MESSAGE
| DATE | 2005-07-01 |
| FROM | Ruben Safir
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Unusual Copyright Article from the NY Times
|
July 2, 2005
Big Media's Power Plays
DAN MITCHELL
THE legal battles over the future of copyright in the digital age are
often cast as innovation versus the status quo, and in many ways, that's
true. MGM v. Grokster is a case in point. MGM's lawsuit lives on, thanks
to the Supreme Court, which decided this week to toss out summary
judgments in favor of the file-sharing companies Grokster and StreamCast
Networks, allowing the lawsuit to proceed.
Whether in victory or in defeat, opponents of big media often come to
the same conclusion: the inexorable march of technological innovation
will severely erode the power of giant media companies. "In the end,"
Wired News (wired.com) said in an editorial, "the business model in the
entertainment industry is going to change, and these companies can
either find a way to insert themselves into the new order, or risk
finding themselves frozen out forever."
But media companies seem less interested in inserting themselves into
someone else's new order than they are in creating and controlling their
own. Most media executives by now realize that their methods will have
to change. Their maneuvers - suing file-sharing networks or inserting
"broadcast flags," which restrict copying and otherwise limit what media
consumers can do with video content - aren't about trying to protect
hoary business models; they're about keeping the wolves at bay.
"I think that the major media companies are trying to cement their
control of media distribution and want to cut off competition in lots of
forms," Wendy Seltzer, a lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation
who argued the case for the Grokster side, said in an interview with Mad
Penguin (madpenguin.org). "So while they say that they are aiming to cut
off piracy of their works, I think it's no accident that they are also
striking out against technologies that can be used by anyone to create
competing cultural products."
The Science Sans the Dismal Mark A. Thoma, a University of Oregon
associate professor of economics, got some attention in the blogosphere
last week on his blog Economist's View
(economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview). In it, he took on Robert J.
Samuelson, a political columnist for The Washington Post, who wrote a
column, "Time to Toss the Textbooks," which seemed to argue that because
macroeconomics is a huge, complex, amorphous area of study that is
always subject to unpredictable variables, its basic principles are
meaningless, and it's just too difficult to understand.
The columns assertions included: "Economics textbooks once described the
U.S. economy as mainly self-contained Globalization has shattered this
model ... More industries face foreign competition or depend on foreign
markets ... Savings and investment have also gone global ... All this
alters the U.S. economy."
Nonsense, Mr. Thoma wrote: "I hate to be the one to break it to him, but
we've been adding terms like net exports to our models for a long time.
Even principles books now routinely cover this, something that wasn't
true 20 or more years ago. I'd guess that's somewhere around the age of
the textbook he references when he writes his columns. If I thought it
would help, I'd send him a new one."
Ad Hominem The technology guru and journalist Doc Searls took a look at
online advertising in a recent entry on his new blog, IT Garage
(itgarage.com). Almost nobody thinks blocking obnoxious pop-up ads is a
bad thing. But what about software that blocks regular banner ads - the
lifeblood of free online media? Mr. Searls recognizes the problematic
nature of this option, but in the end he favors it. "This here is my
browser and I can customize it any way I please," he wrote. The entry
led to a spirited, wide-ranging discussion among his readers about the
future of advertising in the digital age.
Falling Into Bad Patterns The gambling blog Die is Cast (dieiscast.com)
features a gallery of casino carpet patterns from gambling dens around
the country. "No one demanded it, but I felt the need for it," wrote the
blogger, David G. Schwartz. Those who opted for the $3.95 prime rib
special at the Lucky Duck are advised to wait an hour before viewing.
DAN MITCHELL
Complete links are at nytimes.com/business. E-mail:
whatsonline-at-nytimes.com.
|
|
