That said, the there is a tilt towards the second idea in some areas where perhaps it would be prudent of us to invest more in the public space model, or in other ways shape things more to our liking.
As the infrastructure changes the dominating idea shapes it.
As an example there used to be (and stills is, but the change is evident) vendors selling music recordings. Vinyl, tape, cd. The market traded in tangible artifact that could change owner, could be copied (legally or not) could be put in a library and lent out.
In Sweden we even pay a special copy compensation tax when buying any device with storage capacity to tunnel some money towards “content creators” in support of this distribution form.
However as the technology has shifted, allowing for direct streaming, the trading of artifacts has disappeared. The laws and economic realities now promote a market with fewer vendors offering only a limited catalogue of recordings, and only in a form that can never leave their control effectively.
This is only an example. And I think this particular one is mostly about reviewing the legal landscape.
Another example might be how protocols like RSS, XMPP, SMTP was used for interoperability and allow different vendors to offer compatible services. As things shift, this time perhaps more due to economic realities, the dominating tendency is still to erode interoperability and dominating players shape the technology towards their more siloed reality. Perhaps we need more tax funded players, (public service?), simply competing and collaborating to tilt things back again.
As the infrastructure changes the dominating idea shapes it.
As an example there used to be (and stills is, but the change is evident) vendors selling music recordings. Vinyl, tape, cd. The market traded in tangible artifact that could change owner, could be copied (legally or not) could be put in a library and lent out.
In Sweden we even pay a special copy compensation tax when buying any device with storage capacity to tunnel some money towards “content creators” in support of this distribution form.
However as the technology has shifted, allowing for direct streaming, the trading of artifacts has disappeared. The laws and economic realities now promote a market with fewer vendors offering only a limited catalogue of recordings, and only in a form that can never leave their control effectively.
This is only an example. And I think this particular one is mostly about reviewing the legal landscape.
Another example might be how protocols like RSS, XMPP, SMTP was used for interoperability and allow different vendors to offer compatible services. As things shift, this time perhaps more due to economic realities, the dominating tendency is still to erode interoperability and dominating players shape the technology towards their more siloed reality. Perhaps we need more tax funded players, (public service?), simply competing and collaborating to tilt things back again.