I only see *large, traditional* music in decline, and organizations built on the assumption those organizations are the only ones with talent - but not the "industry". Such is the effect of rapid change.
plus *lots* of great, independent net labels and organizations building up to use the Internet the way it works, and an emerging set of well-known artists breaking free from these old organizations to embrace new methods.
One way to address this problem is to model the user behaviors (successes and mistakes) in a low-resolution representation of the game - and to have the AI agents in the game simply catalog the actions - using them as templates for actions they make. Much simpler than trying to figure it out complex strategies with computation.
It would take some time to get such a system working, but once there is a sufficiently large corpus of user behaviors, the actions of the AI agents would be very believable.
"promiscuity" being "undesirable" seems in line with the absurd overly-judgmental attitudes toward sex promoted by the far right and the religious zealots
IMO people would be a *lot* better off being taught healthy norms about sex and encouraged to have more healthy sex - instead of the story that it is somehow bad and needs to be restricted, hidden and controlled by shaming people
'' Once your promotion expires, seven day home delivery of the New York Times costs $58.06 per month or $697 annually. A Kindle 2 sells for $359. The New York Times via Kindle costs just $13.99 per month or $168. You can buy a Kindle 2 with a one year subscription to The Times for only $527. Then, you can use the $169 savings to take your friend out to a very nice dinner - the one whose sister has the dogs who get their waste dumped in your blue plastic Times delivery bags (I guess I'll find out soon if she reads my blog when she asks about that dinner).
BusinessInsider mused that it costs The Times twice as much money each year to provide home delivery than it would to buy every subscriber a Kindle: "What we're trying to say is that as a technology for delivering the news, newsprint isn't just expensive and inefficient; it's laughably so." ''
Wow. That puts the kindle price into perspective!
Also, who spents 700 a year on newspapers any more? News, even good news, is no-cost online, right?
We have IP for a reason: it helps make social structures work better. As a society, we make a little deal, and that deal is a different in each of the 3 broad categories of IP protection: copyright & trademarks, patents, and trade secrets.
In the copyright area, the deal works like this: the Content Creator gets a limited time right to exclusively control profits, distribution, performance, derivatives and use of the work they create as a proxy for the "property right" they would normally get to claim if they had created a physical thing. In return for this exclusive control, the Content Creator gets both benefits, but also pays a downside. The benefit is they get to profit and control the results of their efforts. The downside is that after that limited time is over, the information always gets released to the society at large. In the long run, society benefits from this deal in two ways: it promotes the creation of works based on information: digital media, software, literature, music, movies, etc....in today's world - most everything relating to media, computers, and electronic art. The second, important benefit is that society gets all the information after the limited time is over. It all becomes public domain.
Copyright is good, and we need it. Many have argued and manipulated the system to change the amount of time - but that is another story. Many have argued about how much of what one creates can be controlled, and how - and we have fair use cases that cover exactly that.
So we already have the deal. The deal works (some might argue poorly). I don't see a valid need for another, different deal.
Just because AP runs a large business and spends money doesn't mean they (or anyone) can cut a new deal. In this case, the whole idea of "hot news" is about controlling very specific, small pieces of information: scores, facts, headlines. In my opinion after a very brief read: the balance between what is good of society and what is good for the Content Creator is not met.
I disagree - after reading the article, the response seems reasonable *given the events* as described. Confiscation would only work if the student compiles.
Real communication is only possible while both parties are being honest. The girl, according to article was simply lying, over and over and over. Her own behavior lead to the result she got, and probably the lesson she needed.
While the headline "Arrested For Classroom Texting" is comic - after reading the article, it is more like, "out of control 14-year old girl gets treated just like the adult she thinks she is"
"Does Earth harbour a 'shadow biosphere' of alien life?" No evidence for that! "Do magic purple dragons do loop-DE-loops in the upper atmosphere?" No evidence for that either!
There does need to be a push for publishers to adopt these technologies. Most traditional media outlets do not see how well this can work, and refuse to admit the technology is already robust and available, and better for the consumer than broadcast TV.
New publishing services do exist: LegalTorrents.com (one of the default sidebar items in Miro) and focuses entirely on the publishing side. (Disclaimer: I work on LegalTorrents) - and there are many others too that work well with Miro.
LegalTorrents is an online digital media community to discover and distribute high quality open-licensed digital media. Each Content Creator on the site has an RSS feed that integrates automatically with Miro. (Sidebar -> Add Feed) The real benefit here is that Miro will download and share new content in the background automatically from each feed, and you can watch/listen whenever you want.
Restricting edits to trusted users is ideologically opposite to the core principles that made Wikipedia great. I think it is a terrible idea.
Instead, I've advocated alternatives in the past: article 'sets' based on quality and notability, and real-time feedback of edits/history and controvercial regions
article sets: instead of an "in or out" policy for articles... let people make any article the want - any person, any thing, but have a graded system for what makes it to full publication. For example: Level 5 articles, "Full Publication" are basically all the things on Wikipedia now. Level 1 are minutia of almost no interest to anyone but a select few, and only accessible to logged-in users. All new articles start at Level 1. Level 0 and -1 are candidates for deletion. Levels in between are various degrees of publication openness; community nominated moderation panels select articles' levels (think: meta-moderation). This would create an even more open ecosystem of creative expression that would lead to higher-quality publication of new articles in Wikipedia.
real-time feedback: The web pages need to include a sidebar or underlines, or some integrated, obvious feedback mechanism to flag recent edits and controversial (high-change-rate) sections of text. This is critical to understanding the longevity, accuracy and community agreement to content in a page. This would eliminate one of the most serious criticisms of Wikipedia, by letting readers know what was recently changed or what has been changed often. One would need to create many complex metrics about article edit rates, user reliability and content filters to make such an integrated flagging/feedback system work well.
These are the areas where the Wikipedia foundation could innovate and create things that are better than we have today - not with closing down edits with approvals.
ideally: the post the videos in an ogg container, encode it with open standard codecs, and make the full content avilable on bittorrent (also an open standard with open source implementations)
We're working on the assumption that Title 17 USC 105 applies to these works as results of official duties of an officer or employee of the United States Government, which would make the videos produced public domain content.
I completely agree that Google has been royally screwing up this search page. I also don't see how Google could foul up this search so badly.
Just follow the money. Google makes most of their money off search - not off Google groups search - but from general web searches. Google is also the only viable game in town on Usenet search. This leaves two reasons why the focus is not put on making this an excellent service: first, the effort is going toward growing, protecting, and expanding existing revenue streams, not on groups/Usenet search. I see nothing sinister here or conspiratorial, or even intentionally making the groups search poor - just business reality that the resources in a large company go toward revenue generating divisions. Second, (and this one is subtle) Google now has mostly a monopoly on search on Usenet, and like all monopolies, there is a strange benefit that arises from poor service. When you have to make several searches, they serve you more ads. There are no viable alternatives to force them to focus on making the results better than the competition.
*Gong* Bring out your dead *Gong* Windows is insecure *Gong* Bring out your dead *Gong*
It seems to me there is a fatigue that sets in regarding unpleasant information. How many times does one have to hear a thing, especially an unpleasant thing they don't want to hear, before that person stop listening to it? This happens to me at least. We see this (as a parallel) in politics all the time, when we're told this guy or that person broke the law. Its like a background din you have to tune out to get through the day.
It's made worse because there is no solution.
For the user of windows, there is nothing they can do about the fundamental insecurity that leads to repeated, consistent, and regular security updates like this. The only option is to change OS, which if you're the average computer user, that is not an option without significant expense. It's unpleasant to hear that crackers are breaking into computers and turning them into zombie swarms of attacking botnets. Hear the same bad thing enough times, eventually people stop listening.
I was fortunate: my windows laptop was stolen in 2004 and I made the switch, and now use Mac and Linux now exclusively. Not that Mac is any panacea - I still can't stand Finder, I think it is awful, and curse it every time I need to move a few files to some other folder on another drive (usually I just use "mv"). BUT at least I'm not forced to start ignoring serious security threats that I can't prevent or address effectively. (I don't consider a long series of "After the crack" patches effectively addressing the problem)
Black markets emerge for commodity goods when there are significant discrepancies between marginal costs and market price. This is exactly the case for digital entertainment media, where technology has eliminated the ability of major media producers to (technically) control the means of distribution of their product, and the marginal cost of distribution is orders of magnitude less than the price to legally buy the good. The development of the black market / piracy is expected in this case.
But - there is a middle ground. There is not just "selling media" vs. "pirating media"...
We have built LegalTorrents to get around the "dilemma" we have a working business model that both incorporates emerging technology and ALSO provides financial supports to Content Creators. The answer is simple: give away what you can't control, and provide value when customers choose to pay.
All the media we host can be downloaded without paying for it, but Content Creators can ask for Sponsorship - voluntary payments. Why would a user pay for media they can get with out paying for it? The answer is give them more: Give them more. Give public credit and community props for those users who pay for the media they love. Give them access to the Content Creators. Give them extra material not easily found online. Give them early access to concerts, private events, etc. Enable the Content Creator to build up a community around their work that is available for those users who pay to support it.
Property - the mapping of resources to individuals, and more recently, to organizations and groups - is just a story: a virtual mapping that most everyone is told and most everyone agrees to. It is an extremely useful story we've come up with that has roots in both biological nature (territory, mating, food gathering) and in legal and social precedent (commerce, deeds, titles, etc). . . and to date there are no other means of organizing scarce resources that reduce conflict more effectively than property. Property makes clear which person or group has control over a thing and most everyone agrees with the story. Modern societies have also extended the concept of property to information in a few ways, and those have worked pretty well too: those IP protections motivate and reward creative expression.
However, when it comes to organizations and companies creating information things that are simulations of physical things, (just database rows existing in virtual environments) - it is not so clear that the benefits of the property story outweigh the costs. Simply put, within virtual worlds, the reason to also have the property story on virtual items is usually to artificially maintain scarcity - so some virtual items have more value to the people who want them, and to make the virtual world have characteristics like the physical world, and not because the virtual "items" are in any real sense scarce.
This disconnect is where the conflict will truly emerge. Even people who understand why we need property in the real world may still not accept or acknowledge or follow the ideas of property regarding virtual items if there is no compelling reason to need the property mapping/story to allocate scarce resources or to motivate and reward creative expression.
But seriously - more rational deduction in early education including logic games and reasoning will help fight the absurd and assinie War on Intellectualism.
I play chess and Go with my daughter each chance I get.
Intelligence FTW! (Its amazing that one has to even say it...)
I push back on this mentality each time I see it from the agile crowd: (FTA/review)
"When good unit tests are in place, then code can be changed at will and the tests will tell automatically you if you broke anything."
No. (testing FTW and all, but lets get real)
Tests are *helpful*. Multi-user development beyond 2 people accelerates with good tests. Maintenance long term is easier with tests. Changes happen faster and are more robust with good tests. However, tests are extremely difficult to write well and almost impossible that cover all the possibilities for future changes while also telling future programmers automatically when something doesn't work. I think that the best one could say is this:
When a comprehensive set of great unit tests are in place, then code can be changed at will and the tests will help the programmer understand if they broke anything. Test will often tell you automatically about things that are obvious, and usually would be seen with the most basic release testing. The art of writing good tests is understanding the subtle points of how your code functions and the pitfalls future developers may trip over when they extend what you did.
sadly, axxo and fxg and their black market friends already figured out years ago how to get movies for free to most anyone willing to look for them. it brings the end of an industry in it's current form.
There are better models: allow people, if they choose, to take media without paying for it, but give them credit, additional access, and membership benefits when customers do sponsor/pay for the media they consume. It is really not that complicated... find something you can sell because you can no longer technically control the distribution of your product.
Major media producers cannot change the progression of technology with policy and lawsuits. They would be so much better off to adopt what tech can enable, and build effective business models around providing customers with real value when they do pay for media, instead of using fear and lawsuits to force them to pay when they don't have to.
Slashdot Mirror
I only see *large, traditional* music in decline, and organizations built on the assumption those organizations are the only ones with talent - but not the "industry". Such is the effect of rapid change.
See collections, for example:
http://www.jamendo.com/en/
http://bt.etree.org/
http://beta.legaltorrents.com/netlabel-music
http://uaradio.net/
and others, going strong and growing
plus *lots* of great, independent net labels and organizations building up to use the Internet the way it works, and an emerging set of well-known artists breaking free from these old organizations to embrace new methods.
One way to address this problem is to model the user behaviors (successes and mistakes) in a low-resolution representation of the game - and to have the AI agents in the game simply catalog the actions - using them as templates for actions they make. Much simpler than trying to figure it out complex strategies with computation.
It would take some time to get such a system working, but once there is a sufficiently large corpus of user behaviors, the actions of the AI agents would be very believable.
http://www.billshrink.com/blog/mobile-cell-phone-plan-cost-markup/
recent post "Dissecting The Mobile Phone Plan Markup"
ISP VOIP has to be better than this
beat me to the point...
"promiscuity" being "undesirable" seems in line with the absurd overly-judgmental attitudes toward sex promoted by the far right and the religious zealots
IMO people would be a *lot* better off being taught healthy norms about sex and encouraged to have more healthy sex - instead of the story that it is somehow bad and needs to be restricted, hidden and controlled by shaming people
'' Once your promotion expires, seven day home delivery of the New York Times costs $58.06 per month or $697 annually. A Kindle 2 sells for $359. The New York Times via Kindle costs just $13.99 per month or $168. You can buy a Kindle 2 with a one year subscription to The Times for only $527. Then, you can use the $169 savings to take your friend out to a very nice dinner - the one whose sister has the dogs who get their waste dumped in your blue plastic Times delivery bags (I guess I'll find out soon if she reads my blog when she asks about that dinner).
BusinessInsider mused that it costs The Times twice as much money each year to provide home delivery than it would to buy every subscriber a Kindle: "What we're trying to say is that as a technology for delivering the news, newsprint isn't just expensive and inefficient; it's laughably so." ''
Wow. That puts the kindle price into perspective!
Also, who spents 700 a year on newspapers any more? News, even good news, is no-cost online, right?
oh dear
connection request: "kdawson would like to find you"
We have IP for a reason: it helps make social structures work better. As a society, we make a little deal, and that deal is a different in each of the 3 broad categories of IP protection: copyright & trademarks, patents, and trade secrets.
In the copyright area, the deal works like this: the Content Creator gets a limited time right to exclusively control profits, distribution, performance, derivatives and use of the work they create as a proxy for the "property right" they would normally get to claim if they had created a physical thing. In return for this exclusive control, the Content Creator gets both benefits, but also pays a downside. The benefit is they get to profit and control the results of their efforts. The downside is that after that limited time is over, the information always gets released to the society at large. In the long run, society benefits from this deal in two ways: it promotes the creation of works based on information: digital media, software, literature, music, movies, etc. ...in today's world - most everything relating to media, computers, and electronic art. The second, important benefit is that society gets all the information after the limited time is over. It all becomes public domain.
Copyright is good, and we need it. Many have argued and manipulated the system to change the amount of time - but that is another story. Many have argued about how much of what one creates can be controlled, and how - and we have fair use cases that cover exactly that.
So we already have the deal. The deal works (some might argue poorly). I don't see a valid need for another, different deal.
Just because AP runs a large business and spends money doesn't mean they (or anyone) can cut a new deal. In this case, the whole idea of "hot news" is about controlling very specific, small pieces of information: scores, facts, headlines. In my opinion after a very brief read: the balance between what is good of society and what is good for the Content Creator is not met.
"The Internet was back to normal in short order."
Well, not completely normal, not yet.
I disagree - after reading the article, the response seems reasonable *given the events* as described. Confiscation would only work if the student compiles.
Real communication is only possible while both parties are being honest. The girl, according to article was simply lying, over and over and over. Her own behavior lead to the result she got, and probably the lesson she needed.
While the headline "Arrested For Classroom Texting" is comic - after reading the article, it is more like, "out of control 14-year old girl gets treated just like the adult she thinks she is"
Personally, I'm disappointed that companies keep calling me and treating me like just a "user".
More of them would get my business if they actually treated me like a member.
Here is an excellent talk from TED making the same point about the rules and the humanity of business:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/barry_schwartz_on_our_loss_of_wisdom.html
yawn
not news
not science
not interesting
"Does Earth harbour a 'shadow biosphere' of alien life?" No evidence for that!
"Do magic purple dragons do loop-DE-loops in the upper atmosphere?" No evidence for that either!
what's the difference?
maybe a sloooooooow news day?
And NOW for something completely different! Here is some absurd fear mongering to keep us hooked:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-thiessen15-2009feb15,0,469161.story
um, like, hire a real lawyer. really, dude.
Seems like no memory problem for me:
http://i41.tinypic.com/jl5nb8.png
on mac: 90MB "real memory", smaller than firefox at 101MB
There does need to be a push for publishers to adopt these technologies. Most traditional media outlets do not see how well this can work, and refuse to admit the technology is already robust and available, and better for the consumer than broadcast TV.
New publishing services do exist: LegalTorrents.com (one of the default sidebar items in Miro) and focuses entirely on the publishing side. (Disclaimer: I work on LegalTorrents) - and there are many others too that work well with Miro.
LegalTorrents is an online digital media community to discover and distribute high quality open-licensed digital media. Each Content Creator on the site has an RSS feed that integrates automatically with Miro. (Sidebar -> Add Feed) The real benefit here is that Miro will download and share new content in the background automatically from each feed, and you can watch/listen whenever you want.
Restricting edits to trusted users is ideologically opposite to the core principles that made Wikipedia great. I think it is a terrible idea.
Instead, I've advocated alternatives in the past: article 'sets' based on quality and notability, and real-time feedback of edits/history and controvercial regions
article sets: instead of an "in or out" policy for articles... let people make any article the want - any person, any thing, but have a graded system for what makes it to full publication. For example: Level 5 articles, "Full Publication" are basically all the things on Wikipedia now. Level 1 are minutia of almost no interest to anyone but a select few, and only accessible to logged-in users. All new articles start at Level 1. Level 0 and -1 are candidates for deletion. Levels in between are various degrees of publication openness; community nominated moderation panels select articles' levels (think: meta-moderation). This would create an even more open ecosystem of creative expression that would lead to higher-quality publication of new articles in Wikipedia.
real-time feedback: The web pages need to include a sidebar or underlines, or some integrated, obvious feedback mechanism to flag recent edits and controversial (high-change-rate) sections of text. This is critical to understanding the longevity, accuracy and community agreement to content in a page. This would eliminate one of the most serious criticisms of Wikipedia, by letting readers know what was recently changed or what has been changed often. One would need to create many complex metrics about article edit rates, user reliability and content filters to make such an integrated flagging/feedback system work well.
These are the areas where the Wikipedia foundation could innovate and create things that are better than we have today - not with closing down edits with approvals.
ideally: the post the videos in an ogg container, encode it with open standard codecs, and make the full content avilable on bittorrent (also an open standard with open source implementations)
We're working on the assumption that Title 17 USC 105 applies to these works as results of official duties of an officer or employee of the United States Government, which would make the videos produced public domain content.
We have volunteers posting them onto Bittorrent now:
http://beta.legaltorrents.com/creators/101-changegov
and notifications go out onto Twitter, Facebook, and onto custom RSS and email feeds to our members on LegalTorrents
We're also hosting this on LegalTorrents here
http://beta.legaltorrents.com/torrents/255-weekly-address-nov-15-2008
I completely agree that Google has been royally screwing up this search page. I also don't see how Google could foul up this search so badly.
Just follow the money. Google makes most of their money off search - not off Google groups search - but from general web searches. Google is also the only viable game in town on Usenet search. This leaves two reasons why the focus is not put on making this an excellent service: first, the effort is going toward growing, protecting, and expanding existing revenue streams, not on groups/Usenet search. I see nothing sinister here or conspiratorial, or even intentionally making the groups search poor - just business reality that the resources in a large company go toward revenue generating divisions. Second, (and this one is subtle) Google now has mostly a monopoly on search on Usenet, and like all monopolies, there is a strange benefit that arises from poor service. When you have to make several searches, they serve you more ads. There are no viable alternatives to force them to focus on making the results better than the competition.
This is like a droning gong.
*Gong* Bring out your dead *Gong* Windows is insecure *Gong* Bring out your dead *Gong*
It seems to me there is a fatigue that sets in regarding unpleasant information. How many times does one have to hear a thing, especially an unpleasant thing they don't want to hear, before that person stop listening to it? This happens to me at least. We see this (as a parallel) in politics all the time, when we're told this guy or that person broke the law. Its like a background din you have to tune out to get through the day.
It's made worse because there is no solution.
For the user of windows, there is nothing they can do about the fundamental insecurity that leads to repeated, consistent, and regular security updates like this. The only option is to change OS, which if you're the average computer user, that is not an option without significant expense. It's unpleasant to hear that crackers are breaking into computers and turning them into zombie swarms of attacking botnets. Hear the same bad thing enough times, eventually people stop listening.
I was fortunate: my windows laptop was stolen in 2004 and I made the switch, and now use Mac and Linux now exclusively. Not that Mac is any panacea - I still can't stand Finder, I think it is awful, and curse it every time I need to move a few files to some other folder on another drive (usually I just use "mv"). BUT at least I'm not forced to start ignoring serious security threats that I can't prevent or address effectively. (I don't consider a long series of "After the crack" patches effectively addressing the problem)
Black markets emerge for commodity goods when there are significant discrepancies between marginal costs and market price. This is exactly the case for digital entertainment media, where technology has eliminated the ability of major media producers to (technically) control the means of distribution of their product, and the marginal cost of distribution is orders of magnitude less than the price to legally buy the good. The development of the black market / piracy is expected in this case.
But - there is a middle ground. There is not just "selling media" vs. "pirating media"...
We have built LegalTorrents to get around the "dilemma" we have a working business model that both incorporates emerging technology and ALSO provides financial supports to Content Creators. The answer is simple: give away what you can't control, and provide value when customers choose to pay.
All the media we host can be downloaded without paying for it, but Content Creators can ask for Sponsorship - voluntary payments. Why would a user pay for media they can get with out paying for it? The answer is give them more: Give them more. Give public credit and community props for those users who pay for the media they love. Give them access to the Content Creators. Give them extra material not easily found online. Give them early access to concerts, private events, etc. Enable the Content Creator to build up a community around their work that is available for those users who pay to support it.
Property - the mapping of resources to individuals, and more recently, to organizations and groups - is just a story: a virtual mapping that most everyone is told and most everyone agrees to. It is an extremely useful story we've come up with that has roots in both biological nature (territory, mating, food gathering) and in legal and social precedent (commerce, deeds, titles, etc). . . and to date there are no other means of organizing scarce resources that reduce conflict more effectively than property. Property makes clear which person or group has control over a thing and most everyone agrees with the story. Modern societies have also extended the concept of property to information in a few ways, and those have worked pretty well too: those IP protections motivate and reward creative expression.
However, when it comes to organizations and companies creating information things that are simulations of physical things, (just database rows existing in virtual environments) - it is not so clear that the benefits of the property story outweigh the costs. Simply put, within virtual worlds, the reason to also have the property story on virtual items is usually to artificially maintain scarcity - so some virtual items have more value to the people who want them, and to make the virtual world have characteristics like the physical world, and not because the virtual "items" are in any real sense scarce.
This disconnect is where the conflict will truly emerge. Even people who understand why we need property in the real world may still not accept or acknowledge or follow the ideas of property regarding virtual items if there is no compelling reason to need the property mapping/story to allocate scarce resources or to motivate and reward creative expression.
OH, think of the children!
But seriously - more rational deduction in early education including logic games and reasoning will help fight the absurd and assinie War on Intellectualism.
I play chess and Go with my daughter each chance I get.
Intelligence FTW! (Its amazing that one has to even say it...)
I push back on this mentality each time I see it from the agile crowd: (FTA/review)
"When good unit tests are in place, then code can be changed at will and the tests will tell automatically you if you broke anything."
No. (testing FTW and all, but lets get real)
Tests are *helpful*. Multi-user development beyond 2 people accelerates with good tests. Maintenance long term is easier with tests. Changes happen faster and are more robust with good tests. However, tests are extremely difficult to write well and almost impossible that cover all the possibilities for future changes while also telling future programmers automatically when something doesn't work. I think that the best one could say is this:
When a comprehensive set of great unit tests are in place, then code can be changed at will and the tests will help the programmer understand if they broke anything. Test will often tell you automatically about things that are obvious, and usually would be seen with the most basic release testing. The art of writing good tests is understanding the subtle points of how your code functions and the pitfalls future developers may trip over when they extend what you did.
sadly, axxo and fxg and their black market friends already figured out years ago how to get movies for free to most anyone willing to look for them. it brings the end of an industry in it's current form.
There are better models: allow people, if they choose, to take media without paying for it, but give them credit, additional access, and membership benefits when customers do sponsor/pay for the media they consume. It is really not that complicated... find something you can sell because you can no longer technically control the distribution of your product.
Major media producers cannot change the progression of technology with policy and lawsuits. They would be so much better off to adopt what tech can enable, and build effective business models around providing customers with real value when they do pay for media, instead of using fear and lawsuits to force them to pay when they don't have to.