Hi Frank:
Excellent observation on the semantics. LOL. I guess the medium IS the message, especially on this thread.
It is clear that the focus of this thread is the medium of how broadband content will be delivered to our homes. Unfortunately, the two cannot be separated, and this hypothesis is not limited to entertainment content.
An example I look to is last year's surreptitious talks between C. Michael Armstrong of T and Steve Case of AOL with respect to bring some sort of resolution to the cable open access debate. It was apparent that the talks were not successful because Steve insisted on controlling ACCESS to the subscriber, thereby having unfettered control over the CONTENT over that subscriber's PC screen, at least when that sub chose AOL to connect to the Internet. Michael, IMHO, correctly valued the ACCESS that T's costly cable infrastructure afforded the company & wasn't about to just hand Steve the spoils on a silver platter.
I raise this example, because, IMHO, this debate was about controlling CONTENT, and is illustrative why control over CONTENT is not necessarily controllable at the source, but in the age of digital distribution over the Internet will certainly extend to the medium over which the content is delivered.
So, is the medium the message? Well, it is to us here on LMT, and it arguably is part of the message when it concerns protection of copyrightable expression. |
