LETTERS - Letter to the Editor

Industry Standard, The, June 11, 2001

"When was the last time you saw a privacy statement with a personal video recorder? How about a choice on how the [viewer] data that's uploaded can be used?"

SPECIAL TREATMENT UNDESERVED

I READ WITH DISDAIN THE PIECES ON BETtina Whyte and the so-called specialists [Net 21, May 28]. What is so special about these "specialists"? That they have the nerve to lay off loyal employees en masse, as if to suggest this will turn a company around?

Why would any company with any sort of medium- to long-term strategic vision bring on a CEO who won't stay longer than two years? It sounds to me like these "specialists" are really dressed-up butcher artists who leave the real challenges of creating a strategic plan to those with more intellect and pride.

Dean Myers

Principal

Dealey, Renton & Associates dmyers@insdra.com

I JUST READ THE NET 21 ARTICLES AND found most of the profiles interesting. However, when I came to Hilary Rosen's, I was shocked.

[Recording Industry Association of America President and CEO] Rosen is doing more to stifle the Internet Economy than any other single player today. She is trying to ring every last dollar out of the consumer, while working hard to share as little of that money with the artists who actually keep her in business. She has tried to manipulate the media into joining her in what she is trying to make out as the biggest threat to humanity: digital piracy.

Just because Rosen squeezes lemons and comes up with some form of lemonade doesn't mean it actually tastes good.

Jake McKee

Senior Producer

Lego Direct

sink@countersinkdg.com

YOU SAY YOUR NET 21 SELECTIONS ARE folks who have "survived, adapted and thrived." That may be an excessively rosy assessment for [test-prep company] Kaplan and its CEO, Jonathan Grayer.

What the article said was true enough, but it conveniently left out the fact that, according to published reports, Kaplan lost $42 million in the fiscal year ending Dec. 31, 2000. Another year like that and Grayer's "survival" may be in jeopardy.

Benedict Savage

Educator

sauvage316@teacher.com

PAUSE THE MADNESS

I AGREE THE CONCEPT OF PERSONAL VIDEO recorders is difficult to communicate ["A Fight for the Top of the TV," May 28], especially in 30-second ads. However, I think you underestimate the major concerns of consumers.

First, paying a monthly fee doesn't make sense. Why would I pay as much as $359 a year (after an initial cost of $400 to $500 for Ultimate TV) when I can get much of the [same] functionality with a VCR?

Another issue not even discussed is privacy. These devices have the potential not only to record what you watch and when you watch it, but also how you watch TV and then upload this data to the cable company. When was the last time you saw a privacy statement with a personal video recorder? How about a choice on how the data that's uploaded can be used?

There are additional factors that

make such a device unattractive, like the shelf space required to place another box around the TV next to an existing cable box, VCR and game console. Or even how to daisy-chain yet another piece of electronics to the myriad input and output connectors hanging out the back. Or the fact that many people don't have a phone jack near the TV. Not to mention that the average consumer has picked up monthly cellular, cable and Internet service charges in the past decade and is becoming sensitive to recurring fees.

Steve Engelbrecht

sengelbr@ix.netcom.com

TALK IS CHEAP, INSURANCE IS NOT

LEGISLATION WILL NOT ANSWER THE PROBlem of accidents caused by drivers yapping on their phones or using the soon-to-be-available wireless Internet devices ["Driving While Yapping," May 21]. The change will come when insurance companies step in.

Imagine the impact of a massive liability suit against the wireless provider and the phone manufacturer brought by a person injured by a driver who was talking on a cell phone at the time of the accident. Insurance claims will bring the negative economic externalities of cell phone use while driving -- costs now primarily borne by the victim -- back where they belong, to the yapping driver.

David Geddes

Senior VP and Partner

Fleishman-Hillard geddesd@fleishman.com

COPYRIGHTTHUGS-AND HUGS

LAWRENCE LESSIG'S "COPYRIGHT THUGS" [May 14] points out the legal conflict between the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and fair use, but I believe [it] also points to a technical absurdity in the Recording Industry Association of America's interpretation of the law.

As you recall, Prof. Edward Felten's team spent a few weeks cracking the Secure Digital Music Initiative's codes. But imagine that instead of taking that much time to break the codes, Felten's team had done it in twice the time. This would not seem to change the RIAA's legal position -- it still would have blocked the team from publishing, though it may have felt better about the SDMI codes.

Now let's go the other direction: Imagine that Felten's team had cracked the codes in half the time. Seems like the RIAA would not have changed its position.

From everything I understand, the RIAA's legal position would still apply. Now go a step further, and imagine that not only could Felten et al. break these codes easily, but that you or I could as well.