On BoingBoing, there’s a thread talking about “the alarming number of lawyers being appointed by the Obama administration to the Department of Justice” and how this means “Bad news for people who believe in copyright reform, and greater freedom to share, remix, and reuse content online.”.

One of the quotes cited in support of the argument reads:

First off, there’s the #3 man at Justice, Thomas Perrelli, accurately described by CNET as “beloved by the RIAA“. Not only has this guy been on the wrong side in the courtroom, he’s fingered as instrumental in convincing the Copyright Board to strangle Web radio in its crib by imposing impossible fee structures.

I don’t agree with “strangl[ing] Web radio in its crib”. Web radio can go on so long as you share copies of tracks from the publishers/artists that let you share. Magnatune has an impressive catalog of tracks you can share under one of the Creative Commons licenses. They treat their artists well, licensing from them non-exclusively and giving them a bigger cut of the take per track than any RIAA label. Magnatune doesn’t play favorites amongst their artists (whereas RIAA labels give superstars like Britney Spears and The Rolling Stones far better deals than just-signed artists). Magnatune’s feeds won’t go away if the big corporate publishers’ tracks become unaffordable to rebroadcast. You and I can rebroadcast Magnatune’s stuff in our own feeds and radio stations. I’m guessing that Magnatune isn’t the only place doing this kind of thing either, they just happen to be an organization I have learned about.

We don’t benefit from identifying “web radio” solely with the RIAA label tracks that aren’t licensed for us to share. It would be a minor unfortunate outcome to not be able to afford to rebroadcast the most popular tracks; hardly the end of web radio. This might end up turning out to be a way to push people into getting interested in media that treats them better—media licensed to share and build upon.
Continue reading →

Apple says they’ll drop the DRM on all iTunes tracks. Other music distributors (some which sell the same tracks as iTunes) have already done this. Dropping DRM on iTunes tracks would be less onerous than the current arrangement where some iTunes tracks still have DRM. But how do DRM-free iTunes tracks compare with Magnatune? What does that mean for you as a music listener? Should you do business with organizations that treats you badly?

What is DRM?

DRM are technical schemes that are designed to restrict what computer users can do with their computers. The acronym “DRM” means different things depending on the frame of reference with which you approach these restrictions. When viewed from the perspective of the user, DRM focuses on what users are not allowed to do with the work. Hence, from the user’s perspective “DRM” means “digital restrictions management”. Publishers who seek to limit what users can do think of “DRM” as “digital rights management” because publishers don’t want you to think about restrictions are in place or their effect on the many users these restrictions are designed to disenfranchise.

There’s no limit to what can be restricted by DRM schemes (anymore than there’s a limit to the kinds of computer programs programmers can write or images artists can sketch on paper) and one is not better off to understand freedom-related issues like DRM in terms of specific restrictions. But to give a few examples, DRM schemes include methods of stopping people from running arbitrary programs, installing software on computers, playing media files, restricting seeking around in movies (say, to jump to a particular scene without first watching ads), preventing playing movies DVDs in certain DVD players, and reducing how you can use media (editing and sharing playlists, for example).

Without DRM, you could decide how many times you wanted to burn copies to physical media, make useful copies for yourself that you could play back later, skip around in the file without restriction when you play the file back, or play from any device capable of reading the file. Without DRM, there’s no danger that technological restrictions will be imposed on you later; the files will not become less playable later on. With DRM-free media there’s no need to invoke special programs do these things. Your purchases are truly yours to play as you wish anywhere at any time. With DRM, the publisher can limit all of these things and more depending only on how much effort they’re willing to put into implementing such restrictions.

So when we hear that Apple is dropping DRM on their iTunes tracks, we should put this in perspective not just for Apple users but anyone who enjoys any kind of media. We should better understand what the alternatives are so we don’t step into a well-advertised trap.
Continue reading →

The Free Software Foundation (FSF) alleges that Cisco, famous for making equipment used to route data around the Internet, has infringed on the FSF’s copyright in numerous programs used in their Internet routing equipment marketed under the Linksys brand (read the complaint and more background about the case).

It’s important to note some differences between how the FSF handles copyright infringement and what the FSF does in their everyday work from other famous copyright infringement litigators:

• Not jumping into litigation lightly. The FSF tried to work with Cisco for 5 years but new copyright infringement issues came to the FSF’s attention faster than Cisco would resolve old infringement issues.
• The FSF was initially silent about the issue. No press release, nothing aimed at embarrassment as far as I can tell; the FSF knows that you can often gain compliance with an inquiry about the issue and some advice on how to comply with the license. The FSF aims to fix practical problems and they have a strong record to point to should anyone question their sincerity. The FSF knows they have the courts to fall back on, but why take that long and expensive route when being nice will do the job?
• No threats of suing Cisco into insolvency. Unlike the RIAA and MPAA which seek maximum penalties against poor individuals regardless of the actual value of the alleged infringement, the FSF first seeks license compliance in their copyright infringement cases. And Cisco is a multinational corporation worth billions of dollars, not a person!
• The FSF builds on strengths by licensing to share. This means the FSF is helping distribute copyrighted works that don’t promote a culture of separation and helplessness like proprietary software distributors do. Anyone who infringes copyright of works intended to be shared and improved immediately gains sympathy because infringers are working against building a better world and treating nice people harshly.
• Get your facts straight before you litigate. Don’t risk coming off as a jerk by treating serious litigation frivolously and suing the wrong people as the RIAA has done.

A few years ago at Roger Ebert’s “Ebertfest”, a movie festival in Urbana, Illinois, I was proud to tell Jack Valenti, former head of the Motion Picture Association of America, and the assembled crowd that copyright infringement can be handled differently; one can work with alleged infringers to help build a mass of public support ready to stand by the copyright holder instead of the alleged infringer. I specifically noted how the FSF and other free software advocates handle allegations of infringement because nothing is stronger than a working example (“running code” as Eben Moglen points out). I don’t think these points were lost on the late Valenti or on the crowd; the public is increasingly aware of ordinary people being pushed into insolvency by RIAA/MPAA lawsuits. Fueling public anger, some of those lawsuits are filed without regard to the facts on the ground.

I’m still proud of the FSF’s behavior. I hope you will join me in helping the FSF by becoming a member and by running more free software.

In a discussion of Defective by Design’s DRM boycott on Boing Boing, David Mershon asks, “I understand why they feel the need to do this, they consider phrases like “Digital Rights Management” to be Orwellian doublespeak, but I think this kind of private language prevents effective outreach. Why not just say “DRM” and be done with it?”

No user likes DRM. What Cory Doctorow said about Sony is really true for all DRM: “No Sony customer woke up one morning and said, “Damn, I wish Sony would devote some expensive engineering effort in order that I may do less with my music.””. Expanding the DRM acronym (to mean “digital restrictions management” or “digital rights management”) is a matter of what side you’re on. If you’re on the user’s side, the side that says you ought to be able to treat stuff you bought as your own, you’ll not forget that “digital rights management” is “private language” as well. It’s language that exists to promulgate the publisher’s perspective instead of the user’s perspective thus reframing the debate to getting us to believe that our needs are less important or completely ignorable. The thing that makes DRM interesting to publishers is how well it can restrict users from doing what users want to do. Hence digital restrictions management is a more honest way of looking at what DRM means.

I don’t find that this language prevents outreach at all. I find that if you take the time to learn what the viewpoints are and explain them to those who don’t know, people will listen. I understand software freedom and I come across DRM restrictions every day in my work. When my clients at work are adversely affected they ask me what gives—why can’t they work with the media they legally obtained as they had in the past when they bought books, LPs, and cassettes. I explain how DRM works to them using examples of what they just experienced and they understand why I expand DRM to “digital restrictions management” and listen when I explain how to seek out computers and media that are DRM-free.

New Mac hardware won’t display certain movies on all video display hardware. Apple uses DRM to restrict the user from sending the video to any device the user wants. The details of the restriction—exactly which monitors will work as users expect and which won’t—misses a larger point: when you run proprietary software or accept hobbling hardware who is in control of your computer, you or the proprietor? I should be able to play my media on any of my devices anywhere at any time for any reason. I should be allowed to transcode my media to anything I like without restriction, sync to any of my devices I like using any free software I want (another activity Apple apparently doesn’t like), and make as many copies for my own use as I want including unhobbled copies without encryption, region coding, and so on (in order to maximize the chances I can play it back later). I should be allowed to share the fruits of my knowledge with others. I should be free to take full advantage of my fair use and first sale rights (George Hotelling’s experience illustrates this is hard with DRM and ultimately only possible with the proprietor’s consent). Apparently Apple is down with Hollywood’s program on all of this and consumer analysis typically interprets events as if it’s my job to look out for Apple (“what are they gonna do?” as another poster said). Their business goals are not in my interest nor are those goals my responsibility or concern. So I won’t give them my money.

The BBC is doing more important work for everyone to enjoy:

• Dirac is a way of turning video into data and data back into video (called a “codec” for “compressor-decompressor”). But there are tons of video codecs out there (MPEG codecs, Theora, Sorenson, etc.) so what’s the big difference with Dirac? Dirac is licensed for all to share (they make a point of repeating this in their promo video for Dirac, and for good reason). Unlike MPEG, Dirac puts no licensing restrictions or patent encumbrances in your way. You can use Dirac as you wish. You can even build a business on Dirac if you want, selling your Dirac-based software and charging for services. And on the technical side, Dirac is extremely high quality. Check out the sample Dirac videos and see for yourself; sending Dirac compressed video over extant networks is very useful. Being able to do so without giving up your software freedom is priceless. The current version of VideoLAN Client will play Dirac out of the box. My 10-year old computer (which runs fine on free software) might get upgraded so I can do more with this codec. The BBC recommends using Ogg Vorbis or FLAC as a soundtrack with Dirac and this will leave you with a movie file that requires no patent licenses to play. Upcoming digital movie theater systems will probably use Dirac too.
• New user-friendly BBC free software is coming too (screenshots on their blog). Let’s hope that the shows they distribute are licensed to share (at least verbatim and non-commercially) so you can directly help people see the cool stuff you discover by sending them a copy. Miro has been doing something similar for a long time now, but not everything distributed with Miro is licensed to share and unencumbered by patents (which isn’t Miro’s fault, they don’t control what people distribute). I wouldn’t be surprised if the new BBC shows appear in Miro soon too.

Read more about the BBC work on their blog.

Bruce Byfield is writing good sense about free software, and he asks a good question: do we have the will to pursue our freedom or will we settle for something less than full control of our computers? We should want freedom not just because it gives us all sorts of practical advantages but because we can treat other people with the respect they deserve too. We can share with friends, even if we’re not terribly technical users (that’s what aggravates proprietary software developers, or so we’re told). One can’t ethically defend constraining another’s freedom to share and modify even if one has no interest in doing so.

John Buckman at Magnatune.com has updated the Magnatune home page to include the 100 most recently released albums at Magnatune. This should make it easier to find their latest music if you visit their homepage.

How does Magnatune treat you right? They offer their catalog:

• at a sliding scale (US$5-18 as I write this) where you determine the price you want to pay (for tracks, albums, catalog streams and downloads too),
• under licenses that let you share the music,
• they give the artist half the money you spend with them (more on Magnatune’s business model),
• in DRM-free formats which don’t require you to give up your software freedom (including Ogg Vorbis and FLAC, a free lossless audio compression format for those who insist on the best quality recordings available),
• online at no charge so you can try before you buy,
• in ways that work with music players (I use Rhythmbox but I hear some people prefer Amarok),
• with no hassle redownloads—give them your email address when you buy tracks and give them that address again when you need a new copy of the tracks you bought. Magnatune will list the stuff you bought and you’re a click away from getting a new copy. No three-times-onlyone-time-only restores like what Apple told Wil Wheaton when he “upgraded” the software on his iPod as per Apple’s directions.

Try some new music from a record label that’s not out to sue you when you treat friends like friends.

Update (2008-12-25): Magnatune has sweetened the deal with their subscription all-you-can-eat model by reducing the minimum subscription period to 1 month. Since you pay for the subscription per month, this change basically eliminates the minimum subscription period.

Putting to rest any belief about the market being “free”, US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson announced another taxpayer-sponsored bailout of an American corporation yesterday. Reminiscent of the recent Bear Stearns bailout, the beneficiaries are also private corporations: Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Together, Fannie and Freddie own or guarantee just under half of the country’s $12 trillion in mortgage debt:

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are so large and so interwoven in our financial system that a failure of either of them would cause great turmoil in the financial markets here at home and around the globe. This turmoil would directly and negatively impact household wealth, from family budgets to home values, to savings for college and retirement. A failure would affect the ability of Americans to get home loans, auto loans and other consumer credit and business finance. And a failure would be harmful to economic growth and job creation. That is why we have taken these actions today.Henry Paulson, 8 September 2008

A free market would allow all mismanaged business to fail and their higher-ups suffer the slings and arrows of competition, just like the government routinely does for small businesses. So the question is who gets the benefit of business-friendly government largesse, not whether we have a free market.

[W]e’re watching the death of the free market ideology. It hasn’t been announced. But increasingly, the policies, the way we talk, the way we make legislation all but formally abandons the notion that the market can do it right, the government will do it wrong, and that government intervention is a bad idea. It turns out that government intervention is a bad idea, unless you want and need money from the government, in which case it becomes a fine idea, and bring on the government cash. So it might be unfortunate when somebody who’s having a tough time in their life wants a free piece of cheese, but when a bunch of executives want a free $100 billion, it turns out that’s the kind of government intervention we can all get behind, we can all believe in.Max Fraad Wolff (audio, video, transcript)