You are viewing tarmle

The Autumnal City - Burnoff: Part 2 - The Good Guys Win [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Tarmle

[ website | The Ruins of Morning ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Burnoff: Part 2 - The Good Guys Win [Feb. 21st, 2006|03:29 pm]
Previous Entry Share Next Entry
[Tags|, , , , , , , ]

No one has to pay for numbers anymore. No one is threatened for merely experiencing the development of their own culture. No one is sued for participating in its creation or propagation. The old media business models are gone, burned away by their total inability to adapt to the reality of new technology. In the end they simply failed to comprehend that any product which can be reproduced endlessly by anyone at virtually no cost has, in any reasonable estimation, a market value of zero. Trying to break the technology that threatened them was the final desperate tactic - it hadn't stopped the Industrial Revolution and it didn't stop this one.

Copyright is your right to copy... anything. You are permitted to duplicate, to alter, to republish any piece of information, any text, sound, image or source code, even any object, anything that does not impinge on the privacy of another individual. It even protects your right to make money out of such duplication, if you can. In non-profit situations it also supersedes the now very limited and expensive application of patents. About the only right retained by an artist after they have released a work is their moral right to attribution. So don't get carried away, fraud, forgery and counterfeiting are still crimes.

Like all the technology in your home, your computer and everything on it is your own, down to the last resistor, the last byte. Ironically it still runs Windows. The old proprietary OS has been rebuilt into dozens of open source flavours - there was no point throwing out codes and standards with years of work behind them and such a vast catalogue of useful applications already developed. Even more unexpected is that Trusted Computing has become universal. The technology that would have allowed big business to monitor your activity, to reach into your home and control your computer and your data, is now used to stop just that kind of interference. Encrypted drives, curtained memory and protected media paths prevent malware snooping on your personal files or siphoning away your home movies. Ubiquitous VoIP, secured by privacy amplified encryption, means the national security agencies of the world have to actually investigate threats instead of sitting around waiting for potential suspects to blurt incriminating evidence over illegal wiretaps.

Your culture is faster and more fluid than it has ever been, or ever could have been had the rules not changed, you'll only ever experience a tiny fraction of it in your lifetime. The new movie you glimpsed playing on the back of someone's animated t-shirt at the bus stop last week has already spawned a handful of mash-ups and parodies, by next month the spreading ripples of its influence will be unrecognisable. Even then, if the feeds do not provide what you're looking for, there are the vast peer-distributed media libraries from which you can retrieve almost anything that has ever been digitised, any talk show or radio play, video game or comic, newspaper article or published photograph.

Time and space shifting of media is the norm rather than the hard won exception. You rarely notice the exact source of the information and entertainment you receive, it may have come through the traditional broadcast television channels, via the manifold multimedia blogs piped through your fibre optic Internet connection or picked up virally from wireless peers by your personal server while walking down the street. You rely on your intelligent agent to filter this never-ending flow of information, an application that reduces and organises the mass of live data to a few dynamic feeds, constantly adjusted to match your profile, habits and even your mood. But still, there is so much material even this system has to co-operate with others on local networks to process it all.

With free and instant access to every book ever written there is little use for bookshops, the few that are left sell limited ranges of bound paper works as charming novelties. Often those buying them are just doing so to get their favourite author's signature. For those who miss the feel of a real book but want access to more than the few pulp prints in the shops there are 'magic books' with simulated bindings, touch sensitive e-Ink pages and voice interaction to let them summon an approximation of any volume ever written. The primary functions of public libraries today are the maintenance of municipal servers in the back rooms, used to ensure that less frequented material is never lost from the peer networks, and public access to the Internet for those who might find themselves without a mobile device. The stacks are now roped-off museum exhibits.

You just don't see physical media anymore. Awkward, low-end portable storage like CDs and DVDs are rarely useful, not with ever-increasing bandwidth availability, and not without the requirement to divide culture up into tradable units, the need to trick consumers with physical objects in exchange for their money and their rights. Blu-ray and HD-DVD, their technology moulded to constrict the hold on consumers, never had a chance, too rapidly overtaken by faster, more versatile and more open live storage devices.

The cinema chains have been decimated. Those that persist cater to customers who seek an authentic movie theatre experience. You'll often find movie sponsors subsidising tickets, food and drink sales in return for screenings of 'official' versions of films, desperate to have their product placements seen by audiences in a controlled environment. You often find yourself return to really good movie again and again, drawn by dynamic content generation and commissioned extensions. There's no point banning cameras and threatening legal action, the movie doesn't need to be protected, quite the opposite, and almost everyone there has already seen it. When you walk into a cinema you probably have versions of all the latest films stored in your inside pocket, if you don't you can download them from the cinema's own server as you're watching, or access countless other titles through the powerful ad-hoc networks that settle invisibly over any significant gathering of people.

Outside of the cinemas there is little notion of viewing anything in any particular place, time or order, no way for anyone to dictate or even guess how you listen to your music or watch your news. Instead of a contest advertising has become a war. Average consumers are given the tools to strip away the old style commercial breaks and sponsor messages, tools that would have been illegal had DRM been allowed to develop unchecked.

Increasingly companies rely on getting information about their products integrated into the media, making them inseparable. You won't find a new album online that doesn't contain at least two tracks named after brands of sneakers or snack foods. The rewards for a rapper willing to name a financial services company somewhere in their lyrics are awe-inspiring - a once-off commercial concession like that can fund a popular artist for long time. Your favourite comedy sketch vlog regularly uses humour based on commercial products and services - a few years ago such a thing might have appalled you, yet you still see collections of old TV ads in the media libraries prominently tagged as humour. The Grand Theft Auto MMOG doesn't charge it's players for software or access, instead it sells in-game billboard space for fifty times the price of billboards in the real world, and the virtual cars the players are boosting will often be the latest models, performance and polygon counts boosted by higher paying sponsors, of course. Armed with suitable Creative Commons Contracts, protecting them from restrictive and exploitative deals, artists have little to fear from their sponsors.

The old copyright system did nothing to protect the right of artists and everything to protect the profit margins of the content industries. It might have been argued that without laws to protect artists, and companies to represent their interests, anyone could co-opt their work to use for advertising without rewarding them. But every company that considers such a tactic today must consider a simply question, is it worth more to make an enemy of an artist than to make a friend of one? Ultimately it must be conceded that artists of all forms are the mind and the voice of the world. Unfettered by exploitation and constant resistance, they hold the attention of all humanity. Disrespecting them is never going to be a good idea.

Some further reading:
Creative Commons
The Mozilla Project
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Boing Boing
Wikipedia
BitTorrent

GreaseMonkey Firefox Extension - Web content under user control [wikipedia.com].
AdBlock Firefox Extension - Web content filtering [wikipedia.com]
FeedTree - p2p feed dissemination.
MythTV - homebrew Personal Video Recorder project.

Mechanical Royalties - from a simple and revealing description of what artists' "rights" are worth today [howstuffworks.com]
Empowering Copyright Owners to Fight Illegal File-Swapping - a view from the "other side", for the sake of balance [ascap.com]
Trusted Computing - a relatively balanced view (at the time of writing) of TC technology [wikipedia.org]

Previously on this blog:
Burnoff: Part 1 - The Bad Guys Win - with additional relevant links.
Legal P2P in France?
Music Industry Logic Applied to Cutting Grass
Copyright Logic Applied to Digging Holes
An e-Paper Manifesto
Remember when music used to come on coasters?
Overpriced, Dusty Chunks of Pulverised Rainforest: An Endangered Species
linkReply

Comments:
From: tuxmentat
2006-02-22 03:14 am (UTC)

(Link)

I don't think movie theaters would go away. They would just change their focus. People would still be willing to pay for the "theater experience". Plus you could now have the movie equivalent of a club DJ - you would go to see a show cut together by a talented remixer - and often altered in real time to match the mood and dynamic of the audience.

This way every show is unique. Viewers become part of the story - they are active participant.

Oh, and there is no way good guys could win if everyone is still running windows. Come on, let's be realistic here. And tcpa - urgh..

In the best possible future there should be no difference what kind of OS you are running. All media would be encoded in standardized open formats.

All operating systems would be designed in layers and provide standardized interfaces to programmers. All of them would provide common standardized API's and implement standardized system calls and protocols so all code would easily compile on any platform. Underlying implementations would of course vary from one OS to the other.

In fact there would be no single most popular OS. There would be hundred, if not millions small companies competing fiercely with each other. No one would be able to monopolize the market using Microsoft like lockup strategies - because if you break the compatibility with existing standards, you will fall behind and users will drop you immediately.

The virus and mallware problem would solve itself. Because there is no single dominant OS platform, it would be very hard to exploit implementation issues such as buffer overflows and etc... If you find a big bug, you may be able to infect 2% of the population if you are lucky...

This would be the kind of future I would like to live in. Any kind of future that includes Windows still in power, and common use of TCPA simply can't be the best possible scenario.
[User Picture]From: tarmle
2006-02-22 04:04 pm (UTC)

(Link)

The thing is, I just can't imagine all that working code being thrown out on principal. The Windows I'd imagine for this future would have been picked apart and rebuilt by the OSS community, stripping out all the worthless bloat and cleaning up the bugs. What we'd get would be a slimmer, faster, more efficient and more compatible OS that means that billions of users won't have to suddenly switch to an unfamiliar system or won't have to work through unwieldy emulators to use their old applications.

In time I'm sure the market (if you can call it that) would diversify to produce a whole range of interoperable systems that may have little in common with their forebears. People would be choosing something that suits them rather than feeling like the only real choice is the same choice everyone else is making for the sake of compatibility.

I'm not so sure about the virus problem going away. Not all these viruses are exploiting flaws in the operating system, in fact most of them have been exploiting 'flaws' in the users (which is unutterably elitist, I know, but those flaws are being cleared up rapidly as evidenced by the last viral non-event). Thing is, if you have common APIs then there is a common avenue for attack - all it takes is for someone to install or execute something they shouldn't. That's where TC would come in to minimise the damage. I suppose user-controlled TC may have vulnerabilities that vendor-controlled TC wouldn't, but with the UK government begging for back doors into WinVista's Trusted environment, I have to wonder.
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: tarmle
2006-02-22 07:10 pm (UTC)

(Link)

If we had to rely on what we have on our private computers right now then yes, Windows would probably die. And it's not just the OS that's at stake here, it's all the applications too. But all that documentation and original source could does exist, it's just locked up by Microsoft's current commercial business model. I suppose it's possible that MS would hold onto this information out of spite, but if they want to survive in any significant form in this future it's going to have to be as an OSS quality authority, controlling 'official' releases and providing corporate tech support and customisation. In that case all that documentation will have to come out into the open for any real work to get done.


By the way, do you know libervis? [/shameless plug].

I do now. There's no shame in plugging freedom!
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: tarmle
2006-02-23 11:05 pm (UTC)

Re: about the plugging

(Link)

If you're concerned about being lumped in with the Nvidia shills getting dissected over on The Consumerist I wouldn't worry. 'Advertising' your own community or product is fine in just about any situation so long as it's appropriate, honest and up front. I'm not going to hold that against anyone.

I'd be honoured if you want to use the RSS feed on your site, and, please, re-publishing anything of mine that you think will be of interest there. The thing is, this blog is only really part-time copyfighting, I include personal notes, stuff on programming and artwork, and "interesting things", so the posts might not always be relevant to your community. Have a look back over the last twenty entries and you'll see what I mean. I'll leave it up to you. Thanks for the offer, regardless.
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: tarmle
2006-02-25 12:54 pm (UTC)

Re: about the plugging

(Link)

I'll do that now!
From: (Anonymous)
2006-02-23 05:08 pm (UTC)

libre windows = OK

(Link)

I wouldn't have a problem with people running windows if it was a completely libre operating system. If people want to use something like that then let them. It's not about the OS, it's about the freedom. If we all have freedom then it's OK.

Of course, if windows just stays merely inferior to the likes of GNU/Linux, BSD, OpenSolaris and Haiku OS (BeOS clone for the future) it may very well wither away, but whatever happens I don't really care as long as everyone is free and the choice is there.

As for libervis.. I agree with tbuitenh. I am the founder of that site (just to be honest) and if you'd like to cooperate anyhow or have your blog syndicated, your articles published, just come and let us know.
I suppose this isn't more shameless of a plug than the above since I'm just adding to what tbuitenh already said. ;)

That said, great articles, very inspiring and motivating. We need the kind of world described in the second part. We can't let the bad guys win!

Cheers
Daniel
[User Picture]From: tarmle
2006-02-23 11:09 pm (UTC)

Re: libre windows = OK

(Link)

I think that's the crux of it. First, we really shouldn't just turn our backs on such much solid work - why start writing code from scratch to do all the things that Windows applications can do already? Second, there is a planet full of people who, for better or worse, are very familiar with the environment and simply tipping out that user base into the wild world of Linux, et al, is not going to win many friends.

The right approach, IMHO, is to allow things to develop organically, let users and developer work out what is needed and what is liked, and allow the concepts and results propagate unhindered through a global OSS community. What we'll have in the end may be something entirely different, perhaps something wonderful and totally unexpected.

Thnaks. I'm glad you got something out of it.
From: (Anonymous)
2006-02-23 09:32 pm (UTC)

This will never work!!!

(Link)

This article goes on about the joys of free access to information and media, but where exactly does this media come from in this ficticious pay-for-nothing wonderland? Do you really think Hollywood will continue to churn out movies in this fantasy world, with no money in it for them? No wonder when the article mentions cinemas it says "almost everyone there has already seen it". Now i don't know about you but I'd rather pay $10 for a new movie every week than never see a new movie ever again.

Come on be realistic I mean I like file-sharing as much as anyone but capitalism works - supply and demand - if there is no demand with lucrative potential then you can't expect any kind of entertainment industry to exist let alone produce anything of real quality. The above article portrays an idealistic dream world - nothing more, and certainly not a realistic or even reasonably optimistic hope for the future.
[User Picture]From: tarmle
2006-02-23 11:25 pm (UTC)

Re: This will never work!!!

(Link)

I think the key to this little fiction is the idea that we would have complete control of all the data entering our lives. We will have the tools to totally erase the majority of advertising that is normally poured into our homes through the magic box and the Internet, even through the newspapers and magazines since they will likely be in digital form. I don't think there are many people out there who would say they want to keep watching 20mins of advertising for every 40mins of tv shows, or put up with fit-inducing flash ads for worthless spyware-riddled services on every other web site, not if they don't have to. Given the right tools, all of that would disappear.

Now, in those circumstances, just imagine how desperate some of these companies are going to be to get our attention. And the only way they'll be able to get the names of their services and products into our line of sight is by making the message inseparable from the content that we are going out of our way to see. The artists, musicians, writers, tv producers and movie makers will be the ones holding the keys to our attention. If those companies want to talk to us, they'll have to talk to the content creators. The artists will be taking bids.

In such an environment I wonder how much J. K. Rowling would have received for calling Harry's broomstick an Adidas Nimbus 2000? It won't be about restriction any more, artists will win better deals by getting their material spread as far and wide as possible, charging for it will be the very last thing one their minds.

Nevertheless, this model, as fictional as it is, is embedded in a capitalistic environment. We are not talking about artists living in a big happy socialist commune together. These people will be competing with each other as much as they are now - there will still be winners and losers. For those who wise up and understand that the real power is with the successful artists, there's a great deal of money to be made. I'm not saying that this replaces the current business models euro-for-euro: there will certainly not be the same levels of top-tier turnover that we see today.

The movies will still be made. There may be fewer of them and they'll have tighter belts, but I'm not going to miss all those dried-up remakes, and I won't lose any sleep over a Hollywood actor having to sell one of his diamond encrusted Lear jets to make ends meet.
From: (Anonymous)
2007-05-27 09:06 pm (UTC)

Re: This will never work!!!

(Link)

So what your saying is artists will no longer have any freedom to create what they want because if they want to survive they'll have to put ads for products in everything they create?
[User Picture]From: tarmle
2007-05-28 07:42 am (UTC)

Re: This will never work!!!

(Link)

Two points:

Firstly, the initial idea here was that artists could work in two modes: they would generate revenue by creating 'to order' as it were, embedding brands and commercial messages in their creations; they would then use that revenue to support the 'real' work they produce. It would be up to them to balance the two - obviously too much commercial work will turn off their fans, and too little will leave them with nothing to live on.

Secondly, my opinion has rather changed since posting this last year. These days I'm backing the blanket licence model rather than the admittedly bleak alternative outlined above.
From: (Anonymous)
2006-02-24 02:26 am (UTC)

Windows...

(Link)

(I have a feeling this will start a flame war...)

Besides the philosophical problems with Windows, technically speaking it's crap. Improving things already already pretty good (such as GNU/Linux) would be a better use of time.
[User Picture]From: tarmle
2006-02-25 01:02 pm (UTC)

Re: Windows...

(Link)

Perhaps the most important consideration is the users. As bad as Windows may be (and I'll leave that quantification to those with more experience of it's inner workings) the important thing is not to let developers make decisions on behalf of the user - that kind of thinking will have to be left behind with the old business models. It's entirely possible, and perhaps desirable, to see the end of that OS, but the process must be organic, a process in which it is picked apart and its functionality swapped to other systems, so that we can be certain we are not leaving any valuable elements behind.