Cory Doctorow's MS DRM Talk

In his talk Cory Doctorow suggests that DRM not only doesn't work but is also bad for society. He says that any DRM technique can and has been bypassed, therefore the only people who are affected by it are the most technically unsavvy as well as the most honest people. I believe he is correct, but at the same time DRM exists because we live in a capitalistic society. It would be extremely difficult to change something that's based on such a fundamental part of how business works.

As Cory Doctorow states you need not be a techie to circumvent DRM. One only needs the ability to access the Internet and use a search engine to find a crack made by someone who is technically savvy and has posted that information. So the only people who cannot perform this task are those who are "technophobic". There are certain people who are just honest enough to elect not to bypass DRM technology but of course those people would abide whether or not there was any barriers to cross in order to bypass DRM.

What is the alternative? DRM exists because companies are always competing with each other, and at the same time battling the public to ensure that they get payed for their product. If these companies weren't getting money the quality of available products would diminish drastically.

So what needs to happen to change this? It almost seems as though this issue is a proxy for the struggle between the ideals of capitalism and communism. If all the tech companies cooperated with each other there wouldn't be competing media formats that you'd have to make a gamble on which one would take off. One example of this would be blue-ray discs versus HD-DVD. But at the same time if they all cooperated with each other they would essentially have a monopoly and be able to stick the consumer with whatever price and conditions they wanted. This why we have anti-trust laws.

I believe that even though much of this DRM technology is amazingly frustrating, it's the struggle between various companies and consumers/digital pirates that drives the creation of new technology.

the long tail: response

The Long Tail makes some interesting points about the effect that some companies like YouTube and Amazon and the internet in general have on the media industry. In his article Chris Anderson asserts that because books, cds and DVDs no longer have to take up physical shelf space they can be profitable even if they only sell one unit. This may be true for those companies, however I still believe that the artists and production companies cannot be profitable from the fringes of popularity.

It does make the market more dynamic to have more available titles. This means there’s also more competition, but with the more obscure titles now on the market it can be more likely for an artist to find their niche audience and gather a fan base. When you could only get an album from the record store the market was only hit-based, and so only artists whom the popular record labels thought would have a broad appeal would make it to the shelves.

The main flaw I find in this article is that even though the long tail of obscure titles combined might be as profitable as the hits, the only way for an artist to make any legitimate compensation is to strive not be part of the tail.

blog #2 p2p file sharing

In “Piracy is progressive taxation” the author Tim O’reilly brings up some valid points. He says that in many ways peer to peer file sharing is helpful to artists because it makes widely available what might have remained obscure. I believe that he is correct in that but has a somewhat twisted view of it because he is speaking from a writer’s point of view, not a musician’s.

At one time (when I had a bit more time on my hands) I downloaded many albums for free. The big question is would I have bought them otherwise? The answer is I’m not sure. There are definitely cases where people get free music that they otherwise would have bought, but many other cases where the ease of getting a file over the internet for free has brought many artists many fans who would otherwise not have known about their music. Many of these fans obtained through free music downloads will potentially end up buying some of that artists albums in the future, and even more likely go to see them in concert, which as I understand it is where the artists make the most money anyways.

As a musician myself, I would be proud to see my music being shared. However if I ever got really big I would probably see it as a hindrance to sales. Peer to peer sharing is great for small time artists who might otherwise never break out of obscurity, but I would say that it definitely hurts big time record labels. This may have the effect of decentralizing the music industry from just the mainstream music from major labels only available at the corporate owned Sam Goody at the mall.

In his article Tim O’reilly seems to imply that peer to peer sharing can only help the media industry, but I think this is untrue. He is a writer and does not face nearly the same situation. A book can be shared online but the physical aspect of a book is still very important. I believe most people still prefer a book with paper pages that you can carry with you anywhere to staring at a computer screen for hours on end (maybe it’s just me). When you download a song you can play it on your computer or burn it to a cd, put it on your IPod or any other format and it works and sounds just as good as if you had bought the cd at the record store.

Ultimately, peer to peer sharing is not likely to stop anytime soon and the media industry is just going to have to learn to live it. It’s true that p2p is progressive taxation since it could help an artist find their way to the limelight but then eventually tap into their potential profits. I think most artists would consider it a fair trade.

privacy on facebook

Since its creation at Harvard University in 2004, facebook has exploded upon the population of internet users and is now the world’s most used social networking site. There are many uses to this site and obviously it has become very popular. On the flip side there are several concerns regarding privacy that I believe haven’t been fully addressed.

First are the mini-feed and news-feed features. The news feed appears on a user’s home page and gives you information on your friends’ activities and updates. You can control some of what appears on others peoples’ news feed but in my experience it is difficult to fully control what other people can see about you, and once a “story” is up on someone else’s news feed you cannot delete it, or even necessarily know it’s there. The mini-feed appears on every users profile page and displays that user’s activities. However that user has the option of deleting any activity reports that they choose. Because of these features it can be quite easy for anyone who is your “friend” to follow all your online activities and communications. As I said it is possible to control much of what other users can see but it requires a certain vigilance that most users either don’t possess or don’t care to employ. In my opinion these features are part of what makes facebook so popular, but also somewhat dangerous.

On December 15, 2005 two MIT students downloaded over 70,000 facebook profiles as part of a research project. They proved that it was possible to access users’ personal information through the use of malicious applications. These students did not do this with the intent to harm or violate anyone, but it raised many concerns over just how secure the site is.

“Beacon” has also caused some controversy. Beacon allows partner sites to advertise to specific users based on information they had collected about users from outside sources. These directed advertisements could even appear as events posted to a users news feed. This also allowed these partner sites to post information from outside of facebook to users’ friends’ news feeds. Very soon after its inception and subsequent backlash from the online community, facebook changed the program so that each outside site or “application” has to ask permission from each user to publish information they gather about that user. Still, this is not a perfect system because once you accept an application’s terms it will continue to publish information about you to your friends until you delete the application. Many people add applications over time and then forget about them.

Another issue with facebook is that it is very difficult to fully delete your profile. It’s quite easy to make your profile inactive and inaccessible to other facebook users. These inactive profiles can easily be reactivated though, with only knowledge of the email address and password. In order to fully delete your profile you must contact facebook directly.

Facebook is so big that it has become an unavoidable presence in our society. Even if you are not on facebook you probably have several friends that are on facebook and their profile probably have pictures of you posted and there’s not much anyone can do about it. The issue of privacy is a legitimate concern but I fear there is no way to undo what already exists. Facebook certainly does have its advantages which I believe outweigh the loss of privacy that most of us have already undergone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_features#News_Feed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_Beacon

word

This is a test blog meant to test if I am a champion or a loser who loses stuff constantly.

peace