Dimen Designs

Snarky Post of the Week (DRM Doesn't Rock)

  Light 
  Originally uploaded by patcy86.

It's been some time since the last Snarky Post of the Week installment but there's been enough good material lately (Apple's scare tactics surrounding iPhone hacks is a perfect case in point) that it's coming back for now.

Ignoring the iPhone and Facebook and Social Graph hoopla but continuing with the music-themed posts from this week, this headline caught my eye. A great example of dinosaurs trying to show how with it they are, when in reality, as Umair would say, it's an example of strategy decay:

"MTV, Real, and Wal-Mart Shake Up Digital Music" (PC World)

Thanks for the eye-catching headline; my question is what's worse, writing that headline to grab people's attention or writing it because you think it accurately captures what MTV, Real and Wal-Mart are trying to do?

Nothing could be further from the truth, having those three companies and their brands even mentioned as "shaking" things up in the area of digital music. It's almost laughable if it weren't so sad. And if you're new to the DRM discussion, you have some catching up to do but at least start with my last Snarky Post of the Week on why DRM does rock.

Let's not just complain without explaining why. The NYT Magazine story on Rick Rubin taking over at Columbia Records stirred up the music industry (see Bob Lefsetz) because Rubin suggested that music subscription was a possible answer to the industry's woes. As the PC World story says,

MTV and Real Networks announced in August that they would create a new music service based on Real's Rhapsody service and MTV's music content and packaging. Verizon will deliver portions of the service through its V Cast music offering.

Hmm, MTV as the arbiter of music that we want to listen to, not the partner or brand I'd chose to help with "content and packaging." MTV is old and done. We can all agree that MTV was once counter-culture and the barometer of cool but they sold out to advertising and cheap content (e.g. reality shows or user-generated content for your Web2.0 fans. MTV doesn't even play music anymore (last time I saw any music videos, and ones worth mentioning, were Feist and Ben Lee videos on VH1 late night last week). You know when Justin Timberlake is telling you to play more music that you've really lost it.

  sunset_day7_dad 
  Originally uploaded by cherbert.

Second, don't get me or anyone else started on Verizon. I have a general distaste for all cable and telco companies because they've been ripping off consumers and fighting innovation in their respective industries for so long that I don't have much respect for them. Again, it's almost funny to see their business models withering away thanks to the internet (go Google phone, please reduce the telco carriers to a commodity, transferring bits and not locking us into their devices anymore) but I can't laugh because they've been screwing consumers for so long.

And who uses V-Cast? Or put another way, how was the service slipped into the tiny print of the bills for those 10 unsuspecting people in the world that have this service (and don't even know that they're paying for it)?

Third, while there are some fans of Real's Rhapsody service (Fred is one among them), it hasn't taken off with people. They've had the service for some time but most people my age (20-30 range) probably don't know about it and prefer to still buy the music (CDs to rip themselves or via iTunes-- I told you my stance earlier this week.

The better question about subscription models, as Bob points out, is that "We need to define terms. Is subscription RENTAL or GETTING A STEADY CHECK FROM EVERY CUSTOMER EVERY MONTH?"

The market so far has not shown an appetite for the former. The latter is something that most consumers would be okay with if it means having access to all the music we want, whenever, wherever, and for whatever platform we want (home PC, work PC, laptop, mp3 player, phone, PDA, etc.). Stories about new music services demonstrate that the music industry is experimenting, and that's good, but they've had a lot of time to experiment and so far all results have been anti-consumer (DRM, Sony rootkit CDs, suing their customers, etc.).

We can hope that they figure out and survive or look forward to the new guard changing the entire industry and say goodbye to the traditional music industry as we know it. Rubin sums it up well.

"I have great confidence that we will have the best record company in the industry, but the reality is, in today's world, we might have the best dinosaur. Until a new model is agreed upon and rolling, we can be the best at the existing paradigm, but until the paradigm shifts, it's going to be a declining business. This model is done."

----------------
Now playing: Doves - Walk In Fire
via FoxyTunes   

Senior IBM IP Lawyer on Need to Reform Copyright

David Kappos, the Chief IP Lawyer for IBM, spoke quite plainly in this recent interview with Scoble that patents in the IT sphere (as opposed to patents in the life sciences, pharma, etc.) are too easy to obtain. Patents in the IT world should really be truly innovative ideas and the issue is that software is usually an incremental endeavor and the current system needs to be changed.

  A copyright will protect you from PIRATES 
  Originally uploaded by Ioan Sameli.

Also, finding prior art in the software world is much more difficult that in other industries because there's no lexicon or common language for its architecture and structure; the software industry has completely changed from sub-routines to macros to objects to java beans and now to web-enabled components.

He advocates that the copyright and the patent system catch up with the times, meaning that patent claims should be posted online so that the corrective and collective-intelligence of the web will automatically solve the prior art challenge.

Lastly, David advocates that innovation is the new completive advantage for the 21st century. With the continual shrinking of the distance between the idea and the product, it means that the real economic value drives towards the ideas. And how can you reasonably extract value from those ideas much sooner and more efficiently. That doesn’t mean devaluing IP laws (they need revision but not denigration) but accurately distinguishing between the valuable less valuable kinds of innovation so that everyone profits.

I agreed with everything up until the end: can a refined copyright and patent regime effectively distinguish between more and less valuable kinds of innovation and apply a variable or sliding scale of protection?

That’s the only part I’m having a hard time envisioning because it seems like a slippery slope for IP champions to accept, that some innovations are less valuable than others. If you accept that premise, then you could be calling into question whether there is indeed a baseline standard for protection (e.g. the current 75 years plus life of the creator). By not accepting a variable IP protection scheme, you guarantee that your current and past holdings won’t be called into question.

Regardless, it’s refreshing to hear a corporate attorney speak candidly about the need to reform the current copyright and patent structures, admitting that many software patents are too easily granted, and that the prior art could be completely overhauled by harnessing the collective intelligence of the web. Now the question is how to drive urgency in reforming these things at the legislative level in Capital Hill.

----------------
Now playing: Stars - Your Ex-Lover Is Dead
via FoxyTunes    

Save Net Radio Rally in DC

Attended the Save Net Radio rally Monday night here in Capital Hill, in the park at Constitution and Delaware. I got there late from work so I missed the opening remarks at 6:30pm, including some words by Congressman Jay Inslee and Congressman Don Manzullo, but was excited to see an albeit small group gathered for the event.

  band_20140-2055_5 
  Originally uploaded by cherbert.

I'm not sure how many people were there for the actual cause (given the concert was free and in the park near the Capital, I think the event attracted a good many onlookers but if they stayed, maybe they'll learn something about the issue of copyright royalties for online radio stations) but it was a great summer night to listen to some surprisingly good bands.

I only saw the last two bands and only caught part of the second group's name, a local band called something like From Rome... and they played good energetic, pop/rock songs that I'd definitely pay to see them play again.

All of the bands were going to speak with their representatives on Tuesday morning so I hope it went well and I thank SaveNetRadio.org for putting on a great event: good music and a even better cause. Let's hope that the copyright royalty terms for internet radio are indeed re-evaluated by Congress and set are more reasonable, non-exclusionary rates. I love KCRW, WAMU, and all of the other streaming music services available on the internet and it would be tragic to lose these services because of the large, entrenched media companies inhibiting (through absurd copyright royalty terms) the next generation of online music services from prospering (and destroying the mass media's now dwindling stranglehold on the music industry).

SaveNetRadio's also has photos from the event.

Why DRM Will Continue On- Forbes

Written 5/5/07 on my PDA  (so formatting and links are crude) but reformated on 5/10/07.]

This quote below from a Forbes article on DRM sums up why the music industry still doesn't get it:

No intellectual property business is going to cross the digital divide without figuring out how to protect its content and to ensure that transactions are associated with the acquisition of content, Nash said. The music industry simply has to solve the content security problem or risk the obsolescence of its business model.

What's wrong with this statement. A couple of things.

1. We must protect our content or we won't enter the digital marketplace- how do you expect to share your content with the world and have total control over how its used? Those two views are in contradiction. Yes, allow people to purchase your digital content but don't dictate how I use it after I've 'purchased' it. If we can't use/consume the content outside of the draconian rules and limits you've setup, then don't share your content. Perfect control contradicts the idea of sharing or selling content.
2. The content security problem (which I just  addressed above- it's not a problem, the rules of the game have changed and made perfect control over your content impossible) means explicitly that that your business model isn't at risk of obsolesce, it's already dead in its current form. DRM doesn't work so yes, you do need a different business model.

Read the rest of the article here, (I'm writing this from my mobile so no good link formatting on this post). The other great (by which I mean incorrect and ridiculous) analogy is that without DRM, the entire world would come to resemble a college dorm where downloading and 'cloning' of music would run rampant. The research doesn't show that (Forrester's and others have done the analysis- can't link to it right now) but it's the big, bad stereotype of music piracy that the music industry likes to perpetuate.

Downloading vs. Paying for The Arcade Fire

[Written 5/3/07 on my PDA  (so formatting and links are crude) but not posted until 5/10/07.]

Tonight is the night, The Arcade Fire is playing with The National (who I saw at Black Cat six months ago- thanks to Fred for recommending them) tonight at DAR Constitution Hall here in DC.

I've been wanting to see Arcade Fire ever since first hearing 'Headlights Look Like Diamonds,' probably three or four years ago.Having read that NYT article about the Montreal music scene, I was familiar with The Dears but not with AR.

But I've never bought a single piece of AR music, either at the store or by download. I love their music yet haven't bought their music, I sound like a cheapskate freeloader don't I, who believes all music
should be free to download?

Just the opposite in fact, I go to shows because I want to directly support the artists. Though the  traditional music album isn't dead, the business model of the record industry is fundamentally broken. DRM and suing customers is not the answer. Having been at college freshman during the heyday of Napster, I enjoyed this article in the Harvard Crimson chastising the music industry for making college administrators copyright police: http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx%3Fref%3D518638

If you think I'm wrong, go read Doctorow, Lessig, or Leftsetz.

The Passing of Jack Valenti

As much as I try to keep up on current events, I didn't see the news about the death of Jack Valenti until this weekend. Valenti had been on my radar recently because I finally finished Katharine Graham's memoir, Personal History, and she mentioned him among one of her personal friends. It was only from this book that I even realized some of Valenti's background, working as a close Lyndon Johnson aide in the White House and actually being on Air Force One when Johnson was sworn in as President soon after Kennedy's assassination.

So until recently, I only knew of Valenti's work as the public face of the Motion Picture Association of America and his long crusade related to protecting copyright in the digital age. As a recreational copyright wonk, Valenti is famous in the tech community and blogosphere for his protection of Hollywood and Micky Mouse.

When I heard that he died, there was only one person who's blog I wanted to read in response to this news: Lawrence Lessig. The Lessig vs. Valenti debates on copyright were always entertaining and intellectual at the same time.

And sure enough, Lessig's thoughtful post on Valenti's passing gives the former MPAA-head the credit that he deserves: even if we didn't agree with his positions, Valenti was a skilled politician/lobbyist,  witty, and sly as a fox. 

Snarky Post of the Week: DRM Rocks

Thanks to Job's "Thoughts on Music" (aka Declaration of DRM Indepdence), the CEO of Macrovision has opened is mouth and inserted hs foot, singing the joys of DRM. You can imagine how the blogosphere responded, unfavorably to say the least.

 

So this installment of Snarky post of the Week is for Cory Doctorow and his well-reasoned distate of DRM: a PR-to-English translation of the Macrovision CEO's letter responding to Steve Jobs:

"I would like to start by thanking Steve Jobs for offering his   provocative perspective on the role of digital rights management   (DRM) in the electronic content marketplace and for bringing to the   forefront an issue of great importance to both the industry and   consumers." --> F*ck you, Jobs.

"DRM increases not decreases consumer value"-->Up is down. Black is white. (Daring Fireball)

Currently Playing: Tricky - Christinasands

Copyright Repercussions of GoogTube

Fred von Lohmann of EFF gives us critical insight on the copyright fears/repercussions of the GoogTube deal (directly re-posted from Battelle's interview with Fred, emphasis added):

And it's important to consider who are the people suing YouTube. I've thought for some time that the first lawsuits against YouTube (and other video hosting services) will be from small copyright owners (like LA News Service), not from major media companies. That's good news for YouTube (and Google). Small timers tend to lack the resources to bring top-drawer legal talent to bear in these fights. As a result, they often lose, creating useful precedents for the Google's of the world. In fact, Google has already been successful in securing good precedents against unsophisticated opponents who thought that they could squeeze a quick settlement out of Google (Field v. Google, Parker v. Google). What the small-timers don't appreciate is that Google would much rather spend money on setting a good precedent than on settling.

So I think the YouTube acquisition may well represent a legal opportunity for Google (and the Internet industry generally), rather than a vulnerability. After all, litigation to define the copyright rules for new online services is inevitable -- better to choose your battles and plan for them, rather than fleeing the fight and letting some other company create bad precedents that will haunt you later.

Wiki Community for U.S. Patents

About damn time: WikiPatent

An idea that Lessig and others have discussed for some time but now it seems like the foundations of reform may be starting to take hold. It reminds me of the recent controversy over Canada's "Captain Copyright" (see my t-shirt),a  brain-child of the Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency.

I give the copyright organization some credit, however, for at least thinking about a way to improve the current broken system of copyright in the U.S. and in Canada.

Dugard went on to detail her organization’s respect for the Wikimedia Foundation and its Wikipedia website, and said that they have even held discussions about jointly creating a sort of “public domain registry” for international copyrights. (link)

Although the communications manager for Captain Copyright didn't use the word "wiki," it sounds like WikiPatent might a first attempt at meaningful reform.

Protecting the World for Copyright