| Here Lies TV |
[Jul. 11th, 2009|04:45 pm] |
At Mumbai's International Telecommunication Union - Asia-Pacific Institute for Broadcasting Development (ITU-AIBD), the MPAA and it's cronies have been discussing locking down future TV broadcasts. They are now mortally terrified of their A-hole emissions reaching the tubosphere. As ever, there is a deep irony in organisations that make their business delivering content going so far out of their way to prevent people from receiving it:
Conax AS International Product marketing manager Vidar Sandvik advocated "scrambling" for FTA [Free To Air] broadcasting. He cited Netherlands and Poland where 100% cable saturation did not prevent terrestrial television from thriving. In Poland where FTA had 30% of the market, FTA broadcasters added video-on-demand in HD, increasing value for consumers, and ensuring no leaks to the Net. Let the pay-TV operator subsidise the set-top box, he said, and then control box quality for content protection. As for cost, set-top box vendors paid nothing for Conax hardware, he said. Scrambling Free to Air? Isn't that just Free to View? It's like suggesting vegetarian food should contain more meat. And "ensuring no leaks to the Net"? Oh, I seriously doubt that.
Licensing set-top box production and preventing consumers from becoming broadcasters, but enabling them to receive, store and do home networking are some rules that regulators should lay down to protect content, concluded Williams. He recommended making content protection cheaper by going completely digital. "Why do you need analog outputs?" he asks. And there it is, who needs that festering analogue wound in the side of every receiver, spilling our digital goodness into the cupping hands of those evil pirates? Clearly the digital changeover in the US went so well that it was obviously just too easy. This time people should be forced to buy new TVs as well! Admittedly, this is the satellite TV industry talking, and they do have a habit of claiming special excuses for acting like the owners of content rather than merely the transmitters - kind of like the guy who delivers your new washing machine scratching his name on the front of it then hanging around and asking for money every time you want to use it.
Yeah, I think that's enough analogies for this weekend.
Over the last few years I've been watching TV die. Even after going out of my way to get satellite because it was the only way to get a reliable service out here in the woods, I've found myself watching less and less. It is a rare occasion indeed for me to actually sit down and watch a show from beginning to end. When I miss a show that I intended to watch there is no more "aw crap!" reaction that I recall from the past. On more than one occasion I've found myself with remote in my hand, staring at the listings and thinking "even though there is a show I thought I wanted to see, I can't actually be bothered to set up a recording." The new relationship with TV appears to be one of opportunistic sampling - when particularly bored or put out by some other medium or project I might turn on and watch whatever can be found that is the least anti-intellectual. Then, an hour later, It'll be turned off. So delicate is this connection that sometimes a show will be turned off, not because it's dull or offensive, but because having to turn down the ads to an acceptable volume every fifteen minutes is more annoying that the show is interesting.
Another thing that leads to this general malaise is that the listings are becoming a serious impediment to viewing. Despite having access to an accurate schedule for every available channel for the next seven days I can honestly say that for weeks now I have not looked at more than the next three hours in that "wall of worthless" for any channel. In a world of ballooning lateral access, locating anything of value on linear TV has become too much of a chore for too little entertainment.
So what the hell happened? Is it me? Or could it be the content, could it actually be less entertaining than it used to be? Or rather, has it stopped evolving in line my expectations of innovation? If this were multiple choice I think we'd check that last one.
The problem appears to be one of homogenisation - every channel, regardless of their original remit, wants to reach the largest possible audience. So if one type of programming draws a greater audience then every channel will want that type of programming. And so we have 24 hours of make-over and pimping shows on what used to be called "Music Television", and we even have reality TV on the SciFi channel... sorry that will be "SyFy" for the US viewers:
SyFy: where we're going, we won't need "i"s The reason for this fuss over the locking down of a medium that is rapidly dipping below the horizon of relevance is because we can see a whole lot of defectors of this nature having a serious impact on viewing figures. The subsequent drop in advertising revenue will no doubt be blamed on illicit distribution of the same content that we can't be bothered to watch. Naturally, the finger will be pointed at the Internet. With Ireland already facing a de facto Three-strikes law and Internet censorship over music distribution, such attention is only going to add to the troubles. That the MPAA et al are deciding amongst themselves to further break our already compromised personal technology is a damning signal of both their mortally ill business and our own complacency over their power.
End result: an industry that produces something dull that we don't care about is trying to control us because we don't particularly want their product any more. The sounds of their desperate scrabbling for power are not unfamiliar. |
|
|
| TripeFi |
[Jul. 8th, 2009|09:46 pm] |
For some reason (masochism, or perhaps atonement for unspecified sins) I sat and watched the greater part of SciFi's Polar Storm, staring Jack Coleman of Heroes fame.
I think I can accurately communicate the amount of sense this made-for-TV tripe made by quoting a single line of dialogue:"I saw an EM wave in the sky!" ...
A rapid google suggests that there is no one who was pleased with this sorry offering.
Examples from the upper echelons of the literary SF genre would tend to suggest that the convergence of writing ability and scientific understanding in a single author is not unreasonable. So why is it that we get so few science and science fiction movies and series that even make an attempt at some level of cogency? |
|
|
| Dark Days Ahead for Irish Internet Users |
[Jun. 22nd, 2009|04:59 pm] |
| [ | Tags | | | censorship, copyright, internet, ireland, irma, music, net neutrality, rant, riaa, technology, three strikes | ] |
Just to catch you up. This year my ISP, Eircom.net, settled a dispute with the Irish Recorded Music Ass. (IRMA) who had taken them to court over illegal file sharing. The claim was that Eircom were complicit in the illegal activities of their users. the evidence against them included internal emails showing Eircom execs joking about copyright infringement.
The out of court settlement, so far as anyone can tell, is entirely one-sided. Eircom have agreed to institute both content filtering - censorship by any other name - and a three-strikes rule - very like the situation promised by the recently defeated EU Telecoms Package. The Industry Ass. will put forward to the courts websites and online services that they feel need to be blocked in Ireland to protect their profit margins and Eircom have agreed not to contest any of them. A sorry little MediaSentry wannabe called DTecNet is in place to monitor internet users and provide accusations which Eircom will be asked to act upon by disconnecting those accused without any room for appeal. Remember, this is the same monitoring technique that lead the RIAA to sue a woman who did not even own a computer! Also keep in mind that this is a private arrangement, there is no public consultation, no democratic or judicial process, no tests for legality or constitutionality. This is the Recording Industry successfully inserting a de facto law without any need to lobby politicians or campaign for public support.
Fine, I'll ditch Eircom in a heartbeat, and I'll be sure to let them know exactly why I, and no doubt many other customers are jumping what has become the Recording Industry patrol boat to man the cruise liner across the dock. I'm thinking I'll sign up with UPC, an international company that bought out NTL and Chorus and that offer better stats for a similar price.
But there's a problem...
Since their success with Eircom the Irish Recorded Music Ass. has been sending threatening letters to all the other ISPs operating in the country (and a few that aren't ISPs at all) offering the same arrangement they offered Eircom and backed by the same threats of legal action. In fact both BT Ireland and UPC are already facing legal proceedings over this.
Eircom is the largest telecoms operator in the Republic, the one-time monopoly holder, their pockets are as deep as they get in the local industry. Even they could not face the legal avalanche that the Recording Industry promised to drop on them - appeal after appeal, case after case. Eircom have a maximum possible consumer base of maybe 2 million households and businesses. Subtract from that the customers who have taken up offers from other companies. What's left does not look like much when placed before the international cartels that are applying monetary leverage across the fulcrum of IRMA. All the other operators here are smaller than that, or at least have a smaller stake in the already tiny market. Even BT will probably settle before the cost of legal activity outstrips their profit margin. It seems we're about to find out.
How can anyone select a new provider when it looks like they'll all end up in exactly the same situation?
UPC have publicly stated that they have no intention of folding before the threats. In their own words "UPC intends to vigorously defend its position in court." And this is exactly the stance that lead Eircom to court in the first place. And look where they are now.
Angry yet? |
|
|
| Elvis Costello on the Recording Industry |
[Jun. 5th, 2009|10:59 pm] |
Just a snip from an interview with Elvis Costello over on NJ.com:
Q. A couple of years ago, in interviews, it sounded like you had kind of lost faith in the recording industry altogether.
A. Yeah, but I think I started to think too hard about the industry, and less about the music. Since I stopped caring a damn about the business, I've got a lot of freedom. Look at how bad things are: it's a miracle any business is still going. I've always thought that there was more in playing concerts. I haven't made any money from records in 30 years. I don't know that I ever made any money from releasing records. I made money, probably, to a degree, from publishing record releases, because when they give you those advances that everybody makes such a song and dance about, when you sign a record contract, what nobody ever says out loud is they're just loaning you the money to make the records. It's not free money. The record companies set themselves up pretty well, to loan you the money to make the records. "Momofuku" took nine days. This took three days. I don't think it should take any longer than that. The Beatles' first record took a day. What in the world are people doing spending six months making a record? That's a nonsense. How long does it take to play a song? The interview continues with some qualification regarding the conditions required for certain musical creations. But I'm sure you get the general idea: the real money is in performance, actually playing music (which one would think is a musician's Raison d'être), not in sitting on your arse while someone else takes money for making copies of something you did last year. |
|
|
| Forgive me for Thinking Like an Engineer |
[May. 31st, 2009|01:11 am] |
Last weekend our cat, Tilly, was poisoned. When I saw him lying on the living room floor he was suffering some form of seizure, shuddering, stretching and curling uncontrollably. His pulse was so light, his breathing so shallow, that I was sure they had stopped altogether. The spasms were too strong to get him safely into a the carrier so he went to the vet wrapped in a towel.
Having heard and seen what happens to poisoned animals, I feared the worst. Even if he survived, I was sure there would be permanent damage, that he would never be the same again, would never be fit or well.
Fortunately we'd found him in time and got him medical attention as quickly as possible. So after a night on a drip he's back to himself with nothing but a slightly blooded leg from the IV.
 Needless to say, my relief has been tempered to some degree by frothing outrage.
A while back there was a discussion in comments to a Boing Boing post on the so-called "better mousetrap", various parties offering advice on catching and killing vermin. I offered my own opinion that, catching and killing rats, mice, roaches, anything of that nature is essentially futile, no more effective than bailing out a river. Lay all the poison the pest-controllers will sell you, poison all the rats you like, there are plenty more waiting to fill the vacuum you are creating. In the meantime you are leaving incredibly toxic substances around for people's pets to find, occasionally in the form of dying, delirious rodents wandering away from their territory and taking the poison with them. Not to mention the possibility of inquisitive children coming into contact with the materials. And what do you get for your trouble? A couple of months without a pest, if you're lucky. But if you're unlucky...
A couple of years ago I was working IT on premises where they had fallen for this dumb idea to deal with a handful of mice in the building (which I had never seen but which the female staff swore were the rabid harbingers of all-consuming death). The pest controller left a half-dozen little white containers of poison around the halls and wandered off to the next job. Did he have any other suggestions? Not that I heard, after all, why give the customer a permanent solution when quick fixes guarantee repeat business? After a few weeks we began to notice a bad smell in the offices. You can imagine what had happened. It was a couple of weeks, during which the stench rapidly became unbearable, before the pest controller finally located the rancid corpse he had generated, tucked away under a raised floor.
As I said in that Boing Boing thread, the best mouse trap is not a trap at all. There are only two things that one need do to deal with a rodent problem: take away their reason for staying, then take away their means of getting in. Their reason for staying is food, remove the food source, or at least put it out of their reach, and the rats won't want to be there. Keep your house clean and tidy, don't leave spills and crumbs on the floor, throw out your junk and minimise their hiding places. Keep your trash secure in metal or plastic bins, not just a heaps of bags, and keep the bins and the area around the them clean. Find out how they got into the place to begin with and seal it up. I've heard stories about POWs beating food tins flat to armour-plate their food stores - this isn't rocket science. Think about the area you live in: is there flytipping going on, are there empty or derelict buildings, is there a neighbour with a garden full of garbage? These are things your council and maybe the police need to deal with.
"Build a better mousetrap, and the world will beat a path to your door." Perhaps, Mr Emerson, but build a better world and they won't have to.
The bottom line is that a pest controller shouldn't be selling you something to kill every living thing that comes into contact with it, he should be showing you what must change to disrupt the rat-friendly habitat you are living in. If you have a pest problem you don't need a better mousetrap, what you need are better living conditions. |
|
|
| Your Secrecy Makes you Weak |
[May. 15th, 2009|01:52 am] |
All closed source code is invariably poorly written, containing bugs, mistakes, design flaws and security issues from beginning to end. For every ten lines of code there is a disaster waiting, and when that disaster comes to pass you'll be lucky if the system even reports it. Within the cloak of secrecy afforded by closed source code programmers demonstrate just how careless and unprofessional they can truly be, and just how much they are willing to risk for the sake of making their job easier.
Prove... me... wrong. |
|
|
| Broadcast Bill 2009 |
[May. 8th, 2009|01:52 am] |
Ireland's Broadcast Bill 2009 is about to be passed by the government here and it has come to the attention of a few watchful souls that something looks a little off.
Part of the bill deals with changes to the TV license. One of the these changes is the definition of "television set":
"television set" means any electronic apparatus capable of receiving and exhibiting television broadcasting services broadcast for general reception (whether or not its use for that purpose is dependent on the use of anything else in conjunction with it) and any software or assembly comprising such apparatus and other apparatus; This means that any household which has a device that allows the receiving and viewing of RTE programmes is now required to pay the TV license fee.
Oh! RTE just launched their online RTE Player. Now anyone in the republic with a broadband connection can use it to receive RTE programmes. What a coincidence!
That's right, as it stands anyone with a broadband connection will need a TV license even if they don't own a TV!
However, there is just one additional facet to this pitifully obvious money-grab that Irish commentators are not mentioning, probably because, for them, it is the status quo. The thing is, our national, publicly-owned broadcaster, funded by the TV License Fee, runs commercials. I can tell you that, beyond its mandate to serve a small amount of Irish language content and Gaelic sports coverage, the services RTE offer are indistinguishable from other wholly commercial stations. And I'll offer this simple observation: if every RTE service currently available were to suddenly cease, it would be months before I'd even notice - that's just how little I value them.
When I moved here in 2K I was put out, to say the least, that I was asked to pay a tax for what was clearly a commercially funded enterprise. The extra reach on this double-dipping farce afforded by the new Broadcast Bill is not endearing me to the system at all. |
|
|
| Work Once, Paid Forever! |
[Apr. 26th, 2009|04:49 am] |
The EU has decided that we, the public, must continue to pay performers of musical works for 70 years after they have completed the work. That's another twenty years closer to perpetuity.
Perhaps I should write to my MEP and enquire if this scheme could be extended to other areas of employment. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we were all paid for the rest of our lives for every job we've ever done? I could really do with getting a half-dozen paychecks every month.
So how about this alternative: performers are paid a decent wage when they perform, and when the performance stops, so does the money! |
|
|
| The First Rule of CSS Club... |
[Apr. 25th, 2009|01:13 am] |
In the case brought by the DVD Copy Control Association against Real over their RealDVD movie copying software, the MPAA are seeking to seal the courtroom from the public. Their argument is that the details of the Content Scrambling System at the heart of the case are super secret and their entire business model would crumble before our eyes were a single syllable of it to reach the ears of pirates!
Excuse me, I have something in my throat...
#!/usr/bin/perl -w # 531-byte qrpff-fast, Keith Winstein and Marc Horowitz <sipb-iap-dvd@mit.edu> # MPEG 2 PS VOB file on stdin -> descrambled output on stdout # arguments: title key bytes in least to most-significant order $_='while(read+STDIN,$_,2048){$a=29;$b=73;$c=142;$t=255;@t=map{$_%16or$t^=$c^=($m=(11,10,116,100,11,122,20,100)[$_/16%8])&110;$t^=(72,@z=(64,72,$a^=12*($_%16-2?0:$m&17)),$b^=$_%64?12:0,@z)[$_%8]}(16..271);if((@a=unx"C*",$_)[20]&48){$h=5;$_=unxb24,join"",@b=map{xB8,unxb8,chr($_^$a[--$h+84])}@ARGV;s/...$/1$&/;$d=unxV,xb25,$_;$e=256|(ord$b[4])<<9|ord$b[3];$d=$d>>8^($f=$t&($d>>12^$d>>4^$d^$d/8))<<17,$e=$e>>8^($t&($g=($q=$e>>14&7^$e)^$q*8^$q<<6))<<9,$_=$t[$_]^(($h>>=8)+=$f+(~$g&$t))for@a[128..$#a]}print+x"C*",@a}';s/x/pack+/g;eval That's better.
I wonder, is the secret they are trying to keep the fact that everyone with even a passing interest in the field already knows everything single little thing about it? Is it a secret that this pitiful attempt to dress the shadow of obscurity as effective security was blown wide open at least ten years ago? Is it a secret that their throne is at the shore?
Would that they hang their crowns when this tide wets their robes. |
|
|
| 111111 Minutes to 111 |
[Apr. 21st, 2009|10:08 am] |
 This latest animation project is a simulation of a mechanical binary timepiece finished in gunmetal, glass, brass and gold leaf. Binary time, in this case, is a 16 bit value which divides the day into 65,536 seconds. It even chimes the 4 bit hour in binary. There are full instructions on reading the clock, using the controls and also on embedding this animation in your own web pages.
The animation is released under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike 3.0 license. |
|
|
| Bypassing Commercial Censorship with Project Little Island |
[Mar. 15th, 2009|12:43 am] |
A recent post on Slashdot highlights one of the uses of the Little Island Universal Commenting System quite well.
The story concerns the Norton Internet Security suite which has been causing some problems for users lately. A hitherto unknown component of the software is being reported by firewall applications as attempting unauthorised access to the Internet. While this was troublesome in itself, the report also revealed that the component was located in an non-existent directory. Bad enough, you may think, but when users posted about this on the Norton customer forums trying to find a solution, and perhaps some reassurance that it was not evidence of a viral infection, they discovered that their questions were being deleted despite obvious interest:
"There were several posts about this to the Norton customer forums asking for help or information on this mysterious program. The initial thread received several thousand views and several pages of replies in a few short hours before being deleted. Several subsequent posts to the Norton forum were deleted much more quickly. These actions — whether actively covering up, or simply not well thought through — have spurred people to begin crafting conspiracy theories about the purposes of this PIFTS program." - Norton Users Worried By PIFTS.exe, Stonewalling By Symantec, /. Of course, these forums are hosted and controlled by Symantec/Norton so they can delete whatever they want from them and don't have to justify it to anyone (if you wanted to delete a comment on your own blog, would you want to have to justify it to the mob first?). Whether they are right, as a service provider, to delete those threads... that's a whole other question. This sort of commercial censorship is pretty unsurprising, after all, these people are in the business of selling products, and hosting critical commentary on their own servers can hardly be considered a good marketing strategy.
Well, this is one issue that Project Little island neatly side-steps without the need to go in search of another website.
Here is a screen cap of the /. post linked and quoted (somewhat brazenly I must admit) on the Norton Internet Security 2009 Product Page itself via the Little Island Client:
 |
|
|
| Project Little Island: Something From the Other Side |
[Mar. 5th, 2009|01:39 am] |
This is something I've been doing instead of blogging recently:
 Project Little Island is what I sparingly call a "universal commenting system". It allows users to leave comments on any web page for other users to read and respond to. It does not require the host of a web site to provide anything or even be aware of the Little Island service.
This open source project is in the alpha stage, perhaps even something closer to proof-of-concept. As such the client that allows users to view and post comments is currently deployed using Firefox's Greasemonkey Add-on. Later it will be developed as a Firefox Add-on in its own right. The project has an open API which will also allow third-party applications to access the commenting system and offers the possibility for clients in other browsers.
If you have Firefox and Greasemonkey you can get the latest version of the Little Island Client by clicking here to install the user script. You'll find instructions on getting started in the Client Guide.
The comments can be viewed even without a Little Island account but if you'd like to join in you can register here.
More information is available via the project home page.
This is the first public announcement of the project and there are zero testers besides myself. So if you experience any problems let me know. |
|
|
| Indistinguishable from Magic |
[Mar. 19th, 2008|12:13 am] |
Arthur C. Clarke, scientist, futurist, author, has died at his home in Sri Lanka at the age of 90.
Writing about his influence on my life is difficult, as difficult, perhaps, as writing about the influence of the English language itself, so ingrained is his writing into my past reading. It is impossible to say where or when I first picked up a Clarke novel or story, or indeed what that work might have been. There is even a sense of doubt that the stories I recall are really his, that they are not some ancient tales remembered more in the blood than the mind, so essential they feel, almost archetypal. Sometimes one might even judge half of all modern science fiction works to be elaborations and deviations of ideas Clarke had penned decades earlier. But this is hardly a wonder considering the startling fact that this man had been writing for longer than most of us have been alive.
While his death was not unexpected, it still weighs heavy. There may come a time when he, his works, and their influence will be forgotten, but that is one future that is truly unimaginable.
Sir Arthur C. Clarke CBE (16 December 1917 – 19 March 2008) |
|
|
| UK Government Under the Control of Hollywood |
[Feb. 22nd, 2008|10:18 pm] |
You may have noticed that the UK government, with the kind assistance of Andrew Burnham MP of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, is bowing to Hollywood and the record labels' various enforcement groups, essentially handing them the power to control the uses that UK citizens may make of their internet connections. ISPs have been given until April 2009 to comply with new regulations that will force them to inspect all data transferred through their systems and magically deduce whether or not it involves the sharing of copyrighted material. In the event that sharing is suspected (nothing more is required) the ISP subscriber will receive a strike against them, if they receive three strikes their internet service will be terminated.
No allowances have been made for the technological requirements for deep packet inspection of all traffic that passes through a service providers system. It may safely be presumed that the customers will end up paying extra to have their private data transmissions intercepted and analysed. I have yet to find any comment form Burnham on the morality of cutting off an innocent user when someone else who makes use of the same connection is suspected of sharing - if one family member breaks the rules then everyone in that household loses access this increasingly essential communications service. Nor have I seen any indication from those involved that they have any understanding of the encryption arms race they are about to enter and immediately lose - that will be an awful lot of money spent and trouble caused for a system that will be worked around before it is even put in place. Naturally there is no hint of how the ISP's are to identify copyrighted works from any other shared files. And what are the procedures for proving one's innocence? How does someone with a strike based on a suspicion show that they are not guilty of sharing (baring in mind the technical hurdles already involved in proving positive proof of sharing).
The most sensible response I have heard comes from a Slashdot commenter:
"if all ISPs in the UK staged a strike by cutting Internet access everywhere for two or three days and claim that would be the only possible way to ensure their customers aren't pirating anything, I am sure that the outrage would force another look at the law. And if they did this 2 different times, like once on Thursday Friday and Saturday, it could cause direct deposit information and payroll services to be interrupted. If they did this on again a week later on lets say Monday and Tuesday, there would be so much upset and confusion that those who think they wasn't effected will be."
Personally I will be happy to lose access for a few days if it will do anything to prevent this travesty from going any further. Frankly, the harm done to individual users will not even register compared to the harm done to UK financial sector, not least the content industry. They must learn that the environment has changed and all the legislation in the world cannot change it back. Technology has moved forward and they have failed to follow. Their demise is inevitable, and is only hastened by making enemies of us all. |
|
|
| The Cara Duckworth Translation |
[Jan. 17th, 2008|01:02 am] |
This is a translation of Don Reisinger's interview with the RIAA's Cara Duckworth for CNet. The translation is into English from Bullshit.
Don: Please tell me who you are and what you do.
RIAA: Cara Duckworth, spokeswoman for the RIAA.
Translation: Cara Duckworth, Recording Industry Ass. of America mouthpiece.
Don: What can you tell me about the college deterrence program?
RIAA: Began last February. It was becoming clearer that despite cool new legal services and the ongoing educational efforts, too many students--some of music's biggest fans--were getting their music illegally and learning the wrong lessons about stealing and the law. There had to be a deterrence factor involved so that individuals knew that along with personal consequences (i.e., viruses, spyware infiltrating hard drive) there would also be legal consequences to engaging in illegal downloading behavior. Bringing lawsuits was by no means our first choice, but a necessary step we had to take.
Translation: It seems like the harder we try to make money off those ungrateful little shits the more they turn away from us. I just don't get it, I mean I don't get technology in general so how am I supposed to know about Trojans and viruses... something to do with safe sex, yes? Sony tried giving them that great rootkit for free and they just threw it back in their faces. So now we're going to start dragging our biggest customers through the courts. Makes sense when we think about it.
Don: Why college students?
RIAA: First, it should be clarified that our college campaign is in addition to the lawsuits we file against individuals using commercial ISPs to illegally download and distribute music. Second, college students have reached a stage in life when their music habits are crystallized, and their appreciation for intellectual property has not yet reached its full development. These two points coupled together present challenges to those who would like to be compensated for their creative works. Understanding the value of intellectual property is important to the future job market for many of these students--industries that rely on copyright protection employ more than 11 million workers nationwide and continue to grow.
Translation: Hey, don't get me wrong, we'll make you all pay. But students in particular just don't think the way we want them to, and we at the Ass. are now forced to brainwash them through legal means. Our understanding of intellectual property is firmly fixed in the last century and we want to make damn sure that everyone else's understanding is too. For instance, we are determined not to contemplate any alteration to the standard business model and to do our best to retard technological progress that will inevitably render that model obsolete.
Don: What group of people do you see pirating the most music?
RIAA: While college students used to be some of music's greatest fans, unfortunately that is no longer the case. I would point you to the evidence of the extensiveness of music theft amongst college campuses from Student Monitor and other market research firms to show why we are focusing some of our efforts on universities.
Translation: College brats! Those little bastards! They've got the money, how else did they get into college? They're trying to improve their chances in the job market using money that rightfully belongs to us. If you'd like to see my evidence for this assumption you'll have to buy it, just like we did.
Don: How do you respond to people who say your organization is a group of bullies?
RIAA: I have to step back for a moment. These are certainly heavy issues and none which we take lightly. When an individual is caught illegally downloading music, it sometimes happens that the person creates a stir. The reality of it is that nobody wants to get caught and most people complain when they are. The music industry has lost more than $3 billion in sales over the last few years. Bringing lawsuits is certainly no one's ideal answer--we're well aware of that. But if we had sat on our hands and chosen to do nothing about the piracy problem as the music industry was haemorrhaging jobs and lost sales, imagine what the extent of theft would be today and how the legal marketplace would be struggling to gain traction. The digital music marketplace is demonstrably better because of our efforts.
Translation: They're just whining little crybabies. Wah wah wah, they're picking on me! Wah wah wah, $10,000 per track is too much! Wah wah wah, I don't even own a computer! They're the one's not buying music, they should be giving us money and they're not! Think of all the money we're losing to people who aren't paying for things we never gave them, and trust me: you won't believe how much we never gave them. It's progress that's causing all this. What are we supposed to do just let the world move on and leave us behind? Like hell! If the only way for us to keep our jobs is to make you pay for service you no longer need then so be it. Put up and pay up!
Don: How have you addressed those huge pirating cartels overseas? Are you going for a soft target?
RIAA: Our preference--first and foremost--is to take action against the services themselves that facilitate the illegal downloading and distribution of copyrighted works. We are actively assisting efforts by policy makers in Washington to encourage countries whose copyright laws have not kept up with the times or who do not appropriately enforce intellectual property violations. Additionally, we are affiliated with IFPI, which represents the interest of the global music community and assists in the enforcement of copyright infringement cases outside of the U.S.
Translation: You mean the physical pirates, the ones selling counterfeit CDs? What, are you shitting me? Some of those guys are real criminals, they got guns and stuff. And they don't speak American so... you know... Oh wait, do you mean The Pirate Bay? Those fuckers! Sweden's turning into some kind of commie paradise. We gotta fix that as soon as possible and it takes money to get laws passed so we need to sue more students, on the double. That thing with getting Russia's WTO membership on the line, that was great move; maybe we could try something like that.
Don: Do you think your policy of lawsuits and settlements work?
RIAA: Absolutely. Since we began this initiative, we've seen a P2P problem that once was growing at dizzying speeds essentially flatten out. People are now more aware of what is legal and illegal when it comes to downloading music. But more importantly, bringing lawsuits is only one piece of the pie--we are actively investing resources in the education of students of all ages on the value of music and importance of copyrights and, perhaps most importantly, music companies are continuously partnering with exciting new services that offer fans an array of innovative opportunities to access their favourite music.
Translation: P2P has stopped growing. That means we're winning. There is absolutely no need to interpret this result as a saturation of the P2P market. You don't honestly believe that everyone who is going to share is already sharing do you? No. That was us. We did that. And we're going to press our advantage by continuing to terrify your kids into thinking the way we want them to, and we'll pay for that by suing the ones that don't learn. See how that works? Also, we're going to find ways to monetise just about everything you can do with music, including things no one's thought of yet. That will make everyone feel better about it.
Don: Why do you think you're such a disliked organization?
RIAA: I don't agree with the loaded premise of the question. In some online quarters, there may be lots of heat about the tough stands we sometimes must take. But amongst the general public, the favorability ratings of the record industry remain as positive as ever and surpass other forms of entertainment like movie or TV studios. I believe my answer to question No. 5 can apply here as well. But let it be said--the RIAA is much more than lawsuits. For example, we also are responsible for the Gold & Platinum program awarding artists who have achieved successful album sales and are active proponents of free speech in music. But no one likes lawsuits, and no one likes to get caught. It's not an ideal situation for any party involved. But with all the new, innovative legal alternatives in the marketplace (and more emerging on almost a daily basis), the music community is proactively offering fans ways to avoid lawsuits and get their favorite music at affordable prices.
Translation: Nonsense, there are lots of people who like us. It's just the ones we take money from or whose business model conflicts with our own that seem to have a problem. Like music lovers... and artists... and consumer groups, and electronics manufacturers, civil rights groups, Swedish communist politicians, anyone who has spent more than a few minutes actually thinking logically about the issues... oh, and the record labels too, those guys have seriously got the hump these days. Hmm, I guess we've bribed a few musicians and politicians into liking us though. And once our plans come to fruition and music lovers have no other option but to do what we tell them, we'll just tell them to like us. It'll be great!
Don: How do you respond to the people who say you're going after grandmothers and young children when you should be going after real criminals in gunships?
RIAA: I'd give them the facts and encourage them not to believe everything they read that aggressively villainizes the organization. We have a physical antipiracy unit that assists law enforcement agents in shutting down piracy operations both big and small. Oftentimes street peddlers selling bootlegged copies of music are also involved in large-scale drug and weapons trafficking, and we find clear evidence of that on raids. As for individuals themselves, we have no way of screening defendants based on demographics, socioeconomic status, or perceived sympathy. Upon initial discovery of a violation, we have an IP address, a sampling of the files that were shared, and a timestamp of the activity. We consistently follow the prescribed legal process to obtain identifying information and always try to be fair and reasonable in resolving each of our cases.
Translation: We'll go after anyone who crosses us, period. We're totally ruthless. Hell, if you're dead we'll just take what we need from your family. You remember that now, next time you start up your BT client. We use technology that produces a set of numbers that provides incontrovertible proof that the people we say guilty are guilty. We don't need to worry about network architecture, or shared IPs, or multiplexing and all that confusing stuff, that just misleads the courts. All they need to know is that we can prove anything we need to with numbers... Except street peddlers, they don't have IP addresses so they're harder to come by. Imagine if we put enough people out on the street to find those guys, there wouldn't be anybody left at the office to sue students.
Don: Is there anything else you'd like to add?
RIAA: Regarding our college initiative, a university's role in reducing the level of piracy on its campus cannot be overemphasized. We have consistently said that the more proactive a school is in the education of its students regarding its IT and enforcement policies, the offering of great legal alternatives so that students can have access to their favorite music (at deeply discounted prices or even for free), and most importantly, implementing effective technology that helps protect the integrity of its network, will lead to fewer instances of violations and fewer instances of hearing from us--a win for everybody!
Translation: We're doing all we can to fight music lovers. In fact, we think we're doing too much! So we need colleges who would otherwise be sitting there minding their own business to do our job for us, preferably without any reimbursement. If they don't then we'll just wring some more cash out of the student body and use it to bribe a few more politicians to put the financial frighteners on them. That's how it works: we bribe the politicians, the politicians scare the colleges, the colleges scare their students, the students give us money. It doesn't end there, of course: once we have our claws in them we can use the colleges to collect our money for us, straight from the students, on the pretence of providing them with legal access to music. And anyone who doesn't pay must be a pirate - we can pick them like fruit!
|
|
|
| The Only Solution |
[Jan. 11th, 2008|03:18 pm] |
A growing number of Swedish MPs are questioning the logic and legality of the recording industry targeting file sharers and forcing ISPs to help identify them. They have a simple and obvious solution that many of us will find familiar:
"Decriminalizing all non-commercial file sharing and forcing the market to adapt is not just the best solution. It’s the only solution, unless we want an ever more extensive control of what citizens do on the Internet. Politicians who play for the antipiracy team should be aware that they have allied themselves with a special interest that is never satisfied and that will always demand that we take additional steps toward the ultimate control state. Today they want to transform the Internet Service Providers into an online police force, and the Antipiracy Bureau wants the authority for themselves to extract the identities of file sharers. Then they can drag the 15-year-old girl who downloaded a Britney Spears song to civil court and sue her."
Those of us with any insight into the industry already knew that this had gone too far, that the recording industry was seeking powers far beyond those required for commerce and that such grasping power-hungry manoeuvring was a sing of bad things to come. Now it seems they have finally push hard enough to raise the heckles of more than a few politicians. Six members of the Swedish Moderate Party drafted the article quoted above taking into account some uncomfortable questions from various government bodies including the Data Inspection Board and The Competition Authority. It draws attention to the issues of privacy, authority, due process and human rights. Since it's publication support has continued to grow and a second article has been signed by 13 members of the Swedish parliament.
Finally there are politicians who are walking into this argument with open eyes instead of overstuffed wallets. Hopefully this movement will produce something akin to reasonable and workable legislation in Sweden, something that protects private citizens and forces the recoding industry to accept that it no longer has a place in the modern world. With a little more luck, such common sense thinking will prove infectious and we will start to see this attitude spread to the rest of Europe. |
|
|
| Sony Sub-think |
[Jan. 9th, 2008|12:23 am] |
In order to get your DRM-free Sony music you will need to travel to a dealer of antique physical music formats. There you must pay approximately $13 to purchase an object (very likely a piece of a dead tree) upon which has been inscribed, in a ludicrous parody of security, an arbitrary and unencrypted code (note that it will not be necessary to provide your public key). This code, when entered into the more civilized medium of a web site, will activate the download of your music.
When planning your purchase you should account for the price of travelling to and from the antique dealer. Also adjust for being forced to download an entire album including the tracks you do not want. Take note that there are only 37 albums from the catalogue that may be purchased in this manner and that at least two of those are Britney Spears and Barry Manilow. It may also be prudent to consider the fact that, while at the antique dealer, you will be able to purchase a piece of physical media containing a higher-quality version of the music for approximately the same price. At this point it will prove enlightening to compare the cost and convenience of this venture with that of gabbing a torrent.
...
Sony, you were more trouble than you were worth yesterday. You're worth even less today. |
|
|
| The Tomb of DRM |
[Jan. 4th, 2008|05:35 pm] |
And here we have it, the epitaph that shall be inscribed on the depleted uranium sarcophagus of DRM, once all its myriad insectile limbs have ceased to twitch and are finally tucked inside:
Our download service provides files in the WMA music format or the WMV video format, which is not supported by Apple Macintosh computers. To use your music with an iPod, simply follow the steps below: - Save each downloaded song to your PC
- Burn a music CD (in CDA file format)
- Import the music from the CD into iTunes
- Update your iPod
These well known 'burn-n-rip' instructions to "circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work", instructions that breach Title 17/Chapter 12/Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, are brought to us by none other than... Sony!
Delicious, isn't it.
This comes via ArsTechnica.com who also note that Sony is about to follow its competitors/RIAA cronies, EMI, Universal, and Warner, in dropping DRM, starting with "1 billion tracks via the Amazon Music Store".
So we're winning. These idiots have at least begun to realised the Luddian futility of trying to recreate the limitations of the 20th Century in the 21st. But still, these anachronistic corporate structures persist, punishing people for making obvious use of ubiquitous technology, stifling any innovation that might actually make accessing our culture easier, then restricting and filtering that culture as though it belongs to them, trailing behind them a vast mantle of industries based on physical products, products that are as doomed as the jobs they now barely support, with not even a hint of an exit strategy that could save livelihoods.
They are done with providing access, they do not control the primary means of production, they are no longer an artist's only way of reaching an audience, their only purpose now is to support themselves and defend their increasingly illogical position. So long as we are asked, or even forced, to pay for a service that we no longer need and certainly do not want, the battle will continue... |
|
|
| Glitch |
[Dec. 5th, 2007|10:49 pm] |
| [ | Tags | | | civil liberties, copyright, drm, economy, movies, mpaa, music, net neutrality, news, p2p, politics, rant, technology | ] |
Listen, Glick, the movie industry is already doing the one thing that guarantees I will never illegally download their 'products', namely they are now making such deficient, low-brow, half-assed, worthless, over-hyped, over-funded, overwritten, sub intellectual, inadequate, substandard, ridiculous, inferior, scoff-worthy, malodorous, cringe-making, mismanaged, shoddy, insufferable, incompetent and defective low-com-dom crap, that I would never ever even consider wasting one single byte of my precious bandwidth on any of it. I would be perfectly happy to see every last bit of your meritless trash forever erased from the internet were it not for the fact that you are trying to do it by introducing a radically disproportionate mechanism: ending Network Neutrality!
Don't cover your ears Glickster, you need to hear this: Shrek 3 is not important enough to bring an end to our freedom. The only reason the movie industry can say it's losing money now is because they spent way too much on producing something that nobody actually needs and nobody really wants. The Western World will not crumble because they can't turn a profit, but it might if we lose the integrity and security of the single most important communications tool in history.
One way or another the IP delusional industries are one the way out. It's only a matter of time before the average consumer figures out that their 'entertainment' just isn't worth it any more, that the busker on the street outside the cinema is a hell of lot more creative, interesting and memorable than the claptrap movie they just walked out of. How long do you think they'll watch their technology subverted, their personal data ransacked, their legally purchased media disintegrating, and their communications tapped and blocked before they think: "But I didn't even like the Bourne Appendectomy!"
Anyone invested in the movie or recording industries with even an iota of common sense should be selling up now, while their stock is still worth the ferromagnetic material it's stored on. You know it can't go on like this. It just isn't reasonable in consider this a survivable scenario for anyone involved. I mean it. Get out now. This is going to end badly, and you know it.
Glicky, you are not adding to our culture in any positive way beyond uniting the rest of us against you. You are not curing any horrible diseases. You are not on a crusade of righteousness. You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You are not welcome here. |
|
|
| Mystery Object |
[Nov. 29th, 2007|12:42 am] |
 This kit was bought in a junk shop in Enniscorthy about twenty years ago as a curio. Despite some effort there has been no progress in identifying its purpose.
The kit consists of a small, well-worn pouch of fine purple leather closed with a single snap fastener on a double flap (the letters GEM are stamped on the underside of the fastener cap). The pouch is approximately by 9.5cm by 6.5cm when closed, 9.5cm by 17.5cm open. The outside of the pouch shows a patch of what appears to be thick, dried ink that is flexible yet cracked in places.
There is a single, very faint Cyrillic 'R' ['Я'] on the top of the lower flap angled to the left of the fastener (too faint to show up in a photograph) which looks like the first letter of a word or phrase arcing down under the fastener. No other letters are visible.
Opening the pouch reveals a set of four polished, purple wedges, each with a small knob at the top. The wedges appear to be made from Bakelite or some other dense primitive plastic and seem to have been cut and turned rather than moulded. Each wedge is attached by a 9cm brass chain to something resembling a map pin made of the same material. The metal spikes in the map pins are irregular, some shorter, some placed off-centre. There are six loops in the pouch that hold the four wedges and two pieces of cork into which the pins are stuck.
Characters are stamped along the edge of each wedge: "No 720903" |
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
| [ |
go |
| |
earlier |
] |
| |
|
|