Over at Ars, Ken FIsher reports on Google’s decision to drop its online video store:
Google contacted customers late last week to tell them that the video store was closing. The e-mail declared, “In an effort to improve all Google services, we will no longer offer the ability to buy or rent videos for download from Google Video, ending the DTO/DTR (download-to-own/rent) program. This change will be effective August 15, 2007.”
The message also announced that Google Checkout would issue credits in an amount equal to what those customers had spent at the Google Video store. Why the quasi-refunds? The kicker: “After August 15, 2007, you will no longer be able to view your purchased or rented videos.”
See, after Google takes its video store down, its Internet-based DRM system will no longer function. This means that customers who have built video collections with Google Video offerings will find that their purchases no longer work. This is one of the major flaws in any DRM system based on secrets and centralized authorities: when these DRM data warehouses shut down, the DRM stops working, and consumers are left with useless junk.
Continue reading →
Today, the NY Times reports on a rather shocking surveillance program that China has in the works. The program is starting in the city of Shenzhen, where people will be required to register for residency cards containing a computer chip. According to the Times, “Data on the chip will include not just the citizen’s name and address but also work history, educational background, religion, ethnicity, police record, medical insurance status and landlord’s phone number. Even personal reproductive history will be included, for enforcement of China’s controversial “one child” policy. Plans are being studied to add credit histories, subway travel payments and small purchases charged to the card.”
Wow. George Orwell had nothing on these guys.
We’ll see if I agree with Larry Lessig’s ultimate concluions regarding problems of corruption, but he has certainly started things out on the right foot, with a wiki seeking examples for study. Here are my contributions, under the heading of “The Market”:
* Dan Morgan, Sarah Cohen and Gilbert M. Gaul, Dairy Industry Crushed Innovator Who Bested Price-Control System. ”’Washington Post”’, December 10, 2006
* Eric M. Jackson, The PayPal Wars: Battles with eBay, the Media, the Mafia, and the Rest of Planet Earth, World Ahead Publishing, 2004.
* The incestuous relationship between real estate developers and local government officials is certainly an example of corruption. No specific work to cite, but Kelo v. New London is obviously a good example of the interests of ordinary citizens being shoved aside for the interests of large corporations.
* Tim Carney, The Big Ripoff: How Big Business and Big Government Steal Your Money has some good examples of corruption.
And under “history”:
* Gabriel Kolko, Railroads and Regulation, 1877-1916 Greenwood Pub Group; New Ed edition (January 1977). An excellent history of the origins of the Interstate Commerce Commission and its corruption by railroad interests. Ralph Nader produced a report documenting the outcome in 1970, which was reported on by Time magazine.
What else should be on the list? Add your suggestions in a comment here and then head over to Lessig’s wiki for more details. Be sure to read the directions at the top.
Fred von Lohmann explains why the Electronic Frontier Foundation has taken up the case of a used music merchant who’s been targeted by UMG for selling CDs marked “promotional use only.” At stake is the first sale doctrine: the principle that once a copyright holder sells or gives away a copy of a copyrighted work, that the new owner has the right to do as he pleases with that copy, including re-selling it, and that printing “not for resale” on the CD doesn’t change the equation.
Sounds like a worthwhile case. Legal documents are here.
If you’re following the ongoing debate over efforts to mandate a la carte regulation for cable and satellite TV, there’s an interesting piece in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal entitled, “TV Channels Move to Web, Think Outside the Cable Box” [subscription only] that deserves your attention. Author Bobby White argues that “The Internet is offering a new outlet for voices — including those of ethnic minorities — that weren’t heard from as much under old media.” He highlights how the Black Family Channel and some other new networks that haven’t found a home on the cable dial have decided to give it a go online instead:
Across the cable TV industry, other independent channels are also turning away from TV to the Internet. The Lime Channel, which focuses on healthy living, pulled out of cable last year and now offers its programming online and as video on demand. The Employment and Career Channel, which began streaming online in 2002, has junked its attempts to be a cable TV channel to be an online-only outlet. Others, like the Horror Channel and HorseTV (which revolves around equestrian events), have also opted to go online.
The shift illustrates how the Internet is offering a second chance to certain segments of old media. Web-based TV is now becoming a more viable business route, and Internet video is exploding. Running an online-only video channel, which doesn’t require expensive cameras and broadcasting gear, is cheaper than operating a cable TV channel. While starting a new cable channel today takes an initial investment of $100 million to $200 million, a broadband channel needs just $5 million to $10 million to get going, says Boston-based research firm Broadband Directions.
Continue reading →
A funny comment in response to my NBC debates story:
FOX news has every right to own it’s debates because they are fictional and for entertainment purposes only. If you want non-fiction, try a legitimate news source.
Over at Ars I report on NBC’s decision to “allow” bloggers to make use of debate footage:
skeptics might question whether the networks had the right to restrict use of the footage in the first place. Under the principle of fair use, copyright law permits the reproduction of excerpts of copyrighted material for criticism, comment, and news reporting. Although determining the precise scope of fair use is never an exact science, showing a clip from a presidential debate is about as clear-cut an example as we can imagine. In most cases, bloggers will be legally entitled to use debate excerpts without paying any attention to NBC’s license restrictions.
Nevertheless, NBC’s announcement (and ABC’s and CNN’s announcements before them) will give rank-and-file bloggers peace of mind. That’s important because in the past, the networks have sometimes been trigger-happy in sending takedown notices. Even if the law was on their side, some bloggers might have been reluctant to take the risk of prolonged copyright litigation.
Ars reports that Universal Music is pondering a leap onto the no-DRM bandwagon:
Doug Morris, UMG’s chairman and CEO, said in a statement that the company began internally considering the DRM-free waters earlier this year, and the company is expanding its plans into a nationwide test to “provide valuable insights into the implications of selling our music in an open format.”
The test will see UMG offering a portion of its catalog—primarily its most popular content—sold without DRM between August 21 and January 31 of next year. The format will be MP3, and songs will sell for 99¢ each, with the bitrate to be determined by the stores in question. According to Universal, Amazon, RealNetworks, and retailers such as Best Buy and Wal-Mart will have first crack at selling the music. RealNetwork’s Rhapsody service will offer 256kbps tracks, the company said in a separate statement.
Universal has apparently snubbed Apple, choosing to make DRM-free music available on other music services first.
The Wall Street Journal reports that the slow-motion train wreck that was Movielink has finally come screeching to a halt:
Movie-rental chain Blockbuster Inc. secured a foothold in the small but potentially significant online movie downloading business by acquiring Movielink LLC, a downloading service owned by the major Hollywood studios.
After several months of talks, first reported in March, Blockbuster said late yesterday it had acquired Movielink from the studios for undisclosed terms. The Wall Street Journal had reported in March that the price was said to be less than $50 million, although the final deal was less than $20 million, said a person familiar with the situation.
This looks even worse for the studios when you consider that, according to Ars, the studios have sunk more than $100 million into the company over the last five years.
I can’t say I’m surprised. As I’ve argued here before, the service was over-priced, low quality, and so crippled with DRM that they were dramatically less useful than DVDs. Is it any wonder few consumers jumped on board?
I really hope Blockbuster is buying MovieLink for the customers or the relationship with the studios. Because they certainly can live without MovieLink’s technology.
While I’m on the subject, my favorite TLF reader sends me this “mythbusters” page on the liquids ban from the TSA’s website. Here’s their explanation of why terrorists couldn’t combine multiple bottles of liquid:
We also paid close attention to the idea of terrorists combining multiple small bottles in a larger container or combining many small bottles together after going through the checkpoint. Due to the extreme volatility of liquid explosives, the international consensus was that those scenarios don’t represent a significant threat. Thanks to this unprecedented international cooperation, 67 countries, a great majority of the world’s air travelers are under a common set of security rules for the first time.
Can someone explain what this is supposed to mean? Are they saying that the liquids in question are so volatile that they’ll evaporate/explode the moment they come into contact with the air? I find it hard to believe drug stores would be selling such explosive liquids, so they must mean evaporate. I admittedly haven’t taken chemistry in a while, but I find it hard to believe there exist liquids that evaporate almost instantly from 3-oz containers, but can, in larger quantities, be reliably mixed with other liquids in an airport lavatory, with no equipment, in order to make a bomb powerful enough to take down an airplane.
Oh, and the explosion video is available on that site. It strikes me as pretty useless. No details are given about what was mixed, how it was prepared, or in what quantities, and we have no close-ups of the blast site either before or after. I’m sure that Sandia labs has chemists who know how to blow stuff up, but that hardly proves that a terrorist could do the same thing in an airport lavatory.
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.