Talk to any Industrial Designer and if they have any experience they’ll probably tell you that many design competitions are a deceptive way for greedy companies to get designs at little or no cost. One competition not so long ago offered as a prize a small cash payout and a job. Oh, and all those entries sent in by designers too wet behind the ears to know better? Those concepts belonged to the company as part of their condition for entry. If they decided to manufacture the first runner-up and make hundreds of thousands of dollars in profit from it, they sent a big, fat check for… $400.
Nice, huh? Well, at least they paid some compensation. Many don’t bother. They’ll change a minor detail and claim the design is new. And who’s going to do anything about it? Some design student halfway around the world. Not likely.
The thing is, no matter how many times people like me point this sort of exploitation out to young designers, they still send in their work. For some reason they can’t get it through their heads that their free labor – when aggregated with all the other hundreds or thousands of entries – amount to a loss of employment. What they don’t realize is that the new graduate who could have used a job but who instead got displaced by more concepts than he could generate in a year, is the same person who will be competing for fewer jobs the next year, or the year after that.
I’d like to believe that designers will eventually realize how their enthusiasm is being leveraged against them, but I can’t. Designers, like aspiring entertainers, want to believe that their creativity is special and that they will break through the crowd and become design superstars, ready to take their place among the design elite (though personally I’d prefer not to be anywhere near some of those so-called superstars). It’s their enthusiasm that keeps them going.
And so it goes without saying that when I read on Boing Boing (Link) about PVR manufacturer Neuros’ offer of cash rewards to those programmers/hackers who code features which (big surprise) help them sell more product, I thought of my design compatriots… too naive to see how they were hurting themselves and helping The Man. Instead of hiring a programmer who could use the money to pay off student loans or raise a family, Neuros offers a pittance to entice these people to do the work for what will probably be less than paying them minimum wage (with no health insurance). They do at least warn people:
Finally, if you think you might want to participate in the open-source side of Neuros, visit open.neurostechnology.com Be careful, though. You just might put yourself to work helping us make our portable media products the best in the world.
More and more I’m starting to consider Boing Boing one of the worst websites on the net. They promote unauthorized cracking and distribution of content even though their brother-in-copyfight-arms, Lawrence Lessig, has stated that creators should be given control over the distribution of their content (which, by default, includes respecting the distribution contracts they sign). Is it any surprise that a group of bloggers making plenty of money from their very popular, anti-corporate yet ad-supported website (there’s a Dell ad on it now) is now promoting Neuros? No. Because the people at Boing Boing have probably never bothered to consider how a design competition – or a call for “open source” code – can actually be used by greedy corporations. And Chicago-headquartered Nueros is just another corporation out to make a buck, only this time they’re using open source enthusiasm as a means of exploitation.
Good job, Boing Boing. Once again you get it wrong. Then again, maybe Nueros is paying for the blog entry. Who knows? It won’t be the first time those who claim to be the voice of the People stab them in the back. Meanwhile, I wonder where Neuros offshores their product design?
{Update 1: Some good commentary via the trackback to Diary of a Mad Natural Historian.}
{Update 2: I’ve posted what I consider a more acceptable proposal to the open source community – Link. And it didn’t take me much effort to arrive at something that’s far more compelling than what Neuros offers. I’m not saying it’s the best option, but it sure beats what they offered afaic.}
{Update 3: More comments and Cory’s Lift’06 video over on ISHUSH – Link}
Pingback: Diary of a Mad Natural Historian » Neuros OSD
So Microsoft sues you if you contribute to their PVRs. Neuros pays you. Why criticize Neuros? Would Neuros be better if it were like other open source projects, which encourage contirbution without any bounties?
What’s more, the contributions to Neuros don’t end up belonging to Neuros. They belong to anyone who wants to make their own PVR, including the original programmer — indeed, the entire Neuros codebase is open source, so that any of the “exploited” can make and sell devices that take Neuros’s code.
“Why criticize Neuros?”
Why criticize Neuros? Because afaic, in their own way, they’re exploitative. There’s more than one way to exploit people. MS arguably does it one way. To me, Neuros is doing it another way and with your help.
“Would Neuros be better if it were like other open source projects, which encourage contirbution without any bounties?”
Neuros shouldn’t be encouraging anything afaic. Neuros is playing to the concept that the License to content is restrictive and wrong. I disagree with that position which you and a number of other pundits take. When the iPod came out, it was no secret that the iTunes/iPod integration system was exclusionary (it’s why I didn’t buy one). Yet now everyone is crying foul and people like you promote breaking the DRM. What the hell? People are too stupid to not know what they were buying? I don’t think so. They just decided to take matters into their own hands. And that’s the problem for me since I see it as a long-term issue. You can read more on how I view this over on ISHUSH where I get into it in much greater detail: Link.
So how I see this is that Neuros is riding a wave toward profitability and, imo, exploiting people for their own gain. I notice that they lamely say, “Make no mistake, stealing content is wrong“, but I don’t honestly believe they care if people steal or not, so long as they turn a profit. I don’t see the specs for their hardware on their website. I don’t see the 3D data for their machines. Why not? It’s not like I can easily go out and manufacture a device of my own. What difference does it make? If they’re going to go open source and join the community, they should go all the way. But I bet they won’t do that and their comment about stealing is a nice way to fall back and protect their own content.
Personally, I don’t think Neuros – or you, for that matter – should be encouraging people to volunteer in this way; to help a company profit. They know what they want. They spell it out. They’re directing people to the spiked lemonade.
“What’s more, the contributions to Neuros don’t end up belonging to Neuros. They belong to anyone who wants to make their own PVR, including the original programmer – indeed, the entire Neuros codebase is open source, so that any of the ‘exploited’ can make and sell devices that take Neuros’s code.”
Get them to open source everything and maybe I’ll see them with less cynical eyes. Get me the CAD files. Get me the schematics. Get me a BOM and a list of vendors who supply them. If “information wants to be free”, then live up to that creed.
I look forward to seeing Neuros fully-embrace open source. In the meantime, could I get the original files for your books – the one’s used to print them? Much appreciated.
Pingback: BuzzTracker.com
I don’t have the files used to print my books (my publisher does), but that’s a really silly distinction. Recreating the typography in the books is the work of ten seconds. Anyone who has a copy of Quark (or whatever Tor does its setup in) is in a position to trivially recreate the layouts — to argue that the absence of QXDs for my online books makes them less “free” is just bizarre. Have you ever worked in pre-press? I spent years at it. You’re talking nonsense. (Indeed the online editions of my books are superior in some respects to the printed editions, since I correct typos in them as they’re discovered, but the print editions only get their typos fixed when they’re reprinted)
Likewise the Neuros designs — they’re using all commodity components. It is trivial to port the Neuros software to other set-top architectures. Look at the DD-WRT firmware, which has ported the firmware developed for a Linksys to dozens of router designs. Neuros’s firmware is handily adaptable to any device that you might perch atop your TV. In any event, the CAD plans are derivable and irrelevant to software hackers. Most of us don’t have 3D printers on our desks, so it’s hard to credit the idea that Neuros’s lack of 3D plans is a nefarious plan to keep us from printing out copies of the physical object (or running our own microcontrollers off our own backyard billion-dollar chip-fab).
Regarding the iPod and iTunes — it sounds like you’re saying that just because a manufacturer says that he’s selling you a device to use for x and not y, you should be prohibited from using it for purpose y. For someone taking your anti-corporate stance, that’s a pretty kiss-ass position. You need to look up the doctrine of first sale, a cornerstone of property rights and consumer rights both, which says that it is absolutely not good public policy nor good law to allow a manufacturer to dictate how you can use his products after you purchase them (or are you arguing that I haven’t purchased my iPod, merely licensed it? Should anyone except big companies be allowed to own property? Should we all be serf-licensors bound by whatever sadomasochistic crap a corporate attorney wants to stick on his shrinkwrap license?)
“I don’t have the files used to print my books (my publisher does), but that’s a really silly distinction. Recreating the typography in the books is the work of ten seconds. Anyone who has a copy of Quark (or whatever Tor does its setup in) is in a position to trivially recreate the layouts – to argue that the absence of QXDs for my online books makes them less ‘free’ is just bizarre. Have you ever worked in pre-press? I spent years at it. You’re talking nonsense.”
It’s silly because you’ve missed the point. The real point I’m making is whether your publisher would take issue with my printing and distributing copies of your book in paperback form. I assume that you’re not going to discriminate based on tangibility; I’d hate to come to the conclusion that you’re hiding behind the fact that most people simply dislike reading books in digital form; whereas they happen to prefer listening to music using a variety of digital toys.
You see, I wonder how you would feel if you were an unknown author in a world where e-books were the norm and people were posting blog entries with links explaining how to disable the DRM that provided unfettered access to your books; your livelihood. It’s certainly easier to permit digital distribution of something when it does more to promote the tangible product than detract from it.
Can I assume that both you and your publisher would approve my posting your work on Lulu or some other print-on-demand service? Unfortunately, I’d need your permission… which I’m sure you’ll provide, yes? Or does that cross the line? If you or your publisher believe it does, then where is the line, exactly? When and how often do you spell it out in your posts on DRM-hacks? Where do you explain to people that merely giving corporate-owned content their attention still potentially gives the corporations and high-paid executives control? Where do you educate them to the potential downside? I’ll confess I don’t read every post, so perhaps you can supply a couple of links to what I’m sure is a balanced perspective. Thank you.
“Likewise the Neuros designs – they’re using all commodity components. It is trivial to port the Neuros software to other set-top architectures. Look at the DD-WRT firmware, which has ported the firmware developed for a Linksys to dozens of router designs. Neuros’s firmware is handily adaptable to any device that you might perch atop your TV.”
Of course they’re using commodity components. It’s only the SGI’s of the world that took all this time to figure out that custom components are deadly in a commodity world, But you and I both know that most people won’t do this, so this is really a cop-out. This is like handing the plans for an automated harvester to a farmworker in Ghana! They’d like to have it, but don’t have the understanding to build and use it. The value is in convenience.
“In any event, the CAD plans are derivable and irrelevant to software hackers. Most of us don’t have 3D printers on our desks, so it’s hard to credit the idea that Neuros’s lack of 3D plans is a nefarious plan to keep us from printing out copies of the physical object (or running our own microcontrollers off our own backyard billion-dollar chip-fab).”
To use your word, this is “silly”. Everything is derivable. I can and have reverse-engineered products and could easily recreate CAD for their parts. Again, that’s not the issue. The issue is whether they’ll openly provide enough information in all its forms so that real competitors can share the field. This isn’t about fabbing at all. This is about putting Neuros in the same position as those developing intangible goods, because right now – and not for much longer imo – that is a distinction which they can use to their advantage. It’s smart business but I’m also of the opinion it’s exploitative.
“Regarding the iPod and iTunes – it sounds like you’re saying that just because a manufacturer says that he’s selling you a device to use for x and not y, you should be prohibited from using it for purpose y.”
I’m saying that the rights issues surrounding the iPod/iTunes hardware/software product were sufficiently out in the open such that people who complain have no one but themselves to blame. And I’m also saying that if someone doesn’t like it, they should turn their back on the product; which is what I did.
“For someone taking your anti-corporate stance, that’s a pretty kiss-ass position.”
You obviously didn’t read through the ISHUSH discussion. At least I’m not profiting from being a spokesperson for the “free everything” movement. Your visibility and popularity are very much a monetary asset. And Boing Boing’s popularity and the Attention it gets certainly provides an income stream last I heard. Care to explain how you can swing both ways?
My stance is, imo, more anti-corporate than people who pirate; more anti-corporate than you. We live in an age where Attention has value (Boing Boing being a good example). People downloading music and movies are getting content that costs nothing to reproduce, but which has power that can be leveraged in other ways. The most anti-corporate stance I can take, is to ignore a company’s product entirely. And that’s what I do. Period.
“You need to look up the doctrine of first sale, a cornerstone of property rights and consumer rights both, which says that it is absolutely not good public policy nor good law to allow a manufacturer to dictate how you can use his products after you purchase them (or are you arguing that I haven’t purchased my iPod, merely licensed it? Should anyone except big companies be allowed to own property? Should we all be serf-licensors bound by whatever sadomasochistic crap a corporate attorney wants to stick on his shrinkwrap license?)”
I’m familiar with the doctrine. And if memory serves, the statute was originally written to be applied to physical copies of products and not digital copies. The problem today is that the statute is still being disputed in the courts because as tangible and intangible begin to integrate, the issues become far more complex. As you are doubtlessly aware, there are now issues of where Licensing begins and Ownership ends – especially wrt to Apple who have created a symbiotic system (which as I’ve already said, doesn’t meet with my approval). There are issues yet to be resolved. But the way to resolve them is by using the power we have: contacting our political representatives and withholding our money and attention when we don’t like how a product is configured.
I won’t argue it’s anything other than a legal mess. Such are the times. But much of what I see coming out of the anti-DRM crowd reminds me of the Us versus Them mentality so prevalent in our world today. I’m not interested in becoming the enemy to fight the enemy.
The best way imo to get companies to give up control is take away the one thing they want most. You’re not doing that.
Pingback: Velcro City Tourist Board » Blog Archive » Links for 22-09-2006
Dear host, I feel that you are going too Unabomber/anarcho-primitivist on your readers with the Ghana example.
It seems to me that as long as the software is freely available to anyone, there is no need for the “farmers in Ghana” (who, it would seem, are the actual coders contributing in this case, since the question was whether they would profit from their own work) to build their own machines – the farmers already have their general-purpose tractors which can run the code and become harvesters.
Likewise, if the software is freely available, what’s stopping the coders from using their (or anyone’s) old PCs to make extremely unattractive media boxes with GUIs that look / work like Neuros’?
Perhaps. But then subtle comparisons aren’t exactly used when people rail against corporate DRM. Is Microsoft really the Devil? And that example is intended to be over-the-top. Read it in context.
What you appear to be missing is that afaic Neuros is exploiting the coders (which is kind of like my whole point here). There’s nothing stopping the coders from using the open source code. Of course not. But is Neuros gaming the open source community? I believe they are. Read my proposal for a real bounty on the Diary of a Mad Natural Historian blog entry (in the comments section). Isn’t that a better offer; one which is more in keeping with the whole open source ethic? Right now, the pathetic bounty being offered by Neuros tells me one thing: they’ve figured out how to game a bunch of enthusiastic and well-meaning coders. I don’t like that anymore than seeing a bunch of Industrial Designers submitting designs for a competition. They may not be exactly the same in practice, but they are imo very much the same in intent: the company profits disproportionately. And isn’t that the real issue behind all the anti-DRM, anti-RIAA, anti-Apple sentiment?
Cory said: “So Microsoft sues you if you contribute to their PVRs. Neuros pays you. Why criticize Neuros? Would Neuros be better if it were like other open source projects, which encourage contirbution without any bounties?”
And that does miss the point that Sven’s trying to make. This is about control of intellectual property — control of the design by the designers. This goes back (exactly!) to the point Cory made in his recent LIFT 06 speech about DRM curtailing end-user rights, only this has to do with creator rights. How do consumers get rights to manipulate and control IP and creators don’t? It seems an inconsistent position.
However, Sven’s position is inconsistent as well. At ISHUSH, he says: “While [Cory]’s promoting what I consider a selfish militant “it’s mine” approach to content, I say we stop fighting for control. If the corporations want control, give it to them… and then walk away from their product.”
So, in one case the creator should get to IP rights and control over the instantiation (of a design), but in another case the creator should not have control (when allied with a publisher)?
Perhaps there are ambiguous terms at play here.
I don’t see how my position is inconsistent. I think you’re missing something.
If we’re going to have IP, then I believe creator’s should control it’s distribution in whatever format they choose. This is in line with Lessig’s comments and it means that if a creator wants to put DRM on their digital IP or use inherent safeguards (inability to reproduce a tangible item), they can do that and everyone should respect it. If they want to sell distribution rights to a label, then that’s their prerogative as well and everyone should respect that.
But not everyone does.
Consequently, seeing how this is playing out – and being a pragmatist – I don’t see how IP can survive.
Right now we have a battle over digital content between the “it’s mine” factions; one side trying to assert control via DRM and the other side intent on cracking the DRM to usurp that control. And the fact is, both sides include elements that are deliberately reaching beyond their reasonable rights (You’ve got Sony and Apple doing some stupid things, but you also have lots of people illegally downloading stuff they don’t pay for). So my position is: let them keep control and their product, because if the underlying issue is corporate greed, then merely giving their content our Attention is still giving them control, and thus a form of power which can be turned into profit.
My position is that people will cede control when it’s in their interests to do so. The problem is, they don’t always know when it’s in their best interests. No DRM and no law is going to fix this anymore, imo. The people are going to have to figure this one out on their own – and somebody had better be educating them to the potential downside.
Where I find fault with Cory’s position is that similarly to Neuros, he’s shielded by tangibility. He’s not really in the same position as musicians. Their products’ usage is through digital mediums, while people still prefer to read paper-based books. Both he and Neuros have tangibility on their side… for now. He received praise for releasing digital copies of his books, but so what? That’s just smart advertising. It’s not like most people read novels on their computer monitor. E-books have, up til this point, failed miserably. He and Tor are safe during the product window (most product windows are 3-5 years iirc; don’t know about books). But what happens when new e-book technologies displace dead tree versions? What then? Will Cory be more clear in his distinctions about what constitutes “good” DRM and what is “bad” DRM? I don’t see much of that now in his posts on Boing Boing.
So what I’m saying is:
a) if we’re going to have DRM, then the war chants need to stop and education needs to start.
b) if, as I believe, DRM is history, then let both it and the product go.
c) creators need to learn how to adjust to a world with no control.
d) society had better figure out how they’re going to reward creators, because the track record isn’t looking good (for them, not the corporations that pwn them).
Personally, I still see problems ahead; Soviet-style “why bother” problems. We’ll see.
Sven, you’re attacking a straw man above in your post to me. Neuros is not about “stealing content” anymore than Xerox, the VCR, or the iPod are. All three of these classes of technology faced litigation from publishing entities (claiming they were fronting for creators) who argued these tools of mass infringement should be removed from the market.
You’re missing the key to good technology policy: the Betamax principle, articulated by the SCOTUS in the 1984 VCR ruling: a device capable of sustaining a substantial noninfringing use is noninfringing. Photocopiers, VCRs, iPods and Neuros recorders all fall into this category.
I don’t advocate that everything should be free. I advocate that which you lawfully acquire should be yours to reuse — commercially in some instances (you should be able to sell your used goods, whether digital or physical) and noncommercially in all instances.
Thus I have no problem with noncommercial print editions of my books. Several have been made. I’m lucky enough to own some of them. I even distribute my books as PDFs optimized for easy printing (as well as in XHTML and UTF-8 in case you want to change the formatting), so that people can make their own printed editions at home. They’re free to give those away and print more, too.
Neuros’s competitors hardly lack for easy CAD drawings. You’re raising a straw-man. Go to Singapore’s SimLim square and you’ll find literally 100 vendors’ different embedded Linux-based PVRs, any of which could be upgraded with the Neuros firmware. Neuros is indeed giving away the store, and betting that they can compete on fundamentals like build quality, price, distribution and service.
Your contempt for iPod owners is pretty appalling. If I sold a car on the condition that it only be serviced with original manfacturer’s parts, fair trading laws would clobber me. Are you such a corporate apologist that you think that the same rules that apply to every other manufacturing sector should not apply to Apple?
I’m not a spokesperson for the “free everything” movement. You’ve mistaken me for the founder of Sweden’s Pirate Party. I do not, and have never advocated “free everything.” Since so much of the ad hominem that follows stems from this misapprehension, I don’t think it’s worth replying to in depth, but I will make a few specific notes:
Boing Boing, my books, and the other businesses I participate on are predicated on getting value from my audience without spying on them, limiting a priori how they can use their devices, intervening in their cultural activities, limiting manufacturing sectors, wiretapping the Internet, controlling innovation, restricting free speech, or suing fans.
The big entertainment companies whose products you’re proud to boycott (as though it would be possible to build a popular movement predicated on the tight-ass doctrinaire stance that any embrace of popular media is suspect or weak-minded) get a government-granted monopoly, copyright, in exchange for access to their works on fair and equitable terms. You’ve mistaken the regulatory of monopoly for actual property (remember, the term “Intellectual Property” was popularized by copyright holders who knew that it was more palatable than “monopolist” — which has been the term of art for centuries) and so you say, “If Universal Media sells its property in away that’s evil, I won’t buy it.”
But Universal Media’s works are a monopoly, not property, and the contours of that monopoly are set by statute, and Universal has both unfairly extended that statute and exceeded the bounds it sets out.
Even if you are to embrace your position, what do you propose to do about the 70 million Americans who file-share and as a consequence have lost their rights to privacy and due process — and stand to lose their livelihood. Do they come in for the same naked contempt you exhibit for the people who bought the most popular MP3 player in the world? Sheeple who deserve what they get?
Even if you take that stance, what about the non-downloaders whose Internet and PCs are being redesigned with shackles in the name of punishing the “guilty?”
It’s like saying, “Well, people who have unprotected sex deserve to get AIDS” without actually taking account of the social cost to *everyone* of an AIDS epidemic. File-sharing can’t be answered by arguing that the majority of Internet users are petty thieves who deserve the punishment they get, because it’s NOT THEM that recieve the punishment — it’s every Internet user, and all the Internet users who will follow.
“Neuros is not about “stealing content” anymore than Xerox, the VCR, or the iPod are. All three of these classes of technology faced litigation from publishing entities (claiming they were fronting for creators) who argued these tools of mass infringement should be removed from the market.”
I don’t recall saying Neuros is about “stealing content”. I took issue with their bounty which I consider exploitative. In fact, I proposed a bounty which I’m sure the open source people will like much better and which will result in greater innovation. I didn’t take issue with the device itself as I’m very aware of Xerox, the VCR, and the rest.
Care to point out where I cite the function as an issue?
You’re missing the key to good technology policy: the Betamax principle, articulated by the SCOTUS in the 1984 VCR ruling: a device capable of sustaining a substantial noninfringing use is noninfringing. Photocopiers, VCRs, iPods and Neuros recorders all fall into this category.
Please point me to where I miss this in my comments. Again, I don’t recall ever saying their device is a problem. I said I have a problem with their business practices. Seems to me like you’ve gotten off track here.
“I don’t advocate that everything should be free. I advocate that which you lawfully acquire should be yours to reuse – commercially in some instances (you should be able to sell your used goods, whether digital or physical) and noncommercially in all instances.”
Of course you don’t. But you’re side-stepping the point I’m making: that it’s easy to do nothing but rail against DRM – without acknowledging that there are misuses to hacking it as well – when it doesn’t affect you.
“Thus I have no problem with noncommercial print editions of my books. Several have been made. I’m lucky enough to own some of them. I even distribute my books as PDFs optimized for easy printing (as well as in XHTML and UTF-8 in case you want to change the formatting), so that people can make their own printed editions at home. They’re free to give those away and print more, too.”
I expected better. Do you honestly think the “people can make their own printed editions at home” is going to do anything but make everyone laugh?
“Neuros’s competitors hardly lack for easy CAD drawings. You’re raising a straw-man. Go to Singapore’s SimLim square and you’ll find literally 100 vendors’ different embedded Linux-based PVRs, any of which could be upgraded with the Neuros firmware. Neuros is indeed giving away the store, and betting that they can compete on fundamentals like build quality, price, distribution and service.”
You really don’t get it, do you? This isn’t about whether it will hurt them or not. Re-read my comments. I say as much. This is about institutionalized mindsets. This is about the corporate urge to control their own content. Even realizing that the files are of little practical use, Neuros is unlikely to give them up (at least not without prodding) simply because it goes against the corporate mentality! So here we have a company reaching out to an open source community to do what they themselves don’t and perhaps cannot do: be truly open. Tell me that isn’t a crock.
“Your contempt for iPod owners is pretty appalling. If I sold a car on the condition that it only be serviced with original manfacturer’s parts, fair trading laws would clobber me. Are you such a corporate apologist that you think that the same rules that apply to every other manufacturing sector should not apply to Apple?”
I believe that if you follow the links provided, you’ll find that I cite Apple for their violations. But as stated, I don’t believe two wrongs make a right. It’s apparent that you do. So while you prefer to encourage DRM-hacking (which potentially adversely impacts the creators of the music), I encourage people to simply walk away from Apple’s products. Apparently the concept of a meaningful boycott is lost on everyone except the Christian Right. Everyone’s becoming militant, I guess.
So yes, I do feel that people who either didn’t do their research or ignored what was very plainly a system built on DRM by a company known to exert an enormous amount of control in a situation where the labels would also be sticking in their control-freak noses, should have known better. Furthermore, when there are real issues worthy of demonstrations, when we have the problems we have today in this country and in this world, and people take the time to stage a momentary protest of Apple’s infractions – which, again, should be no surprise considering that they are among the most controlling and least open of technology companies in the world (but hey, they have that cool factor down pat) – then I have no problem feeling little sympathy for their situation. So I make no apologies. Not for Apple. Not for people who should have known better. And not for seeing them both through the same set of eyes.
“I’m not a spokesperson for the “free everything” movement.”
Perhaps you should ensure that everyone knows that. I’m not sure the most egregious offenders do.
“Boing Boing, my books, and the other businesses I participate on are predicated on getting value from my audience without spying on them, limiting a priori how they can use their devices, intervening in their cultural activities, limiting manufacturing sectors, wiretapping the Internet, controlling innovation, restricting free speech, or suing fans.”
Without limiting manufacturing sectors? So I could print and sell your books? I bet I know the answer to that.
So tell me, when digital distribution of books becomes commonplace such that tangible goods (which have inherent restrictions to duplication) fall away and your livelihood is based solely on the sale of digital information, and as a creator you find yourself in a position similar to a musician whose music is sold via iTunes for the iPod, and the manufacturer (maybe even Apple) pulls the same stunts, will you be happy to see people hacking and posting hacks on major websites so that anyone can access the content which helps to feed you and your family? You won’t have the safety of knowing that people prefer the tangible dead tree versions. And let’s also assume that you’re not getting money from other sources, like speaking engagements or ad revenue from a website. Well?
“The big entertainment companies whose products you’re proud to boycott…”
I don’t recall saying I needed to boycott any companies. I said I didn’t purchase an iPod because I didn’t like the product {I’m referring here to the whole Apple music distribution system}. I do that all the time. Boycotting is a coercive act. As I never purchased one, I’ve not felt a need to be coercive. There’s a difference. I am, however, suggesting that users who purchased a product and are angry with Apple should boycott them.
“(as though it would be possible to build a popular movement predicated on the tight-ass doctrinaire stance that any embrace of popular media is suspect or weak-minded)”
I’m not suggesting that either. You really make some big leaps in your assumptions.
I’m saying that people should utilize the power they have to effect the change they desire instead of attempting to usurp control and gain power to which they really have no right. Sure, hacking Apple’s DRM might be fair turn-around against Apple Inc, but we all know that those same files likely find their way onto P2P systems. That sort of thing then has the potential to hurt the artists. From my perspective, this is analogous to some of the street crime in my area where one gang goes out looking for retaliation and winds up shooting a child. The consumer has all the power they need, they don’t need more.
“get a government-granted monopoly, copyright, in exchange for access to their works on fair and equitable terms. You’ve mistaken the regulatory of monopoly for actual property (remember, the term “Intellectual Property” was popularized by copyright holders who knew that it was more palatable than “monopolist” – which has been the term of art for centuries) and so you say, “If Universal Media sells its property in away that’s evil, I won’t buy it.””
No. I say evaluate the risk first. Apple is a risk, imo. They’ve always been control freaks. The only people who seem to be surprised are the one’s who turned a profit-seeking company into a cult. If the company to whom the consumers give their business screws them, they should boycott the product. But nobody really wants to do that with Apple, do they? Apple is everyone’s darling. Screw that. If there are apologists out there, it’s the one’s who claim to take issue with Apple’s practices yet continue to buy their equipment; they’re apologizing with their purchase. Would that be a Mac you’re using, Cory? Are there NO other options?
“But Universal Media’s works are a monopoly, not property, and the contours of that monopoly are set by statute, and Universal has both unfairly extended that statute and exceeded the bounds it sets out.”
I believe I addressed this already in suggesting that people become politically involved as well. I’m very aware of how even good laws still play to those who have wealth.
“Even if you are to embrace your position, what do you propose to do about the 70 million Americans who file-share and as a consequence have lost their rights to privacy and due process – and stand to lose their livelihood. Do they come in for the same naked contempt you exhibit for the people who bought the most popular MP3 player in the world? Sheeple who deserve what they get?”
Well, let’s start by defining “share”. If I share my car, it means I don’t have it for some period of time. I can’t duplicate it so we both get a copy for our individual use. The inherent limitation in my inability to replicate a tangible object acts as its own form of Rights Management (just like your dead tree books). But when people are “sharing” via P2P, this is no longer the case. They are, in effect, manufacturing a new copy. Now that certainly doesn’t fit the term, does it? But here we couch it as “sharing”. Funny how that happens.
But to answer your question, I don’t propose anything. I’m on record as saying we may as well wipe it all. There’s no way to protect content; not digital now and not physical in the future. There’s a reason I pulled that stunt when I ripped the game model from a videostream last year. It was a warning. Not an endorsement. It was my way of trying to get the design and marketing communities to see their physical products in the same light as any other content (it failed, actually; they’re still oblivious to what’s coming).
So for all those file duplicators, I say wait til the 1% get tired of supplying your entertainment for free. What goes round will come round.
As for rights to privacy and due process, you’re really mixing some issues now. I’d be more than happy to get into that, but I’m relatively sure we’ll just see eye-to-eye on that count (unless of course you support the current administration). But just because the government is doing something bad doesn’t excuse the behavior in question. Let’s not go trying to obfuscate one wrong by raising another that belongs in another conversation with a different set of people (namely, people who support what’s going on).
“Even if you take that stance, what about the non-downloaders whose Internet and PCs are being redesigned with shackles in the name of punishing the “guilty?””
Wow. You’re really trying to stretch this out. No problem. For starters, I say get politically motivated. Speak out and educate the rest. But the real question is: do the masses really care? or are they too busy getting DVDs, ripping them, and uploading them? Based on my personal experience, they don’t care. They’re too busy enjoying all the music and movies they didn’t pay for which they’re “sharing” with everyone else.
“It’s like saying, “Well, people who have unprotected sex deserve to get AIDS” without actually taking account of the social cost to *everyone* of an AIDS epidemic.”
Which is exactly why I asked you directly what you’re doing to educate people; not just from one perspective, but from all perspectives. Where are those links I requested? I hope you’ve done more than post entries with links to sites on how to hack DRM. Where are the entries discussing how corporations can profit from illegal downloads? Where are the entries that warn of a world in which lack of reward often stifles initiative and slows innovation? Where is the education that prevents the disease? If most of what you’re doing is railing against DRM and limits to P2P without presenting other aspects of the problem, then you’re not making good use of the very big soapbox you have, imo.
I will try again to simplify this debate, even if I make the mistake of summarizing it too simply, because, well, it’s getting kinda tendrilous and wacky now. Okay. Here we go.
Cory’s position: DRM = bad. Users should have the right to do whatever they want with music/media once they purchase it. Make copies, put it on multiple machines, whatever.
Sven’s position: Cory is exempting himself and his publishers from the principles he espouses for digital media. Cory isn’t including print media or ‘tangibles’ in the debate for end-user rights.
So here’s my question for Cory: Do end-users have the same rights to do whatever they want with printed media (say, to photocopy your books and share the photocopies with friends)? Does the same principle apply for printed or tangible media that applies in the DRM debate? Why or why not?
And my question for Sven: So you really do think the same principles that Cory is arguing for in re: music and movies ought to hold for objects and books, even given the historical, social, and technological differences between them? How’s this going to shake out when kirkyans crawl the Earth, and everything‘s spimey and sits straddling the fence between tangible and virtual?
And that’s for anybody: How’s this going to shake out when everything in our workaday world is a spime that’s both tangible and virtual? Digital Rights Management? There won’t be any practical difference between digital and tangible.
Actually, it’s simpler.
From what I’ve gathered, Cory is addressing technological issues. I’m addressing behaviorial issues.
He sees my objection with Neuros as taking issue with the machine. I’ve pretty clearly taken issue with the business practices of the company; their behavior.
He’s fighting against DRM (from a safe position). I think DRM is irrelevant. It can be cracked. And the devices that currently use DRM are luxuries (which somehow have turned into life necessities).
His issue appears to be only with the corporations and their protective measures whereas my issue is with the behavior of both sides in this matter. I agree corporations are wrong in much of what they’re doing. But those who put the musicians at risk by opening up unfettered access to their work or promoting that behavior are also wrong; especially when there are other responses available to affect change. Furthermore, their activity runs the risk of eventually disaffecting artists such that their creative efforts decline. The corporations will make money from aggregated Attention (via advertising). However, artists will find themselves marginalized until a workable solution to compensate them is found. Their options are, at present, relatively limited.
“So you really do think the same principles that Cory is arguing for in re: music and movies ought to hold for objects and books…”
I doesn’t matter what I think. Technology is making the distinction irrelevant all on its own. So while everyone is crying over their music collection, I’m wondering what happens on a much larger scale; when tangible products enter the fold. I believe I once told you to buy stock in raw materials. I believe that. It won’t be the Thing; it’ll be the raw material, the constructor, and the data that replicate that Thing. Not anytime soon, but then I’m of the opinion that the discussions need to happen now – not when the technology is upon us. And that discussion should not be two sides screaming “Mine”.
Books don’t run root-kits on people.
DRM movies do run root-kits on people’s computers.
Thassa crucial difference, sho!
C’mon, Woody. You know better. DRM is no more about rootkits than any other piece of software, because ANY software can have malicious code in it.
Are cars weapons? Some people use them as transportation. Some people use them as bombs. All depends on what the person does with the technology.
This is really about people and their behavior. Nothing more. Nothing less. It would be possible to have a fair DRM system, but there are a few problems in getting there:
1) most of the people behind DRM systems don’t create the content they’re trying to protect; they’re protecting profits.
2) most of the people accessing content using DRM hacks probably don’t have a clue about Intellectual Property laws and if they do probably don’t really care; they only care about getting something for free.
3) deciding what’s “fair” depends on whether one is a consumer or a content provider, and there are way more consumers.
4) the two sides are, for the most part, polarizing the issue.
We’ll see if Sony’s new e-book makes inroads. If it does, it’ll be interesting to see if some people change their tune (of course I’m referring to those who don’t have other sources of income).
It appears this one is dead and now nothing more than spam meat, so closing it for now. If anyone wants to add a comment, drop me an email and I’ll open it up.