Coders and decrypters have been going back and forth since the middle ages and it will continue forever.
Although the NSA won't be happy, they would be naive to assume there would be no reaction. It does put the NSA's reaction in a different context, although it was embarrassing and the terrorist's a red herring, the exposure of wide spread email monitoring will impact the ease at which they spy as programs such as dark mail are developed.
I worry less about the corruption in the process, they are a fact of existence and hope that they are accounted for. I worry more of the zealots. Those whose mission is a higher calling and that the ends justify any means. Their purity of cause will obliterate any contols and limitations that interfere with what they think is the right thing to do. Their motives justify any action, any subtrefuge.
Remember that the goal of the Spanish Inqusition was to save man's souls. Justification for any action on such a noble cause.
I have seen it written on other sites that the WH was looking for an excuse because there wasn't anything to accomplish (in a PR sense) through meetings. No agreements, not even a significant joint statement. And the WH doesn't actually want to discuss serious issues without knowing the answer in advance. It is all theater
I disagree that the benefit should accrue to the labels because content is irrelevant; it is fungible. If EMI and it's back catalog disapeared tonight (or never existed), does one doubt that the pipeline would be filled?
the value is in satisfying the customer, a concept that the labels have a very skewed persective.
I think that people are taking the request at face value instead of what is really intended. The Brazilian newspapers want their vigorish. They figure that since Google makes money from GN, it would be cheaper to share the spoils than it would be to drop the newpapapers from GN.
Of course, content owners have a realistic idea on how much Google earns from GN (not!)
Eric Flint at Baen Books has been doing a similar thing for several years. I think their focus is more on authors with a catalog.
One thing that has always confused me with regards to the control publishers demand around the copywrite is the failure to republish their back catalog. You would think that would be free money but they seem to have no interest in epublishin what they already have.
I think we must acknowledge that the Web, especially Web 1.0 is old enough that there are now legacy players and they will be have that way. to wit: ' It works fine and I am threatened by anyone that does it differently'
the second part is usually: " I have money and you don't. Let's go to court'
Think about it, would 98% of the readers even know of the contest if this hadn't been the result? I am sure that the media will pick up on this as well, wouldn't be surprised to see this on leno or letterman (or is this more a
By rolling with it, Walmart and Pitbull both get a LOT more press than if it were just a run of the mill contest
This strikes me as wishful thinking. In a rational world, organizations would learn from failure. In a political world, they just seem to think that more is better and if it didn't work the first time, double down.(see TPP)
I would consider it newsworthy if there is any indication that the USTR was actually reconsidering and changing their approach but nothing in this blog would make me think that this is happening.
And he's mostly right... because it goes right back to what Rob said. For the most part, they don't seem to make that many good movies these days. They've focused on crappy, formulaic, derivative flicks. Every so often a good film gets out, but Hollywood has become afraid to make good movies most of the time. Perhaps if it spent more time focusing on that, and less on whining about how it needs to be protected, it wouldn't have so many problems.
The Hollywood model hasn't changed in the last 100 years. They follow Pareto's law (or for the more discriminating Sturgeon's law) and 80-90% of what they make is dross. 50 years ago it was star (Stewart, Gable, etc.) and genre driven(western anyone?); today they have added franchises to the mix but it is still quantity over quality. Critics have been forever suggesting better movies but Hollywood figures, it ain't broke so what to fix.
They protected the studio system with the same vigor then as they do copyright today, for the same reason, control of the assets for exploitation. The only difference today is that they can monitize the library easier (although that has always been part of the Disney model)