I would offer to play the world's smallest violin, but I don't have the rights to any appropriate music.

My brother writes for TV. There is quite an age difference between us; he's older. The industry still does not fully comprehend the Internet as it relates to its future. The other day we were having dinner and my brother said he wishes he could just cut the middlemen (the producers/networks) out of the equation and become a distributor on the Internet himself. He's tired of being creatively limited by their vision -- or lack-there-of.

He was surprised when I said that it was well within his ability to do this already. Not in a "woohoo I put up my own website with my own shows" kind of way, but in a "I have become my own virtual CDN via EC2 et al" kind of way. He argued that would simply make Amazon and the infrastructure providers into the new middlemen. Perhaps, though that might be like saying that my computer use is being held hostage by the electrical company. In theory it is, but in practice it does not feel like the very exploitive sort of middle management that exists in the entertainment industry.

I've done some work for this industry and the key point you have to understand is that, whereas "Can we accomplish this?" is a matter of technological feasibility to us hackers, it means something entirely different to entertainment industry folks. To them, it is more of a legal matter. The whole industry is mired in a complex web of contracts governing every detailed aspect of intellectual property. So, when we scoff at how long it took the networks to get something like Hulu up on the Internet, understand it was a bunch of lawyers holding up the process. Then, when you get around some of the service's limitations (e.g., geoblocking) understand that too, was a dumb legal requirement. Everyone involved knows these restrictions are circumventable but, they must be in place for the existing contracts not to have to be re-negotiated.

Talk to anyone that's worked on the iTunes infrastructure. From what I gather, at least initially, getting an album onto the iTMS involved dozens of contracts. It made getting an iPhone application onto the App Store a cakewalk in comparison.

Where a startup could provide tremendous value, it would be in overcoming the legal hurdles to distributing content on the Internet. Spend the money on the lawyers to setup all the contracts that you need, so you can get unsigned artists onto your content distribution network, but more-or-less play by the rules of the current industry. These people are afraid of change, so you don't want to come out of left field in the way you operate. Then, when you become the new boss of the industry, tear down the stupid legal constraints that stifle creativity and innovation, and makes the Internet pretend to be something it is not.

The networks are vulnerable. Writers, actors, and other workers hate working for them because they take huge cuts of revenue and then play accounting games to take an even larger portion. There's a reason the unions there are so strong. They're united in their hatred of the middlemen. On the other side of the coin, us consumers hate the networks too. Most of us are tired of their antics.

So, any startup willing to take on this challenge would have a friendly set of content suppliers, and a captive audience. Just get yourself the best lawyers you can probably find, because you will need them ;)

We might experience something like Japan's "lost decade" of the 1990s. I expect that, actually. But we'd live through it. My all-time favorite pair of HN comments was the question and answer I saw I think before I signed up here, when I was lurking for interesting discussions.

Q: Anyone here lived through the Japan depression care to share their experiences with us?

A: It was terrible. People were forced to eat raw fish for sustenance. They couldn't get full-sized electronics, so they were forced to make tiny ones. Unable to afford proper entertainment, folks would make do by taking turns to get up and sing songs.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=328685

Thank you for your extension of job oportunity. Firm my am working with have many done dozens of dating sites of clients on rentacoder.com, scriptlane.com and others. Complete dating site, best feature, turn key, all satisfied guarantee. Our team of 47 programmers in Mumbai waiting to start for your command. Total cost will be $150 USD.

I love this. If everyone did this, then Microsoft would lose the power to do whatever it wanted. Standards compliance would not be optional for them anymore. I hope this is a trend that continues.

How insensitive! I have 5 years of experience with Python/Ruby/Perl/PHP/SQL/LISP/C/C#/.NET/CSS/HMTL/JS/Ajax, but now I feel totally over-qualified for this gig.

"[2] Copyright owners tend to focus on the aspect they see of piracy, which is the lost revenue. They therefore think what drives users to do it is the desire to get something for free. But iTunes shows that people will pay for stuff online, if you make it easy. A significant component of piracy is simply that it offers a better user experience."

Man, is this ever true. I like to watch tennis a lot - which, being a niche sport, is often not on TV. The memphis finals were televised in some places, but not others. There was a web stream, but dig this - it was not available in the US because of broadcasting rights. And it was limited to PCs (not Mac's)!

So I'm thinking about anti-piracy efforts, including a lot of moralizing about how piracy is the equivalent of stealing (which, in some cases, it may well be). A network bought coverage, declined to air it in my area, but also banned a web feed that I would have gladly paid for, but with DRM that prevents it from working on my Mac.

But I shouldn't watch a rogue feed, because Piracy would be, you know, wrong. I should just be a passive viewer and decide to enjoy what the network decided I should be watching that day.

Keep in mind, I'm more than willing to pay. I'm trying to pay.

Right, no one would ever want the prospect of humor in their future.

I see this has been answered several times already, but I'm not sure it has been laid out plain and simple:

The first $250K any American makes gets taxed at exactly the same rate. For everybody. It's the same for any value -- Bill Gates pays exactly the same tax rate on the first $50K he makes in a year as I do. The rates go up for successively higher values -- your first n dollars may not be taxed at all; then your next n dollars is taxed at a low amount, and successively higher. These bottom rates will not change no matter how much your total income is.

When they talk about raising the tax rate for people that make more than a certain value, they are talking only about taxes on the money OVER that value. So only your 250001st dollar gets taxed at the higher rate -- as will every other dollar you make on top of that. The tax rate for the rest of your money will not change at all.

This is a big extrapolation of intent from a single paragraph of a very long, carefully-crafted letter. Absent from this analysis are all the grafs where Buffett explained why the bailout was the correct course of action.

It's you. This is satire.

> we're not really entitled to escape banner advertising.

"Oh, really?" I type into my heavily modded Firefox browser because some computer graphics give me brain seizures. (Too bad I cannot log into HN from my Lynx browser.)

Last time I checked, the industry term for a browser is "user agent," and page rendering is under the control of the user agent. I can use whatever user agent I want, and so can you. I can fiddle with my user agent as I see fit, and so can you. That's what your browser's Options dialog is for.

Sorry I'm getting really testy here, but I get tired of pointing out to the world that it's the user who is in control, not marketers, not page designers, not Yahoo! CSS Reset...

This is many years premature. It may come to pass, but is nowhere near that now. TV is still by far the most common way of watching television shows (and watching television shows is still the most common way of wasting time) and overall viewership is increasing every year. This trend doesn't seem to be changing for a few reasons.

1) TV screens are much bigger and cheaper. They don't need the resolution a monitor does. Watching on a small screen is something you're happy to be able to do on a plane, but would never want to do on a day to day basis.

2) Bandwidth is still not there, especially for HDTV, and progress seems to be stalled. I still have pretty much the same connection for the same price that I did 5 years ago, and I'll likely still have it in 5 years from now. Mark Cuban talks about this a lot. Fiber to the premises may solve this one soon for some subset of the country, but by no means everyone.

3) Live television is nearly non-existent online. It can't handle it. The bandwidth to stream the Superbowl to everyone who wants it doesn't exist. Sports are a huge part of the TV viewing audience.

4) Many people like to watch shows as soon as they're released. The internet is terrible for this. I personally download mine, but I do so knowing that I'm always going to be watching the Daily Show from 2 days ago. If I were a TV addict (i.e. normal American) that would be unacceptable.

5) Content quality is better than ever. Single camera sitcoms, pay channel dramas, reality tv (if you're into that). Almost everyone agrees this is a golden era of television.

If you really think that more people are watching TV on a computer than on a good old-fashioned TV, you need to come down from your Silicon Valley mountain for a while.