US Opens Up All Sorts Of Gov't Documents

from the this-is-good-news dept

While we've been disappointed by some moves by the Obama administration (on copyright, federal shield law, civil liberties, warrantless wiretapping, etc.), one area where the administration has made really big strides is on opening up formerly locked up gov't information. The latest is that the Government Printing Office and the Office of the Federal Register have just opened up the "Official Journals of Government" -- a document that used to cost a mere $17,000/year and is now available for free, online -- and made the Federal Register (basically the list of what the federal gov't is doing every day) XML enabled, so that anyone can do cool stuff with it. Ed Felten's team at Princeton has already created FedThread, which let you not only search the Register, but also annotate and create customized feeds. This is really great...

Filed Under: data, federal register, open, transparency, us gov't, xml

Google Helps People Get Their Data Out Of Google

from the the-antithesis-of-evil? dept

Too many companies these days are focused on ways to keep you locked-in somehow or another, so it's quite refreshing to find out that Google is now officially announcing its Data Liberation Front, which does exactly the opposite: systematically helping you to get your data out of Google's services so that it can be used elsewhere. Apparently the group has been working on this for a while, but has only just now been publicly "announced." It's difficult to think of too many other companies that would do the same thing. Of course, it's easy to think of independent or competing companies that might do this -- but we usually hear about the original company suing anyone who tries to free up data. Good move by Google to offer the service itself.

Filed Under: data, open, portability
Companies: google

Is Apple Suggesting That The DMCA Prevents Terrorism?

from the yeah,-that's-believable dept

The EFF is trying to get a DMCA exemption from the Library of Congress for people who jailbreak their iPhones (if history is any indication, this won't happen -- the Library of Congress never seems to care about consumer rights). However, Apple's response to the Library of Congress, suggesting that open or jailbroken iPhones could be used by terrorists to bring down cell towers is both preposterous and totally unrelated to the issue at hand. First it's preposterous, as there are plenty of "open" devices out there already, and there has yet to be a single report of anyone taking down a cell tower with their mobile phone.

But, much more to the point: the point of copyright is not to protect us from terrorists taking down cell towers. If we, as a country, are relying on the DMCA to protect us from terrorists who don't want us making phone calls, we've got bigger problems. Even if it were true that terrorists could take down cell towers with an open mobile phone, does anyone actually think they'd shy away from doing so because it violated the DMCA? It's not like that's going to make much of a difference at all. It's entirely meaningless to the question of whether or not legal buyers of a mobile device should have the right to place whatever legal software they want on the device.

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, exemption, iphone, open, terrorism

From Closed To Open: iPhone App Developer Skepticism Highlights Platform Trajectory

from the closed-vs.-open dept

I've been getting into some interesting discussions with people lately concerning open vs. closed platforms -- especially in light of the supposed "success" of Apple's iPhone app store, which is a very closed platform. And the point that I've tried to make is that you have to understand the trajectories of these things over time. At any given time, it's never difficult to find a closed platform that is successful. In fact, I'd argue that if you are reshaping a market, often it helps to have a closed platform initially to drive that market in a useful direction -- though, this can really only be accomplished by someone visionary (Steve Jobs certainly counts). The question is how does this play out long term. And the answer is that you can't stay closed too long, or open solutions will catch up and surpass you. We've seen this pattern multiples times (closed AOL --> open internet?).

Where this gets trickier is that the open solutions are almost always substandard to the closed solutions initially. In some ways, this is by design. The closed solution is often much cleaner and slicker, and so it gets a lot of the initial use. But, overtime, the limitations of the closed solutions become increasingly clear, and as people bump up against those limits, frustrations increase, and more and more effort is put towards making the open solutions better -- even to the point that eventually they exceed the closed solution. It's a messy process, but the point where momentum shifts is often a subtle one, and the proprietors of the closed solution usually don't recognize it's a problem until way too late.

I believe that's the case with the App Store. The iPhone itself did an amazing job pushing the state of the mobile phone/portable computer market forward. There are some people who like to mock it as nothing special, but that's unfair. The device itself was a huge leap forward in demonstrating what a phone could be, and many others are just starting to grasp what this means more than two years after the original was introduced. That said, we're seeing more and more evidence concerning frustrations on the limits imposed by Apple's closed system, such as the arbitrary rejections of apps.

James points us to a worthwhile post from an iPhone developer, noting how the process is getting to the point where it's less and less worth it to develop for that platform. You have to put in a ton of work, and then you have to wait for quite a while just to get the app approved (or rejected), and the whole process is quite arbitrary. With that in mind, developers have a lot less certainty, and it shows a growing interest in other platforms.

To date, admittedly, such alternatives really haven't been very good. There are other app stores (some more open than others), but none has really been able to build up much traction yet on other devices. But there's a huge opportunity here if someone else can make this happen (or, if there were a way to standardize across some of the competitors) and start doing a better job serving both developers and consumers. The closed solution helps define the initial market -- but the open solution almost always wins in the long run.

Filed Under: app store, closed, developers, iphone, open, platforms
Companies: apple

The Fear Of Freeloaders Overblown In Both Proprietary And Open Arenas

from the stop-worrying dept

I remember reading a while ago how if you look at the extremists in diametrically opposed political parties, they tend to have a lot more similarities rather than differences. It seems that may be happening in the proprietary and open source worlds as well. We've discussed how silly it is for companies and individuals trying to understand "free" business models to worry about freeloaders. The fact is, yes, some people will get stuff for free and not contribute anything back. In fact, it may be a lot of people. But if the end result is that you are actually making more money overall from those who aren't freeloaders, who really cares? In some cases all those "freeloaders" are actually giving back in other ways, such as by amplifying and promoting your message for you, and bringing in new potential customers that wouldn't have known about you otherwise.

For the most part, I assumed this was an issue for those with "proprietary" content/software. But, suddenly it's an issue that's getting attention in the "open source" world, with supporters of open source complaining about "freeloaders" who use open source software, but don't contribute back. This is silly. As Joel West points out, the whole point of open source software is that it can be used for any purpose. So, just as proprietary content creators shouldn't worry about freeloaders and focus on those who actually do contribute, the same is true for open source developers. Sure, some will freeload, but don't worry about them. Let them do what they want, and focus on providing more value for those who do contribute. In the end, the overall benefit will be much greater.

Filed Under: freeloaders, open, proprietary

Norway Drops Complaint Against Apple Now That Apple Dropped DRM In iTunes

from the no-problem-with-movies-then? dept

We never quite understood Norway's legal attack on Apple for its use of DRM in iTunes. Sure, using DRM was annoying and bad, but users had the choice to buy from iTunes or not, and it didn't make any sense for a government to get involved. That said, it's nice to see the government now drop the complaints after Apple announced it was dropping DRM on music files in iTunes. Still, if Norway is so upset about DRM, why isn't it still pissed off about Apple using DRM in many other areas?

Filed Under: drm, itunes, norway, open
Companies: apple

Turns Out Verizon Wireless' Open Pledge Has Meant Almost Nothing

from the open-in-name-only dept

Over the past few years, mobile operators began to get annoyed at being called "soviet ministries" for their preference towards being extremely closed off with high garden walls. So, they suddenly started to claim they were throwing their doors wide open. Verizon Wireless kicked it off in 2007, by declaring a plan to open its network. It got a ton of press attention (especially from Verizon Wireless, who had been more closed than others). However, when the details finally came out, there was little to get excited about.

And, indeed, Broadband Reports checks in and notes that for all of the hype surrounding Verizon Wireless' declaration of openness it's meant a whole lot of nothingness in terms of actual products and services. In fact, Verizon's own phones and phone service remain pretty closed. Effectively, Verizon Wireless got a PR coup by suggesting they might possibly allow more open devices on the network -- should there actually be any businesses that wanted to offer that. It did work to stop criticisms and threats of regulatory interference, but it hasn't resulted in much in the way of actual openness.

Filed Under: open
Companies: verizon wireless

Warner Music: Where's The Conversation?

from the let's-talk dept

Last week, we broke the story about a presentation being given to various universities about a music "tax" plan. The plan presented wasn't any different from what Jim Griffin (who was hired by Warner to pitch exactly this plan earlier this year) has talked about in the past -- but Warner Music Group was quick to contact us and distance itself from the presentation -- despite the title of the presentation announcing that this was Warner Music Group's plan, and two full slides of "comments from WMG," with one of those slides suggesting people contact Griffin at WMG for more info.

This week, a bunch of news organizations reported on the story -- with some, such as the the Chronicle of Higher Education, just repeating what was already known, while a few added to the story. Wired discovered that the planned name of the organization that would handle the "distribution" of funds would be Choruss. It also found out that EMI and Sony BMG have already signed onto the plan, along with Warner, which initiated it. Universal Music is the major label that's still holding out. Apparently independent labels are able to join up, as well, but the terms aren't at all clear yet.

Portfolio stepped up with its own discussion of the topic, highlighting a key point that I made to the Warner Music rep who called me: this conversation should be public. My conversation with Warner Music was off-the-record at their request, but I tried to defend posting the presentation by noting that this information should be discussed among all the stakeholders, rather than settled in a backroom deal like so many efforts by the recording industry. Otherwise, the parties that are left out of the discussion (generally, consumers) are going to get screwed.

In Jim Griffin's response to my post, he complained that: "At this early stage, many ideas may be discussed and discarded, but efforts to prematurely label or criticize the process only hinder achievement of constructive solutions." I would say back, that, at this early stage, if ideas are being discussed and discarded, why not bring everyone here into the conversation, so that we don't feel like the fix has been put on us after the "finished product" is finally announced from high atop RIAA-mountain? We're more than willing to help, right here on Techdirt.

Filed Under: conversation, jim griffin, licensing, music, music tax, open
Companies: warner music group

Don't Announce You're Open When You Just Blocked Someone Out

from the just-a-suggestion dept

Earlier this week, Salesforce.com founder and CEO Marc Benioff bashed Microsoft and its new cloud computing initiative, suggesting that it was unfriendly to partners: "They hate everybody and we love everybody, and that's pretty much the difference. We even love Microsoft. ... This is our core strategy, love." While we tend to agree that Microsoft's strategy leaves much to be desired, that doesn't mean that Salesforce's strategy is really all that much better. In response to Benioff's claims that they "love everyone," the CEO of Zoho suggests a less lovey-dovey version of Salesforce.com, noting that Zoho was all set to launch products on Salesforce's own cloud computing platform, Force (formerly AppExchange), when suddenly Salesforce.com blocked Zoho -- mainly because Zoho offers a competing CRM system.

Just a reminder that it's easy to say you're open -- but if you're not really open, someone's going to call you on it.

Filed Under: closed, competition, crm, open
Companies: salesforce.com, zoho

Norway To Move Forward In Trying To Force Apple To Open Up iTunes

from the this-ought-to-be-interesting dept

What began as a minor squabble over the terms of service that went with iTunes in Norway quickly blew up into a bigger deal, with Norway blasting Apple for locking songs bought via iTunes only to the iPod via FairPlay DRM. While we can understand the frustration that some might have about this, it is still a user's choice to buy from iTunes, knowing that the music won't work with other digital music players. It's why I don't buy music from iTunes, for example. And these days, we're seeing more open competitors hit the market, such as Amazon's MP3 store. Thus, Apples use of DRM hardly seems like a reason for the government to force the company to open up.

However, that's exactly what's happening with Norway, as the government is moving forward with a case against Apple that might force the company to either open up FairPlay or shut down iTunes in Norway. If the latter is the end result, it's difficult to see how anyone actually benefits. If Apple wants to limit its own market, that's Apple's decision. It doesn't make sense for Norway to get involved.

Filed Under: drm, itunes, norway, open
Companies: apple