Home
The Autumnal City [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Tarmle

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

UK Government Under the Control of Hollywood [Feb. 22nd, 2008|10:18 pm]
[Tags|, , , , , , , , ]

You may have noticed that the UK government is, 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.
linkpost comment

The Cara Duckworth Translation [Jan. 17th, 2008|01:02 am]
[Tags|, , , , ]

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.

Trandlation: 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 hemorrhaging 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 favorite 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 sharingm 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!

linkpost comment

Sony Sub-think [Jan. 9th, 2008|12:23 am]
[Tags|, ]

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.
linkpost comment

The Tomb of DRM [Jan. 4th, 2008|05:35 pm]
[Tags|, ]

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:

  1. Save each downloaded song to your PC

  2. Burn a music CD (in CDA file format)

  3. Import the music from the CD into iTunes

  4. 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...
link6 comments|post comment

Glitch [Dec. 5th, 2007|10:49 pm]
[Tags|, , , , , , , , , , , , ]

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.
link2 comments|post comment

KISS Off [Nov. 17th, 2007|03:39 pm]
[Tags|, , ]

I have never been a fan of KISS, and I never will be thanks to the enlightened opinions of Mr. Gene Simmons:

"The record industry doesn't have a f---ing clue how to make money. It's only their fault for letting foxes get into the henhouse and then wondering why there's no eggs or chickens. Every little college kid, every freshly-scrubbed little kid's face should have been sued off the face of the earth. They should have taken their houses and cars and nipped it right there in the beginning. Those kids are putting 100,000 to a million people out of work. How can you pick on them? They've got freckles. That's a crook. He may as well be wearing a bandit's mask."

'Gene Simmons: college kids killed music biz' reuters.com


Sued off the face of the earth? Have their homes and cars taken? I have to wonder if there are actually any 'kids' who would now admit to downloading a Kiss track but, Mr Simmons, do you really want them punished for seeking out your music? Do you think this will make them want to pay for anything you produce ever again?

And if we need any more evidence that this is the drivelous spoutings of a narrow-minded, over-paid half-wit we are presented at the end with this little gem:

"The only reason why gold is expensive is because we all agree that it is. There's no real use for it, except we all agree and abide by the idea that gold costs a certain amount per ounce. As soon as you give people the choice to deviate from it, you have chaos and anarchy. And that's what going on."

'Gene Simmons: college kids killed music biz' reuters.com


... I... I don't even know where to start! Mr. Simmons, gold is expensive because it is extremely useful and attractive while at the same time being VERY RARE. Sure we could all decide that it's worth a lot less but that will just make it harder to come by because getting it out of the ground will become less profitable.

Music, Mr. Simmons, even yours unfortunately, is infinitely abundant, it can be reproduced endlessly and distributed globally at virtually no cost. It's as though music covers the streets like dirt, clogging gutters, and getting trodden unintentionally into people's homes, yet we have this ridiculous system that makes it illegal to bend down and pick any of it up. Bottom line: the monetary value of anything, including music, is inversely proportional to it's availability, if it is infinitely abundant then it's monetary value is indistinguishable from zero.

"As soon as you give people the choice to deviate from it, you have chaos and anarchy." Seriously Mr. Simmons, could you be any more establishment?

I want to see artists honoured for their success, given something that proportionally rewards their contribution to our culture. But this cannot be at the expense of our freedom to participate in that culture, the ability to use our own technology as we see fit and to remain secure in our private matters. That is why I back the concept of a Independent Democratic Blanket License, to free ourselves and support our artists. Yes, change can be scary, it will cost jobs, but it will also create new jobs, whole new business models even. Think of all the cool new media and networking technology we will be designing, building, selling and buying when we can share media without fear for our liberty. Think of all the artists who aren't even given a chance in today's market who could get their music to people's ears and get paid for it through the IDBL. Artists are not the enemy, we're fighting for their freedom too.

So, Mr. Gene "Doesn't have a f---ing clue" Simmons, get your wise on, right now, or we're leaving you behind.
link2 comments|post comment

Intellectual Poison [Nov. 14th, 2007|12:52 am]
[Tags|, , , ]

Is it my imagination or is the recording industry doing the copyfight a favour?

Crunch time may be on us sooner than any of us could hope if the industry continues to make enemies this way. Think of it, they are vilifying themselves to an entire generation, poisoning their own imagined future consumer base in a vain effort to reverse time. There is are nations of kids leaving college over the next few years that have been cajoled and threatened by these idiots, that have lived in fear of being sued, of having their education taken away from them, both individually and now collectively, have seen their own technology broken by absurd legal conditions, seen their computers subverted and turned against them. These kids have seen a dying industry savagely clawing at their freedom in its efforts to preserve its own rotting carcass, becoming so ferocious and incoherent that the only possible future is self-destruction and dissolution. We don't want them around, the kids don't want them, their own artists want out, even being associated with the names of these companies has become a grave offence.

But we're far from done. We still need to see them fail and fall, broken, liquidated down to the last paper-clip to pay back the money they've extorted from music lovers, to pay for the anguish and misery they've caused, to reimburse us for the efforts we have all had to make to work around the god-awful technological atrocities they've inflicted on the world, and not least to pay for the coming apocalypse in the industries they have been stringing along for so long on the promise of a physical future, a promise which now sounds like the delusion of a fancied industrial renaissance.

Anyone who has tied their assets to the recording industry will be facing some stark choices in the next few years. Those with any sense will get out now, and get out fast.

There is no coming back from this.

The future is free.
linkpost comment

The Blanket License: A Modest Proposal [Oct. 25th, 2007|05:11 pm]
[Tags|, , , , , , , ]

According to a report from ArsTechnica the fabled Blanket License has once again reared its head, this time in Denmark:

Andy Oram over at O'Reilly Radar noted the recent moves in Denmark to create a system where every ISP user might pay a monthly fee in order to access unlimited P2P music legally.

The proposal has drawn positive feedback from an unlikely source—the local "Piratgruppen."

"It's good that they admit that they cannot solve the problem of falling CD sales by suing their own fans," said Sebastian Gjerding from the Piratgruppen. "It looks like they have understood that they should offer something that is competitive compared to other, free music sources. It is an entirely new admission that hasn't spread internationally yet. IFPI Denmark is on the forefront in this matter. But it is annoying that no action has been taken so far to save many teenagers million-krone fines."

ArsTechnica.com


The article notes some obstacles to the proposal. For instance, will this cover just 'local' bands or include international sources? The former would simply prove unenforceable - they'd have less luck detecting where they were downloading from than they currently have detecting if they have downloaded anything at all - while the latter would be a logistical zombie movie complete with everyone dying at the end! Another question is whether this will be a voluntary payment or amount to a tax on all users regardless of whether they ever download music or not?

Despite these sorts of issues, I consider the Blanket License to be the most equitable and, more importantly, most moral alternative to the current media distribution model. Fundamentally it is a concept that makes the most of current technology and encourages further development, while at the same time protecting our right to make use of our own hardware and data.

The problems mentioned in the article are trivial. Yes, the BL should cover artists worldwide but it should be stipulated that they make the claim to receive anything. Yes, the BL should be a mandatory payment, including for businesses - they don't want to make use of it, that's up to them, but since it's there why not let their employees share media on their network without a legal care in the world?

My main problem with the Danish plan is its hopelessly narrow vision, covering only music and only one country. It is comically ineffectual.

Here's the real plan:

The Blanket License should cover all media, it should, in fact, cover anything that can be encoded, uploaded, downloaded or otherwise redistributed, music, movies, TV shows, books, newspapers, 3d printer files, essentially any media that can be rendered as data. It should be run as an opt-in for content creators alone and strictly prohibit music cartels, charities and other non-root content providers. It should also provide a means for those artists who build on the work of others to indicate and reward their contributors.

But there is one element that is by far the most important: the Blanket License must be directly democratic. By this I mean that the distribution of the revenue derived from the BL should be based on what the users are listening to, watching and using, not on some even division or some educated guess informed by random polling. We should literally be voting for our choices and the results of these votes used to calculate the creators' share.s Of course one vote a week is hardly going to be a fair measure, instead we would need at least a hundred votes a week which we could distribute as we see fit (say a maximum of five votes per voter for any one creator). This voting could allow for a mix of voluntary voting (specific choices regardless of what a user has actually downloaded) and user-controlled automated voting (a system that allows vote assignments based on the usage statistics from a media player). No one would be forced to vote, but it would be in their interests to encourage their favourite bands, actors photographers, writers and so on, and automatic voting could allow users to contribute without any real effort.

There will still be a place for record labels as marketing brokers, contracting artists for flat fees or a percentage of their earnings in return for their expertise in development and marketing their creations.

This real Blanket License would be no small undertaking, requiring the development of an international infrastructure and region-by-region legislation to remove the existing legal hurdles faced by users. But the result would be a totally egalitarian forum, the likes of which has not been seen since some mug took a handful of loose change and sang to a wax cylinder. All that would be required for an artist to make money would be to make music and find people who like it enough to vote for it, no contracts, no physical distribution, and most significantly, no risk.


It's ambitious, and naturally it glosses over some real problems. Technically, there are issues with the security involved in electronic voting, ensuring that the votes are genuine rather than the result of malicious software running on client systems, and preventing any third party from accessing usage data and putting user privacy at risk (a premise I call Regime Proofing - designing the system so that should it fall under someone else's control there will not be enough information recorded to identify individual users, though there should still be enough to identify tampering and vandalism [a paradox, I know]). And naturally the entire system would need to be totally transparent if it is to be trusted by artists and consumers.

The environment that this Blanket License could create is an exciting one. It would encourage a far greater range of cultural experience for users, exposing them to a vast library of content without restriction and without the increasingly hegemonic filtering of the incumbent distribution businesses. Since each user has already paid for all their downloading there can be none of this quibbling over the rights involved in time- and format-shifting. Download once and the data is yours to do with as you please., you will be free to invent new ways of accessing your culture that have yet to be even dreamed of, and without fear of the shadow of monetisation.

Radiohead's independent venture into alternative digital distribution model was laudable, a worthy experiment, but one dependant on the duality of our current attitude to online media, both legal and illicit. What they received for their effort was charity: not a long term solution, but a round of applause for a worthy effort. In the end we cannot expect to support artists through benevolence alone. How many 'micro-patrons' can we expect to find and persuade to keep giving? Radiohead simply walked out into a new and forbidding wilderness, if anyone is going to follow, we're going to need to build them some roads.

I've previously discussed the impact of unlimited digital distribution on the existing content industry, namely the rapid and near total destruction of physical production interests. Other commentators have suggested that such a vision is unnecessarily apocalyptic, that, for instance, paper books will never disappear, and to an extent I agree. But consider a world in which you can access any book, at any time, for free; can we really expect already struggling publishers to survive that? There will always be a market for dead tree, just as there is still a market for vinyl, but there will also be a reckoning in the market that will see it reduced to little more than a niche. Now consider this situation extended to cover not only book sellers, but music stores, tv stations, cinemas and all the services that depend on them. A whole set of industries is at stake, countless jobs, and a huge chunk of the Western economy.

The Blanket License promises an almost unimaginable upheaval in the 'business of culture', a vision that the entrenched business interests will likely do anything to escape. But consider also that the openness it could bring will foster new technologies and new businesses to exploit those technologies and even new ways of doing business - the economic environment might then be changed rather than destroyed.

I am convinced that, if we are to avoid handing over control of our lives to big business, then this is the way it must be. It is the Blanket License or (without exaggeration) cultural totalitarianism.
link4 comments|post comment

Poisoned Chalace [May. 31st, 2007|01:34 pm]
[Tags|, , , ]

A pessimist gains no greater pleasure than being able to say "I told you so!"

"With great power comes great responsibility, and apparently with DRM-free music comes files embedded with identifying information. Such is the situation with Apple's new DRM-free music: songs sold without DRM still have a user's full name and account e-mail embedded in them, which means that dropping that new DRM-free song on your favorite P2P network could come back to bite you."

- ArsTechnica.com

link4 comments|post comment

Xenotone [May. 22nd, 2007|05:58 pm]
[Tags|, , ]

Alternative Xenotone album cover art.

Just added to the Illustration Gallery at The Ruins is this alternate version of the cover design for RRR's release of Xenotone's first self-titled album. The album has been made available under a CC license and can be downloaded from Archive.org.

If you enjoy the album please consider purchasing the CD or making a donation via the PayPal link on the archive.org page.
linkpost comment

Rebranding [Apr. 17th, 2007|04:10 pm]
[Tags|, , , , , , ]

Piratechnic Brand Logo
link3 comments|post comment

EMI and iTunes Scrape Off some DRM [Apr. 2nd, 2007|05:12 pm]
[Tags|, ]

This is so worth breaking the silence for.

If you haven't already heard, EMI have agreed to allow iTunes to begin selling "much of it's catalogue" as DRM-free tracks, just as Mr Jobs promised.

Nice, huh? Nice like Ernst Stavro Blofeld stroking a cat.

Interestingly, the high quality DRM-free AAC tracks are to cost 30c more than the 99c one normally pays for individual tracks, which has raised the odd eyebrow, mine included. Are they suggesting, perhaps, that doing less to the tracks before they are released actually costs more? Or are they thinking they'll use this to recoup their faked losses to piracy? Still, it's just thirty cents, right?

It appears that the new scheme involves marketing the higher cost, higher quality track to the more discerning customer:

"Weirdly, Apple seems to have sold this move to EMI by saying that the DRM-free version will be a "premium" offering for audiophiles who want higher-quality music. I think that audiophiles are probably the people who have the least trouble keeping up with the latest tips for efficiently ripping the DRM off of their music -- the people who really need DRM-free music are the punters who can't even spell DRM." - BoingBoing.net


I think they mean "burning the DRM off", nudge-nudge, wink-wink.

Just a word of warning before you start download pooling with all your buddies: this may yet turn out to be a poisoned chalice. While the DRM will be history I've not heard anyone mention digital watermarking. Might we start seeing litigation in the next few years based solely on the discovery of an iTunes customer ID hash embedded in a track downloaded from P2P?

One thing to note, this has, as Ars Technica points out, broken the universal pricing scheme that has reigned in iTunes since its inception. Does this mean that other labels will start looking to hike prices on new or special releases citing EMI DRMF tracks as precedent?

Okay, we can celebrate a win for the Good Guys. iTunes has become a little more open, some of us will get to buy some music from them that won't result in vendor lock-in. This change in policy may, at the very least, be a shuffle in the right direction.

But somewhere in that collective corporate medulla oblongata EMI must be aware that they have taken a step toward the yawning precipice of a world without record labels. We don't need them to make LPs, or cassettes, or CDs. They no longer control the primary means of reproducing music, nor do they hold the keys to the distribution of that music. The artists don't need them to make music, the customers don't need them to hear it. These days is seems their primary contributions (if one can call them that) is applying sneaky and harmful DRM schemes and chasing kids and corpses through the courts. So what exactly are we paying them for, other than to avoid being sued for not paying them, that is?

Together, iTunes and EMI et al form the largest and most complex dumbwaiter the world has ever seen.
linkpost comment

Pot meets Kettle: Bill Gates and the Recording Industry [Dec. 15th, 2006|05:28 pm]
[Tags|, , , ]

We've already had the Consumer Electronics Association turning on the content industry over their demands for DRM crippled hardware. Now commercial software producers are beginning to realise they've been lumbered with the same bum-deal. They don't want to have to waste time and money designing systems that prevent their customers from doing what they want, and their customers sure as hell don't want to pay for something that removes their ability to listen to their own music or watch their own movies.

And now Bill Gates himself has waded in with an unexpected observation. From an interview on micropersuasion.com we have this response:

Q) Is digital rights management (DRM) sustainable over the next 10 years?
A) DRM is not where it should be. In the end of the day incentive systems (for artists) make a difference. But we don't have the right thing here in terms of simplicity or interoperability.


Obviously, "where it should be" would be with the recoding industry and out of the way of Microsoft's development path. But referring to copyright as an "incentive system" for artists is particularly telling. Perhaps he is beginning to realize that the all-consuming recording contract no longer has a place in a world where the ability to record data is ubiquitous. Perhaps he realises that the current "incentive system" has exceeded it's useful lifespan and that something else is needed in its place, something that does not throttle new technology or threaten the consumer base. Wishful thinking on my part, perhaps. But here's where it gets really interesting. From a BBC report on the interview we get this little gem:

Blogger Michael Arrington, of Techcrunch.com, said Bill Gates' short-term advice for people wanting to transfer songs from one system to another was to "buy a CD and rip it".


That's right, according to this, Bill Gates has just said that the best thing you can do with DRM is work around it! I guess this means we're not going to see Windows Media Player's MP3 ripping functionality stripped out any time soon.

Still, we need to remember where this is coming from; Windows Vista has some of the most draconian copy-prevention methodologies yet seen and I can't imagine Microsoft is about to see the light of a new open source "incentive system" any time soon. No, what we really have here (on the heals of the Zune Tax) is an early scuffle between two major IP industries, both comprehending that the future may not include them, who have now realised that not only must they screw over their own customers to survive a few more years, but they're going to have to start screwing each other over too.
linkpost comment

Small Mercies: No UK Copyright Extension [Nov. 29th, 2006|01:03 am]
[Tags|, ]

It looks as thought the UK will not be seeing the copyright extension on sound recordings sought by the music industry. Understandably there are some ruffled feathers. From news.bbc.co.uk:

"This was set before the advent, the big boom, of rock 'n' roll - the boom in popular culture which has led to a whole vast number of people making their living from these royalties.

"You can make a record in 1955 and have been getting royalties," [Music journalist Neil McCormack] said. "Suddenly they're gone."


It's interesting that the arguments used here in favour of copyright extension are generally the same as those used against it.

Does anyone actually think the number of people who can "making a living" from royalties could ever be described as "vast"? Last I heard, the most a band could expect to receive for sales of their work is a few cent per unit - split that between all those who contributed to an album, subtract tax, and there's not a whole lot left to live on. Even for a truly successful artist, if they do not get their huge advances and contractual bonuses, do not receive additional royalties from merchandising and branding, are not offered payment for guest appearances and performances, and have no opportunity to invest these accumulated earnings, I very much doubt that they would make anything described as a "living" on those royalties.

But, for the sake of argument, lets say that musicians could call their royalties a living. What makes anyone think they deserve to be paid for work they did back in 1955? How is that going to encourage anyone to continue making music after they have a few worthy successes under their belt? Perhaps this can explain the outstanding mediocrity of music over the last ten years: all the good artists got rich and settled down to pinching off some worthless crap every couple of years just to remind people to buy the "remastered" back cat while new artists are increasingly hamstrung by having to find a free space in music industry playlists stretching back half a century.

And one more thing about Mr McCormack's statement: I wonder what portion of the "big boom in rock 'n' roll" can be attributed to the rise of home taping as a means of distribution and exposure. I know for certain that back in the eighties, when there was nothing but the BBC to watch and listen to, I was buying music by artists that I would never have considered had I not heard a tape someone had illegally copied for me.


One of the things I've noticed while reading this article is that I have a tendency to use 'recording industry' and 'music industry' as synonyms - not unreasonably up until now. But the distinction between these two is going to become very important over the next few years.

The industry of music making will never leave, will never become redundant, so long as someone is throwing pocket change into a busker's open guitar case. However, the recording industry, that cumbersome edifice built on the broken backs of the real music makers, is a thing that has surely outlived it's usefulness. Their business was based on the reproduction of sounds produced by artists, they owned and controlled the machines capable of such reproduction in a cost-effective manner. Today, every one of us has in our home at least one machine that can reproduce music infinitely and distribute it globally at virtually no cost. In such an environment the recording industry has no future, it is as good as dead. Yes, it's being kept alive by the intervention of so-called Intellectual Property laws, allowing it to do some serious damage in it's death-throes, but it is only a matter of time before music makers and music fans in general begin to realises that it is no longer needed, and most certainly no longer wanted.
linkpost comment

Dark Rites Magic [Oct. 30th, 2006|06:47 pm]
[Tags|, , , ]

"Our DRM is second to none," says Bob Jeves, CEO at uNetis, "It can be applied to any digital media," he starts counting off fingers, "It requires no alterations to the file, takes up no additional bandwidth, and requires no encryption or additional processing at the customer end. It allows files to be used on any device without technical obstruction. It does not compromise users' systems with invasive software, does not threaten their privacy with constant server traffic, and it cannot be stripped away by any known means." He sits back smiling as the waiter delivers his latte, the morning sun shining from the glass flank of uNetis new Paris headquarters across the street reflected in his spectacles, "This system is the best solution for artists and customers."

"And for uNetis," your reporter observes.

He concedes the point with a shrug, "uNetis has taken a rapidly failing business model and provided the means to make it work again. I don't see any problem in benefiting from that achievement."

But to some, uNetis' lack of shame is perhaps the most infuriating part of the online music retailer's new DRM initiative.

In a small flat in West London, Brian (as we will call him) scratches furiously at his arms, his face set in concentration as he glances from the rash that has spread across his skin in the last few minutes to the copy of the music file that has caused it, sitting conspicuously in the middle of his Vista desktop. Finally, unable to cope with the discomfort any longer he deletes the file, making sure to empty the recycling bin, then logs in to the uNetis web site where he navigates to the payments page. There he locates the options for unauthorised copies and uses his credit card to pay €5.00, more than five times the amount he had originally paid for the track a month ago.

"Deleting the copy isn't good enough," he says half an hour later, the rash on his forearms all but gone, "The only way to get rid of the hives is to pay. The curse is very specific."

Brian considers himself to be a rational person, a student of engineering, unswayed by religion, mysticism or superstition, a vociferousness opponent to intelligent design and a staunch advocate of reason. "I thought the whole thing was a joke. I watched the LAP [License Agreement Presentation], with Justin Timberlake and Bono explaing what we can and can't do with the data we just paid for, and took about as much notice as I ever do of those things. And then they had those... those girls talking gibberish and sprinkling god-knows-what on the uNetis server racks, and I just laughed my ass off! I was waiting for them to short something out and get sprayed with fire suppressant," he doesn't look amused now. "I mean, how could that not be a joke? But honestly I thought I was getting a good deal; I paid for my music and got a file I don't have to fight with to hear it."

It wasn't until two weeks after downloading the latest Coldplay single from uNetis that Brian started to take the curse seriously. He first noticed the itching in the hours after copying the file to his portable music player one morning and assumed it was an insect bite or allergic reaction. However, it became so irritating that he was forced to leave work early that day to find an anti-histamine. "It was the woman at the chemists that mentioned the uNetis LAP. Until then I hadn't put it together. She said a friend of hers had come down with the same thing and that it turned out to be these copied uNetis tracks on her computer." But Brian still wasn't ready to believe that his download had really been cursed. "I was up all night with this itching driving me crazy, wondering how I was going to manage work in the morning. And I don't really know what I was thinking, I just wanted it to stop. I got up and I watched the LAP again, and there is was. The witches-for-hire were talking about the hives and the itching and 'torment without respite'."

"I thought I was being an idiot. But I followed the instruction and paid the fine." And within minutes, just as with the demonstration he had shown, the rash faded. "Am I just making this whole ridiculous thing worse by talking to you about it? The more it's reported like this, the more people will fall for it, right? I mean, I still don't believe in this crap, but how can I deny what I just showed you? It's all psychology; I know that some people are more susceptible to this kind of suggestion, and that it has nothing to do with their intelligence or education. But that doesn't make me feel any less of a fool for falling for it."

In another experiment, your reporter purchased a track from uNetis and dutifully sat through the fifteen minute LAP video with the curse description and the spell casting by the three young witches (young women no doubt selected for their attractiveness as well as their alleged occult expertise). The unprotected file was then fearlessly duplicated onto a portable music player without paying for an additional copy.

Three days later there was still no sign of the promised affliction.

"It doesn't reach everyone, no," admits Jeves, "We estimate that ten-to-twenty percent of our customers are directly susceptible to the curse. But then that twenty percent convince another thirty that it's not worth the risk to even try. And, of course, we always have our consistent base of loyal and honest customers for whom the curse simply doesn't apply. They know that our artists need to be rewarded and are happy to help fund their creativity... Uh... you did pay for that copy in the end, didn't you?"

Prof. Kenneth Dique, who remains at large despite the outstanding warrant for his arrest over the CrackBaby.net distributed quantum computing affair, has also taken an interest in the cursing of media downloads. In an interview last month [Stop Breathing, 'Quantum Communist', August 2012], Prof. Dique considered the curse a logical, if repulsive, development, "This is really no different from any of those anti-piracy PSAs. They are trying to convince their customers that something bad will happen to them if they do anything other than exactly what they are told. 'You will be arrested', 'You will be fined fifty-thousand dollars', 'You will go to prison'. As with all of these things it is only a minority, and usually a tiny one, whose lives are actually and directly impacted by such actions, but the misfortune of that minority is enough to convince a whole lot of other people to act just as these pigopolists want them to. And that's the most dangerous aspect: these companies are deliberately and maliciously re-engineering our common psyche for their own benefit, and without our consent. The uNetis curse is just the most recent, the most outlandishly arrogant and the most irresponsible example of this.

"And here's a question I want them to answer: What happens when uNetis eventually goes out of business? I didn't hear any caveat in the spell about that. What happens when there is no online payment system in place to lift the curse? Do those afflicted customers have to put up with the symptoms for the rest of their lives?"

"I find it hard to take the good professor seriously," Jeves responds when Prof. Dique's observations were put to him, "He's basically just put a negative spin on all advertising: 'you will be ugly if you don't use this moisturiser', 'you will be unpopular if you don't wear these sneakers'. Everything in the world of advertising is about 'engineering the common psyche', as he put it, that's how we create mind share. All we are dong is using the exact same process to convince our customers to do the right thing and help support our service and our artists." On Prof. Dique's last point he is rather more evasive, "We have no intention of going out of business. And I can assure you we are putting in place a series of measures to ensure that our customers can always access the curse-lifting mechanism, through alternate channels if necessary." He declined to discuss the details of these "alternative channels".

And the future of uNetis magic based DRM system (provided they don't go out of business and leave their customers with a lifetime of suffering)? "We are currently in talks with several of the larger labels about modifying the terms of the curse to make file sharing, through peer-to-peer and public posting, a distinct infringement with a much larger fine. We've also had several other online retailers seeking permission to make use of the curse system to protect their own products. And there has even been some investigation into the potential use of curses with physical media and domestic media technology such as preventing the misuse of HDMI signals. That's one of the many beauties of the curse system: it doesn't require customers to upgrade their hardware - it will work all the way down to old analogue devices!"

Finally Mr Jeves was asked if he personally felt any shame over causing so many people physical harm with the uNetis curse, "No. No I don't. It's those people who are copying music without authorisation who should be ashamed, ashamed for trying to take something without paying for it, ashamed for putting future music production at risk because of their selfishness, and for bringing us to the point where this sort of measure has become necessary. In the last two months we've received over twenty-thousand payments for unauthorised copies and recovered a considerable percentage of our estimated lost revenue for that period, enough to give hope to the music industry of a real future. What do I have to be ashamed of?" He adds: "And besides, it's hives, it's not going to kill them!"

- 'You'll Wish They'd Stuck with Rootkits' by Jennifer South
Stop Breathing, October 2012.

linkpost comment

Bad Guy Sticker [Sep. 15th, 2006|01:52 am]
[Tags|, , , , , , , ]

There's been quite a bit of interesting copyfight news over on BoingBoing recently. Last week I was reading about Clayton Counts who released a mash-up of the classic Beatles' album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club band. And now this week, not only are EMI, the license holders of the album, trying to sue Clayton despite the fact that he has no money and made none from the mash-up, but they're also trying to sue everybody who heard his work too.

This displeases me.

I've cobbled together a new Greasemonkey script called 'Bad Guy Sticker' for use with the Amazon web site (and hopefully others with a bit of work).


When visiting a product page at Amazon this script will detect the 'label', 'studio' or 'publisher' field from the product's data and test it against a list of MPAA, RIAA, BPI and FACT members. If it finds a match, even a partial one, it will display a warning 'sticker' to let you know that money spent on this item will be used by the Bad Guys to harm your rights.

Example of Bad Guy Sticker for 20th Century Fox

When you give these idiots money they use it sue people based on nothing but a screen-cap of a p2p IP list, to sue artists who are simply and naturally building on existing culture, to lobby for the extension of copyrights so they can tighten their hold on your culture, to take away your right to control your own property by persuading hardware manufacturers to sell you broken machines, to limit the development of new technologies because it threatens their outmoded business models, to force other countries to submit to their so-called Intellectual Property laws regardless of their own positions, and to find new ways to prevent you from participating in your own culture.

You may think it unlikely that something as simple as not buying certain products could have any impact on this lamentable situation. But regardless of the outcome the question you really need to ask yourself is, can you, in good conscience, continue to fund these activities? Even for those who will continue to buy these products it is important to understand the consequences of doing so.

While using the Bad Guy Sticker you may begin to wonder if there is anything left to buy without losing sleep. Trust me, this sensation passes swiftly. The fact is that the vast majority of the stuff sold by these companies is utter shite and you really won't miss it when it's gone. There is plenty of entertainment available out there from independent and totally benign companies, and there is a whole world of free culture available online. You really don't need to be encouraging content slavery to enjoy yourself.

[ The script can be re-installed from the link above to update the member lists. Any suggestions on additions for the lists to improve matching are welcome, as are any suggestions on optimising and increasing the functionality of the script. I am releasing Bad Guy Sticker to the Public Domain - this is to make it clear that anyone who wishes may produce their own version using this code, for instance you might want to build lists tailored for your region and other online stores. ]
link3 comments|post comment

Spiralfrog: Free as in Drugs [Aug. 30th, 2006|03:04 am]
[Tags|, , ]

'Spiralbog' - Spiralfrog.com design parody. Released under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License - http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/CC-AT 2.5

I know I missed a lot of recent copyfight stuff that has been oh-so-deserving of vitriolic (if repetitive) comment but I've just been far too busy to compose the necessary ranting. Hopefully I'll get back to the real work soon.
link1 comment|post comment

A Brief History of DRM Hacking [Jul. 19th, 2006|04:12 pm]
[Tags|, , , , , ]

"Like a creeping fog, DRM smothers more and more media in its clammy embrace, but the sun still shines down on isolated patches of the landscape. This isn't always due to the decisions of corporate executives; often it's the work of hackers who devote considerable skill to cracking the digital locks that guard everything from DVDs to e-books. Their reasons are complicated and range from the philosophical to the criminal, but their goals are the same: no more DRM."


This fascinating article from Ars Technica is a necessary read for everyone. Not only does it describing why DRM has always failed to prevent piracy but also why, despite their shortcomings, these tools of questionable intent and limited effectiveness will continue to be developed and used to protect music and movie industry profit margins.
linkpost comment

Telefonica - The Silent Network [Jun. 29th, 2006|05:28 pm]
[Tags|, , , , , ]

A little flurry of mod-envy on /. is the herald of more IPD news from Spain (tmcnet.com).

It seems that Spanish lawmakers are going to ban "unauthorized peer-to-peer file-sharing" as they introduce the blank media levy. Whoop-de-doo, welcome to the world, you may cry. But there is a twist.

The arguments on /. have to do with the spin placed on the article by the poster suggesting that all P2P use is about to be banned. Remember those statistics from yesterday? - 90% of network traffic in Spain is Internet use and 80% of that is P2P, and any guess on the level of P2P traffic that is "unauthorised" is going to involve a percentage higher than 95. By that estimation the Spanish Telcos are about to find their networks suddenly and deathly quiet! However, Slashdotters have been pointing out that it is only "unauthorised" use that is banned and not P2P use in general.

The thing is, a complete ban on P2P networks is not so easily dismissed, as the article goes on to say "the government is going after Internet service providers; it's a criminal offense[sic] for ISPs to facilitate unauthorized downloading." I'm going to be generous here and suggest that the reporter made an unintentional generalisation - after all, the only way for an ISP to prevent all unauthorised downloading is to block all traffic which would put them out of business. So let's say that it's facilitating unauthorised downloading through P2P that will become a criminal offence. But how can an ISP discriminate between authorised and unauthorised P2P traffic? The answer is that they can't not with any reliability and not without a vulnerability to exploitation, so the only option is to block all P2P traffic.

It's a fair guess that Spain could turn out to have the most draconian anti-file-sharing, pro-IP measures of any country to date. I have to admit, it's kind of exciting to watch the IP industry whipped governments of the world froth and flail over this, especially when their efforts are so ridiculously out of touch and so hopelessly late. It's like watching an enemy army form up exactly as predicted.

The only thing this legislation will do is force file-sharers into darknets, and what will the ISPs do then, ban encrypted traffic? The Spanish government has taken a fateful step into an arms race they can't possibly win. And it's a step that might prove the tipping point for a global shift in file-sharing technology, one that would make policing the Net for supposed IP crime a truly Sisyphean task - a punishment they truly deserve.
link7 comments|post comment

Universal Licence [Jun. 29th, 2006|02:05 am]
[Tags|, , , , , , ]

This is a fascinating (if short) editorial based on this article (both at the very badly designed typicallyspanish.com via /.) about proposed changes to Spain's legal recognition of Intellectual Property Delusions. The proposed law will demand a mandatory levy on blank media as in Canada and Finland - strangely including memory sticks, mobile phones and scanners but excluding hard drives - with the resulting revenue distributed to copyright holders. How this revenue will be distributed in this instance remains unclear.

There are arguments that this is an indiscriminate tactic to regain the supposed lost revenue of the content industries, when there are many uses of the taxed products that do not infringe copyright. For instance, this law would mean that people backing up their own data to DVD-R are paying copyright holders for nothing.

But, there is another way to look at this: if you have already paid the copyright holder then surely you have the right to use the copyright holder's work. This tax can be seen as a universal licence to copy and to distribute copyrighted content. This might be considered analogous to the proposed (and subsequently shot down), broadband tax in France that would have made it legal to share copyrighted material over P2P networks. The Spanish levy is a socialistic response to the problem of IP in a capitalistic environment where such property can be reproduced infinitely and distributed globally at virtually no cost and very little effort.

The most interesting thing in the editorial are the quoted statistics on Internet use in Spain. Telefonica, which is not only the largest corporation in Spain but the also the largest telephony company in the world, has estimated that 90% of the traffic on its network is Internet use, and that 80% of that Internet traffic is P2P. There's a claim that the average Spaniard now buys only one CD a year (and who can blame them if that one turns out to be Shakira?) and that DVD sales have dropped by almost 30% between 2004 and 2005 (though for the life of me I'm not sure what they are supposed to have bought in that period). It may seem, from first appearances, that the Spanish government is reacting to this new reality by offering a way for both the content industry and the consumer to get what they want without a litigation war.

However, as mentioned in the article neither broadband connections nor HDs are to be covered by this tax - very strange, I think you'll agree, seeing as HDs have far more storage capacity and DSL lines are far better for distribution than any of the other media mentioned... unless transmitting copyrighted material over a DSL line and storing it on a HD will continue to be treated as infringement. I have to wonder what this will mean for HD based media players?

Under these circumstances this new levy is essentially just fleecing consumers while knocking a few more nails into physical media's coffin by making it more expensive and less attractive. At the same time it continues to allow the content industries to victimise their own customers and keep their broken business model afloat for a few more years.

Ultimately this is nothing to get excited about, it's Germolene on a spinal injury. Taxing physical products can only push consumers away and encourage the concept of data divorced from any particular medium, and that can only encourage the use of P2P. It promises a market where the CDs and DVDs are merely the means of transporting purchased data from the point of sale to the customers networked media player, and from there it's only a small step to online-only distribution.

I very much doubt that the companies behind the new (and already far too expensive) Blu-Ray and HD-DVD media will be happy with this proposal. Out of the cradle, into the grave, as it were.
linkpost comment

navigation
[ viewing | most recent entries ]
[ go | earlier ]