Tim Marman's Loosely Coupled

Browse by Tags

• Apple
• Audio
• Business
• DRM
• Gadgets
• Intellectual Property
• Law
• Microsoft
• Music
• Social Behavior
• Technology
• Things that amuse me
• Things that bother me

• Arguing Intelligently about Copyright

  Dare has a great rant on copyright . A key purpose of giving authors and other content creators exclusive rights to their intellectual property is to enable them to be rewarded financially from their works for some time before allowing these creations to become "owned" by society. This is supposed to be an incentive that enables the creation of a professional class of content creators and thus benefits society by increasing the number and quality of copyrighted works as well as creating a market/economy around copyrighted works. Most arguments against copyright laws are directly or indirectly an attempt to challenge the existence or benefits afforded the professional class of content creators. It should be noted that professionals dominate practically all areas of content creation (i.e. professionally created content is most popular or most valuable) even when you consider newer areas of content creation that have shown up in the past decade or so. It's because of posts like this that I... Posted May 01 2007, 10:36 AM by Tim with | with no comments Filed under: Technology, Intellectual Property, Rants, Copyright

• Was DRM-free music an Apple innovation?

  Some people have tried to paint the recent announcement by Apple as example of Apple innovating and Microsoft following . Headlines like " Microsoft changes tune on selling DRM-free songs " are simply misleading - none of the technology companies truly wanted DRM, but they were a necessary evil in selling music that they did not own. As I've discussing in previous posts , Microsoft, Real Networks, and Yahoo! were all instrumental in the anti-DRM movement. Most labels seem to get it - these decisions and stratregy are more often coming from the corporate parents, not the labels themselves. In fact, Gates criticized DRM months before Jobs' manifesto a month ago, and EMI had been reportedly been considering releasing DRM-free tracks in MP3 format for awhile. This initially-exclusive deal with EMI simply demonstrates Apple's significant marketshare for purchased music and influence in the market. The mere fact that Apple was lucky and/or powerful enough to convince a major label to do something... Posted Apr 09 2007, 12:59 PM by Tim with | with 1 comment(s) Filed under: Intellectual Property, Rants, Things that bother me, Things that amuse me, Copyright, Microsoft, Apple, Law, Audio, DRM

• 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

• The Broadcast Flag and TiVO

  The EFF already defeated the Broadcast Flag once, but it's one of those things that Hollywood is not going to let go of. I noticed on Dave's site that DRM support was added to TiVO last year . This DRM allows content owners to specify how and whether TiVO users can record a flagged show: they either can't record, can keep it for seven days, or - as the case with this obscure, 40-year-old movie - can keep for 7 days but only have 24 hours to watch once they start. This is one isolated incident, and we can definitely look elsewhere for our DVR needs. (My DVR provided by Time Warner doesn't have DRM restrictions, nor does a Media Center PC). The danger of the Broadcast flag, though, is that it mandates these restrictions, giving the content providers complete control over how we can consume their content. I am not suggesting that we ignore the rights of the copyright holder, but we also can't ignore the rights of the consumer. Copyright is, of course, not an absolute right and there are necessary... Posted Aug 24 2006, 08:07 AM by Tim with | with no comments Filed under: Technology, Intellectual Property, Rants, Gadgets, Copyright

• Gartner sends a cease and desist to remove a link

  Scoble passes along that James Governor, an analyst for RedMonk, received a C&D from Gartner for a link . Wow. I obviously haven't seen the letter, but I'm trying to imagine what possible legal recourse they have to linking to a publicly visible URL. Obviously there's no copyright infringement and there are standards you have to adhere to protect something as a trade secret. (Hint: putting something on a publicly visible server is not enough). Oh, and someone should tell Gartner that you can "redact" all the links you want but the Internet is forever . Here's the link - maybe I'll get my first C&D too. This is even worse than C&D'ing someone who is trying to help you . Tags: Gartner , RedMonk , CeaseAndDesist , Stupidity Posted Jul 11 2006, 01:15 PM by Tim with | with 3 comment(s) Filed under: Technology, Intellectual Property, Rants, Things that bother me, Things that amuse me, Copyright, Business

• Commercial Skipping

  There's been a bit of discussion on two patent applications filed by Philips on what the author of this NYT article refers to as "pay to surf" technology. Part of me hopes that they patented this simply to prevent others from using the invention, but somehow I don't think that's the case. ( Aside: Why the over-the-top rhetoric? I'm not exactly sure that the right to channel-surf during commercials or fast-forward through recorded is an "inalienable right". ) The principles behind copyright are meant to encourage expression, not protect business models. William Patry sums it up nicely in his discussion on the fourth fair use factor : The fourth factor analysis of harm to the market for the copyrighted work was a bunch of hoo-ha in [Sony]. The fourth factor concerns ways in which copying of the work itself damages similar or otherwise relevant markets for the particular type of copying done by defendant. The fourth factor most certainly does not concern harm to advertisers, nor does it reach... Posted May 10 2006, 04:20 AM by Tim with | with no comments Filed under: Technology, Intellectual Property, Rants, Gadgets, Copyright

• Warner Bros to start selling movies on BitTorrent

  In another step towards legitimacy , Warner Bros announced that it will sell movies and television shows through BitTorrent in the US. ( The service already launched in Europe in March ). No mention of what format is being used, but the article mentions "new digital rights management (DRM) software from BitTorrent" which was a major element in the deal. (BitTorrent is strictly a transmission technology). This follows up on an announcement by seven studios last month who plan on selling movies MovieLink and CinemaNow . Warner Bros.' movies will also be released along with the DVD, but sounds like costs will be more inline with the DVD instead of in the 20-30$ range. Unfortunately, you still can't burn to physical media. I would still prefer to see a service where you could pay that $20 or $30 for the right to watch theater-release movies in the comfort of your own home, but obviously there are some complicated politics and economics involved there. Still, this sounds like a step in the right... Posted May 09 2006, 09:58 AM by Tim with | with 1 comment(s) Filed under: Technology, Intellectual Property, Rants, Copyright

• MPAA, P2P and digital downloads

  The MPAA has launched a massive attack on P2P sites, but one of the sites is fighting back . TorrentSpy is a search engine for torrent files - it doesn't host the torrent files or the underlying protected material. In their response, they said that the MPAA might have just as well sued Google . Fred von Lohmann said , "on closer examination it looks more like a wholesale attack against Internet indexing generally." Fred questions whether copyright can (or should) make the distinction between a good index and a bad index. I guess TorrentSpy's main problem is that they haven't struck a deal with the MPAA . In related news, seven major studios will begin selling movies through MovieLink and CinemaNow. The downloads will be released at the same time that the DVD is released and will $20-30. Unfortunately, the studios still don't get it - you have to wait until the DVD is out, pay MORE than the DVD, and not get the physical media? (You can't even burn a copy). This would make a hell of a lot... Posted Apr 09 2006, 04:37 AM by Tim with | with 1 comment(s) Filed under: Technology, Intellectual Property, Rants, Gadgets, Copyright

• Does skipping commercials infringe copyright?

  Last year, Fred raised the issue of commercial skipping under FECA. One of the provisions of that act was to legalize the skipping of "limited portions" of a work in the context of profanity filters. The Copyright Office reasoned that this exemption didn't apply to commercial skipping, however, because "the commercials are, themselves, separate and independent motion pictures for the purposes of the Copyright Act, and thus the Act would immunize skipping of "limited portions" of commercials, but not entire commercials." I'm not quite sure I can get my head around their reasoning. It seems to me that, if the broadcast and commercial are truly independent, skipping the commercials wouldn't be an issue. The issue at hand was whether transformative actions like skipping commercials or censoring profanity constituted an authorized derivative work. If you view the show and commercials as independent works, then you shouldn't need FECA to legalize this at all. Since when can't you skip an entire... Posted Feb 23 2006, 05:17 AM by Tim with | with no comments Filed under: Technology, Rants, Gadgets, Copyright