Quite a few people have been commenting on how AOL/TW higher-ups would consider the development and release of Gnutella not a Good Thing (tm). I beg to differ.
Consider the existance of Napster. Napster appears to be a revolutionary broadband product that is being used by thousands of users worldwide to trade media. (music, in this case, but extensions are already being made) AOL/TW see this as a obvious threat. It continues the release of controlling their product: content. Mainstream adoption of Gnutella would put AOL/TW (and associated companies) in a position to add "extensions" later.
The placement and targetting is also wonderful. The most popular Audio Player is AOL WinAmp. If Gnutella, or a related "mini-"Gnutella was released with WinAmp, than AOL/TW would have instant leverage into the users already running WinAmp. I'm sure quite a few Slashdotters can appreciate product bundling.
Another point is AOL/TW's broadband services. Their cable sections will almost certainly be affected by any broadband product: Gnutella! I can see them adding in further support, "music communities" and other pluses for joining up with AOL/TW.
Those are just a few good points for AOL/TW, and associated companies. I would also note that something like this for AOL/TW also helps every other company in the RIAA/MPAA/and friends. They're all in bed with each other, so there will be obvious routes for collusion.
I understand the company in question only wants to patent/copyright their database, but this brings up an interesting topic:
We all have the human genome in us (duh). If a company maps the whole thing, should it be patentable or copyrightable?
We have our currently existing strings, but what if a company develops a replacement series and inserts it in our genome. Is it no longer basic "human?" Is the string, and the results of its addition, patentable/copyrightable?
I would hate to have a world where my genetic code was owned by another company, but what about modifications to it?
"PC" is an abbreviation for "Personal Computer." I don't believe the PC is obsolete, and it probably won't be for quite some time. Just like the first cars were known as "horseless carriages," we'll continue to use the term PC for what a new term will be needed.
I see in the future, not a society where information is retrieved at libraries, in the corner of someone's home, or at a workstation in an office complex. The PDA will become an extension of a PC, more so than ever before. Technologies such as Bluetooth and CDMA will allow PDAs to directly connect to the Internet with bandwidth which seems "overpowered" to us now. Processors such as the Crusoe and StrongARM series will give our "overpowered" PDAs a "real" engine to run "real" programs.
The Internet plays hell with our new definition of "Personal Computer." The boxs sitting on your desktop now will move to under your tables or hidden away in the basement. A silent blinking box with a wire to the Internet via your personal lan and net domain. Your PDA will connect to these systems and run the services YOU want. Mail, web hosting, data storage, and more data processing than your "overpowered" PDA will ever support. This can happen because the PCs will always have more space for more stuff than a PDA will.
I used to think protocols such as the ones used in X-Windows would be given a new life when this happens. Your PDA would become a simple X client to your P.C. at home. If you didn't have a PDA, there would be public access terminals that you could give your username and domain to log into and VIOLA, you'd have "full" access. However, I've reconsidered and see a world where the PDA is a condensed information processor with sensoria. You can do little tasks (surfing web, editing documents, and equiv) on your PDA, but when you need that SETI@Home client running, it'll be on your PC.
Maybe I've stolen quite a bit from authors like Greg Bear or Neal Stephenson. However, I believe we will have a completely different definition of the "Personal Computer" when we have a new architecture.
It could work if the users involved were able to post up "want lists" and there were rewards (money?) for posting up the music a requestor wanted. Maybe a flat rate for uploading new music not even on the servers?
Slashdot Mirror
Quite a few people have been commenting on how AOL/TW higher-ups would consider the development and release of Gnutella not a Good Thing (tm). I beg to differ.
Consider the existance of Napster. Napster appears to be a revolutionary broadband product that is being used by thousands of users worldwide to trade media. (music, in this case, but extensions are already being made) AOL/TW see this as a obvious threat. It continues the release of controlling their product: content. Mainstream adoption of Gnutella would put AOL/TW (and associated companies) in a position to add "extensions" later.
The placement and targetting is also wonderful. The most popular Audio Player is AOL WinAmp. If Gnutella, or a related "mini-"Gnutella was released with WinAmp, than AOL/TW would have instant leverage into the users already running WinAmp. I'm sure quite a few Slashdotters can appreciate product bundling.
Another point is AOL/TW's broadband services. Their cable sections will almost certainly be affected by any broadband product: Gnutella! I can see them adding in further support, "music communities" and other pluses for joining up with AOL/TW.
Those are just a few good points for AOL/TW, and associated companies. I would also note that something like this for AOL/TW also helps every other company in the RIAA/MPAA/and friends. They're all in bed with each other, so there will be obvious routes for collusion.
I understand the company in question only wants to patent/copyright their database, but this brings up an interesting topic:
We all have the human genome in us (duh). If a company maps the whole thing, should it be patentable or copyrightable?
We have our currently existing strings, but what if a company develops a replacement series and inserts it in our genome. Is it no longer basic "human?" Is the string, and the results of its addition, patentable/copyrightable?
I would hate to have a world where my genetic code was owned by another company, but what about modifications to it?
Except they aren't. Only re-transmission and copying of copyrighted MP3s is illegal.
I would suggest reading the post further. I stated that I originally thought that way, but reconsidered.
"PC" is an abbreviation for "Personal Computer." I don't believe the PC is obsolete, and it probably won't be for quite some time. Just like the first cars were known as "horseless carriages," we'll continue to use the term PC for what a new term will be needed.
I see in the future, not a society where information is retrieved at libraries, in the corner of someone's home, or at a workstation in an office complex. The PDA will become an extension of a PC, more so than ever before. Technologies such as Bluetooth and CDMA will allow PDAs to directly connect to the Internet with bandwidth which seems "overpowered" to us now. Processors such as the Crusoe and StrongARM series will give our "overpowered" PDAs a "real" engine to run "real" programs.
The Internet plays hell with our new definition of "Personal Computer." The boxs sitting on your desktop now will move to under your tables or hidden away in the basement. A silent blinking box with a wire to the Internet via your personal lan and net domain. Your PDA will connect to these systems and run the services YOU want. Mail, web hosting, data storage, and more data processing than your "overpowered" PDA will ever support. This can happen because the PCs will always have more space for more stuff than a PDA will.
I used to think protocols such as the ones used in X-Windows would be given a new life when this happens. Your PDA would become a simple X client to your P.C. at home. If you didn't have a PDA, there would be public access terminals that you could give your username and domain to log into and VIOLA, you'd have "full" access. However, I've reconsidered and see a world where the PDA is a condensed information processor with sensoria. You can do little tasks (surfing web, editing documents, and equiv) on your PDA, but when you need that SETI@Home client running, it'll be on your PC.
Maybe I've stolen quite a bit from authors like Greg Bear or Neal Stephenson. However, I believe we will have a completely different definition of the "Personal Computer" when we have a new architecture.
It wouldn't need every mp3 recorded, initially.
It could work if the users involved were able to post up "want lists" and there were rewards (money?) for posting up the music a requestor wanted. Maybe a flat rate for uploading new music not even on the servers?