http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/20/1316235&from=rss
The battle between the RIAA and radio has been going around all year, but it remains a terrible problem. A lot of radio broadcasters are fairly small outfits: they can't afford to pay to play music, and they certainly can't afford to pay the sort of royalties the RIAA is demanding. If these bills go through, it will devastate radio. The only groups that'll be able to afford to stay online will be the ones subsidized by big business or the government--maybe, if the government is willing to give them the money. Oh, and the ones that decide to eschew anybody big enough to demand royalties and go straight for the indie groups.
Do you want all your music and news to be controlled by Turner or Sony?
What they don't seem to understand is how stupid this idea is. The companies making up the RIAA are panicking, because they're having increasing trouble pulling in enough money to make the kind of profits they want. I'll grant, it's not necessarily a matter of greed. Some of these companies--some of them old and respected names in American media--are in danger of going bankrupt. This is because the music industry has changed enormously due to the internet. Music doesn't follow the marketing trails it used to, but the music companies would rather fight to avoid changing than reinvent themselves to get with the times, and it's hurting them. But among the things they refuse to realize is that if they want to sell things, they have to get their product out there. How many of us buy music without ever having heard anything about the band or their work? Radio remains one of the best--and at this point, one of the few legal--ways to go about it. The RIAA is already savagely attacking internet radio, to the point where if they get their way, internet radio will essentially cease to exist. If these bills go through, too, and terrestrial radio starts feeling the burn, the music industry is going to quite suddenly find itself holding product that may as well cease to be, because none of us are ever going to hear about it.
And if that happens, the RIAA will find themselves stuck in the outrageously ironic position of depending on music piracy to save their lives.
The RIAA has blinded itself from seeing is what a great marketing scheme music piracy is. No, I'm not advocating stealing mp3s. I'm just saying that music piracy has its roots in the very foundation and holy grail of marketing: it's word of mouth advertising. "Here," says the music pirate. "I heard this, and it rocked. I think you'll like it too." Customers can download and test the product without risking an investment to see whether it's right for them. Piracy is such an effective advertising tool, in fact, that certain TV networks have begun clandestinely releasing bootlegs of their own material in order to get people to check it out. The concept is simple: hook them on a poor man's copy, and they'll decide it's worth paying to get the good stuff. If the record companies want to get anywhere, they need to start studying this beast and harnessing its potential somehow. All they're doing now is destroying every existing incarnation of the concept and wrecking their own reputations in the process.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Freaking RIAA
The Recording Industry Association of America is a rotten group that has descended to increasingly dirty tactics and politicking in order to get its way regarding copyright and how it's wielded. Recently, a woman they were suing for alleged copyright infringement (the definition of which they're very liberal with) filed a counterclaim against them because they'd used illegal means to dig up information on her--investigative groups who weren't licensed to operate in the state of Texas, where she lives. She claims the RIAA knew very well that this group wasn't licensed, and considering how they dropped the case against her like a hot potato, she may very well have been right.
The RIAA gets an alarmingly free hand with doing things that probably aren't legal, because frankly they have a great deal of pull in Congress and they've been freely manipulating the legal system in order to get their way. They've been pressing a number of alarming bills through Congress, some of which have passed and others of which have been defeated--there's a lot of technological lobbying going on on Capitol Hill lately. Their sibling associations in other countries are trying to throw similar fits, but most other nations aren't interested in listening...and Norway threw out a case after warning them that trying to pursue such an avenue again would not only be unwelcome, but might very well be deemed unconstitutional.
See, here's how the RIAA operates. There's a legal term known as 'ex parte.' What it translates to is a plaintiff filing a case against someone without the defendant having any representation in court. Traditionally, it is an extremely rare method--of course, since our legal system generally depends on both parties having their say. But in certain cases--most often, when they're not sure of the defendant's actual identity--it's not really feasible for the defendant to have representation at the time the case is brought, so the plaintiff is allowed to go ahead and file, and the defendant can get in on the action later.
The RIAA brings an ex parte case against 'unidentified persons' using a given service provider: say, AOL out in Denver. Then, having a legally recognized case, they proceed to use that as leverage to gain access to confidential data, such as forcing AOL in Denver to turn over its records on its customers. The RIAA then uses that data to identify persons they wish to bring charges against, drops the ex parte case, and files individually against any of those people they think they can nail for copyright infringement. The problem is, the RIAA is an organization, and they might be carrying this out in, say, Atlanta, while the defendants out in Denver don't even have a clue what's going on till they get the notice of legal action, at which point they're stuck trying to find away to dig up legal defense in a city halfway across the country...and for charges the RIAA in some cases more or less makes up on the spot, because they keep trying to push the limits of what they can get declared as a copyright infringement. For example, while last year, their lawyers stated in court that ripping mp3s for personal use (though not for trade) was legal, now they're saying that ripping mp3s in some cases may not be.
You might say, "Well, but those people are probably doing something illegal," but this is playing the system. It's taking advantage of people--parents of 14 year old kids have found themselves suddenly besieged with $500,000 lawsuits--and worse, it's violating the privacy of private citizens, many of whom aren't doing anything wrong.
And now the RIAA is very unhappy indeed, because the state Attorney General of Oregon has apparently had enough, and has declared that he wants immediate discovery of the RIAA's investigative tactics since the RIAA tried to push its luck with the University of Oregon. This particular Attorney General doesn't seem to be best pleased with the methods the RIAA uses, and feels that if there's no one in court to represent the ex parte defendants, then it's the legal system's job. The RIAA, in turn, is requesting that the resulting document be thrown out of the case against the university students and not even read by the judge. Makes you wonder what they're up to, doesn't it?
The RIAA gets an alarmingly free hand with doing things that probably aren't legal, because frankly they have a great deal of pull in Congress and they've been freely manipulating the legal system in order to get their way. They've been pressing a number of alarming bills through Congress, some of which have passed and others of which have been defeated--there's a lot of technological lobbying going on on Capitol Hill lately. Their sibling associations in other countries are trying to throw similar fits, but most other nations aren't interested in listening...and Norway threw out a case after warning them that trying to pursue such an avenue again would not only be unwelcome, but might very well be deemed unconstitutional.
See, here's how the RIAA operates. There's a legal term known as 'ex parte.' What it translates to is a plaintiff filing a case against someone without the defendant having any representation in court. Traditionally, it is an extremely rare method--of course, since our legal system generally depends on both parties having their say. But in certain cases--most often, when they're not sure of the defendant's actual identity--it's not really feasible for the defendant to have representation at the time the case is brought, so the plaintiff is allowed to go ahead and file, and the defendant can get in on the action later.
The RIAA brings an ex parte case against 'unidentified persons' using a given service provider: say, AOL out in Denver. Then, having a legally recognized case, they proceed to use that as leverage to gain access to confidential data, such as forcing AOL in Denver to turn over its records on its customers. The RIAA then uses that data to identify persons they wish to bring charges against, drops the ex parte case, and files individually against any of those people they think they can nail for copyright infringement. The problem is, the RIAA is an organization, and they might be carrying this out in, say, Atlanta, while the defendants out in Denver don't even have a clue what's going on till they get the notice of legal action, at which point they're stuck trying to find away to dig up legal defense in a city halfway across the country...and for charges the RIAA in some cases more or less makes up on the spot, because they keep trying to push the limits of what they can get declared as a copyright infringement. For example, while last year, their lawyers stated in court that ripping mp3s for personal use (though not for trade) was legal, now they're saying that ripping mp3s in some cases may not be.
You might say, "Well, but those people are probably doing something illegal," but this is playing the system. It's taking advantage of people--parents of 14 year old kids have found themselves suddenly besieged with $500,000 lawsuits--and worse, it's violating the privacy of private citizens, many of whom aren't doing anything wrong.
And now the RIAA is very unhappy indeed, because the state Attorney General of Oregon has apparently had enough, and has declared that he wants immediate discovery of the RIAA's investigative tactics since the RIAA tried to push its luck with the University of Oregon. This particular Attorney General doesn't seem to be best pleased with the methods the RIAA uses, and feels that if there's no one in court to represent the ex parte defendants, then it's the legal system's job. The RIAA, in turn, is requesting that the resulting document be thrown out of the case against the university students and not even read by the judge. Makes you wonder what they're up to, doesn't it?
Reuters.com - U.S. lacks plan for digital TV switch: study
| Julia (bluesrat@gmail.com) has sent you this article. |
| Personal Message: |
| Well, here's something I didn't know. Apparently the US government is requiring the switch to digital TV signals by February 2009. They say it'll free up airwaves for things like police, and I'm betting they like the cleanliness and ease of dealing with digital signals in general. |
 |
| U.S. lacks plan for digital TV switch: study | ||
| Tue Dec 11 22:09:05 UTC 2007 By Peter Kaplan WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. regulators have "no comprehensive plan" for preparing TV viewers for the approaching switch-over to digital television, a congressional study released on Tuesday said. The study by the Government Accountability Office took issue with the Federal Communications Commission for lacking an overall strategy for the February 17, 2009 switch, which will require broadcasters to change to digital signals from their traditional analog ones. "Despite efforts by the public and private sectors and ongoing coordination, we found that no comprehensive plan for the transition exists," the GAO said. The digital TV transition is being closely watched because owners of analog televisions will not be able to watch television unless they subscribe to satellite or digital cable, replace their TV with a digital television by that date or get a converter box. Congress ordered the switch to digital television because it will free up valuable airwaves for other uses, such as for police and fire departments and because it will lead to improved picture and sound for TV viewers. The federal government plans to subsidize the cost of buying a digital-analog converter box by offering $40 discount coupons to anyone who owns an analog television. That program is being overseen by an arm of the Commerce Department called the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. The agency's chairman, Kevin Martin, responded in a letter to the GAO, saying he had "significant reservations and concerns with the report's approach and conclusions." Martin also issued 99 pages of "comprehensive plans, goals and achievements" that the FCC had drawn up to address the digital TV transition. In their report, the authors of the GAO study said Martin also told them that the FCC "does not have a formal plan in place that is publicly available, but that the various orders contained in FCC dockets amount to a plan." The GAO's report credited the FCC, NTIA and private industry with making progress in educating consumers about the switch-over. It also said the NTIA had made progress on the converter box program. The report said private players, including cable operators, broadcasters and the consumer electronics industry, had taken the lead in informing consumers about the digital TV transition. In a related development, the NTIA issued a press release on Tuesday announcing that it had certified more than 100 retailers to participate in the converter box program, including Best Buy Co Inc, Circuit City Stores Inc, RadioShack Corp, Sears Holdings Corp, Target Corp and Wal-Mart Stores Inc. The retailers represent more than 14,000 stores throughout the United States, the NTIA said. But according to the GAO, the lack of a "comprehensive" plan makes the switch-over a riskier proposition, raising potential problems, such as misinformation, inadequate funding and failure to reach some analog TV set owners. "This raises uncertainty, including whether consumers, particularly underserved and otherwise vulnerable populations, will have the information necessary to respond to the transition and to maintain their access to television programming," the GAO report said. The GAO report rekindled concerns among some Democratic lawmakers in Congress, who fear the agency is relying too heavily on voluntary industry efforts to notify consumers. "Without a comprehensive plan that also addresses managing risks and mitigating against potential problems, tens of millions of consumers could be adversely affected and this important transition put needlessly in jeopardy," Democratic Rep. Edward Markey, of Massachusetts, said in a statement. (Reporting by Peter Kaplan; editing by Carol Bishopric) | ||
| | ||
| This service is not intended to encourage spam. The details provided by your colleague have been used for the sole purpose of facilitating this email communication and have not been retained by Reuters. Your personal details have not been added to any database or mailing list. If you would like to receive news articles delivered to your email address, please subscribe at www.reuters.com | ||
| | ||
| © Copyright Reuters 2006All rights reserved. Users may download and print extracts of content from this website for their own personal and non-commercial use only. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world. Quotes and other data are provided for your personal information only, and are not intended for trading purposes. Reuters, the members of its Group and its data providers shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the quotes or other data, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon. © Reuters 2006. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world. | ||
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Related to those gizmos I just mentioned...
EVDO: this, my friends, is the real deal. It stands for 'Evolution Data Optimized.' True wireless internet access, wherever you want, at DSL-type speeds. As far as I can tell, it hooks into the cellular satellite network, and is currently supported by Sprint and Verizon. I believe that you subscribe to one of them for the service. EVDO access doesn't exist everywhere yet, but in areas that don't have it, the connection automatically flips over to a slower but still faster-than-dialup connection (which is based on WWII military technology. Check it out. Nifty, huh?)
Now that is super-cool. It's also still new, so we're looking at prices around $200 for the hardware (usually a USB plugin card).
And I just went looking for the service subscription prices (which are laughably difficult to pin down; the latest word I can find is from last year and puts it at about $60/month), and I found that while they allow web browsing and email, Verizon strongly discourages any kind of uploading or downloading using their EVDO service. Last word--and this was the beginning of 2007, mind you--was that they were considering a tiered subscription package to charge high-bandwidth users more in order to discourage them from doing so. So, no amusing little web browser games about shooting penguins out of cannons, or downloading your cousin's photos so you can see how big the baby has gotten. No webcams or Pandora or YouTube, either. Ohh, Verizon! Sprint seems to be a lot more casual about it, being only concerned with the usual legal use issues.
Ah, and one more thing: Verizon promises to open their access to this medium late next year.
Now that is super-cool. It's also still new, so we're looking at prices around $200 for the hardware (usually a USB plugin card).
And I just went looking for the service subscription prices (which are laughably difficult to pin down; the latest word I can find is from last year and puts it at about $60/month), and I found that while they allow web browsing and email, Verizon strongly discourages any kind of uploading or downloading using their EVDO service. Last word--and this was the beginning of 2007, mind you--was that they were considering a tiered subscription package to charge high-bandwidth users more in order to discourage them from doing so. So, no amusing little web browser games about shooting penguins out of cannons, or downloading your cousin's photos so you can see how big the baby has gotten. No webcams or Pandora or YouTube, either. Ohh, Verizon! Sprint seems to be a lot more casual about it, being only concerned with the usual legal use issues.
Ah, and one more thing: Verizon promises to open their access to this medium late next year.
Technology update
So, I bet you want to know what's the newest word in the world of the internet, don't you? Sure you do. You want to know about the latest evolution of blogs and hardware goodies.
Well, it's me, so we're starting with books. E-books. The holy grail of book technology for the last several years has been the development of a convenient, easy to read and use e-book reader. And now we've got two: the Sony Reader and the Amazon Kindle.
The basics are that these gadgets are the size and approximate weight of a paperback book. They're specially designed for easy-on-the-eyes reading and the ability to navigate through files books in a way that's more like flipping through the pages of a book, rather than scrolling through a PDF or Word document. They each have wireless internet connectivity and a library--or more accurately, store--of e-books that you can download, and they have some storage built in with the option for extra storage space on plug-in cards. And you can transfer files from your computer onto the gizmos. Also, they both play music, except that the Reader doesn't accept audio book format (the Kindle does).
But the Reader doesn't have a great library and charges a lot for material, while the Kindle has Amazon's spectacular library but charges a small fee for almost everything. The Reader accepts a range of common text formats, while the Kindle only accepts a proprietary e-book format and PDF (which has display problems on this device). But it's fairly easy to convert other e-book formats into the proprietary format. The Kindle has much better internet access, and an extremely minimalist browser that lets you look at webpages...in a highly crappy way. On the other hand, you can subscribe (yes, for a fee) to various websites, magazines, and newspapers...but this means you're paying not only to read the New York Times, but also C/Net's website. But it does have automatic access to Wikipedia.
And the Kindle does one other supremely cool thing: self-publishing. You can upload your own work into the store and sell it for your own price! How cool is that?
Of course, neither of these trinkets are cheap: the Reader is, I believe, around $300, while the Kindle is $400. Technophiles and book lovers are hoping that either the price on the devices and e-books will either come down, or that they might switch over to some kind of subscription service ala Netflix, because at the moment, we're looking at about $10 per e-book, which means it's still cheaper to buy them at Borders.
Well, it's me, so we're starting with books. E-books. The holy grail of book technology for the last several years has been the development of a convenient, easy to read and use e-book reader. And now we've got two: the Sony Reader and the Amazon Kindle.
The basics are that these gadgets are the size and approximate weight of a paperback book. They're specially designed for easy-on-the-eyes reading and the ability to navigate through files books in a way that's more like flipping through the pages of a book, rather than scrolling through a PDF or Word document. They each have wireless internet connectivity and a library--or more accurately, store--of e-books that you can download, and they have some storage built in with the option for extra storage space on plug-in cards. And you can transfer files from your computer onto the gizmos. Also, they both play music, except that the Reader doesn't accept audio book format (the Kindle does).
But the Reader doesn't have a great library and charges a lot for material, while the Kindle has Amazon's spectacular library but charges a small fee for almost everything. The Reader accepts a range of common text formats, while the Kindle only accepts a proprietary e-book format and PDF (which has display problems on this device). But it's fairly easy to convert other e-book formats into the proprietary format. The Kindle has much better internet access, and an extremely minimalist browser that lets you look at webpages...in a highly crappy way. On the other hand, you can subscribe (yes, for a fee) to various websites, magazines, and newspapers...but this means you're paying not only to read the New York Times, but also C/Net's website. But it does have automatic access to Wikipedia.
And the Kindle does one other supremely cool thing: self-publishing. You can upload your own work into the store and sell it for your own price! How cool is that?
Of course, neither of these trinkets are cheap: the Reader is, I believe, around $300, while the Kindle is $400. Technophiles and book lovers are hoping that either the price on the devices and e-books will either come down, or that they might switch over to some kind of subscription service ala Netflix, because at the moment, we're looking at about $10 per e-book, which means it's still cheaper to buy them at Borders.
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Pet fish and the holidays
Sometimes you come across things that you just have to blog about. We were celebrating our boss's 50th birthday the other morning, when her assistant dives into our break room kitchen and hauls out a small lunch-pail-sized box. "Shall we go out and bury Bert?" she asks. Well, half of us had no idea what she was talking about, till my supervisor explained to the room in a desert-dry tone, "Bert is our department fish who died years ago and has been sitting in the freezer ever since." Apparently Bosslady has been having trouble letting go.
Man... I've eaten food out of that freezer!
She also insisted on hugging each and every one of us, shortly before announcing that she had acquired a flu while visiting Gettysburg over the weekend. Wow, thanks. Nothing says "I care" like germs.
Anyway, Thanksgiving was super-fine. My hermit-like father actually came out of his burrow to visit us at our humble abode, and the three of us--Dad, Sarah, and I--had a lovely Thanksgiving all to ourselves. Making a holiday dinner for a family can be grueling and tedious. Making it with a family is fun.
I made my first-ever completely solo turkey, which was beyond awesome. We brined it, which essentially means we soaked it in a bucket of salt water overnight. Holy cow. It took two hours to cook, and we didn't have to baste it once, and when I carved that sucker, it nearly exploded with juiciness. So freaking easy. I will never cook a turkey a different way again. Here. Do it. I swear it will convert you. You don't actually need any of the herbs, spices, or aromatics on that list if you don't want them. They're a matter of preference, though I do recommend using the vegetable stock and the sugar in the brine. And when you brine the turkey, there's enough salt in that water that you don't have to be concerned about bacteria in the food. I've talked to people who've brined their turkey for up to three days, though doing it even for a couple of hours makes a definite difference. It doesn't come out super-salty at all; just perfectly juicy and seasoned with every bite.
I think Dad'll come back to visit just for the shopping. He's a huge bargain hound (the thrill of the hunt!), and we nearly had to drag him from the stock surplus store we have here because every time he turned a corner, he said he kept finding more things that he suddenly found he needed desperately. :D I admit, it was pretty tempting. I bought a full-length cashmere/wool blend coat there for $20 (Albert Nipon, holy cow! Probably why it was so cheap; do they do anything besides perfume these days?). Almost got a leather duster for $30, but the wool coat was too perfect a fit to pass up.
Man... I've eaten food out of that freezer!
She also insisted on hugging each and every one of us, shortly before announcing that she had acquired a flu while visiting Gettysburg over the weekend. Wow, thanks. Nothing says "I care" like germs.
Anyway, Thanksgiving was super-fine. My hermit-like father actually came out of his burrow to visit us at our humble abode, and the three of us--Dad, Sarah, and I--had a lovely Thanksgiving all to ourselves. Making a holiday dinner for a family can be grueling and tedious. Making it with a family is fun.
I made my first-ever completely solo turkey, which was beyond awesome. We brined it, which essentially means we soaked it in a bucket of salt water overnight. Holy cow. It took two hours to cook, and we didn't have to baste it once, and when I carved that sucker, it nearly exploded with juiciness. So freaking easy. I will never cook a turkey a different way again. Here. Do it. I swear it will convert you. You don't actually need any of the herbs, spices, or aromatics on that list if you don't want them. They're a matter of preference, though I do recommend using the vegetable stock and the sugar in the brine. And when you brine the turkey, there's enough salt in that water that you don't have to be concerned about bacteria in the food. I've talked to people who've brined their turkey for up to three days, though doing it even for a couple of hours makes a definite difference. It doesn't come out super-salty at all; just perfectly juicy and seasoned with every bite.
I think Dad'll come back to visit just for the shopping. He's a huge bargain hound (the thrill of the hunt!), and we nearly had to drag him from the stock surplus store we have here because every time he turned a corner, he said he kept finding more things that he suddenly found he needed desperately. :D I admit, it was pretty tempting. I bought a full-length cashmere/wool blend coat there for $20 (Albert Nipon, holy cow! Probably why it was so cheap; do they do anything besides perfume these days?). Almost got a leather duster for $30, but the wool coat was too perfect a fit to pass up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)