On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 09:16, Guillaume Ponce wrote:
Everyone puts their work on some high capacity central servers which are available to all citizens who create an account on the servers.
That sounds interesting: a public infrastructure for freedom of speech, expression and publication.
But wait a minute. Haven't we yet got such a thing that everyone (well, not everyone, but many many individuals) can publish on? It is called Internet.
The big difference is that there is no central autority that can count downloads. But having no central autority is - to my opinion - one of the big features of Internet. Just to be able to count the copies downloaded, someone have to be - more or less - in control of this central server. That's a big power for big brother.
I strongly agree.
I think anyone looking at this problem, sooner or later, come to this idea of centralized control that is able to track who see what and to pay back authors and ... oh but this is exactly what DRM are for ... it is just implemented privately but hey ... can you tell me the difference? Personal accounts, and personal tracking Central control in hands of someone that monitors everything Money go to the ""authors""
Sound so Orwellian ...
I strongly disagree with this. TV has proven that bigger audience certainly does not mean better quality.
This is OT but: you can't take that as a fact as you do not consider 2 fundamental aspects:
1) publicity, that's drives a lot decisions about what to transmit In facts I never seen quality when ads where implicated massively. And that's because they prefer programs that doesn't let you think too much about social justice or the origin of some goods ...
2) Political Groups pressure. Even the most liberal Media today is subject to political pressure and that influence the programs being trasmitted.
Simo.