Why is this a troll? Isn't it supremely arrogant to assume that success is only measured by $$$?
The US is such a screwed up place, hardly a model for the world.
1)having people pick a few ads from a list and watch them before each show 2)giving advertisers a profile of your interest and let them show you a (smaller number) of unskippable ads for things you are really interested in 3)having the products show up in the show itself (product placement). For example: Buffy, after killing a vampire, could then slam down a Mountan Dew.
The most obvious alternative is to send your favorite shows to you via broadband and have you pay by the show. But would you pay to watch Buffy, The News, Star Trek? Would you prefer pay by the show, subscribe to a show/network or be forced to watch commercials? I'm interested in hearing what system would bug you the least, or if you have your own ideas how it could work."
Good ideas, but you're assuming consumers need to patronize commercials in order for entertainment to survive. I don't agree.
There are so many proponents on slashdot for open-source software...but what about "open source" books, or music, or theater, or visual art? There are thousands and thousands of very talented people, who have hobbies they are passionate about. I'm sure they would be thrilled to be showcased (i.e. televised).
How many more sitcoms do we need? Professional-scale budgets have produced so many programs...haven't we pretty much seen it all? Think of all the crappy movies and tv and music coming out lately...are they crappy because there are no talented artists anymore? I doubt it. I think we've exhausted most of the possibilites...and hollywood is getting bored with itself.
Ideally I'd prefer to see television be completely flattened as a media. Something that has not 200 channels...but 20,000....a tree-hierarchy of interests(like usenet). So if for whatever reason I'm interested in tv.alaska.wildlife, I can goto the appropriate domain and see hundreds of stock programs about the subject....some amateur(free), some professional(paypal), some in between. The point is, if I decide that amateur content is "good enough", I'll watch those things for free. If I want professional content, I'll pay for it.
This could happen if every home in america was equipped with 100Mbs. It's just 1 or 2 generations of upgrading, but once it's in place...would we really need any of the old content/media companies at all? 250 Million amateur directors, musicians, poets, authors, artist is a lot of amateurs...if just 0.001% of us was good at just one thing. We would have more than enough fresh and novel entertainment to go around.
P2P is a fad and I predict that sometime after the beta they'll have things set up in a more traditional client/server fashion
P2P is a "fad" because the content industry and the media industry have merged, and are protecting thier monopoly.
AOL/Time Warner isn't doing anything to foster broadband because P2P threatens the TW side of thier business(content), while the AOL side is making money on thier 56k service. The cable companies are of course doing the same thing. DirectTV recenty aquired Telocity DSL. The list goes on.
As long as monopolies and private interest are prioritized over public citizens, there is no reason to believe that broadband will ever become a reality in the US.
So, you're right, P2P is just a fad...because broadband has been bought, sold, and shelved.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is this a troll? Isn't it supremely arrogant to assume that success is only measured by $$$? The US is such a screwed up place, hardly a model for the world.
Peer review mechanims are pretty easy to put into place, do we really need to pay for peer review?
Good ideas, but you're assuming consumers need to patronize commercials in order for entertainment to survive. I don't agree.
There are so many proponents on slashdot for open-source software...but what about "open source" books, or music, or theater, or visual art? There are thousands and thousands of very talented people, who have hobbies they are passionate about. I'm sure they would be thrilled to be showcased (i.e. televised).
How many more sitcoms do we need? Professional-scale budgets have produced so many programs...haven't we pretty much seen it all? Think of all the crappy movies and tv and music coming out lately...are they crappy because there are no talented artists anymore? I doubt it. I think we've exhausted most of the possibilites...and hollywood is getting bored with itself.
Ideally I'd prefer to see television be completely flattened as a media. Something that has not 200 channels...but 20,000....a tree-hierarchy of interests(like usenet). So if for whatever reason I'm interested in tv.alaska.wildlife, I can goto the appropriate domain and see hundreds of stock programs about the subject....some amateur(free), some professional(paypal), some in between. The point is, if I decide that amateur content is "good enough", I'll watch those things for free. If I want professional content, I'll pay for it.
This could happen if every home in america was equipped with 100Mbs. It's just 1 or 2 generations of upgrading, but once it's in place...would we really need any of the old content/media companies at all? 250 Million amateur directors, musicians, poets, authors, artist is a lot of amateurs...if just 0.001% of us was good at just one thing. We would have more than enough fresh and novel entertainment to go around.
P2P is a "fad" because the content industry and the media industry have merged, and are protecting thier monopoly.
AOL/Time Warner isn't doing anything to foster broadband because P2P threatens the TW side of thier business(content), while the AOL side is making money on thier 56k service. The cable companies are of course doing the same thing. DirectTV recenty aquired Telocity DSL. The list goes on.
As long as monopolies and private interest are prioritized over public citizens, there is no reason to believe that broadband will ever become a reality in the US.
So, you're right, P2P is just a fad...because broadband has been bought, sold, and shelved.