News & Views

Well, things haven't changed since last year, so it's time for another of my long-winded rants on the wide-ranging evils inflicted on us by Big Media. They are at it again, so I'm stepping up on my soap box to spout my opinions about their behavior again.

Judge Marilyn Hall Patel recently granted the evil MPAA a preliminary injunction against RealDVD who created software which allowed consumers to copy their DVD collection onto their computers without removing the copy protection. This is a blow to consumers everywhere because it potentially eliminates one route to an amazing digital future where you could legally carry your entire movie collection around with you just like you carry your CD collection now.

But this decision isn't Judge Patel's fault. Her hands were tied by the actions of a Congress that is apparently wholly owned by rich "Big Media." The blame lies squarely with "Big Media" companies who essentially bribed and cajoled Congress into passing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) under the guise of protecting their copyrights. The law was passed with zero regard for how it would affect consumer rights, because that is exactly what Big Media wanted.

With the DMCA, Congress destroyed consumer rights. We already have the legal right to make a copy of media we buy (just Google "Fair Use"), but the DMCA made it illegal to remove copy protection from media. SO, the evil media companies just put copy protection on everything, which conveniently bypasses our right to copy our media. Sneaky, right?

Well, RealDVD figured out a way to copy the media to your hard drive and play it without removing the copy protection. The copy protection is still intact, so technically it doesn't break the DMCA. Making a copy is protected by Fair Use. So, this is completely legal. Yet, Big Media still went ballistic. They ostensibly sued RealDVD for breach of contract (which RealDVD technically DID do), but they sued with the main intent of preventing RealDVD from helping us exercise our Fair Use rights to copy our media. Big Media paid good money to get the DMCA passed. They don't want anyone finding a way around it and messing with their cash cow.

What should really happen is that somebody should challenge the legality of putting copy protection (Digital Rights Management - DRM) on media to begin with. It inhibits our Fair Use rights. After all, if they can't legally put the DRM on, then it doesn't matter if it's illegal to remove it. But that probably won't come out of this case. This case is about evil companies squeezing more money from paying consumers.

So why would Congress basically make it illegal to exercise a right we've had for a long time? Because they are crooks. Our lawmakers are bought and paid for by Big Media companies with deep pockets. Despite being OUR elected representatives, and working in a government we finance with our taxes, lawmakers care ZERO about consumers. That's because they get far more money from lobbyists than what we pay them. Yes, our system is severely messed up. Further, any time somebody proposes that we outlaw lobbyists, it gets voted down by Congress, who coincidentally are the primary people benefiting from the current arrangement. Big surprise.

If ANY of our lawmakers actually cared about voters, they would introduce a Digital Media Consumers Bill of Rights. That law would protect our right to use any piece of media we buy on any piece of equipment we own. It would make it illegal for ANYONE to infringe upon that right by using DRM or by tying media to specific hardware. Of course, if any of our lawmakers cared about voters, they would outlaw lobbying by special interests. That's not going to happen anytime soon. So, what can we do?

Big Media companies are squarely at the root of this evil being enacted upon consumers. The RIAA and the MPAA are organizations populated by evil companies who abuse the legal rights of their paying customers in a quest to milk more cash from us regardless of the morality of their tactics. DRM does NOT stop piracy. Piracy has escalated even as DRM has become more strict and more common. DRM only hurts legitimate paying customers. Yet, they continue to use DRM. It's obvious why they really use it and it has nothing to do with piracy. That's just a cover.

They use DRM (and the DMCA) to support a business model which makes zero sense in a digital world by turning our government into a media-owned private police force. They bypass our previously established "Fair Use" right to make a copy of media we already bought for our own personal use. Fair Use predates the DMCA. The DMCA doesn't even outlaw Fair Use. It just creates a sweet loophole for Big Media to screw law-abiding consumers. The DMCA makes it illegal to remove DRM. So, the evil studios simply put DRM on everything, which conveniently sidesteps our Fair Use rights. I believe that was their real intent from the start. In my opinion, their act of pushing through the DMCA never had anything to do with stopping piracy. That was just the reason they had to give publicly in order to push it through. The law was designed to sustain their failing business model and generate revenue through legislation.

How does the DMCA (and DRM) support Big Media's business model?

I'll explain. If we want to use our purchased media on more than one device, Big Media bought enough legislators to force us to buy multiple copies of the same product, when we already have the legal right to make a copy. They did this by basically authoring the DMCA without any input from consumer rights groups and pushing it through Congress by buying votes through their lobbyists. It is an evil and backhanded way to force legal, paying customers to give them more money for something we already bought. The DMCA is written to help them rip off paying customers by sidestepping our rights and has zero impact on real world piracy. DRM and the DMCA don't stop piracy and never have. Only the simple-minded would think this is about copyright theft.

This case is all about Big Media continuing to use the DMCA to obstruct our previously established right to make a copy of media, all so they can continue to milk us for far more cash than they should legally be entitled to get. RealDVD breached their contract because they believe the restrictions the MPAA placed on them should be illegal. I agree with them. RealDVD tried in good faith to obey the law, as it is written. They required your original copy-protected media in order to copy it to your hard drive. They also kept the copy protection intact, which means you can't just give copies to all your friends or sell copies on a street corner. So, any notion that this case is about preventing piracy is nuts.

It's about Big Media bypassing our Fair Use rights on media we already bought. It's about milking their paying customers, not inhibiting thieves. The fact that the MPAA is even pursuing this case shows they hate their paying customers. They abuse our rights only so they can rip us off. They put restrictions on RealDVD which should be illegal. That's why RealDVD is fighting and I support them in their fight.

My suggestion? I hate to say it, because I've bought more media than just about anybody I know (850+ movies, 600+ CDs, hundreds of books, hundreds of pieces of software), but the only solution that will work is we just need to stop buying their products. I've given these companies the benefit of the doubt for far too long. Do we really want these companies to keep doing this to us indefinitely? Do we really want to keep paying $14 for a CD which costs 18 cents to make? Do we really want to keep paying $20-25 for a DVD that costs $1.50 to make? Do we really want to buy 4 copies of a movie so we can put it on 3 iPods and watch one copy at home? Do we really want to give them more cash so they can buy more politicians and eliminate more of our rights? I sure don't.

These companies are doing things the same way they have for many decades. They don't want to move into the future. They like the huge money machine they have now. They are fat, lazy, bitter old men who hate change and want no part of it. These companies are the only thing holding us back from quickly moving into a far better future for all digital media. These companies are the real problem. The RIAA should be killed off first, with the MPAA to follow if they don't change their ways.

We need to replace these dinosaur companies with modern digital-age companies who put customers needs and desires first. If Google or Amazon were running these companies, we would see a total change in how we watch movies or listen to music within a very short time. Our media collection would be stored in a virtual library online, easily accessible anytime, anywhere, and on any device we own. The media would cost less to purchase and be far more versatile. Progress and innovation would be enhanced, not hindered. Old distribution models would be dumped in favor of purely digital transmissions. Every aspect of the industry would be better for consumers if Google or Amazon replaced Big Media companies. What we need are companies who can turn that dream into a reality.

Just as an example, can anyone explain to me why music CDs are EVER made in advance and shipped on trucks to a store? It's a freaking digital file. Transmit the CD to the store over the Internet, store it on a hard drive, and only burn it when customers actually buy it. At a minimum, this would save manufacturing and shipping all those really crappy CDs which never actually sell. It also saves tons of shipping costs for the ones which DO sell. It could also allow people the option of putting the CD on an SD card, iPod, or thumb drive instead of a disk.

Who needs CDs anyway? I bought CDs to avoid DRM. I also bought CDs so I had control over the quality of the digital file. But, want to know where all my CDs are now? They're stored. I put the files on my computer, threw away the bulky CD cases, and then stored the disks in binders. Every one of them was pressed in a factory, packaged, warehoused, and shipped through multiple distribution points to end up on a store shelf. Then, I bought it and drove it home where I copied the files onto my hard drive, threw the case in a landfill, and put the CD in storage never to be used again.

That's a huge waste of resources and money just to support an ancient distribution model that a bunch of old geezers at big media companies simply refuse to abandon. The CD started as digital files on hard drives and ended as digital files on my hard drive with a bunch of expensive, wasteful stupidity in between. All of it created just so those Big Media idiots could stay rich. My suggestion? Cut out all of that middle crap and pass the huge savings on to me and the original artist. I'd buy a lot more.

What about iTunes or Amazon, you ask? Well, one thing I hate is that I lose control over the quality. Yes, iTunes does let you cut out the middle distribution part (mostly), but instead of it being a lot cheaper, it's even more of a rip off than the CDs. There is no way that copying a dozen digital files from a server should cost nearly as much as pressing, shipping, warehousing, merchandising, and selling a real CD. Yet, they are priced far too similarly. Plus, the quality of what you get is worse.

This is because evil Big Media is inflating the price far beyond reasonable. Selling 50,000 copies of a digital file on a server costs only a tiny bit more than selling 1 copy. Their markup is insane, even if you spread out the initial production costs. There is no manufacturing, shipping, warehousing, or distribution channel. Plus, even with the vastly inflated price and vastly reduced cost to distribute, the original artist doesn't get any more money at all. I'm guessing it all goes into the pockets of Big Media, so they can buy more Congressmen.

Remember, I said they need to cut out the middle processes and pass the savings on to me and the artist, not hoard the savings. Using the immense cost savings of digital distribution to make themselves far richer isn't any better than keeping the price of new release CDs at $14 for the past 25 years despite the fact that the cost of making them has dropped to pennies compared to the high original cost decades ago (about $8 each originally?). Both practices are just plain wrong, but when you have an entire industry colluding on product pricing, and Congress in their pocket protecting them, the consumer gets hosed.

If the HUGE savings of digital distribution of media files was actually passed along to the consumer, media would become so cheap that piracy would simply disappear. If it's dirt cheap and extremely easy to obey the law, why break it? Plus, everyone would own more media. The door might even be open to keeping all of our media securely online and easily accessing it from all of the devices we own. All of the media files could be stored once and anyone who owns it could point to that same file, just like on Amazon's Kindle service for books. But if the Big Media companies have their way, this bright future will never happen. They want things to stay the way they've always been.

We basically need to kill off the root source of all these problems. If you don't kill the root, the wart just keeps coming back. "Big Media" is a major blight upon our digital media future. They are the worst sort of wart that just won't go away. We just need to put them out of business. So, think very carefully before you give them another dime of your money for ANY of their products. The only way things will change is if WE change them. If we stop buying, perhaps fear of bankruptcy will bring them to their senses before they die off completely. If not, then good riddance.

So, maybe it's time to stop buying their products. Personally, I think we should all hold hands and loudly wish every single one of those evil studio execs and their vast number of lawyers the worst possible life followed by a slow and painful death. What they are doing to their once loyal customers is just plain wrong and I can only hope karma makes it right.

For more information about evil Big Media companies see: 
http://www.boycott-riaa.com
http://riaasucks.com/
http://gizmodo.com/241595/even-foxtrot-thinks-the-riaa-sucks
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/09/10/riaa_keeps_12yearold_quiet/
http://w2.eff.org/IP/P2P/MPAA_v_ThePeople/
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/05/reminder-from-the-mpaa-drm-trumps-your-fair-use-rights.ars
http://kirksigmon.com/2009/05/thoughts-on-the-mpaa-lawsuits/

Labels: Congress, DMCA, EFF, Fair Use, Movies, MPAA, Music, Opinions, PRO IP, RIAA

The next version of the iPhone is receiving quite a "buzz" in the media. I think this is because it is rumored to finally fix some of the major omissions that have plagued the iPhone since version 1.0. Users are getting excited that the iPhone will finally live up to the promises made at the original introduction 2 years ago.

Anyone who reads this blog knows I've been quite vocal about the many shortcomings of the original iPhone. These opinions come from a person who has been using the iPhone as his only phone since day one of its original introduction. I like the phone a lot, but it always fell short of the Apple hype engine claims. It has never for a moment been a "revolutionary" communication device. Every feature the iPhone had at its introduction had been available for years from other smart phone makers. In fact, there were/still are a lot of basic features missing which those other phones have had for years. The primary difference was always the simple user interface. Apple made it easier to use those myriad functions. That's evolutionary progress, not revolutionary.

Fast forward two years from that over-hyped introduction and we're now looking forward to the release of the third version of the iPhone. It took two years, but it seems Apple has finally listened to owners and filled in the many missing features we've been requesting literally since day one. In my mind, this latest release finally makes the iPhone equal in features with all of the other smart phones on the market. The easy user interface pushes it over the top. If the rumored feature set of this third iPhone is true, I can finally put away my soap box and agree that this new iPhone will be the best smart phone out there. So, here are the details of what I have seen rumored. (mockup photo from http://www.iphone-ticker.de)

What can we reasonably expect in the third iPhone?

• Increased RAM size. The RAM used for executing programs in the current iPhone is 128MB. This is expected to be doubled to 256MB for the new version. That's a huge improvement.
• Increased performance. The main CPU in the new iPhone is expected to jump to 600MHz clock speed from 400MHz in the current version. There are also other optimizations which might give it an additional boost, so that the total performance gain will be more than 50%.
• Wider range of storage capacities. The new iPhone is expected to come in as many as 4 different storage capacities. They are 4GB, 8GB, 16GB, and 32GB. Folks like me with large audio libraries will finally be able to put their music collection on their iPhone! People who only use the phone for email and browsing will get a price break by buying the smallest capacity unit. Everyone wins.
• Cut and paste. This is a big one that has been missing and requested loudly since the beginning.
• MMS support. This is another one of the most requested missing features. Owners of the new iPhone will finally be able to exchange basic audio/video/photo messages with nearly every other cell phone owner out there. No more logging onto a web site to type in a bizarre code so you can view a message sent to you from a $29 phone. No more embarrassment that those $29 phones can do something your expensive phone can't do.
• Improved Bluetooth support. I think we'll finally see stereo headset support. I also think we'll see Bluetooth keyboard support and possibly Bluetooth printing. I think we'll likely also see tethering support with some artificial limitation attached. Probably the limitation will be that you pay extra for a tether-friendly data plan from AT&T.
• Video recording and simple editing. In order to fully-implement MMS, they needed to be able to record video. So, they wrapped this feature in a simple application to use any time.
• Audio recording. The same note applies for MMS audio recordings. They had to implement it anyway, so they made it available as a new application.
• Improved camera image quality. This comes in the form of better light sensitivity and auto focus functionality built-in. The camera will be less prone to image blur. I wonder if digital image stabilization isn't also an element of this equation. I'm betting on simple face recognition, as well.
• Improved camera resolution. This rumor is still the subject of debate. Many say the new camera will be 3.2MP. I'm not holding my breath on this one, but it does make sense. Frankly, if they just improve the quality of the images from the existing camera, that will go a long way toward making people happy.
• Digital compass. Being able to orient the device in 3D space will be a useful enhancement to GPS positioning abilities. The digital compass application looks pretty cool, too.
• Turn-by-turn navigation. With the digital compass added, all of the hardware is there to do real turn-by-turn navigation. If they use Google Maps, it should be fairly straightforward to implement this. I believe this rumor is true.
• Percentage indicator for battery life. This is a small thing that will be very handy. The existing indicator just isn't accurate enough to be useful. I really hope this one is true.
• Nike+ support and a built-in Nike+ application. This rumor looks like it may be true. I could easily see Nike making a deal with Apple to include it. It's a cool application and it could be a beneficial partnership - selling more product for both companies.
• Downloadable iTunes TV/Movies. This one is a tough call. On the one hand, you have AT&T whining about bandwidth usage. On the other, you have Apple trying to further pump up their highly-profitable iTunes sales. IF this happens, it will likely be limited to WiFi downloads only for a long time.
• Pseudo background application support. This will come in the form of push notifications being available to most applications. It will give applications the feel of background execution, without actually sucking up CPU and battery time. We'll have to wait and see how well this works in reality.
• Further enhancements to Exchange Server compatibility. By this, I mean slight tweaks, not drastic improvements. The iPhone will still lack the extensive configuration capabilities that the Blackberry enjoys, but for most people the iPhone will be more than adequate. Just don't try to change your auto-responder from your iPhone.
• Global search. This was another feature requested by many, but ignored by Steve Jobs. The iPhone owner will finally be able to do what Palm's have done for well over a decade - search through everything on the device from a single search box. It's about time.
• Positioning information will now be available within the browser, in the form of JavaScript classes. This will open up all kinds of cool online services based on where you are standing at that moment. Expect to hear about a lot of cool web sites which take advantage of this shortly after introduction. For example, you could watch your friends move around town in real time on a map at a social networking site. I think Google has already been working on exactly this type of thing.
• Apple logo that lights up. Seriously? Why waste the battery power? Perhaps they plan to simply let the LCD back light bleed through to the logo on the back, but it's supposedly a true rumor. We'll see.

What rumors are probably not true?

• Improved battery life. I'll believe this one when I see it. I don't see how they can add so much functionality, as well as new hardware, while reducing the battery load at the same time. They may claim longer battery life, but I don't think any of us will see it in real world usage. I'd be mostly happy if it just doesn't get any worse.
• Adobe Flash support. As much as people have been asking for this, I think Adobe would tell us if they were ready to introduce it. They haven't said a word. So, I don't think it's coming any time soon. It's a shame because so many web sites don't offer an alternative to their Flash menus. I'm sure not having Flash support will be the main thing I still complain about on this new iPhone.
• Apple TV functionality with HD video support. While I think they will take a stab at letting people download videos and TV to their iPhones using iTunes, I don't think the iPhone will support HD content. It's really pointless to do this until the display can at least come close to rendering it fully. I don't see HD or Apple TV functionality coming to the iPhone for at least a year, if not two.
• Built-in uploading of recorded videos to YouTube. I really think Apple only tolerates YouTube. If there is ANY built-in uploading of videos, it will probably be set to work exclusively with Apple's own (lame) online service. Apple is very inbred when it comes to forcing its products to only work with its services. I do think this ability will appear on the iPhone, just not from Apple.
• HD or FM radio receiver. I can't imagine Apple letting people listen to the radio instead of forcing them to buy songs from iTunes.
• Matte black and matte white finishes. Apple has always been tilted toward glossy and shiny, so I can't imagine they would offer anything in a matte finish. Then again, this is a phone. Maybe they will listen to the complaints of users about scratches and fingerprints and coat it with a protective finish of some sort. We can hope, but I'm not very optimistic about this one.
• Enhanced "super" 3G support. Some are calling it 3.5G+ or 3.75G. I don't think it will make it into this generation of iPhone, but all bets are off on the next version. AT&T is finally beefing up their high speed cellular support and the future looks brighter than it ever has. Now, if only we could get them to lighten up on bandwidth restrictions, we might see mobile to mobile video chat (which has existed forever in the Orient) in our lifetimes. Our communications systems in this country are so primitive in comparison to the rest of the world. It's sad, really.

What rumors are definitely not true?

• Full iChat support integrated. Sure this would be nice, but I doubt we'll see it anytime soon. AT&T has us all by the short hairs when it comes to guarding their bandwidth.
• WiFi draft N support. I don't believe we'll see this. They have only recently embraced draft N support in their desktops and laptops. I'm sure they don't think it's important enough for the iPhone.
• Built-in FM transmitter. Not likely either. There isn't enough space inside the device and it would eat up the battery quicker.
• Front facing camera for video chatting. Not happening because of bandwidth limitations set by AT&T. Maybe in two years, but no way it's happening in this version.
• OLED screen. That would push the price too high and this is one of their few devices where Apple grudgingly acknowledges that price is somewhat important. Until OLEDs are cheaper and being manufactured in sufficient quantities, we won't see them on iPhones. It just isn't realistic. We might see LED backlighting for the LCD display, though. That, I could see happening.
• Any drastic changes to the form factor. The 3rd iPhone will only have minor cosmetic tweaks if anything. It will retain the same basic layout, shape, and dimensions as prior versions.
• Carbon fiber casing. I can't see anyone using carbon fiber for a telephone casing. It is too brittle. The first drop would bust it open. I think the new iPhone will use the same plastic as the 3G with little change to anything.
• Editing of Word and Excel files. With third parties jumping in to fill this void, I don't see Apple wasting the resources to add this ability. There are already a couple of good applications for this task available from iTunes, so they'll make their money that way.

When will we see the new iPhone?

Some of the features mentioned above will appear in version 3.0 of the operating system, which is supposed to be introduced for existing iPhones on June 8, 2009. There are rumors that this upgrade will be sold, not free. Because some of the functions depend on new hardware, users of older iPhones simply won't see some of the new features.

The new iPhone device will appear over a month later, on July 17th, 2009. I'm sure we'll be able to tell what hardware/software made the final cut during the weeks between those two dates. I expect to hear about a lot of first generation iPhone owners finally trading in their phones once the new one hits the shelves. I'm certainly in that category.

Yes, it's a great update. The feature set will finally be mostly complete. But before you start thinking I'm completely content with the rumored abilities of this new iPhone, let me reassure you with the following section:

What would I like to see added next?

• Flash support is the one blindingly obvious item which needs to happen sooner rather than later. Flash may not be an open standard, but it is a de facto standard used on a large number of commercial web sites. Deal with it Apple! Help Adobe create it.
• LED backlighting on the display. It's brighter for sunny days and displays much better color. Even OLED wouldn't be a big improvement if they put LED backlighting on the display.
• WiFi draft N. If they are going to keep limiting large downloads to WiFi only, at least give us decent speed on the WiFi.
• Increased display resolution - but only if it doesn't make everything harder to read for those of us who are getting old. In other words, give us a way to keep the font sizes big enough to see while displaying images or video at the increased resolution.
• Higher resolution camera - but only if the picture quality doesn't suffer in the process. More pixels are useless if the picture is blurry.
• Switch-able LED lighting for video and photo recording in darkened rooms like clubs or restaurants.
• HD video playback. Sure, 720p would be the logical first step, but eventually I'd like to see full 1080p output. Of course, this is probably a long-term goal. More and more hotel rooms have flat panels with HDMI connections. Just add a micro-HDMI port and let me watch my iPhone videos on my hotel room TV in full high definition. Let me display presentations on conference room flat panels, too. Is that a presentation in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?
• An SD or even micro SD expansion slot. Sometimes you just want more space for your stuff. Downloading videos will make that even more critical.
• A user-replaceable battery. Even if it's just a back that opens more easily and a battery cable which unplugs, make it replaceable by the end user damn it. NOBODY wants to be without their phone while it gets shipped in for a new battery to be installed. That's retarded.
• Add the ability to edit calendar events, alarms, and contacts from inside iTunes. This is another thing Palm's have had for over a decade. Get with the program Apple.
• Add the ability to drag songs or albums onto your iPhone without creating a damned play list first. Sometimes I just want the music on there to listen to on a whim. I don't need it to be part of a play list.

Yes, you're right. I'm a picky bloke who can always come up with a wish list for any device. The new iPhone will absolutely be a big improvement over previous generations. In fact, if the rumors are true, this could be the best phone out there. But there is always room for improvement.

Summing it up.

In a nutshell, the 3rd iPhone version looks like it will finally fulfill the promise of the original iPhone introduction two years ago. The wide variety of feature shortcomings which held the device back from widespread acceptance will finally be addressed. With these feature and hardware additions, the feature set required to call itself a modern smart phone will finally be nearly complete. Unlike the 3G introduction, which only increased download speed and added a GPS radio, this third version looks like the real "second coming" of the iPhone. It actually looks to be an upgrade worth buying for those of us with first generation iPhones. I'm excited to see how the rumors pan out.

I fully expect iPhone 3 will take off like a rocket after introduction. By this time next year, I'm predicting the already large installed base of iPhones will have tripled and Apple will be doing quite well, indeed, thanks to iPhone and iTunes sales. Currently, if you remove the iPhone, iPod Touch, and their associated iTunes sales increases from Apple's financial numbers, Apple would have done as poorly as the rest of the tech sector or worse. Instead, they have been relatively untouched by the floundering economy. This new version of the iPhone looks like it will further boost Apple's numbers to amazing levels of health. If you have Apple stock, hold onto it. The iPhone's future looks very bright.

Labels: Apple, iPhone, Music, Opinions, OSX, Predictions, UI, User Interface

Google recently swung a deal where old orphaned works would be scanned onto its servers and made accessible via the Internet. This could make millions of previously out-of-print works instantly accessible to the entire world via web browsers. The works would comprise every type of creative work man produces, from the written word to recordings and films. This may not sound like an Earth-shaking deal to many, but it stirred up an old dream I had about the future of human knowledge on planet Earth.

In the future, I always saw the world using NetSlates. What is a NetSlate? Imagine this. Your personal NetSlate can run for weeks without charging. It has virtually unlimited bandwidth for displaying any type of media. The connection is bi-directional allowing interaction between an unlimited number of these devices in real-time. It has an ultra-high resolution, wide-color gamut display. It has incredible audio capabilities built-in, too. Perhaps it can even project full-color imagery or interfaces in 3 dimensions when it lies flat on a table surface. The device is incredibly thin, perhaps even flexible and weighs next-to-nothing.

Sounds great right? It's like a cross between the most powerful supercomputers, the best graphics workstations, and the lightest, thinnest, tablet PC's available today. Think nuclear-powered Kindle on steroids. Also, think unlimited cheap wireless bandwidth. Ok got the picture?

Now, imagine literally everyone can own a NetSlate because they are dirt cheap. In fact, they're free in many cases because advertisers give ad-supported versions away constantly. They all display basically the same information and media. Our NetSlates are totally compatible with one another because they all feed from open format, world-standard files stored on insanely fast servers connected to the wireless super Internet of the future. This is an idealist future I've babbled on about for a couple of decades to my wife, family, and friends (started thinking about this device back in the pre-WWW "CompuServe" days). I believe this is where we are finally headed now.

For proof, simply put that Google media-scanning deal in the early development context of that not-too-distant future vision of NetSlates. Everyone owns a NetSlate and all the information ever created by mankind is available instantly to all  of us. These early scanning efforts and other efforts by Google to put literally everything online are the baby steps needed to reach that admittedly idealistic NetSlate future.

In fact, the Amazon Kindle could be seen as another of those baby steps toward ubiquitous access to knowledge and the ideal of a futuristic NetSlate. Amazon has 250,000 publications available for the Kindle. Imagine if the device were also a high-speed, non-DRM, unlimited-bandwidth, browsing device pointed directly at Google's scanned-information storehouses. Adding millions more creative works which are currently out of print would make the Kindle vastly more useful than it already is. If Google and Amazon were to combine their future efforts and stick to open worldwide standards, the significance of their separate baby steps would become even more important toward the long-term future of human knowledge.

Imagine a future where bulky books, magazines, cables, and plastic discs are replaced by slim personal devices with always-on, unlimited, wireless connections to limitless media and information. Imagine there literally being no limitations to the information you could explore on your device. The barriers between us would fade as we all gain equal access to all knowledge and information.  Now, that's an exciting future, right? We will absolutely have the technology to do all of this in the not-too-distant future.

Unfortunately, my NetSlate dream will likely never fully happen. Why not? Didn't I just say we'll have the technology? Yes, I did. But technology won't be the limiting aspect of this ideal future. The NetSlate future won't happen because we'll never be given access to the total of human knowledge, no matter how far technology progresses. Knowledge is power, so it just won't happen.

The rich and powerful control the masses by throttling information. They monitor and control the sources, the quantity, the quality, and the accessibility of all information and that is largely how they maintain their power over the middle and lower classes who far out-number them. The NSA and HSA now routinely monitor all information flow, thanks to the laws passed by the scared old men sitting in Congress. Their regular efforts to regulate the Internet are another demonstration. If literally everyone had access to all human knowledge, the most powerful would lose one of their best tools in controlling us. So they will do their best to prevent this ideal future from ever happening. Just watch the news and you'll see it.

For example, those same scared old men in Congress created laws which legalize the extortion of children and grandmothers by rich media companies (like Sony, EMI, Universal, Warner, Disney, Viacom, and others). Those rich media companies now get insane amounts of control over what we do with the products we purchase from them. They take gestapo-like actions against completely innocent individuals and then are not held accountable for their extortion attempts. They aren't even required to provide proof that a law was broken before they begin their extortion and harassment process. In this way, they have more power than the local police.

These rich media companies amuse themselves by bankrupting poor college students who didn't cost them a dime of profit because they couldn't afford the media product to begin with. This tactic often takes a potential college graduate, who would have later purchased products from them for decades, bankrupts them, and puts them out on the street. So, in place of a high-earning college graduate, the rich media companies create a college dropout who hates them and will never purchase another product from them. Why would these media companies do something so stupid? It's all about control. They are blinded by their hunger for power and control, so they shoot themselves in the foot over and over.

Yes, the technology will someday exist to create NetSlates we can all afford. The technology will someday exist to create high-bandwidth wireless connections for those NetSlates which will allow all of us equal access to vast stores of online information. The question is: What information will be available to us when that full-blown technology finally arrives? That's where the bright future of the "NetSlates ideology" falls apart.

It will be the rich and powerful who will kill my dream of "widespread access to all knowledge via NetSlates." It will be the evil efforts of greedy media companies which will kill our future ubiquitous wireless knowledge and media access. Yes, we may get some useful subset of my NetSlate dream, but we will never realize its full-blown potential. We will never be allowed full access to all of human knowledge and creative works. That is the bittersweet reality we live in. Those in power will always control our access.

Labels: Congress, DMCA, EFF, Fair Use, MPAA, Music, Opinions, Predictions, PRO IP, RIAA, UI, User Interface

I've made no secret of my opinions on our current recording industry. I feel the existing record companies have litigated and legislated themselves into being the focus of widespread consumer hatred. They are involved in the most self-destructive activities of any business segment in history. They are dying of self-inflicted wounds and most folks will be happy to see them gone. Everyone hates them.

More importantly, nobody really needs the set of services they provide anymore. The business models they cling to make no sense in the digital age when individual artists can record and distribute their own music nearly as easily as the big companies can and with more control. Times have changed and the record companies haven't.

The only question left unanswered is, "What's next for these failing companies?"

There are some great suggestions floating around the web for taking the recording industry in a new direction, but none I've seen were as workable as the ideas outlined in an open letter posted by Ian Rogers, the former General Manager of Yahoo Music. He wrote this letter to Guy Hands, the boss at EMI. Guy Hands is one of the more forward-looking executives in the music industry, so he is likely to be more open to innovative ideas for his company's future.

In this letter, Mr. Rogers talks about the services recording companies once provided for artists. He then talks about why those services are no longer as valuable as they once were. Finally, he outlines a new set of services the recording companies could provide in order to make themselves relevant again. Let's explore some of his ideas, intermingled with my own of course.

In the "old days," recording companies provided the startup capital needed to make a master recording. Studios were scarce and studio time cost a fortune. The equipment was cost prohibitive and it took very specialized skills to create professional sounding recordings.

In those days, recording companies also provided the cash for duplication and packaging. They paid for the large scale reproduction of the studio recordings, the album artwork, the printing, the packaging, and everything else associated with creating a retail package to put on store shelves.

Recording companies also provided distribution. Back then, shipping cases of heavy vinyl records to stores all over the country became quite expensive and logistically difficult. Although the media became lighter when moving to CDs, the shipping expenses were still huge and it was no easier to coordinate. That was the era of big record store chains and obtaining shelf space for their artists was a major service the record companies provided.

Finally, they did a lot of marketing. In those days, marketing meant getting albums played on the radio. It meant paying for premium placement in retail outlets. It meant creating "point of purchase" displays in the big chain stores. Later, it meant getting the album played on MTV.

All of this was both useful to the artist and very expensive. All of it was necessary. All of it was worth signing a contract turning over most of the income from the album sales to the companies in exchange for the services. It was simply the way things were done back then.

Things are quite different now. In the digital age, professional quality recordings can be done by the artists at home using modern computers and software, all at very low cost. File servers and the Internet make "infinite duplication" as easy as customers clicking "download" on a web page. Album packaging means "tagging" the digital audio file with album artwork. Most of the labor and cost-intensive portions of making an album have been replaced by cheap digital solutions. Even getting the word out is fairly easy in our socially-networked world.

So why do we need the recording companies? Good question.

Really, out of all the services once provided by recording companies, the only one that is still debatably valuable to artists is marketing. Viral word-of-mouth on the Internet makes getting the word out about new releases nearly trivial, but the recording companies can still help the artists in the areas the artists don't want to deal with.

For example, they could provide new types of marketing services that are good for both the artist and the consumer. Create "groups" of artists with similar sounds, styles, or influences. Ian Rogers suggests that these groups be handled as "affinity labels." These are small niche labels that only handle a certain style of music. I personally think this is a brilliant idea.

One way to think of this process is "matchmaking." There is so much music available now that customers need a way to narrow down the selection. In this case, knowing you like one artist at a given affinity label means you can assume you will probably like other artists at the same label. The service provided by the record companies would help customers select music they are almost certain to like. They would be matching artists to consumers, which would help artists sell their music.

In my mind, the affinity label could even be "virtual" and still serve the same purpose. For example, you might call all of your dark, brooding artists, "Onyx" artists. In reality, "Onyx" may only exist as a marketing "tag" you use on web sites. The simple act of tagging an artist as an "Onyx" artist would tell the consumer what to expect and boost the sales of that artist to all "Onyx-loving" consumers.

The recording companies could also provide management services to the artists. Most artists have no desire to do the detailed management associated with multiple income streams from a wide variety of digital distribution sources. Perhaps the companies could provide web-based tools and services for artists to manage their various income streams.

The recording companies could also make it simple for artists to select highly-targeted marketing services or purchase premium placement on music web sites. Put all of these services in one secured location online and make it easy for them to use. The level of automation involved in these services will make it cheap to operate them. If it makes their lives easier, artists will be happy to pony up a percentage of their sales.

The retail and manufacturing aspects of this industry are quickly fading away. It is becoming a pure digital service industry. If the recording companies focus on providing the types of services that are both valuable to artists and helpful to customers, they will reinvent themselves in a way that allows them to persist far into the current century. They will also make good money at it.

In contrast, litigating grandmothers, parents, and children until hundreds of thousands of people are telling everyone they know to stop buying your products is stupid. Treating all of your customers like criminals is a bad idea. Using restrictive DRM only encourages your customers to download illegal DRM-free media instead. Lobbying to restrict Fair Use rights only makes customers hate you for making it illegal to use what they already bought. It's common sense.

This is not the way to do business and certainly not the way to survive. If you spend all of your time doing your best to incite hatred in those who feed you, don't expect them to feel sorry for you when somebody pirates your products. When you make it difficult or impossible to use the products they purchase from you, customers don't want to give you any more of their money and they don't care a bit when you go out of business.

The one common thread in every article I read about the RIAA these days is the belief that a major change is critical for their survival. The RIAA member companies need to pursue an entirely new direction and business model. They need to become service companies instead of product companies. They need to focus on serving the needs of both the artists and the consumers. Only then, do they have any hope of surviving.

Labels: DMCA, Fair Use, Music, PRO IP, RIAA

Here comes the future! As reported in Ars Technica, the independent music labels are gaining some power with an organization they created last year called "Merlin." This new "virtual music label" has only been accepting applicants for about a month and they have already signed 12,000 labels! Perhaps they will become the blueprint of future music labels for the digital age.

It is a fact that the combined releases from independent labels outnumber the combined releases from the four major labels by 4 to 1. In the past, however, they haven't been able to wield the power to push those releases through sales channels as well as the "big four" labels because there are too many companies to deal with. So, despite accounting for 80 percent of all new releases, the independent labels presently only account for under 28 percent of total sales. With Merlin, that could soon change.

As mentioned earlier, Merlin has signed up over 12,000 independent labels in the past month or so, giving music distributors and services a single source for negotiating deals or music distribution licenses. This combined size will allow Merlin to negotiate the same sorts of deals only the major labels could get before now. This will be a boon to independent labels and their artists.

This will also make it much easier for places like iTunes and MySpace Music to carry a vast selection of music from independent labels. In fact, Merlin is already working out deals with many of the biggest players in the online music scene. Look for a steady stream of announcements to start appearing over the coming months.

In the past, there has always been discrimination against independents in the royalty amounts they could negotiate. They were second class citizens in a sense, while the "Big Four" labels carried more clout and got the sweetest deals. Hopefully, this will change now that Merlin carries the clout of nearly 28% of the total market share.

While I see this as a great step toward the music industry of the future, there are still some troubling issues. For example, some of the Merlin member companies (like Concord or Rough Trade) are also RIAA reporting companies. Granted they aren't the Big Four companies running and financing the RIAA, but they are still affiliated, however loosely. This makes me nervous about their future intentions and direction.

The ideal situation in my mind would be if Merlin maintained its distance from the RIAA and its consumer-hating activities. I would like to see them set themselves up as the new music label for "the rest of us." I'd love to see them treat their artists, labels, and consumers with respect rather than extreme suspicion and disdain. This means no DRM and no litigious primary focus.

I'll be watching how Merlin develops as a music company and you can expect to see further updates on their activities as their intentions become more clear. For now, I'm hopeful that this is the beginning of a new era for music lovers everywhere.

Labels: Merlin, Music, RIAA