|
Thursday, February 5, 2004
Consumer Electronics 2.0 
| | It's the Fifties all over again. |
| | I'm not talking about the conformist Eisenhower Fifties, with its poodle skirts and tail fins. I'm talking about the rock & roll Fifties, when the music business got blown up and consumer electronics was born. Now, almost five decades later, we're seeing the music business getting blown up again, and the consumer electronics business right along with it. Except the first explosion is obvious while the second one isn't. |
| | The music biz got blown up when Napster came along in 1999. Suddenly the whole world could start sharing their music over the Net, and the industry hardly knew what to do, other than sue the crap out of everybody (and thank their lobbyists for pounding the DMCA through Congress in 1998). |
| | The consumer electronics biz got blown up with the introduction of the iPod. The difference, of course, is that the consumer electronics industry doesn't know what's happened yet. They think the iPod is just another device. |
DRuMming a new tune?
| | I need a little help. Suppose you'd been asked to address the CTO organization of a major (over 125,000 employees) company on digital rights management. What would you tell them? There's the usual, technical talk stuff: |
| | - What is DRM, why are we talking about it?
- The current state of DRM from a technical standpoint
- Issues and challenges for IT organizations
- Challenges or consequences of public policy issues surrounding DRM
- How and what should we do as best practice with respect to DRM
- Challenges and opportunities for information management
|
| | Is there a policy paper from the EFF on this, I wonder? There should be, from somebody, on the need to reconcile individual liberty, sensible property law and the Nature of the Networked world. Tall order. |
| | The short answer, of course, is Sergey's famous Don't be evil. The longer answer is, Don't leave the definition of evil up to your lawyers. |
Same name, new place
Party Pointer
Sleep your way to stardom
Full press court
| | Objectivity is a false God. Instead we should strive for fairness and transparency. |
| | -Thinks it would be really great if Dan Okrent (Ombudsman at the NY Times) and Bill Keller should sit down every week and blog together. |
| | Q (from me): is there a way to have conversation with your readers and still maintain journalistic integrity? |
| | KA: that's the question! (but no one, including Clay Felker or Orville Schell provided an answer, though they looked around searching for something.) But he doesn't have time to do tons of email... |
| | Although Auletta appears to publish a great deal of editorial, I think it would make sense for him to blog, too. Hey, Jay does. |
Knowster
| | The problem with Orkut is simple: it lets you label as friends anybody you know. The choice is too damn binary. Is Anita Hooker your friend or not? Yes or no? Since the answer usually falls into the large gray neither zone between those two extremes, I have a simple suggestion: add a new variable: "know." As in, Do you know Anita Hooker? Yes or No? If yes, is she a friend? That's it. Hate to buck 100-some friends down to acquiantences, but it would make a lot more sense. Doncha think? |
| | [Later...] One effect of this post is the withdrawal of Orkiated offers of friendship. Meanwhile, Marc is successfully out-friending everybody. |
There are responses to this message:
Copyright 2009 The Doc Searls Weblog
|
