"The public does not "understand" the problems the DRM's are inflicting, but they know they are happening.
This is a point that I have been making for a long time. I get tired of reading articles touting all the positive bells and whistles while hiding DRM related issues behind a "technical" wall. Specifically, I think the introduction of HD content was delayed for approximately 8 years because of the companies bickering over how they planned to implement DRM. Of course the popular media reported that these companies were working hard to resolve these so-called technical problems. To bad the news media failed to do real investigative work to report that these companies were really obstructing the introduction of HD content.
Accidentally hit the submit button. Anyway, we live in a free market system. This means that a local municipality has as much "right" as a private company to compete in the free market. If a private company can't compete, too bad.
When discussing the economics of local governments providing a service private firms through out the "red herring" that this is uncompetitive, stifles free markets, and is a misuse of tax dollars. This is hogwash.
1. It is not anticompetitive, it is competition. If you can't compete too bad.
2. It does not stifle the free market. The local municipality will be buying all their equipment from private enterprises. The only "place" private industry "losses" is in providing the service.
3. It is not a misuse of tax dollars. First, if the residents of a local community want a subsided WiFi system it is their right. Private industry does not have a right to limit how you wish to spend your money. Second, private industry plays the subsidy game all the time. A large corporation, such as AT&T, can charge higher rates in one area to subsidize a service in an area where they are trying to increase market share. Once they have a monopoly, up go the rates.
In conclusion, the participation of a local government in the free market system is part of the game.
Carlo Longino wrote for this post: The Washington state Supreme Court has ruled that a class-action lawsuit against mobile operator Cingular (now called AT&T) can proceed, despite a clause in the contracts it has subscribers sign preventing them from starting such actions. While this post concerns class action lawsuits, his post also points to a bigger legal issue, the legality of EULAs. To many people, unfortunately, seem to blindly accept EULAs as being legally valid even though the effect is to strip you of all your rights. I hope that we will see more courts finding that EULAs are not valid legal documents.
PS: I am not a lawyer so my opinion is from the lay perspective.
Unfortunately, as Techdirt has been pointing out, class action lawsuits seldom restore the damages incurred by the consumer. Most of the time the consumer seems to get a discount coupon towards a future purchase. This is absurd because it "forces" the consumer to continue to have a business relationship with an unethical company. If the consumer stands on principle and refuses to deal with the unethical the consumer never gets reimbursed for their damages. The unethical company still keeps the money. (Might as well through in my SPRINT bad comment as I could not get a $15 credit for SPRINT's improper billing practices as we had dropped our phone service with them.)
As Techdirt is pointing out, only the lawyers really benefit.
As the post points out only the lawyers benefit through class action lawsuits. The victim in a settlement usually gets a discount coupon off the next purchase from that company. This begs the question of why anyone would want to continue to have a business relationship with a company that screwed you.
Just to illustrate my comments with my Sprint complaint. Sprint settled a class action lawsuit that would allow its customers a credit towards a FUTURE bill for improper billing practices. We had discontinued Sprint over other bad service issues. But guess what, we were ineligible to receive a refund for their improper billing. I suppose we could have fought this on principle, but alas we have to make rationale decisions on the value of fighting bad business practices.
Much of the media, such as the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and even a computer magazine (PC Magazine) have only reported (regurgitated press releases) from the perspective of the MPPA and the RIAA. See this absurd article by CNET claiming that DRM technologies are necessary to protect "ink". Consequently, most people don't realize that they are being screwed because they are not being informed. The fact that the Wall Street Journal has an article disclosing that consumers are getting screwed is a major accomplishment in itself.
I hope that reporters will wean themselves of regurgitating biased press releases and become more involved (actually doing research) at disclosing how the consumer is getting screwed. Once the general public has a greater understanding of what is happening and adjusts their purchasing habits, we can hope that these unworkable protection schemes disappear.
When a company no longer supports a product - be it software or hardware - that product should immediately fall into the public domain.
Additionally companies should release FINAL versions of software on a CD. The internet facilitates the issuance of patches to fix software flaws. However, once that product is discontinued the patches may be difficult, if not impossible, to find should the product have to be reinstalled.
PS: I am not against companies requiring a nominal payment, shipping and handling, for the FINAL CD. Microsoft, are you listening? WIndows98!
New Business Plan Needed for the Recording Industr
CNBC interviewed a person who edits a music industry focused magazine. My details are sketchy because I was only incidentally listening as I was getting ready for work. In short this guy said that live concerts are now where the money is. The music industry has evolved from CDs to promote a band to the sale of CDs as a secondary revenue stream to the live concert. He clearly stated that the industry as a whole does not comprehend this shift in market focus and has failed to adapt.
Unfortunately laws change. You couldn't patent business plans, now you can. Corporations also make "law" by suing those they believe infringe into oblivion.
One logical extreme of teaching/student relationship in so-called "intellectual property". The teacher will be entitled to any revenue the student makes once the student is out on his/her own.
My anecdotal opinion is that "money" has lost its economic meaning in the health care system. To explain, the health care system is funded through many individuals contributing to various health plans, these plans have many layers of bureaucracy to provide "oversight" and each layer takes its cut of the revenue stream. I often have wondered how much a doctor actually gets in net revenue for a patient office visit after factoring out the costs of malpractice insurance and the processing of medical claims. If medical insurance where to be abolished we might see a re-emergence of free market operations at hospitals. (A major problem of course, what happens when you have a catastrophic medical issue.)
Given the ubiquitousness of keypad devices for entering a pin number I am surprised that the credit card companies don't implement this at the point-of-sale for purchases. It would reduce casual theft resulting from lost cards. The only reason that I can come-up with is that the credit card companies must believe that it would cost them more than the theft involved.
James Morris wrote "Ben helped create our intellectual property law. He said, "As we enjoy great Advantages from the Inventions of others, we should be glad of an Opportunity to serve others by any Invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously." His generation created patent and copyright laws that divided the benefit of new things between the creators and the community." (emphasis added)
This further bolsters the concept that patents are for "for the purpose of promoting progress of science and useful arts." Patents are not for the purposes of creating a toll both and authorizing monopolist rights.
I have long advocated that the introduction of High Definition (HD) was delayed by the companies squabbling over how to implement AACS.
From the article Mike references :"In a move whose repercussions could seriously impact the future development of the AACS content protection system, and even endanger the production plans of high-definition disc console manufacturers worldwide, cryptography software provider Certicom this morning filed suit in Marshall, Texas, against Sony Corporation." (emphasis added)
I guess the the content providers would rather fight and sue each other over how to implement faulty DRM rather than make real money by actually selling open source content. Here I thought capitalism was about selling products that the consumer wants.
Electronic Frontier Foundation (May 31, 2007, Convert to MP3 BEFORE Upgrading to iTunes 7.2!) is reporting that: "Adding to previous revelations about the latest version of Apple's iTunes software, Playlist is reporting that the iTunes 7.2 (necessary for the so-called DRM-free iTunes Plus tracks) has broken the "buy-burn-rip-to-MP3" procedure that iTunes users have long relied on to convert the FairPlay-restricted songs they buy from the iTunes Store into unrestricted MP3s. Apparently, after the iTunes 7.2 "upgrade," MP3s created in this way will no longer play on your iPod!
"You should always dispute the original charge, demanding that they show YOU how they determined that it was you that was sharing the file."
---------------------------------------------------------------
Good response.
The failure of journalists to fully examine the story they are planning to print has been a major disappointment to me. During the Sony rootkit debacle the New York Times and PC Magazine simply regurgitated the music industry's lament on how piracy was destroying their business. The Washington Post did a much better job of exploring the issues.
Regretfully, the media is also missing the boat on DRM related issues. For example, most computers have been able to play high definition content for many years now - the content was simply not readily available. The news media reported that this delay in providing content was simply the result of resolving "technical issues". The reality is that the content providers where squabbling over the DRM standards to be used. Had an open end standard been adopted we could have had HD content as least eight years earlier.
Its unfortunate that our news media doesn't take the time to do real investigative reporting and analyzing the issues.
On the post: 74 Percent Of Nothing Is Still Nothing
The Failure of DRM is
This is a point that I have been making for a long time. I get tired of reading articles touting all the positive bells and whistles while hiding DRM related issues behind a "technical" wall. Specifically, I think the introduction of HD content was delayed for approximately 8 years because of the companies bickering over how they planned to implement DRM. Of course the popular media reported that these companies were working hard to resolve these so-called technical problems. To bad the news media failed to do real investigative work to report that these companies were really obstructing the introduction of HD content.
On the post: Another Telco Says Muni WiFi Is OK Only If It's Providing It
Muni WiFi and the Free Market
When discussing the economics of local governments providing a service private firms through out the "red herring" that this is uncompetitive, stifles free markets, and is a misuse of tax dollars. This is hogwash.
1. It is not anticompetitive, it is competition. If you can't compete too bad.
2. It does not stifle the free market. The local municipality will be buying all their equipment from private enterprises. The only "place" private industry "losses" is in providing the service.
3. It is not a misuse of tax dollars. First, if the residents of a local community want a subsided WiFi system it is their right. Private industry does not have a right to limit how you wish to spend your money. Second, private industry plays the subsidy game all the time. A large corporation, such as AT&T, can charge higher rates in one area to subsidize a service in an area where they are trying to increase market share. Once they have a monopoly, up go the rates.
In conclusion, the participation of a local government in the free market system is part of the game.
On the post: Another Telco Says Muni WiFi Is OK Only If It's Providing It
Muni WiFi and the Free Market
On the post: Court Tells Cingular It Can't Deny Lawyers Chance To Make Money
EULAs should not be considered legal contracts
PS: I am not a lawyer so my opinion is from the lay perspective.
On the post: Court Tells Cingular It Can't Deny Lawyers Chance To Make Money
Re: Class Action
As Techdirt is pointing out, only the lawyers really benefit.
On the post: Shareholder Class-Action Suits On The Wane?
Overhyped
Just to illustrate my comments with my Sprint complaint. Sprint settled a class action lawsuit that would allow its customers a credit towards a FUTURE bill for improper billing practices. We had discontinued Sprint over other bad service issues. But guess what, we were ineligible to receive a refund for their improper billing. I suppose we could have fought this on principle, but alas we have to make rationale decisions on the value of fighting bad business practices.
On the post: AACS Is Like Every Other DRM: All It Does Is Annoy Customers
The Popular News Media
I hope that reporters will wean themselves of regurgitating biased press releases and become more involved (actually doing research) at disclosing how the consumer is getting screwed. Once the general public has a greater understanding of what is happening and adjusts their purchasing habits, we can hope that these unworkable protection schemes disappear.
On the post: Where's That Old 286 Machine When You Need It?
Into the Public Domain
Additionally companies should release FINAL versions of software on a CD. The internet facilitates the issuance of patches to fix software flaws. However, once that product is discontinued the patches may be difficult, if not impossible, to find should the product have to be reinstalled.
PS: I am not against companies requiring a nominal payment, shipping and handling, for the FINAL CD. Microsoft, are you listening? WIndows98!
On the post: Rolling Stone Writes Obituary For The Recording Industry's Suicide
New Business Plan Needed for the Recording Industr
On the post: Intellectual Property Fights Move Into The Restaurant Business
Re: Re: Oh great...
On the post: Intellectual Property Fights Move Into The Restaurant Business
On the post: What Toyota Can Teach The Healthcare Industry
Its the Bureaucracy (private health care system)
My anecdotal opinion is that "money" has lost its economic meaning in the health care system. To explain, the health care system is funded through many individuals contributing to various health plans, these plans have many layers of bureaucracy to provide "oversight" and each layer takes its cut of the revenue stream. I often have wondered how much a doctor actually gets in net revenue for a patient office visit after factoring out the costs of malpractice insurance and the processing of medical claims. If medical insurance where to be abolished we might see a re-emergence of free market operations at hospitals. (A major problem of course, what happens when you have a catastrophic medical issue.)
On the post: Stop Us If You've Heard This One: Company 'Invents' Grocery Barcode Scanner
On the post: Neither Banks Nor Retailers Want To Spend Money On Credit Card Security
Fraud is not Costing them Enough Yet
On the post: Add Madison's Fears Of Intellectual Property To Jefferson's
Benjamin Franklin's view
This further bolsters the concept that patents are for "for the purpose of promoting progress of science and useful arts." Patents are not for the purposes of creating a toll both and authorizing monopolist rights.
On the post: AACS Crack Leaked In Cryptic Message On Blog... As AACS Is Sued For Patent Infringement
Re: Re:
On the post: AACS Crack Leaked In Cryptic Message On Blog... As AACS Is Sued For Patent Infringement
From the article Mike references :"In a move whose repercussions could seriously impact the future development of the AACS content protection system, and even endanger the production plans of high-definition disc console manufacturers worldwide, cryptography software provider Certicom this morning filed suit in Marshall, Texas, against Sony Corporation." (emphasis added)
I guess the the content providers would rather fight and sue each other over how to implement faulty DRM rather than make real money by actually selling open source content. Here I thought capitalism was about selling products that the consumer wants.
On the post: iTunes Plus: Minus DRM, But Plus Price And Tracking Info
On the post: Whose Burden Of Proof Is It When Accused Of Unauthorized Uploading?
Re: Prove innocence
---------------------------------------------------------------
Good response.
On the post: If The AP Will Reprint RIAA Propaganda, No Surprise That Reuters Will Reprint MPAA Propaganda
Regretfully, the media is also missing the boat on DRM related issues. For example, most computers have been able to play high definition content for many years now - the content was simply not readily available. The news media reported that this delay in providing content was simply the result of resolving "technical issues". The reality is that the content providers where squabbling over the DRM standards to be used. Had an open end standard been adopted we could have had HD content as least eight years earlier.
Its unfortunate that our news media doesn't take the time to do real investigative reporting and analyzing the issues.
Next >>