While this post specifically concerns MLB, the problem of DRM from the consumers point of view is that the use of this technology virtually allows ANY company to disable the customer's use of a program at any time. The consumer is simply being reduced to a "revenue unit" without any rights.
Mr. Smith ("Microsoft Calls for Reforms to the U.S. Patent System") newspeak continues to further establish Microsoft's reputation for butchering the English language.
I guess I am getting more radicalized. It seems to me that we, are entering an era were corporations seem to 1. create "law", 2. define how to interpret the "law" they have created, and 3. establish the punishment of the "guilty" party on their own volition. All without any acknowledgment of due process.
TPM Election Central, on November 2, 2007, had a Romney article titles: " Romney Defies Fox News' Ban On Use Of Its Debate Footage. Fox news is not a government agency with police powers; so they can't ban anything. Its unfortunate that TPM used the word "ban" since it is inappropriate since use of the word implies that the activity is illegal, which it is not.
Also on November 2, 2007 TechDirt had the article "Oregon Attorney General And University Of Oregon Tell The RIAA They're Not Its Free Investigators".
In reading articles such as these, the anecdotal evidence is that corporations believe they can be police, the jury, and the executioner.
Wikipedia allows content that the traditional encyclopedia would not touch. Students in college do a lot of research.
Wikipedia is missing a golden opportunity to innovate. Wikipedia could try to incorporate doctoral/masters theses into itself (or at least have a section devoted to linking academic content)
The news this morning was about the pending writers strike. The reporters made a couple of statements that beg further analysis.
1. The reporters noted that the writers have not been receiving any royalties from the sale of DVDs. The reporters also mentioned that the studios have been "reluctant" to share this revenue with their creative source, the writers. Seems a bit disingenuous if the studios claim that "strong" copyright is required to encourage creativity, yet they are unwilling to share the revenue.
2. The studies claim that "piracy" hurts the sale of content. The reporters didn't say anything about piracy, but they did say that the strike would cost $XXX million (or was it Billion) dollars per day. I would suspect that the revenues lost through "piracy" probably pales to the revenue lost from the strike.
Since I do not know any of the details of the strike or the validity of the statements made by the reporters, my comments are speculative. Though my comments are speculative, if the studios were ethical they would share revenue with the writers and if they were truly worried about "lost" revenue hurting their business, they would settle quickly.
What??? No one remembers our hero walking through a lobby in "Minority Report" where all the TVs are screaming ads at him.
On several webpages, I have noted that Amazon.com has been able to insert ads targeted to me specifically, even though I am not "technically" logged-in.
Personally, I don't have much of a problem with being "tracked" since it is invisible to me.
However, in this era of identity theft, security breaches of customer information, and the need for greater security - there are many advertising/marketing practices that should be severely curtailed.
1. The buying/selling/renting/whatever of customer information should be prohibited.
2. No automatic opt-in. Opt-in must be a voluntary action.
What has been ludicrous, companies claim to value your privacy and claim that they will handle your information in a secure manner, yet they will fight any regulation that proposes to protect the consumer. I guess they figure that despite any financial damage, they can still make more money by treating us as revenue units.
After loading some software, I am sometimes presented with a screen where the opt-in box is "conveniently" checked. If I uncheck it I am presented with a dire warning that I will no longer receive "important" update information. This makes it sound that you must obtain the marketing spam in order to receive actual product update information. Even worse,I don't ever recall actually receiving an e-mail informing that a real product upgrade was available. Now, most programs have the ability to detect this automatically.
Recently I updated my ATI video driver. During the installation process another program requested installation. To me this was a "junk" program so I declined. I was immediately presented with the confusing message that installation was "incomplete".
Software companies must stop this practice of trying to "sneak" in the installation of "junk" software that the customer does not want. The message that ATI should have had "Your Driver download is complete, do you now want to install XXXXXX?"
Lets see, most everything we buy comes from China, Korea, and Japan. We are outsourcing much of our work to India. It doesn't take much to realize that they would also be developing so-called intellectual property in the production of these goods. So, what happens to us if we "succeed" in getting them to adopt our insane copyright/patent laws and they want payback!
What I find amusing about this current outbreak of corporate malfeasance is the absence posts demanding that corporations correct their abusive behavior by those who oppose regulation. By their silence, the obvious conclusion is that those who oppose regulation must secretly believe that it is OK for corporations to steal from your customers. If caught, you issue a meaningless apology and go onto the next scam.
I would think that those who oppose regulation would actively call for corporations to improve their ethics to avoid the imposition of onerous regulation. This obvious solution seems to beyond their mental grasp.
All I hear by the anti-regulatory crowd is that regulation "hurts" business. Ok if regulation "hurts" business and we live in a free market system where we are responsible for our actions; the obvious solution is act ethically. If corporations act ethically, there would be virtually no need for onerous regulation that would "hurt" business.
-----------------------------------------------
Thanks Max, I have been wondering what the scam was behind Blue Hippo. The Blue Hippo ads were laughable. "We will give you a break and not check your credit". Of course they don't mention that you have to pay upfront.
At Best Buy I asked if I could buy a computer without the operating system (Windows VISTA). I was told NO.
The operating system and the computer are two different "products" so these components can be sold separately.
My prediction for those who "win" the class action lawsuit: $1 off your NEXT Best Buy purchase of $1,000.00 or more if done withing one week of the settlement.
Forbes has run a couple of article "exposing" how businesses are being adversely affected by malicious consumers. The most recent article "Hiding Behind the Net - Anonymity Lets Creeps, Criminals and Malicious Mobs Run Wild" (Forbes, October 15, 2007). These stories seem to be a precursor aimed a developing a public awareness that would allow onerous legislation to be passed to "protect" firms such as Amway/Quixtar by making it illegal for the public to expose their abuses.
What I find particularly offensive about the "piracy" issue is that it is a red-herring designed to hide the fact that these media companies seek to eliminate any rights that you may possess to the use of the media. Furthermore, the news media seems to lack any real insight into this issue and simply reprints the industry press releases.
I've been raising this potential issue for the past two years. Hopefully, the public will begin to realize how bad DRM is to them.
This issue actually goes beyond DRM. We now depend on company websites to provide us with updates on all types of software and products. The availability of updates on the internet can also mysteriously disappear. Companies, when they discontinue, a software product should make a final version of that product available to their customers.
The textbooks I see today are full of proofreading errors. One would think that with all the new technology that we have at our disposal proofreading errors would be extinct. Since they are not, it would seem that books should be cheaper since there are evidently less editors reviewing the books and much of the production process is now "simplified" with word processing programs. I guess publishers must buy those expensive ink cartridges sold by HP and Lexmark.
Ed Foster has written about several court cases that have found EULAs to be "flawed". I hope that Techdirt will also report more these types of court cases that have found EULAs to be flawed. Greater public exposer will help people realize that these supposed "contracts" are unenforceable.
Last night (7/17/2007) CNBC ran a segment on the financial effect of the availability of the unauthorized Harry Potter books on internet. CNBC had the usual crowd of intellectual property advocates. Surprisingly these guests said that the unauthorized copies of Harry Potter would NOT hurt sales. This was astounding to hear from the piracy doom-and-gloom crowd. One can hope that we are finally seeing an acknowledgment that piracy, while ethically bad, has not really adversely affected sales.
Maybe the word "loses" is not the best word. The phrase that that "... orientated business earn their profit ..." while true misses a fundamental point. If their is a profit to be made, a local government in a free market should be able to compete for that profit. Private companies do not have a "right" to profit, they must compete. In theory, if the local government makes a profit at providing a service, the local government can reinvest the money locally and the citizens of that community could benefit through lower taxes.
1. While it is true that relatively few people have HD capable sets, the reason is that the content industry delayed the introduction of this technology so that they could develop DRM technologies. Had this technology been released eight year ago in an open format, a lot more people would have it now.
For example my computer and monitor can play HD content but this ability is being disabled by the "new" technology so that my computer won't play the HD content. Designing "new" technologies that purposely obsolesce existing equipment to promote sales is ridiculous.
2. While true, the higher cost, in part, is a reflection of all the wasted effort in making a "simple" device unnecessarily complex to "protect" content rather than deliver value to the consumer.
3. True, it is a losing format because it has been designed to lock the consumer into a proprietary format. Consumers do not acquire value from technology that is flawed.
On the post: MLB's Latest Efforts To Screw Fans: All That Content You Bought? Gone, Thanks To DRM Change
DRM Is Worse than You Think
On the post: Microsoft Wants A Patent For Saying 'Goodbye'
Microsoft Deserves an Orwell Award for Newspeak
On the post: Mitt Romney To Fox News: Here's A Lesson In Fair Use
Corporations Creating Law and Executing Law
TPM Election Central, on November 2, 2007, had a Romney article titles: " Romney Defies Fox News' Ban On Use Of Its Debate Footage. Fox news is not a government agency with police powers; so they can't ban anything. Its unfortunate that TPM used the word "ban" since it is inappropriate since use of the word implies that the activity is illegal, which it is not.
Also on November 2, 2007 TechDirt had the article "Oregon Attorney General And University Of Oregon Tell The RIAA They're Not Its Free Investigators".
In reading articles such as these, the anecdotal evidence is that corporations believe they can be police, the jury, and the executioner.
On the post: Professors Learning To Embrace, Not Hate, Wikipedia
A Thought on Innovation
Wikipedia is missing a golden opportunity to innovate. Wikipedia could try to incorporate doctoral/masters theses into itself (or at least have a section devoted to linking academic content)
On the post: Titanic Crew Strikes Over Deck Chair Arrangement
Addtional Thoughts
1. The reporters noted that the writers have not been receiving any royalties from the sale of DVDs. The reporters also mentioned that the studios have been "reluctant" to share this revenue with their creative source, the writers. Seems a bit disingenuous if the studios claim that "strong" copyright is required to encourage creativity, yet they are unwilling to share the revenue.
2. The studies claim that "piracy" hurts the sale of content. The reporters didn't say anything about piracy, but they did say that the strike would cost $XXX million (or was it Billion) dollars per day. I would suspect that the revenues lost through "piracy" probably pales to the revenue lost from the strike.
Since I do not know any of the details of the strike or the validity of the statements made by the reporters, my comments are speculative. Though my comments are speculative, if the studios were ethical they would share revenue with the writers and if they were truly worried about "lost" revenue hurting their business, they would settle quickly.
On the post: Do Not Track List Won't Make Advertisers Happy
Targeted Adds
On several webpages, I have noted that Amazon.com has been able to insert ads targeted to me specifically, even though I am not "technically" logged-in.
On the post: Do Not Track List Won't Make Advertisers Happy
Missing the bigger picture
However, in this era of identity theft, security breaches of customer information, and the need for greater security - there are many advertising/marketing practices that should be severely curtailed.
1. The buying/selling/renting/whatever of customer information should be prohibited.
2. No automatic opt-in. Opt-in must be a voluntary action.
What has been ludicrous, companies claim to value your privacy and claim that they will handle your information in a secure manner, yet they will fight any regulation that proposes to protect the consumer. I guess they figure that despite any financial damage, they can still make more money by treating us as revenue units.
On the post: Time To Do Away With Sleazy Checkbox Opt-Outs
Software Vendors Do This Too
Recently I updated my ATI video driver. During the installation process another program requested installation. To me this was a "junk" program so I declined. I was immediately presented with the confusing message that installation was "incomplete".
Software companies must stop this practice of trying to "sneak" in the installation of "junk" software that the customer does not want. The message that ATI should have had "Your Driver download is complete, do you now want to install XXXXXX?"
On the post: US Senator In Favor Of Exporting US Copyright Law... Without Understanding Copyright Law
On the post: Verizon Fined For Pretending That Limited Service Was Unlimited
Where is the call for Corporate Ethics???????
I would think that those who oppose regulation would actively call for corporations to improve their ethics to avoid the imposition of onerous regulation. This obvious solution seems to beyond their mental grasp.
All I hear by the anti-regulatory crowd is that regulation "hurts" business. Ok if regulation "hurts" business and we live in a free market system where we are responsible for our actions; the obvious solution is act ethically. If corporations act ethically, there would be virtually no need for onerous regulation that would "hurt" business.
-----------------------------------------------
Thanks Max, I have been wondering what the scam was behind Blue Hippo. The Blue Hippo ads were laughable. "We will give you a break and not check your credit". Of course they don't mention that you have to pay upfront.
On the post: Associated Press Confirms That Comcast Blocks Some BitTorrent Traffic; Despite Comcast Denials
On the post: Supreme Court Lets Class Action Racketeering Suit Against Best Buy & Microsoft Move Forward
On the post: Amway/Quixtar Sues Web Critics
Forbes Magazine Article
On the post: Media Uncritically Cites Flawed Piracy Studies, Again
What I find particularly offensive about the "piracy" issue is that it is a red-herring designed to hide the fact that these media companies seek to eliminate any rights that you may possess to the use of the media. Furthermore, the news media seems to lack any real insight into this issue and simply reprints the industry press releases.
On the post: Google Kills Off Videos People Thought They Had Purchased
This goes beyond DRM
This issue actually goes beyond DRM. We now depend on company websites to provide us with updates on all types of software and products. The availability of updates on the internet can also mysteriously disappear. Companies, when they discontinue, a software product should make a final version of that product available to their customers.
On the post: Are Used Textbooks To Blame For The High Price Of Textbooks?
High Prices but no Quality Control
On the post: Court Pushes Back A Bit On Unilateral EULA Changes
EULAs Not (in my opinion) Legal
On the post: Harry Potter Will Conjure Up Big Sales, Despite Piracy
Even Acknowledge by the Pro-DRM apologists
On the post: Another Telco Says Muni WiFi Is OK Only If It's Providing It
Re: Re: Muni WiFi and the Free Market
On the post: 74 Percent Of Nothing Is Still Nothing
Re: I don't get the DRM concerns.
1. While it is true that relatively few people have HD capable sets, the reason is that the content industry delayed the introduction of this technology so that they could develop DRM technologies. Had this technology been released eight year ago in an open format, a lot more people would have it now.
For example my computer and monitor can play HD content but this ability is being disabled by the "new" technology so that my computer won't play the HD content. Designing "new" technologies that purposely obsolesce existing equipment to promote sales is ridiculous.
2. While true, the higher cost, in part, is a reflection of all the wasted effort in making a "simple" device unnecessarily complex to "protect" content rather than deliver value to the consumer.
3. True, it is a losing format because it has been designed to lock the consumer into a proprietary format. Consumers do not acquire value from technology that is flawed.
Next >>