Judge Says No Fair Use For Jailbreaking Xboxes; The Law Doesn't Care If Jailbreaking iPhones Is Legal

from the this-is-a-problem dept

Last month, we pointed out how ridiculous it was that modding your iPhone is considered perfectly legal, but that modding your Xbox somehow can get you three years in jail. That was to point out just how silly it was that the DMCA does not allow fair use when it comes to its anti-circumvention rules. This has long been a huge problem (and a potential Constitutional problem) for the way the DMCA is constructed. The only exceptions are manually chosen every few years by the Librarian of Congress (who recently granted the ok for modding your phone a few months back, but wasn't even asked about game consoles). Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, the judge in the case has said that this does not matter and fair use cannot apply. Again, this isn't a surprise but it does highlight how ridiculous the DMCA is.

It would seem that this case could become a rather useful one in testing the constitutionality of the DMCA's anti-circumvention rules and the lack of fair use exceptions. It's hard to think of a situation that seems more unreasonable than saying that you can jailbreak consumer electronics device 1 "because of the Librarian of Congress said so," but you cannot jailbreak consumer electronics device 2 "because the Librarian of Congress did not say so." That hardly seems like a situation that copyright law should ever allow, as it presents an undue penalty on certain new technologies.

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, fair use, iphones, jailbreaking, xboxes

A Publicity Stunt Or Viral Ad -- Or Just A Band Connecting With Fans?

from the is-it-an-ad-or-is-it-memorex? dept

About a week ago, a band named Atomic Tom apparently had all of its instruments stolen, but as the story goes, they still had their iPhones and the will to continue. So they filmed themselves performing one of their songs on a NYC subway -- playing their iPhones, instead of their usual instruments. The band got some attention for this stunt, and along with it, questions like: "Did they really have their instruments stolen? Was this performance really impromptu? Did Apple pay them to advertise for the iPhone?" You can watch the video for yourself here: The video certainly seems polished enough to warrant questions about how much planning must have gone into making it. But does it really matter? Isn't the best advertising the kind of advertising that you don't care if it's advertising? Even if this performance is a well-orchestrated (no pun intended) publicity stunt, the band is still offering up this entertainment for free to attract new listeners (and presumably to help pay for new instruments, someday in the future). That's just a smart business move.

Filed Under: atomic tom, connecting with fans, iphones, publicity stunt

So Much For 'Freedom From Porn' As iPhone 4 Sex Chat Services Prepare For Business

from the you-can't-stop-the-porn dept

It really was just a few weeks back that Steve Jobs defended the closed nature of the iPad and iPhone app store as offering "freedom from porn." But even Jobs must know that when you offer up new ways to communicate, one of the first businesses that takes advantage of it is going to be the porn industry. So while I may still not be convinced that video calling is really set to take off, it appears that there is one industry set to embrace the iPhone's "FaceTime" video calling: porn. Apparently, at least one company is already looking for women to be part of a new sex chat offering using FaceTime on the iPhone:

Starting an online interactive pornography firm where woman will use the iphone 4 to video chat with potential customers on a pay as you go basis.

Hours are flexible, pay will increase as the business builds. Woman will receive a free iphone 4 to use as personal time when not working. Woman will talk to potential clients and chat with them and perform various acts as desired by clients. All information will be confidential.

Freedom from porn, Steve? It seems that some "think different."

Filed Under: iphones, porn
Companies: apple

AT&T No Longer Offering Unlimited Data Plan To New Customers

from the no-longer-to-infinity-and-beyond dept

As they had previously hinted, starting June 7th, AT&T's new smartphone customers will no longer be able to opt for the $30 unlimited data plan that was previously offered. Instead, two plans will be offered, both with monthly usage caps: $15 for 200MB or $25 for 2GB. Additionally, tethering is now available for an additional $20 a month. However, tethering is only available with one of the new capped plans. Those who already have the old $30 unlimited plan will be able to keep it... but won't be able to tether. So, existing power users have to decide between $30 a month for unlimited internet data without tethering, or $45 a month for 2GB of data with tethering -- of course, with tethering, data usage would likely go up... even as the amount of data you can use goes way down.

AT&T's motive behind this switch (beyond the obvious of boosting profits) is to attempt to address the network capacity issues that it has been experiencing, of late. As anyone on AT&T can attest, performance of the AT&T data network is far from stellar. The adoption of smartphones like the iPhone have made the internet a truly useful part of the mobile experience, and as such, data use on the AT&T network has risen dramatically as a result. Clearly, AT&T was not able to properly plan to handle the increased demand on its network, and as a result, is claiming it needed to respond by throttling the usage. Of course, one might argue an alternative would be to invest more in capacity, but that gets in the way of that boosting profits thing.

Amusingly (but not surprisingly), AT&T is trying to play this whole thing up as a big benefit to consumers:

"Some customers, up until now, have been hesitant to sign up for a $30 monthly data plan" for unlimited access, says Ralph de la Vega

Fair enough, but just because some people have been hesitant to sign up for the unlimited data plan doesn't mean you should do away with it altogether.

That said, there are actually a few things that AT&T has done right with this announcement. It's surprising that they are actually offering a cheaper tier for limited data -- something that they had not offered before. Also, with the limited plans, they have introduced a system of alerts that will notify users when they are near their caps. And, existing users with unlimited plans can continue as long as they want, without the tethering option, of course.

Even so, throttling usage could put a damper on the explosive growth of smartphone usage that we have seen in the past few years. There is an added cognitive transaction cost whenever a limit exists, so, by introducing these limits, AT&T has effectively made the iPhone less appealing. Recently, when asked about AT&T's capacity issues, Steve Jobs said "things, when you start to fix them, get worse before they get better. That's what I'm told. And if you believe that, things should start getting a lot better soon." It sounds like Jobs knew what was coming.

Filed Under: data plans, ipad, iphones, tethering, wireless
Companies: apple, at&t

Ridiculous Arguments: Net Neutrality Would Mean No iPhones

from the oh-come-on dept

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I'm very much against enforcing net neutrality through legislation (too many unintended consequences) but I'm stunned at the ridiculous and totally bogus reasons given by those fighting against those regulations in support of their claims. The latest on this front is Stephen Titch, a policy analyst at the Reason Foundation (a group whose work I usually think is quite good), coming out with a policy brief making the ludicrous argument that network neutrality would mean no more iPhones.

Now that's a bold claim, and such a bold claim should require at least some evidence to back it up. But there is none. This is as far as it seems to get:

The non-discrimination principle that Genachowski seeks to mandate would prohibit service providers such as AT&T, Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile and Sprint from using their network resources to prioritize or partition data as it crosses their networks so as to improve the performance of specific applications, such as a movie or massive multiplayer game. Yet quality wireless service is predicated on such steps. The iPhone, for example, would not have been possible if AT&T and Apple did not work together to ensure AT&T's wireless network could handle the increase in data traffic the iPhone would create.

There's a neat little trick in there that hides the blatant falsehood of the premise. What's described in the first sentence as what would be banned is not the same thing that's described in the second sentence as what AT&T and Apple did. Furthermore, the first sentence is not particularly accurate, and appears to be a stretch and misread of what the proposals actually have said -- though, again, the final rules could change. The issue isn't that network providers couldn't prioritize data, but that they couldn't discriminate in terms of who could make use of that prioritization in an anti-competitive manner (i.e., the provider could determine that a VoIP call needs prioritization, so long as all VoIP providers get the same prioritization).

But, back to the key point: this has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the network improvements that AT&T agreed to make in order to get the iPhone (which arguably, haven't worked all that well). AT&T's efforts were focused on upgrades to its network, which had nothing at all to do with discriminating against certain applications or services directly. Of course, since then, AT&T/Apple has chosen to discriminate against certain applications in its app store, but not at the network level, which is the main issue here.

I'm as worried as the next guy about the unintended consequences of network neutrality legislation, but making totally ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims that net neutrality would mean "no more iPhone" makes those arguing against network neutrality rules look petty and willing to flat-out lie to support their position.

Filed Under: iphones, net neutrality, regulations

The Hidden Costs Of Micropayments Go Beyond The Penny Gap

from the thinking-this-through dept

For as far back as I can remember, there have always been folks who insist that micropayments are the solution to the "free" content question. That is, they believe that the solution to "free" content is to set up a system where content can be accessed for such a low price that it's "close enough" to free and people don't mind. However, as Clay Shirky pointed out many years ago, it's not that easy at all. As soon as you add in some cost, even a small one, it creates mental transaction costs that go beyond the payment itself. Basically, just the fact that you need to think about whether or not it's worth it, creates a disincentive to consume that content. And, indeed, most micropayment schemes haven't gone very far. Last year, VC Josh Koppelman named this phenomenon "the penny gap" to explain how the "gap" in getting someone to go from $0 to $0.01 is much bigger than the gap from getting someone to go from $0.01 to $0.02 (in some ways, it's the same as the difference from going from 0 mph to 1 mph -- inertia is a powerful force).

However, Andrew Parker is questioning whether the real problem isn't an economics issue, but a usability issue. That is, if it were really easy to pay that $0.01, people wouldn't mind so much. In other words, a big part of that "mental transaction cost" that Shirky talks about is (according to Parker) the effort needed to establish that payment (a login, supplying payment info, etc.). As proof that this may be the case, Parker points to the early distribution numbers for the iPhone App Store which show more $0.99 apps sold than free apps downloaded. His point: since the iPhone makes it so easy to get an app and pay for it, the "penny gap" or the mental transaction costs really aren't that high.

This is a really good point -- and it is a testament to what a good job Apple did with the App Store to make it so seamless to the user. You absolutely can reduce the mental transaction costs, and that shrinks the penny gap significantly. However, I wouldn't be so quick to jump to the conclusion that micropayment solutions will become that big a deal. First off, these are only the initial results from App Store sales, when you're dealing with early adopters. I'll be interested to see if the results remain this way over a longer period of time.

Even more importantly, though, there may be other hidden costs that should deter certain publishers from focusing on micropayments. Mainly, you are driving away the ability of your users to share and promote your content for you. In other words, you're shutting off one of the best tools to get your app more widely used and recognized. So, even removing the transaction costs from the equation, going to a micropayment solution over a free one doesn't always make the most sense.

Filed Under: iphones, mental transaction costs, micropayments, penny gap, software