Mike Godwin's Content vs Tech Factions piece is up at Reason
One way to understand the conflict between the Content Faction and the Tech Faction is to look at how they describe their customers. For the content industries, they're "consumers." By contrast, the information technology companies talk about "users."
If you see people as consumers, you control access to what you offer, and you do everything you can to prevent theft, for the same reason supermarkets have cameras by the door and bookstores have electronic theft detectors. Allowing people to take stuff for free is inconsistent with your business model.
But if you see people as users, you want to give them more features and power at cheaper prices. The impulse to empower users was at the heart of the microcomputer revolution: Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak wanted to put computing power into ordinary people's hands, and that's why they founded Apple Computer. If this is your approach -- enabling people to do new things -- it's hard to adjust to the idea of building in limitations.
This is OK as far as it goes, but what the CBDTPA is proposing isn't electronic theft detectors, it is the equivalent of mandatory confiscation by armed security guards of all bags and clothing that might be used to carry stolen goods from anyone walking within 300 feet of the mall. This would ensure no-one stole CDs from Tower Records, but it would significantly limit the numbers who would want to shop at the mall.
Tuesday 30 April 2002
ABCNEWS.com : Survey: Majority Believe in 'Pseudoscience'
ABCNEWS.com : Survey: Majority Believe in 'Pseudoscience'
ABC shamefully panders to 'revealed truth' in an article about pseudoscience. Is it any wonder that people are confused and misinformed?
The universe began with a huge explosion. (True, according to the "Big Bang" theory widely accepted by scientists, but dismissed by some religious leaders.) 33 percent.
Human beings developed from earlier species of animals. (True, according to the theory of evolution, which is accepted by the majority of scientists, but not by many religious leaders.) 53 percent.
Of course scientific theories are tentative and falsifiable; that is what makes them scientific. It doesn't call for this kind of havering.
ABC shamefully panders to 'revealed truth' in an article about pseudoscience. Is it any wonder that people are confused and misinformed?
The universe began with a huge explosion. (True, according to the "Big Bang" theory widely accepted by scientists, but dismissed by some religious leaders.) 33 percent.
Human beings developed from earlier species of animals. (True, according to the theory of evolution, which is accepted by the majority of scientists, but not by many religious leaders.) 53 percent.
Of course scientific theories are tentative and falsifiable; that is what makes them scientific. It doesn't call for this kind of havering.
Monday 29 April 2002
Silent Theft
Silent Theft is a new book campaigning for the concept of the commons:
It should be stressed that protecting the commons is about maintaining a balance, not bashing business. It is self-evident that we need markets. It is far less clear -- particularly to businesses operating within markets -- that we also need commons. A society in which every transaction must be mediated by the market, in which everything is privately owned and strictly controlled, will come to resemble a medieval society -- a world of balkanized fiefdoms in which every minor satrap demands tribute for the right to cross his land or ford his streams. The flow of commerce and ideas -- and the sustainability of innovation and democratic culture - will be seriously impeded. Furthermore, such a market-dominated society is not likely to cultivate the sense of trust and shared commitments that any functioning society must have.
So the issue is not market versus commons. The issue is how to set equitable and appropriate boundaries between the two realms - semi-permeable membranes --so that the market and the commons can each retain its integrity while invigorating the other. That equilibrium is now out of balance as businesses try to exploit all available resources, including those that everyone owns and uses in common.
This sounds promising; there is a problem of commons over-reach too...
It should be stressed that protecting the commons is about maintaining a balance, not bashing business. It is self-evident that we need markets. It is far less clear -- particularly to businesses operating within markets -- that we also need commons. A society in which every transaction must be mediated by the market, in which everything is privately owned and strictly controlled, will come to resemble a medieval society -- a world of balkanized fiefdoms in which every minor satrap demands tribute for the right to cross his land or ford his streams. The flow of commerce and ideas -- and the sustainability of innovation and democratic culture - will be seriously impeded. Furthermore, such a market-dominated society is not likely to cultivate the sense of trust and shared commitments that any functioning society must have.
So the issue is not market versus commons. The issue is how to set equitable and appropriate boundaries between the two realms - semi-permeable membranes --so that the market and the commons can each retain its integrity while invigorating the other. That equilibrium is now out of balance as businesses try to exploit all available resources, including those that everyone owns and uses in common.
This sounds promising; there is a problem of commons over-reach too...
Setting Fire to Hollywood's Plans for the Net: The GeekPAC Story
Setting Fire to Hollywood's Plans for the Net: The GeekPAC Story
As a creative commons, the Net suppports countless new opportunities for Hollywood. But three of Hollywood's leaders--Michael Eisner of Disney, Hillary Rosen of the RIAA and Jack Valenti of the MPAA--have chosen instead to regard the Net as a threat and its citizens as thieves. They want to replace the Net's commons with a plumbing system for "content" entirely managed and controlled from the supply side. They are not interested in seeing billions of passive and voiceless "consumers" turn into active and vocal customers.
And so we find ourselves in a kind of war--not just between two interest groups, but between two fundamentally different ways of understanding the Net itself. One sees it as a commons. The other sees it as a distribution system. One wants to protect it and let it grow. The other wants to manage and exploit it. One expects innovation and market forces to solve the business problems that naturally accompany growth. The other wants government to protect established industries against exactly those kinds of problems--by restricting the very operations of the Net itself, and the devices that allow people to use the Net.
As I said below, the war is not new; but maybe we have the possibility of an end in sight.
As a creative commons, the Net suppports countless new opportunities for Hollywood. But three of Hollywood's leaders--Michael Eisner of Disney, Hillary Rosen of the RIAA and Jack Valenti of the MPAA--have chosen instead to regard the Net as a threat and its citizens as thieves. They want to replace the Net's commons with a plumbing system for "content" entirely managed and controlled from the supply side. They are not interested in seeing billions of passive and voiceless "consumers" turn into active and vocal customers.
And so we find ourselves in a kind of war--not just between two interest groups, but between two fundamentally different ways of understanding the Net itself. One sees it as a commons. The other sees it as a distribution system. One wants to protect it and let it grow. The other wants to manage and exploit it. One expects innovation and market forces to solve the business problems that naturally accompany growth. The other wants government to protect established industries against exactly those kinds of problems--by restricting the very operations of the Net itself, and the devices that allow people to use the Net.
As I said below, the war is not new; but maybe we have the possibility of an end in sight.
kuro5hin.org || Macaulay on Copyright
kuro5hin.org || Macaulay on Copyright
Thomas Macaulay spoke successfully against the posthumous extension of copyright in the House of Commons in 1841:
I believe, Sir, that I may with safety take it for granted that the effect of monopoly generally is to make articles scarce, to make them dear, and to make them bad. And I may with equal safety challenge my honourable friend to find out any distinction between copyright and other privileges of the same kind; any reason why a monopoly of books should produce an effect directly the reverse of that which was produced by the East India Company's monopoly of tea, or by Lord Essex's monopoly of sweet wines. Thus, then, stands the case. It is good that authors should be remunerated; and the least exceptionable way of remunerating them is by a monopoly. Yet monopoly is an evil. For the sake of the good we must submit to the evil; but the evil ought not to last a day longer than is necessary for the purpose of securing the good.
[...]
Just as the absurd acts which prohibited the sale of game were virtually repealed by the poacher, just as many absurd revenue acts have been virtually repealed by the smuggler, so will this law be virtually repealed by piratical booksellers. At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot. On which side indeed should the public sympathy be when the question is whether some book as popular as Robinson Crusoe, or the Pilgrim's Progress, shall be in every cottage, or whether it shall be confined to the libraries of the rich for the advantage of the great-grandson of a bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a hard bargain for the copyright with the author when in great distress?
This is a great find - a clear speech on the topic that shows that these isues are not new.
Thomas Macaulay spoke successfully against the posthumous extension of copyright in the House of Commons in 1841:
I believe, Sir, that I may with safety take it for granted that the effect of monopoly generally is to make articles scarce, to make them dear, and to make them bad. And I may with equal safety challenge my honourable friend to find out any distinction between copyright and other privileges of the same kind; any reason why a monopoly of books should produce an effect directly the reverse of that which was produced by the East India Company's monopoly of tea, or by Lord Essex's monopoly of sweet wines. Thus, then, stands the case. It is good that authors should be remunerated; and the least exceptionable way of remunerating them is by a monopoly. Yet monopoly is an evil. For the sake of the good we must submit to the evil; but the evil ought not to last a day longer than is necessary for the purpose of securing the good.
[...]
Just as the absurd acts which prohibited the sale of game were virtually repealed by the poacher, just as many absurd revenue acts have been virtually repealed by the smuggler, so will this law be virtually repealed by piratical booksellers. At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot. On which side indeed should the public sympathy be when the question is whether some book as popular as Robinson Crusoe, or the Pilgrim's Progress, shall be in every cottage, or whether it shall be confined to the libraries of the rich for the advantage of the great-grandson of a bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a hard bargain for the copyright with the author when in great distress?
This is a great find - a clear speech on the topic that shows that these isues are not new.
Sunday 28 April 2002
Bob Frankston has an essay on how the FCC should change policy to replace 'telecoms' with 'connectivity'
The simplest ideas are often the hardest to explain. How do we explain that an entire industry is no longer necessary? It's as if we tried adapt an industry built around horses to supporting auto-mobiles. Fortunately the horse industry didn't have the regulatory support that keeps the telecommunications industry from evolving into a connectivity industry.
The good news is that connectivity is indeed simple and our task is to remove barriers rather than create a new and ever more complex regulatory system. The key problem is that the first mile of connectivity is an artificial chokepoint created by modeling telecommunications after the railroads and granting privileged rights of way to companies providing a specific service. There is an inherent conflict between this service-based model and connectivity which gives the customer the ability to define the services.
The remedy of structurally separating the companies that provide connectivity from those that provide services and content may seem radical but it is not unprecedented. We've seen movie studios being forced to divest themselves of their theaters and the TV networks, in turn, couldn't own the production companies until a competitive industry developed.
[...]
The biggest surprise was yet to come. As capacity grew it became possible to use the Internet for carrying audio and video streams without any special engineering. The early implementations were tricky because they had to work around the capacity limitations but the Moore's law effect delivered abundant capacity. Capacity involved not only bandwidth but also latency � for interactions with remote services the travel time was critical.
Just like specialized word processors could not match the rapid pace of improvement in general purpose computing, special purpose networks were no match for the general purpose networking that the Internet provided.
Another good exposition of the central point - compare with the ones I collected here.
The simplest ideas are often the hardest to explain. How do we explain that an entire industry is no longer necessary? It's as if we tried adapt an industry built around horses to supporting auto-mobiles. Fortunately the horse industry didn't have the regulatory support that keeps the telecommunications industry from evolving into a connectivity industry.
The good news is that connectivity is indeed simple and our task is to remove barriers rather than create a new and ever more complex regulatory system. The key problem is that the first mile of connectivity is an artificial chokepoint created by modeling telecommunications after the railroads and granting privileged rights of way to companies providing a specific service. There is an inherent conflict between this service-based model and connectivity which gives the customer the ability to define the services.
The remedy of structurally separating the companies that provide connectivity from those that provide services and content may seem radical but it is not unprecedented. We've seen movie studios being forced to divest themselves of their theaters and the TV networks, in turn, couldn't own the production companies until a competitive industry developed.
[...]
The biggest surprise was yet to come. As capacity grew it became possible to use the Internet for carrying audio and video streams without any special engineering. The early implementations were tricky because they had to work around the capacity limitations but the Moore's law effect delivered abundant capacity. Capacity involved not only bandwidth but also latency � for interactions with remote services the travel time was critical.
Just like specialized word processors could not match the rapid pace of improvement in general purpose computing, special purpose networks were no match for the general purpose networking that the Internet provided.
Another good exposition of the central point - compare with the ones I collected here.
Rogan from the Patent Office is gung ho against those whom he calls pirates:
When the IP provisions of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution were adopted over 200 years ago, the Barbary Pirates were menacing U.S. and European merchant ships in the Mediterranean. Today, our nation faces domestic and foreign piracy of a different sort: the illegal duplication of software, music, DVDs, and other digitized information. This piracy comes with a high price. Last year U.S. copyright industries reported losses of nearly $22 billion due to piracy just from overseas.
Today, copyright owners are faced with the challenge of adapting to the digital revolution. The ease of making and distributing perfect copies of virtually every kind of work protected by copyright is putting strains on traditional modes of doing business.
Unfortunately, he doesn't consider that changing these modes is the only truly sensible response.
When the IP provisions of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution were adopted over 200 years ago, the Barbary Pirates were menacing U.S. and European merchant ships in the Mediterranean. Today, our nation faces domestic and foreign piracy of a different sort: the illegal duplication of software, music, DVDs, and other digitized information. This piracy comes with a high price. Last year U.S. copyright industries reported losses of nearly $22 billion due to piracy just from overseas.
Today, copyright owners are faced with the challenge of adapting to the digital revolution. The ease of making and distributing perfect copies of virtually every kind of work protected by copyright is putting strains on traditional modes of doing business.
Unfortunately, he doesn't consider that changing these modes is the only truly sensible response.
Friday 26 April 2002
Thursday 25 April 2002
Technobabble from Valenti
Then there is the mysterious magic of being able, with a simple click of a mouse, to send a full-length movie hurtling with the speed of light (186,000 miles per second) to any part of this wracked and weary old planet. It is that uncomprehending fact of digital life that disturbs the sleep of the entire U.S. film industry.
About 2/3 the speed of light in fibre; 1/3 in copper; speed of light in air. But when was miles per second a useful unit for a movie? I know they measure films in feet, but you can't send a mile of film per second. Anyway, when a film is projected it really does travel to the screen at the speed of light...
I'm not even sure how a fact can be uncomprehending.
In testimony before the Judiciary and Commerce Committees I have outlined a number of specific goals relative to the development and adoption of technology standards by the Information Technology (IT), consumer electronics (CE) and copyright communities. These include the adoption of a "broadcast flag" to prevent unencrypted over-the-air digital television broadcasts from being redistributed on the Internet; adoption and implementation of technology to plug the "analog hole" whereby protected content is stripped of its protection through the digital to analog, or analog to digital, conversion process, and the adoption and implementation of technology to limit the rising tide of unauthorized peer-to-peer file distribution of copyrighted works, of which I have spoken. The attainment of these goals is key to the viability of a legitimate marketplace for the online digital distribution of motion pictures,
Here is where he gets it badly wrong. As he has said that they want to distribute movies digitally, and they think 99% of users would pay a reasonable price, what justification is there to burden everyone else with the cost of developing these technical 'fixes'? Why not just prosecute the abusers under existing copyright laws, as he has outlined?
Then there is the mysterious magic of being able, with a simple click of a mouse, to send a full-length movie hurtling with the speed of light (186,000 miles per second) to any part of this wracked and weary old planet. It is that uncomprehending fact of digital life that disturbs the sleep of the entire U.S. film industry.
About 2/3 the speed of light in fibre; 1/3 in copper; speed of light in air. But when was miles per second a useful unit for a movie? I know they measure films in feet, but you can't send a mile of film per second. Anyway, when a film is projected it really does travel to the screen at the speed of light...
I'm not even sure how a fact can be uncomprehending.
In testimony before the Judiciary and Commerce Committees I have outlined a number of specific goals relative to the development and adoption of technology standards by the Information Technology (IT), consumer electronics (CE) and copyright communities. These include the adoption of a "broadcast flag" to prevent unencrypted over-the-air digital television broadcasts from being redistributed on the Internet; adoption and implementation of technology to plug the "analog hole" whereby protected content is stripped of its protection through the digital to analog, or analog to digital, conversion process, and the adoption and implementation of technology to limit the rising tide of unauthorized peer-to-peer file distribution of copyrighted works, of which I have spoken. The attainment of these goals is key to the viability of a legitimate marketplace for the online digital distribution of motion pictures,
Here is where he gets it badly wrong. As he has said that they want to distribute movies digitally, and they think 99% of users would pay a reasonable price, what justification is there to burden everyone else with the cost of developing these technical 'fixes'? Why not just prosecute the abusers under existing copyright laws, as he has outlined?
Wednesday 24 April 2002
I can read people's thoughts.
I can read people's thoughts.
Using an ancient technology, handed down over millennia, improved and refined along the way, I am able to read people's thoughts. And not just people nearby, or people I know. I can even read dead people's thoughts.
This gives me a great deal of power and knowledge - I can learn from their lives, their experiences, their dreams and fears, their insights and imaginings. I can study their successes and failures, learn from their great ideas and their mistakes, absorb their experiences, laugh at their jokes and wince at their pain.
This may seem like a scary idea - you may feel nervous and want to avoid me, but don't worry. I can only read your thoughts if you want me to. You need to be part of this too. You need to write your thoughts for me to read them.
That's right. I'm not talking about anything mystical or occult. Or perhaps I am - writing is an amazing technology; only slightly less amazing than language itself. To commune with others, breaking the bonds of space and time, is a wonderful privilege.
Small Pieces describes how a newer technology has made it easier than ever before to experience the thoughts of others and share our own. Truly the last thing out of the Pandora's Box of the Internet is this Hope.
Using an ancient technology, handed down over millennia, improved and refined along the way, I am able to read people's thoughts. And not just people nearby, or people I know. I can even read dead people's thoughts.
This gives me a great deal of power and knowledge - I can learn from their lives, their experiences, their dreams and fears, their insights and imaginings. I can study their successes and failures, learn from their great ideas and their mistakes, absorb their experiences, laugh at their jokes and wince at their pain.
This may seem like a scary idea - you may feel nervous and want to avoid me, but don't worry. I can only read your thoughts if you want me to. You need to be part of this too. You need to write your thoughts for me to read them.
That's right. I'm not talking about anything mystical or occult. Or perhaps I am - writing is an amazing technology; only slightly less amazing than language itself. To commune with others, breaking the bonds of space and time, is a wonderful privilege.
Small Pieces describes how a newer technology has made it easier than ever before to experience the thoughts of others and share our own. Truly the last thing out of the Pandora's Box of the Internet is this Hope.
Saturday 20 April 2002
The latest Business 2.0 is all about the content industries' foolishness over copy 'protection', including a handy historical guide and blogs.
You would have thought they'd have found me for their blog guide then.
You would have thought they'd have found me for their blog guide then.
Friday 19 April 2002
Ban Hazardous Coal Power Now!
US nuclear generation creates about 2,000 tons of high-level waste per year.
This worries people, and it is thus treated with lots of care, and its storage is the subject of much debate.
Coal generation, creates about 100 million tons. And it's exempt from being treated as hazardous waste!
Coal waste has approximately 20-30 parts per million of Uranium.
Lets do the maths then:
100 million tons x 25 parts per million = 2,500 tons of uranium from the coal industry per year.
So, the coal industry is generating more nuclear waste per year as the nuclear one, but they are just chucking it in landfills and the atmosphere.
And that's just counting Uranium, not other radionuclides - never mind greenhouse gases, Mercury and other toxins that last forever, unlike radioactive waste that has a half-life.
According to the DoE, there are 2-3 billion tons of coal finings already lying around near coal mines - enough that its worth them researching a way to turn them back into coal.
Getting us weaned from coal generation onto nuclear and other alternatives should be the focus of energy policy.
US nuclear generation creates about 2,000 tons of high-level waste per year.
This worries people, and it is thus treated with lots of care, and its storage is the subject of much debate.
Coal generation, creates about 100 million tons. And it's exempt from being treated as hazardous waste!
Coal waste has approximately 20-30 parts per million of Uranium.
Lets do the maths then:
100 million tons x 25 parts per million = 2,500 tons of uranium from the coal industry per year.
So, the coal industry is generating more nuclear waste per year as the nuclear one, but they are just chucking it in landfills and the atmosphere.
And that's just counting Uranium, not other radionuclides - never mind greenhouse gases, Mercury and other toxins that last forever, unlike radioactive waste that has a half-life.
According to the DoE, there are 2-3 billion tons of coal finings already lying around near coal mines - enough that its worth them researching a way to turn them back into coal.
Getting us weaned from coal generation onto nuclear and other alternatives should be the focus of energy policy.
Thursday 18 April 2002
Google protects its search results - Tech News - CNET.com
Google protects its search results
This month, about 100 Comcast subscribers were temporarily shut out of Google when the search company charged the high-speed Internet access provider with hosting some accounts that had abused its terms of service by performing "automated queries." The crackdown cut a wide swath, taking out a block of IP addresses, shutting down the guilty and innocent alike.
"We are not accusing you personally of having violated our Terms of Service," said Google's notice to Emoungu, a computer programmer who has been a subscriber to Comcast's high-speed Internet service for two years. "You are most likely an innocent victim of someone else's bad behavior. We're really sorry to have had to take this action."
Those of us in the end-to-end, stupid network camp can find wry amusement in this - comcast is being penalised for making their network smart by violating end-to-end principles. If the google-hogging user's machine had a hard ip address, he could be filtered alone.
Google are not averse to programmatic use of their database - they just launched web APIs for it, though with a 1,000 query per day limit.
I do hope he's not running an exhaustive search for high-scoring GoogleWhacks - that would make me feel guilty...
This month, about 100 Comcast subscribers were temporarily shut out of Google when the search company charged the high-speed Internet access provider with hosting some accounts that had abused its terms of service by performing "automated queries." The crackdown cut a wide swath, taking out a block of IP addresses, shutting down the guilty and innocent alike.
"We are not accusing you personally of having violated our Terms of Service," said Google's notice to Emoungu, a computer programmer who has been a subscriber to Comcast's high-speed Internet service for two years. "You are most likely an innocent victim of someone else's bad behavior. We're really sorry to have had to take this action."
Those of us in the end-to-end, stupid network camp can find wry amusement in this - comcast is being penalised for making their network smart by violating end-to-end principles. If the google-hogging user's machine had a hard ip address, he could be filtered alone.
Google are not averse to programmatic use of their database - they just launched web APIs for it, though with a 1,000 query per day limit.
I do hope he's not running an exhaustive search for high-scoring GoogleWhacks - that would make me feel guilty...
Thursday 11 April 2002
The Atlantic | April 2002 | Seeing Around Corners | Rauch
A few good men can transform society
This article is about modelling human societies through simple cellular automata. It shows many interesting emergent behaviours, and how you can resolve the iterated prisoners dilemma with a few good men and true. But can too much information be a bad thing?
"There are plenty of different cities and countries that have gone from a high degree of corruption to a low degree of corruption," Hammond says. His A-society suggests that in such a transition, the fear of being caught may be at least as important as the odds of actually being caught. To test that possibility, Hammond re-ran his simulation, but this time he allowed all the agents to know not just how many of their friends were in jail but how many people were jailed throughout the whole society: in other words, the agents knew the odds of arrest as well as the police did. Sure enough, fully informed agents never got scared enough to reform. Hammond's A-society seemed to have "grown" a piece of knowledge that many law-enforcement agencies (think of the Internal Revenue Service, with its targeted, high-profile audits) have long intuited - namely, that limited resources are often more effectively spent on fearsome, and fearsomely unpredictable, high-profile sweeps than on uniform and thus easily second-guessed patterns of enforcement.
This article is about modelling human societies through simple cellular automata. It shows many interesting emergent behaviours, and how you can resolve the iterated prisoners dilemma with a few good men and true. But can too much information be a bad thing?
"There are plenty of different cities and countries that have gone from a high degree of corruption to a low degree of corruption," Hammond says. His A-society suggests that in such a transition, the fear of being caught may be at least as important as the odds of actually being caught. To test that possibility, Hammond re-ran his simulation, but this time he allowed all the agents to know not just how many of their friends were in jail but how many people were jailed throughout the whole society: in other words, the agents knew the odds of arrest as well as the police did. Sure enough, fully informed agents never got scared enough to reform. Hammond's A-society seemed to have "grown" a piece of knowledge that many law-enforcement agencies (think of the Internal Revenue Service, with its targeted, high-profile audits) have long intuited - namely, that limited resources are often more effectively spent on fearsome, and fearsomely unpredictable, high-profile sweeps than on uniform and thus easily second-guessed patterns of enforcement.
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
I've been at the National Association of Broadcasters show in Las Vegas this week. Vegas doesn't suit me - call me an ascetic bookworm, but its plastic recreations of other places, suffused with the perpetual ding-ding-ding of slot machines does not attract me.
Reading Edward. O. Fritts address I found this passage not to my taste either:
On the evening of the attack itself, 60 million Americans tuned in to broadcast TV. The American people tuned to us by a four-to-one margin over the major cable news networks combined.
Radio also played an important role -- and one-third of all people say that they are now listening to radio more than they did before September 11th. During those days of terrorism and trauma, you didn't hear the notion that broadcasting was no longer relevant. Our relevancy was obvious. And it was immediate. The horrible tragedy of September 11th pulled this often-divided nation together. And it did something else. It reaffirmed that broadcasting remains competitively relevant...technologically vibrant...and constant in its civic purpose. Indeed, this was our finest hour.
He did attack the CARP rates:
...we were extremely disappointed by the rate structure set by the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel with respect to radio streaming. It's puzzling to us why those who control the music industry want fees to be excessive to the point that many radio stations will be driven off the Web. We believe the CARP panel misinterpreted the intent of Congress and erroneously imposed high rates on broadcasting, and we're fighting to have the opinion voided.
In all of our battles, let's not forget that the services of broadcasters come free to the public. Few things are free anymore with the exception of the public library and over-the-air broadcasting...and we are going to fight to keep it free.
So it seems he is in agreement wiht the unanimous rejection of the CBDTPA
Later Marc Andreessen was pointing out the truth
As film studios and recording studios urge Congress to extend copy protection to every home entertainment device, Andreessen said the entertainment industry need look no further than the software industry's own expensive, failed attempts at encryption to realize it is ineffective at stopping piracy.
``If a computer can see it, display it and play it -- it can copy it,'' said Andreessen, in a keynote address to the National Association of Broadcasters convention.
Their response was not recorded.
I bumped into Bob Cringely, whose Open Source TV idea sounds interesting.
I also managed to read Lessig's 'Future of Ideas' which ends with thoughtful suggestions on restoring a creative commons.
I've been at the National Association of Broadcasters show in Las Vegas this week. Vegas doesn't suit me - call me an ascetic bookworm, but its plastic recreations of other places, suffused with the perpetual ding-ding-ding of slot machines does not attract me.
Reading Edward. O. Fritts address I found this passage not to my taste either:
On the evening of the attack itself, 60 million Americans tuned in to broadcast TV. The American people tuned to us by a four-to-one margin over the major cable news networks combined.
Radio also played an important role -- and one-third of all people say that they are now listening to radio more than they did before September 11th. During those days of terrorism and trauma, you didn't hear the notion that broadcasting was no longer relevant. Our relevancy was obvious. And it was immediate. The horrible tragedy of September 11th pulled this often-divided nation together. And it did something else. It reaffirmed that broadcasting remains competitively relevant...technologically vibrant...and constant in its civic purpose. Indeed, this was our finest hour.
He did attack the CARP rates:
...we were extremely disappointed by the rate structure set by the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel with respect to radio streaming. It's puzzling to us why those who control the music industry want fees to be excessive to the point that many radio stations will be driven off the Web. We believe the CARP panel misinterpreted the intent of Congress and erroneously imposed high rates on broadcasting, and we're fighting to have the opinion voided.
In all of our battles, let's not forget that the services of broadcasters come free to the public. Few things are free anymore with the exception of the public library and over-the-air broadcasting...and we are going to fight to keep it free.
So it seems he is in agreement wiht the unanimous rejection of the CBDTPA
Later Marc Andreessen was pointing out the truth
As film studios and recording studios urge Congress to extend copy protection to every home entertainment device, Andreessen said the entertainment industry need look no further than the software industry's own expensive, failed attempts at encryption to realize it is ineffective at stopping piracy.
``If a computer can see it, display it and play it -- it can copy it,'' said Andreessen, in a keynote address to the National Association of Broadcasters convention.
Their response was not recorded.
I bumped into Bob Cringely, whose Open Source TV idea sounds interesting.
I also managed to read Lessig's 'Future of Ideas' which ends with thoughtful suggestions on restoring a creative commons.
Tuesday 9 April 2002
Calendar Live - Press Play to Access the Future
DVD extra features start to deconstruct films
'Once computers become married with film, the form becomes promiscuous, and that can bring about new ways of making movies that the studios can't control.'
FRANCIS FORD COPPOLA
Lets hope so.
'Once computers become married with film, the form becomes promiscuous, and that can bring about new ways of making movies that the studios can't control.'
FRANCIS FORD COPPOLA
Lets hope so.
Thursday 4 April 2002
Et tu, Sony?
One would have thought that Sony, which is both a computer company and a media publisher, would have a more enlightened attitude than Universal to digital media.
Wrong!
Universal claim to value my business, but produce corrupt CDs that are no use to me.
Sony go one stage further, and issue CDs designed to crash my computer.
Here in California, we have laws against that kind of thing.
Wrong!
Universal claim to value my business, but produce corrupt CDs that are no use to me.
Sony go one stage further, and issue CDs designed to crash my computer.
Here in California, we have laws against that kind of thing.
Tuesday 2 April 2002
Steve Zellers' Radio Weblog
Steve Zellers' Radio Weblog says:
When your MP3 player goes to play one of these things, it checks to see if you played it before. If not, it puts up a dialog:
Do you have the rights to play this music?
If the user clicks no, it takes them to a website where they can perhaps acquire said rights. If they say Yes, then they'll not be asked again.
Again, this makes the default assumption that users are thieves. Groping towards a sensible idea, but still annoying enough to be worth subverting.
When your MP3 player goes to play one of these things, it checks to see if you played it before. If not, it puts up a dialog:
Do you have the rights to play this music?
If the user clicks no, it takes them to a website where they can perhaps acquire said rights. If they say Yes, then they'll not be asked again.
Again, this makes the default assumption that users are thieves. Groping towards a sensible idea, but still annoying enough to be worth subverting.