|
| Tuesday, February 4, 2003 |
 |
A wrong man is good to move 
Spinners get the clues
AOh welL
| | The blogosphere, technogeeky section, is abuzz with post mortems for AOL, most notably Doc Searls' and Dave Winer's response. The thing that set the boys (are they the Cheech and Chong of the blogosphere?) off was the recent report that AOL had taken some write-downs of the value they've been claiming on their balance sheets for the amorphous "good will" associated with AOL and the cable properties.... |
| | Everybody says they need to push broadband, but they're already doing that. They make most of their money from dirty chat, and they probably understand that well enough not to let it shrivel up and die. They have a portal business and a server business, acquired with Netscape, so that's covered. |
| | Maybe their real problem is that they don't get Tivo, because that's the convergence point between the net business and the media business (I think so anyway, but Tivo doesn't get the Internet). So if you're a TV freak and you don't care about running your own website, and let's face it, most people don't want the bother, the Internet is a great way to search for shows and otherwise control your Tivo (or its more net-aware successor, like Moxi ). The Tivo is a receptacle for selling movie and TV downloads, not the PC, although the PC is great for finding stuff. |
| | So maybe what AOL/Time-Warner needs to do is forget about the Internet and broadband, and get themselves some nice Tivo-type property to really make the synergy work. Then they can upgrade the book value of their "good will" instead of sending out bad vibes and like, bumming everybody out, you know. |
Ownership ≠ Exclusivity
| | What pervasaive meme can we come up with that will be strong enough to counter the powerful theft/piracy images? Let's all blog aloud and get the juices flowing, shall we? |
| | Ownership of physical property implies exclusive use. I own my lawn mower, it's in my posession, in order for you to use it I must relinquish its use to you. You shouldn't loan it to your neighbour in turn without my permission, especially as that extends my inability to make use of it. If you take it from me, I am left without its use altogether. I can ask to be compensated for the loss. I lose a physical entity, and therefore control over its use. |
| | Ownership of intellectual property does not imply exclusive use. You can play my music without depriving me of it. You can loan it to someone else without affecting my use, although you should ask my permission. I never lose my ability to have full use of the work. What I lose when you use my work without my permission or recompense is control over its use. |
| | Obviously these are two very different concepts. Yet they're both called ownership . Concepts of theft and piracy of intellectual property just don't fit. How have such ill-fitting analogies come to permeate our conciousness? |
| | It's a good point. I like it. The only problem is, it requires qualification. As Larry says, copyright is understood as simple property. |
| | I say forget file-sharing. There's a bigger problem here that Congress should tackle. Here we have an industry that has a demonstrated history of massive greed leading to repeated illegal and highly exploitative behavior. They have worked to extend the terms of copyrights to an unimaginable length. They have managed to get Congress to pass the freedom-rending DMCA, and now seek to further solidify their gains by obtaining digital rights management, which would obliterate fair use as we know it. Why? Answer: $$$$$$$$$$$ |
| | We need a Kefauver investigation. And we need more people to use their common sense. These guys aren't losing money. They just aren't making enough tosupport the outrageously lavish lifestyles to which they have grown accustomed. |
It's worse than it appears
| | Mahesh Shantaram's Filter Coffee has an excellent compilation of blogs on Columbia (see the Cafe de Columbia in the right column), mostly from India, where the death of Kalpana Chawla was deeply felt. |
| | [Question: Is there an HTML element for the does-not-equal symbol?] |
I don't know why, but
discuss
Copyright 2009 The Doc Searls Weblog
|
