Tim Marman's Loosely Coupled

Browse by Tags

• Apple
• Audio
• Business
• DRM
• Gadgets
• Innovation
• Intellectual Property
• Law
• Law School
• Rants
• Security
• Social Behavior
• Technology
• Things that amuse me
• Things that bother me
• Web 2.0

• More on the Music Industry's Slow Death

  This letter from a former customer further illustrates how the music industry is alienating its customers. While I would like to say I responded with something witty, I must admit to being completely flummoxed. There I sat, a loyal music fan who has shelled out actual money to a business that is supposed to be having financial problems, and the best they can do is tell me to wander the streets of Seattle looking for different internet providers who might allow me to download the music that I have already paid for, music that I have spent the better part of three house trying to listen to, and which is still unusable?” As I said before, sometimes piracy isn't about getting it for free . Given the choice of paying for crippled digital music in two months or downloading free, unrestricted music today, is it really any surprise that they choose the latter? You have record companies paying major labels for airtime, but putting arguably their best promotional vehicle out of business by jacking... Posted Mar 22 2007, 07:48 AM by Tim with | with 1 comment(s) Filed under: Intellectual Property, Rants, Music, Copyright, Law, Audio, Social Behavior, DRM

• Steve Jobs and Apple telling half-truths about DRM

  This has already been covered ad nasuem , but I thought I should mention Apple's denouncement of DRM last week. Steve Jobs summarily dismissed Apple's DRM as a result of demands from the record labels. Since Apple does not own or control any music itself, it must license the rights to distribute music from others, primarily the “big four” music companies: Universal, Sony BMG, Warner and EMI. These four companies control the distribution of over 70% of the world’s music. When Apple approached these companies to license their music to distribute legally over the Internet, they were extremely cautious and required Apple to protect their music from being illegally copied. The solution was to create a DRM system, which envelopes each song purchased from the iTunes store in special and secret software so that it cannot be played on unauthorized devices. I have no doubt that the record labels are concerned with putting unprotected music out there, but Apple is also in no rush to do away with DRM... Posted Feb 13 2007, 04:20 AM by Tim with | with 2 comment(s) Filed under: Intellectual Property, Rants, Music, Copyright, Business, Apple, Law

• Shame as DRM

  A German music download service is allowing customers to download unencrypted MP3 files, instead relying on embedded watermarks to discourage copying . The music store sells MP3 files which can be played on almost any digital music player, but adds a unique tag to each download using watermark technology from Germany's renowned Fraunhofer Institute for Integrated Circuits, which helped create the MP3 audio compression algorithm. The watermark technology makes slight changes to the data in sound files, such as a higher volume intensity in a tiny part of a song, that are undetectable by even the best trained ears, according to Fraunhofer researchers. However, if unauthorized copies of a download turn up on, for example, peer-to-peer file sharing networks, the watermark allows Akuma to identify the purchaser of a file and take action against them. This is a novel approach. It doesn't prevent the copying upfront, but helps in going after infringing users, and seems to me that it would probably... Posted Oct 13 2006, 04:14 AM by Tim with | with 1 comment(s) Filed under: Technology, Music, Copyright, Innovation

• FairUse4WM cracks PlaysForSure DRM

  The big news last week was that the Windows Media DRM was cracked . Derek also thinks this isn't entirely a bad thing, and in fact this benefits both the consumers and the online music services . As Grant puts it, "DRM doesn't protect content in any meaningful way. DRM does however present an encumbrance to legal uses of media purchased by legitimate customers." This is, ultimately, the paradox of DRM : it keeps the 'good guys' from using works that would fall under fair use, but doesn't protect against the "bad guys" determined to steal anyways. Peter Rojas, in an open letter to Microsoft , implores the company not to kill the FairUse4WM project. Rather than being an incentive for people to steal music, he suggests that many friends and readers have actually expressed an interest in signing up for these services. I tend to agree with this assessment. Until iTunes offers a subscription plan , this means that nearly nearly 80% of all digital music players are excluded from subscription service... Posted Aug 28 2006, 08:41 PM by Tim with | with 1 comment(s) Filed under: Technology, Intellectual Property, Music, Copyright, DRM

• When lawsuits and police raids backfire

  I'm pretty sure this is not what the MPAA and other powers that be had in mind when they coordinated an (unsuccessful) raid on a torrent site relatively unknown to the masses . Prior to the raid, The Pirate Bay was getting getting around $75,000 a month in advertising. After the raid, traffic increased to the point where they are charging $25,000 for a single day of advertising . Instead of bringing the attention to these sites, the MPAA would be better off recognizing what the consumer wants and their money would be better spent promoting and improving legitimate services . Tags: BitTorrent , P2P Posted Jul 18 2006, 07:27 AM by Tim with | with no comments Filed under: Technology, Music, Copyright

• Digital music hurts the artists

  Grant Robertson looks at the impact of digital downloads and agrees with Weird Al that the artists are getting a raw deal. The artist (Grant uses the Allman Brothers as an example) gets $0.31 cents per song sold on a CD, but only $0.045 for each digital download. The format is crippled, the record label saves money in production and distribution, and the artist takes an 85% pay cut. That sure doesn't seem right, does it? The Allman Brothers and Cheap Trick have already sued Sony BMG over allegations that the bands are being underpaid for digital downloads . Among other things, it seems that these labels are deducting 15% of the total sales for "breakage" and another 20% for packaging. We should encourage digital distribution: more access and lower costs for everyone. As I've said before, "Digital music has the potential to (in Fred von Lohmann's words) 'grow the pie' for everyone - we'll have more innovation, more money for both content creators (and publishers) and technology companies... Posted Jun 18 2006, 04:20 AM by Tim with | with no comments Filed under: Intellectual Property, Music, Copyright, Web 2.0

• DRM can have a significant impact on battery life

  Tommy Perkins posts yet another reason to hate DRM . According to this CNET article , it can have a significant negative impact on your device's battery life - as much as 25% as you can see below. Creative Zen Vistion:M: 16 hours with MP3s, 12 hours with only WMA subscription tracks Archos Gmini 402 Camcorder: 11 hours with MP3s, 9 hours with DRM tracks iRiver U10: 32 hours with MP3s, 27 hours playing subscription tracks The iPod, playing back only FairPlay AAC tracks, "underperformed MP3s by about 8 percent." This isn't terribly surprising, of course, given the additional processing required to validate and decrypt, but it's surely off-putting. Oh, and if that wasn't enough, RIAA says future DRM might "threaten critical infrastructure and potentially endanger lives . Posted Mar 21 2006, 04:12 AM by Tim with | with no comments Filed under: Technology, Intellectual Property, Security, Gadgets, Music, Copyright, DRM

• Unauthorized sampling in Biggie's Ready to Die, sales halted

  A Nashville judge has halted all sales of Notorious B.IG.'s classic Ready to Die after a jury found the title track contained unauthorized samples of an Ohio Players song. The jury also awarded $4.3M in punitive and direct damages. Diddy and Bad Boy are appealing the verdict. ( via AP article ) The album was released in 1994 and has sold millions of copies, which I guess explains why there was no preliminary injunction. (Pretty hard to show irreparable harm in that sense). No word on when it will be enforced, but it's still available right now on Amazon and other sites. I haven't found the actual ruling or other details, but I will pass them along when I do. Posted Mar 20 2006, 07:39 PM by Tim with | with 1 comment(s) Filed under: Intellectual Property, Music, Copyright

• Tower Records to offer free podcast service

  Interesting little tidbit that Andrew passed along - Tower Records is on the verge of launching a free podcast service. The 90-store chain plans to open a new online service this summer that lets consumers create their own podcasts--audio and video shows designed to be downloaded onto a computer or portable media player--using a catalog of some 6,000 songs, which Tower will provide free of charge. So basically they are allowing users to create custom radio streams that you can take with you. The entire service is free, with ads included in the most popular podcasts. Great idea - and it's good to see them thinking creatively here instead of holding on to a dying business model. Of course, the service won't include music from most of the major labels because there isn't enough DRM on it for their tastes. Posted Mar 08 2006, 08:54 AM by Tim with | with no comments Filed under: Technology, Intellectual Property, Music, Copyright

• Surprise: RIAA trying to undermine important exceptions to copyright exclusivity

  After conceeding as much in Grokster arguments, the RIAA is reversing course and claiming that ripping a CD to your iPod is Fair Use. Fred discusses the recent filing made by the RIAA filing over at EFF Deep Links. They are not saying this behavior itself was unlawful in the past, but rather that it was lawful only because they allowed it. "Nor does the fact that permission to make a copy in particular circumstances is often or even routinely granted, necessarily establish that the copying is a fair use when the copyright owner withholds that authorization. In this regard, the statement attributed to counsel for copyright owners in the MGM v. Grokster case is simply a statement about authorization, not about fair use." This is an interesting way to frame the issue and seems to me like they're trying to weasel out of any potential estoppel issues. I do agree with Brad in that the RIAA is trying to move towards a pay-per-play system, which is of course is the exact opposite from what consumers... Posted Feb 22 2006, 04:00 AM by Tim with | with no comments Filed under: Technology, Intellectual Property, Rants, Music, Copyright