|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed Cone's column in the News-Record is up. "Coble is known and respected for his decency and down-home ways. His refusal on principle to participate in the Congressional pension program says a lot about the man who has represented this area since 1984. It would be too simple to label him 'Hollywood Howard' and assume he's in the pocket of the entertainment industry."  It's hard to explain to non-computer-users how irresponsible the Berman-Coble bill is. I think any analogy is likely to miss the mark. But enough people know about computer viruses, I think, to allow for a direct explanation, which might go something like this. "Computer viruses are dangerous, they can delete files, disclose private or sensitive data, and can even be used for terrorism on a global scale. Even if the entertainment industry feels that it can write a 'safe' virus (they haven't promised they will, btw), software always has bugs, and a bug in a virus could be devastating, not just to people who use music on the Internet, but for all people who depend on computers for their livelihood, or for medical care or education. Computer technology is used for many important things that have nothing to do with listening to music or watching movies. We can't let the entertainment industry dictate how our computers are used, or take control of our computers, or destroy their utility. We paid for our computers, not them." Okay, I know the wording is awkard, but there are a lot of ideas that aren't getting through in the articles about the Hollywood hacking bill. Janis Ian posts a follow-up to her article about the music industry and the Internet. I read Bruce Sterling's contrarian rant about open source, much of which I agree with. However, there's one bit of pushback that really needs to get out there. There's a lot more to commercial software than Microsoft. To the extent that people frame the conversation as Microsoft or open source, they cripple the non-monopolist commercial vendors. Apple, for example is neither Microsoft or open source. Nor is IBM, Macromedia, Adobe, Oracle, Sun, AOL. And weblogs, like the one you're reading now, are generally managed with software that neither comes from Microsoft or open source developers. Now you may think either MS or OS will crush us, but stop and think, do you really want that to happen? Would you prefer that independent developers be able to make a living writing software? I know, Eric Raymond told you that there were other ways to make money developing software. Unfortunately, those techniques don't work for end-user software, the easy to use stuff, for individual people. The only thing that works there is developers charging users for the product. We can afford to give you a lot of source, but not all of it. Sheila Lennon reviews yesterday's Bob Dylan concert. Rogers Cadenhead: "Peter Merholz's weblog, peterme, has added an RSS feed. It's great to see one of the first-ever bloggers supporting RSS." John Robb has notes on TiVO-of-the-Future. I've been spending a bunch of time thinking about it too, esp as it relates to Turner Classic Movies. I've been watching stuff from the 20s, 30s and 40s. Not much on the Web about the stars of the 20s and 30s. But thanks to TCM I can see what they looked like. It's like viewing an alien culture. Who are these people? I have no idea. Kevin Werbach says John's vision should include material generated by amateurs. Of course. Doug Baron has a funny joke about Texans and Muslims. (It's not politically correct, in about 18 ways.) |
 
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
© Copyright 1997-2005 Dave Winer. The picture at the top of the page may change from time to time. Previous graphics are archived. Previous/Next |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
