No subject

ne·far·i·ous   Pronunciation Key  (n-fâr-s)
adj.
Infamous by way of being extremely wicked.
Despite my outspoken views - which are often chalked up as 
"conspiracy theories" - I don't think that any of the parties to this 
debate meet the definition above.
I'm glad that Bill agrees that there is an attempt to use IP as a 
tool to control the evolution of technology and channels of 
distribution. One does not need to dabble in conspiracy theories to 
see that the industries that currently control the creation and 
distribution of high value content are using every tool in their 
arsenal to prevent the marketplace which Bill describes from working.
- It is a fact that the music industry and Hollywood have used the 
legal system to shut down file sharing services such as Napster. And 
it is a fact that these same companies refused to deal with Napster 
and other would be competitors to grant fair and reasonable licensing 
terms for the music copyrights that they control.
- It is a fact that the music industry and Hollywood have erected 
many roadblocks to the digitization of distribution. They have used 
their lobbying power and campaign contributions to shape government 
policies about copyright around the world. They successfully lobbied 
to create the DMCA. They will most likely succeed in forcing some 
form of copy protection control into every device that touches, even 
remotely the content they produce and distribute.
- It is a fact that they have the ability to control the evolution of 
many consumer electronic devices, either directly, or by erecting 
roadblocks to innovation.
- And it is a fact that many would-be competitors seek to gain the 
same level of control over the consumption of digital media content 
as the entrenched players.  Watching the wary dance of Microsoft and 
potential partners in Hollywood, cable, DBS, and the CE industry has 
been both educational and entertaining.
Rob Koenen wrote:
Always interesting to coin up all sorts of conspiracy theories.
In this case, however, I strongly believe in the motto
"Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance."
Unfortunately, one cannot attribute the current situation to 
ignorance. Just the opposite is true. I know this for fact, as I and 
others who are party to this discussion are responsible for educating 
the companies that seek to control the evolution of digital media 
content. We educated them about the path to the convergence of 
computing, telecommunications and television technologies; we 
identified all of the critical issues. We used the Internet to 
demonstrated the possibilities and to illustrate the awesome power of 
collaboration that is enabled via Metcalfs law.
No, this is not a case of ignorance, at least not on the part of the 
companies who currently exert control over the digital transition. 
But it may well be a case of ignorance on the part of those who seek 
to ferment. change. My comment that one could see this coming years 
ago is not some theory. Rob, Leonardo, and others in MPEG know all 
too well that the warning flags were raised long ago. I know because 
I took the time to participate in MPEG, and I raised the flags.
If ignorance is a factor in the mess we are in today, I humbly 
suggest that a healthy dose of it belongs to those who underestimated 
how difficult it would be to overcome the momentum of the industries 
who have highly profitable businesses to protect and extend.
And I would suggest to Bill, who is well aware of the years of effort 
we have shared to build the new digital media industry, that we have 
been our own worst enemy. It is much more difficult to get a bunch of 
entrepreneurial companies, seeking to build a new market, to march 
together to challenge a group of entrenched companies that have 
common interests to protect.  One need look no further than the 
skirmishes that have taken place in the MPEG-4 process to understand 
this.
Bill understood this when he wrote:
2) There are similar and even better technologies out there right now - from
the "big three" - Apple, Real, MS as well as smaller players... we WILL get
our internet A/V/G/I, hot-to-trot format - and maybe we'll have to suffer
MS, Real and Apple battling out the container formats and maybe we'll have
to suffer with On2, DivX, Pulsnat, DGFX, Real, MS, Sorensen, Apple and a
dozen other garage-shops that have not yet appeared in public battling for
compression "standards"
History keeps teaching us a fundamental principle: Divide and Conquer.
How do powerful interests prevent revolution? They keep those who 
seek to overthrow them, those who seek to ferment change, fighting 
amongst themselves...
Dan writes:
>If MPEG-4 really does become a standard (in the defacto,
>near-universal-adoption sense as opposed to something agreed upon by a
>standards body), it will be because it works in the marketplace, both
>technically and businesswise.  It needs to do so under the same legal and
>regulatory constraints that any business venture must adhere to.
>Otherwise, it will fail for the same reason every attempt to regulate
>markets unnaturally fails -- because it is simply not possible to keep
>consenting parties from making deals that make sense to them.

Why is there even an interest in MPEG-4 today?
Because it is a standard? Or is it because it "might" forge consensus 
among factions that seek to ferment change?
MPEG-LA understands this. And they understand that they can create a 
win-win situation for the rights holders.
IF MPEG-4 fails, the war continues and they keep milking MPEG-2
IF MPEG-4 succeeds, they win because they extend their control over 
the evolution of digital media.
-- 
Regards
Craig Birkmaier
Pcube Labs