@Danny_Fr

Now the Home Of FirePork. For the Greater Good and Milder Evil.

2010: The Internet Wars - Something wrong about DRMs

Here is the second part on the Internet Wars series, where I take a look into the near future and tell you all, beloved readers, why the obvious is bad for what you have.

Today, DRMs and copyrights

DRM is not a new technology, we already all enjoy downloading files that get tethered to our computer, in-copy-able and mostly overpriced. We also (well many of us) enjoy downloading or encoding ourselves DRM free media, most of the time illegally.

Copyrights VS Users is an old story, with the Jammie Thomas case as its best know issue.

What's going to change this year?

The Obvious:
Now e-books are coming to hold the front lines of download-able content along with music, video and games we will see some interesting web-literature emerging to face a wider public, I am talking about pro and anti copyright rants. There will be big headlines such as this one, depicting the fight between authors, publisher, on line shops and off course users. So to speak, many people are going to have it bad over the e-book free for all.

The Less Obvious:
Unless you're spending your days downloading songs, you're not to worry about copyright laws, and for all I know, many among us don't really give an intercourse in a blimp about them.
This is going to change. The book reading crowd is somewhat different from the massive music download crowd. The difference is not only about converging/diverging interest or culture, but also about the access to the media and buyers/downloaders habits.

A hard cover book is easier to share in real life. Book readers are used to pass books to one another, sell and buy them is used books shops. Books are one of the most tangible part of mankind's culture.

A song is easier to transfer to a computer. Even if you have to encode a whole album, you won't need more than an internet connection and an encoding software. You insert your CD, press the button and let the music play. From there, you can distribute them via a plethora of means.

A song is easier to buy than a book. For the main reason that you can preview it. You can't preview a book, you have to rely on other people's opinions, or your past experience of reading a particular author.

A book is time consuming. "I've listened to all their albums" and "I've read all his book" occupy a drastically different space-time. You can listen to anything while driving, don't try reading.

For all these reasons, the book buyers are harder to please than music buyers, much more critic and most of all are still (may it last) clinging to the idea that a book is a physical belonging, bought once, appreciated and shared.

This 'new' public to content download will not take kindly (pun unintended) things like content providers fiddling with their electronic libraries and spying their transactions. They will want availability, because that's what e-books providers will use as a main argument, low prices, because there is no paper involved and freedom of use, because that's what a book is all about.

So yes, many complains to be expected, a major case or two during the second quarter, many changes in end user agreements, an people will get better informed about DRM's.

The Risky:
The MCA might be modified, and I see a whole debate about the tangibility of digital content such as music and books approaching. A whole new approach of personal digital property might be applied. There is going to be a lot of change.

The Outcome:
The Jamie Thomas case outcome will mark a milestone in the copyright laws history, it will be one of the decisive factors for the media labels and publisher to act in favor or against the freedom of data. It will either be catastrophic, and prices and limitation of use will raise against the will of the consumer, either reasonable, and labels/published will have to understand the the crowd might become tired of being presumed guilty.

Keep tuned for the following articles of The Internet Wars

  • Augmented reality - The gadgets attack
  • Google - Why it needs to evolve
  • Apple VS Google - We're caught in the middle
  • The Fall of Firefox
  • Privacy - Will you still have any?
  • Online marketing's deceptions
And already on the shelves:

Social Media Fatigue - Geolocation Gold Rush


Follow me on Twitter

Internet will burn your books. Or forget them. Or something.

I don't know if I can make it really long or informative, It's my 30th hour without sleep...
But...

There is a debate going on, I'm tempted to say lately, but it's been several years now, and I feel it's just surfacing. Behold Print Media Vs Digital Media!

What made me want to write this post is this article on eff.org, which makes great sense and can be summed up in just one quote:

Anyone who claims that readers can’t and won’t and shouldn’t own their books are bent on the destruction of the book
For reference, there is my old rant about the Amazon Kindle where I explain why the device is bad, why it spies on you and why it robs you from your rights as a reader and as a consumer.

To my mind it goes even further than that. First off, print and digital media are fighting a battle that will only leave losers, it's already happening by the way, with Google attempting to limit the access to free news. Then, print media are so scared to lose their precious advertisers that they try competing on the long lost ground of the instant info.Digital media, on the other end, are brawling about content producing and space filling, and end up publishing top10s after top10s.

The truth is, now it's begun, we need digital media, as much as the audience crave for information. Everything moves fast, everybody reacts fast, the Holy Buzz travels faster than physically possible, and we need to keep track of that. Why, because information is togetherness, is community, is social acknowledgment, and us humans need it, it's in out genes.

The truth is, we still need print media. So much for the trees, I know, but we need print media. One reason is that trends and moods need time to form, situations are not formed instantly but are the result of a process of thoughts and actions, and, well, you know, you analyze the game after it's over... during the game, you comment it. Print media are good at that, they can afford to take more time, to investigate the topic and to spare us the effort of analysis, giving the prerogative to people who, more often than not it you read Time or Newsweek, know what they are writing about.

Yet there is another reason.

Have you tried to read a floppy disk recently? That's what I'm talking about. Now we are comfortable with our hard disks and pen drives, and trans-flash and... and all the information, petabytes of data, is totally unreadable without the proper material... Soon will be time for the Qubit and quantum computing, and our current storage systems will be obsolete.
I can read my grandmother's diary. I can read a 200 years old book.
I cannot read a 20 years old floppy. Even if my whole genealogy is in it, I can't access it.

I'm perplex about all that. Information can't be kept in, now less than ever, especially for a mercantile purpose. But it's raw information we are talking about, and a good analysis over this info is priceless and deserves a durable, non versatile medium.

Sooner or later, "they" will probably realize it too...wait and see...

Follow me on Twitter

E-Books readers: Potential tool for the Thought Police.

This Christmas, Amazon have been selling more kindle than physical books.

For those who still don't know the kindle is an e-book reader, you can access to an online library and download your e-books, and do everything you'd to usually except maybe reading in the bath.
I hate the product, deeply, due to very shady terms of use, I've blogged about it before.

It kills me to know that while privacy is becoming a major topic, which will probably be buzzing all around the web in 2010, people still fall for a device that spies on everything you read.

According to the chart on eff.org, the Kindle is not the only guilty one here, Google Books and the BnB Nook are also sharing information about your readings... to third party service providers.

Who are the third party service providers? I just wish it's not a potential future Independent Bureau Of Thought Correctness...

Well, just wait, see, and hope New Moon is never made illegal.


Follow me on Twitter

Apple wants to DRM your sneakers, your pants, your pets and possibly your family -in-law.

Ok, the family in law is probably not for tomorrow. Nonetheless the sneakers are the real deal. Apple want to DRM them.

I read it on Slashdot ( - First Source here- ) a couple of hours ago, and I can't resist ranting over it. You'll have to understand that Apple owe me a surgery: I blow my diaphragm every time I read something about them.

But enough beating around the bush, here is the story :

In June 2006, Apple announces a new function for their iPods : a sensor paired with your Nike shoes which let your music player become your "personal trainer" (I wonder if the iThing iKicks you in the soft parts if you are not running fast enough).

Some shoes geeks have, of course, found a way to remove the sensor from its special "insole pocket" an place it wherever they'd want, including on other shoes.

Here comes the funny part: Apple don't like their things touched by other people, Apple don't like when user actually use their product, Apple like when their users keep their products in a frame and stare at it until they get iHigh.

So Apple apply for a patent to render such act of barbarism illegal, they DRM your shoes.

Sit down, and read that :

"Some people," the patent application observes, "have taken it upon themselves to remove the sensor from the special pocket of the [iPod-linked] Nike+ shoe and place it at inappropriate locations (shoelaces, for example) or place it on non-Nike+ model shoes."

It seems that they really consider getting half the planet against them.
Google builds open source products.
Amazon distributes DRM free mp3.
Sony, Philips, Intel and Microsoft amongst others, form a "Buy once play everywhere" alliance... And what does Apple do ?

Apple bundle Quicktime with iTunes (personal grudge here).
Apple air an extremely frustrating locked iPhone and a year after, air the same product just faster, cheaper, 3G capable and, yes with WPA2 problems (just Google it), and yes refusing third party applications because they could compete with their own.

And now they want to DRM your sneakers.

But hey, Digital Right Management is here to manage your rights after all...

Technorati Tags: Apple, iDiot, WTF,
DRM

RIAA : fine, fine...

Yup.

According to this article on slashdot, it seem that the magistrates are beginning to have enough of the RIAA masquerade.
Take a look :

"Angered at the RIAA's 'gamesmanship' in joining multiple 'John Does' in a single case without any basis for doing so, a Magistrate Judge in Maine has suggested to the presiding District Judge in Arista v. Does 1-27 that the record companies and/or their lawyers should be fined under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules, for misrepresenting the facts. In a lengthy footnote to her opinion recommending denial of a motion to dismiss the complaint (PDF, see footnote 5), Judge Kruvchak concluded that 'These plaintiffs have devised a clever scheme to obtain court-authorized discovery prior to the service of complaints, but it troubles me that they do so with impunity and at the expense of the requirements of Rule 11(b)(3) because they have no good faith evidentiary basis to believe the cases should be joined.' She noted that once the RIAA dismisses its 'John Doe' case it does not thereafter join the defendants when it sues them in their real names. Arista v. Does 1-27 is the same case in which student attorneys at the University of Maine Law School, "enthusiastic about being directly connected to a case with a national scope and significance", are representing undergrads targeted by the RIAA."

I suggest forcing the lads to listen to Brit's new single 2747 times per John Doe added. Migt cure their pre-Alzheimer though.

Hate the kindle together.

You've read me before, you might know I don't really understand the Kindle buzz.

I've been a bit farther than wandering round the bush, and took a look at he the licence agreement and terms of use.

Now I'm (almost) scared, and if anything, really puzzled. And mildly berzerk, too.
See by yourself :

Amazon grants you the non-exclusive right to keep a permanent copy of the applicable Digital Content and to view, use, and display such Digital Content an unlimited number of times, (1)solely on the Device or as authorized by Amazon as part of the Service and solely for your personal, non-commercial use.
[...]
(2)You may not sell, rent, lease, distribute, broadcast, sublicense or otherwise assign any rights to the Digital Content or any portion of it to any third party, and you may not remove any proprietary notices or labels on the Digital Content.
[...]
Annotations, bookmarks, notes, highlights, or similar markings you make in your Device are (3) backed up through the Service. Information we receive is subject to the Amazon.com Privacy Notice.

(1) Whould it mean that I cannot transfer my e-books from a Kindle to another ? What if I want to transfer my files before reselling the thing ? What if I want to back them up ?

(2) Would it mean that I can't share my readings anymore ? Information, culture, literature, all that in a plastic hermetic vault for the sole use of him who pays ? I have always bought used books, and more often than never, I've given them away for my great pleasure, the pleasure of sharing. I would have to give it all away and pay for it ? Oh, and, probably, forget anything about the Kindle replacing school manuals.

(3) Amazon lives in a wonderful world where Amazon decides of our rights to share culture and knowledge, and uses the information we send them at will. Amazon has a caring eye, who will lead us to better readings, and eventually Amazon will know us better than our own family without us asking.

Here are is the privacy notice they provide, since I didn't find a world about the Kindle, I still don't know if buying it gives them the right to eavesdrop our phone lines.

What really disgusts me is the copywrong mentality creeping under every aspect of our culture. We've had trouble with music, movie, softwares... and now, the only thing left with less issues than usual, the very medium that freed the masses and spread consciousness among mankind, the book, is targeted not only with venal intentions but also the will to control and monitor.

I am not completely afraid, since DRM based content's success is currently free-falling, and users seem to have had enough with this kind of totalitarian restrictions. Nontheless, I wouldn't use this device even if it was given away.

As a bonus, I give you this very interesting link about the Kindle, 1984 and our rights as readers, this other link to amazon's return policy, and a new logo that would really fit them if it didn't take two "Z" (yes I am currently being irritated, and I blow my nose at the Godwin point).

Media_httpimg338image_pjsav


Technorati Tags: , , ,

Powered by ScribeFire.

Shame In Rainbows

Long, again, so... bullet points :

  • Last Radiohead album is available for free
  • Still, people torrent the songs using a wide range of arguments
  • This fact reinforce the idea that user are "bad" as well as not giving credits to he band's endeavor.

For those who haven't followed last week's news, In Rainbows is the last album from the band Radiohead.

This album has the particularity to be available online, at whatever price you want to pay.
(The first time I got the news it was there)

Yup, you've read it right. You can chose to pay nothing, it wont matter.

So why haven't I been blogging about that before ? Because I wanted to know what it was all bout, I wanted to see what would happen before going down the street and scream in frenetic ataraxia.

Well I was right, now I have something more consistent to blog about than "music revolution whatever".
That's true, this process is a revolution, it's a first time, and it's much more responsible than saying "Meh dun like der copywait, meh frienleh singar".

But then, this page tell me that an uber lot of people are doing nothing with the so called revolution and downloading it via torrent as just another Nelly Furtado single.

Woah, that's a lot of polemic here. And I see a lot of arguments, pro and cons, and to me mind a whole lot of it are definitely shallow and hypocritical, particularly the pro torrent.

  • Pros torrent says : You have to pay anyway, a small minimum fee but you have to pay.

What the... ? Where have you been to download the stuff ? I did it, right, just to see if it was right, and you don't have to pay a dime. It's FREE !

Or maybe you are talking about the CD shipped version. Well, you don't expect them to pay the handling fees do you ?


  • Pros torrent says : The compression is only 160kbps.
Yeah, and for free, over the internet (Do you know that traffic is not free ? Do you know they, Radiohead, actually pay for it while you are complaining ?). What do you want more, a chocolate bar and a goodnight kiss ?


  • Pros torrent says : The site was overloaded, difficult, and they asked to many personal info.

That's the "best of the best... of the best, with honors" So you couldn't try ? I've been there and anybody with more patience than the basic hyperactive puppy can download the stuff. There is a minor cookie problem, but I assume that if you disabled them you know why you did it and how to enable them back, right ?

Then if the site was really that slow, you couldn't wait a week to get the tune ? Really, were you so starving ? If you are such a huge fan why don't you order the disk ?

And don' say anything about the personal info, it's not as if they checked on it, visiting you at night to ask you questions...


  • Pros torrent says : You are missing the point, they don't care if you torrent it.
Obviously we are.

Can I call you airhead ?

Don't you see that the RIAA and a lot of stupid media are targeting the users ? Do you forget that the WE are the people looked at as pirates ? So that's how we must show the industry we are responsible ? Even if we have the possibility to get something for free, we have to show an obvious lack of respect to the band as well as reinforcing the idea that Usars Is Der Evil ?

Someone said that they would have done better to provide a torrent link on the page with a donation box.

Well they didn't and that's their choice.

All I know, and you can give any argument you like, is that :

  1. You are not paying them any tribute but getting their music by torrent, you are just acting as if it was another major's p00p

  2. You are attracting the eyes of all the MAFIAA and all the people that thing we should charge 220.000$ for a bunch of songs regardless of if you are a parallel industry magnate or a single mother.
So don't complain next time someone says or writes about users being irresponsible, because now this is a proved fact.

Wake up people !


Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Powered by ScribeFire.