Obtain an ancient spreadsheet, print your license, maybe staple it to a paper bag, and make a big show of it. Have a friend buy it, and demonstrate the rights you have acquired over his computer. Have a good lawyer vet everything.
Before one can know if SDMI does the right thing, one must have a clear picture of what the right thing is. One thing the recorded music publishers have neglected for years is that they were only incidentally selling atoms. Really, they were always selling licenses.
I have here a brand-new shrink wrapped CD. Copyright mark and one warning on the outside - "unauthorized duplication is violation of applicable laws". Pop the wrap. Disc itself has the same print. Liner notes have copyright statements, same warning.
So here's an odd thing - I've bought some atoms and a license, but I haven't got a clear picture of that license.
Music licensing is fiercely complex anyway - many organizations can "own" an aspect of the same performance. Making rights visible would go a long way towards making SDMI restrictions comprehensible - and maybe getting rid of some restrictions.
It seems to me that Gates and Case are really very nineteenth-century types - they are the famous "robber barons" like Leland Stanford and Andrew Carnegie.
But the key question is: are there true economies of scale to build the structures that would be abusive. After all, big isn't inherently bad.
Microsoft had such an opportunity - the "network effect" that pulled so many applications onto Windows.
The 19th century robber barons had railroads, and industrial economies of scale - a big steel mill is more efficient that 100 small ones.
But does AOL/Time-Warner have a similar hook? None is obvious to me - there's little advantage to a web application provider in hosting through AOL. A little one, but not a big one. Not like the difference between staking your future on the launch of a Windows app against a MacOS app.
The difference between a rich company and a dangerous monopoly is the "only game in town" factor. Time-Warner has that in some cable utilities - that's the only monopoly I see. And cable has competitors.
Remember when AT&T was "TPC" ("see figure 1"?)(BTW, I can't find a URL for a "see figure 1" joke to include here...)
Henry Troup hwt@igs.net These comments are placed in the public domain.
Slashdot Mirror
Invite the press.
Obtain an ancient spreadsheet, print your license, maybe staple it to a paper bag, and make a big show of it. Have a friend buy it, and demonstrate the rights you have acquired over his computer. Have a good lawyer vet everything.
Coverage is important.
Before one can know if SDMI does the right thing, one must have a clear picture of what the right thing is. One thing the recorded music publishers have neglected for years is that they were only incidentally selling atoms. Really, they were always selling licenses.
I have here a brand-new shrink wrapped CD. Copyright mark and one warning on the outside - "unauthorized duplication is violation of applicable laws". Pop the wrap. Disc itself has the same print. Liner notes have copyright statements, same warning.
So here's an odd thing - I've bought some atoms and a license, but I haven't got a clear picture of that license.
I took a quick pass at smdi.org and wasn't too informed by it. So I buzzed over to riaa.org where this item is a pointer on The Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995 I should run over and read the acts, but I haven't yet. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse..."
Music licensing is fiercely complex anyway - many organizations can "own" an aspect of the same performance. Making rights visible would go a long way towards making SDMI restrictions comprehensible - and maybe getting rid of some restrictions.
Henry Troup
hwt@igs.net
It seems to me that Gates and Case are really very nineteenth-century types - they are the famous "robber barons" like Leland Stanford and Andrew Carnegie.
This is not a new insight. J Bradford DeLong has an excell ent article with some interesting conclusions on the influence of the personal billions.
But the key question is: are there true economies of scale to build the structures that would be abusive. After all, big isn't inherently bad.
Microsoft had such an opportunity - the "network effect" that pulled so many applications onto Windows.
The 19th century robber barons had railroads, and industrial economies of scale - a big steel mill is more efficient that 100 small ones.
But does AOL/Time-Warner have a similar hook? None is obvious to me - there's little advantage to a web application provider in hosting through AOL. A little one, but not a big one. Not like the difference between staking your future on the launch of a Windows app against a MacOS app.
The difference between a rich company and a dangerous monopoly is the "only game in town" factor. Time-Warner has that in some cable utilities - that's the only monopoly I see. And cable has competitors.
Remember when AT&T was "TPC" ("see figure 1"?)(BTW, I can't find a URL for a "see figure 1" joke to include here...)
Henry Troup
hwt@igs.net
These comments are placed in the public domain.