It seems reasonable that someone should have control over the content they create, and putting it on a public website should not implicitly relinquish that control.
It shouldn't be forgotten that the web is in effect the first time that this level of control has been possible. Previously, all published material once made public was unchangeable. Pamphlets, posters, newsletters, magazines... all require retractions to be printed in subsequent publications should incorrect information be included. The control was given up the moment the end publication was made public, and it was never reasonable to expect anything different.
So why is the web subject to different rules of control?
Individuals have too many quirks and preferences to make per-individual marketing efforts worthwhile.
Google have made their billions based on the idea of per-individual marketing. Amazon have grasped the "long tail" firmly and are still around to sell books that I would like, not neccessarily those that the larger public would want.
I see this as another feather to Google's cap, one that they can make wads of cash from, selling not only individuals' clicks, but also the generic trends too. Google is becoming a marketing juggernaut and I think that only two things can stop them: 1) overextending into non-marketing areas and getting severely burned, 2) something better comes along and Google gets overtaken.
I can't see 2) happening anytime soon, and even a risky Viacom legal case may not hurt that much if Google loses.
Google looks to be a good long term bet for investors.
They alrady have. They gave it away free by publicly broadcasting it. I may have legal copies of their shows on my PVR, on VHS, on.mpg - and all for the cost of my cable subscription (of which I am sure they get a cut).
It is *their* products, and *they* decide where it can or can't be redistributed.
They let it out into the wild, free for all to see as long as you have a legal means of watching it in the first place. Which I'm guessing the VAST majority of YT viewers will have.
ITC didn't become part of Ofcom - the ITC ceased to exist in 2003. Ofcom took over completely.
The "watershed" is 9pm, not 10pm.
Ofcom (not ITC) enforces a 12 minute limit as a *maximum* for *clock hours*. The average across any one day must not exceed 7 minutes per hour for ITV1, GMTV, Channel 4 and five - the average for all other channels in any one day must not exceed 9 minutes. There is also an 8 minute maximum per *clock hour* for ITV1, GMTV, Channel 4 and five in peak time, which is deemed to be 7.00am-9.00am and 6.00pm-11.00pm.
TANSTAAFL. Someone, somewhere, always pays. There's a cost to everything if you look closely enough.
Personally, I like the BBC way of funding things, as it generates quality programs with no advertising and at a smaller monthly outlay than for cable/satellite. There seems to be a resistance to paying a mandatory licence fee in the US though, which I can understand.
About 3 or 4 years ago I mailed a 10 year old VHS tape of Max Hewadroom TV shows to a slashdotter in Central London. I have emigrated to Canada since then and would like my tape back please! (I now have the capability to digitise the programs)
I can arrange for someone to pick it up from you if you are reading this and have my tape!
You can email me using webmaster (at) my slashdot username (dot com)
but would it be any more complicated than the current system?
Absolutely horrible unless you live in Europe.
Let's say you live in Japan, Australia, New Zealand or Hawaii. The sun comes up, you go to work, your first coffee is at 9pm on Tuesday and your colleague reminds you that tomorrow is a national holiday. You have lunch, do more work, go home at 4am on Wednesday. But wait - isn't Wednesday a national holiday? How did TPTB advertise this day off? "Don't forget folks that Wednesday/Thursday 14th/15th is the one day when we all remember our roots and is therefore a national holiday".
Huh?
The reason it's not implemented is that it would not work if our working day is to be done while the sun is up. Move to a completely 24hr society and it may function locally, but not on a global scheme. People from the time zones close to GMT will have difficulty adjusting to the weird times when they travel around the globe.
Nice idea, but I can't see how it would be less complicated than what we have now.
The first multi-location time zone was in Britain, in 1847. Nationally mandated in 1880. The railway time zones in the US was first proposed in 1863, implemented in 1872. Nationally mandated in 1918. (States can opt-in/opt-out) The worldwide time zones that we see now were first proposed in 1876 by a Canadian. Adopted with significant changes by the International Meridian Conference in 1884.
Do Americans "tolerate" George Bush's widespread plundering of the middle east? Do Americans "tolerate" Foreign Affairs' call that a civil war in Iraq could be "good"?
Well, as a whole, yes. I see no move to impeach Bush.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems reasonable that someone should have control over the content they create, and putting it on a public website should not implicitly relinquish that control.
... all require retractions to be printed in subsequent publications should incorrect information be included. The control was given up the moment the end publication was made public, and it was never reasonable to expect anything different.
It shouldn't be forgotten that the web is in effect the first time that this level of control has been possible. Previously, all published material once made public was unchangeable. Pamphlets, posters, newsletters, magazines
So why is the web subject to different rules of control?
Public as in anyone can use it?
Rather like her public website then?
I don't see the difference.
I'm aware of that, and not disputing it.
I was countering your comment that it's not worthwhile trying to market to individuals, and providing Google and Amazon as evidence.
Individuals have too many quirks and preferences to make per-individual marketing efforts worthwhile.
Google have made their billions based on the idea of per-individual marketing. Amazon have grasped the "long tail" firmly and are still around to sell books that I would like, not neccessarily those that the larger public would want.
I see this as another feather to Google's cap, one that they can make wads of cash from, selling not only individuals' clicks, but also the generic trends too. Google is becoming a marketing juggernaut and I think that only two things can stop them: 1) overextending into non-marketing areas and getting severely burned, 2) something better comes along and Google gets overtaken.
I can't see 2) happening anytime soon, and even a risky Viacom legal case may not hurt that much if Google loses.
Google looks to be a good long term bet for investors.
The American ideal is dead.
It'll be next on the RIAA-to-sue list then.
Wow! That list is, like, three times longer than it was six months ago!
He's a golden fleece stealing, swashbuckling hero from Arabia, about a thousand years ago.
Apparently it comes as a shock that he may be dead.
The fact that things on the internet might not be true is old news.
Apparently not, judging by traditional media's reaction.
This is slashdot. The 'preview for stupidity' button is in the top right, the little X button.
They can't simply give it away for free.
.mpg - and all for the cost of my cable subscription (of which I am sure they get a cut).
They alrady have. They gave it away free by publicly broadcasting it. I may have legal copies of their shows on my PVR, on VHS, on
It is *their* products, and *they* decide where it can or can't be redistributed.
They let it out into the wild, free for all to see as long as you have a legal means of watching it in the first place. Which I'm guessing the VAST majority of YT viewers will have.
Especially port 80, apparently.
Or in this case, appearing on Fox - which is broadcast publicly.
Was it this?
No, no, no, no!
Just buy Viacom and don't stop suing themselves. Much more fun to watch.
ITC didn't become part of Ofcom - the ITC ceased to exist in 2003. Ofcom took over completely.
The "watershed" is 9pm, not 10pm.
Ofcom (not ITC) enforces a 12 minute limit as a *maximum* for *clock hours*. The average across any one day must not exceed 7 minutes per hour for ITV1, GMTV, Channel 4 and five - the average for all other channels in any one day must not exceed 9 minutes.
There is also an 8 minute maximum per *clock hour* for ITV1, GMTV, Channel 4 and five in peak time, which is deemed to be 7.00am-9.00am and 6.00pm-11.00pm.
Other than that, a fair comment.
TANSTAAFL. Someone, somewhere, always pays. There's a cost to everything if you look closely enough.
Personally, I like the BBC way of funding things, as it generates quality programs with no advertising and at a smaller monthly outlay than for cable/satellite. There seems to be a resistance to paying a mandatory licence fee in the US though, which I can understand.
About 3 or 4 years ago I mailed a 10 year old VHS tape of Max Hewadroom TV shows to a slashdotter in Central London. I have emigrated to Canada since then and would like my tape back please! (I now have the capability to digitise the programs)
I can arrange for someone to pick it up from you if you are reading this and have my tape!
You can email me using webmaster (at) my slashdot username (dot com)
Thanks, if the Gods are smiling upon me today.
Reading the claim, my money's on Google.
Insightful?
OK - see me at 3pm for your reward.
I'll let you work out whether I mean your version of 3pm, or my version of 3pm.
but would it be any more complicated than the current system?
Absolutely horrible unless you live in Europe.
Let's say you live in Japan, Australia, New Zealand or Hawaii. The sun comes up, you go to work, your first coffee is at 9pm on Tuesday and your colleague reminds you that tomorrow is a national holiday. You have lunch, do more work, go home at 4am on Wednesday. But wait - isn't Wednesday a national holiday? How did TPTB advertise this day off? "Don't forget folks that Wednesday/Thursday 14th/15th is the one day when we all remember our roots and is therefore a national holiday".
Huh?
The reason it's not implemented is that it would not work if our working day is to be done while the sun is up. Move to a completely 24hr society and it may function locally, but not on a global scheme. People from the time zones close to GMT will have difficulty adjusting to the weird times when they travel around the globe.
Nice idea, but I can't see how it would be less complicated than what we have now.
The first multi-location time zone was in Britain, in 1847. Nationally mandated in 1880.
The railway time zones in the US was first proposed in 1863, implemented in 1872. Nationally mandated in 1918. (States can opt-in/opt-out)
The worldwide time zones that we see now were first proposed in 1876 by a Canadian. Adopted with significant changes by the International Meridian Conference in 1884.
A bit harsh on your president perhaps, but I get the point.
Anybody want a peanut?
1.21GW
...
No, hang on
Do Americans "tolerate" George Bush's widespread plundering of the middle east? Do Americans "tolerate" Foreign Affairs' call that a civil war in Iraq could be "good"?
Well, as a whole, yes. I see no move to impeach Bush.