On 31/10/2007, Tom Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > for example, you could / can perform the above social discourse with > something Joost-esque,
What happens when Joost discontinues that service or goes bust? This has already happened with one online DRM video service, Google Video. I first noticed the trend of using "sharing" to mean "linking" instead of "copying" with YouTube. This trend is concerning for that reason. > which would leave the rights holders with at > least the option of gaining a return on their invest, via targeted > advertising perhaps. Revver's investors - http://one.revver.com/go/about - put money behind the idea that targeted advertising can still work with file sharing. > Not saying that's a good thing, but your current logic does not work for me. Its logic outside the discourse of corporate businesses, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work. > FWIW I think it's a more powerful argument to state that the value of > a recording per-se is now tending towards zero, digital tech having > removed scarcity from much of the value chain. > > The business models which recognise this will thrive in the long term. Redressing things in the discourse of corporate businesses, like this, is okay, but can lead to nasty outcomes like thinking that DRM is legitimate. -- Regards, Dave - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
