give me a break - the damage will be proportional to the ability and skill of the artist and or their work - obviously if there is some amateur ansel adams and he starts snapping some real beauty shots that everyone starts picking up and using anonymously it wont take long for him to find it at what point he is covered by the law.
The burden of proof IS the rub - not just because you have to have the resources to obtain expert witnesses, economists etc. which a private litlgant or consumer class might have a harder time with than the Federal Government, but because if you have to make a prima facie showing specific consumer harm notwithstanding apparent anti-competitive behavior at the pleading stage to survive a motion to dismiss you might never be able to obtain the corporate records through discovery that will be dispositive. Also, the courts have been generally hesistant to take on the role of ongoing overseer of a specialized industry - one would imagine this reticence being exacerbated when an industry standards board has already reviewed the matter.
What about CALEA requirements - which have already
been extended to IP traffic - once it goes out into the network its fair game right - regardless of protocol?
But I think the bigger problem is that the Facebook app effectively recruits users to become moles for the police. In the US, federal wiretap laws, etc. maintain that, generally, law enforcement cannot use information gathered online w/out a warrant at trial. Yet, courts have carved out an exception to this rule in cases where a third party Internet user obtains incriminating information from a user online and hands it over to authorities. For instance, child pornography found on a user's hard drive by a third party hacker using a P2P client, was deemed admissible at trial. To the extent that the Manchester App denotes a trend towards actively recruiting users to investigate and report on the activities of others, I think the US should seriously reconsider what sort of evidence is permissible under the fourth amendment. And this includes information handed over by foreign authorities - i.e. Manchester Police - who themselves obtained it from a third party.
It seems like a generally good thing that Comcast and the other major ISPs are embracing P2P. But I agree - it would be naive to think the sudden turnabout is only to make consumers happy. The ISPs know that the explosion of online video is a threat to their core business models - pre-packaged pay-tiers, subscription service, and collecting ad revenues. Comcast is in trouble If people aren't watching their cable channels or using VOD service because they can access the content on Joost, Hulu or Comedy central.com online a la carte, and/or for free.
So, I think the BitTorrent move has to - at least, in part - with addressing the rise of web-based video and consumers' growing appetite for VOD. In the case of cable companies, adaptation might be especially critical since bandwidth constraints in the last mile can lead to significant degradation of service. To the extent that Cablecos can work with P4P working group members in developing a "network aware" peer-to-peer system with a standardized protocol that - as has been claimed by Verizon and others - will lead to up to a 90 percent bandwidth savings and facilitate the transmission real-time high-def IPTV as well as VOD - it will be an value proposition for the Cablecos who can stay relevant and stagger deployment of DOCSIS3 as well the transition to an IP based system.
On the other hand - it would be interesting to ask the same group, how much of their time online is spent interacting with ad-supported content and services...the real rub is providing the trasnparency re: advertising practices that consumers deserve while continuing to provide the value propositions that online ad revenues have made possible. The movement towards "data as exportable user currency" seems empowering and promising
Ghosts I-IV may not be NIN's best effort - it may be a lot of morbid elevator music - but its revolutionary in a way I'm not really hearing people talk about. Reznor didn't just duplicate what Radiohead did. Ghosts' tiered pricing system extracts value from those who value NIN's music and accessories the most while helping to underwrite the participation of those less willing or able to pay - it is Ramsey pricing. Most revolutionary, however, is that the 75 dollar and 300 dollar packages - the latter of which Reznor sold out of in days - include open source.wav files for the music so users can remix the songs and create their own musical mashups. Further, Reznor has created a forum where users can post their remixes and he will lend his name to form a compilation of the best efforts. The DVD was one of the most successful consumer products ever because it allowed people greater participation with the content they love through behind the scenes features, interviews and other extras. The Music and Film industries have been struggling to find a way to provide similar platform specific value in the digital realm, where people can exchange exact carbon copies of a creative work with the click of a button for free (albeit illegally). The ability to not just interact with but collaborate with your favorite artists coupled with a tiered pricing system may be the answer.
The Internet is a true marketplace of ideas. Left to accordant forces, Interment users' eyes will gravitate where they want. The explosion of user generated forums was in large part a reaction to the lock down on choice and participation that had existed since forever. Now, if there is a demand for additional content and services that provide an expert editorial buffer - great - there's room for that too, especially if its free. But I do think the author of Newsweek article is a bit gung ho in heralding the "Return of the Expert." According to Alexa.com, Wikipedia is still the ninth most popular web site in the world and holding. About.com - the proclaimed prototype for the expert filtered site - is not even in the top 100 and barely in the top 200.
I think there is another point here. Yes, there are lots of incentives for Verizon to scrap copper loops in areas they are laying fiber - ranging from being able to sell the raw copper as a commodity to lessening the costs associated with common carrier interconnection obligations. But in terms of a pure Internet play - the FCC and courts have characterized DSL as an information service and, accordingly, Verizon is not required to lease lines for high speed Internet service to competitors either. So as far as Internet is concerned, cutting copper is more about recouping and lessening costs I think than giving consumers fewer options to connect. Though, I understand objections to pressure tactics as a matter of principle and agree there should always be transparency - consumers should at a minimum know what is happening and, generally, have some choice.
There are other reasons to object to copper being cut without permission. For instance, the copper based system is more robust and reliable and will retain power longer in the event of a storm, national disaster, or emergency. Some consumers may want both.
More interesting and problematic to me has been reports that the Telcos and Cable companies are destroying each others' equipment in some areas to make it harder for consumers to switch back. In that case you see a real lessening of choice for broadband access in an already limited market.
I think there is something to the author's opinion about people being willing to pay for non-traditional qualities online - for instance, immediacy in delivery seemed like a good example. But in most media markets, distribution windows are closing anyway - there is an inundation of information so its all about the initial release - after opening weekend, BO for a movie falls 50 percent, same with DVD sales and music - album sales taper off quickly too. I dont think its just about there being digital copies for free online. Its also about there being a lot of competition for increasingly limited attention spans. And there IS a problem when Michael Moore's "Sicko" is available online two weeks before it hits the theaters. But the film still did well. My point is, if you want to incentivize there being a higher-quality market and products, there needs to be SOME before-the-fact guarantee for people - whether they be investors or artists - to sink time and energy into aggregating the skill and talent needed - whether its software or a movie. So the answer isnt just getting people to donate a la radiohead - there needs to be some fundamental restructuring - whether its profit-sharing between ISPs or software distrib platforms and content providers, for instance, on an "all you can" eat subscription model or advertising or some combination of models, to avoid detrimental reliance and loss of creative incentive. I think the reality is that even though a lot of great work product comes from the edges, and the peer production is rife with possibility, on whole, there will be a demand for higher quality content and products and services. and i think people wil be willing to pay for it, if its priced in a way that makes sense - also i do agree personalizetion and interactivity are important and commodifiable features for the future, though i haven't seen them monetized in a really compelling way yet
But even beyond the no money question - there is just the point that click through as a metric does leave a lot of questions about the value of an ad and who it is reaching. It is far more valuable to know that you are putting your ad in front of an individual rather than a demographic. So, this just seems like part of the push towards a pay-per-person or node model - by way of beacon and emerging data import/export schemes. This study reminds me of the white papers on outrageously high cookie deletion rates and adoption of anti-cookie software. More information, better customized content and services (including advertising) - great. There just needs to be transparency and choice so the market can respond subject to competitive pressures.
Also, the average gamer is male/30.
So, the singularity is or isn't near? Did anyone ever read about how DARPA is supposedly using Nano-technology to manufacture invisible military armor? Or what is perceived as inivisble armor - how much will this nano-technology really help us transcend our biology - I mean, Jake 2.0 was cool but hard to see how that could stop being fiction? What would the applications fo the magnetic properties be?
What is the deal with this Open Handset Alliance - I mean, how long do you think Google was talking to all these big companies for - because even into late fall last year the news and reports were all about some super secret G-Phone - like a real cell phone not just an OS - that was being manufactured in some undisclosed location and would turn the wireless world on its head. Does anyone know about when the handset alliance was created or even when Google, etc started talking ab an open OS for mobile not just a "G-phone"?
Slashdot Mirror
give me a break - the damage will be proportional to the ability and skill of the artist and or their work - obviously if there is some amateur ansel adams and he starts snapping some real beauty shots that everyone starts picking up and using anonymously it wont take long for him to find it at what point he is covered by the law.
The burden of proof IS the rub - not just because you have to have the resources to obtain expert witnesses, economists etc. which a private litlgant or consumer class might have a harder time with than the Federal Government, but because if you have to make a prima facie showing specific consumer harm notwithstanding apparent anti-competitive behavior at the pleading stage to survive a motion to dismiss you might never be able to obtain the corporate records through discovery that will be dispositive. Also, the courts have been generally hesistant to take on the role of ongoing overseer of a specialized industry - one would imagine this reticence being exacerbated when an industry standards board has already reviewed the matter.
What about CALEA requirements - which have already been extended to IP traffic - once it goes out into the network its fair game right - regardless of protocol?
But I think the bigger problem is that the Facebook app effectively recruits users to become moles for the police. In the US, federal wiretap laws, etc. maintain that, generally, law enforcement cannot use information gathered online w/out a warrant at trial. Yet, courts have carved out an exception to this rule in cases where a third party Internet user obtains incriminating information from a user online and hands it over to authorities. For instance, child pornography found on a user's hard drive by a third party hacker using a P2P client, was deemed admissible at trial. To the extent that the Manchester App denotes a trend towards actively recruiting users to investigate and report on the activities of others, I think the US should seriously reconsider what sort of evidence is permissible under the fourth amendment. And this includes information handed over by foreign authorities - i.e. Manchester Police - who themselves obtained it from a third party.
It seems like a generally good thing that Comcast and the other major ISPs are embracing P2P. But I agree - it would be naive to think the sudden turnabout is only to make consumers happy. The ISPs know that the explosion of online video is a threat to their core business models - pre-packaged pay-tiers, subscription service, and collecting ad revenues. Comcast is in trouble If people aren't watching their cable channels or using VOD service because they can access the content on Joost, Hulu or Comedy central.com online a la carte, and/or for free. So, I think the BitTorrent move has to - at least, in part - with addressing the rise of web-based video and consumers' growing appetite for VOD. In the case of cable companies, adaptation might be especially critical since bandwidth constraints in the last mile can lead to significant degradation of service. To the extent that Cablecos can work with P4P working group members in developing a "network aware" peer-to-peer system with a standardized protocol that - as has been claimed by Verizon and others - will lead to up to a 90 percent bandwidth savings and facilitate the transmission real-time high-def IPTV as well as VOD - it will be an value proposition for the Cablecos who can stay relevant and stagger deployment of DOCSIS3 as well the transition to an IP based system.
On the other hand - it would be interesting to ask the same group, how much of their time online is spent interacting with ad-supported content and services...the real rub is providing the trasnparency re: advertising practices that consumers deserve while continuing to provide the value propositions that online ad revenues have made possible. The movement towards "data as exportable user currency" seems empowering and promising
Ghosts I-IV may not be NIN's best effort - it may be a lot of morbid elevator music - but its revolutionary in a way I'm not really hearing people talk about. Reznor didn't just duplicate what Radiohead did. Ghosts' tiered pricing system extracts value from those who value NIN's music and accessories the most while helping to underwrite the participation of those less willing or able to pay - it is Ramsey pricing. Most revolutionary, however, is that the 75 dollar and 300 dollar packages - the latter of which Reznor sold out of in days - include open source .wav files for the music so users can remix the songs and create their own musical mashups. Further, Reznor has created a forum where users can post their remixes and he will lend his name to form a compilation of the best efforts. The DVD was one of the most successful consumer products ever because it allowed people greater participation with the content they love through behind the scenes features, interviews and other extras. The Music and Film industries have been struggling to find a way to provide similar platform specific value in the digital realm, where people can exchange exact carbon copies of a creative work with the click of a button for free (albeit illegally). The ability to not just interact with but collaborate with your favorite artists coupled with a tiered pricing system may be the answer.
The Internet is a true marketplace of ideas. Left to accordant forces, Interment users' eyes will gravitate where they want. The explosion of user generated forums was in large part a reaction to the lock down on choice and participation that had existed since forever. Now, if there is a demand for additional content and services that provide an expert editorial buffer - great - there's room for that too, especially if its free. But I do think the author of Newsweek article is a bit gung ho in heralding the "Return of the Expert." According to Alexa.com, Wikipedia is still the ninth most popular web site in the world and holding. About.com - the proclaimed prototype for the expert filtered site - is not even in the top 100 and barely in the top 200.
I think there is another point here. Yes, there are lots of incentives for Verizon to scrap copper loops in areas they are laying fiber - ranging from being able to sell the raw copper as a commodity to lessening the costs associated with common carrier interconnection obligations. But in terms of a pure Internet play - the FCC and courts have characterized DSL as an information service and, accordingly, Verizon is not required to lease lines for high speed Internet service to competitors either. So as far as Internet is concerned, cutting copper is more about recouping and lessening costs I think than giving consumers fewer options to connect. Though, I understand objections to pressure tactics as a matter of principle and agree there should always be transparency - consumers should at a minimum know what is happening and, generally, have some choice. There are other reasons to object to copper being cut without permission. For instance, the copper based system is more robust and reliable and will retain power longer in the event of a storm, national disaster, or emergency. Some consumers may want both. More interesting and problematic to me has been reports that the Telcos and Cable companies are destroying each others' equipment in some areas to make it harder for consumers to switch back. In that case you see a real lessening of choice for broadband access in an already limited market.
I think there is something to the author's opinion about people being willing to pay for non-traditional qualities online - for instance, immediacy in delivery seemed like a good example. But in most media markets, distribution windows are closing anyway - there is an inundation of information so its all about the initial release - after opening weekend, BO for a movie falls 50 percent, same with DVD sales and music - album sales taper off quickly too. I dont think its just about there being digital copies for free online. Its also about there being a lot of competition for increasingly limited attention spans. And there IS a problem when Michael Moore's "Sicko" is available online two weeks before it hits the theaters. But the film still did well. My point is, if you want to incentivize there being a higher-quality market and products, there needs to be SOME before-the-fact guarantee for people - whether they be investors or artists - to sink time and energy into aggregating the skill and talent needed - whether its software or a movie. So the answer isnt just getting people to donate a la radiohead - there needs to be some fundamental restructuring - whether its profit-sharing between ISPs or software distrib platforms and content providers, for instance, on an "all you can" eat subscription model or advertising or some combination of models, to avoid detrimental reliance and loss of creative incentive. I think the reality is that even though a lot of great work product comes from the edges, and the peer production is rife with possibility, on whole, there will be a demand for higher quality content and products and services. and i think people wil be willing to pay for it, if its priced in a way that makes sense - also i do agree personalizetion and interactivity are important and commodifiable features for the future, though i haven't seen them monetized in a really compelling way yet
I have an idea - why dont the tether the ballons to a cell tower! LMFAO!
But even beyond the no money question - there is just the point that click through as a metric does leave a lot of questions about the value of an ad and who it is reaching. It is far more valuable to know that you are putting your ad in front of an individual rather than a demographic. So, this just seems like part of the push towards a pay-per-person or node model - by way of beacon and emerging data import/export schemes. This study reminds me of the white papers on outrageously high cookie deletion rates and adoption of anti-cookie software. More information, better customized content and services (including advertising) - great. There just needs to be transparency and choice so the market can respond subject to competitive pressures. Also, the average gamer is male/30.
So, the singularity is or isn't near? Did anyone ever read about how DARPA is supposedly using Nano-technology to manufacture invisible military armor? Or what is perceived as inivisble armor - how much will this nano-technology really help us transcend our biology - I mean, Jake 2.0 was cool but hard to see how that could stop being fiction? What would the applications fo the magnetic properties be?
What is the deal with this Open Handset Alliance - I mean, how long do you think Google was talking to all these big companies for - because even into late fall last year the news and reports were all about some super secret G-Phone - like a real cell phone not just an OS - that was being manufactured in some undisclosed location and would turn the wireless world on its head. Does anyone know about when the handset alliance was created or even when Google, etc started talking ab an open OS for mobile not just a "G-phone"?