Comment Re:Everything can be controlled (Score 2, Insightful) 301
While the medium of software lends itself to long-term open source development, many of the things commonly shared via P2P are not. Music, movies, and television shows are often items used only once, or used sporadically over the course of several years. My copy of "Home Alone!" on VHS doesn't get nearly as much use as say, my operating system or word processor. Perhaps because of their inherent linearity, most entertainment products do not need to be updated over time. It's simply more entertaining to experience new episodes of The Simpsons, rather than watch updated versions of the old ones.
An open source counterculture has developed because the need for quality software is not fulfilled (and perhaps cannot be fulfilled) by large corporations with lots of funding. The public's desire for music, movies, and television, however, is pretty much satisfied. It also costs lots of money to obtain the equipment to create commercial quality entertainment products. While a lot of popular music seems to be really amazingly bad, the people still like it, and they still spend money on it, and more of it gets made. A counterculture dedicated to creating what they consider to be high quality free music product may develop a large cult following, but would have extreme difficulty becoming as popular as products with heavy monetary backing. If this hypothetical subculture did eventually reach widespread popularity, it would probably be purchased by a larger media producer sooner rather than later.
In order to try and change the way entertainment products are distributed (exorbitant prices on CDs, etc.), a counterculture needs to focus not on the creation of the entertainment products, but on creating an effective method of distribution. Because the industry is so money driven, for a truly effective new paradigm to catch on, there would have to be some way to get at least some money to the people who want it.
Also, the public at large doesn't really know what's going on. Many people are perfectly happy to wander into Tower Records and blow $20 on the latest offering from N'Sync. Perhaps with some education they could see the light.
An open source counterculture has developed because the need for quality software is not fulfilled (and perhaps cannot be fulfilled) by large corporations with lots of funding. The public's desire for music, movies, and television, however, is pretty much satisfied. It also costs lots of money to obtain the equipment to create commercial quality entertainment products. While a lot of popular music seems to be really amazingly bad, the people still like it, and they still spend money on it, and more of it gets made. A counterculture dedicated to creating what they consider to be high quality free music product may develop a large cult following, but would have extreme difficulty becoming as popular as products with heavy monetary backing. If this hypothetical subculture did eventually reach widespread popularity, it would probably be purchased by a larger media producer sooner rather than later.
In order to try and change the way entertainment products are distributed (exorbitant prices on CDs, etc.), a counterculture needs to focus not on the creation of the entertainment products, but on creating an effective method of distribution. Because the industry is so money driven, for a truly effective new paradigm to catch on, there would have to be some way to get at least some money to the people who want it.
Also, the public at large doesn't really know what's going on. Many people are perfectly happy to wander into Tower Records and blow $20 on the latest offering from N'Sync. Perhaps with some education they could see the light.
