The Web Runs on Love, Not Greed

JS Kelly jskelly@jskelly.com
Fri, 4 Jan 2002 14:38:54 -0800 (PST)



On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Owen Byrne wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 12:43:09PM -0800, carey wrote:

> > 
> > >
> > >  For example, when I did my research on the DMCA, it was still so
> > > unbelievably new and fresh, I believe I found 2 published books
> > > vaguely dealing with the topic, none even coming close to the DeCSS
> > > case.

> Doing research on the DMCA strikes me as like trying to do research on
> open source a year ago. If you actually published something, you run the
> serious risk of looking like a twit a year later. Its still news, and
> any research you do is really about a. the text of the DMCA or b. what
> other people say about it (not very rigorous). Course it all depends on
> what you mean by research. To me the interesting stuff isn't available
> for a few years, and that is the effects of the DMCA. 

> > which is what I said, which was the glory of the net.  I have a real hard
> > time believing that even DeCSS a few years from now will have much book
> > play.  ITs just not sexy enough for publishers.
> > 

> Maybe a few years from now you'll see a book on amazon about DeCSS and
> say "Nahh, old news".  Or maybe not. Right now it isn't possible to say. 

maybe they won't be on the bestseller list -- but i'm sure that many legal
journals had already published something useful about it at the time that
carey was doing his research. did you consult a law library or publisher
of reference books on law when you did your research, or did you depend on
the web only? the DMCA was passed.. was it in 1998? or maybe it was
earlier, and revised in '98? i'm sure something must have existed by the
time nov/dec 1999 (which, if i remember correctly was when news of the san
jose case first broke) rolled around. just another example of where the
info on the net is shallow. and your knowledge of offline publishing, too.

> Can't see it. Maybe the cat pages, but fluffy shit about Britney Spears
> is where the money is. 

ridiculous. this is only where the money is for the short-sighted. tv
floundered around for years before finding its 'business model' and even
once it was successful, many more models were waiting to be discovered.
the miniseries genre of the 70s/80s, home shopping networks, cable news
networks... these were all 'discovered' after tv had already become very
money-making indeed. saying that only britney spears pages can prove
profitable online is like saying only tiger beat can prove profitable
offline. 

> And you know, things have been pretty good that way so far as compared
> to books, tv.  The challenge is to scale that success and absorb good
> offline practices (Google) more often than bad offline practices (spam).

or make up some new ones. this is a new medium -- or at least, it could
be. guess it isn't possible to say that it is, as only a handful of sites
(still! after 10 years of popularization) actually do stuff online that
isn't a mere shadow of the offline world. and even those have more or less
been ruined. slashdot was one, ebay another, amazon another. all now suck,
but they are among the very, very few that actually did stuff you just
can't do offline. 

> Its like we're building the Borg. Its not the technology, its not the
> human behaviour, its the integration of the technology and the human
> behaviour thats the real challenge. 

i am not sure what you mean? besides, <geek-mode>the borg are primarily
non-human species</geek-mode>.

-jsk