I don't think this certification is going to necessarily make anyone suddenly become useful. A random look at some of the sample questions is sort of scary.... Two sample questions from their website http://certification.comptia.org/resources/practic e_test.aspx
Question 3 (corresponding objective: 1.a.10)
A technician is asked to troubleshoot a residential network that reported no problems yesterday. Today, the user's computer is not able to communicate with any of the other networked devices. Which of the following should the technician check FIRST?
A. Power supply to the network devices B. Operating system for viruses C. System resources used by the network interface cards D. Protocols installed on the system
Question 4 (corresponding objective: 1.b.10)
A client has a 100 watt stereo receiver. The client has purchased speakers rated at 200 watts. The receiver keeps shutting off, and the distortion is high. Which of the following is the best explanation?
A. The speakers need more power than 100 watts. B. The strands of wire are touching. C. The speaker cable is the wrong gauge. D. The protective fuses in the receiver are too weak.
I don't think this certification is going to necessarily make anyone suddenly become useful. A random look at some of the sample questions is sort of scary....
Two sample questions from their website http://certification.comptia.org/resources/practic e_test.aspx
Question 3
(corresponding objective: 1.a.10)
A technician is asked to troubleshoot a residential network that reported no problems yesterday. Today, the user's computer is not able to communicate with any of the other networked devices. Which of the following should the technician check FIRST?
A. Power supply to the network devices
B. Operating system for viruses
C. System resources used by the network interface cards
D. Protocols installed on the system
Question 4
(corresponding objective: 1.b.10)
A client has a 100 watt stereo receiver. The client has purchased speakers rated at 200 watts. The receiver keeps shutting off, and the distortion is high. Which of the following is the best explanation?
A. The speakers need more power than 100 watts.
B. The strands of wire are touching.
C. The speaker cable is the wrong gauge.
D. The protective fuses in the receiver are too weak.
is the sound of the death of an industry. The closer that death comes to us, the louder it will be, but no matter the volume of the sound, you cannot change it into anything other than the sound of death.
IMO, that is the ONLY possible outcome of the head-on crash of the entertainment industry, technology, and their desire to control the use of content. It may take awhile, but the current entertainment industry will die. It will probably be slow, painful, and not fun to watch but it is inevitable.
All the jokes aside, while it is reasonable for *you* to restrict the activities of *your* children in *your* home, it is NOT okay to limit the activities of college students. Sure, they are there to get an education but what is this teaching them? That censorship is ok or even good?
Morality, social behavior, and personal habits are not modified in good ways by censorship or other controlling means. It might work right now for your children, but these are not children, they are college students - young adults whose main occupation is passing tests right now. While it's a bad analogy, most people who do prison time don't come out better than they went in.
If you think about it, you can't force someone to learn. You can force them to attend classes but you can't force them to learn. If they are going to fail, let them fail in school rather than as a developer in your new outsourced project!
What exactly is 'bad content' in this situation? If IIT owns the hardware the students are using then they have a say in how it is used. If they don't own it the situation is reversed. It's an assumption here, but I believe that net access is paid for with tuition? If the restriction is part of the school rules, then paying tuition is more or less like accepting those rules, but if the situation is just one of censorship it will come to a bad end. I'm also going to assume that students were not told of the restriction when they paid tuition.
If this were applied to life, restrictions on network and phone network access would be considered a very bad thing. (my apologies to rural communities that still have trouble getting network access) I really don't think this is the kind of lesson that students need to be taught.
MS is not willing to go the whole way. They give lip service to many things, but their business model is about SELLING software. The whole F/OSS environment is killing them, and those folks that want open standards are considered terrorists in Redmond. MS cannot be open or convenient anymore than a car can be an airplane.
MS has to fight tooth and nail against all common sense or change their business model completely. Guess which will happen as long as they are able to buy congressmen?
This is part of the patent system that is broken. There is no incentive to not squat on the patent and wait for someone else to do the work. Invalidating the unused patents and passing them to the public domain will increase (IMO) the ability of small and agile businesses to do something with the previously patented item. When it passes to public domain, it removes the ability of anyone to use it just for suing others.
If the patent is not being used, it doesn't need patent protection! The grace period length may be up for debate, but the idea of passing the invention to public domain should not be in the case of unused patents.
Here is how I see it happening: First, aspiring film makers and video stars will work to get 'discovered' via their work on YouTube. Second, some shows that 'production model groups' won't put on TV will get aired via YouTube (first as an experiment, then as a shared revenue model with YouTube). Third, more popular 'free agent' content makers will get corporate sponsorship, just like you see for sport figures etc. Fourth, syndication mash-ups will garner sponsorships for presenting channeled content from YouTube and others by becoming popular sites to use for viewing all the available content. This system of free-market sponsorship will raise money for those that need it to make more content.
The difference between the current model and the future? The money won't be falling into the pockets of a just a few people, it will be spread out among the people making the content. Some of them might even get big enough to put out multimillion dollar movies, but it is more likely that by the time that might happen Hollywood will have pulled their collective heads out and bought up a few start-ups or created a few of their own.
All of the Internet based models of content distribution simply redistribute the wealth. They don't necessarily create more wealth, or less, just distribute it among more people.
Now, you have to be discovered somehow... in the YouTube future you won't need that, just put your stuff out there and if people like it, you'll get a reward. I can't think of any better incentive for people to create content that is worth watching.
I didn't want to mention it to avoid seeming a troll, but there is one other VERY important thing that Star Trek predicts: The removal of religion from society. Even though characters were spiritual, and expressed morals that are mostly in alignment with religion in general, there was AFAIK no religion that Federation citizens practiced.
Without religion, half if not more IMO, of the 'secret agendas' that people have will simply disappear.
Well, if Science Fiction is any predictor of what the future holds, Star Trek shows the world in a much better situation with healthcare for all, the elimination of the debt economy, and a basic change for betterment of both individuals and society.
Current copyright, patent, and medical issues could conceivably turn out to be like Star Trek predicted. IMO, that is worth a lot of very deep thought!
I just read a book recently called 'The Language Of God' by Francis S. Collins. He played no small part in mapping the human genome, and he discusses some of the implications of knowing that you are, or are not susceptible to particular maladies. His main concern was one of security as once you know that you are very susceptible to breast cancer the insurance companies can back out on you, or otherwise make the whole ordeal very nasty when/if it happens that you get the cancer.
The problem of not getting medical care because you knew you would get the disease is a real BIG problem. How can medical insurance work if there is no unpredictability in when people get sick? I think the basic conclusion that can be drawn from this and what Mr. Collins says: This is a good thing and can lead to much healthier people in general, but with the current system, it presents a whole plethora of opportunities for abuse and misconduct. So, it won't be a good thing until the current medical systems change to something more friendly to gene related therapies, treatment, and detection of disease/maladies.
While the arguments on the table are whether Viacom right or is YouTube right, but the real question that will be answered by the outcome of this little court battle is: what will video entertainment look like in the coming decade? If Viacom wins, it will look pretty much like it does today. If YouTube wins, it will look like we all want it to look: Video on demand, anywhere, anytime, any content.
I say that because Google/YouTube is one of the few companies that actually wants to provide such services. They have the right business model to do so, and they are making stars out of ordinary people. There is some evidence to show that YouTube sites et al will replace network television in short order if network television continues to suck and user generated content continues to get better. Mashups will make the 45,000+ channels of on-demand YouTube content even more coherent, and thus more attractive to the average viewer.
Back to the question on the table. The article clearly shows that what Viacom is pissed off about is that they have to look for the infringement on their own, or PAY YouTube to do so. Personally, I think Viacom is just whining because they are being hung with their own rope!
IMO, it would benefit the industry, the country, the world if YouTube wins. I say this because on-demand content is the future, and not the kind where you are paying DVD rental costs for each view. The on-demand video industry will replace television eventually, but it cannot grow to that size if the Viacom's of the world are allowed to destroy it before it gets off the launching pad.
It is indeed interesting. Under very controlled situations it might be useful. The trouble is that the standard highway is not a very controlled situation. The mesh links would break as traffic separated, or by cars without the networking installed.
GPS coordinates of the message origination vehicle would be good, but estimating how fast your vehicle will arrive at the trouble spot is complicated by erratic driving of any vehicle between you and the trouble spot. Within seconds (the presumed latency of the mesh) the trouble spot could move 100s or 1000s of feet closer to you.
God help you if you are following someone that thinks it would be interesting to run under the back of a large truck at 100mph, or is trying to commit suicide.
Additionally, in the event that the system happens to actually work, what if all network connectivity were halted, blocked, or jammed?
Clearly, this type of system CANNOT be successful without using other sensory data input. The opportunities for things to change faster than your car system can manage is huge.
Here we go again. Technology HAS CHANGED the world of entertainment and distribution. While companies grapple to figure out how to make money in the new world they find themselves embroiled in, there will be these (laughable) situations where litigation is a bandage on the gaping wound their business is suffering.
This demonstrates that not only have things changed, but incumbent businesses have no clue how to deal with the changes. There are, of course, notable exceptions. By way of exception I might mention that though they are not perfect Google, Apple, Linux community et al, IBM, Sun, and a few others are active in the new business paradigm. By definition they seem to be leading when in fact they are simply trying to stay alive and relevant. The previous generation of entertainment and media businesses were built slowly as technology previously evolved slowly, not so much anymore.
There will be more situations like this but the only way to make sense of it is if the world, not just the US or EU, begins to listen to technology experts, consumers, and visionaries that do NOT work in Redmond.
The entertainment industry is going to have to learn to live on what they can get up front, and stop demanding they get so much up front. Google and others have already figured out how to steal their ad revenue while they were busy trying to not change with the times and technology.
This particular issue will resolve itself, and set examples. That is good for one simple reason: there currently are not enough relevant examples of how to do business. One company has a good plan, then another comes along with a mash-up thingy and now the first company has to complain because they are not getting the revenue. Its all about business, and more importantly about the inability of many businesses to think beyond where they are now; their inability to innovate and change with the times.
No, I'm not a billion dollar inventor or anything, but spotting trends doesn't require a billion dollar bank account.
LESSON: When you set up an Internet business, try to make sure that you are ready to make deals with other people so that your revenue doesn't dry up like a spit of water in the desert.
Your comments have just reminded me of the one thing more scary than the **AA stupid ass business model... the possibility of seeing 'copyright infringement insurance' advertisements on late night television! Yes, don't let it happen to you, you go to the grocery store and while you are shopping someone steals your entertainment property from your vehicle and posts it to the Internet. What are you to do? With a copyright policy from bigassInsurance Inc. you won't have to worry... blah blah blah
Yes, if all entertainment media was serialized, it might work, but then the insurance vultures would have a toe hold on a new kind of policy: insurance against copyright infringement 'accidents' just as you can get them to insure against loss of employment, sickness, and autotheft etc. Then we would have to pay 50 times what the content is worth, and it could never be given to anyone else free of encumbrances.
The other implication that comes with serialized media is something the **AA cannot live with: Ownership! If it is serialized, its my copy and I can sell it, loan it to friends, and all the other things that come with ownership. Currently, the entertainment industry is leaning toward the rental business model rather than ownership. Yeah, yeah, I know it's a copyrighted work, but the car I drive has patented materials in it too, but I still own it!
There are a lot of ideas, but none of the good ones include the current **AA business model.
The trouble comes when someone 'borrows' your recording and then puts a copy of it on the Internet... there is still no accountability in the correct manner.
When you buy a car (yes, car analogies might not be perfect) you have a title and registration that you keep with the car for proof of ownership. When you buy a CD, you have the physical media as proof. The entertainment industries need to have something as simple, and usable as these examples.
Sure, as an idea there are holes in it, but the premise is good. DRM is not a registration that works as it is too limiting, just as the EU! When someone steals your CD, you just go without it and have to buy another one unless you have insurance that covers it. If they steal your car, same again. If either is used to commit a crime, you are not complicit but that is not how the current music industry is looking at things.
Individual watermarks in the content might sound good, but they can be stolen, and if its anything like DRM, it will get cracked in no time. The only sound answer is to make it not worth pirating by making the cost reasonable, the usefulness of the media robust, and the ease of use to the consumer no more difficult than toasting bread in an electric toaster.
Time again to mention that a CD sharing club of you and 20 of your friends can pirate music and videos indefinitely without being caught in order to reduce the cost of music and videos to a level that is acceptable. Its the Internet part that gets people caught. The entertainment industry is hell bent on fscking the consumer, and those people will continue to take back from the industry as long as they are being ripped off, or feel that they are.
Even opportunistic piracy is going to continue, has always been around, and cannot be stopped. They only thing they can stop is the online wholesale piracy. This 'watermarking' won't stop you and your CD club from your activities as long as nobody posts a copy to the Internet and gets caught.
Until they get these criteria right, people will pirate music and videos because they have enough reason to dismiss the minor chance they will be caught. The 'industry' will simply have to figure out how to make money while providing what the consumer has overwhelmingly demonstrated that they want... or just go out of business.
Personally, I vote for them going out of business. Let newer, better business rise from the ashes of the current entertainment industry!
There have been no shortage of people that want to help them out. There are no shortage of companies that want to help sell their music. There are millions of people selling stuff online without the help of the MPAA or RIAA.
It has been shown with reasonable efficacy that most artists do not make money from record sales, they make it from touring mostly. Courtney Love had a great rant about that. People do want to buy music they like, but the problem is that they mostly like 'popular' music which is made popular by the 'music industry' because the control the creation and distribution of music/videos.
If that control was broken and dismantled then spread across a much larger group of people and companies, it would represent competition, and create more content, not stifle it. The Internet and digital age is here, bringing with it many opportunities. If MP3 online stores were to become focal points for electronic distribution/sales it would make the whole industry more competative. Music would be priced better, more of it would be available.
Additionally, and more to the point, Internet based radio is now what the radio broadcasting industry used to be before the RIAA members re-arranged it to suit themselves. These same Internet radio stations can front the sales/distribution of music/video media as well.
If the price of a CD was only $7.95USD there would be little point in piracy for many people. If you could get that music at reasonable prices, free of DRM, it would be a booming business without the deficit of having to line the pockets of the current big players in the music industry.
There are hundreds of ways to re-organize the music industry, but the only successful ones I can think of do not include music distributors continuing to get rich while artists do not. There are far too few artists who actually do benefit from the RIAA, despite what we are told to believe. For every artist they do support there are ten more they do not.
If that is not bad enough, the RIAA decides (more or less) what we get to listen to, which band becomes popular... in fact, they have way too much influence on the music industry. The fact that I and many other people no longer have any use for broadcast radio because of the ruination they are bringing on their own industry is the reason they need to go. They ARE ruining the future possibilities of budding artists even as we write on/.
Its time for other people to share in the control and management of the music industry. There is no evidence that the current regime is doing anything but destroying the industry for their own gain.
that someone with public interest is starting to yell. I listen to Internet radio only these days. I'm not wanting the RIAA to send me letters of any kind, and standard radio SUCKS thanks to corporate radio. I support the stations that I listen to because the play the music I like, music that I cannot hear on broadcast radio. Now, the RIAA wants to put the only source of music that is worth listening to out of business??? WTF! Broadcast radio will end up being ALL talk radio.
I hope that this brings the whole thing to public attention in a way that is bad for the RIAA in general. This stranglehold that they have on music distribution will end up killing the music business as we have known it. Perhaps that is a good thing, I don't know, but I can say that from the bottom of my heart, I'd like to see the RIAA legally squeezed for monopolistic practices somehow. Yes, I know its not likely, but they do need slapped down hard.
taken the first step needed to be at the forefront of video based entertainment for the next decade or more. Viacom seems to be having second thoughts about upgrading their business model.
YouTube/GooTube will be shown to be innocent of any major issues. Viacom will have to get in the game and change their business model, or watch this particular game at home on tv!
We all understand clearly how the **AA has alienated their customers in no small way. Viacom is trying to do the same thing. While it is not clear what failed in the negotiation stage, it is clear to me that they will lose. It is not Google that puts offending material on the Internet. Remember that Google is hardly the only video sharing site on the Internet.
Viacom's real problem is not Google. Their real problem is that the public at large do not respect copyright as Viacom and others would like to define it. (lets not bring in the real definition at this point) That is to say: The public in general would like to redefine 'fair use' for copyrighted materials, and do so in a way that removes some of the business revenue from Viacom and others.
IMO, Viacom and others will simply have to get used to it, or be part of it if they want to stay in business.
Sure, I know that this is about evidence that this is what happens, but since they taught us about gravity in grade school, this as a source of meteorites etc. just makes common sense. Am I alone on this one?
No matter how good a set of tools you make, some^H^H^H^H most people will use them incorrectly. I have yet to see a corporate network designed in a way that both makes sense and is secure at any place I've worked or knew anything about, despite all the good information available on how to do both.
IIRC Monsanto was the company that litigates to stop farmers from growing their products without a license? Even if the product got on to their property in the same way that all plants spread out across the land (wind, birds, insects etc.)
Slashdot Mirror
fsck, forgot that. The actual correct answers were A and B respectively.
A. Power supply to the network devices
B. The strands of wire are touching.
sigh,
c e_test.aspx
The previous post should have looked like this:
I don't think this certification is going to necessarily make anyone suddenly become useful. A random look at some of the sample questions is sort of scary.... Two sample questions from their website http://certification.comptia.org/resources/practi
Question 3
(corresponding objective: 1.a.10)
A technician is asked to troubleshoot a residential network that reported no problems yesterday. Today, the user's computer is not able to communicate with any of the other networked devices. Which of the following should the technician check FIRST?
A. Power supply to the network devices
B. Operating system for viruses
C. System resources used by the network interface cards
D. Protocols installed on the system
Question 4
(corresponding objective: 1.b.10)
A client has a 100 watt stereo receiver. The client has purchased speakers rated at 200 watts. The receiver keeps shutting off, and the distortion is high. Which of the following is the best explanation?
A. The speakers need more power than 100 watts.
B. The strands of wire are touching.
C. The speaker cable is the wrong gauge.
D. The protective fuses in the receiver are too weak.
I don't think this certification is going to necessarily make anyone suddenly become useful. A random look at some of the sample questions is sort of scary.... Two sample questions from their website http://certification.comptia.org/resources/practic e_test.aspx
Question 3
(corresponding objective: 1.a.10)
A technician is asked to troubleshoot a residential network that reported no problems yesterday. Today, the user's computer is not able to communicate with any of the other networked devices. Which of the following should the technician check FIRST?
A. Power supply to the network devices
B. Operating system for viruses
C. System resources used by the network interface cards
D. Protocols installed on the system
Question 4
(corresponding objective: 1.b.10)
A client has a 100 watt stereo receiver. The client has purchased speakers rated at 200 watts. The receiver keeps shutting off, and the distortion is high. Which of the following is the best explanation?
A. The speakers need more power than 100 watts.
B. The strands of wire are touching.
C. The speaker cable is the wrong gauge.
D. The protective fuses in the receiver are too weak.
Sadly, they apparently will not learn until there is no tech industry left and unemployment has become an even bigger problem.
is the sound of the death of an industry. The closer that death comes to us, the louder it will be, but no matter the volume of the sound, you cannot change it into anything other than the sound of death.
IMO, that is the ONLY possible outcome of the head-on crash of the entertainment industry, technology, and their desire to control the use of content. It may take awhile, but the current entertainment industry will die. It will probably be slow, painful, and not fun to watch but it is inevitable.
All the jokes aside, while it is reasonable for *you* to restrict the activities of *your* children in *your* home, it is NOT okay to limit the activities of college students. Sure, they are there to get an education but what is this teaching them? That censorship is ok or even good?
Morality, social behavior, and personal habits are not modified in good ways by censorship or other controlling means. It might work right now for your children, but these are not children, they are college students - young adults whose main occupation is passing tests right now. While it's a bad analogy, most people who do prison time don't come out better than they went in.
If you think about it, you can't force someone to learn. You can force them to attend classes but you can't force them to learn. If they are going to fail, let them fail in school rather than as a developer in your new outsourced project!
What exactly is 'bad content' in this situation? If IIT owns the hardware the students are using then they have a say in how it is used. If they don't own it the situation is reversed. It's an assumption here, but I believe that net access is paid for with tuition? If the restriction is part of the school rules, then paying tuition is more or less like accepting those rules, but if the situation is just one of censorship it will come to a bad end. I'm also going to assume that students were not told of the restriction when they paid tuition.
If this were applied to life, restrictions on network and phone network access would be considered a very bad thing. (my apologies to rural communities that still have trouble getting network access) I really don't think this is the kind of lesson that students need to be taught.
MS is not willing to go the whole way. They give lip service to many things, but their business model is about SELLING software. The whole F/OSS environment is killing them, and those folks that want open standards are considered terrorists in Redmond. MS cannot be open or convenient anymore than a car can be an airplane.
MS has to fight tooth and nail against all common sense or change their business model completely. Guess which will happen as long as they are able to buy congressmen?
Now mountain climbing, hang gliding, and other low oxygen sports will be important on my resume!!
This is part of the patent system that is broken. There is no incentive to not squat on the patent and wait for someone else to do the work. Invalidating the unused patents and passing them to the public domain will increase (IMO) the ability of small and agile businesses to do something with the previously patented item. When it passes to public domain, it removes the ability of anyone to use it just for suing others.
If the patent is not being used, it doesn't need patent protection! The grace period length may be up for debate, but the idea of passing the invention to public domain should not be in the case of unused patents.
Here is how I see it happening: First, aspiring film makers and video stars will work to get 'discovered' via their work on YouTube. Second, some shows that 'production model groups' won't put on TV will get aired via YouTube (first as an experiment, then as a shared revenue model with YouTube). Third, more popular 'free agent' content makers will get corporate sponsorship, just like you see for sport figures etc. Fourth, syndication mash-ups will garner sponsorships for presenting channeled content from YouTube and others by becoming popular sites to use for viewing all the available content. This system of free-market sponsorship will raise money for those that need it to make more content.
The difference between the current model and the future? The money won't be falling into the pockets of a just a few people, it will be spread out among the people making the content. Some of them might even get big enough to put out multimillion dollar movies, but it is more likely that by the time that might happen Hollywood will have pulled their collective heads out and bought up a few start-ups or created a few of their own.
All of the Internet based models of content distribution simply redistribute the wealth. They don't necessarily create more wealth, or less, just distribute it among more people.
Now, you have to be discovered somehow... in the YouTube future you won't need that, just put your stuff out there and if people like it, you'll get a reward. I can't think of any better incentive for people to create content that is worth watching.
I didn't want to mention it to avoid seeming a troll, but there is one other VERY important thing that Star Trek predicts: The removal of religion from society. Even though characters were spiritual, and expressed morals that are mostly in alignment with religion in general, there was AFAIK no religion that Federation citizens practiced.
Without religion, half if not more IMO, of the 'secret agendas' that people have will simply disappear.
Just a thought
Well, if Science Fiction is any predictor of what the future holds, Star Trek shows the world in a much better situation with healthcare for all, the elimination of the debt economy, and a basic change for betterment of both individuals and society.
Current copyright, patent, and medical issues could conceivably turn out to be like Star Trek predicted. IMO, that is worth a lot of very deep thought!
I just read a book recently called 'The Language Of God' by Francis S. Collins. He played no small part in mapping the human genome, and he discusses some of the implications of knowing that you are, or are not susceptible to particular maladies. His main concern was one of security as once you know that you are very susceptible to breast cancer the insurance companies can back out on you, or otherwise make the whole ordeal very nasty when/if it happens that you get the cancer.
The problem of not getting medical care because you knew you would get the disease is a real BIG problem. How can medical insurance work if there is no unpredictability in when people get sick? I think the basic conclusion that can be drawn from this and what Mr. Collins says: This is a good thing and can lead to much healthier people in general, but with the current system, it presents a whole plethora of opportunities for abuse and misconduct. So, it won't be a good thing until the current medical systems change to something more friendly to gene related therapies, treatment, and detection of disease/maladies.
While the arguments on the table are whether Viacom right or is YouTube right, but the real question that will be answered by the outcome of this little court battle is: what will video entertainment look like in the coming decade? If Viacom wins, it will look pretty much like it does today. If YouTube wins, it will look like we all want it to look: Video on demand, anywhere, anytime, any content.
I say that because Google/YouTube is one of the few companies that actually wants to provide such services. They have the right business model to do so, and they are making stars out of ordinary people. There is some evidence to show that YouTube sites et al will replace network television in short order if network television continues to suck and user generated content continues to get better. Mashups will make the 45,000+ channels of on-demand YouTube content even more coherent, and thus more attractive to the average viewer.
Back to the question on the table. The article clearly shows that what Viacom is pissed off about is that they have to look for the infringement on their own, or PAY YouTube to do so. Personally, I think Viacom is just whining because they are being hung with their own rope!
IMO, it would benefit the industry, the country, the world if YouTube wins. I say this because on-demand content is the future, and not the kind where you are paying DVD rental costs for each view. The on-demand video industry will replace television eventually, but it cannot grow to that size if the Viacom's of the world are allowed to destroy it before it gets off the launching pad.
It is indeed interesting. Under very controlled situations it might be useful. The trouble is that the standard highway is not a very controlled situation. The mesh links would break as traffic separated, or by cars without the networking installed.
GPS coordinates of the message origination vehicle would be good, but estimating how fast your vehicle will arrive at the trouble spot is complicated by erratic driving of any vehicle between you and the trouble spot. Within seconds (the presumed latency of the mesh) the trouble spot could move 100s or 1000s of feet closer to you.
God help you if you are following someone that thinks it would be interesting to run under the back of a large truck at 100mph, or is trying to commit suicide.
Additionally, in the event that the system happens to actually work, what if all network connectivity were halted, blocked, or jammed?
Clearly, this type of system CANNOT be successful without using other sensory data input. The opportunities for things to change faster than your car system can manage is huge.
SSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Don't let Bill know about this, it will ruin his current lobbying attempts!!
Here we go again. Technology HAS CHANGED the world of entertainment and distribution. While companies grapple to figure out how to make money in the new world they find themselves embroiled in, there will be these (laughable) situations where litigation is a bandage on the gaping wound their business is suffering.
This demonstrates that not only have things changed, but incumbent businesses have no clue how to deal with the changes. There are, of course, notable exceptions. By way of exception I might mention that though they are not perfect Google, Apple, Linux community et al, IBM, Sun, and a few others are active in the new business paradigm. By definition they seem to be leading when in fact they are simply trying to stay alive and relevant. The previous generation of entertainment and media businesses were built slowly as technology previously evolved slowly, not so much anymore.
There will be more situations like this but the only way to make sense of it is if the world, not just the US or EU, begins to listen to technology experts, consumers, and visionaries that do NOT work in Redmond.
The entertainment industry is going to have to learn to live on what they can get up front, and stop demanding they get so much up front. Google and others have already figured out how to steal their ad revenue while they were busy trying to not change with the times and technology.
This particular issue will resolve itself, and set examples. That is good for one simple reason: there currently are not enough relevant examples of how to do business. One company has a good plan, then another comes along with a mash-up thingy and now the first company has to complain because they are not getting the revenue. Its all about business, and more importantly about the inability of many businesses to think beyond where they are now; their inability to innovate and change with the times.
No, I'm not a billion dollar inventor or anything, but spotting trends doesn't require a billion dollar bank account.
LESSON: When you set up an Internet business, try to make sure that you are ready to make deals with other people so that your revenue doesn't dry up like a spit of water in the desert.
Your comments have just reminded me of the one thing more scary than the **AA stupid ass business model... the possibility of seeing 'copyright infringement insurance' advertisements on late night television! Yes, don't let it happen to you, you go to the grocery store and while you are shopping someone steals your entertainment property from your vehicle and posts it to the Internet. What are you to do? With a copyright policy from bigassInsurance Inc. you won't have to worry... blah blah blah
Yes, if all entertainment media was serialized, it might work, but then the insurance vultures would have a toe hold on a new kind of policy: insurance against copyright infringement 'accidents' just as you can get them to insure against loss of employment, sickness, and autotheft etc. Then we would have to pay 50 times what the content is worth, and it could never be given to anyone else free of encumbrances.
The other implication that comes with serialized media is something the **AA cannot live with: Ownership! If it is serialized, its my copy and I can sell it, loan it to friends, and all the other things that come with ownership. Currently, the entertainment industry is leaning toward the rental business model rather than ownership. Yeah, yeah, I know it's a copyrighted work, but the car I drive has patented materials in it too, but I still own it!
There are a lot of ideas, but none of the good ones include the current **AA business model.
The trouble comes when someone 'borrows' your recording and then puts a copy of it on the Internet... there is still no accountability in the correct manner.
When you buy a car (yes, car analogies might not be perfect) you have a title and registration that you keep with the car for proof of ownership. When you buy a CD, you have the physical media as proof. The entertainment industries need to have something as simple, and usable as these examples.
Sure, as an idea there are holes in it, but the premise is good. DRM is not a registration that works as it is too limiting, just as the EU! When someone steals your CD, you just go without it and have to buy another one unless you have insurance that covers it. If they steal your car, same again. If either is used to commit a crime, you are not complicit but that is not how the current music industry is looking at things.
Individual watermarks in the content might sound good, but they can be stolen, and if its anything like DRM, it will get cracked in no time. The only sound answer is to make it not worth pirating by making the cost reasonable, the usefulness of the media robust, and the ease of use to the consumer no more difficult than toasting bread in an electric toaster.
Time again to mention that a CD sharing club of you and 20 of your friends can pirate music and videos indefinitely without being caught in order to reduce the cost of music and videos to a level that is acceptable. Its the Internet part that gets people caught. The entertainment industry is hell bent on fscking the consumer, and those people will continue to take back from the industry as long as they are being ripped off, or feel that they are.
Even opportunistic piracy is going to continue, has always been around, and cannot be stopped. They only thing they can stop is the online wholesale piracy. This 'watermarking' won't stop you and your CD club from your activities as long as nobody posts a copy to the Internet and gets caught.
Until they get these criteria right, people will pirate music and videos because they have enough reason to dismiss the minor chance they will be caught. The 'industry' will simply have to figure out how to make money while providing what the consumer has overwhelmingly demonstrated that they want... or just go out of business.
Personally, I vote for them going out of business. Let newer, better business rise from the ashes of the current entertainment industry!
There have been no shortage of people that want to help them out. There are no shortage of companies that want to help sell their music. There are millions of people selling stuff online without the help of the MPAA or RIAA.
/.
It has been shown with reasonable efficacy that most artists do not make money from record sales, they make it from touring mostly. Courtney Love had a great rant about that. People do want to buy music they like, but the problem is that they mostly like 'popular' music which is made popular by the 'music industry' because the control the creation and distribution of music/videos.
If that control was broken and dismantled then spread across a much larger group of people and companies, it would represent competition, and create more content, not stifle it. The Internet and digital age is here, bringing with it many opportunities. If MP3 online stores were to become focal points for electronic distribution/sales it would make the whole industry more competative. Music would be priced better, more of it would be available.
Additionally, and more to the point, Internet based radio is now what the radio broadcasting industry used to be before the RIAA members re-arranged it to suit themselves. These same Internet radio stations can front the sales/distribution of music/video media as well.
If the price of a CD was only $7.95USD there would be little point in piracy for many people. If you could get that music at reasonable prices, free of DRM, it would be a booming business without the deficit of having to line the pockets of the current big players in the music industry.
There are hundreds of ways to re-organize the music industry, but the only successful ones I can think of do not include music distributors continuing to get rich while artists do not. There are far too few artists who actually do benefit from the RIAA, despite what we are told to believe. For every artist they do support there are ten more they do not.
If that is not bad enough, the RIAA decides (more or less) what we get to listen to, which band becomes popular... in fact, they have way too much influence on the music industry. The fact that I and many other people no longer have any use for broadcast radio because of the ruination they are bringing on their own industry is the reason they need to go. They ARE ruining the future possibilities of budding artists even as we write on
Its time for other people to share in the control and management of the music industry. There is no evidence that the current regime is doing anything but destroying the industry for their own gain.
that someone with public interest is starting to yell. I listen to Internet radio only these days. I'm not wanting the RIAA to send me letters of any kind, and standard radio SUCKS thanks to corporate radio. I support the stations that I listen to because the play the music I like, music that I cannot hear on broadcast radio. Now, the RIAA wants to put the only source of music that is worth listening to out of business??? WTF! Broadcast radio will end up being ALL talk radio.
I hope that this brings the whole thing to public attention in a way that is bad for the RIAA in general. This stranglehold that they have on music distribution will end up killing the music business as we have known it. Perhaps that is a good thing, I don't know, but I can say that from the bottom of my heart, I'd like to see the RIAA legally squeezed for monopolistic practices somehow. Yes, I know its not likely, but they do need slapped down hard.
taken the first step needed to be at the forefront of video based entertainment for the next decade or more. Viacom seems to be having second thoughts about upgrading their business model.
YouTube/GooTube will be shown to be innocent of any major issues. Viacom will have to get in the game and change their business model, or watch this particular game at home on tv!
We all understand clearly how the **AA has alienated their customers in no small way. Viacom is trying to do the same thing. While it is not clear what failed in the negotiation stage, it is clear to me that they will lose. It is not Google that puts offending material on the Internet. Remember that Google is hardly the only video sharing site on the Internet.
Viacom's real problem is not Google. Their real problem is that the public at large do not respect copyright as Viacom and others would like to define it. (lets not bring in the real definition at this point) That is to say: The public in general would like to redefine 'fair use' for copyrighted materials, and do so in a way that removes some of the business revenue from Viacom and others.
IMO, Viacom and others will simply have to get used to it, or be part of it if they want to stay in business.
Sure, I know that this is about evidence that this is what happens, but since they taught us about gravity in grade school, this as a source of meteorites etc. just makes common sense. Am I alone on this one?
No matter how good a set of tools you make, some^H^H^H^H most people will use them incorrectly. I have yet to see a corporate network designed in a way that both makes sense and is secure at any place I've worked or knew anything about, despite all the good information available on how to do both.
IIRC Monsanto was the company that litigates to stop farmers from growing their products without a license? Even if the product got on to their property in the same way that all plants spread out across the land (wind, birds, insects etc.)