SoftBonds
Posts: 862
Joined: 2/10/2012 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: xssve Yeah, I'm thinking it's probably the latter as well - they've gone to great lengths to develop a captive audience, but between them and total control of the media lies and inconvenient thing called the First amendment and the free market of public opinion. There remains a significant technical question w/regards to any potential regulation of the internet w/regards to protecting free speech while also protecting intellectual property, although I don't want to threadjack this into that debate, it's the main reason I'm skeptical of net neutrality critics, i.e., the free speech issue. I'm all for protecting intellectual property to the extent it's possible without curbing the significant advance in creating this highly democratic form of mass communication/consensus formation, which I think are at least the equal of, if not far more significant than it's potential commercial applications. Meh, (will leave it at this to avoid hijacking the thread), My observation/experience is that folks who try to protect intellectual property from individual use end up costing themselves money coming and going. A lot of folks who get a "free sample," will later buy, and the folks who are not going to later buy won't do so if the "free sample," isn't available... Remember what happened to Madonna when she went after piracy of her songs? Cost her millions of dollars in sales, so I doubt she was happy with the result.
_____________________________
Elite Thread Hijacker! Ignored: ThompsonX, RealOne (so folks know why I don't reply) The last poster is often not the "winner," of the thread, just the one who was most annoying.
|