DISQUS

Comparisons...

Thanks for these reviews, and I wonder if you could start a Spreadsheet of the features of the various Internet-TV players, perhaps thru a Wiki. It looks as though there are a large number and it would be nice if one could easily compare them. The topics that I'd initially be interested in are:

1) Platform: (Windows) (Mac) (Linix) (psp? iphone? etc?)

2) Streams: (Number and Main ones) ... as I understand it it is realitively easy to have lots of streams, but many of the important ones may be propriority to specific to a player

3) Cost, if any and if Player charges or permits paying for specific streams.

4) Clean Un-Install.

5) Save and Time shifting capability.

6) Remote playback capability.

7) Of course links to the Player site and the reviews of the player on last100 and other sites.

...Others that I have not thought about.

I have no objection to having an ID (or Evolutionist) post, but as I read the purpose of this site it has little to do with the ID/Evolution... discussion, so I would hope that neither proponent would discuss their positions on this site.

If Haney, or whoever, wants to discuss "regulation of the Internet, communications, media and high-technology in general." then OK. Anyone who wishes to discuss their own beliefs in other areas probably should take their discussion elsewhere.

Note: The key in this site's purpose is "regulation". I don't see it appropriate to have a discussion of the practices, (the media will not carry my message), or the prejudices, (the media leaders don't believe as I do) as appropriate, and as far as I can see, the site does not discuss other areas of "regulation", e.g. the schools, etc.

So, Lets see Haney wants to discuss before we pass judgement.

Corruption supports Norquist's goals

I put it to you that Grover Norquist's main objective is to reduce taxes/government, so if the government is seen as corrupt, that supports his argument that the government should be reduced in size. Thus it would be supportive of his objectives to act in a way that causes people to doubt the effectiveness of common agencies.

The same discussion has been made about the ineffectiveness of our government, as run under George Bush, for dealing with Iraq, Katrina, etc. If the government is shown as corupt, incompentent, wasteful, etc, then it will be easy to argue that it should be reduced. Conversly, if the government is effective, then it is harder to convince people that it should be marginalized. Thus it is to the benefit of the people who want government to be reduced to run it as badly as possible!

I have two sets of thought/questions.

1) Re: Your point -- Yes the numbers show that PBS viewers are richer than the population, but:

1.1) I also suspect that the Tax payers are richer than the population. Thus though PBS may be viewed by the richer, it is paid for by the richer?

1.2) Only 15-25% of the PBS budget comes from the Federal Government, The other comes from other sources, so perhaps this also changes who pays for it.

1.3) I suspect that other public services, Libraries, Schools, etc. also are more used by the richer...

1.4) Finally, even if the richer view more, the poorer do also view and so it may still be a social good to have the PBS programming available as a different style of programming for all of the population.

Personally, I do agree with you that the Federal Funding should be eliminated, as it is a smaller part of the PBS funding, as should the Federal control of PBS as the members, localities, and businesses support most of the PBS costs.

===================================

The other area (Delete if appropriate) is you book. "Media Myths". I am interested in the concept of Open Source content. I note that the book is available as a PDF file, via your link, but does not seem to be able to be ordered from Barns and Noble
. http://search.barnesandnoble.com/bookSearch/isb...

(yet), I wonder what you experience is with respect to making the book available.

2.1) Do you or your publisher feel that you are loseing many sales by linking to a PDF file?

2.2) Have you thought about also linking to lulu.com to allow those of us who might want a copy, less professionally published, but available, to get a copy? (at least until it is published)

2.4) Finally? have you thought about setting up anchors in you PDF file and a discussion group, forum... so that as people felt they agreed/disagreed... with specific topics they could comment on them?

Personally, I am interested in the concept of open source content, Collaborative Books, http://www.wematter.com/links.htm#collbook, and am trying to understand if authors and publishers are also supportive of such mixed distribution models.

P.S. I have added your PDF file into this section, but if you request, I'll remove it.

Thanks...

What about Copyright...

If the camera is being "sold" at $29.99, what can be done with it? -- I realize that the business model is that the store will make its money on "developing" the pictures, but what if I decide to reverse engineer it so that I can use it with my computer?

. Is it legal/moral for me to do it?

. Is it legal/moral for me to publish the code and cable for doing it?

. Is it legal/moral for me to sell the code and cable for doing it?

My personal opinion is that there could be a $70.00 deposit and that the CamCorder record the number of shots it takes. --
If I want to reverse engineer it, OK, but then the vender would then charge me the deposit, or pro-rate the deposit based on the number of shots that I did not use the store for developing. That way there would be a reasonable business model without restricting my ability to do technology.

Good Luck, I look forward to reading your ideas.

There are some comments/questions that I might raise.

1) Indecency -- It seems to me that there is a balance between our desire for lack of government Censorship and for not being deluged with indecent material. -- My initial thought is to have the V-Chip and rating system be used as a "Safe Harbor" protocol so that if the Government documents clear standards for the various ratings the content producers can label their shows according to these standards and if the labels are appropriate, then they are protected against fines... We Users can then use the V-Chip to protect against inappropriate material. Note: A producer could choose to not label their show, e.g. Label it as effectively XXX and it would be OK as the consumer could filter such shows out.

2) Open Access -- I know that you tend to be against open "commercial" access requirements, and that your first book will go into more details. On the other hand, as an end consumer, I am presented with a limited set of choices which cost lots to switch and bundle lots of choices in one choice of vender, DSL... or Cable TV... -- I have less problem with the concept of open commercial access, unless the Free enterprise vendors are not able/willing to offer services and still prevent the local government from offering such services, but I would like to suggest that open "content" access is important and perhaps need the government to require. For example, I find that if I want to get FreeSpeech TV, I can only get it on one TV vender, I'd like to be sure that the other vendors carry that channel at an increased cost, as required, regardless of the "propaganda" spin of the material. e.g. I don't mind the vender charging reasonable rates but want to have them permit as much as reasonable open content and connection access.

3) Open Use -- I don't know if you want to get into the copyright area, but it seems to me that this is also an area where there is a key balance between commercial profit and user restriction. Some people who discuss copyright don't feel that the current copyright owners have the right to profit from their ownership with current business models. I am not arguing this, but it seems to me that the restrictions required to get the last cent of profit are extreme enough so that the society is hurt as compared as a somewhat more permissive set of practices that may cost the owners a few percentage profit points. The areas that I would like to question are:

<ul>
<li> Orphan content -- e.g. can we develop procedures for allowing the use of material that is currently un-owned or low profit?
</li></ul>

<li> Purpose neutral -- Though a copyright owner may profit from their ownership, I question if it is reasonable that they, as opposed to most other owners, should be able to control the use of their property.
</li>

<li> Technical access -- A copyright owner may have the right to require that a device specifically designed for permanent copying should be controlled, e.g. by the Broadcast Flag..., but I question how we can balance the protection of the owner with the development of new technologies. As written, the Broadcast Flag may prevent any further development of TV tuner cards that are attached to general purpose PCs.
</li>

It seems to me that there are three actions that should be taken to "reasonably" satisfy the majority of the population.

. 1) The Cable/Satellite companies should allow people to purchase individual channels. -- I have just heard that there is a feeling that some people don't want to pay for some channels in a group and feel that this requires them to either forgo any channel or all of them. So if the Cable companies want to reduce the pressure to control their content, they may want to implement single channel pricing.

. 2) Each program/commercial... must be rated, with V-Chip ratings so that a user can filter out the programs that are above their ratings or unrated, (assumed to be of "highest" rating X)

. 3) The FCC MUST!!! publish clear standards for establishing these V-Chip suitable ratings far in advance enough so that if a program rates itself according to the published standards it is protected against prosecution.

This would, I think, allow any user to determine what control he wishes to apply to his viewing without controlling the viewing of others and without chilling any content provider. With the V-Chip we do have the technology for user control of the content that they receive and so no longer should there be any reason for one user to control the content that is available to others.

Charge for organization not end content

Obviously the Times has the right to determine their own business model for their content, but I'd prefer that they limited the access to their organization and not to the end content.

What I'd like to see is for them to limit, if they want, and charge for, their Front Page, their search capability, etc. Though I might want everything for free, I understanding paying for the access to NEWS in general. (Personally I'd also like the access to be available to any hard copy reader so that the WEB site is really an extension of the hard copy version)

Similarly, I'd understand if the Times wanted to charge Bloggers for being listed in a TraceBack ring from each article. That way when I went to an article, I could get a list of all the Bloggers who had paid the Times for being listed as commentort on the article.

On the other hand, I'd also prefer that they not charge for the specific articles, columns, etc. (Perhaps behind an Ad) available for linking to and reading FREE. If the Web is to grow in value, it should be easy for a writer to point to their original source and then comment on it rather than trying to abstract it, perhaps out of context, or pointing to a blind ally.

I am against censorship, but I do think that a parent should have the ability to control what their child sees and what they want to see.

So: I would agree to having them be able to "Turn Off" specific channels and probably have shows V-Chip rated so that they could limit the level of the shows.

If a person un-subscribes to a channel because it does not carry the material they want, or does not V-Chip their programs, then this information should be sent to the channel so that they can determine if they are loosing viewers...

Get government involved as little as possible, but use technology to allow people to contron their own destiny.