Comment Pay-per-view Content (Score 1) 77
This is an edit of a message I posted to my (IP law) class mailing list... (Most of the links have appeared in Slashdot before).
>With regard to the questions posed at the end of your email... I think
>I'd be wanting a serious reduction in price if I were to have my rights in
>the music made subject to a restrictive licence. Certainly it wouldn't go
>down well with the music buying public, but then, if the corporations want
>us to go this way we'll have no choice: they'll just withdraw the other
>music media.
Yup. People won't be happy with restrictive licences, but the corporations
will try to introduce them anyway...
Following my ramblings about proprietary vs. open formats, there is an interesting piece in Wired News, reporting a speech from the head of BROADCAST.COM, Mark Cuban.
WIRED: MP3 WILL DIE
He says "distribution, not content, will be king" and that "MP3 will die".
Two thoughts spring to mind.
1. The golden rule of the web: "Content, Content, Content"
2. Why give up what's free in favour of what costs?
MP3 can't be uninvented - and new open formats will undoubtedly come along. I think this gives publishers and broadcasters a problem - they are going to have to find new ways to "add value" if they want to keep their markets.
This also applies to Windows vs. Linux:
WIRED: OFFICE DELAYS AFFECT MS PROFIT
WIRED: LINUX CUTS IN ON MS TURF
Does anyone think governments, regulators, and the software and entertainment industries will be able to stem the tide?
LAWNEWS: LINUX MAY ALTER IP LEGAL LANDSCAPE
Hopefully this all ties in with the current study topics - I apologise if I'm just rambling on :-)
I say sell broadcast.com, buy redhat and Transmeta :-)
What do slashdot-ers think?
--
http://www.dubar.com
--
>With regard to the questions posed at the end of your email... I think
>I'd be wanting a serious reduction in price if I were to have my rights in
>the music made subject to a restrictive licence. Certainly it wouldn't go
>down well with the music buying public, but then, if the corporations want
>us to go this way we'll have no choice: they'll just withdraw the other
>music media.
Yup. People won't be happy with restrictive licences, but the corporations
will try to introduce them anyway...
Following my ramblings about proprietary vs. open formats, there is an interesting piece in Wired News, reporting a speech from the head of BROADCAST.COM, Mark Cuban.
WIRED: MP3 WILL DIE
He says "distribution, not content, will be king" and that "MP3 will die".
Two thoughts spring to mind.
1. The golden rule of the web: "Content, Content, Content"
2. Why give up what's free in favour of what costs?
MP3 can't be uninvented - and new open formats will undoubtedly come along. I think this gives publishers and broadcasters a problem - they are going to have to find new ways to "add value" if they want to keep their markets.
This also applies to Windows vs. Linux:
WIRED: OFFICE DELAYS AFFECT MS PROFIT
WIRED: LINUX CUTS IN ON MS TURF
Does anyone think governments, regulators, and the software and entertainment industries will be able to stem the tide?
LAWNEWS: LINUX MAY ALTER IP LEGAL LANDSCAPE
Hopefully this all ties in with the current study topics - I apologise if I'm just rambling on
I say sell broadcast.com, buy redhat and Transmeta
What do slashdot-ers think?
--
http://www.dubar.com
--
