> I see all these pushes for regulation as red herrings that will likely result in cementing the current leaders in place.
The unfortunate truth is that the large corporations were going to do this with or without the legislation - that's a separate largely independently issue.
At the core, scale and control over data ultimately make or break these technologies, and large players (hiring the few talents capable of properly utilizing these technologies) are simply better equipped to leverage the markets.
The difference being, intent and public commons. At least with the legislation, public commons do not become fair game for corporate plundering, just as the public cannot (legally) plunder the "corporate" data.
Without the legislation, the corporate simply own and control all your data, without much explicit work on your part both technically and legally to defend your rights.
> I'm part of the limewire and BitTorrent generation
Myself as well - however this is where intent comes into play. Bringing data into the "public" commons as quickly and often as possible is most useful for the public, not corporations. Obviously, some of those public are in the employ of the corporate, however generally the intent of said generation was to "pirate, then buy". All studies on the matter showed this was true - free advertising and increased sales (for large scale ventures at least). Smaller vendors had trouble recouping costs, it is true, however attempts were made to build in compensation mechanisms for these cases as well.
In both cases, what is common is the intent to most broadly benefit the public, either through legislation (which is intended to serve the public interests) or through broadening the commons (which is intended to serve the public interests). In both cases, the technology employed suffered(suffers) gaping harmful holes that may not be possible to address except by some form of legislation/recompense.
The fact that corporations can and will exploit legal frameworks should not however, be a reason to think of all such efforts as "red herrings".
The unfortunate truth is that the large corporations were going to do this with or without the legislation - that's a separate largely independently issue.
At the core, scale and control over data ultimately make or break these technologies, and large players (hiring the few talents capable of properly utilizing these technologies) are simply better equipped to leverage the markets.
The difference being, intent and public commons. At least with the legislation, public commons do not become fair game for corporate plundering, just as the public cannot (legally) plunder the "corporate" data.
Without the legislation, the corporate simply own and control all your data, without much explicit work on your part both technically and legally to defend your rights.
> I'm part of the limewire and BitTorrent generation
Myself as well - however this is where intent comes into play. Bringing data into the "public" commons as quickly and often as possible is most useful for the public, not corporations. Obviously, some of those public are in the employ of the corporate, however generally the intent of said generation was to "pirate, then buy". All studies on the matter showed this was true - free advertising and increased sales (for large scale ventures at least). Smaller vendors had trouble recouping costs, it is true, however attempts were made to build in compensation mechanisms for these cases as well.
In both cases, what is common is the intent to most broadly benefit the public, either through legislation (which is intended to serve the public interests) or through broadening the commons (which is intended to serve the public interests). In both cases, the technology employed suffered(suffers) gaping harmful holes that may not be possible to address except by some form of legislation/recompense.
The fact that corporations can and will exploit legal frameworks should not however, be a reason to think of all such efforts as "red herrings".