🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan25.120157.13410@waikato.ac.nz> ldo@waikato.ac.nz  
(Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Waikato University) writes:
> In article <81307@hydra.gatech.EDU>, jt34@prism.gatech.EDU  
(THOMPSON,JOHN C) writes:

> I would say further that "Interactive Multimedia" is splitting into two
> distinct varieties: the "traditional" variety, involving reliance on  
external
> hardware like laserdisc players and the like in the delivery platform,  
and
> (for want of a better term) the "desktop digital video" variety,  
exemplified
> by QuickTime and Video for Windows.
> 

I agree.  The "desktop digital video" variety (which the original
poster does not mention) brings up many issues that the original
poster does not have questions for.  For instance:

With networked multimedia:

1) Who manages the information?
2) Who creates the source material?
3) Who takes care of the copyright issues?
4) Who manages the network infrastructure (there are
   HUGE network provisioning and maintenance issues
   to deal with).
5) What network protocols will ultimately prevail
   for multimedia (e.g. ST-II, MTP, RTP, others?)
6) What network technologies will best be suited
   in both the short and long terms to handle
   multimedia traffic and traffic management (e.g.
   switched ethernet, ATM, FDDI, 100Mb/s ethernet)?

I wish that folks would get over the "computer as
control centre" paradigm.  Networking multimedia 
offers SO much more potential, and the sooner the user
community recognizes this, the sooner we can, as a group, 
start pressuring vendors to get serious about standards 
and politicians to get serious about rethinking copyright
in an electronic age.

Allen Robel                      robelr@mythos.ucs.indiana.edu
University Computing Services    ROBELR@IUJADE.BITNET
Network Research & Planning      voice: (812)855-7171
Indiana University               FAX:   (812)855-8299

"For every difficult and complicated question there is an answer that 
     is simple, easily understood, and wrong" -- H.L. Mencken