Gee, the patronidge model! What a wonderful smell you've discovered! Yes let's have a few wealthy people decide who gets support/help to create art! That would be a FAR better situation than our current system, where a few corporations do the same thing.
If it would result in more works being freely enjoyable and distributable by more people than the present system, then I think your sarcasm has backfired.
If there must be a few arbiters of taste, the general public may as well take the path which grants more freedom (and I don't just mean free beer, but freedom to distribute/modify works you acquire to your hearts content b/c the artist has already been recognized and paid).
Now, we have Senator Hatch telling a private citizen, no, an entire industry how they must distribute their music! Hopefully the rest of congress will be able to moderate his views.
You know, I didn't come away with this impression at all. My impression was that Senator Hatch was warning captains of an industry becoming dependent on legislative fiat (copyright laws) as opposed to the principles of scarcity that support within the government for the protection racket the RIAA enjoys is not absolute. Further, that an artificially created market (as any market not dependent on scarcity must be) may have rules which preclude the RIAA from leveraging their current near-monopoly in physical distribution into a total monopoly on distribution over digital networks (by refusing all licensing agreements except among RIAA members).
That Orrin Hatch, small-time songwriter, understands the value in preventing the RIAA from further limiting the availabilty of music produced outside the RIAA, is not especially surprising to me. I think his comments are pretty reasonable; hopefully the rest of congress won't completely sell the listening public up the river in exchange for campaign contributions.
Spoken like someone who took a position without investigating it. Napster didn't _ask_ about distributing Metallica, _that's_ Lars beef.
Look, Lars says "Napster hijacked our music without asking" which is utter bollocks. Napster users have done so, arguably, but Napster Inc. hasn't pirated a damn thing themselves.
This doesn't mean I like Napster - I think a non-commercial Gnutella is ultimately more interesting. Napster hopes someday to turn their enormous userbase into cash, in all likelihood by becoming a music promoter... like the record labels who are suing them.
...you'll note the spin in (AOL Time Warner owned) CNN's versio n of the hearing is much different, focusing mainly on the RIAA v. Napster suit and chock full of "wisdom" from Lars about how Napster's stealing his bread.
When even CNN was unable to make the proceedings out to be a triumphant parade of copyright absolutists, I knew things had gone poorly for the RIAA.
I do wish I had a recording of the full proceedings from CSPAN to make my own judgement; the streams were useless to me, being a RealNetworks-hating linux user.
Since we're chatting about portable sound, anyone know of any good in-car or in-dash.mp3 players? Not a portable you plug in, but something you actually install in the vehicle?
My dream one day is running a CAT-5 cable out the the car and downloading!
Empeg is what you want. Better start saving now, though. They ain't cheap.
Have you ever thought that there are inescapable evils in this world? While I don't like a lot of things in this country, I'm not moving out.
Until the day comes when we're dragged off in manacles to watch Hollywood films, I won't be calling the MPAA inescapable. Nobody's forcing you to watch their movies, likewise, I'm not stopping you from going. Just be aware of who and what you're supporting when you pay your $9.50.
I suggest watching more independant film, but please don't include me in your martyr campaign.
It's a sad, sad world when not voluntarily paying money to an MPAA member is considered equivalent to martyrdom. You're right on about independent film, though, except for the problem that most such films are distributed by MPAA member-affiliated distributors like Miramax (= Disney) and Fine Line (= New Line).
Why give up and roll over? It actually requires less work to resist!
Remember kids, the movie studios need your money to wage their war on DeCSS and buy more laws like the DMCA and Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act!
I'd say supporting the major studios this way would be "selling out", but we're actually paying cash money for the chance to piss away our fair use rights (and maybe, possibly, get 2 hours of escapist amusement).
Really? Care to say how? Do you mean a backdoor in the program (the source is available) or a problem with the encryption algorithms? Are you a mathematician? Do you think the NSA has managed to prove that factoring isn't NP (which would be quite an accomplishment, esp. for a government organization)? Or, maybe, you mean that they've managed to prove that problems in NP can be solved more quickly (which would be the greatest mathematical achievement in decades). Truth is, if factoring cannot be solved in less than polynomial time, no organization, no matter how many mathematicians they employ, is going to be able to crack PGP fairly quickly.
Heard of TWINKLE? How far ahead of this do you think the NSA might be?
FWIW, I once worked a case for the FDLE, after which they tried to recruit me for their computer crimes unit. They were quite sanguine about encryption, saying they regularly shipped encrypted documents off to the NSA for decrypts, depending on how crucial they were to the case.
Also remember that given access to the private key, keylength is less important than passphrase strength.
It takes some work to use PGP securely, and ultimately, if some TLA wants your cleartext, they'll get it one way (cracking crypto) or another (Van Eyck, TEMPEST).
A libertarian belives that individual liberty is paramount to the existance of a free state, and that government must be established to protect the rights of the individual. That includes enforcing contracts. I defy you to find one leader within the LP, or one prominent libertarian writer who thinks contracts should not be upheld.
That may be the policy of the Libertarian Party(TM), but I was responding to the original poster who's self-described "libertarian" beliefs presented him with a moral quandry.
I won't take you up on your challenge (re: LB leadership) because I believe you. I was using a rhetorical device to illustrate to the original poster that the notion that a government should uphold contract law is not necessarily incompatible with libertarian ideals.
FWIW, I agree with some (but not all) libertarian notions, and am a member of no political party.
...until they are themselves faced with the need for consumer protection.
Enforcing contract law is a vital role of the government. Without it, there's no recourse when one doesn't get what one pays for (in this case, I consider Toysmart's privacy policy to be a part of the terms of sale).
And exactly what is the purpose of this information? Are they going to put a contract out on your head? Are they going to start harassing you? Black list you with employers? Threatening you? Subscribe you to dirty magazines and order pizzas to your house?
If you're an employee, you could be fired. Maybe you're an employee of a subsidiary or company in a "strategic partnership" with the object of your complaints.
Example: Bob works at Hughes as, say, a satellite broadcast technician in their DBS division. He's had several unfavorable experiences with Chevrolet cars, and posts them on his personal website and in several newsgroups. Some sharp-eyed soul at General Motors, parent of Chevrolet and Hughes, sounds the Independent-Though Alarm and Bob's boss makes it clear to Bob that continued employment or advancement in his position at Hughes is contingent upon his silence on the matter of his distaste for things Chevrolet. To make things more interesting, say Bob's finances aren't too great and he's got three dependent kids, so quitting is not an option. What does Bob do?
One need not be affiliated with a company to be silenced, either. The object of your criticism could go to your ISP with a C&D for libel and have your critical website pulled w/o so much as a fare-thee-well. Of course, you could take the company you're criticizing to court to prove your statements to be true, if you could afford the time and legal fees. Most people can't. And if your ISP is in cahoots with or owned by the person you're criticizing (*cough*AOL Time Warner*cough*AT&T*cough*@home*cough* *wheeze* *splutter*), you're already scrood.
The more people turn to the internet for product information, the more producers are likely to attempt to coopt the information sources. They're not after you for vengeance, they just want you to shut up so you don't drive other customers away.
When snooping becomes this easy and cheap and undetectable, it will be pervasive. Older generations will shudder in fear, but kids will grow up knowing their every move is recorded, whether in public or private. In a generation, it will be accepted and expected practice. I personally both dread it and look forward to it. Dread because it's not what I am used to, anticipate it because one of the causes of so much inequity in the world is the rich and powerful having access to information that the poor and weak don't. But if you can bug them as easily as they can bug you, power shifts. No longer will the powerful get away with crimes that their victims are punished for.
I disagree. Privacy costs. There are real, dollar savings I pass up by refusing discount cards. I can afford this now, but I know a lot of people for whom $20 or even $5 saved at the supermarket *is* a big deal. This is what's happening today.
In the future of (even more) pervasive surveillance, it's simply going to cost more to keep one's privacy; most won't be able to afford this, but I guarantee you, some will. You won't be getting snapshots of what Bill Gates or Gee-Dubya are buying at the supermarket. They don't have to go to the supermarket for themselves so their data trail is diffused.
Proponents of the "Transparent Society" are deluded if they think everyone's going to have the same access to information AND the same lack of privacy.
If you're SAG or Equity (that is, in a union), you get paid. You're also at that point not allowed to work on non-union shoots/shows. Sux for you if yer in an area where most of the work is non-union.
If you're not in one of the unions, you *might* pick up some paid gigs if you're really lucky/good/connected.
I speak from a background in theatre and film, and I've worked on all kinds of sets (as a techie - acting's not my calling).
Actors and musicians both get no pay at the low end because, well, there's more supply than demand down there. At the highest end, they can both do well if they're smart w/ their money, but don't think for a minute that all or even most actors get paid. Most actually work for free in the hopes of getting noticed, especially in independent films and regional/community theatre.
OK, a SAG actor on a SAG shoot gets paid. Once, for the day they work. Forget residuals. They've gotta keep working, it's not like they can resell the same performance over and over. Why should it be the same for musicians?
The thing that I like better about graffitti, though, is that I can do it reasonably accurately without looking at all towards the device, so I can take notes while continuing to watch the speaker, or enjoy the view while writing. Does your aim get sufficiently good that you don't need to look to type?
I'm getting there. I can use the FitalyStamp in the dark, at least. At this point I don't have to stare at the FitalyStamp, just glance quickly to keep my bearings every few letters, which I had to do w/ grafitti anyhow to mak supe I,m wpiting tbe right letters.;)
Interestingly enough the Japanese constitution, drawn up after its surrender at the end of WWII by the Allies (i.e. the United States) prohibit the Japanese government any form of wiretapping.
Article 21 of the Japanese Constitution does seem on its face to prohibit wiretapping, at least by the government. However, NTT is arguably not part of the Japanese gov't and not subject to contitutional restrictions.
Remember that most large-scale Japanese corporations operate in the keiretsu system, where affiliated companies pass information, arrange financing, and generally cut deals with each other.
Also remember that we're speculating about NTT's actions in the USA, outside the real of Japanese constitutional protections. It's well known that the USA taps everyone it can outside its borders, thought this would be illegal at home.
The FBI (and the NSA, either directly or by proxy) have been in bed with the telecoms industry in the USA since the very beginning. In 1994, Congress passed CALEA (the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act) which explicitly mandated that tap-and-trace functionality be built into digital telecom networks.
Now, this is just my gut feeling, but I think the FBI's concerns over access are just a ruse. The real concern (from a national security standpoint) is more likely that NTT (the buyer, Japan's national telephone monopoly) will use the tapping capabilities built into Verio's networks for gathering of intelligence (economic or otherwise) as an agent of the Japanese gov't or corporations.
I use Fitaly on my Palm V (more specifically, FitalyStamp, an overlay that replaces the Grafitti area) and it's great. I was quite used to Grafitti (having owned one PalmOS device or another since my Pilot 5000 in '96), but I find I'm much faster (upwards of 30wpm at times) and more accurate w/ Fitaly.
That said, I don't see Fitaly replacing the standard mechanical keyboard. Where it might be useful, however is in touch screen devices like point-of-sale terminals or (especially) vertical-market devices for inventory tracking or insurance claims processing.
And to the people wondering what the "blank keys" to either side of "n" and "e", they're space bars, naturally.
Finally, I'm pretty sure the link in the article is obsolete. I use http://fitaly.com to get to Textware Solution's homepage frequently, and haven't seen a link to twsolutions.com in a long time.
So let me get this right.. I have an essentially private network (AOL), build a tool that I never claim is open (AIM), and then I get government pressure to let other people use it? Why? AOL's competitors don't have any "right" to interoperate with AIM, they didn't spend any money developing it, didn't build up the infrastructure, didn't send out a bajillion CDs to get people to use it, but now they want to leverage it. Why does crap like this happen? What ever happened to private property rights in this country?
All double-talk about open standards and consumer interest aside, the feds *want* to see AIM become *the* messaging standard for chat traffic for one simple reason - it's centralized. All message traffic transits AOL servers for easy monitoring and collection by the boys in blue (or men in black, for that matter).
These pressures from the FTC are meant to drive wider adoption of AIM (the standard), whether or not the "AOL" is necessarily part of it.
There will be plenty of pay-per-view content, but to build the market there will be content available for free or at a flat subscription rate like cable. And that content will be lucrative to provide, so it will continue.
I'm not talking about the availability of "free" or subscription-based content. I'm talking about putting the video rental market out of business. That's one of the goals of the studios/networks in transitioning to (H)DTV. Fewer intermediaries take a cut out of PPV revenues as compared to rental, which would benefit the content producers and cable companies (frequently one and the same) immensely.
Of course, this will restrict your choices for home viewing to the top dozen popular movies, but that's better for the studios anyhow - no pesky indie or foreign flicks to compete with their "Mission Impossible N"s or "Runaway Bride"s (or "Battlefield Earth"s).
They're after an encrypted signal path from the studio to the screen. This is the single biggest hangup preventing (H)DTV from hitting the market, and is the reason why cable systems aren't carrying HD signals.
Forget video rental, it's pay-per-view only w/ (H)DTV.
The new "interactive features" will be used to track your viewing habits with alarming granularity.
"Fight Club" is a production of Fox 2000 Pictures, distributed in the USA by 20th Century Fox Film Corporation, both wholly owned subsidiaries of News Corp.
"American Beauty" is a production of DreamWorks SKG, filmed at Warner Bros. Studios.
"The Matrix" is a production of Village Roadshow Productions, distributed in the USA by Warner Bros., both wholly owned subsidiaries of AOL/Time-Warner.
We'll both be long dead before ownership of these properties reverts to the public domain, if they ever do. Our pop culture is already 0wned. The name of the game is ownership; companies can't ensure a continued revenue stream by allowing you to own anything outright.
However, the same companies depend on the public's acquiescence for their power. If people refuse to merely lease, then the option to buy will remain. Alas, the fewer people choose this option, the more expensive it becomes.
Now's the time when I plug Doug Rushkoff's insightful book on the subject, called "Coercion"
I lost all respect for him long ago. I remember once he said that he had "No respect for the MacOS" and that he wouldn't do any development for that platform. Yet after a few minutes with Steve Jobs he's all gung ho apple.
Although I was disappointed because at the time I was an apple enthusiast. I would have had more respect for Carmack if he had either stuck to his guns or given a good reason for his change of heart.
Carmack did have no respect for the MacOS. Rightly. But what you've forgotten is Carmack's legendary woody for NEXTSTEP. Doom was, in fact, developed on NEXTSTEP (I run it all the time on my NeXTStation TurboColor), and he has repeatedly and enthusiastically plugged its development model.
JC's renewed enthusiasm for Apple is easy to understand, now that Jobs and the NeXT crew are running Apple, and OS X is basically NEXTSTEP 5.x
If anyone's pushing these Napster suits, my money's on Howard King, who happens to be representing both Dre and Metallica in these lawsuits and has the most to gain in any event.
I reckon that the copyright term will be put right during my lifetime; if it ever became an 'issue' it would certainly provoke a lot of support for a reduction to the original 14 years, or some other reasonable term. Unfortunately, the large media conglomerates such as Disney are those who keep pushing for another twenty years every decade or so, so it's unlikely that any of the mainstream media would start actively campaigning on this issue. But sooner or later, it is bound to get attention.
Given that Disney-owned ABC, Viacom-owned CBS, or AOL/Time/Warner-owned CNN are unlikely to allow these issues to garner significant national attention, I'd say you're an optimist.
The corporations are the government. The mass media annointed Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum (that is, GW and Al Gore) as our presidential candidates years ago, long before a single vote had been cast; such a system can only survive by keeping substantive change off the table.
And we can all live in David Brin's Transparent society. And you can all have no privacy. And nobody gets rewarded for intellectual property they produce, because it's a lot easier to just make a copy. And nobody spends their time making music anymore, because they can't afford to. And nobody spends their time writing books anymore, because they can't afford to. And I can spy on you making out with your girlfriend because "hey, it's just information in digital form."
Riiiight. And all those scientists out there doing basic research are in it for the money. And all those avaricious free-software developers. And anyhow, we know that the best works of art are always the most commercially successful, and are always created to be sold. And it's right and proper that an idea should be owned exclusively, despite the fact that there's no principle of scarcity at work.
You're starting with a set of assumptions that not everyone shares; personally, I think it's pretty clear that those in power seek to retain and extend their power by control over ideas; at every turn, those who have done so have stifled the progress of humanity as a whole, by locking knowledge away, for the exclusive use of the privileged class.
Slashdot Mirror
If it would result in more works being freely enjoyable and distributable by more people than the present system, then I think your sarcasm has backfired.
If there must be a few arbiters of taste, the general public may as well take the path which grants more freedom (and I don't just mean free beer, but freedom to distribute/modify works you acquire to your hearts content b/c the artist has already been recognized and paid).
Just MHO,
-Isaac
You know, I didn't come away with this impression at all. My impression was that Senator Hatch was warning captains of an industry becoming dependent on legislative fiat (copyright laws) as opposed to the principles of scarcity that support within the government for the protection racket the RIAA enjoys is not absolute. Further, that an artificially created market (as any market not dependent on scarcity must be) may have rules which preclude the RIAA from leveraging their current near-monopoly in physical distribution into a total monopoly on distribution over digital networks (by refusing all licensing agreements except among RIAA members).
That Orrin Hatch, small-time songwriter, understands the value in preventing the RIAA from further limiting the availabilty of music produced outside the RIAA, is not especially surprising to me. I think his comments are pretty reasonable; hopefully the rest of congress won't completely sell the listening public up the river in exchange for campaign contributions.
-Isaac
Look, Lars says "Napster hijacked our music without asking" which is utter bollocks. Napster users have done so, arguably, but Napster Inc. hasn't pirated a damn thing themselves.
This doesn't mean I like Napster - I think a non-commercial Gnutella is ultimately more interesting. Napster hopes someday to turn their enormous userbase into cash, in all likelihood by becoming a music promoter... like the record labels who are suing them.
-Isaac
When even CNN was unable to make the proceedings out to be a triumphant parade of copyright absolutists, I knew things had gone poorly for the RIAA.
I do wish I had a recording of the full proceedings from CSPAN to make my own judgement; the streams were useless to me, being a RealNetworks-hating linux user.
-Isaac
Empeg is what you want. Better start saving now, though. They ain't cheap.
-Isaac
Until the day comes when we're dragged off in manacles to watch Hollywood films, I won't be calling the MPAA inescapable. Nobody's forcing you to watch their movies, likewise, I'm not stopping you from going. Just be aware of who and what you're supporting when you pay your $9.50.
It's a sad, sad world when not voluntarily paying money to an MPAA member is considered equivalent to martyrdom. You're right on about independent film, though, except for the problem that most such films are distributed by MPAA member-affiliated distributors like Miramax (= Disney) and Fine Line (= New Line).
Why give up and roll over? It actually requires less work to resist!
-Isaac
I'd say supporting the major studios this way would be "selling out", but we're actually paying cash money for the chance to piss away our fair use rights (and maybe, possibly, get 2 hours of escapist amusement).
Have fun at the movies!
-Isaac
Heard of TWINKLE? How far ahead of this do you think the NSA might be?
FWIW, I once worked a case for the FDLE, after which they tried to recruit me for their computer crimes unit. They were quite sanguine about encryption, saying they regularly shipped encrypted documents off to the NSA for decrypts, depending on how crucial they were to the case.
Also remember that given access to the private key, keylength is less important than passphrase strength.
It takes some work to use PGP securely, and ultimately, if some TLA wants your cleartext, they'll get it one way (cracking crypto) or another (Van Eyck, TEMPEST).
-Isaac
That may be the policy of the Libertarian Party(TM), but I was responding to the original poster who's self-described "libertarian" beliefs presented him with a moral quandry.
I won't take you up on your challenge (re: LB leadership) because I believe you. I was using a rhetorical device to illustrate to the original poster that the notion that a government should uphold contract law is not necessarily incompatible with libertarian ideals.
FWIW, I agree with some (but not all) libertarian notions, and am a member of no political party.
-Isaac
Enforcing contract law is a vital role of the government. Without it, there's no recourse when one doesn't get what one pays for (in this case, I consider Toysmart's privacy policy to be a part of the terms of sale).
-Isaac
If you're an employee, you could be fired. Maybe you're an employee of a subsidiary or company in a "strategic partnership" with the object of your complaints.
Example: Bob works at Hughes as, say, a satellite broadcast technician in their DBS division. He's had several unfavorable experiences with Chevrolet cars, and posts them on his personal website and in several newsgroups. Some sharp-eyed soul at General Motors, parent of Chevrolet and Hughes, sounds the Independent-Though Alarm and Bob's boss makes it clear to Bob that continued employment or advancement in his position at Hughes is contingent upon his silence on the matter of his distaste for things Chevrolet. To make things more interesting, say Bob's finances aren't too great and he's got three dependent kids, so quitting is not an option. What does Bob do?
One need not be affiliated with a company to be silenced, either. The object of your criticism could go to your ISP with a C&D for libel and have your critical website pulled w/o so much as a fare-thee-well. Of course, you could take the company you're criticizing to court to prove your statements to be true, if you could afford the time and legal fees. Most people can't. And if your ISP is in cahoots with or owned by the person you're criticizing (*cough*AOL Time Warner*cough*AT&T*cough*@home*cough* *wheeze* *splutter*), you're already scrood.
The more people turn to the internet for product information, the more producers are likely to attempt to coopt the information sources. They're not after you for vengeance, they just want you to shut up so you don't drive other customers away.
-Isaac
I disagree. Privacy costs. There are real, dollar savings I pass up by refusing discount cards. I can afford this now, but I know a lot of people for whom $20 or even $5 saved at the supermarket *is* a big deal. This is what's happening today.
In the future of (even more) pervasive surveillance, it's simply going to cost more to keep one's privacy; most won't be able to afford this, but I guarantee you, some will. You won't be getting snapshots of what Bill Gates or Gee-Dubya are buying at the supermarket. They don't have to go to the supermarket for themselves so their data trail is diffused.
Proponents of the "Transparent Society" are deluded if they think everyone's going to have the same access to information AND the same lack of privacy.
-Isaac
If you're SAG or Equity (that is, in a union), you get paid. You're also at that point not allowed to work on non-union shoots/shows. Sux for you if yer in an area where most of the work is non-union.
If you're not in one of the unions, you *might* pick up some paid gigs if you're really lucky/good/connected.
I speak from a background in theatre and film, and I've worked on all kinds of sets (as a techie - acting's not my calling).
Actors and musicians both get no pay at the low end because, well, there's more supply than demand down there. At the highest end, they can both do well if they're smart w/ their money, but don't think for a minute that all or even most actors get paid. Most actually work for free in the hopes of getting noticed, especially in independent films and regional/community theatre.
OK, a SAG actor on a SAG shoot gets paid. Once, for the day they work. Forget residuals. They've gotta keep working, it's not like they can resell the same performance over and over. Why should it be the same for musicians?
-Isaac
I'm getting there. I can use the FitalyStamp in the dark, at least. At this point I don't have to stare at the FitalyStamp, just glance quickly to keep my bearings every few letters, which I had to do w/ grafitti anyhow to mak supe I,m wpiting tbe right letters. ;)
-Isaac
Article 21 of the Japanese Constitution does seem on its face to prohibit wiretapping, at least by the government. However, NTT is arguably not part of the Japanese gov't and not subject to contitutional restrictions.
Remember that most large-scale Japanese corporations operate in the keiretsu system, where affiliated companies pass information, arrange financing, and generally cut deals with each other.
Also remember that we're speculating about NTT's actions in the USA, outside the real of Japanese constitutional protections. It's well known that the USA taps everyone it can outside its borders, thought this would be illegal at home.
-Isaac
Now, this is just my gut feeling, but I think the FBI's concerns over access are just a ruse. The real concern (from a national security standpoint) is more likely that NTT (the buyer, Japan's national telephone monopoly) will use the tapping capabilities built into Verio's networks for gathering of intelligence (economic or otherwise) as an agent of the Japanese gov't or corporations.
-Isaac
That said, I don't see Fitaly replacing the standard mechanical keyboard. Where it might be useful, however is in touch screen devices like point-of-sale terminals or (especially) vertical-market devices for inventory tracking or insurance claims processing.
And to the people wondering what the "blank keys" to either side of "n" and "e", they're space bars, naturally.
Finally, I'm pretty sure the link in the article is obsolete. I use http://fitaly.com to get to Textware Solution's homepage frequently, and haven't seen a link to twsolutions.com in a long time.
-Isaac
All double-talk about open standards and consumer interest aside, the feds *want* to see AIM become *the* messaging standard for chat traffic for one simple reason - it's centralized. All message traffic transits AOL servers for easy monitoring and collection by the boys in blue (or men in black, for that matter).
These pressures from the FTC are meant to drive wider adoption of AIM (the standard), whether or not the "AOL" is necessarily part of it.
Just my take on the situation, of course
-Isaac
I'm not talking about the availability of "free" or subscription-based content. I'm talking about putting the video rental market out of business. That's one of the goals of the studios/networks in transitioning to (H)DTV. Fewer intermediaries take a cut out of PPV revenues as compared to rental, which would benefit the content producers and cable companies (frequently one and the same) immensely.
Of course, this will restrict your choices for home viewing to the top dozen popular movies, but that's better for the studios anyhow - no pesky indie or foreign flicks to compete with their "Mission Impossible N"s or "Runaway Bride"s (or "Battlefield Earth"s).
-Isaac
Content companies aren't about to allow VCRs.
They're after an encrypted signal path from the studio to the screen. This is the single biggest hangup preventing (H)DTV from hitting the market, and is the reason why cable systems aren't carrying HD signals.
Forget video rental, it's pay-per-view only w/ (H)DTV.
The new "interactive features" will be used to track your viewing habits with alarming granularity.
Fuck DTV. Fuck TV.
-Isaac
"Fight Club" is a production of Fox 2000 Pictures, distributed in the USA by 20th Century Fox Film Corporation, both wholly owned subsidiaries of News Corp.
"American Beauty" is a production of DreamWorks SKG, filmed at Warner Bros. Studios.
"The Matrix" is a production of Village Roadshow Productions, distributed in the USA by Warner Bros., both wholly owned subsidiaries of AOL/Time-Warner.
We'll both be long dead before ownership of these properties reverts to the public domain, if they ever do. Our pop culture is already 0wned. The name of the game is ownership; companies can't ensure a continued revenue stream by allowing you to own anything outright.
However, the same companies depend on the public's acquiescence for their power. If people refuse to merely lease, then the option to buy will remain. Alas, the fewer people choose this option, the more expensive it becomes.
Now's the time when I plug Doug Rushkoff's insightful book on the subject, called "Coercion"
-Isaac
Carmack did have no respect for the MacOS. Rightly. But what you've forgotten is Carmack's legendary woody for NEXTSTEP. Doom was, in fact, developed on NEXTSTEP (I run it all the time on my NeXTStation TurboColor), and he has repeatedly and enthusiastically plugged its development model.
JC's renewed enthusiasm for Apple is easy to understand, now that Jobs and the NeXT crew are running Apple, and OS X is basically NEXTSTEP 5.x
-Isaac
Anyone know who's representing TVT?
-Isaac
Given that Disney-owned ABC, Viacom-owned CBS, or AOL/Time/Warner-owned CNN are unlikely to allow these issues to garner significant national attention, I'd say you're an optimist.
The corporations are the government. The mass media annointed Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum (that is, GW and Al Gore) as our presidential candidates years ago, long before a single vote had been cast; such a system can only survive by keeping substantive change off the table.
-Isaac
Riiiight. And all those scientists out there doing basic research are in it for the money. And all those avaricious free-software developers. And anyhow, we know that the best works of art are always the most commercially successful, and are always created to be sold. And it's right and proper that an idea should be owned exclusively, despite the fact that there's no principle of scarcity at work.
You're starting with a set of assumptions that not everyone shares; personally, I think it's pretty clear that those in power seek to retain and extend their power by control over ideas; at every turn, those who have done so have stifled the progress of humanity as a whole, by locking knowledge away, for the exclusive use of the privileged class.
-Isaac