Declan wonders if the video iPod will spark a DMCA revolution:
In 1998, politicians bowed to pressure from the entertainment industry and voted overwhelmingly for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Part of that law made it a federal offense to sell or distribute software that can rip DVDs.
In other words, believe it or not, Apple CEO Steve Jobs would be guilty of a federal felony if iTunes transferred DVDs to an iPod as easily as it can music from a CD.
While these Draconian penalties have angered digital-rights types for years, the prohibition really hasn’t affected a broader audience. But the recently released video iPod changes this and–if we’re lucky–will prove to be a flashpoint that sparks actual reforms.
We can hope.
Via IPCentral, there’s an interesting article over at DRM Watch about the development of DRM standards.
The short version is: DRM standards continue to be a disaster. The only “standard” that has gotten any traction is the OMA DRM that’s used to lock content for mobile phones.
It’s not hard to see why mobile phone makers would have an easier time limiting copying than other platforms: mobile phones are proprietary devices on proprietary networks, and consumers use them to consume a small amount of proprietary content. (Amusingly, at one point it looked as though the annual licensing fees for OMA would exceed the value of all content traded using the scheme) The challenges faced by OMA are nothing like the challenges faced by someone distributing a lot of content on an open network like the Internet. OMA has hardly been a roaring success, and other DRM “standards” continue to be dead in the water:
The issue of technology licensing, and fees associated with it, pervades just about every DRM-related standards initiative–so much that it calls the term “standard” into question. Most DRM standards bodies are now really consortia that have IP licensing pools attached to them. Sun Microsystems is attempting to buck this trend with its DReaM Project, which it announced back in September: Sun intends to create an open DRM standard through collaborative community source development that “invents around” the existing patents. We believe this effort to be naive and unrealistic, and we do not expect it to succeed in its proposed form.
For anyone who’s familiar the way real open standards work, that ought to make your skin crawl. Genuine open standards like HTML, PDF, WiFi, etc, are available for anyone to implement, and to freely combine with other technologies to create something new. When I want to design a new web browser, I don’t have to run out and negotiate a licensing agreement with the company that owns the HTML standard. I don’t have to comply with hundreds of pages of detailed regulations before I’m allowed to release my product. And I don’t have to pay anyone royalties. The result of that openness has been a flourishing market for both web servers and web browsers, many of them developed by volunteers. The market would look very different if someone were collecting license fees on every web browser downloaded.
The expectation that “open standards” will be actually open standards not encumbered by restrictive licensing terms and burdensome royalties might be “naive,” but it’s been essential to the rapid growth of the Internet. I think DRM Watch is actually right that Sun is “naive and unrealistic” if it thinks it can develop an “open” DRM standard. But DRM watch seems to think that Sun should instead jump on board one of the more proprietary alternatives.
In contrast, I’m inclined to think that DRM is fundemantally at odds with the open, competitive technological environment from which the Internet emerged. The events of 2005 seem to provide more evidence of that thesis.
Leander Kahney of Wired News writes in his Mac column today that Bill Gates is a saint because he gives away his money to charities while Steve jobs is the devil because he keeps his money and his opinions to himself. Here’s a sampling:
It’s Gates who’s making a dent in the universe, and Jobs who’s taking on the role of single-minded capitalist, seemingly oblivious to the broader needs of society.
Gates is giving away his fortune with the same gusto he spent acquiring it, throwing billions of dollars at solving global health problems. He has also spoken out on major policy issues, for example, by opposing proposals to cut back the inheritance tax.
In contrast, Jobs does not appear on any charitable contribution lists of note. And Jobs has said nary a word on behalf of important social issues, reserving his talents of persuasion for selling Apple products. …
On the evidence, [Jobs is] nothing more than a greedy capitalist who’s amassed an obscene fortune. It’s shameful. In almost every way, Gates is much more deserving of Jobs’ rock star exaltation.
I see. It’s shameful to make lots of money, even when it is a representation of the amazing value you’ve created in the world. It’s shameful that Jobs isn’t taking the lead of Barbara Steisand, Harry Belafonte, or any one of the other famous people who deign it necessary to regale us with their (usually ignorant) thoughts on public policy. Jobs just stick to what he knows, making incredible computers and consumer electronics. For shame!
I think it’s great Gates wants to share his wealth. It’s his, and I say more power to him. I have a real problem, however, when Gates (supporting the death tax) and Kahney (writing dribble) try to tell other people what to do with their own money. I’m glad Jobs focuses on doing what he does best, I just wish Kahney would do the same and stick to writing about technology.
At the same time Google is digging in its heels against demands by the U.S. government, it has apparently caved in to demands by the Chinese government, agreeing to censor information available from its search engine in China.
Google reasoned that the move was necessary to allow it to continue operating in China. (Check out the recent discussion here at TLF over the pros and cons of engagement.) And in some ways this will make little difference to users–since China’s government has been blocking offending sites anyway. Still, there’s something unsettling about Google itself taking on the role of censor. And there’s a even more troubling feeling that Google will do the job better than the Chinese ever could.
(For a good discussion of pros and cons of engagement, see the recent debate here at TLF on the issue. Also, searchenginewatch.com has a good overview of the issue here.)
The battle between Google and the Justice Department has not suffered from a lack of coverage. The short story is that DOJ asked (well, “commanded” actually) that Google and other search engines turn over massive amounts of data regarding searches and websites on their systems, to be used in the government’s defense of the Child Online Protection Act. The legal case will be settled based on subpoena law, on which I’m no expert. On policy grounds, however, I’m with Google–which is defending its customers right to privacy. A loss could diminish the public’s trust that their online activity will be kept confidential, and hurt not only Google but the growth of the the Internet itself.
How broad is the DOJ request? Most of the media coverage has focused on its request for data on all searches made over a one-month period. That’s a lot. But its nothing compared to its original request for data on websites. Here, DOJ requested (and I’m not making this up): “all URLs that are available to be located through a query on your company’s search engine as of July 31, 2005.” Let’s repeat that: “all URLs that are available to be located through a query on your company’s search engine as of July 31, 2005”.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s about everything isn’t it? All websites. DOJ wants a list of all the websites in the world. (Well, all that are on Google anyway, which is pretty close). How many is that? If you search “www” in Google itself, you get 9.2 billion results. Were Google to print out this list, say at 50 per page, it would be 184 million pages long. If you laid these pages end to end, it still wouldn’t be a bigger waste of time.
DOJ has since modified its original request, and is now asking for only a million URLs. That’s a lot less, but still a lot.
I’m not saying all such subpoenas should be rejected. There is a legitimate role for the right to subpoena in the legal system, even subpoenas by the government. But given the stakes here, there should be a stiff burden of proof that what is requested is actually what is needed, and no more. “Give me everything” doesn’t meet that burden.
Here’s yet another group of customers being needlessly antagonized by DRM technology–wealthy audiophiles:
Steve Vasquez, the founder of ReQuest, which makes ultra-high end streaming audio networks for homes, says his company struggles with the limitations of DRM-protected audio files.
“We have an open system that can stream off a server to another house, but the DRM mechanism doesn’t recognize that possibility,” Vasquez said. “We have clients who have multiple units in one house and multiple units in multiple houses who want to be able to use music in those devices as well as portable ones. DRM is a limitation that limits innovation.”
A similar system made by Sonos creates a mesh-wireless network that connects up to 32 remote amplifiers with music stored on a home computer, but the company hides music bought through Apple’s iTunes store, according to co-founder Thomas Cullen.
“We don’t want to taunt them,” Cullen said. “The best thing we can do is hide iTunes songs so they don’t get an expectation they can play them.”
Ninety percent of his customers own iPods, according to Cullen, and many call in after first buying the system, wondering where their iTunes songs are. But after the company explains it is Apple’s DRM that prevents the file from playing, users universally respond that they will go back to buying CDs that they can then rip into non-DRMed audio files, Cullen said.
Without the DMCA, these companies could reverse-engineer the DRM in order to support music downloaded from the iTunes Music Store. But as long as the DMCA is on the books, any attempt to support those songs without Apple’s permission is a violation of federal law.
So far, most consumers are blissfully ignorant that when they buy DRMed music or videos, they’re locking themselves into playing the content only on devices approved by the company that developed the DRM scheme. I hope and expect that there will be a fierce consumer backlash when this becomes more widely recognized.
Jim Harper of Cato has an interesting exchange with Adam Thierer of PFF on U.S. companies doing business in China. Would a “code of conduct” for U.S. firms doing business there help the cause of human rights?
Suppose a firm refused to do business in China, or got booted out for “pushing back” in response to queries from Chinese officials for information on dissidents? It seems to me that there would be other firms ready to step into that market–China being a truly massive market–either Asian firms or U.S.-based firms, or those of some other nation. There might be some gains from the publicity this stance would generate, but like Tianamen Square, the gains might be short-lived.
Continue reading →
What do the labels think they’re accomplishing with CD-based copy protection? Here’s a story about the first copy-protected CD to reach #1 on US charts:
Like other recent copy-protected albums, the Velvet Revolver disc includes technology that blocks direct copying or ripping of the CD tracks to MP3 format. It also comes preloaded with songs in Microsoft’s Windows Media Audio (WMA) format, which can be transferred to a computer or to many portable digital music players.
As in earlier tests by BMG and SunnComm, the copy protection on the Velvet Revolver disc can be simply disabled by pushing the “Shift” key on a computer while the CD is loading, which blocks the SunnComm software from being installed. The companies say they have long been aware of the work-around but that they were not trying to create an unhackable protection…
The inability to move songs to Apple’s popular digital music player, as well as to other devices that don’t support Microsoft’s Windows Media digital rights management services, is a serious shortcoming. Jacobs says SunnComm recognizes that–and that the company’s next version will go beyond the Microsoft files and be able to create multiple kinds of digital files that will be compatible with the iPod.
But for now, iPod-owning Velvet Revolver fans don’t have a direct alternative.
“We are actively working with Apple to provide a long-term solution to this issue,” a posting on SunnComm’s Web site reads. “We encourage you to provide feedback to Apple, requesting they implement a solution that will enable the iPod to support other secure music formats.”
What is this supposed to accomplish? Obviously, it’s not going to deter anyone with a reasonable amount of technical savvy, given that pressing the shift key isn’t rocket science. So it’s hard to see this having a significant effect on piracy. On the other hand, preventing people from transferring their music to their iPods is a significant inconvenience that mostly affects legitimate users. Even if we set aside the privacy and security problems with SunComm’s technology, does it even make any sense from a business perspective to use this software? It’s not likely to slow any determined pirates down, but it’s guaranteed to piss off those of us who just want to listen to our music on the portable device of our choice.
Incidentally, it’s worth mentioning that SunComm could enable iPod compatibility tomorrow if it were willing to allow users to put songs on their iPods in MP3 format. Why don’t they? I’m not sure. Extracting an unprotected MP3 from an iPod is at least as technically difficult as pressing the shift key. So it’s not clear to me how enabling iPod compatibility would make any real difference in the “security” of their DRM scheme, even if they had to put the music on the iPod in an unencrypted format.
Occasional co-blogger Solveig Singleton has done good work on patent reform, but I think her latest analysis of the RIM-NTP patent dispute rather misses the mark:
The patent office is likely to declare all of NTP’s patents invalid in its final ruling. While NTP could appeal, this would take quite a while, plenty of time for RIM to finish working out a technical bypass. NTP’s position is getting weaker and weaker.
She’s right that NTP is getting weaker, but the reason is that no matter what the letter of the law says, no judge insane enough to order the shutdown of all BlackBerries. And she’s wrong to imagine that RIM can or will work out a “technical bypass.” The “invention” that NTP has patented is the concept of checking your email wirelessly. (there are a few qualifications to the scope of the patent, but none of them are of much use to RIM) As long as BlackBerries do what they’re designed to do–fetch peoples’ email from a mobile device–they’re infringing NTP’s patent.
I’ve been a disappointed with media coverage of this issue: I think the fact that NTP has patented the idea of wireless email is crucial to a proper understanding of the case. But reporters credulously repeat RIM’s claims tha they have a software workaround to “bridge the patent,” when in fact, a BlackBerry that doesn’t infringe NTP’s patent (i.e. that doesn’t fetch email wirelessly) is called a paper weight.
So I’ve been following this month’s argument over at Cato Unbound, a site run by my friend and former colleague Will Wilkinson that takes a Big Idea each months and brings in some Smart People to discuss it. I’ve been meaning to jump in when I saw a point where I’d have something to add to the discussion.
The problem is that I agree with Eric Raymond’s opening salvo, in which he tears the lead essay, written by Jaron Lanier, to shreds. Lanier’s essay is chock full of breathtakingly broad generalizations expounded in a world-weary tone. He flits from topic to topic, issuing sweeping but vague pronouncements about each, without ever arriving at any kind of clear point.
So honestly, I’m not sure what Lanier’s point is, or whether I agree with it. So instead of jumping into that specific argument, let me offer some quick thoughts on this month’s big idea: what’s become of the techno-utopianism of the 1990s? While I think that some of the utopians over-stated their case, and most of them got the details wrong, their basic thesis was right: the Internet is going to revolutionize American (and world) politics, society, and economics.
Continue reading →
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.