Tim Marman's Loosely Coupled

Browse by Tags

• Apple
• Audio
• Business
• Copyright
• DRM
• Gadgets
• Gaming
• Law
• Law School
• Microsoft
• Music
• NYC
• Security
• Social Behavior
• Sports
• Technology
• Things that amuse me
• Things that bother me
• Trademark
• Web 2.0

• When will the NFL Network standoff end?

  Like so many others , I was furious when I couldn't watch the Packers-Cowboys games a few weeks back. The NFL Network is only carried on satellite which is simply not an option for many of us in urban areas like NYC. For those who haven't been paying attention, there's been a long-running standoff between the cable companies and the NFL network. (ComCast carries it at a premium, but neither Time Warner or Cablevision offer it, free or otherwise). To sum up: The NFL wants its network carried on basic cable packages with channels such as ESPN or CNN, where it can reach the broadest possible audience. Cable companies including Time Warner Inc. say it belongs on a sports package, or tier, where its audience would include only those fans willing to pay extra. I am a huge fan of the NFL and would certainly subscribe in a second. Much like the issues with net neutrality, the problem is that we're not dealing with a perfect market. If Time Warner doesn't offer me the ability... Posted Dec 27 2007, 12:22 PM by Tim with | with 1 comment(s) Filed under: Technology, Intellectual Property, Rants, Things that bother me, Sports, Law, NYC

• 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

• Taxing Virtual Economies?

  A congressional committee is exploring the idea of taxing in-game virtual economies . This is not a tax on the sale of video games themselves ( especially violent ones ), nor is it a tax on the sale of virtual assets in a real market like eBay. As Mike explains: Note that the politicians aren't talking about virtual items in the game that have been converted to real dollars or other assets. That's already taxable as income. Instead, they're looking at actually taxing the items within the game based on the perceived value of those assets. The complexity in even attempting such a system should be obvious. Different games have different economies and different currencies, and unless those currencies are convertible to real dollars there is no (easy) way to set the tax basis for the income. If the virtual assets are not readily convertible, this would be what is known as "phantom income" - that is, income in the eyes of the IRS but not in your pocket. This is a common topic with stock grants... Posted Oct 18 2006, 11:44 AM by Tim with | with no comments Filed under: Technology, Intellectual Property, Rants, Gaming

• 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

• The problem with regulating what you don't understand

  This interview would be funnier if Senator Stevens wasn't involved in crafting Internet regulation. Stevens does an amazing job (jaw-dropping, really) of explaining how the Internet works and why network neutrality is a bad thing. Choice quotes: But this service isn't going to go through the interent and what you do is you just go to a place on the internet and you order your movie and guess what you can order ten of them delivered to you and the delivery charge is free. Ten of them streaming across that internet and what happens to your own personal internet? I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why? And: They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the internet. And again, the internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in... Posted Jul 05 2006, 06:24 AM by Tim with | with 1 comment(s) Filed under: Technology, Intellectual Property, Rants, Web 2.0

• The Web 2.0 Trademark Debacle

  There has been a bit of controversy over O'Reilly's "Web 2.0" service mark cease-and-desist letter and their subsequent "we had to" response . I'd say Mike Arrington correctly predicted the lynching , though some are defending O'Reilly . ( Scoble is just upset he's no longer the King of Evil ). Fortunately, the issue has been resolved , but not before the PR damage was done. We're not claiming exclusive use of "Web 2.0" in all contexts. Our service mark applies only to "Web 2.0" when used in the *title* of "live events" such as conferences and tradeshows. Rob Hyndmann wrote exactly what I was thinking , especially the first and last points. First, there’s the effort (without any trace of irony, it appears) to restrict and monopolize the use of the term in connection with events held to educate and evangelize … a set of technologies that are about collaboration, sharing and open access to information. Next, there’s the threat against a non-profit, of all things, innocently trying to do nothing... Posted May 26 2006, 12:23 PM by Tim with | with 3 comment(s) Filed under: Technology, Intellectual Property, Rants, Web 2.0, Trademark