Rant Future: Will your computer be yours?

[Brycesv1]

while a lot of people are greedy bass-tards who just want it all for free there are also the people who pirate with the intention of buying. i myself have downloaded music or games to see how they are. as many games dont have a demo (the tutorial level cant count cuz its not what gameplay really is) there is no other way to know the quality. if its good then i go out to buy the game wich even has its own bonus as 99% of pirated games dont work online. if i download a game that happens to suck. i get bored and uninstall it from my machine. no real lost revenue to the creator as i would never have baught the game anyway.

 

[ar81]

I have bought as many originals as I could of everything, specially games.
Those that remain pirate copy, are those which did not get to the shelves as originals.
So it is an indication of companies having logistics problems, so their loss with me is caused by THEMSELVES.

 

[ijuin]

I wonder just how many paying customers companies are driving away by making legitimate use of paid copies so cumbersome.

 

[jedidia]

I think one of the big problems is that software and music are thrown in the same bin.

Being a musician myself (allthough I don't live of it), I can only agree with Tony: Distribution labeles are becoming superfluous. You don't make big bucks with CDs anymore nowadays (the Artists not at all. if you get 50 cents as a WHOLE BAND per CD sold, that's a good price). Now, small labeles have recognised this and have changed course: They have majorly switched to being marketers and concert organisators. Becuase concerts are where a musician and the label get the bucks nowadays. You put a CD of your Band in the back and do a good gig, at least 30% of the listeners will buy it, even if they allready have a pirated version at home. The system works well, allthough it is still hard for a musician to live of his music (but it allways was).
The big-market labels can't make that change too easily. They're whole infrastructure, which is huge, is directed towards distribution which is effectively made obsolete by the internet. It's clear that they're trying everything to fight this, but if they hold on to it too long they will go the way of the dinosaurs.

As for a copyright regulation on music, I go for the following: Sell CD's, because people do and allways will want a hard copy of something they love. with a nice booklet, a few gimmicks etc. Everything that lands on the net is for the take: You don't deliver matter, and in the end only zeroes and ones, so you don't get money for it. Period. the logical consequense is, concert prices go up (and they do), because everyone wants to go to a concert of a band that he loves. And they will most probably buy one or two CDs there. That's the way it works in the underground currently, that's probably the way it will work in the big buisness too some day.

Now for software, it is an utterly different matter, and one I am not really competent in. But the "software as a service" model seems to be sensible. Applying that to music, however, is absurd. You don't get any patches for your songs, and the only service you need is a concert that rocks...

For movies, it's similiar to music. Just that I have to say, for fairness, that recreating the Cinema experience at home is possible nowadays, so they can't just compensate their sale losses by increasing cinema prices. Unless they offer something new, like currently happens with 3d (finally, Science fiction coming true once more). But I agree that they have a tougher job than concert organisators. You just can't have a concert at home, never...

But one thing I've been asking myself: What's that with the DVD delay? why not sell the DvD's right in the cinema? in a closed area in the exit, where only people will pass that were actually inside watching a movie. I mean, if the movie was good, would'nt you buy a copy right there?

 

[Tommy]

What's that with the DVD delay? why not sell the DvD's right in the cinema? in a closed area in the exit, where only people will pass that were actually inside watching a movie.

The DVD delay is, of course, to encourage people to see the movie in the theatre first. One of my jobs is running the town theatre when the owner needs a night off, and I can tell you that your proposal wouldn't work here. The physical layout doesn't work for it since people pass though the same doors going in and going out. Also, we are handling incoming customers for a second show as the first show leaves, and this would require us to have another employee on the clock who would only be actually working for about 10 minutes every two hours. No way we can afford that. Plus, there are many theatres who wouldn't sell to just the people leaving - it's hard to expect a business on the verge of bankrupcy (as most theatres are these days) to turn down any sales they can get. The studios are releasing DVDs much sooner than they used to, and it's hurting smaller theatres who may not be getting a film until a month or two after release. These days we sell almost as much popcorn togo (for people watching a DVD at home) as we do in-house.

Just that I have to say, for fairness, that recreating the Cinema experience at home is possible nowadays, so they can't just compensate their sale losses by increasing cinema prices.

Actually, the studios don't set prices. They set the cut-off ages for child vs adult, etc, but not the actual price. While things vary a bit between studios and different films, the usual deal is the theatre pays a percentage of the ticket grosses (after taxes). This percentage varies with the expected popularity of the film, and with it's age. Most "blockbuster" movies start at 90% for the first week or two, then gradually drop down to around 60% over the next few weeks. Some stay high much longer (Star Wars movies are notorious for extended high rates and restrictive contracts - three week minimum and a dedicated screen. This is a real problem for a small single screen theatre like ours - you hope to make enough the first week to make up for the extremely poor attendance the third week. And we can't run one film at 7, and another at 9, a process called "splitting" a screen, thus appealing to a larger potential audience). We're just glad that coconut oil is hard to get in small quantities for home use so atleast people still come for the popcorn since concessions are what pays the bills in the first place. Really, these days you show a movie so you can sell popcorn and soda - our share of ticket sales simply don't amount to much.

 

[jedidia]

that was a very interesting and informative post, thank you!

 

[Moonwalker]

Sources? The only source I have seen until now is a Youtube video with something that looks like a conspiracy theory.

The Youtube video is from the technical college Ulm, Germany. It's part of a bachelor's degree. It looks like a conspiracy theory because its intention is to gain attention and to make people be aware of what Google already does, is going to do and might to in future.

Another source is the assesment on Google (which reads "Hostile to Privacy") of the human rights organization Privacy International:

http://www.privacyinternational.org/issues/internet/interimrankings.pdf

There are also different sources about EU commissioners, IT experts and their concerns. But I'm too short in time at the moment.


Within the whole Google debate, I forgot to mention Google Street View, which is another step ahead to Big Brother.

I don't like the idea that my house, including my car in front of it, soon can be "observed" online, by everybody, at any time, fully available in 3D and photorealistically. So you can for example comfortably plan a burglary without having ever seen the house or even the whole district in reality. It would be also naive to think that only private persons are going to use Google Street View.

We are going to live in a world with a low level of privacy. It's a very slow and creeping progress, but it's happening. Google is going to archive the world, online, available for everybody. Next: Google Toilette View, Google Bedroom View, Google my Naked Daughter View...

 

[ar81]

In a way you may be right about Google Street View. A burglar could monitor your house and decide when to go and commit a crime. I do not want to imagine what could be done by an international criminal. Rob a museum? A bank? Or something worse? Could it be used by totalitarian regimes as surveillance mechanism?

 

[ijuin]

Monitoring your house through Google Street View would require that the view be updated multiple times per day. I think that most locations are only updated every few weeks at most? Google does not have enough vehicles, personnel, or funds to photograph every part of every city more often than that.

 

[Hielor]

Monitoring your house through Google Street View would require that the view be updated multiple times per day. I think that most locations are only updated every few weeks at most? Google does not have enough vehicles, personnel, or funds to photograph every part of every city more often than that.

I'm fairly certain that most places just got snapped once, and haven't been updated since. I think they're more interested in expanding the area that they cover rather than re-taking old areas.

 

[Moonwalker]

It does matter less how often my house, and everything around it, including cars, become updated. It matters that my house will be fully available photorealistically and in 3D at all, and that to everybody at any time and any place.

I don't see a valid reason why almost the whole Earth surface should be available in photorealistic high detal, 2D and 3D, for the wide public. The satellite view shoud be censored -> exclude photography of private sites (either blurred or by a very low resolution) just the way the military and others assume the right to do so.

I wish and would very welcome in case Google Inc. should go to the wall in future. But I'm not optimistic on that. But at least, if I get my own flat in futue, I'll by able by law to censor the house number and other details. I'll use any single piece of law that is available in that case, just like a small German city alread did.

 

[Urwumpe]

I think you see the problem from the wrong direction: The internet does not need to be censored, the people need to be more disciplined in the use of it. Especially the idea of private sites is funny, since nobody blurs your view to your neighbor. Who can stop you from installing a hidden webcam to the garden of your neighbors? Nobody, if you just attempt it. Just don't get caught.

Does your neighbor now have to install 8m high walls around his property to make sure nobody can EVER see inside? Sure not.

And what is the danger of 6 year old satellite images or 2 year old photographs of your house from the street? How your house looks from the street, is not private. It is the public front of your house - no law on this planet would prevent somebody else to go there and watch it. The whole debate about Google Street View is not about privacy, it is about cultural pessimism.

And maybe about media laws - who has the right to publish images of your house in the internet? Without any fair use term, it is only you who has such a right. In theory, you could even force Google to pay you a few cent per view of your house - and a few magnitudes more if your image is used without permission. I doubt Google would pay that money and instead just remove the photograph. But isn't it nice to see how big media companies are not a single bit better than the teenager who downloads illegal music?

You would any piece of law to prevent this... I would prefer using any single piece of law, to make sure that Google gives me a fair share of the profits they generate with the image of my house. Even just 30 Euro per year would be a nice additional income without huge effort. Maybe even a reason to make the house look better, and offer Google also photos of the KDEN style Christmas decoration.

 

[Moonwalker]

It is a huge difference if my neighbour and just a few people can watch my garden and the site (which in case of my parents home nobody can watch from outside because of that nice dense and high hedge), rather than the whole world can watch it 86.400 seconds a day. And that not by visiting my site but from anywhere by comfortably using anthing that is web-enabled. The world will be able to watch ANYTHING that is around my house and in my garden. Today you already can see my father sitting in the garden. You can see the pond, the carport, footpaths, even the rain barrel and the garden table.

The danger is, no matter if the pictures are 6 years old or not, that burglary scheduling becomes easy, way more easy because you can virtually enter the whole site virtually. I sadly know what I'm talking about since me and my family got raided in the 1980's (my father was coin dealer, full-time, so you know...). By using Google Earth/Street View, you get a nice tool to plan such things comfortably at home, without the need to spy the site, which in our case turned out was done by the criminals month before already. One year later they even killed a married couple, jeweller, in another city. That was when the police got them finally (it even was shown, incluging our case, in "Aktenzeichen XY" ).

It is as simple as the following: I don't want to show my site the whole world. And in future, Google Street View will anable to watch it in 3D and that in high detal. I'm not purchaseable in a way like many people sadly are. I don't want money. I want a blurred area above my site in Google Street View. I want to have the right to decide whether the world can watch my home from above, and soon from any angle, or not.

 

[Urwumpe]

And if they used the road for getting to and from your house for robbing you, you would shout for roadblocks at every crossroad...wouldn't you?

A kitchen knife can be used for murdering somebody in a VERY cruel way. And yet it is pretty hard to do serious cooking without one.

Is it the crime to use the tools of the Internet for preparing a crime or is the crime happening somewhere else? If I tell you how to make illegal alcohol, would I commit a crime, or would you do a crime if you use this knowledge for making alcohol?

 

[Moonwalker]

How my garden and everything else on my site does look behind walls and hedges belongs to exactly nobody, except the owner, visitors and guests.

Freedom is going to become something that has to be earned (more money means more freedom and possiblilites to live undisturbed), and that poeple have to take themself (partly requires money as well...).

 

[Urwumpe]

Then build a roof above your garden. No satellite or plane can then look into it. Your freedom.

 

[ar81]

It is not fear of lack of privacy... It is fear towards fame... It looks you might not make a good astronaut with the press waiting in front of your house to get any comments from you on "do you astronauts go to the WC in space?" or "do you float when you are in space?".

 

[Moonwalker]

I'm not an astronaut. I'm a non-public person that wants to live calmly without asking questions to the press and less than ever see my pictures on the papers. That's a choice, well, at least still. Google Street View is not a choice.

 

[Hielor]

How my garden and everything else on my site does look behind walls and hedges belongs to exactly nobody, except the owner, visitors and guests.

Freedom is going to become something that has to be earned (more money means more freedom and possiblilites to live undisturbed), and that poeple have to take themself (partly requires money as well...).

If someone really wanted to scope your house at that point, they could take up a small plane and go take many high-res (higher than Google's images) pictures and construct their own much better 3D model.

If you don't want people seeing what your house looks like, build a roof over the whole thing or live underground.

 

[jedidia]

Then build a roof above your garden. No satellite or plane can then look into it. Your freedom.

actually, you would not be allowed to do that in switzerland...