenue
maximization goal of itself?  The very  existence of Grokster - as you
correctly point  out - suggests that such  a statement would need some
more detailed analysis to back it.

I hope you can shed some light on what you meant.

Cheers,

--
Andrea Glorioso		andrea at digitalpolicy.it
                        +39 348 921 4379
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20050717/1500a3dd/attachment.bin