I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that elite producers will not win the content-control battle.
why?: 1. asymmetrical bandwidth access--consumers can't run servers; download speeds much higher than ul speeds; use of virtual private networks to reduce content-serving by end-users, etc. 2. ISP bottlenecks and Akamai-like 'distributed networking'- that manages bandwidth resources for big content providers, etc. 3. generally, the end of common-carriage and the vertical integration of infrastructure ownership and content distribution (ala AOL/TW). 4. digital rights management (DRM) and 'trusted systems' deployment. It will be an Xbox world in which users are dumb termini for content consumption. 5. Utilization of new media as surveillance tools by producers: Passport and 'authentication services.' 6. Utilization of new media for surveillance by law enforcement sans judicial oversight (USAPATRIOT ACT) 7. generally, all of this aimed at information enclosure aided by the expansion of intellectual property rights. 8. The fortuitousness of the 'war on terror' to expand governmental controls of new media uses. This, in turn, is supported by elite producers who see in Freenet-like protocols an understandable danger to info-control. There are many other points one could make here. Historically, elite control of emerging media has been the norm. I cannot emphasize enough that such control over the techniques of speech has been central to control over other productive resources. On this crucial point, Anthony Giddens has much to say. 'Counterhegemonic' uses of technologies of speech in modernity have been seldom and sporadic at best. Are new media different in this regard? For an excellent account of the history of elite control of communication: See BRIAN WINSTON, MEDIA TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY: A HISTORY: FROM THE TELEGRAPH TO THE INTERNET (1998). Also, ANTHONY GIDDENS, A CONTEMPORARY CRITIQUE OF HISTORICAL MATERIALISM (1995). For the legal critique, see YOCHAI BENKLER http://www.law.nyu.edu/benklery/ KevinA: With the reality that copy protection is going to fail and the fact that once everyone gets high speed internet connections entire movies will we able to be swapped much like music is now, does content on demand TV have a future? My theory is that it might because if people can get the show they want when they want with little to no cost then why will the average joe bother hunting down the video on file sharing services? As I side note does anyone here believe that the Recording Industry does *not* deserve to die. KevinA _______________________________________________ Chat mailing list Chat at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
