Rant Future: Will your computer be yours?

[ar81]

I have not slept very well, so you may figure out how senseless this may be. It is like being drunk.

I have trying to figure out future using conspiracy theory as starting point, then land them into a down to Earth view.

I took the Google conspiracy as a starting point.
Then I started to think about privacy and ownership.
It is evident that we are headed towards profiling and probably no one will be anonymous anymore.
A router company may spy you, you have data mining since a lot of time ago.
China can track people, and probably any other country can do too.
Lawyers can hunt customers who share music.
Privacy seems long gone.

Then I recalled the conspiracy theory of Zeitgeist Addendum where the proposal is likely to create a world dominated by technocrats, instead of the supposedly happy world they propose. So it could mean we are headed towards a world where your computer is not yours anymore. You may be a bee in a hive. No more democracy, but technocracy.

Companies and government may know more about you, and you might not be technically capable to tackle with it.
So sending data through any net may be like talking on TV, not private like in a wired phone. Your data will go to many places, just like today. They may use any information with electronic wiretapping.

And we have cloud computing where your client becomes more of a terminal.

But what about entrepreneurs?
Are those people who let others to have a job be spied by their competitors?

I do not believe in conspiracy theories now, but it is interesting that it seems that in a way those theories are like alienating material for those who may want to protest about something that may seem imminent.

But the fact of the matter is that it may seem that in the future any data may be monitored, and your computer will not be yours anymore. Will we become another brick on the wall?

Any ideas?

 

[Artlav]

There is a simple solution to this problem:
Scissors, closet, cable.

 

[Eagle]

The internet is based on trust. You route packets of data through other people's machine trusting that they will do their best to deliver it for you.

But its quite easy to do any number of things to those packets, spoof a false return address, corrupt data, sniff contents, intercept and spoof somebody else's server.

So there are different things that can be done to fight back. But the openness of the internet itself makes defense difficult.


And a word about ownership: Other people will do their best to own everything of value that you have. DRM is just a method that allows them to control your data easily. And there are a companies that are trying to claim that works created using their software are owned by them.

But, you are entitled to the fruits of your own creative and industrious work. You draw something, its yours. You take an instrument and record one million data points, they are yours. You write a guide about a video game, its yours. Paint companies have no claim to an artist's work. Never let any lawyer tell you otherwise.

 

[Moonwalker]

I took the Google conspiracy as a starting point

You have to understand that IT experts and professors, universities/institutes, European commissioners for data security and human rights organizations, do not make up a Google conspiracy theorie. They express valid concerns, based on what Google itself announces publicly, includes or rather not includes in their general terms and conditions, and because the Google board, beside lip service basically, is not willing to reveal its internals to show its attitude and acting on data privacy.

Our computers certainly will continue to be ours. But the binary footprints we left behind within the electronic parallel-reality of the www, is being merchandised more and more in future. Especially footprints of those who are not aware and don't care on risks of publishing personal data.

 

[ar81]

And a word about ownership: Other people will do their best to own everything of value that you have. DRM is just a method that allows them to control your data easily. And there are a companies that are trying to claim that works created using their software are owned by them.

But, you are entitled to the fruits of your own creative and industrious work. You draw something, its yours. You take an instrument and record one million data points, they are yours. You write a guide about a video game, its yours. Paint companies have no claim to an artist's work. Never let any lawyer tell you otherwise.

So software companies claim seem to imply that if you have a pencil, the maker of pencils is the owner of the artistic work. Did I understand correctly?

You have to understand that IT experts and professors, universities/institutes, European commissioners for data security and human rights organizations, do not make up a Google conspiracy theorie. They express valid concerns, based on what Google itself announces publicly, includes or rather not includes in their general terms and conditions, and because the Google board, beside lip service basically, is not willing to reveal its internals to show its attitude and acting on data privacy.

Our computers certainly will continue to be ours. But the binary footprints we left behind within the electronic parallel-reality of the www, is being merchandised more and more in future. Especially footprints of those who are not aware and don't care on risks of publishing personal data.

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

If you own a computer but how it works is controlled by someone else is like saying that you have a house, but you can't live in it and use it as you want. So you lose ownership in real terms.

The troubling perspective is not just about personal data, but about usage of company data for industrial espionage. If you have a competitor and you have access to their data, sooner or later there will be a temptation to use such data in any possible way imaginable. So if you own a company, it means that you must go back to the era of paper and pencil or to stay offline.

 

[Hielor]

And a word about ownership: Other people will do their best to own everything of value that you have. DRM is just a method that allows them to control your data easily. And there are a companies that are trying to claim that works created using their software are owned by them.

The goal of DRM is not for them to control your data. The goal of DRM is for them to control their data.

In the physical world, the inability to make copies of real objects easily serves as an excellent built-in method of copy protection. I can't buy a car and then make copies for all my friends...if I did, that would mean that the original company has effectively lost revenue.

In the virtual world, where you can easily make a copy, there is no such built-in method of copy protection. So DRM came along to attempt to prevent you from giving copies to your friends, which lessens the company's revenue (If X people want to listen to song Y, and all pay $1 for it, the company receives $X. If 1 person buys the song and shares it with the remaining X-1 people, the company receives $1 yet all X people are benefitting from the company's work).

It didn't work (people kept doing it), so the DRM became more byzantine. And so on.

As for "works created using their software," it depends. If the software is something like a paint program, then that makes no sense. If the software is something where the software itself actually does the "creativeness" rather than the user (Songsmith comes to mind, but I don't think it has such a ridiculous license), then it may make sense.

 

[ar81]

Will it be the countermeasure to internet control?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8187305.stm

 

[Eagle]

The goal of DRM is not for them to control your data. The goal of DRM is for them to control their data.

I'm a big proponent of the creator's rights to their own work. But there is such a thing as fair use. Maybe people need to understand that a lot of DRM is that you purchased the privilege to play x music on y machine's current installation instead of the right to listen to x music at will (like if you had the CD). But the two are not the same thing, and should not be couched as such.

Lets just say I have a problem with the entire 'software as a service' mindset. I enforce my personal right to every bit of information on my machine AND I WILL DUMP STATE TO GET IT IF I HAVE TO!

 

[Hielor]

I'm a big proponent of the creator's rights to their own work. But there is such a thing as fair use. Maybe people need to understand that a lot of DRM is that you purchased the privilege to play x music on y machine's current installation instead of the right to listen to x music at will (like if you had the CD). But the two are not the same thing, and should not be couched as such.

Lets just say I have a problem with the entire 'software as a service' mindset. I enforce my personal right to every bit of information on my machine AND I WILL DUMP STATE TO GET IT IF I HAVE TO!

I agree that there is such a thing as "fair use" and an individual should be allowed to listen to it anywhere. If I buy a CD, I can listen to it on any device that can play a CD, it doesn't bind to the first device I play it on and then prevent me from playing it elsewhere.

However, the problem here is that there's no way to tell if the person playing the music is the same as the person that bought it, so the only thing they can do is restrict to one (or a small number, more reasonably) of computers. I think that we could all agree that "giving copies to a thousand of my friends" is not fair use.

If there was a way for a given person to use a piece of software or IP as much as they wanted anywhere they wanted, that would be fantastic. However, there's no such way, so they are technically restricted to doing something like the computer limitation, which is OK for most since the vast majority of people (I imagine) don't have more than one computer for themselves.

 

[Tommy]

However, the problem here is that there's no way to tell if the person playing the music is the same as the person that bought it, so the only thing they can do is restrict to one (or a small number, more reasonably) of computers. I think that we could all agree that "giving copies to a thousand of my friends" is not fair use.

Actually, restricting the music to one device is NOT the only thing they can do. They could, for instance, offer a product that people are willing to pay for. Piracy started because people got tired of paying $15+ for an album with only one or two decent songs on it. The digital age/internet simply makes piracy easier - no quality loss for the copies like with tapes, easier to "trade" with people you don't know and will never meet, and faster than joining a group that snail mails cassette tapes around.

Also, in the days of vinyl there was quite a bit of added value in the form of liner notes, photos you could view without a microscope, and "bonus" items like Cheech and Chong's Big Bamboo paper or Kiss's Love Gun.

The record labels originally came into existence to provide two things - financing and distribution. It used to cost a lot of money to hire a studio that could record music with good quality (high quality mics, mixers, recorders, etc cost a LOT). It cost a lot to have a metal master made, which was used to create the molds used to make the actual album. Of course, getting the copies pressed in a sufficient quantity to be cost effective also required a significant cash outlay. Hiring the crew (and purchasing the sound re-inforcement needed for larger venues), getting trucks, promotion, etc. is another expense.

And once you've got the album recorded and pressed, you have to get it to the stores. The more stores the better. Even getting radio play is almost impossible without a label's sponsorship.

Now, a decent home computer is all you need to record an album. Moby's first album was done on his laptop. Digital studios can be found in every decent sized city and with the higher level of competition prices are relatively low. The internet offers free exposure and distribution. In short, labels are no longer nearly as indispensible to artists as they used to be.

Couple this with two statistically and historically proven facts. One, file sharing helps record sales. Sales peaked during the days of Napster, and dropped when Napster was shut down and the Anti-Piracy efort went into full gear. Second, the harder you make the DRM to break, the more your album will be pirated. Forbidden fruit has a higher appeal.

In truth, DRM isn't about money or even piracy really. It's about the labels trying to find a way to remain in control of distribution, and thus still serve some purpose. They no longer offer any other value to the artist, if they lose control of the distribution they become unecessary. It's why Apple doesn't offer a Linux itunes client. Windows is simply to big to ignore - if they didn't provide a Windows client they would have a very small market. Linux doesn't have a large enough user base, so offering a Linux client only makes Linux more competitive with Apple. They'd rather lose a few sales to Linux Geeks than help Linux take away market share on computers and OS's.

I should point out that I am a musician myself, and get a not insignificant portion of my income from music. I am well aware of how this industry is changing, and the changes are as good for me as an artist as they are bad for the corporate labels.

 

[ar81]

Record companies make musicians to be slaves.
The case of Tiffany, the singer, is an example. She got tired of not being able to have a normal life.
Record company executives make more money than artists.
And artists need to go on tours with tight schedules.

The crisis of record companies is interesting.
The cool factor of having a musician playing live can't be compared with a CD being played, either original or pirated.
So we go back to the origins when music was live, and when musicians delighted us with their presence, while they were free to go wherever they wanted.

 

[willy88]

Soldering iron.
Linux.
Tor.
Etc.

 

[Hielor]

Actually, restricting the music to one device is NOT the only thing they can do. They could, for instance, offer a product that people are willing to pay for. Piracy started because people got tired of paying $15+ for an album with only one or two decent songs on it.

They do that. You can buy songs individually now. What's the excuse now?

Piracy started because people don't want to spend money when they don't have to. If they can get something that they want for free, why should they pay for it?

Also, in the days of vinyl there was quite a bit of added value in the form of liner notes, photos you could view without a microscope, and "bonus" items like Cheech and Chong's Big Bamboo paper or Kiss's Love Gun.

A lot of this sort of thing is now just available online for free (liner notes, photos, etc). And the price has gone down--now you pay $.79-.99 for one song, so <$10 for a set of 10, when previously you would've paid $15 for a CD. The physical cost of the CD itself does not fully account for the discount, either.

Couple this with two statistically and historically proven facts. One, file sharing helps record sales. Sales peaked during the days of Napster, and dropped when Napster was shut down and the Anti-Piracy efort went into full gear.

Correlation is not causation: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/04/FSM_Pirates.png

Second, the harder you make the DRM to break, the more your album will be pirated. Forbidden fruit has a higher appeal.

Yes, Spore showed this as well. I'm not saying that DRM is a good thing. I'm saying that it's the only available solution for a problem that does exist, and does cause companies to lose money. Is there a better solution? The root problem is that people are selfish. Given the opportunity to pay for something or get something for free, most people will choose the "free" option. There is no solution to that, so the "solution" is to attempt to limit the people who can use it to those that paid for it.

Moreover, people who claim "I only pirate it because the DRM made it unusable" are simply lying. The Lotus L39 was released this Monday, with no DRM, only a serial number entry on the installer. By Wednesday, it was all over torrent sites such that you can't search google for it without finding torrents all over the first page of results.

People pirate things because they want the benefits without having to pay for it. End of story. Any other justification is just an excuse.

In truth, DRM isn't about money or even piracy really. It's about the labels trying to find a way to remain in control of distribution, and thus still serve some purpose. They no longer offer any other value to the artist, if they lose control of the distribution they become unecessary. It's why Apple doesn't offer a Linux itunes client. Windows is simply to big to ignore - if they didn't provide a Windows client they would have a very small market. Linux doesn't have a large enough user base, so offering a Linux client only makes Linux more competitive with Apple. They'd rather lose a few sales to Linux Geeks than help Linux take away market share on computers and OS's.

While that reason for DRM may work for music, what about software?

 

[Tommy]

Actually, most people will pay for it if they can get a good quality, and conveniently. The success of itunes is proof of that. All that music is available P2P, but people pay for it anyway. Sure some will pirate, but DRM does nothing to stop that so piracy isn't the reason for DRM in the music industry.

Software is quite different from music. By copyright laws and legal precedent, when you "buy" music you are paying for the privledge of listening to it for personal use. Public Performance (aka a DJ or Jukebox, or even having the radio on in a bar) is not covered in this license, and is handled differently. Law and precedent don't allow the restriction to a single device, or "approved" devices only. You are NOT buying the media, and have a right to make copies FOR YOURSELF (sharing not allowed), and DRM prevents this fair use. Even the DMCA doesn't give labels the right to restrict your private fair use (nor does it prevent them), only makes it illegal to circumvent the copy protection.

Software is a different thing, and treated differently in copyright. Also, the higher cost of quality software makes it much more tempting. Even then, there are different ways of managing DRM. I spent a few thousand on a single "seat" for Cubase, and installed it on both my computers, and also on my drummer's computer. It just wouldn't work without the USB dongle, of which I only had one. Still inconvenient, but not nearly as inconvenient as not having it available at all because the singe "authorized" computer was down.

Content creators (ie musicians, devs, artists, authors) have the right to control distribution, and their wishes should be respected. Alienating your customer base by assuming they are criminals isn't good business.

If you want a good example of how to take advantage of the internet instead of being taken advantage of by it, simply watch the traditional early adopters - the Porn business. They tried DRM, and most are now not using any DRM. They found a different business model that works better than selling single copies of it's content.

I'm saying that it's the only available solution for a problem that does exist, and does cause companies to lose money

My point is that it's not the only solution, it just seems to be the easy solution that doesn't require companies adapt to the current market desire, just let's them do the same old thing the same old way and not have to innovate. And it's pretty arguable that piracy cost's businesses much money. It's a false assumption to equate piracy with lost sales - the vast majority of "pirates" aren't going to buy it just because they can't steal it. Do you know how the numbers for how much pirated are generated? A company says we wanted to sell x copies, but only sold y copies. Therefore x-y copies were pirated!

I agree that DRM doesn't excuse piracy, there is no justification for disrespecting an artist's rights to their material.

Yes, some people will steal anything they can, whether it's movies, music, or software. DRM has been repeatedly shown to be counter productive in combating piracy, even with software. More so with music. DRM doesn't justify piracy, and piracy doesn't justify overly restrictive DRM and a violation of my right to legal fair use. Most DRM does just that, sometimes worse (think Sony Rootkit fiasco).

The solution to piracy is not DRM, it's creating a business model that will work in this technological environment.

Creating a product that people want, at a reasonable cost, doesn't hurt. Doesn't guarantee success either - but that's true in all businesses, even the Auto business.

 

[Hielor]

Actually, most people will pay for it if they can get a good quality, and conveniently. The success of itunes is proof of that. All that music is available P2P, but people pay for it anyway. Sure some will pirate, but DRM does nothing to stop that so piracy isn't the reason for DRM in the music industry.

The pirated music/software is often of the same quality as the legally purchased version, and often much more convenient (for software, anyway). Just download it to your home computer, as opposed to many software products which you still have to go out and physically buy.

The only reason we don't have more people pirating music is because most iTunes users aren't at the computer-user level where they are aware of their ability to easily acquire music/software for free.

Software is a different thing, and treated differently in copyright. Also, the higher cost of quality software makes it much more tempting. Even then, there are different ways of managing DRM. I spent a few thousand on a single "seat" for Cubase, and installed it on both my computers, and also on my drummer's computer. It just wouldn't work without the USB dongle, of which I only had one. Still inconvenient, but not nearly as inconvenient as not having it available at all because the singe "authorized" computer was down.

The USB dongle method is similar to the "cd must be in the drive" method, it just isn't as widely used so isn't as easy to get around yet. Software makers tried that method, and it didn't work, so they went to digital methods.

And it's pretty arguable that piracy cost's businesses much money. It's a false assumption to equate piracy with lost sales - the vast majority of "pirates" aren't going to buy it just because they can't steal it. Do you know how the numbers for how much pirated are generated? A company says we wanted to sell x copies, but only sold y copies. Therefore x-y copies were pirated!

I agree that you cannot say that every one who pirates a piece of software would have bought it; however, you cannot say that no one who pirates software would have bought it. If 1000 people pirate a piece of software, then the company has lost a number of sales 1 <= x <= 1000. At what point do you consider it to be "much" money? With games being ~$40 at release, you only need 1000-2000 people to pirate it instead of buying it (who would've bought it) before the company has lost the salary that was paid to one of the developers of the game.

The solution to piracy is not DRM, it's creating a business model that will work in this technological environment.

Yes, and that business model is a subscription "software as a service" web-based model. You can't pirate World of Warcraft, for example, because the game is worthless without the subscription.

Frankly, I'd rather have software that I pay for once and can continue to use than software that I have to pay in order to keep using.

 

[computerex]

People, it's hardly worth speculating about the future in the present. Some said that the radio craze would die out very rapidly, while others said that the telephone was not a convenient form of communication, and still others said that 512 KB of RAM should be enough for everyone. The point is, you never know how it all ends up being.

 

[Omhra]

SO! is recording music from the air "pirated"...

All the efforts seem to be aimed at a media... not the "behavior"...
Also, as I said before... Nightwish was pretty much not available in the USA, oh but "Cake" was... impossible to turn a radio knob and not run into them...
After I saw a video made by mustard with "ever dream" as the track I bought most of their albums, some of them with long waiting... since they were not available here... Had I ripped their music I would have supported them sooner because they are just amazing and I want more new stuff from them. Not free. Even tho that did not keep me from downloading Nine Inch Nails "the slip" album when Trent Raznor himself made it available on his website for FREE... I still paid good money to go to his concert that (last) year.

So, No.... causality in record sales increases while they were "still" "being robbed" is very unprovable...
But give free reign to "napster-like" torrents... and lets find out, eh?

Further, since "clear channel took over most (if not all) parent companies who own nearly all radio stations... well music is crap and the good music is "underground".
How-ever in the cloud-computing age you can build castles... but with 3 little beans and an ax... you will loose your harp and your golden egg hen and fall hard.

 

[ar81]

If you whistle a copyrighted song, that's piracy...

 

[Tommy]

The pirated music/software is often of the same quality as the legally purchased version,

Exactly my point! The legit stores offer an inferior (illegal downloads are often uncompressed or compressed better) product, often encumbered, and suffer because of it.

Just download it to your home computer, as opposed to many software products which you still have to go out and physically buy

As I said, you don't succeed by using an outdated, obsolete business model.

The USB dongle method is similar to the "cd must be in the drive" method, it just isn't as widely used so isn't as easy to get around yet. Software makers tried that method, and it didn't work, so they went to digital methods.

Actually, it worked fairly well, but was discontinued (at least by Steinberg) due to customer complaints about the inconvenience (Dongles were too easy to lose/break).

Yes, and that business model is a subscription "software as a service" web-based model

That's one way. There are others, and yet more will be invented when the big companies finally stop beating a dead horse and move forward.

Correlation is not causation:

Trends in music sales follow "pirate" activity consistently, about three weeks behind the curve. Correlation isn't always coincidence - especially when it's consistent and repeatable.

I agree that you cannot say that every one who pirates a piece of software would have bought it; however, you cannot say that no one who pirates software would have bought it. If 1000 people pirate a piece of software, then the company has lost a number of sales 1 <= x <= 1000. At what point do you consider it to be "much" money? With games being ~$40 at release, you only need 1000-2000 people to pirate it instead of buying it (who would've bought it) before the company has lost the salary that was paid to one of the developers of the game.

Every other retail business accepts "shrinkage" as a cost of doing business. They don't like it, but they face reality and adjust for it. I'm not saying it's fair, or right, for them to pass those costs on to legit customers, but they do it. So do the music and software businesses, they just try to pass it of as if they don't. And the music/software business has less to lose - they only lose possible revenues while retailer lose a physical product which has a specific individual cost to produce. Companies that offer a tangible, physical product lose real money, not just potential money.

A lot of this sort of thing is now just available online for free (liner notes, photos, etc)

Giving it away free online defeats the whole concept of "value added". The idea is that you can only get the "extras" if you actually buy the product. And a downloaded PDF is no match for an album cover you can hold in your hands, use as a dope tray, etc. Nor can you download things like a giant rolling paper or an album cover with a zipper on it. It's like a rock concert - nobody is going to pay $100 or more to go see a bunch of guys in normal cloths sitting on lazyboy recliners playing under the house lights - they want the costumes, flashpots, spotlights, and intoxicated chicks flashing their chests. In other words, people pay for the "package" as well as the "product". Until the labels accept this, and work with it, they will not put any real dent in piracy. E-books, and portable readers, have been around for a few years now. They've never done well until the Kindle. The Kindle's success is largely due to it's "feel" - it's more book-like than it's predecessors. Add to that the ease of downloading new content from Amazon, and you've got a winning combo. However, books aren't the best comparison to music - most people read a book only once, so device lock-in isn't nearly as big an issue.

The only reason we don't have more people pirating music is because most iTunes users aren't at the computer-user level where they are aware of their ability to easily acquire music/software for free.

Are you kidding me? With the RIAA lawsuits making news? Google "music downloads". Limewire places higher than iTunes. P2P software is at least as well known as iTunes, easier to find and intall, and the idea that anyone other than a "die hard never used Windows" Mac user is familiar with iTunes, but not at least one P2P client, is ludicrous.

Courtney Love wrote a very interesting piece for Salon magazine in which she contends that the real pirates are the labels. Her label was caught selling "cleans" (promotional copies on which no royalties are paid to the artist, producer, etc, but the cost to manufacture comes out of the artist's share) out the back door. No criminal charges were made by the D.A., no royalties were ever paid (nor the expense reimbursed) and the "fines" amounted to less than 20 percent of the revenues from these illegal sales.

The software business isn't as corrupt as the music business (although some EA employees may argue that), and DRM on software isn't as unduly restrictive as music DRM. Software may be restricted to be installed on only one machine, but almost all software companies (even MS) have a way for you to "move" the install to another machine without charge. The music business wants you to have to re-purchase the music every time your MP3 player craps out. While the technologies involved in DRM may be similar, the businesses are vastly different. What is acceptable for one isn't always acceptable for the other. Software companies also don't usually have the "secondary" revenue streams of paid performances and merchandise.

The company I currently work for spent $485,000 on "software license management" last year - accounting for over half our losses last year. This figure doesn't account for the cost of the actual licenses, just the labor and other resources needed to ensure compliance and avoid an "Ernie Ball Co." style raid by armed federal Marshalls under the direction of the BSA (MS's version of the RIAA).

As I said earlier, look at the Porn industry for an example of how to make money on media (music or movies - not software) in the digital age. They suffer from piracy as much as the labels and Hollywood, but are making record profits (as are the record labels and movie studios) so they don't complain and file lawsuits like the labels and studios do. They just keep making "product", and keep making money, and take lots of good with the bit of bad with good grace. The labels and studios just whine about how bad it is to be making huge profits because they aren't the enormous profits they would like. Really, if someone offered you twice the income you have now, would you accept it gladly or would complain that it wasn't three times as much as you make now?

 

[Eagle]

On the subject of music quality, have you seen modern music on an oscilloscope? Peaks get cut off during the quiet parts of the song. Unacceptable distortion all the way through. And why? To artificially inflate the volume of the track!