Word has it that in the US companies have achieved some sort of legal
protection from price
competition from ebay sellers. So much for the concepts of a free
market, a term often touted as the panacea for all things (other than
higher wages and less taxes).
–
http://www.qednet.biz
The Beeb is apparently quite advanced in its plan to
unleash a Windows/IE only media player onto the british public. There is a
good argument against their chosen delivery vehicle which is locked to a
windows only platform, but that is not the real issue.
What is particularly revealing about the whole BBC iPlayer saga is the way
Microsoft have been able to manipulate and exploit the issues of
intellectual property rights in conjunction with their dominant position
in the market place to place themselves in a highly desirable position. It
might seem strange that a public funded broadcaster would adopt a very
proprietary solution to their business requirements, the BBC and Microsoft
would appear to be unlikely bedfellows. Except for the very simple fact,
they are both very BIG players in the world of making money and
manufacturing consent.
The BBC has a highly regarded reputation for delivering the news that is
important, microsoft has somehow accumulated a reputation for being the
only player capable of delivering computing results for the average user.
Most likely both reputations are substantially less deserved if one has
all the facts available, equally likely this is a blow against the notions
of free and openness as espoused by the FOSS community, delivered with
exactly that intent in mind.
The real argument against the BBC decision is not that they are choosing
Microsoft over some other player, it is that the decision strengthens the
hold of Microsoft (Big Business) over our digital future. Choice is one of
the pillars of a democratic society, there is no freedom to choose if
there is no choice, be it your media player or your source of news.
–
http://www.qednet.biz
Daniel J Solove (an American) has published an essay
on privacy and “Nothing to Hide”.
Arguing against the popular mantra of societal security based on state
conducted surveillance is difficult if the argument is based on the harm
to an individuals privacy. Rather it is the harm to society as a whole and
the changes to the relationships between individuals and society that need
to be examined and judged in the light of the “nothing to hide” mantra.
I mightn’t have anything to hide, but I feel far more marginalised by a
government that collects, stores and disseminates all varieties of
information about me. Who knows what “they” might find or when it might be
used against me.
–
http://www.qednet.biz