First, broadcast quality requires 5Mb, not 5MB. That's only an order of magnitude or so, but it does make a difference when deciding whether a result is reasonable.
Second, while I only watch one channel at a time, I watch over basic cable. The cable company doesn't know what I'm watching any more than broadcast companies do. It puts signals for all channels on the cable simultaneously. The total bandwidth used is the amount consumed by each channel multiplied by the number of channels. It's true that there's a significant error rate and that no single receiver or transmitter on the system sees the full bandwidth (so there are some technical and distribution challenges). It's also true that they won't get solved as long as the current IP framework prevents rational use.
"Broadcast quality" video requires about 5Mb. A cable system that carries 70 channels should therefore have at least 300Mb/s raw bandwidth. That's enough to download a 9GB movie in four minutes. One third of that would be enough to download the top 120 movies once a day. 1/36 of that would be enough to download 8 hours of network programming for each of five networks, for on-demand viewing, still leaving more than half the total
bandwidth unused.There's lots of bandwidth out there, but people are too busy worrying about intellectual property rights to take advantage of it. Until we have an approach that separates compensation to artists and producers from distribution, our distribution system will remain wildly irrational.
People who hold copyrights view networking as a
threat. In actual fact, networks multiply the value
of copyright by making it easier to create and
distribute copies. The only thing networks make unsustainable are business models based on controlling distribution, especially when distribution is controlled by requiring the sale of physical media. Bootleg audio tapes traded between
friends never threatened the recording industry. P2P sharing does, not because it is free, but because P2P sharing is vastly more efficient and convenient than buying CDs at a store.
People pay for the infrastructure for distribution. People buy computers, MP3 players, and internet access in large part to reach copyrighted material At one point during napster's height, a third of all traffic at some ISPs was for napster downloads. Instead of trying to control and limit distribution through piracy regimes, copyright holders should be working to impose a small tax on the distribution infrastructure and mechanisms to apportion the proceeds equitably.
In addition to eliminating the Spy vs Spy warfare between hoarders and pirates (amusing as it can be to watch sometimes), this type of approach would provide a solid economic base for web publishing. It might even get rid of adds on slashdot.
Limited return on patents
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 1
The purpose of patents is to provide inventors with a reasonable return on investment, so place a reasonable cap on return (for argument's sake, say 10x development cost). If an invention requires significant research and development to bring it to a usable stage (as is the case with new drugs), the patent will have a lot of value. If the idea is developed in an afternoon (as sometimes happens with software patents), it won't be worth the cost of filing. There are natural checks against fraud in this approach. A company might claim that their entire R&D budget up to first product shipment was the development cost of a patent, but only if they submitted after developing and disclosed the entire product (all sources, schematics, etc.).
In addition, restrict patent rights to the collection of royalties at reasonable schedules.
It is arguably reasonable to ensure inventors of a reasonable return, but not to give inventors ongoing control over future developments related areas of technology.
Re:One thing I've NEVER seen here....
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 1
I work for a company that delivers most of its value
through software. When the company was founded, it
filed a couple patents on key technologies. The
patents did not, however, protect the company in its infancy because they did not issue for years. For a few years following, the company did not file many
patents. People here were too busy writing code, solving customer problems, and making the company
a success. Then, industry heavyweights showed up,
claiming property rights for various and sundry details, and exacting tribute, and the company suddenly became interested in patents, not because it felt the need to protect its IP, but because its low revenue/patent ratio exposed it to bounty hunters.
I am against software patents because I have yet
to see a software patent that was necessary to protect the innovation it covers. If it took years of work and millions of dollars to develop a patentable piece of software, my views might change. But it doesn't.
Slashdot Mirror
Second, while I only watch one channel at a time, I watch over basic cable. The cable company doesn't know what I'm watching any more than broadcast companies do. It puts signals for all channels on the cable simultaneously. The total bandwidth used is the amount consumed by each channel multiplied by the number of channels. It's true that there's a significant error rate and that no single receiver or transmitter on the system sees the full bandwidth (so there are some technical and distribution challenges). It's also true that they won't get solved as long as the current IP framework prevents rational use.
"Broadcast quality" video requires about 5Mb. A cable system that carries 70 channels should therefore have at least 300Mb/s raw bandwidth. That's enough to download a 9GB movie in four minutes. One third of that would be enough to download the top 120 movies once a day. 1/36 of that would be enough to download 8 hours of network programming for each of five networks, for on-demand viewing, still leaving more than half the total bandwidth unused.There's lots of bandwidth out there, but people are too busy worrying about intellectual property rights to take advantage of it. Until we have an approach that separates compensation to artists and producers from distribution, our distribution system will remain wildly irrational.
People pay for the infrastructure for distribution. People buy computers, MP3 players, and internet access in large part to reach copyrighted material At one point during napster's height, a third of all traffic at some ISPs was for napster downloads. Instead of trying to control and limit distribution through piracy regimes, copyright holders should be working to impose a small tax on the distribution infrastructure and mechanisms to apportion the proceeds equitably.
In addition to eliminating the Spy vs Spy warfare between hoarders and pirates (amusing as it can be to watch sometimes), this type of approach would provide a solid economic base for web publishing. It might even get rid of adds on slashdot.
In addition, restrict patent rights to the collection of royalties at reasonable schedules. It is arguably reasonable to ensure inventors of a reasonable return, but not to give inventors ongoing control over future developments related areas of technology.
I am against software patents because I have yet to see a software patent that was necessary to protect the innovation it covers. If it took years of work and millions of dollars to develop a patentable piece of software, my views might change. But it doesn't.