Replies to post #29 on Distributed Digital Property Board

[aleajactaest]

awk, I remember a debate between the leaders of Silicon Valley and Hollywood/TV/Music industry before the Hollings Committee, which was as revealing as anything I've seen about the development of a distributed property infrastructure. At the time, Intel had mixed feelings about this type of infrastructure. Yet now they are at the forefront.

So as you say, maybe Hollywood has contributed to progress in finding a solution. I would be surprised if Hollywood has not also had to make concessions itself.

Nevertheless, I am deliberately taking a cautious approach here. Jack Valenti is himself hesitant with new technology, and extremely jealous of the movie makers' revenue stream. And my conclusions are based upon that sense as much as anything else. I don't mind being shown to be wrong!

[aleajactaest]

awk,
"What constitutes "benevolent market forces"?

Is it not a combination of "choice of supply" - which necessitates a neutral technology allowing each content provider to attach their very own DRM, and what the customer wants to consume? Market forces!" - awk

Copyright creates temporary monopolies for the author/publisher. In the tangible world, Hollywood controls the distribution mechanism. Price per movie does not vary within a cinema - the only variable is the number of screens a movie is shown at.

Three reasons why I think the market pricing mechanism does not produce an optimal price in movie industry. What we have is an approximation, but a managed one.

Whereas with an open network distribution mechanism, Hollywood cannot control distribution or price. It will have to compete on quality. This opens the industry to market forces in a way we haven't seen hitherto and that I believe will be benevolent.

So eventually, (hopefully), yes, I agree.