Bringing Nothing the the Party: True Confessions of a New Media Whore
You can find more about this book at PaulCarr.com and the story behind this e-release on TechCrunch.
"You Two! We're at the end of the universe, eh. Right at the edge of knowledge itself. And you're busy... blogging!"
— The Doctor, Utopia
You can find more about this book at PaulCarr.com and the story behind this e-release on TechCrunch.
Here's another article, this time from the UK, which shows that if people had an easy-to-use legal alternative, they'd happily pay for most content.
On top of the availability issue, 68% of the respondents who have downloaded copyrighted content indicate that the illegal alternatives are more convenient, because they can get what they want much faster.
According to the New York Times Penguin Group is the next published (after Random House) to announce the end of DRM on their audio books. "HarperCollins said the publisher was watching these developments closely but was not yet ready to end D.R.M." I'm not holding my breath on HC because of their recent "protected" releases of free e-books.
I posted earlier this week about DRM-free free eBooks. Now it looks like Random House is going through with DRM-free (though not $$$ free) digital audiobooks. It seems they've been doing this for a while through eMusic but will be extending it to all other online services (such as Audible and Overdrive I assume.) The most interesting part was this reason given for going through with the change:
[W]e have not yet found a single instance of the eMusic watermarked titles being distributed illegally. We did find many copies of audiobook files available for free, but they did not originate from the eMusic test, but rather from copied CDs or from files whose DRM was hacked.
In other words, people that legally purchased the music and could do what they wanted with it due to the lack of DRM felt no need to redistribute said content in legally questionable ways. Yep. Give us something we can actually use the way we want and we'll pay for it. Don't make us pay for something that locks us out of what we've paid for.
More at Boing Boing.
Labels: audio, corydoctorow, drm
Some wonder why people think it's o.k. to do things with music they've purchased that the RIAA doesn't want you to do. Well here's the story of how one man became a "music pirate".
"'Well' she responded, 'You didn't actually purchase the files, you really purchased a license to listen to the music, and the license is very specific about how they can be played or listened to.'"
Steve Jobs has written a 2000+ word essay, posted on the Apple, Inc. site regarding his feelings about DRM (digital rights management) on the iPod platform and in general. After a history explaining how we got to where we are today, this is the paragraph that makes the article worth it's weight in gold:
"The third alternative is to abolish DRMs entirely. Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players. This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. If the big four music companies would license Apple their music without the requirement that it be protected with a DRM, we would switch to selling only DRM-free music on our iTunes store. Every iPod ever made will play this DRM-free music."
His thoughts only get more interesting from this point as he clearly states why it makes total sense for the mucis corporations to ditch DRM. Read it and give copies to all your friends.
As promised, I'm half-way to writing a full review of the new eFlicks program offered by the Denver Public Library. (I don't plan on making more than one or two snide comments about the DRM in the article, at least not at this time.) I've gone through the system, set everything up, downloaded and watched a few vids. Throughout that process I took 52 screenshots. Now all I have to do is narrate them into an article. If you're interested in a preview, you can view them as a slideshow on Flickr.
(I'm thinking that the article will be long enough to be posted on something like WebJunction, not here on the blog.)
Labels: drm
This is a follow-up to my post DRM, a poor explanation.
The language on the page in question has been changed. It now reads:
"The Windows Media Security Upgrade is a one-time process that must be performed before Microsoft Windows Media Player will allow any DRM-protected files to be played. A security measure, the security update identifies the copy of Windows Media Player with the computer on which the Player is being used. Publishers often require this sort of security in order to discourage the unlawful redistribution of digital content."
This is much better. I still don't like DRM as it gives power to the content provider that was traditionally the library's, but at least the explanation is accurate now.
The Denver Public Library has started to offer downloadable video content on their Web site. I plan on testing it out shortly and writing a full review of the system. However, in looking through some of the documentation I found this little gem on the help page:
"The Windows Media Security Upgrade is a one-time process that must be performed before Microsoft Windows Media Player will allow any copyright-protected files to be played."
[emphasis added]
This sentence is misleading at best and a lie at worst. Windows Media Player will play copyright protected files just fine without this "security upgrade". I can stick the recently released DVD of King Kong, clearly protected by copyright, into my computer and play it with Windows Media Player just fine without this "security upgrade". What it won't play without the upgrade is files that include the DRM restrictions that the content creator is using to enforce their copyright. Yes, it's semantics, but this is an important issue when attempting to explain to people why they need this software just to watch a video. Copyright protection is a concept, DRM is software.
Update 04/14: I have contacted DPL regarding this issue and here's their reply —
"Thank you for calling our attention to this. We are working with the vendor to revise the wording."
Labels: apple, drm, ipod, itunes, marketing, sony, tabletpc, treo, video
In her latest post on the ALA TechSource blog Jenny Levine discusses libraries, digital content, and DRM. Her central point is the one I've been making for a while now:
"But therein lies the problem, because while RGPL THINKS it owns the content in the traditional sense of the termÂin the same way it thinks it own the books, CDs, and DVDs it has purchasedÂit DOESN'T. Because digital content is different from physical content, in that there is no right of first sale for it, despite the seemingly reassuring terms of the signed agreement."
I have no problem with libraries lending digital content (never mind thaccessibilityty problems; e-books on an iPoanyonenw?) but the problem is that the library doesn't own the content nor does it ultimately have control over said content. The content provider sets the length of loan time (which most libraries don't seem to mind for some reason) but, more importantly, what happens when the content provider goes out of business? Bye bye content. What then?
Labels: drm
Ever worked in an IT department? Know anyone who does? Just find "computer people" a little bit odd? If you answered yes to any of these questions you need to be watching the Brit-com The IT Crowd. As I understand it, the show is not being broadcast but being shown online in a DRM'd format available only in the UK. However, it seems to be poorly implemented DRM, and so far the first five episodes have been liberated and are available via Bittorrent. (If you don't know what Bittorrent is, check out the Wikipedia article. My client of choice is Azureus.) This show is just too damn funny to miss!
Labels: bittorrent, drm, wikipedia, wikis
Here's a list of CDs affected by the Sony-BMG spyware and it seems that you can turn them in for non-XCP'd replacements.
This my last post this today, I promise...
Here's further details on the Sony DRM from the point of view of First 4 Internet, the company that actually created the software. This one's technical.
They're released another update (service pack 2a) which will allow you to remove the DRM completely along with a "we're not evil" statement. This version does not require ActiveX and therefore is easily downloadable by non-IE users.
I've not posted anything regarding the recent discovery of Sony using RootKit technology to hide its DRM on some music CDs since it's a little out of my usual scope. However, this article from BetaNews talks about how Sony has released an "update" to the DRM software that "unhides" but doesn't remove the DRM for your computer. I followed the link to the Sony site with the update to find some more information and when I clicked on the link to the update itself I got this:
Well, it seems that only IE users have the ability to get the "solution" to a piece of software that was installed on their computer without their permission. Way to go Sony.
Michael Stevens' blog pointed me to this report from the Mid-Illinois Talking Book Center in which the author, Thomas A. Peters, states:
"The fact that netLibrary's digital audio books are in the protected WMA file format, coupled with the fact that Apple iPods and most accessible devices (for example, the Book Port and the Book Courier) will not play the WMA file format, is unfortunate. One can only hope that soon both Apple and the manufacturers of accessible playback devices realize that supporting the playback of WMA content is in everyoneÂs best interest. "
Come on. This is never going to happen. You might as well try to convince Windows Media Player to play Apple's DRM-encrusted, proprietary AAC format. Here's a suggestion that might actually get some results. Get the vendors, netLibrary in this case, to offer downloads in both WMA and AAC. Give the users choice. Then everyone's happy.
I turn on my comments and look what happens. I get Walt Crawford pointing me to his response to my post regarding Alan Wexelblat's opinion. I guess that leaves me to attempt to explain my position in a coherent way. Here goes:
My biggest problem with the DRM-based expiration of eAudioBooks, or other digital items for that matter, is who gets to decide when they expire. Walt makes the point that the "library's paid for the right to have one copy of the audio ebook in use at any one time. How is that different than lending a book?" It's different because of who has the control. In the case of a physical book, the library invokes the right of first sale, giving them the right to loan it out as they see fit. Yes, the library loans it for a limited period but that's the library's choice. Some libraries allow for two weeks, some allow renewals (usually a finite number of times,) while other libraries allow patrons to check out items indefinitely, only to be recalled when requested by another patron (i.e. for a professor or Ph.D. student at a university.)
The problem with these eAudioBooks is that the publisher is imposing their will on the library and, in the end, on the patron. The library has been taken out of the process. Sure, we could decide to challenge this practice by not spending our money on the product, but where does that leave the library and the patron; without the material they're looking for. Not exactly great customer service.
Ultimately, we're stuck. The books are restricted by DRM, and don't work on all devices. (I'm an iPod owner and I'm SOL.) We buy them because they're the only option and when presented with a take-it-or-leave-it decision, people are going to be more than happy to point out the flaws.
On June 17th, Cory Doctorow gave a talk to the folks at Mircosoft about Digital Rights Management (DRM) basically telling them how bad for everyone the whole idea is. Even if you have no idea what I'm talking about you should read the transcript of his speech. It is very non-technical, funny, and educational.
Labels: drm