16 May
2000
16 May
'00
11:23 p.m.
Sellam Ismail wrote:
On Tue, 16 May 2000, Shawn T. Rutledge wrote:
It's not "information", it's "content". And your word
"ownership" is pretty
accurate -- some companies may describe themselves as "content providers",
but I think they really want to be "content controllers" in many ways.
Even the carriers want to be controllers (GeoCities can't just be an ISP --
they have to have custom icons in your "Favorites" menu and stupid pop-up
windows.)
I think that in the long run the majority usually
gets its way; and
everyone knows it's better to own than to rent if one can afford it.
Consumers killed that attrocity known as "DIVX". We'll probably kill any
other incantation of the same idea.
The past few years have introduced an ominous trend towards corporations
trying to increase their ability to squeeze more residual income out of
their ownership of information. If it continues on this path, they will
simply see an increase in piracy of their product. Sure it's ominous and, really, more obnoxious than
anything. But I
believe strongly enough in the open software "movement" that I think in
the end the current actions by the big corporations involved in this power
grab of the new economic paradigm will fail, and we'll have wondered what
we were worrying about.
I believe strongly in open source as well, but I wouldn't rely on it to stop
the corporations. If/when it does, they will have tried a lot of
alternatives by then (like getting laws passed). Even if the laws are
unenforced, they would still be on the books. Better to stop them now.
Open source can't do that.
Did anyone mention relationships between corporations yet? Ads about the
Internet sometimes emphasize that you (as a corporation) can easily set them
up. Not only are they a gold mine, they often ensure that the customer has
fewer alternatives and less control over information.
-- Derek