Tim Marman's Loosely Coupled

Browse by Tags

• Copyright
• DRM
• Gadgets
• Innovation
• Law
• Law School
• Music
• Privacy
• Rants
• Social Behavior
• Technology
• Video
• Web 2.0

• Streamburst offers innovative DRM for video

  I've already discussed the German music store using watermarks to discourage piracy , and now it seems another service is applying the same principle to video . Instead of handcuffing viewers who want to view films they purchase on multiple devices and otherwise use content legitimately in ways DRM blocks - Streamburst takes two steps to prevent movie piracy. The first is that every film begins with a 5 second display of the name of the person who purchased that copy, as it appears on their credit card. The second step is that Streamburst eliminates an undetectable but unique series of bits from each copy of a file downloaded. That idea is that the psychological barrier of being named will stop many people from illegally distributing the files and those whom it doesn’t stop can be identified by the unique series of bits stripped from whatever copies make it into illegal file sharing networks. These techniques are just as effective at preventing the bad guys as "real" DRM (that is, they... Posted Feb 28 2007, 01:46 PM by Tim with | with 3 comment(s) Filed under: Technology, Intellectual Property, Security, Innovation, Video, Social Behavior, DRM

• Would you trust Zamzar with your data?

  Kevin writes about Zamzar , a free web-based service that converts audio, video and documents from one format to another (via Download Squad ). Sounds cool, but would you trust them with your sensitive data? I don't know about you, but I barely trust Google or Microsoft with this information. Should I trust what appears to be a UK-based startup whose company page provides little, if any, information about the company? In their Terms of Service and Privacy Policy , they make allusions to "respect[ing] the intellectual property rights of others" - though the language seems to be more related to a third party's protected work as opposed to any protected work you are personally uploading. The Privacy Policy also discusses, sort of, how the files are stored and accessible. Storage of User Files When users upload files to be converted Zamzar stores those files on its servers until such time as those files have been converted to the new file format. As soon as this has been done Zamzar removes... Posted Nov 03 2006, 08:37 AM by Tim with | with 2 comment(s) Filed under: Technology, Intellectual Property, Security, Copyright, Web 2.0, Innovation, Privacy

• 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

• The Paradox of DRM: What is the value of control?

  As a follow-up to my previous post : I think part of the problem stems from the belief that control is the most valuable aspect of copyright. As a result, (some) rightsholders will fight against any practice where they feel control is lost. In reality, as Fred laid the groundwork for in his paper, a lot of the work's value is unlocked only when control is lost. (Hint: compulsory licenses are your friend). It seems to me this is the paradox of DRM. Rightsholders want TPM because they see it as the only way to ensure control. The problem with TPM is that, frankly, it doesn't work. It keeps the "good guys" from using works in ways that would arguably fall under fair use (or after the Grokster arguments, admittedly), but it never really protects against the "bad guys" determined to steal anyways. Ultimately, this drives otherwise would-be customers to software like Grokster. The net result is that control, believed to be the lynchpin in the set of rights, actually has a detrimental effect on... Posted Apr 07 2005, 06:13 PM by Tim with | with 2 comment(s) Filed under: Technology, Intellectual Property, Security, Law School, Copyright

• Do strict laws encourage anti-social behavior?

  Mowab writes : [T]he idea, generally, is that you encourage community and cooperation by removing the safeguards that would keep you safe if you’re antisocial or don’t try to cooperate. What’s interesting is the corollary argument that social safeguards actually encourage antisocial behavior; they assume such behavior is going to occur, they plan for it, they legitimize it, and therefore ensure it will exist. Does this mean that the more we regulate or try to make our world safer, the more we’ll actually be making our world more chaotic, and less safe? A very interesting premise that I generally agree with. Strict rules, in many ways, serve as a way to rationalize away responsibility. The people don't feel a need to protect each other because there are laws that will protect us. It's similar to the idea that people are more likely to help out if no one else is around. If you're the only one capable of rescuing someone, you are probably going to feel a greater personal... Posted Dec 30 2004, 11:08 AM by Tim with | with 1 comment(s) Filed under: Intellectual Property, Rants, Security, Law, Social Behavior

• Who's reading your e-mail?

  Your ISP can read your e-mail. That's what a federal district court decided in 2003, and what the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld last week. A little history: Back in 1998, an online bookseller gave free e-mail accounts to book dealers and then secretly copied all messages that came in from Amazon.com. While two employees plead guilty to wiretapping charges, a supervisor fought the charges. He said he wasn't aware of the scheme and should not be held liable, but even if he were, the federal wiretapping law didn't apply. Because the messages were saved on the company's hard drive while being processes, he argued, they should be considered stored communication. This distinction is important. The federal wiretapping laws ban a company from monitoring its customers' communications, but it does not apply to stored communications. The reasoning there is that there is an inherent loss of privacy once the e-mail is stored. By putting e-mail in this category of stored communication, the courts... Posted Jul 11 2004, 07:35 AM by Tim with | with 2 comment(s) Filed under: Technology, Intellectual Property, Security, Privacy