The fact that we even call it an entertainment "industry" is a problem in and of itself. Sounds more like turning out mass quantity, maximizing profits than the quality thought process that most of us would hope we would be putting in our brains.
Today the MPAA sued 6 bittorrent tracker sites, sites that post small files that basically tell a computer where to go, to many various servers, to pick up the small pieces that eventually make up a commplete file. For many people who can't schedule their life around the TV, the realization that the technology exists to actually have content available WHEN WE WANT IT is a step in the right direction. So you would have thought major media/entertainment companies would have been jumping on the bandwagon, trying to define this new distribution potential, thereby protecting there content? Instead, groups like the MPAA are engaging in ridiculous battles like the recent site shutdowns due to lawsuit. Shutting down 6 sites on the internet is, as the rightfully digusted doomd.com points out, is like using gasoline to put out a fire.
The internet is designed to brand fools, like Dan Glickman of the MPAA, who think they can stop an entire technology, as the don quixotes of the world. I have seen a few good posts out there in the wake of this new futile attempt to deal with new technology.
Ka D'Argo, posting at slashdot, talks about the ridiculous divide between the technology available and the entertainment industry's attempt to leverage it's crumbling monopoly. Single seasons of series of television shows going for $80, entire series for hundreds of dollars? Syndicated television shows? The availability of these is also pitiful. Where is the adoption of a new business model?
Don't think that these actions couldn't have consequences, however. It looks like they just might not be the one's the large media companies want. As is happening with the decentralization of power in the news media market, the effort by a group like the MPAA to limit access to television that most of us already have coming into our homes, could only PUSH PEOPLE TOWARDS NEW MEDIA. For example, the Open Media Network. This is a fascinating concept, and I agree, the future of public television. Video blogs, independently created content will just grab more attention from the networks, major entertainment companies, as viewers/consumers will find, as I have begun to find, that while independently created content can sometimes not be as polished, the content itself can vastly outstrip much of the mass entertainment we see today.
For example, to spin off into news media for a second, Netvideo, is a freely distributed internet program hosted by Jason Romney, an Australian. Romney hosts video interviews through the internet with tremendously interesting and insightful people from all around the world, the "movers and shakers" of the internet, discussing the issues that face the future of ideas and creative works, things that are changing the way we live and interact. In contrast, When I turn on CNN, they spend 24hrs./day for a week nibbling at the Vatican's heels for a new pope or chasing some woman who got cold feet prior to her wedding day. WAKE UP PEOPLE!
It's not just news and information, either, this independent content is entertainment too. I know I'd rather watch some video of a local person in Iraq describing their life than the latest episode of a contrived "reality" tv show.
The networks could easily distribe in a method through the internet that would only bolster their profits. One of the key issues holding this back, however, is international and local affiliates are freaked at losing something, but at some point we have to understand that the broadcast model is outdated. For instance, if NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, offered their shows over the internet, they could deliver them however they wanted to, including commercials and maybe slightly reduced quality. Hey, go for broke, have us enter our zip code, and give us LOCAL advertisements. The funny thing is, the m
I posted on this at http//improvised.blogspot.com
Don quixote and bittorrent: MPAA continues to resist new technologies
The fact that we even call it an entertainment "industry" is a problem in and of itself. Sounds more like turning out mass quantity, maximizing profits than the quality thought process that most of us would hope we would be putting in our brains.
Today the MPAA sued 6 bittorrent tracker sites, sites that post small files that basically tell a computer where to go, to many various servers, to pick up the small pieces that eventually make up a commplete file. For many people who can't schedule their life around the TV, the realization that the technology exists to actually have content available WHEN WE WANT IT is a step in the right direction. So you would have thought major media/entertainment companies would have been jumping on the bandwagon, trying to define this new distribution potential, thereby protecting there content? Instead, groups like the MPAA are engaging in ridiculous battles like the recent site shutdowns due to lawsuit. Shutting down 6 sites on the internet is, as the rightfully digusted doomd.com points out, is like using gasoline to put out a fire.
The internet is designed to brand fools, like Dan Glickman of the MPAA, who think they can stop an entire technology, as the don quixotes of the world. I have seen a few good posts out there in the wake of this new futile attempt to deal with new technology.
Ka D'Argo, posting at slashdot, talks about the ridiculous divide between the technology available and the entertainment industry's attempt to leverage it's crumbling monopoly. Single seasons of series of television shows going for $80, entire series for hundreds of dollars? Syndicated television shows? The availability of these is also pitiful. Where is the adoption of a new business model?
Don't think that these actions couldn't have consequences, however. It looks like they just might not be the one's the large media companies want. As is happening with the decentralization of power in the news media market, the effort by a group like the MPAA to limit access to television that most of us already have coming into our homes, could only PUSH PEOPLE TOWARDS NEW MEDIA. For example, the Open Media Network. This is a fascinating concept, and I agree, the future of public television. Video blogs, independently created content will just grab more attention from the networks, major entertainment companies, as viewers/consumers will find, as I have begun to find, that while independently created content can sometimes not be as polished, the content itself can vastly outstrip much of the mass entertainment we see today.
For example, to spin off into news media for a second, Netvideo, is a freely distributed internet program hosted by Jason Romney, an Australian. Romney hosts video interviews through the internet with tremendously interesting and insightful people from all around the world, the "movers and shakers" of the internet, discussing the issues that face the future of ideas and creative works, things that are changing the way we live and interact. In contrast, When I turn on CNN, they spend 24hrs./day for a week nibbling at the Vatican's heels for a new pope or chasing some woman who got cold feet prior to her wedding day. WAKE UP PEOPLE!
It's not just news and information, either, this independent content is entertainment too. I know I'd rather watch some video of a local person in Iraq describing their life than the latest episode of a contrived "reality" tv show.
The networks could easily distribe in a method through the internet that would only bolster their profits. One of the key issues holding this back, however, is international and local affiliates are freaked at losing something, but at some point we have to understand that the broadcast model is outdated. For instance, if NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, offered their shows over the internet, they could deliver them however they wanted to, including commercials and maybe slightly reduced quality. Hey, go for broke, have us enter
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that we even call it an entertainment "industry" is a problem in and of itself. Sounds more like turning out mass quantity, maximizing profits than the quality thought process that most of us would hope we would be putting in our brains.
Today the MPAA sued 6 bittorrent tracker sites, sites that post small files that basically tell a computer where to go, to many various servers, to pick up the small pieces that eventually make up a commplete file. For many people who can't schedule their life around the TV, the realization that the technology exists to actually have content available WHEN WE WANT IT is a step in the right direction. So you would have thought major media/entertainment companies would have been jumping on the bandwagon, trying to define this new distribution potential, thereby protecting there content? Instead, groups like the MPAA are engaging in ridiculous battles like the recent site shutdowns due to lawsuit. Shutting down 6 sites on the internet is, as the rightfully digusted doomd.com points out, is like using gasoline to put out a fire.
The internet is designed to brand fools, like Dan Glickman of the MPAA, who think they can stop an entire technology, as the don quixotes of the world. I have seen a few good posts out there in the wake of this new futile attempt to deal with new technology.
Ka D'Argo, posting at slashdot, talks about the ridiculous divide between the technology available and the entertainment industry's attempt to leverage it's crumbling monopoly. Single seasons of series of television shows going for $80, entire series for hundreds of dollars? Syndicated television shows? The availability of these is also pitiful. Where is the adoption of a new business model?
Don't think that these actions couldn't have consequences, however. It looks like they just might not be the one's the large media companies want. As is happening with the decentralization of power in the news media market, the effort by a group like the MPAA to limit access to television that most of us already have coming into our homes, could only PUSH PEOPLE TOWARDS NEW MEDIA. For example, the Open Media Network. This is a fascinating concept, and I agree, the future of public television. Video blogs, independently created content will just grab more attention from the networks, major entertainment companies, as viewers/consumers will find, as I have begun to find, that while independently created content can sometimes not be as polished, the content itself can vastly outstrip much of the mass entertainment we see today.
For example, to spin off into news media for a second, Netvideo, is a freely distributed internet program hosted by Jason Romney, an Australian. Romney hosts video interviews through the internet with tremendously interesting and insightful people from all around the world, the "movers and shakers" of the internet, discussing the issues that face the future of ideas and creative works, things that are changing the way we live and interact. In contrast, When I turn on CNN, they spend 24hrs./day for a week nibbling at the Vatican's heels for a new pope or chasing some woman who got cold feet prior to her wedding day. WAKE UP PEOPLE!
It's not just news and information, either, this independent content is entertainment too. I know I'd rather watch some video of a local person in Iraq describing their life than the latest episode of a contrived "reality" tv show.
The networks could easily distribe in a method through the internet that would only bolster their profits. One of the key issues holding this back, however, is international and local affiliates are freaked at losing something, but at some point we have to understand that the broadcast model is outdated. For instance, if NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, offered their shows over the internet, they could deliver them however they wanted to, including commercials and maybe slightly reduced quality. Hey, go for broke, have us enter our zip code, and give us LOCAL advertisements. The funny thing is, the m
I posted on this at http//improvised.blogspot.com Don quixote and bittorrent: MPAA continues to resist new technologies The fact that we even call it an entertainment "industry" is a problem in and of itself. Sounds more like turning out mass quantity, maximizing profits than the quality thought process that most of us would hope we would be putting in our brains. Today the MPAA sued 6 bittorrent tracker sites, sites that post small files that basically tell a computer where to go, to many various servers, to pick up the small pieces that eventually make up a commplete file. For many people who can't schedule their life around the TV, the realization that the technology exists to actually have content available WHEN WE WANT IT is a step in the right direction. So you would have thought major media/entertainment companies would have been jumping on the bandwagon, trying to define this new distribution potential, thereby protecting there content? Instead, groups like the MPAA are engaging in ridiculous battles like the recent site shutdowns due to lawsuit. Shutting down 6 sites on the internet is, as the rightfully digusted doomd.com points out, is like using gasoline to put out a fire. The internet is designed to brand fools, like Dan Glickman of the MPAA, who think they can stop an entire technology, as the don quixotes of the world. I have seen a few good posts out there in the wake of this new futile attempt to deal with new technology. Ka D'Argo, posting at slashdot, talks about the ridiculous divide between the technology available and the entertainment industry's attempt to leverage it's crumbling monopoly. Single seasons of series of television shows going for $80, entire series for hundreds of dollars? Syndicated television shows? The availability of these is also pitiful. Where is the adoption of a new business model? Don't think that these actions couldn't have consequences, however. It looks like they just might not be the one's the large media companies want. As is happening with the decentralization of power in the news media market, the effort by a group like the MPAA to limit access to television that most of us already have coming into our homes, could only PUSH PEOPLE TOWARDS NEW MEDIA. For example, the Open Media Network. This is a fascinating concept, and I agree, the future of public television. Video blogs, independently created content will just grab more attention from the networks, major entertainment companies, as viewers/consumers will find, as I have begun to find, that while independently created content can sometimes not be as polished, the content itself can vastly outstrip much of the mass entertainment we see today. For example, to spin off into news media for a second, Netvideo, is a freely distributed internet program hosted by Jason Romney, an Australian. Romney hosts video interviews through the internet with tremendously interesting and insightful people from all around the world, the "movers and shakers" of the internet, discussing the issues that face the future of ideas and creative works, things that are changing the way we live and interact. In contrast, When I turn on CNN, they spend 24hrs./day for a week nibbling at the Vatican's heels for a new pope or chasing some woman who got cold feet prior to her wedding day. WAKE UP PEOPLE! It's not just news and information, either, this independent content is entertainment too. I know I'd rather watch some video of a local person in Iraq describing their life than the latest episode of a contrived "reality" tv show. The networks could easily distribe in a method through the internet that would only bolster their profits. One of the key issues holding this back, however, is international and local affiliates are freaked at losing something, but at some point we have to understand that the broadcast model is outdated. For instance, if NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, offered their shows over the internet, they could deliver them however they wanted to, including commercials and maybe slightly reduced quality. Hey, go for broke, have us enter