The major concern with intellectual property is in ensuring people keep creating it or that others act to produce physical property to support the continued creation of it.
Well, like physical goods, it's a balance between incenting people to continue creating and refining it and ensuring it's used for the broad advancement of humans. The market really can't do this unaided by regulation, since IP is intrinsically reproducable.
Not completely true.
I can be implemented with through software standardization as well, which doesn't require government regulation.
I tried getting someone to OP this as a seperate thread, but no dice so I'll just post it here.
Title - IP - Public Agencies vs. Private Corporations:
Thanks to the Internet, we have near unlimited access to a incredibly large volume of books, music, movies, software, games and media outlets. However, these sources are all subject to regulation by corporate agencies, whether through restrictive DRM or through legal and PR battles aimed at terrorizing the general public into submission.
In America, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act gave these unique rights to corporations, allowing them to pursue legal action against individuals who had been tracked down through 'various' means.
Canada recently fought down it's own version of the DMCA, known as Bill C-60. This bill would have imposed several ridiculous regulations on IP. No private copying of sound recordings or other media. Absolute ownership of digital media would also come into question.
Have you ever been a tourist and asked a stranger to take your picture with your camera? Well, under the terms of Bill C-60 doing so will give that stranger copyright over the picture that was taken. You would not be legally able to use that picture for anything other than private personal uses. So don't decide to share it with your friends on your web site, and don't use it for commercial purposes unless you can locate that stranger. What, you were Brazil when that picture was taken? Well, good luck!
Although the Bill in its current form has been shot down, how long before something equally restrictive is lobbied for by private American corporations complaining about the rampant digital piracy north of the border? Barring the private corporate lobby further tipping the scales in their own favor, how long before software and hardware standardization imposes these same kinds of restrains without government legislation being required?
iTunes is a good example of a potential abuse of consumers through technology. Although EMI recently decided to release their entire library as DRM-Free, consumer's names and emails addresses are imbedded into the metadata of each file. If they choose to trade these files, they're setting up a chain reaction of lawsuits should the RIAA choose to pursue them for sharing the files over P2P networks. Instead of just getting one person during a bust, they could get whole networks of people unwittingly trading watermarked media over the Internet.
Microsoft is going in another direction. I've recently posted several links to a patent they recently published that would give them access and control over the use and standardization of a unique style of P2P distribution. United States Patent 20070136608: Off-line economies for digital media Instead of seeking legal action against those looking to trade digital media, this form of distribution would monitor and tax distribution through this new channel, created through 'trusted computing' channels. This grants them a monopoly over the standards and hardware implementation of this technology.
Are we at a breaking point where our own governments lack of technological knowledge has created a power vacuum that Private Corporations are rapidly attempting to fill?
Should there be more government action to ensure that Private Corporations aren't granted complete monopolies over digital media (which amounts to control over digital culture)?
Should consumer watchdog groups be created and mandated to prevent these kinds of abuses of power from taking place in the first place?
You can make and distribute anything that you created as freely as you want. Just don't do it for something that belongs to someone else.
For example, if you buy the DRM free songs on iTunes, don't put it up on P2P networks. If you don't break the law, then you're fine.
And corporations wouldn't have monopolies over digital media. Just digital media they produce. Which is, you know, the whole point of making that stuff in the first place for professionals.
And if you don't want to use Microsoft's P2P network, then don't. There will be viable alternatives, like Firefox is to IE (as I use Firefox on an XP computer).
You can make and distribute anything that you created as freely as you want. Just don't do it for something that belongs to someone else.
For example, if you buy the DRM free songs on iTunes, don't put it up on P2P networks. If you don't break the law, then you're fine.
And corporations wouldn't have monopolies over digital media. Just digital media they produce. Which is, you know, the whole point of making that stuff in the first place for professionals.
And if you don't want to use Microsoft's P2P network, then don't. There will be viable alternatives, like Firefox is to IE (as I use Firefox on an XP computer).
You miss the point of that patent. They own the shape of the network. No one else would be able to develop a similar technology that allows for p2p 'offline' distribution. This covers new physical data formats that provide the same kind of low-cost solution for distribution.
It's not that they have a patent on digital media, just it's means for valued distribution of digital media, which amounts to the same thing.
You can make and distribute anything that you created as freely as you want. Just don't do it for something that belongs to someone else.
For example, if you buy the DRM free songs on iTunes, don't put it up on P2P networks. If you don't break the law, then you're fine.
And corporations wouldn't have monopolies over digital media. Just digital media they produce. Which is, you know, the whole point of making that stuff in the first place for professionals.
And if you don't want to use Microsoft's P2P network, then don't. There will be viable alternatives, like Firefox is to IE (as I use Firefox on an XP computer).
You miss the point of that patent. They own the shape of the network. No one else would be able to develop a similar technology that allows for p2p 'offline' distribution. This covers new physical data formats that provide the same kind of low-cost solution for distribution.
It's not that they have a patent on digital media, just it's means for valued distribution of digital media, which amounts to the same thing.
There would be other models that would crop up. You're assuming that this is the most efficient and best way to do it, and that it would even stand up under full scrutiny. I'm not so sure but can't say with any certainty since the patent description is relatively unspecific.
You can make and distribute anything that you created as freely as you want. Just don't do it for something that belongs to someone else.
For example, if you buy the DRM free songs on iTunes, don't put it up on P2P networks. If you don't break the law, then you're fine.
And corporations wouldn't have monopolies over digital media. Just digital media they produce. Which is, you know, the whole point of making that stuff in the first place for professionals.
And if you don't want to use Microsoft's P2P network, then don't. There will be viable alternatives, like Firefox is to IE (as I use Firefox on an XP computer).
You miss the point of that patent. They own the shape of the network. No one else would be able to develop a similar technology that allows for p2p 'offline' distribution. This covers new physical data formats that provide the same kind of low-cost solution for distribution.
It's not that they have a patent on digital media, just it's means for valued distribution of digital media, which amounts to the same thing.
There would be other models that would crop up. You're assuming that this is the most efficient and best way to do it, and that it would even stand up under full scrutiny. I'm not so sure but can't say with any certainty since the patent description is relatively unspecific.
I doubt it. The security of the model is based on a transactional system. That's what the patent really applies to... you buy a piece of media from someone, you get a transaction receipt that validates the transaction. Thats what the patent is for. It's somewhere on the same level as Amazon's One-Click patent, but much broader in that it covers 'digital media'.
You can make and distribute anything that you created as freely as you want. Just don't do it for something that belongs to someone else.
For example, if you buy the DRM free songs on iTunes, don't put it up on P2P networks. If you don't break the law, then you're fine.
And corporations wouldn't have monopolies over digital media. Just digital media they produce. Which is, you know, the whole point of making that stuff in the first place for professionals.
And if you don't want to use Microsoft's P2P network, then don't. There will be viable alternatives, like Firefox is to IE (as I use Firefox on an XP computer).
You miss the point of that patent. They own the shape of the network. No one else would be able to develop a similar technology that allows for p2p 'offline' distribution. This covers new physical data formats that provide the same kind of low-cost solution for distribution.
It's not that they have a patent on digital media, just it's means for valued distribution of digital media, which amounts to the same thing.
There would be other models that would crop up. You're assuming that this is the most efficient and best way to do it, and that it would even stand up under full scrutiny. I'm not so sure but can't say with any certainty since the patent description is relatively unspecific.
I doubt it. The security of the model is based on a transactional system. That's what the patent really applies to... you buy a piece of media from someone, you get a transaction receipt that validates the transaction. Thats what the patent is for. It's somewhere on the same level as Amazon's One-Click patent, but much broader in that it covers 'digital media'.
One click is currently being challenged and probably will be successfully.
You can make and distribute anything that you created as freely as you want. Just don't do it for something that belongs to someone else.
For example, if you buy the DRM free songs on iTunes, don't put it up on P2P networks. If you don't break the law, then you're fine.
And corporations wouldn't have monopolies over digital media. Just digital media they produce. Which is, you know, the whole point of making that stuff in the first place for professionals.
And if you don't want to use Microsoft's P2P network, then don't. There will be viable alternatives, like Firefox is to IE (as I use Firefox on an XP computer).
You miss the point of that patent. They own the shape of the network. No one else would be able to develop a similar technology that allows for p2p 'offline' distribution. This covers new physical data formats that provide the same kind of low-cost solution for distribution.
It's not that they have a patent on digital media, just it's means for valued distribution of digital media, which amounts to the same thing.
There would be other models that would crop up. You're assuming that this is the most efficient and best way to do it, and that it would even stand up under full scrutiny. I'm not so sure but can't say with any certainty since the patent description is relatively unspecific.
I doubt it. The security of the model is based on a transactional system. That's what the patent really applies to... you buy a piece of media from someone, you get a transaction receipt that validates the transaction. Thats what the patent is for. It's somewhere on the same level as Amazon's One-Click patent, but much broader in that it covers 'digital media'.
One click is currently being challenged and probably will be successfully.
That still doesn't help with this patent.
I see this going unnoticed until the IPv6 rollout, at which time the devices required to make it work will be able to access the proper framework.
Software patents are a giant clusterfuck of their own within the category of IP.
One of the larger problems with the DMCA is that it outlaws the distribution of means to disable encryption on copyrighted material. While breaking encryption has definite implications for piracy, there are many legal uses of copyrighted material that get curtailed as a result. For example, the ability to legally rip DVDs or even watch them in an OS without a license granted by the copyright holders. Format shifting and backups are fair use rights under US copyright law, but with illegal to crack DRM they are effectively nullified regardless of how strong or weak that protection is.
But yes, unlimited reproduction means that it is necessary to treat IP different from regular property that is without that characteristic.
This kind of unlimited reproducibility is borderline biblical though.
On the same level as the whole 'bread and fishes' miracle, except you're feeding the mind instead of the belly.
It should still be watched to make sure it's rolled out to benefit the majority.
No one would argue this, but people will scream and yell about how whatever they want right now should be rolled out to the benefit of the majority ignoring the knock-on effects.
This kind of unlimited reproducibility is borderline biblical though.
On the same level as the whole 'bread and fishes' miracle, except you're feeding the mind instead of the belly.
It should still be watched to make sure it's rolled out to benefit the majority.
No one would argue this, but people will scream and yell about how whatever they want right now should be rolled out to the benefit of the majority ignoring the knock-on effects.
I'm not sure what the phrase 'knock-on effects' means, but I'm guessing it's equivalent to 'side effects'?
There's not much you can really do about the people yelling and screaming. The Free Software Foundation and Open Source community are pretty anti-proprietary, which means they're misleading the whole adventure.
Should IP be valued? I'd say so. Should you use technology to implement this valuation system or rely on the honor system and free formats? Good luck relying on the honor of anonymous people.
So Microsoft has a process which allows them to keep track of their own shit.
I'm sorry Che, but just because you don't like MS doesn't mean that it isn't their right to keep track of their own music files.
You do realize that often, this is much like saying the crazy old bum agrees with you?
I do, I do...
But in this case, it's just another example of how broad reaching this patent can be.
It's crazy.
How would prior art apply to this?
It isn't all music.
Its all music that they create afterwards.
All of this assumes that they control the market and can push these fees on us without the market creating an effective solution.
There is an effective solution if MS ramming Zune users up the ass with fees.
Its called the Ipod.
Also, it wouldn't apply to prior art unless they force you to come to a place where they can change the hardware, threatening to prevent you from acccessing your music if you don't.
Of course, if they ever tried that BS their customers would go buy and Ipod.
So Microsoft has a process which allows them to keep track of their own shit.
I'm sorry Che, but just because you don't like MS doesn't mean that it isn't their right to keep track of their own music files.
I remember another company taking MS and Apple and a bunch of others to court because they weren't using their DRM technology as required by the DMCA.
Mediasomethingorother.
It's not that MS is keeping track of their own shit. They own a patent on the process that could keep track of everybody's shit.
So Microsoft has a process which allows them to keep track of their own shit.
I'm sorry Che, but just because you don't like MS doesn't mean that it isn't their right to keep track of their own music files.
I remember another company taking MS and Apple and a bunch of others to court because they weren't using their DRM technology as required by the DMCA.
Mediasomethingorother.
It's not that MS is keeping track of their own shit. They own a patent on the process that could keep track of everybody's shit.
Therefore Apple can't use the process to keep track of their own shit, which may be for the better, as they would have to either pay MS to charge the fees or leave their customers alone.
Also, the DRM thing is politics, if you want to bring politics into this we could say that this is all irrelevant because the Voluntary Human Suicide Party will take power in 2012 and sic the army onto all of us.
So Microsoft has a process which allows them to keep track of their own shit.
I'm sorry Che, but just because you don't like MS doesn't mean that it isn't their right to keep track of their own music files.
I remember another company taking MS and Apple and a bunch of others to court because they weren't using their DRM technology as required by the DMCA.
Mediasomethingorother.
It's not that MS is keeping track of their own shit. They own a patent on the process that could keep track of everybody's shit.
Therefore Apple can't use the process to keep track of their own shit, which may be for the better, as they would have to either pay MS to charge the fees or leave their customers alone.
Also, the DRM thing is politics, if you want to bring politics into this we could say that this is all irrelevant because the Voluntary Human Suicide Party will take power in 2012 and sic the army onto all of us.
Actually, Apple can use the technology to keep track of their own shit. They'll just have to pay MS for the right to use it. Its no different from any other patented technology that makes it into one of their devices.
And thanks to legislation like the DMCA, they might have to use it.
It's just the thought of MS controlling the standards for something like this makes me throw up a little. If the last two decades have demonstrated anything about their standards, it's that they have none.
So Microsoft has a process which allows them to keep track of their own shit.
I'm sorry Che, but just because you don't like MS doesn't mean that it isn't their right to keep track of their own music files.
It keeps track of any non-DRMed music files and applies DRM to them.
Note that applying DRM to a file is not always legal in and of itself: if the file is released under, say, a Creative Commons license, or the GNU Free Documentation License, you are not allowed, legally, to apply DRM to it. This device would do so automatically, without checking.
You have to pay taxes to own everything else; why would property (land/house/Car/Boat) really be any different?
I thought this said "Land/Car/Boar" and thought "...I can own a boar? AWESOME!"
In all seriousness, taxation is not theft. Does it suck? Yes. Do I wish I didn't have to pay them? What red-blooded American doesn't?
But I also believe that once you obtain ownership of something, the company and government should both stay the fuck out of it (taxes aside), but that's a different topic.
I think that DRM should automatically strip itself the moment you buy it. One purchase, two products. A DRM laden version you can use in the described systems, and a DRM-Free version for use on all your older devices.
Otherwise, they'll just use legislation to force its adoption by the industry and fuck backwards compatibility.
The MS Antitrust suit ends in November. The new PlayReady format supposedly debuts this summer.
Well, there is one market model for information that DRM is useful for: rental. It is sort of hard to have a renting market for digital material if it is trivial to copy those rentals. However, the problem is when people want to buy and 'own' the digital material and the content holders try to throw an indefinite rental version down their customer's throats at ownership prices.
There is also the problem that DRM for content protection is almost fundamentally unsound in terms of real protection. It's like building a reinforced steel door on your house but hiding the key under the mat. They can try hiding the key in different places around the house, but to break it is just a matter of finding where they hid it, since the devices must decrypt the content to display it.
So Microsoft has a process which allows them to keep track of their own shit.
I'm sorry Che, but just because you don't like MS doesn't mean that it isn't their right to keep track of their own music files.
I remember another company taking MS and Apple and a bunch of others to court because they weren't using their DRM technology as required by the DMCA.
Mediasomethingorother.
It's not that MS is keeping track of their own shit. They own a patent on the process that could keep track of everybody's shit.
Therefore Apple can't use the process to keep track of their own shit, which may be for the better, as they would have to either pay MS to charge the fees or leave their customers alone.
Also, the DRM thing is politics, if you want to bring politics into this we could say that this is all irrelevant because the Voluntary Human Suicide Party will take power in 2012 and sic the army onto all of us.
Actually, Apple can use the technology to keep track of their own shit. They'll just have to pay MS for the right to use it. Its no different from any other patented technology that makes it into one of their devices.
And thanks to legislation like the DMCA, they might have to use it.
It's just the thought of MS controlling the standards for something like this makes me throw up a little. If the last two decades have demonstrated anything about their standards, it's that they have none.
They might have to use it, what? The main reason why Apple uses DRM is because reactionary content holders have refused to play ball with iTunes without DRM. However, there is some movement in the industry to sell online without DRM, at least by BMI.
Well, there is one market model for information that DRM is useful for: rental. It is sort of hard to have a renting market for digital material if it is trivial to copy those rentals. However, the problem is when people want to buy and 'own' the digital material and the content holders try to throw an indefinite rental version down their customer's throats at ownership prices.
There is also the problem that DRM for content protection is almost fundamentally unsound in terms of real protection. It's like building a reinforced steel door on your house but hiding the key under the mat. They can try hiding the key in different places around the house, but to break it is just a matter of finding where they hid it, since the devices must decrypt the content to display it.
They might have to use it, what? The main reason why Apple uses DRM is because reactionary content holders have refused to play ball with iTunes without DRM. However, there is some movement in the industry to sell online without DRM, at least by BMI.
Isn't that EMI?
And isn't Universal threatening to pull their entire library?
As for the whole 'unpirating' process listed in the patent, it's pure and utter bullshit.
There's no way they'd be able to have a handheld device indentify a unique song from the literally millions of others out there. It's pure and utter bullshit, and they're patenting a technology that doesn't and probably won't exist anytime in the near future.
Are there rules against trying to patent imaginary future technologies without having a working model?
I realize YouTube has a content identification system they're rolling out, but that still relies on a vast database of pre-sampled material to make the associations. There's no way you're fitting that kind of storage into your hand anytime in the near future.
Are there rules against trying to patent imaginary future technologies without having a working model?
Not really.
The only thing you need a working model of is a perpetual motion device, and then only in the US I believe, basically because the patent office got fed up with the waste of time it was with people constantly trying to patent perpetual motion devices.
I think that DRM should automatically strip itself the moment you buy it. One purchase, two products. A DRM laden version you can use in the described systems, and a DRM-Free version for use on all your older devices.
I think that DRM should automatically strip itself the moment you buy it. One purchase, two products. A DRM laden version you can use in the described systems, and a DRM-Free version for use on all your older devices.
This would fully defeat the purpose of DRM.
Not at all.
You'd get one unique file that you could post online on your own website, share via p2p networks, or trade between wireless handheld devices. Then you'd get another file you could use on every other portable device you own. DRM'd music lets you do this anyways by burning the file to a CD, this just eliminates a bothersome step in the process. For the consumer, this would mean all of the benefits of the system, with the only drawback being that you'd have to pay to make full use of it in being able to resell media.
The artists would still have the ability to use their own websites, share the DRM'd files via torrents and p2p, as well as via CD and Zune-a-like devices. Their distribution channel would grow in size as more people purchased files, creating new unique purchase points all over the place. Even artists benefit from piracy as it still gives them exposure.
The only one's who'd really lose out on DRM-stripping would be the corporations involved, as their profit margin is maximized by ensuring a minimal amount of piracy goes on.
I think that DRM should automatically strip itself the moment you buy it. One purchase, two products. A DRM laden version you can use in the described systems, and a DRM-Free version for use on all your older devices.
This would fully defeat the purpose of DRM.
Not at all.
You'd get one unique file that you could post online on your own website, share via p2p networks, or trade between wireless handheld devices. Then you'd get another file you could use on every other portable device you own. DRM'd music lets you do this anyways by burning the file to a CD, this just eliminates a bothersome step in the process. For the consumer, this would mean all of the benefits of the system, with the only drawback being that you'd have to pay to make full use of it in being able to resell media.
The artists would still have the ability to use their own websites, share the DRM'd files via torrents and p2p, as well as via CD and Zune-a-like devices. Their distribution channel would grow in size as more people purchased files, creating new unique purchase points all over the place. Even artists benefit from piracy as it still gives them exposure.
The only one's who'd really lose out on DRM-stripping would be the corporations involved, as their profit margin is maximized by ensuring a minimal amount of piracy goes on.
You do know that the profit margins at record labels are practically nothing as it is? There's not much more to squeeze.
I think that DRM should automatically strip itself the moment you buy it. One purchase, two products. A DRM laden version you can use in the described systems, and a DRM-Free version for use on all your older devices.
This would fully defeat the purpose of DRM.
Not at all.
You'd get one unique file that you could post online on your own website, share via p2p networks, or trade between wireless handheld devices. Then you'd get another file you could use on every other portable device you own. DRM'd music lets you do this anyways by burning the file to a CD, this just eliminates a bothersome step in the process. For the consumer, this would mean all of the benefits of the system, with the only drawback being that you'd have to pay to make full use of it in being able to resell media.
The artists would still have the ability to use their own websites, share the DRM'd files via torrents and p2p, as well as via CD and Zune-a-like devices. Their distribution channel would grow in size as more people purchased files, creating new unique purchase points all over the place. Even artists benefit from piracy as it still gives them exposure.
The only one's who'd really lose out on DRM-stripping would be the corporations involved, as their profit margin is maximized by ensuring a minimal amount of piracy goes on.
You do know that the profit margins at record labels are practically nothing as it is? There's not much more to squeeze.
buh wha?
The record label takes something like three quarters of the revenue from CD sales. They take something like eighty cents out of a 99 cent iTunes download, even though they didn't do a goddamn thing to publish that song on iTunes except perhaps to e-mail the AAC to Apple. The record labels are not short on cash.
And to be honest, record labels are about obsolete anyway, so fuck 'em. This is the 21st century. The kind of recording equipment that only a record publisher could possibly afford fifty years ago can be bought and installed in your basement for like a grand or two now. Online music sales are starting to outstrip CD sales. The traditional record label is like a horse-buggy manufacturer, and, well, sucks to be them.
I think that DRM should automatically strip itself the moment you buy it. One purchase, two products. A DRM laden version you can use in the described systems, and a DRM-Free version for use on all your older devices.
This would fully defeat the purpose of DRM.
Not at all.
You'd get one unique file that you could post online on your own website, share via p2p networks, or trade between wireless handheld devices. Then you'd get another file you could use on every other portable device you own. DRM'd music lets you do this anyways by burning the file to a CD, this just eliminates a bothersome step in the process. For the consumer, this would mean all of the benefits of the system, with the only drawback being that you'd have to pay to make full use of it in being able to resell media.
The artists would still have the ability to use their own websites, share the DRM'd files via torrents and p2p, as well as via CD and Zune-a-like devices. Their distribution channel would grow in size as more people purchased files, creating new unique purchase points all over the place. Even artists benefit from piracy as it still gives them exposure.
The only one's who'd really lose out on DRM-stripping would be the corporations involved, as their profit margin is maximized by ensuring a minimal amount of piracy goes on.
You do know that the profit margins at record labels are practically nothing as it is? There's not much more to squeeze.
buh wha?
The record label takes something like three quarters of the revenue from CD sales. They take something like eighty cents out of a 99 cent iTunes download, even though they didn't do a goddamn thing to publish that song on iTunes except perhaps to e-mail the AAC to Apple. The record labels are not short on cash.
And to be honest, record labels are about obsolete anyway, so fuck 'em. This is the 21st century. The kind of recording equipment that only a record publisher could possibly afford fifty years ago can be bought and installed in your basement for like a grand or two now. Online music sales are starting to outstrip CD sales. The traditional record label is like a horse-buggy manufacturer, and, well, sucks to be them.
Why would the artists need to go through a traditional record label format to be able to use this distribution service?
MS is acting to eliminate the need for record labels. Indie artists could sign up directly. They could be recieving 100% of the copyright cut.
However, care should be taken to ensure MS doesn't set itself up as the new Walmart of record labels.
The record label takes something like three quarters of the revenue from CD sales. They take something like eighty cents out of a 99 cent iTunes download, even though they didn't do a goddamn thing to publish that song on iTunes except perhaps to e-mail the AAC to Apple. The record labels are not short on cash.
And to be honest, record labels are about obsolete anyway, so fuck 'em. This is the 21st century. The kind of recording equipment that only a record publisher could possibly afford fifty years ago can be bought and installed in your basement for like a grand or two now. Online music sales are starting to outstrip CD sales. The traditional record label is like a horse-buggy manufacturer, and, well, sucks to be them.
Factor in operating costs and record labels had a lower R.O.I. than bonds last year (under 5%). So yeah, the labels are going through a significant squeeze right now and are thrashing around, looking for ways to stay relevant.
Record labels do much more than hook you up with a tight studio. The services they provide to musicians (legal, financial, creative) are significant. I don't personally think they're worth the financial hit and loss of control but some do. It is possible that the traditional record label is out of date but some form of it will be around as long as musicians don't want to take responsibility for the business end of music.
@ Che: They wouldn't need to sign up with labels but they'll always need lawyers, managers, and marketing. While labels would lose one huge advantage (distribution outlets), they could simply shift their attention more to the marketing/financial side. Would be an interesting shift and I welcome anything that would reduce their grip on the main distribution outlets.
The record label takes something like three quarters of the revenue from CD sales. They take something like eighty cents out of a 99 cent iTunes download, even though they didn't do a goddamn thing to publish that song on iTunes except perhaps to e-mail the AAC to Apple. The record labels are not short on cash.
And to be honest, record labels are about obsolete anyway, so fuck 'em. This is the 21st century. The kind of recording equipment that only a record publisher could possibly afford fifty years ago can be bought and installed in your basement for like a grand or two now. Online music sales are starting to outstrip CD sales. The traditional record label is like a horse-buggy manufacturer, and, well, sucks to be them.
Factor in operating costs and record labels had a lower R.O.I. than bonds last year (under 5%). So yeah, the labels are going through a significant squeeze right now and are thrashing around, looking for ways to stay relevant.
Record labels do much more than hook you up with a tight studio. The services they provide to musicians (legal, financial, creative) are significant. I don't personally think they're worth the financial hit and loss of control but some do. It is possible that the traditional record label is out of date but some form of it will be around as long as musicians don't want to take responsibility for the business end of music.
@ Che: They wouldn't need to sign up with labels but they'll always need lawyers, managers, and marketing. While labels would lose one huge advantage (distribution outlets), they could simply shift their attention more to the marketing/financial side. Would be an interesting shift and I welcome anything that would reduce their grip on the main distribution outlets.
I agree.
However, I'd just as soon see some Indie bands come out of nowhere and demonstrate to others how to make the system work without labels.
There's enough standardized contracts available on the Internet right now that a large portion of the legal services offered by record labels is pretty redundant.
Posts
Not completely true.
I can be implemented with through software standardization as well, which doesn't require government regulation.
But should it?
Title - IP - Public Agencies vs. Private Corporations:
Thanks to the Internet, we have near unlimited access to a incredibly large volume of books, music, movies, software, games and media outlets. However, these sources are all subject to regulation by corporate agencies, whether through restrictive DRM or through legal and PR battles aimed at terrorizing the general public into submission.
In America, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act gave these unique rights to corporations, allowing them to pursue legal action against individuals who had been tracked down through 'various' means.
Canada recently fought down it's own version of the DMCA, known as Bill C-60. This bill would have imposed several ridiculous regulations on IP. No private copying of sound recordings or other media. Absolute ownership of digital media would also come into question.
Although the Bill in its current form has been shot down, how long before something equally restrictive is lobbied for by private American corporations complaining about the rampant digital piracy north of the border? Barring the private corporate lobby further tipping the scales in their own favor, how long before software and hardware standardization imposes these same kinds of restrains without government legislation being required?
iTunes is a good example of a potential abuse of consumers through technology. Although EMI recently decided to release their entire library as DRM-Free, consumer's names and emails addresses are imbedded into the metadata of each file. If they choose to trade these files, they're setting up a chain reaction of lawsuits should the RIAA choose to pursue them for sharing the files over P2P networks. Instead of just getting one person during a bust, they could get whole networks of people unwittingly trading watermarked media over the Internet.
Microsoft is going in another direction. I've recently posted several links to a patent they recently published that would give them access and control over the use and standardization of a unique style of P2P distribution. United States Patent 20070136608: Off-line economies for digital media Instead of seeking legal action against those looking to trade digital media, this form of distribution would monitor and tax distribution through this new channel, created through 'trusted computing' channels. This grants them a monopoly over the standards and hardware implementation of this technology.
Are we at a breaking point where our own governments lack of technological knowledge has created a power vacuum that Private Corporations are rapidly attempting to fill?
Should there be more government action to ensure that Private Corporations aren't granted complete monopolies over digital media (which amounts to control over digital culture)?
Should consumer watchdog groups be created and mandated to prevent these kinds of abuses of power from taking place in the first place?
For example, if you buy the DRM free songs on iTunes, don't put it up on P2P networks. If you don't break the law, then you're fine.
And corporations wouldn't have monopolies over digital media. Just digital media they produce. Which is, you know, the whole point of making that stuff in the first place for professionals.
And if you don't want to use Microsoft's P2P network, then don't. There will be viable alternatives, like Firefox is to IE (as I use Firefox on an XP computer).
You miss the point of that patent. They own the shape of the network. No one else would be able to develop a similar technology that allows for p2p 'offline' distribution. This covers new physical data formats that provide the same kind of low-cost solution for distribution.
It's not that they have a patent on digital media, just it's means for valued distribution of digital media, which amounts to the same thing.
There would be other models that would crop up. You're assuming that this is the most efficient and best way to do it, and that it would even stand up under full scrutiny. I'm not so sure but can't say with any certainty since the patent description is relatively unspecific.
I doubt it. The security of the model is based on a transactional system. That's what the patent really applies to... you buy a piece of media from someone, you get a transaction receipt that validates the transaction. Thats what the patent is for. It's somewhere on the same level as Amazon's One-Click patent, but much broader in that it covers 'digital media'.
One click is currently being challenged and probably will be successfully.
That still doesn't help with this patent.
I see this going unnoticed until the IPv6 rollout, at which time the devices required to make it work will be able to access the proper framework.
One of the larger problems with the DMCA is that it outlaws the distribution of means to disable encryption on copyrighted material. While breaking encryption has definite implications for piracy, there are many legal uses of copyrighted material that get curtailed as a result. For example, the ability to legally rip DVDs or even watch them in an OS without a license granted by the copyright holders. Format shifting and backups are fair use rights under US copyright law, but with illegal to crack DRM they are effectively nullified regardless of how strong or weak that protection is.
But yes, unlimited reproduction means that it is necessary to treat IP different from regular property that is without that characteristic.
On the same level as the whole 'bread and fishes' miracle, except you're feeding the mind instead of the belly.
It should still be watched to make sure it's rolled out to benefit the majority.
That's pretty much it. People get tired of uncertainty and make a peace.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
I'm not sure what the phrase 'knock-on effects' means, but I'm guessing it's equivalent to 'side effects'?
There's not much you can really do about the people yelling and screaming. The Free Software Foundation and Open Source community are pretty anti-proprietary, which means they're misleading the whole adventure.
Should IP be valued? I'd say so. Should you use technology to implement this valuation system or rely on the honor system and free formats? Good luck relying on the honor of anonymous people.
This is sometimes scary.
Microsoft Patents Process To "Unpirate" Music
You do realize that often, this is much like saying the crazy old bum agrees with you?
So Microsoft has a process which allows them to keep track of their own shit.
I'm sorry Che, but just because you don't like MS doesn't mean that it isn't their right to keep track of their own music files.
I do, I do...
But in this case, it's just another example of how broad reaching this patent can be.
It's crazy.
How would prior art apply to this?
Its all music that they create afterwards.
All of this assumes that they control the market and can push these fees on us without the market creating an effective solution.
There is an effective solution if MS ramming Zune users up the ass with fees.
Its called the Ipod.
Also, it wouldn't apply to prior art unless they force you to come to a place where they can change the hardware, threatening to prevent you from acccessing your music if you don't.
Of course, if they ever tried that BS their customers would go buy and Ipod.
I remember another company taking MS and Apple and a bunch of others to court because they weren't using their DRM technology as required by the DMCA.
Mediasomethingorother.
It's not that MS is keeping track of their own shit. They own a patent on the process that could keep track of everybody's shit.
Also, the DRM thing is politics, if you want to bring politics into this we could say that this is all irrelevant because the Voluntary Human Suicide Party will take power in 2012 and sic the army onto all of us.
Actually, Apple can use the technology to keep track of their own shit. They'll just have to pay MS for the right to use it. Its no different from any other patented technology that makes it into one of their devices.
And thanks to legislation like the DMCA, they might have to use it.
It's just the thought of MS controlling the standards for something like this makes me throw up a little. If the last two decades have demonstrated anything about their standards, it's that they have none.
Good luck ever stopping the piracy.
It keeps track of any non-DRMed music files and applies DRM to them.
Note that applying DRM to a file is not always legal in and of itself: if the file is released under, say, a Creative Commons license, or the GNU Free Documentation License, you are not allowed, legally, to apply DRM to it. This device would do so automatically, without checking.
I thought this said "Land/Car/Boar" and thought "...I can own a boar? AWESOME!"
In all seriousness, taxation is not theft. Does it suck? Yes. Do I wish I didn't have to pay them? What red-blooded American doesn't?
But I also believe that once you obtain ownership of something, the company and government should both stay the fuck out of it (taxes aside), but that's a different topic.
Otherwise, they'll just use legislation to force its adoption by the industry and fuck backwards compatibility.
The MS Antitrust suit ends in November. The new PlayReady format supposedly debuts this summer.
There is also the problem that DRM for content protection is almost fundamentally unsound in terms of real protection. It's like building a reinforced steel door on your house but hiding the key under the mat. They can try hiding the key in different places around the house, but to break it is just a matter of finding where they hid it, since the devices must decrypt the content to display it.
They might have to use it, what? The main reason why Apple uses DRM is because reactionary content holders have refused to play ball with iTunes without DRM. However, there is some movement in the industry to sell online without DRM, at least by BMI.
Isn't that EMI?
And isn't Universal threatening to pull their entire library?
As for the whole 'unpirating' process listed in the patent, it's pure and utter bullshit.
There's no way they'd be able to have a handheld device indentify a unique song from the literally millions of others out there. It's pure and utter bullshit, and they're patenting a technology that doesn't and probably won't exist anytime in the near future.
Are there rules against trying to patent imaginary future technologies without having a working model?
I realize YouTube has a content identification system they're rolling out, but that still relies on a vast database of pre-sampled material to make the associations. There's no way you're fitting that kind of storage into your hand anytime in the near future.
Not really.
The only thing you need a working model of is a perpetual motion device, and then only in the US I believe, basically because the patent office got fed up with the waste of time it was with people constantly trying to patent perpetual motion devices.
Not at all.
You'd get one unique file that you could post online on your own website, share via p2p networks, or trade between wireless handheld devices. Then you'd get another file you could use on every other portable device you own. DRM'd music lets you do this anyways by burning the file to a CD, this just eliminates a bothersome step in the process. For the consumer, this would mean all of the benefits of the system, with the only drawback being that you'd have to pay to make full use of it in being able to resell media.
The artists would still have the ability to use their own websites, share the DRM'd files via torrents and p2p, as well as via CD and Zune-a-like devices. Their distribution channel would grow in size as more people purchased files, creating new unique purchase points all over the place. Even artists benefit from piracy as it still gives them exposure.
The only one's who'd really lose out on DRM-stripping would be the corporations involved, as their profit margin is maximized by ensuring a minimal amount of piracy goes on.
You do know that the profit margins at record labels are practically nothing as it is? There's not much more to squeeze.
buh wha?
The record label takes something like three quarters of the revenue from CD sales. They take something like eighty cents out of a 99 cent iTunes download, even though they didn't do a goddamn thing to publish that song on iTunes except perhaps to e-mail the AAC to Apple. The record labels are not short on cash.
And to be honest, record labels are about obsolete anyway, so fuck 'em. This is the 21st century. The kind of recording equipment that only a record publisher could possibly afford fifty years ago can be bought and installed in your basement for like a grand or two now. Online music sales are starting to outstrip CD sales. The traditional record label is like a horse-buggy manufacturer, and, well, sucks to be them.
Why would the artists need to go through a traditional record label format to be able to use this distribution service?
MS is acting to eliminate the need for record labels. Indie artists could sign up directly. They could be recieving 100% of the copyright cut.
However, care should be taken to ensure MS doesn't set itself up as the new Walmart of record labels.
Factor in operating costs and record labels had a lower R.O.I. than bonds last year (under 5%). So yeah, the labels are going through a significant squeeze right now and are thrashing around, looking for ways to stay relevant.
Record labels do much more than hook you up with a tight studio. The services they provide to musicians (legal, financial, creative) are significant. I don't personally think they're worth the financial hit and loss of control but some do. It is possible that the traditional record label is out of date but some form of it will be around as long as musicians don't want to take responsibility for the business end of music.
@ Che: They wouldn't need to sign up with labels but they'll always need lawyers, managers, and marketing. While labels would lose one huge advantage (distribution outlets), they could simply shift their attention more to the marketing/financial side. Would be an interesting shift and I welcome anything that would reduce their grip on the main distribution outlets.
I agree.
However, I'd just as soon see some Indie bands come out of nowhere and demonstrate to others how to make the system work without labels.
There's enough standardized contracts available on the Internet right now that a large portion of the legal services offered by record labels is pretty redundant.