Fortune has a shallow article on the content clone wars, full of muddy zero-sum thinking.
Michael Eisner loves his iPod. "It's one of the most fabulous things I've seen in the past couple of years," he says. Eisner has no problem with the technology itself, but he deplores the fact that people are using it to avoid paying for Disney products, in effect stealing from the company. "Nothing about technology is threatening or upsetting or negative," he insists. "This is simply about conscious behavior, about right and wrong, and I just don't understand the enormous tidal wave of rhetoric that this issue has created from the so-called technology side. Shakespeare would find it interesting."
Rhetoric from the technology side? Scroll down a bit for the choice rhetoric from the copyright horders...
Anyway, Dan says;
Articles like this are infuriating. They cast the debate in binary terms, industry versus industry, as if that's really the issue. It isn't.
Guess who's missing from the story, and all too often from the debate? That's right, the customers. You. Me.
Not only the customers, but also the creators.
Dave says it makes Jobs look clueless, but I disagree. Jobs is quoted as saying:
"To say this intractable technology problem is going to be solved by something in the back pockets of technology companies, and they are not sharing it, is unbelievable. This is an important issue, and it's not going to be solved by threatening rhetoric. It's going to be solved by a computer scientist who has an incredibly original idea. We just don't know who or when."
Which Dave presumably takes to mean that Jobs believes that the intractable problem of selective copy prevention can be solved. I think he means that the meta-problem of the distribution of creative works and paying their creators can be solved.