Post #258255 by otikiniko on Sun, Oct 1, 2006 2:40 PM

Unfortunately this type of thing exists, but in a weird way it may be coming to some sort of resolution naturally.

2 examples:

1. I saw Chris Anderson (Wired) speak earlier this year about "The Long Tail" his new book. Due to an ever increasing availability of information many subjects in both film and music are becoming more rarefied, which means less "broadcasting" of subjects and more "narrowcasting". With relation to Wal-Mart, the nations' largest media retailer (statistically) their selection is pre-determined by space, with more and more media out there their selection represents less and less of a true view of the marketplace, eventually the amount of selection at other venues invalidates their stake in the market. Granted, I believe they are wrong to censor, but I'm sure they validate it by stating that it's done to appease the values represented in their customer. I also think it should be stated up front to the customer that this is done, and quite often as with Blockbuster. I say, "Boycott Wal-Mart.", and believe me I do.

2. I have a friend who is editing for a company that goes through DVDs prior to encoding and adds digital markers to scenes depending on content. They are still in the beginning stages as a media provider, but the goal is to have media and media readers that will allow a parent or other admin to control the content that is played. As I understand it, they eventually plan to have these markers placed in all available media. This sounds a bit Orwellian to me, but like the v-chip and parental locks on cable I think that some parents need the ability to assure their kids don't see something they don't want 'em to. In a perfect world parents could discuss these things openly and rationally, but who can keep eyes on 'em all the time.

It's so strange thinking about how I was raised, what movies I saw as a kid, and how much has changed in such short time. Interesting subject no matter how you debate it.