http://blog.oup.com/2009/04/bittorrent/ Academic insights for the thinking world. Wed, 22 May 2013 12:48:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 http://blog.oup.com/2009/04/bittorrent/#comment-167706 REVIEW: Innovation For the 21st Century « Politics and P2P Sat, 31 Jul 2010 16:09:30 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/?p=4166#comment-167706 [...] This book, “Innovation in the 21st Century” is written by Rutgers law professor Michael Carrier. Taking a year to write, the book contains a mixture of case studies, ranging from the last few years, to decades past. The most recent case study though, that of the Pirate Bay trial, is obviously not in the book, but was addressed by Prof Carrier on the OUP blog. [...] [...] This book, “Innovation in the 21st Century” is written by Rutgers law professor Michael Carrier. Taking a year to write, the book contains a mixture of case studies, ranging from the last few years, to decades past. The most recent case study though, that of the Pirate Bay trial, is obviously not in the book, but was addressed by Prof Carrier on the OUP blog. [...]

]]> http://blog.oup.com/2009/04/bittorrent/#comment-157432 OUPblog » Blog Archive » After Cipro Thu, 29 Apr 2010 18:49:41 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/?p=4166#comment-157432 [...] After Cipro permalink buy this book Posted on Thursday, April 29th, 2010 at 2:49 pm Michael A. Carrier is a Professor of Law at Rutgers University School of Law, Camden. He has published and spoken widely on the antitrust and intellectual property laws, and is one of the leading authorities in the country on the intersection of these laws. His new book, Innovation for the 21st Century: Harnessing the Power of Intellectual Property and Antitrust Law, looks at how innovation has been threatened by the United States legal system and seeks to reverse the trend, offering ten revolutionary proposals, from pharmaceuticals to peer-to-peer software, to help foster innovation. In the post below Carrier reports on today’s decision in the Cipro case.  Read Carrier’s previous post here. [...] [...] After Cipro permalink buy this book Posted on Thursday, April 29th, 2010 at 2:49 pm Michael A. Carrier is a Professor of Law at Rutgers University School of Law, Camden. He has published and spoken widely on the antitrust and intellectual property laws, and is one of the leading authorities in the country on the intersection of these laws. His new book, Innovation for the 21st Century: Harnessing the Power of Intellectual Property and Antitrust Law, looks at how innovation has been threatened by the United States legal system and seeks to reverse the trend, offering ten revolutionary proposals, from pharmaceuticals to peer-to-peer software, to help foster innovation. In the post below Carrier reports on today’s decision in the Cipro case.  Read Carrier’s previous post here. [...]

]]> http://blog.oup.com/2009/04/bittorrent/#comment-150274 DC Tue, 21 Apr 2009 11:17:33 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/?p=4166#comment-150274 Some interetsing thoughts but at heart you suggest that if many people transgress then why should you try to stop one? Thus, you would consider that we should leave thieves alone because we'll never stop the crime of theft? I don't think so. As for "the victims" being required to innovate to stop Pirate Bay et al, why? PB's "technology" is purely a destructive technology which enables theft. You can see PB as the bloke on the street corner who wears an advert and takes a fee from a 3rd party while directing you to the nearest drug dealer. Hey, he's not dealing himself, he's not (necessarily) in possession and the money comes from legitimate companies but we all know it stinks to high heaven (anybody have a view if PB directs people to porn? or worse? - worth thinking about...). Sorry, but PB is organised crime. They are involved in theft of property and they earn money from it. They can portray it as modern day Robin Hood but next time you pay a ridiculous amount for legal software, remember the thieves who bump up the cost. Some interetsing thoughts but at heart you suggest that if many people transgress then why should you try to stop one? Thus, you would consider that we should leave thieves alone because we’ll never stop the crime of theft? I don’t think so. As for “the victims” being required to innovate to stop Pirate Bay et al, why? PB’s “technology” is purely a destructive technology which enables theft. You can see PB as the bloke on the street corner who wears an advert and takes a fee from a 3rd party while directing you to the nearest drug dealer. Hey, he’s not dealing himself, he’s not (necessarily) in possession and the money comes from legitimate companies but we all know it stinks to high heaven (anybody have a view if PB directs people to porn? or worse? – worth thinking about…). Sorry, but PB is organised crime. They are involved in theft of property and they earn money from it. They can portray it as modern day Robin Hood but next time you pay a ridiculous amount for legal software, remember the thieves who bump up the cost.

]]> http://blog.oup.com/2009/04/bittorrent/#comment-150244 Mike Cane Sat, 18 Apr 2009 08:24:35 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/?p=4166#comment-150244 They can plug as many leaks as they like. The Internet will create new holes. BTW I love your blog! They can plug as many leaks as they like. The Internet will create new holes.
BTW I love your blog!

]]> http://blog.oup.com/2009/04/bittorrent/#comment-150235 Mike Cane Fri, 17 Apr 2009 21:24:39 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/?p=4166#comment-150235 They can plug as many leaks as they like. The Internet will create new holes. They can plug as many leaks as they like. The Internet will create new holes.

]]>