It is easy to see why the movie and recording industries are in love with the windowing model. *It used to work so well and was extremely profitable. *The careers of many industry executives was built around clever manipulation of the windowing model.
Those are very powerful reasons for keeping something around. Of course, there are some downsides: *Windowing does not make nearly as much sense give a global internet *It is no longer as profitable as it used to be. In fact, it is probably reducing profits. *It encourages piracy. *Its existence may threaten the survival of the industry in its current form.
For inbred corporate insiders, none of those reasons are good enough to change a way of doing business that you know and love.
>>Hopefully it will land on a judge who understands the implications of letting Garcia have her way.
Given the current state of affairs, I have slim hope of any currently sitting judge understanding copyright or the implications of bad copyright rulings. However, there is a very good chance the judge will be an ex-MPAA attorney, and I'm sure the MPAA wants this ruling to go away as quickly as possible.
>>One of the things that you will see, if you study the history of innovation, is that this is exactly how it always happens. The early projects may have some minor successes here and there, but are littered with failures. But the amazing thing about a rapidly changing world where people are doing things in a decentralized and open way is that each of those failures only contributes to the knowledge for future projects, in which more and more people are testing more and more things, getting closer to hitting that point in the "innovator's dilemma" curve, where the new systems actually serve people's needs much better than the old way.
This is exactly why software patents are such a terrible idea. The whole process breaks down if the first person patents the idea. The chances of real progress are greatly diminished if the first person gets a patent. With the patent office and East District of Texas finding that it is OK to patent general ideas the situation is even worse because someone will be likely to patent the original idea in some vague form and never even bother to produce the essential first failure. Yes, it is probably unfair that later innovators eventually reap most of the profits from early essential failures, but that is the price of progress. And in fairness, even those early failures were almost certainly produced on the backs of other, more distant failures.
I singled out software patents as being especially bad, but that is mainly because the pace of software innovation can be so rapid in the absence of software patents. "Design patents" are another case where the patent system blocks innovation, or as the constitution says, promoting progress in the arts and sciences. In practice, most patents are bad because they stifle progress which is the opposite of the purpose stated in the US Constitution.
The concept of the "Year of the Linux Desktop" is something of a running joke in the open source community. It is to the point where no one in the Linux community will dare declare next year as the Year of the Linux Desktop.
But honestly, the time has finally arrived when we really need a year of the Linux desktop. The technologically challenged should probably be running Linux Mint with a Cinnamon desktop instead of Windows. Linux in any GUI form would keep our grandparents out of many of their computer troubles. The more technologically proficient can find a version of Linux that will meet their needs and preferences.
>>any time you see someone insisting that "the answer" to dealing with widespread infringement is "more education," you know that you're dealing with someone who is either ignorant, or not particularly serious concerning the issue.
The third alternative: Someone has figured out a way to make a healthy salary from pandering to the IP industry and their fears of the copyright boogeyman.
In retrospect, I should have gone into the snakeoil business years ago.
I have noticed a disturbing trend that some parts of the government trying to criminalize poverty. Meanwhile other parts of government are promoting policies that increase number of people forced to live in poverty.
Or they could, you know, make the movies that are nominated available at a reasonable cost through things like NetFlix and Amazon Prime. Then they could profit from all the buzz around the awards.
It has been shown over and over that most people would prefer to obtain their programs legally and will do so willingly if they have the opportunity.
But making the movies available would do two things that MPAA executives can't abide. First, they would give up some control. They love making those complicated licensing agreements and regional marketing schemes. The last thing they want to do is go with a simple system that gives people what they want. Second, they would have to admit that they have been wrong for so many years.
Apparently big banks are the only institutions that are allowed to launder money without penalties. In fairness to the banks, they do seem to do it quite well. Their skill is based on long practice with huge amounts of money. We can't allow anyone to cut into that lucrative business. They probably should get another subsidy.
>>The broadcasters simply want Aereo to pay for the privilege since Aereo is making money off their signal.
That is exactly the kind of zero-sum thinking that causes businesses big problems. The mind-set is that if someone else is making money, I must be loosing it. But the entertainment industry is not a zero-sum game. In this case Aereo has expanded the audience for the broadcasters at essential zero marginal cost to the broadcasters. The actual problem for the broadcasters is that they don't have an easy method of measuring the expanded audience so they can charge advertisers. Those measurements would probably be possible to get, but the broadcasters would have to cooperate with Aereo to get it.
The argument can be made that the broadcasters should be paying Aereo for expanding their market.
The broadcasters can point to another disastrous SCOTUS ruling as a demonstration about dangers of a favorable ruling. They can point to the devastating impact the Betamax ruling had on the entertainment industry.
As local police get more militarized we can expect more of this type of story. Part of the militarization process is training regiments that see the public as the enemy. Ironically this forces citizens to see the militarized police as the enemy. We are in a very deadly spiral.
The police will usually justify this type of shooting as "Officer Safety" concerns. Where is the concern for "Citizen Safety?"
Hence the desire of the big cable companies to merge. They have to do something to make sure they can maintain their monopoly on broadband. They don't want one of the other players to go all "T-Mobile" on them and disrupt the market or demonstrate that there are alternative business models besides forced bundles.
The mechanisms used in the name of "protecting the children," preventing piracy, and mass surveillance are each a gateway to the other two. Protecting the children is the most palatable to politicians, but once those filters are in place someone will want to add other features such as attempting to block terrorist sites, piracy, defamation of public figures, and political dissent. And the appliances that do the filtering provide a convenient intersection for surveillance.
Similarly, surveillance implemented to fight terrorism will inevitably expand. First, legitimate political dissent becomes indistinguishable from terrorist threats, at least to the people charged with monitoring terrorists. It is also inevitable that information on non-terrorist crimes gets monitored and passed on to enforcement agencies. Apparently the MPAA is now considered a government enforcement agency, so they are going to get data, too.