...[neo-liberal style] financialization means you must be charged for an ever growing list of transactions, which requires monitoring and control on an unprecedented scale.
what I had in mind is something very much like this -
from Ars Technica at
<http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/analog-hole.ars>
MPAA looks to bolster its dominance by plugging the analog hole
By Ken "Caesar" Fisher
<snip>
Fair Use has always been a thorn in the side of content producers. Long before there was digital content flowing through the veins of the 'Net, there were battles over what was and was not permissible with content. The advent of tape recorders caused a shockwave. VHS and Betamax exacerbated the arguments, but the courts for the most part defended the rights of consumers. Now it's 2004, and most of the media is ignoring the real drive behind DRM. It's not piracy. It's our old pal, Fair Use.
For the first time in history, we can copy content and distribute it over massive global networks. We can put copies on every device we own, and we can even modify the content to suit our own needs. But more important, and don't miss this now, for the first time in history, the content producers and distributors have a technological way of shutting off Fair Use through contract language, DRM technology, and anti-circumvention laws. I've said it before and I'll say it again: DRM is not about piracy, it's about shutting down fair use. It makes a lot of sense when you start thinking about DRM being Sonny Bono's twin brother. It's one of the key pieces of that horrid affront to the progress of civilization: the perpetual copyright.
These laws aren't about piracy, and anyone who thinks they are needs to stop, look, and listen. Once the MPAA and pals have their way, you're going to pay through the nose for even the most basic of Fair Use rights. You're going to pay for the right to rewind and "re-experience" content. The Copy Prohibited Content class, complete with its asinine insta-delete feature is nothing but a back door into attacking what the content industry hates most: your ability to timeshift content. Yes, Jack Valenti said the VCR would destroy Hollywood, and while these moonbats no longer believe that, they do know that the rhetoric works.
Someday, if the MPAA gets its way, you are going to pay for the right to timeshift (or for the right to placeshift). You are going to pay for the right to move videos to your iPod or to your PSP. No one cares if you spent US$20 on that Blu-ray disc. In 5 years, you'll be lucky if you can even play stuff you've purchased without relicensing it. Look at ringtones. Here we're talking about a related industry that wants to scare people into paying for ringtones, even if they already have an album with the song they want on it. Ringtones! Are you kidding me?
[...]
Technology now makes it possible to create transaction points that were scarcely dreamed of before. The long term goal seems to be turning the entertainment industry into an immense rentier (or, more precisely, a rentier on a distributed scale not seen before ).
The software industry is also moving in this direction - more "services" for rent, less product you actually own.
.d.