Yes, disturbing, but how else should they go about getting major corporate funding ASAP?
I'm sure some ad execs are having trouble sleeping, thinking of all the fun uses they can put this to...
--------
If I can own an idea, does that mean I can legally claim some portion of your soul once I tell you that idea? Or even if you just come up with it on your own? Heck, who needs contracts written in blood...
I remember hearing that Scott's visualization of the future LA was formed when Scott visited Hong Kong at one point.
Of course, I have nothing to back this up, but hey, what's a little conjecture here on/.?
--------
If I can own an idea, does that mean I can legally claim some portion of your soul once I tell you that idea? Or even if you just come up with it on your own? Heck, who needs contracts written in blood...
Why is it I seem to notice a crisis of responsibility here? Why is the Fed's reluctance to let one of these cases actually go to trial, where the gubment's evidence would be publicly released, echoing so strongly in my mind with SCO's no-we-won't-show-you-the-offending-code strategy?
I grew up here. I don't think I'll be staying.
--------
If I can own an idea, does that mean I can legally claim some portion of your soul once I tell you that idea? Or even if you just come up with it on your own? Heck, who needs contracts written in blood...
Incidentally, can anyone file suit against the *cough*dirty-funded*cough* Gartner Group for similar business damages? I mean, the Gartner guys are supposed to be analysts, right? (Or should I say <DrEvilQuote> analysts </DrEvilQuote>.) As in, they are supposed to know what they're doing, supposed to do the homework needed to really understand the issues, and if they're simply echoing the FUD for what is bound to be shown is a frivolous and fraudulent lawsuit, then shouldn't they also be liable for business damages?
Just a thought...
--------
If I can own an idea, does that mean I can legally claim some portion of your soul once I tell you that idea? Or even if you just come up with it on your own? Heck, who needs contracts written in blood...
There's been a good bit of research on Seasonally Affected Depression (SAD), and what I've read suggests that one of the root issues is lack of sunlight, not just any light. Treatment involves exposure to both full-spectrum and special quartz-lamp light to shift melatonin levels and also ensure healthy levels of vitamin D, something you can't get from your garden-variety houselamp. The issue here is complex, given that hey, we're talking about the chemical soup of the body here, but it seems to be not lack of light per se, but different levels of different kinds of light than our particular design was optimized for. As the article points out, excessive illumination can lead to screwy melatonin levels, leading to other kinds of circadian imbalances.
Sure, too little light can be a problem, but I don't think the answer is to have too much.
--------
If I can own an idea, does that mean I can legally claim some portion of your soul once I tell you that idea? Or even if you just come up with it on your own? Heck, who needs contracts written in blood...
This is definitely not an area where anyone would want a killer app!
Well, now that I think about it, just not for oneself... >:]
--------
If I can own an idea, does that mean I can legally claim some portion of your soul once I tell you that idea? Or even if you just come up with it on your own? Heck, who needs contracts in blood... (except the nanobots now)
(Long and disjointed, but there's a couple points in here, I promise!:)
Credentials: I dislike M$ business practices, and the software instability, and the creepy encroachment of Big Brother Bill.
That said, Windows does have a lot of useful functionality. While some of that has also been the cause of significant security issues (the cross-functionality of Office apps comes to mind), there are some things that I have not seen yet on Linux that will factor into the debate.
Another caveat: Some of my needs are decidedly rare in terms of the overall computing population, but I continue to feel it is a decided mistake on the part of the Linux community to overlook these issues.
For instance, I am a Japanese to English translator, and I have been quite negatively impressed with how difficult it is to deal with languages and fonts under Linux. This is one of MS's decided advantages -- and no, don't slag me for being concerned with idle fashions and appearances, when you're doing a lot of DTP, fonts and how they look on the screen are a real issue.
Linux has come a good way since I started using it some two years ago, but language is still a pain in the ass in a number of important ways. For instance, you need to log completely out of X in order to change certain language inputs. Unless I'm quite mistaken, it's impossible to simply change a setting (either GUI or via command line) and go from Kinput2 for Japanese to Chinput and start typing in Chinese.
Likewise, setting my input to Japanese causes KDE and Gnome both to use a butt-ugly font for any English in the UI. This is admittedly less important, but still something to consider -- eye candy is sweet, and draws users in. This particular font problem amounts to a bogey-flavoured Bertie Botts bean. Ew.
Windows has a very simple (on the user end) means of switching input methods via the taskbar, no logout required, and no googly fonts.
I brought this particular language issue with Redhat a while back in a feature request, and the fellow who wrote back seemed to think the IME switcher taskbar idea was mine. While flattered, I could only think that what the OSS/FS community needs to do is stop bitching about M$ and instead start asking why does Windows command such a huge share of the market. And look beyond marketing. Some of MS's UI design is quite smart, and I think OSS/FS could learn quite a bit from Windows.
If folks can stop being snooty for long enough to actually do this. Which brings up another issue -- there seems to be a clear divide in the community between the Mightier-Than-Thou (TM) geek clique, who are quite happy bashing, and others who are honestly interested in expanding Linux's mindshare and reach in the market.
Wading into the Slashdot stream these few months has been quite interesting in the schizoid nature of Linux vs Windows discussions, that makes me want to ask what exactly the priority is. If we truly want Linux to succeed, we could do worse than to take a close look at the present ruler of the OS world and emulate what *works*.
--------
If I can own an idea, does that mean I can legally claim some portion of your soul once I tell you that idea? Or even if you just come up with it on your own? Heck, who needs contracts written in blood...
Of all the looking around I've done, it looks pretty clear to me -- IP and the world of patents have little to nothing to do with the actual code. Basically what I mean is that Gates can be perfectly within bounds, and spot-on correct, without a lick of MS code in anything he's pointing his finger at. What's important in what he's talking about are the claims in Microsoft's patent portfolio. And the way patents are deliberately written to be as broad as possible while still being legally enforceable (not to mention the side arguments about the apparent ineptitude of the USPTO when it comes to researching prior art), it's entirely possible MS has patents covering many aspects of Linux functionality. As to how enforceable those patents prove to be, that has yet to be seen.
Seriously, folks, I'm not trying to be a troll here, I just think it's important we get the issues straight -- what Gates talks about is notcopyright, i.e. who has whose code in what, but rather the IP, i.e. who has patents covering what. And patents are a lot stickier, and full of a lot more of that gray area a previous poster was talking about, than simple copyright. Copyright issues you can resolve by rewriting something, whereas patent claims are typically interested in what something does, and are therefore much harder to work around. (Admittedly, patents also technically cover the implementation as well, but there's all kinds of fudge factor going on there.)
--------
If I can own an idea, does that mean I can legally claim some portion of your soul once I tell you that idea? Or even if you just come up with it on your own? Heck, who needs contracts written in blood...
I'm baffled as to why I was labelled flamebait here. Unless I'm mistaken (and if so, please correct me), roughly 1/3 of the world is Muslim. I was simply trying to explain that I feel the Bush administration is doing nothing to make friends with this sizeable segment of the global population.
--------
If I can own an idea, does that mean I can legally claim some portion of your soul once I tell you that idea? Or even if you just come up with it on your own? Heck, who needs contracts written in blood...
Has anyone considered that these security issues might not be mistakes? Look at who's contracted Diebold to do this -- the same folks who profited from Diebold's botched 'purge' of the Florida voter roles (see all kinds of fun, well-documented stuff here). Follow the money. The ones hiring Diebold have everything to gain from a completely insecure system.
--------
If I can own an idea, does that mean I can legally claim some portion of your soul once I tell you that idea? Or even if you just come up with it on your own? Heck, who needs contracts written in blood...
Fair enough. However, let me go out on a limb here and suggest that the US government's recent international policy is doing more to actively piss off large segments of the global population than it has in a while.
--------
If I can own an idea, does that mean I can legally claim some portion of your soul once I tell you that idea? Or even if you just come up with it on your own? Heck, who needs contracts written in blood...
Oo, forgive me for being conservative in my estimate. I was actually only thinking of the Muslim world, and didn't want to come off as pure hyperbole. But then, you're probably right...
--------
If I can own an idea, does that mean I can legally claim some portion of your soul once I tell you that idea? Or even if you just come up with it on your own? Heck, who needs contracts written in blood...
Okay, OT, but what about simply not pissing of 1/3 of the planet?
--------
If I can own an idea, does that mean I can legally claim some portion of your soul once I tell you that idea? Or even if you just come up with it on your own? Heck, who needs contracts written in blood...
Hello, IANAL, but I've had to translate a few patents in my time, and I've noticed a few flaws with your reasoning above. Given my background, I'll tackle #2 first.
No patent I have seen so far (not many, but enough and in varied enough fields to get a general feel) is actually usable as the recipe you seem to think all patents should be (and common sense would seem to dictate). In fact, I remember asking a number of people (professional technical translators, civil servants, and others) about why the claims were so blooming vague, and being told that claims are deliberately written to be as vague and broad as deemed legally defensible in order to cover as many permutations of said claims as possible. If the patent were in fact a specific recipe for the product in question, then any wannabe competitor need only change a few things in the design implementation to sidestep the claims. That's the only way these IP patent cases work at all -- it's (usually) not that Company X has made a complete duplicate of Company Y's product, or even a partial duplicate, but rather that Company X's design infringes on the claims of Company Y's patent.
On to #1. The problem here is that you assume simply having a patent is enough to protect the little guy. Again, IANAL, but as I've noticed over time, the vast majority of illegal activities are ignored unless someone specifically fights against them. Take jaywalking as a more prosaic instance, and then take copyright as a more apropos example. If violations are not pursued, the offenses are ignored, and in the case of copyright, the legal restriction against the activity (in this case, copying) vanishes. It's not the best example, but 'Aspirin' was once a brand name.
To pull this back to the topic at hand, simply having a patent, i.e. IP rights, on something is not sufficient protection, as one must also have the resources at hand to fight against that right being abrogated. The "little guy who invents something new" often still has a heck of a time competing against the big guys who copy his ideas. Even if he manages to put up a legal fight, chances are he gets bought out by some pittance of a settlement while the Big Company(TM) goes on to make major money. As noted previously in this thread, patents are most helpful to those with substantial warchests.
If you have some tale of the little guy taking on the Big Company and winning big time, I'd love to hear it, as it might restore some faith in the system for me. As it is, I'm feeling pretty damn cynical about IP all around.
--------
If I can own an idea, does that mean I can legally claim some portion of your soul once I tell you that idea? Or even if you just come up with it on your own? Heck, who needs contracts written in blood...
The issue is that the system doesn't work on a "survival of the fittest" system such as applies in private enterprise.
The problem here is how you define "fittest". A close study of 'free-market' capitalism shows quite clearly that the winners are often not the ones with the best product for the price, but the ones with the best connections. In some cases, the connection is the marketing effort to connect consumer thinking with the product. The Beta/VHS battle comes to mind. Beta was clearly the superior technology (media companies I've talked to still use Beta), but VHS had better marketing. In other cases, the connection is between corporate execs and politicians, in the form of lobbying, special regulatory loopholes, and sometimes just outright bribery. Heck, Enron didn't even sell a product, and look at the cash they raked in.
Ultimately, my point here is that, while survival of the fittest certainly seems to be at work in the private sector, it is sometimes no more a guarantee of quality products than what we get from the government, with its lowest bidder requirements (which are sometimes quietly ignored anyway) and the engrained organizational culture mentioned in darnok's post. I gather that MS is not exactly known for its stellar programming, for instance.
Okay, let's engage in a little thought exercise here. It's quite likely that EDS projects <insert epithet here> because they skimp on actual project implementation. Yet the money from the contracts must be going somewhere.
Hmm. Could it be they funnel some of the excess into lobbying and other less-tasteful forms of political influence?
In the blurred lines of the public-private sector,
((Product == Crap) && (Contract == Lucrative)) ? EngagePoliticalMachinery(Future = Lots more contracts) : CutCorners(Until(Contract == Lucrative))
What, me, cynical? Nah...
Apologies for cludgy code, but then hey, I'm a translator, not a developer.:P
Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but isn't this effectively already the case? To a certain extent, at any rate. Even with copyright in place, in the quest for ever-higher profit margins, media companies have been busy eating each other for some time now, mom and pop outlets are disappearing, and rare works are relegated to those few hole-in-the-wall stores still open. At least on the web you can find stuff without spending months tracking down and physically visiting oddball shops and sorting through their idiosyncratic collections.
Besides, as some have shown (like Bruce Eckel, among others), just because a book or other work is freely available online doesn't mean people won't still want a hardcopy. I don't like to look at a monitor for hours on end, but a that same book in hand could be bliss on a sunny day instead of a myopic headache.
It comes down to packaging -- what you pay for in many instances isn't the content so much as how it's presented. That's how the linux distro business seems to work (certainly for desktops, and for enterprise as well if you count support as part of the package). Heck, even with cars -- how many lemons have been sold on the basis of some actress' cleavage? But seriously, even though I could (and partially did) watch Two Towers weeks before the release, I still went to the theatre, and at that more than once. Copyright alone isn't the issue here.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, disturbing, but how else should they go about getting major corporate funding ASAP?
I'm sure some ad execs are having trouble sleeping, thinking of all the fun uses they can put this to...
--------
If I can own an idea, does that mean I can legally claim some portion of your soul once I tell you that idea? Or even if you just come up with it on your own? Heck, who needs contracts written in blood...
I remember hearing that Scott's visualization of the future LA was formed when Scott visited Hong Kong at one point.
Of course, I have nothing to back this up, but hey, what's a little conjecture here on /.?
--------
If I can own an idea, does that mean I can legally claim some portion of your soul once I tell you that idea? Or even if you just come up with it on your own? Heck, who needs contracts written in blood...
Why is it I seem to notice a crisis of responsibility here? Why is the Fed's reluctance to let one of these cases actually go to trial, where the gubment's evidence would be publicly released, echoing so strongly in my mind with SCO's no-we-won't-show-you-the-offending-code strategy?
I grew up here. I don't think I'll be staying.
--------
If I can own an idea, does that mean I can legally claim some portion of your soul once I tell you that idea? Or even if you just come up with it on your own? Heck, who needs contracts written in blood...
Incidentally, can anyone file suit against the *cough*dirty-funded*cough* Gartner Group for similar business damages? I mean, the Gartner guys are supposed to be analysts, right? (Or should I say <DrEvilQuote> analysts </DrEvilQuote>.) As in, they are supposed to know what they're doing, supposed to do the homework needed to really understand the issues, and if they're simply echoing the FUD for what is bound to be shown is a frivolous and fraudulent lawsuit, then shouldn't they also be liable for business damages?
Just a thought...
--------
If I can own an idea, does that mean I can legally claim some portion of your soul once I tell you that idea? Or even if you just come up with it on your own? Heck, who needs contracts written in blood...
There's been a good bit of research on Seasonally Affected Depression (SAD), and what I've read suggests that one of the root issues is lack of sunlight, not just any light. Treatment involves exposure to both full-spectrum and special quartz-lamp light to shift melatonin levels and also ensure healthy levels of vitamin D, something you can't get from your garden-variety houselamp. The issue here is complex, given that hey, we're talking about the chemical soup of the body here, but it seems to be not lack of light per se, but different levels of different kinds of light than our particular design was optimized for. As the article points out, excessive illumination can lead to screwy melatonin levels, leading to other kinds of circadian imbalances.
Sure, too little light can be a problem, but I don't think the answer is to have too much.
--------
If I can own an idea, does that mean I can legally claim some portion of your soul once I tell you that idea? Or even if you just come up with it on your own? Heck, who needs contracts written in blood...
This is definitely not an area where anyone would want a killer app!
Well, now that I think about it, just not for oneself... >:]
--------
If I can own an idea, does that mean I can legally claim some portion of your soul once I tell you that idea? Or even if you just come up with it on your own? Heck, who needs contracts in blood... (except the nanobots now)
(Long and disjointed, but there's a couple points in here, I promise! :)
Credentials: I dislike M$ business practices, and the software instability, and the creepy encroachment of Big Brother Bill.
That said, Windows does have a lot of useful functionality. While some of that has also been the cause of significant security issues (the cross-functionality of Office apps comes to mind), there are some things that I have not seen yet on Linux that will factor into the debate.
Another caveat: Some of my needs are decidedly rare in terms of the overall computing population, but I continue to feel it is a decided mistake on the part of the Linux community to overlook these issues.
For instance, I am a Japanese to English translator, and I have been quite negatively impressed with how difficult it is to deal with languages and fonts under Linux. This is one of MS's decided advantages -- and no, don't slag me for being concerned with idle fashions and appearances, when you're doing a lot of DTP, fonts and how they look on the screen are a real issue.
Linux has come a good way since I started using it some two years ago, but language is still a pain in the ass in a number of important ways. For instance, you need to log completely out of X in order to change certain language inputs. Unless I'm quite mistaken, it's impossible to simply change a setting (either GUI or via command line) and go from Kinput2 for Japanese to Chinput and start typing in Chinese.
Likewise, setting my input to Japanese causes KDE and Gnome both to use a butt-ugly font for any English in the UI. This is admittedly less important, but still something to consider -- eye candy is sweet, and draws users in. This particular font problem amounts to a bogey-flavoured Bertie Botts bean. Ew.
Windows has a very simple (on the user end) means of switching input methods via the taskbar, no logout required, and no googly fonts.
I brought this particular language issue with Redhat a while back in a feature request, and the fellow who wrote back seemed to think the IME switcher taskbar idea was mine. While flattered, I could only think that what the OSS/FS community needs to do is stop bitching about M$ and instead start asking why does Windows command such a huge share of the market. And look beyond marketing. Some of MS's UI design is quite smart, and I think OSS/FS could learn quite a bit from Windows.
If folks can stop being snooty for long enough to actually do this. Which brings up another issue -- there seems to be a clear divide in the community between the Mightier-Than-Thou (TM) geek clique, who are quite happy bashing, and others who are honestly interested in expanding Linux's mindshare and reach in the market.
Wading into the Slashdot stream these few months has been quite interesting in the schizoid nature of Linux vs Windows discussions, that makes me want to ask what exactly the priority is. If we truly want Linux to succeed, we could do worse than to take a close look at the present ruler of the OS world and emulate what *works*.
--------
If I can own an idea, does that mean I can legally claim some portion of your soul once I tell you that idea? Or even if you just come up with it on your own? Heck, who needs contracts written in blood...
Of all the looking around I've done, it looks pretty clear to me -- IP and the world of patents have little to nothing to do with the actual code. Basically what I mean is that Gates can be perfectly within bounds, and spot-on correct, without a lick of MS code in anything he's pointing his finger at. What's important in what he's talking about are the claims in Microsoft's patent portfolio. And the way patents are deliberately written to be as broad as possible while still being legally enforceable (not to mention the side arguments about the apparent ineptitude of the USPTO when it comes to researching prior art), it's entirely possible MS has patents covering many aspects of Linux functionality. As to how enforceable those patents prove to be, that has yet to be seen.
Seriously, folks, I'm not trying to be a troll here, I just think it's important we get the issues straight -- what Gates talks about is not copyright, i.e. who has whose code in what, but rather the IP, i.e. who has patents covering what. And patents are a lot stickier, and full of a lot more of that gray area a previous poster was talking about, than simple copyright. Copyright issues you can resolve by rewriting something, whereas patent claims are typically interested in what something does, and are therefore much harder to work around. (Admittedly, patents also technically cover the implementation as well, but there's all kinds of fudge factor going on there.)
--------
If I can own an idea, does that mean I can legally claim some portion of your soul once I tell you that idea? Or even if you just come up with it on your own? Heck, who needs contracts written in blood...
I'm baffled as to why I was labelled flamebait here. Unless I'm mistaken (and if so, please correct me), roughly 1/3 of the world is Muslim. I was simply trying to explain that I feel the Bush administration is doing nothing to make friends with this sizeable segment of the global population.
--------
If I can own an idea, does that mean I can legally claim some portion of your soul once I tell you that idea? Or even if you just come up with it on your own? Heck, who needs contracts written in blood...
Has anyone considered that these security issues might not be mistakes? Look at who's contracted Diebold to do this -- the same folks who profited from Diebold's botched 'purge' of the Florida voter roles (see all kinds of fun, well-documented stuff here). Follow the money. The ones hiring Diebold have everything to gain from a completely insecure system.
--------
If I can own an idea, does that mean I can legally claim some portion of your soul once I tell you that idea? Or even if you just come up with it on your own? Heck, who needs contracts written in blood...
Fair enough. However, let me go out on a limb here and suggest that the US government's recent international policy is doing more to actively piss off large segments of the global population than it has in a while.
--------
If I can own an idea, does that mean I can legally claim some portion of your soul once I tell you that idea? Or even if you just come up with it on your own? Heck, who needs contracts written in blood...
Oo, forgive me for being conservative in my estimate. I was actually only thinking of the Muslim world, and didn't want to come off as pure hyperbole. But then, you're probably right...
--------
If I can own an idea, does that mean I can legally claim some portion of your soul once I tell you that idea? Or even if you just come up with it on your own? Heck, who needs contracts written in blood...
Okay, OT, but what about simply not pissing of 1/3 of the planet?
--------
If I can own an idea, does that mean I can legally claim some portion of your soul once I tell you that idea? Or even if you just come up with it on your own? Heck, who needs contracts written in blood...
Hello, IANAL, but I've had to translate a few patents in my time, and I've noticed a few flaws with your reasoning above. Given my background, I'll tackle #2 first.
No patent I have seen so far (not many, but enough and in varied enough fields to get a general feel) is actually usable as the recipe you seem to think all patents should be (and common sense would seem to dictate). In fact, I remember asking a number of people (professional technical translators, civil servants, and others) about why the claims were so blooming vague, and being told that claims are deliberately written to be as vague and broad as deemed legally defensible in order to cover as many permutations of said claims as possible. If the patent were in fact a specific recipe for the product in question, then any wannabe competitor need only change a few things in the design implementation to sidestep the claims. That's the only way these IP patent cases work at all -- it's (usually) not that Company X has made a complete duplicate of Company Y's product, or even a partial duplicate, but rather that Company X's design infringes on the claims of Company Y's patent.
On to #1. The problem here is that you assume simply having a patent is enough to protect the little guy. Again, IANAL, but as I've noticed over time, the vast majority of illegal activities are ignored unless someone specifically fights against them. Take jaywalking as a more prosaic instance, and then take copyright as a more apropos example. If violations are not pursued, the offenses are ignored, and in the case of copyright, the legal restriction against the activity (in this case, copying) vanishes. It's not the best example, but 'Aspirin' was once a brand name.
To pull this back to the topic at hand, simply having a patent, i.e. IP rights, on something is not sufficient protection, as one must also have the resources at hand to fight against that right being abrogated. The "little guy who invents something new" often still has a heck of a time competing against the big guys who copy his ideas. Even if he manages to put up a legal fight, chances are he gets bought out by some pittance of a settlement while the Big Company(TM) goes on to make major money. As noted previously in this thread, patents are most helpful to those with substantial warchests.
If you have some tale of the little guy taking on the Big Company and winning big time, I'd love to hear it, as it might restore some faith in the system for me. As it is, I'm feeling pretty damn cynical about IP all around.
--------
If I can own an idea, does that mean I can legally claim some portion of your soul once I tell you that idea? Or even if you just come up with it on your own? Heck, who needs contracts written in blood...
The issue is that the system doesn't work on a "survival of the fittest" system such as applies in private enterprise.
The problem here is how you define "fittest". A close study of 'free-market' capitalism shows quite clearly that the winners are often not the ones with the best product for the price, but the ones with the best connections. In some cases, the connection is the marketing effort to connect consumer thinking with the product. The Beta/VHS battle comes to mind. Beta was clearly the superior technology (media companies I've talked to still use Beta), but VHS had better marketing. In other cases, the connection is between corporate execs and politicians, in the form of lobbying, special regulatory loopholes, and sometimes just outright bribery. Heck, Enron didn't even sell a product, and look at the cash they raked in.
Ultimately, my point here is that, while survival of the fittest certainly seems to be at work in the private sector, it is sometimes no more a guarantee of quality products than what we get from the government, with its lowest bidder requirements (which are sometimes quietly ignored anyway) and the engrained organizational culture mentioned in darnok's post. I gather that MS is not exactly known for its stellar programming, for instance.
Okay, let's engage in a little thought exercise here. It's quite likely that EDS projects <insert epithet here> because they skimp on actual project implementation. Yet the money from the contracts must be going somewhere.
Hmm. Could it be they funnel some of the excess into lobbying and other less-tasteful forms of political influence?
In the blurred lines of the public-private sector,
((Product == Crap) && (Contract == Lucrative)) ? EngagePoliticalMachinery(Future = Lots more contracts) : CutCorners(Until(Contract == Lucrative))
What, me, cynical? Nah... :P
Apologies for cludgy code, but then hey, I'm a translator, not a developer.
Oh no, something else to worry about. The first photo page states Coffinfishes are flabby bottom-dwelling fishes -- I better start exercising!
Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but isn't this effectively already the case? To a certain extent, at any rate. Even with copyright in place, in the quest for ever-higher profit margins, media companies have been busy eating each other for some time now, mom and pop outlets are disappearing, and rare works are relegated to those few hole-in-the-wall stores still open. At least on the web you can find stuff without spending months tracking down and physically visiting oddball shops and sorting through their idiosyncratic collections.
Besides, as some have shown (like Bruce Eckel, among others), just because a book or other work is freely available online doesn't mean people won't still want a hardcopy. I don't like to look at a monitor for hours on end, but a that same book in hand could be bliss on a sunny day instead of a myopic headache.
It comes down to packaging -- what you pay for in many instances isn't the content so much as how it's presented. That's how the linux distro business seems to work (certainly for desktops, and for enterprise as well if you count support as part of the package). Heck, even with cars -- how many lemons have been sold on the basis of some actress' cleavage? But seriously, even though I could (and partially did) watch Two Towers weeks before the release, I still went to the theatre, and at that more than once. Copyright alone isn't the issue here.