Read an article at Wired today about Microsofts plan for making the OS's even more vital for the functioning of the free world. Also I finished Tomorrow Now, the Sterling book I was talking about.
These two pieces inspired me with an half-cracked idea.
We need to have ubiquitous broadband internet access offered as a public utility/work.
It seems that the media publishing industriy notably the RIAA and MPAA really only care about making sure that their chosen methods of media delivery are profitable. Due to some technological advances (namely file sharing) these information delivery methods (cds and dvds) are really set up for success.
These industries are looking at ways to alter the product itself in order to allow for the delivery systems continuing financial viability. This does not bode well for the average joe schmoe consumer. Joe buys 4 dvds and 3 cds a week from Best Buy. He likes to put the cds on his laptop so he can listen to them in his house while leaving the original cd in the car for the road. If the RIAA has to, it will make this very legal, very legitimate, longstanding ability of the consumer impossible. In order to prevent illegal sharing of products, media corporations are willing to alter products in such a way that they are only usuable as a viewable device, that is I can't copy the cd or dvd from anywhere to anything.
This solution of product alteration in support of delivery distribution systems has two major problems with it. (As far as I can see). (1), their is the issue of constitutionality. It seems unlikely that the Supreme Court would reverse a longstanding tradition of private "fair-use" duplication. However, for these media companies to work it has to be all or nothing so (2) any significant exception to duplication proofing products undermines any duplication proofing because copies will begin to float around.
For a long time media distributors have been trying to get ISP's to police illegal use of the ISP's customers. In a recent Verizon case, the RIAA has gotten a court order for Verizon to release the names of some big illegal file traders. This mugging of ISPs won't really work for two reasons. First, it sets a precedent that could undermine all ISP's financial viability. Second, the RIAA and co. can only get the identities of people trading on centralized software like Kazaa. Decentralized networks like DC and such are basically impossible for the RIAA to touch. Private ISP's are simply to large to police their users in a watchdog way.
At this point we still have a media industry that has no realistic way to deliver media at a profit. Pay for play services like Pressplay and Apple's new offering still are inherently flawed. There is no real reason to think that individual users will pay for something that they can get for free. Except for their own individual consciences, nothing encourages them to pay $.99 for a song that they could get for free.
So what we need is some system that can police individual users for illegal activities in order to ensure that record and movie companies can still make money. Granted, many of us, (myself included) don't think that the record companies do all that much. But at this point I'm more concerned with the movie industry. Many people say that bands can make it fine w/o major labels. But filmmakers really do still need the status quo to make their jobs feasable. We are fast approaching a moment were connections will speed up to the point that movies will be realatively painless to download.
So we want to continue using these industries out of a desire to ensure their continued output of their product (Hollywood/movies). To do this someone has to make sure that individuals are not illegally sharing stuff. We can't have a company do this because no one really wants a company looking into our lives that closely. And two, because a company would probably have to be big to make a profit, it would be too big to be able to police individual users.
Here's my idea. Media delivery companies would pay municipal govts sizeable portions of the money needed to operate internet access like a utility within local municipalities. The consumer is happy, because they get cheap, fast internet access and continued fair-use right to duplicate cds and dvds they buy. The record and movie industries give out hundreds of millions a year to cities and towns to police their internet access and pay for up to date hardware. WiFi access could be free anywhere outdoors while residents and businesses could pay for bandwidth like they paid for electricity, gas, and water. The consumer's privacy would be protected as much as possible through a public company than a private.
Well if anyone is still reading at this point, I'd like to know what yall think.
Posted by matt at June 13, 2003 1:09 AMMatt,
It's a pretty good idea. I like it. I argued, in a short section in my SIP, that something like this was occuring, or would inevitably occur.
On a side note, there is still a "have-have-nots" gap between the rich and the poor, even if you provide public internet access like that, because it costs hundred of bucks to buy a computer to get ON the internet. While poor folks can afford water and power, they still wont be able to have internet access.
But then again, you need need broadband to live (despite what I sometimes feel in my gut).
Posted by: JosiahQ at June 13, 2003 11:29 AMMatt -
First, your presentation of filesharing networks is incorrect. Kazaa is a decentralized network, but DC is not. Kazaa is merely a Gnutella client on steroids, while DC requires the formation of specific hubs by specific users that can be internally policed. The RIAA went after Kazaa users, so the mere fact that the filesharing networks are decentralized doesn't really make a difference because they were operating over Verizon's centralized network.
You should check out this article on Slashdot about the concept of a decentralized Internet, something like what was described by Stephenson in The Diamond Age
Posted by: ryan at June 13, 2003 3:29 PMRyan,
Kazaa isn't exactly "decentralized" like so many people think. It is in the sense that you don't pull of Kazaa servers to get a file, as in, the data from one user doesn't bounce through a server THEN to you. It'll go directly from peer to peer.
BUT
Everytime you boot up Kazaa, you still hit one of their servers to get at least a FEW names of somebody else online on Kazaa, so you CAN start searching files etc.
The reason why they haven't been able to be prosecuted just yet, is that they're located in Germany.
Posted by: JosiahQ at June 13, 2003 4:03 PMOh, and something else. In some sense, the movie studios are less threatened by the advent of the Internet than are record labels. Even though sales of DVDs could be affected by fileshareing, only people who weren't going to go to the theater anyway will substitute the big screen for a computer monitor. Live shows have always been a bigger portion of movie studios' revenue than record labels'. The theater experience can't be copied or distributed, and thus is immune to advances in technology. Again, piracy may theoretically cut into DVD sales, but movies are still having $80 million weekends.
Posted by: ryan at June 13, 2003 4:03 PMAnd something central to the problem of "DVD" ripping, is the fact that you aren't really getting a DVD, with all the functionality and extra goodies. It's pretty much only a high-quality copy of the real thing, without any of the extras.
Who knows, that may change though.
Posted by: JosiahQ at June 13, 2003 4:22 PMKazaa would be centralized in my use of the word becase their is something that you log into that is not itself a filesharer (Kazaa). DC would be decentralized because the closed network you log into is run by another user. The user always changes, Kazaa doesn't.
Second the movie media distribution is seriously threatened by filesharing. While you can't replace the movie theatre experience and some movies do make 80 milion a weekend there this is does nothing to negate the threat filesharing poses to consumer's opportunity to see films in the long run.
Many news articles of late have been reporting that the film industry has been operating on thinner and thinner profit margins. Spider Man for instance, made very little money, relatively, for the people who distributed it. Take away home viewing sales and you have even less.
My point is that while the movie industry may be able to survive on box-office receipts alone, it will be very damaging. So much so that the film industry will have to be much more stingy than it is now. The Blockbusters make enough money now to recoup the expenses of the much more common tankers. Hollywood will have to be more conservative which will mean that fewer movies will be made, just because people want to get copies of them for free. The net effect will be that movies coming out of Hollywood will become more forumulaic and will include only the safest of bets for immediate commercial success.
Ryan in response to your Verizon comment. Verizon, or any private, national, ISP, is simply too large to effectively police their usere especially when they join closed file sharing programs like DC. MY point is that, from the record companies perspective, local city and state authorities seem much more equipped to police usage within their offering bandwidth like a utility. Because of this, it seems like the media distribution giants would be willing to help subsidize the startup of such utilities for the profit protection it will reap them in the long run.
Posted by: matt at June 14, 2003 12:43 AM