EdIII - Slashdot User

Submission + - Time Warner recommends Internet for some shows (nytimes.com)

Submitted by EdIII on Wednesday December 31, 2008 @12:44AM

EdIII writes: The dispute between Time Warner and Viacom over fees seems to be without any resolution this year. Time Warner faces the possibility of being without content for almost 20 channels. Alexander Dudley, a spokesperson for Time Warner, is fighting back:
We will be telling our customers exactly where they can go to see these programs online," Mr. Dudley said. "We'll also be telling them how they can hook up their PCs to a television set.

Why pay for digital cable when many content providers and now providing it on demand via the Internet? Not to mention the widespread availability of tv shows in both standard and high definition on public and private torrent tracker sites. It is entirely possible to watch television with no commercials or advertising with only an Internet connection. So getting your content via the Internet is not exactly free, but it certainly isn't contributing to Time Warner or any other cable providers revenue stream. The real question is why Time Warner would fight back by so clearly showing how increasingly obsolete they are becoming and that cable providers are losing their monopolistic grip on media delivery.

Submission + - PC manufacturers view piracy as "hidden benefi

Submitted by EdIII on Friday August 22, 2008 @02:47AM

EdIII writes: GamesIndustry.biz is running a story about an interview with Todd Hollenshead from iD. Some notable comments:
iD Software's CEO Todd Hollenshead has stated that he believes PC manufacturers' acceptance of piracy and the sharing of content the user does not pay for is the PC hardware industry's "dirty little secret".
Hollenshead — famed for PC titles Doom, Quake and the forthcoming Rage — believes that PC manufacturers will obviously speak out against piracy in public, but the enormity of the problem is evidence that it's being largely ignored by hardware companies.

If Mr. Hollenshead thinks that hardware companies are ignoring the problem, which is to say his problem, just what does he think the solution should be? It would seem that he thinks that computer hardware is no different than a rented cable tv box and the industry as a whole should have rights to create whatever protections that they want in the form of hardware level DRM.

Is a computer really just an extension of corporate property in consumer's homes, or do we as consumers have an absolute right to control what code gets executed and how?

Slashdot Top Deals