Corante

About this Author
Ernest Miller Ernest Miller pursues research and writing on cyberlaw, intellectual property, and First Amendment issues. Mr. Miller attended the U.S. Naval Academy before attending Yale Law School, where he was president and co-founder of the Law and Technology Society, and founded the technology law and policy news site LawMeme. He is a fellow of the Information Society Project at Yale Law School. Ernest Miller's blog postings can also be found @
Copyfight
LawMeme

Listen to the weekly audio edition on IT Conversations:
The Importance Of ... Law and IT.

Feel free to contact me about articles, websites and etc. you think I may find of interest. I'm also available for consulting work and speaking engagements. Email: ernest.miller 8T gmail.com

Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay Learn More

The Importance of...

Category Archives

« Broadcast Flag | Broadcatching/Podcasting | Civil Liberties »

July 13, 2005

PBS's Web-Only Nerd TV to Launch in September Under Creative Commons License

Email This Entry

Posted by Ernest Miller

Lost Remote, among many others, reports that PBS will be making one its shows available solely on the internet under a Creative Commons license (PBS Launches 'a Whole New Kind of Television'). The show, to be hosted by Robert X. Cringely, will be called Nerd TV (Pioneering Another Technology First, PBS Launches NerdTV, the First Downloadable Web-Exclusive Series From a Major Broadcaster).

This is very good news. If PBS doesn't make an RSS broadcatch available, it is likely that someone else will, hopefully, breaking the show down into individual segments.

This is still niche content for an undeveloped market, however, so I doubt the audience will be particularly large. When will we see the hardware that will make subscribing to these sorts of shows easy for the average consumer?

Comments (0) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Broadcatching/Podcasting | Copyright | Creative Commons

July 08, 2005

Netflix in Another Indie Film Distribution Deal - Where is Netflix for the Internet?

Email This Entry

Posted by Ernest Miller

IndieWIRE reports that Netflix has made another deal to distribute an independent film (Hal Hartley Takes Latest Film to Netflix for DVD Release). Hal Hartley's The Girl from Monday is the film being distributed this time. This is a very cool way to slide on down the Long Tail. via Cinema Minima.

You know, the funny thing is, Netflix is sort of like internet distribution, only through the post office. When will we get the equivalent of Netflix for the 'net? Seriously. Just port the damn thing. Customers could just buy a "Netflix Box" and attach it to a broadband connection and their TV. How hard could it be? When you want a new film, you tell it to erase one of your current selections first and it immediately goes to fetch the next film on your list. It'd download faster than the post office can deliver. You'd never have to wait for low availability films.

And, once you have this, the possibilities for other sorts of distribution are ridiculous.

Comments (2) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Broadcatching/Podcasting

July 06, 2005

Podcasting for the XBox 360?

Email This Entry

Posted by Ernest Miller

So, the next generation XBox360 is going to have all sorts of cool multimedia abilities and its connectivity through XBox Live is being heavily touted (XBox360 Fact Sheet).

So, will Microsoft dare permit podcasting to the XBox? If they do, which artists will they allow to try to reach this market? How might podcasting be integrated with games? I think of the faux-radio stations in Grand Theft Auto, as a very basic example.

Dare we imagine the possibities for broadcatching video content, say for example, machinima? Doesn't it make sense to deliver machinima film festivals to gamers who would subscribe?

How forward thinking is Microsoft?

UPDATE 1530PT

What better way to deliver short video reviews of upcoming XBox titles? Of course, Microsoft could simply use it as some sort of advertising channel, but why not let known, responsible outlets have access to provide podcasts/broadcatch for their independent reviews?

Imagine a Penny Arcade feed - why not?

Comments (1) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Broadcatching/Podcasting | Games | Machinima

July 03, 2005

July 02, 2005

June 28, 2005

June 24, 2005

June 23, 2005

June 22, 2005

Listening to Radio On Your Cellphone

Email This Entry

Posted by Ernest Miller

BusinessWeek has an an interesting article about radio for your cellphone (Dial R for Radio on Your Cell).

Chances are radio services will be a hit with the 2 billion wireless subscribers worldwide. "Mobile phones are always with you," explains Nancy Beaton, a general manager at telco Sprint (FON), which became the first carrier with a commercial cell-phone radio service in December. "Because customers are familiar with how the phone works, adding radio can be very intuitive," says Beaton.

And many users want that addition. According to surveys conducted by America Online, a unit of Time Warner (TWX), more than half the respondents say they would listen to the radio on their phones. AOL is in talks with wireless service providers to offer its online radio stations on mobile phones within months.

Radio on phones is a good idea. I could see that it would be very useful. However, a couple of questions ... many related to my rant yesterday (Die Cellphone. Die! Die! Die!).

First, why the heck does AOL (or any other cellphone radio service) need to be in talks with wireless service providers? Why couldn't they simply be in talks with, you know, customers? The closed networks of the cellphone providers are really limiting competition and innovation (not to mention increasing the price).

Second, despite Miss Beaton's claim about ease of use, why the heck do we have to get the radio via a cellphone? Why not get the radio via an MP3 player? Why not let the MP3 player have basic connectivity for this purpose? A cellphone is great in some circumstances, but not necessarily all.

Radio service also could spark sales of other wireless content. "Since radio is how people discover new music, I'd look at radio as the trigger that would create follow-through sales of [popular content like] ringtones, ringbacks, and music downloads," says Lewis Ward, an analyst at IDC. If users hear a song they like on their cell-phone radio, they'll be able to immediately buy a related ringtone via their cell. That should accelerate the growth of the $500 million ringtone market, as well as sales of ringbacks and music downloads.
Of course, one reason the cellphone service providers like their closed networks is so that they can make more money via associated services. I still can't believe that people pay as much for ringtones as they do. Open up the network, let people buy ringtones without paying the cellphone service provider tax.
Most cell-phone radiocasters, though, plan to use existing wireless networks, but to varying extents. Motorola's iRadio, expected to cost $5 a month, will let customers download hours of radio programming via a PC. New radio-ready Motorola phones are expected to be unveiled this fall. Motorola plans to insert snippets of breaking news into these broadcasts as they're downloaded over its wireless network.
Downloading hours of radio programming via your PC already has a name. It's called "podcasting". Still, perhaps Motorola will share some of their technology, or help work on an open standard, for mixing breaking news with less time-volatile content. Would be useful.

via Mobile Content News

Comments (0) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Broadcatching/Podcasting | Telecomm | Tools

June 21, 2005

June 19, 2005

June 18, 2005

June 17, 2005

Speeding Up and Scanning Podcasts

Email This Entry

Posted by Ernest Miller

One of the difficulties that podcasts face is simple lack of attention bandwidth. I can read (or scan) far many more blog postings than I can podcasts. This will always be the case, but there are quite a number of improvements in the technology that can be made to improve access. For example, many of the longer podcasts should be broken up into segments that can be easily skipped, one segment of a show to the next. Another idea: have meta-information about the podcast included in the audio itself at the beginning (topics, time, etc.).

Ed Bott has another suggestion (Tip of the Day: Listen to a Podcast at Warp Speed).

Windows Media Player has a well-hidden advanced playback control that allows you to vary the speed at which a media clip is played back. This feature, it turns out, is ideal for listening to broadcasts that emphasize the spoken word, such as podcasts and vlogs. This feature does much more than simply rewind or fast-forward a media clip; it performs time compression and expansion, speeding up or slowing down the pace of playback but maintaining audio and video fidelity—keeping a narrator or host's voice from sounding like a cartoon character when the audio or video clip is played at faster than normal speed.

Use this feature to “speed read” an instructional video or a podcast, for example, viewing or listening to the full program in a fraction of its normal running time while still being able to understand the audio.

I've actually experienced similar technology in the past (audio tech for the vision impaired) and it works pretty well. With practice and experience you can scan audio pretty darn quickly.

Of course, such technology can't be some hidden trick, but must be readily accessed and adjustable, such as through a scroll wheel or some such.

Are the podcasting gods listening?

Comments (2) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Broadcatching/Podcasting

June 15, 2005

June 14, 2005

Podcasting and Profanity

Email This Entry

Posted by Ernest Miller

Last Sunday, on Corante's Podcasting Jeff De Cagna asked, what the role of profanity in podcasting was (Profanity in Podcasting: What is its Role?).

But there is an even more fundamental inquiry I'd like to pose here: what is the role of profanity in podcasting? Do we need to curse to demonstrate our fidelity to free speech? What is the point at which our defiant acts against the FCC will cease to be purposeful, and we will just become garbage mouths in the eyes (and ears) of our listeners? I know I'm probably messing with the bull here, so I'll be prepared! [emphasis in original]
The answer is simple, really. It plays whatever role the speaker desires. If that role doesn't mesh with the role the audience cares for, the audience will stop listening.

Use profanity, don't use profanity. It's a judgement call.

The real question is whether some censorship regime is necessary.

Last week on the Yahoo podcasters group, there was an extremely passionate discussion (complete with name calling) of profanity in podcasting and how it can be screened by listeners who prefer to avoid it themselves or want to keep it away from their kids. At the moment, of course, there isn't a way to screen for profanity short of listening to the podcasts. Some group members advocated a voluntary ratings system, while others recoiled at the suggestion. A key question is who gets to decide what is or isn't profane and by what cultural standard, an extremely relevant matter given podcasting's global reach. [link in original]
But really, is this necessary? The internet has a number of rating schemes, they're mostly useless. I've never noticed any blogs that are rated, why should podcasts? Depending on the audience, most blogs simply exercise a judgement call. Some refuse to publish vulgarities, others do. Sometimes the sites warn their readers, sometimes they don't. Seems to work just fine.

Of course, I'm sure the topic will come up again and again and again ...

Comments (2) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Broadcatching/Podcasting | Freedom of Expression | Rating and Filtering

June 13, 2005

June 09, 2005

Die Network. Die! Die! Die!

Email This Entry

Posted by Ernest Miller

Last week I wrote a story about the death of the channel (Die Channel. Die! Die! Die!). Of course, if the channel dies, the whole concept of the network begins to make a lot less sense. They'll certainly have to change.

Well, it turns out that back in April, Deloitte published a report predicting the death of the broadcast network (Television Networks in the 21st Century).

Read the press release: Television Networks Threatened with Extinction: Change or Die, Says Deloitte Report
Read the 16-page report: Television Networks in the 21st Century [PDF]

As markets fragment, control shifts from suppliers to buyers - or in this case, from broadcast networks to viewers or consumers. That shift raises serious questions about the continued viability of the broadcast network business model.

Today, major television networks (public and private) and their affiliates still cling to a premium as the only media outlets with true mass-market reach. But as fragmentation continues, even the most optimistic advertisers have come to realize that no single channel can truly reach the masses. The mass-market is being re-defined.

Good read, though I don't think their recommendations are quite radical enough.

More recently, like yesterday, Broadcasting and Cable reported on a recent panel discussion about the future of television in which several senior executives participated and predicted the death of one or more networks in the next five years (NBC, Touchstone Chiefs: Some Broadcast Nets Won't Survive). On the other hand, "'Frankly, network television is here to stay,' said Magna Global Worldwide Chairman and CEO Bill Cella." TV Squad responded (Networks Better Get Ready for a Change):

If it’s true, as Bill Cella says in this article, that network television as a business model is here to stay, it’s only because those with vested interests in it’s survival will call in as many favors as they have to in order to guarantee it. I think that yes, in five years the network landscape will look much as it does now minus perhaps one major player. But after that it’s anyone’s guess.
That's about right, I think.

via Smart Mobs

Comments (0) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Broadcatching/Podcasting | Open Access

June 08, 2005

June 07, 2005

Broadcasters Face Uphill Struggle

Email This Entry

Posted by Ernest Miller

The Hollywood Reporter reports on the struggles television content providers are and will be facing (Broadcast TV Facing Broadband Realities).

Broadcast television networks and stations are destined to become glorified program suppliers whose participation in interactive advertising and content will be dependent on cable, satellite, Internet and other gatekeepers.
Translation: broadcast television networks will no longer be the gatekeepers themselves. Cry me a river.

Maybe they ought to consider working hard to weaken potential alternative gatekeepers. Nah...they're hoping to make a cozy deal with the new gatekeepers instead.

Ask television broadcasters about the future, and they most likely will say they are waiting to be rescued by regulators enforcing digital must-carry, increased sale of digital television sets and a digital critical mass penetration that includes not only homes but also individual TV sets. TV broadcasters say they will resist spending much money on digital content until there is a big enough market (more than the current 10 million digital homes to assure a payback -- mirroring their approach to high-definition television.
If you're smart, you'll realize that the mass market isn't the only market going anymore and will attempt to understand and reach much smaller markets in the digital world. If you're stupid, well, you'll do exactly what they are doing, continuing to focus solely on the mass market.
Once they begin dabbling, broadcasters will begin to capitalize on the fact that consumers respond to and seek particular content -- not networks or stations -- a phenomenon that will be more starkly evident as cable operators convert to all-digital and a la carte content selection and pricing are routine.
"Once they begin dabbling..." Once...

via lost remote

Comments (0) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Broadcatching/Podcasting

June 06, 2005

June 04, 2005

June 03, 2005

Die Channel. Die! Die! Die!

Email This Entry

Posted by Ernest Miller

MediaPost (reg. req.) runs an essay on how we seem to be reaching the saturation point for the number of cable channels, and it is falling far short of the mythical 500 channels we were promised (We May Have Reached the End of the 500-Channel Universe, 395 Channels Short). But why?

Noting that the average American cable TV viewer now has 105 channels available, Merrill Lynch research analyst Jessica Reif Cohen notes they actually watch only "16 to 18" of them. That suggests, she says, that "we may have reached a point of saturation with regard to start-up cable networks."
Imagine that, we only watch about 16 to 18 channels.

What that tells me is that the whole "channel" concept is an incredibly inefficient content delivery mechanism. The search costs are far too high, for one thing. It is too much trouble to search beyond a relatively small number of channels. People stick with the few channels they know are likely to have something that interests them and not spend too much time looking through the many other options.

It sort of reminds me of "bookmarks," which was a primitive means for navigating the World Wide Web back in the day. One would bookmark favorite webpages, then check them periodically to see if there were something new and interesting. Of course, doing so was quite time-consuming and often frustrating as one couldn't be sure when there would be an update. Consequently, most would only check about 16 - 18 channels webpages regularly. Thank goodness we now have RSS, which has vastly increased the number of webpages one can check on a daily basis.

Furthermore, having to structure activity around specific broadcast times is rather inconvenient. Indeed, I imagine in the future that people will think it absurd that there were schedules for the transmission of pre-recorded entertainment and people had to conform to these broadcast schedules, instead of the other way around. Yet, because we currently have to, we are further limited in our choices to what is available during a rather limited segment of time. Yes, I know there is TiVo, but that still ties us to certain broadcast times, which unfortunately often conflict with the broadcast of other shows one might be interested in.

This whole scheduling thing has also resulted in some artificial time slots for content. Everything comes in 30-min or 1-hour packages. This doesn't really make any organic sense, but was well-suited to reducing some of the content delivery problems of the "channel" concept. What this means is that these shows are most likely wasting people's time. There might be 30 minutes of good content, but most likely there is a lesser amount of good content and the rest is just filler to meet the alloted and artificial time constraints (30-Minute Television Shows to be a Thing of the Past).

UPDATE 0930PT

And what the heck is up with organizing things simply because there is one company selling the advertising? What the heck does Fear Factor have in common with Law & Order, other than the fact that NBC sells the national advertising for both?

Clearly, the "channel" concept as delivery mechanism is a failure. There is only one solution: The Channel Must Die!

Comments (5) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Broadcatching/Podcasting | Open Access

June 02, 2005

Rush Limbaugh to Launch Podcast on June 3rd - No Music Though

Email This Entry

Posted by Ernest Miller

Rush Limbaugh starts his podcast tomorrow, Friday, June 3rd (El Rushbo Answers Your Podcast Questions). The shows will be available approximately 2 hours after the broadcast ends. In order to get the RSS feed, however, you'll need to be a subscriber to the website which costs ~$60. [Correction: A commentor says the cost is $34.95] Perhaps he might want to consider a teaser 5-10 minute daily show excerpt that is free.

Interestingly, Rush explains to his listeners that he can't include any music in the show due to licensing issues:

Now, a number of people -- and you people know who you are -- you are writing me caustic and vicious notes about the fact there will be no music on these MP3s. We will not be able to download with you the theme song, the opening theme. No parodies will be downloadable. We might be able to get away with the bumper music because it's only ten to 15 seconds; it would qualify under fair use, but many of you are saying, "Well, I don't think you know what you're talking about." Right. I don't know what I'm talking about. I run the show and I don't know what I'm talking about. "You don't what you're talking about. Other shows, other shows have MP3s, download, music on them. You can do it." Ladies and gentlemen, (ahem) there's a little bit of a difference between this show and some others -- and that difference is size. Let me tell you why we can't. Really a lot of people are writing me, "Why can't we get the music? I don't understand! The parodies are some of the greatest…" The reason is the music industry is forbidding, unless an exorbitant fee is paid, you cannot essentially copy music for nothing, and that's what would be happening here. If we put the music like the theme song and we put these parodies which are based on existing copyrights that we don't own... You know, we can parody them here on the radio, but that's a one-time usage, but if we then distribute that and allow virtually our MP3 files for all that to be copied we are essentially giving away somebody's product. And it would be one day, and the music industry would be all over us for doing it and we would have to stop it or fight them or whatever, and we couldn't win. We looked into it.

You know, we pay a rights fee every year for the opening theme song, but it does not include the privilege of copying it hundreds of thousands of times for free so that people can have it on their computers. We don't have that license. The same thing goes with the parodies. Now, if other shows are doing it, it means they're either ignorant of the law or they're small enough they don't think they'll get caught or they're small enough that they don't think it will be a big deal if the music industry notices. I don't have that luxury -- and besides, folks, I'm not going to break the law anyway. There's no point in it. Now, at some point I expect this to change. I don't know when, but there will be a way to make this happen at some point. But for now, starting out tomorrow, the legalities are clear -- and if you understand that it's nothing more than copying songs and distributing them for free. You can't do that yourself for your own computer. You can't do it with movies legally. You can't do it with any video legally, but as an individual if you do it, if you get caught, you've seen the FBI warnings on the front of these DVDs that you go out and rent or buy. You get caught, I'm not they're going to come after you. The music industry is dead serious. Hollywood is dead serious about piracy and unauthorized duplication, and that's essentially what we would be doing. So the short answer is our mammoth size makes it impossible for us to do this on a stealth basis like some of these others are apparently able to do because they've been doing it along or either nobody knows or nobody cares. I don't have that luxury.

I wonder if Rush would be interested in using music that has the appropriate Creative Commons license?

In any case, if this is successful I can imagine quite a few other radio personalities will jump on it. It could also open up the market for others. We shall see.

Comments (3) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Broadcatching/Podcasting | Copyright | File Sharing

Podcasts for Congress: Good Idea or Premature?

Email This Entry

Posted by Ernest Miller

There have been a number of responses to my call for Congressional podcasts (Questions for Congress). Many have been positive, such as Jeff Jarvis, who thinks we should have podcasts from all levels of government (Podcast Open the Doors).

I'll take it down a few levels and suggest that every town board and school board should be podcast....We should all storm our town halls and demand podcasts (and then politely explain what podcasts and iPods and the internet are).
Be sure to read the comments as well.

Amy Gahran thinks there is a lot of possibility here and that the podcasts might be surprisingly popular among certain audiences (Podcasting, Government, and Cable TV: A Happy Medium?). She also thinks that the content should be available via a variety of delivery methods. Absolutely. The government stuff is in the public domain, anyone can do anything they want with it. Blawg is also supportive, arguing that the government needs a whole heck of a lot more RSS feeds; I agree (Hey Congress, Start Blawging...and Podcasting...).

There are those who think this is premature, such as Heather Green on one of BusinessWeek's relatively new blogs, Blogspotting, which has also sparked some excellent comments (Podcasting Congress?).

But Miller's request, seconded by Jarvis at Buzzmachine, that in Congress "every single darn committee, subcommittee, whatever, have a podcast (in the future, broadcatch) of its hearings" seems silly. Ok, if not silly, a little premature.

Faster access to digital transcripts, yes. RSS feeds for those transcripts,sure. But podcasts? When less than 4% of [US households] will be listening to podcasts by 2008, according to Forrester Research?

I'm not arguing against transcripts and RSS feeds. I'm with Blawg on that one, the government needs a whole heck of a lot more RSS. And transcripts are great, but sometimes audio is better. Would it really be that much more of a burden to provide the audio?

It certainly would be faster. Would the audience be large? Probably not, for most things, but the opportunity should be there. The audience for the transcripts would also be limited. I don't have the time to read every darn transcript, I'm going to have to rely on editors and filters. However, it would be really nice to have access to the transcript in order to check on my editors and filters or to get more information if I so choose.

Indeed, RSS-delivered audio files would be of use not only to the very limited number who will listen to hours of some of the most boring things in the world, but those who are interested in editing it for others. Recently I listened to two mind-numbingly dull hours of testimony on international copyright infringement. Few would so willingly abuse themselves this way. Having listened, I reported on the hearings, including elements that weren't part of the written testimony (Senate Judiciary IP Subcommitee Hearing On Int'l Copyright Infringement). Hundreds read my summary. Similarly, it would have been great to have the MP3 for editing purposes, to quote from for my own podcasts. Citizen journalism would certainly benefit from this availability.

The archival and future search abilities would be tremendous. Undoubtedly, Google, or one of its rivals, will soon be able to create a pretty good transcript on the fly and provide the ability to search through this audio much quicker than the government would. Furthermore, many of the subscriptions for these RSS feeds would be libraries, who would store this audio where it would be readily and easily available for future research.

Premature? Perhaps a bit, but not by much. Considering how long it takes government to actually do anything we should get people talking about and thinking about the possibility now.

Richard Bennett says that this is already happening and points to C-SPAN (Public Affairs Programming on C-SPAN Radio via C-SPAN.org). This is nice, but it isn't what I'm talking about. C-SPAN is broadcasting selected hearings, not everything. Moreover, it is radio, not downloadable podcasts. If I can't listen to the hearing when it is being broadcast, I'm out of luck. Nor is there an archive of what C-SPAN has carried. However, if it can be put on radio, how much more difficult would it be to podcast it?

Comments (0) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Broadcatching/Podcasting

Podcasts Open the Door for More Audio Content

Email This Entry

Posted by Ernest Miller

Rex Hammock continues his series on "How Apple will change everything about Podcasting" with a third post on the type of podcasts he would like to see (A Long Tail of Podcasts on iTunes Will Make Us Stop Thinking of "Podcasts" as Just Wayne's World Programming or Radio-like Genres). He lists a number of different things he'd like to see, from museum audio guides, to seminar sessions and business news/music mashups. Good ideas all, and he's barely scratched the surface methinks, but not all of them are really about the RSS delivery. Many of the ideas are better suited to good ol' download.

The point I would make is that the advent of podcasts may open the door for a whole raft of audio content (not just music) for download. People who have become comfortable recording daily news podcasts, will likely be willing to download similar audio content that isn't necessarily tied to an RSS feed. In fact, I would think there is the potential for some serious cross promotion.

UPDATE 0900PT

Rex Hammock responds in the comments.

Comments (2) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Broadcatching/Podcasting

June 01, 2005

May 31, 2005

May 30, 2005

Let Howard Stern Pick Your Music

Email This Entry

Posted by Ernest Miller

Rex Hammock continues his series on "How Apple will change everything about Podcasting" with post #2 (How Much Could Howard Stern Make Podcasting via iTunes vs. Broadcasting via Sirius?). In this post he bashes micropayments and looks at business models in which podcasters act as buying agents for their listeners, providing them with music and getting a kickback (ahem, commission) from the fees the listeners pay. A very interesting model, whose basic idea I like. However, the current economics of paying for downloaded music ($0.99/track) make this most likely a non-starter.

At that price, how many tracks will I buy a month? Not many, perhaps a dozen or so. How will I allocate my buying agents, knowing that every bad choice they make essentially costs me a dollar? Not sure I'd be too experimental in such a case.

However, drop the price substantially and this starts to look much better. Might this not work with a voluntary alternative compensation scheme as well? Lower prices for higher volume?

Things to consider.

Comments (1) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Broadcatching/Podcasting | File Sharing

May 29, 2005

Questions for Congress

Email This Entry

Posted by Ernest Miller

Why doesn't every single darn committee, subcommittee, whatever, have a podcast (in the future, broadcatch) of its hearings?

Why isn't there a floor podcast?

How long will it take Congress to get a clue?

Comments (4) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Broadcatching/Podcasting

Darknet Interviews Andy Wolfe, Fomer CTO of ReplayTV

Email This Entry

Posted by Ernest Miller

Over on Darknet, JD Lasica interviews Andy Wolfe, formerly CTO of ReplayTV (Interview: Andy Wolfe, former CTO, ReplayTV). The interview is incredibly good. Highly recommended: Read the whole thing. A small sample:

That’s why we were amazed there was such rigamarole around this. We sold 60,000 of these things. ATI sells a million cards a year that lets you record shows and attach it to your email. They still do. Sony sued us, but they let you record stuff on your Vaio and burn it to DVD and email it to anyone. AOL lets you attach a show to Instant Messaging. It’s amazingly hypocritical, with these companies and their software that are out there and can do all this stuff on the PC, they took it for granted, but when we came up with this device that ordinary people could use, they panicked. [emphasis in original]
Alright, I can't resist, another sample:
We did a marketing study and found that two things were in high demand: porn, and Bollywood, because Indian films are not widely distributed in the U.S.

That’s part of why this whole thing got a little threatening. We think that if there was a real service, that independent content would become an important part of that service. We didn’t think people would sign up for a service if it only had independent content. They’ll sign up for Harry Potter or Terminator 3. It’s the blockbusters that get people’s attention.

We got a call from churches who wanted to distribute their sermons on Sunday mornings by sending videos around. There are also surveillance applications. We found lots of people who were interested in building new things on top of this. We felt these other things would follow, but the entertainment had to drive it. [emphasis in original]

For all you atheists and non-church-goers out there, if you're not familiar with how churches are using this technology, I suggest you go check it out. Many of them are really quite savvy.

Did I mention you should read the whole thing?

PS: The interview was conducted in June, 2003.

Comments (2) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Broadcatching/Podcasting | File Sharing | Tools

May 27, 2005