The GazerBlog

Loreena McKennitt has written an op-ed in the Winnipeg Free Press with her views on copyright.   I have a lot of respect for her talent and her opinions on the matter, though her particular style of music hasn’t graced my library to date as I’ve paid my money to other artists so far.   I must respectfully note that she doesn’t get it with piracy.  As a computer professional, well versed in security, encryption and distribution, as well as the cost of piracy on the goods I produce I will say this.

TPM doesn’t get in the way of pirates.  (TPM == DRM == Digital Locks == Hardware Locks)   Pirates blow these systems wide open in a matter of weeks or less in most cases.   For proof, look at the DeCSS for playing DVDs on Linux.   The DVDs had at the time somewhat decent protection measures.   They were circumvented in weeks.  The DMCA in the United States (the copyright reform act south of the 49th) attempted to outlaw the breaking of locks as well.   They did, and it had minimal to no effect on the pirating criminals, but did make it impossible for people to purchase a DVD and watch it on a free software operating system like Linux because the Linux OS does not have a licensed player that implements the decryption system legally.   There is DeCSS and related products that remove the lock to play the disc, but according to the law, the use of that product, even to do what is considered by most people to be a normal, lawful act, that of playing and enjoying a DVD that you legally purchased, is illegal because they are not using a secondary system, being a DVD player, that was built according to the digital lock providing body.

Ms. McKennitt’s views are here at the link below.   Have a read and please continue.   I want a balanced presentation to you here.

Pirates are killing musicians, composers, lyricists, even popcorn vendors – Winnipeg Free Press

Unfortunately, there seems to be some linguistic nuance I can’t grasp that equates digital music piracy with decreased concert attendance.   I really, REALLY don’t follow that logic.   Pirates will break or avoid the lock, or pull a crappy recording via analog tech or using an “illegal” player (they are already breaking the copyright law that exists today by distributing illegal copies) and continue on their way.   The fans and people that buy the music will be locked into whatever hardware gear the artist/label/publisher uses, and if the artist/label/publisher decides to change the hardware provider and TPM, under Ms. McKennitt’s view and under the C-32 wording as it exists, are out of luck and need to buy another copy of the same work to continue to enjoy the already-purchased work.   This is the same work.  You just went from needing a “Vendor/TPM provider A” unit to needing a “Vendor/TPM provider B” unit.

Apparently, that’s perfectly fine with Loreena McKennitt.  I think most of us feel that is totally unfair and results in the consumer/fan/customer being held hostage to format shifts, as well as competing standards based not on merit but on arbitrary digital lock technology.

Note that none of this has anything to do with going to concerts.   I used to enjoy going to concerts.   Concerts used to cost about as much as a movie admission or two.   Now it’s closer to about 8 or 9 of those admissions, even with the price increases.   It’s not as easy a discretionary purchase.   Most importantly, going to a concert is not always about the live listening experience.   With large acts that are in stadiums, the sound quality if horrible anyway, and you get far better audio experience with a CD or DVD-Audio or digital high-quality playing in a quality sound system.   The concerts are about a live performance and that, increasingly, is pretty marginal by artists or alternately so over the top and outrageous is has little relation to the act as the work portrays.

You want a great concert?   I’d recommend Rush.   Excellent music, but the overall experience, the alterations to the live performance, the interaction, that is great showmanship.   Of course, that was a long time ago as their tickets have also gone through the roof.

You want to get people to the venue and buying the popcorn?   Leave them some money after paying for the tickets to *buy* the popcorn.   And look at not using Ticketmaster and other middlemen that add ridiculous sums of money to the cost to your fans’ enjoyment of your live work.

Finally, stating that fans have a license to listen is disrespectful to those that support her livelihood.   The customers purchase a copy of the work, and they have the right to enjoy that copy for their own private enjoyment.   To that point, the difference between the license concept and the copy concept is minimal.   The issue is the idea that the control of how long I can enjoy that purchased copy or on what sort of equipment I can enjoy it is up to the copyright holder in the idea of a license, where the idea of the copy says it’s none of their business, it is up to me and how I live my life in the privacy of my own home.

I write software.   Software is as prone to piracy as music, and has been pirated for as long as mix tapes have existed.   Software is also how these digital locks are implemented into the hardware.   I’ll tell you right now, the problem is nearly intractable trying to make a secure trusted system that is in the hands of a potential infringer.   If the device can play the media, the device can be reverse engineered in the hands of a determined party, and the security can be compromised.   Feel free to read John Carmack’s take on it.   The solutions are terribly invasive, expensive and generally have the effect of really pissing those of us off that paid your wages to enjoy your work.

You want to decrease piracy?   Punish the pirates for distributing the copyrighted work.   You can do that already, you don’t need TPM, you don’t need C-32, you have the laws for that already.   Increase the penalties as further deterrent but enforce the law.   C-32 is a good law except for the TPM protection for non-infringing use. Let those of us that own the work enjoy it privately how we see fit.   Grant us that as our “license right” if you really need to attach yourself to that idea, and you can keep the TPM legal protection when the break of the TPM is done in order to infringe copyright.  Then everybody is happy and you aren’t telling us how to enjoy music, movies, and other digital works in the comfort of our homes.

If you think that isn’t fair to you as an artist, I accuse you of overestimating your value to your customers and further state that I believe you are willing to extort and exploit your customers as much as you can for money, because that’s all that the TPM protection for non-infringing use can ever accomplish.

I enjoy Loreena McKennitt’s work on the radio, and I have come close to buying an album on iTunes.  I have no copies of any of her work and I will never have any unless I pay her for them.   But at this point, if that’s how she feels about her fans, about her customers…..   I will not count myself among them.

A concise and worthy summary of the situation of Bill C-32 and just how misguided that one critical clause is.   Doctorow is exceedingly well-spoken on the matter, as well as in a position as a very popular creator to speak with authority on the intent of the law from his perspective.

Canada’s copyright laws show Britain’s digital legislation is no exception | Cory Doctorow | Technology | guardian.co.uk

It is amazing that the bill is really only receiving serious objection on the one issue, but that one issue overrides all of the good aspects of the bill by placing the control squarely in the hands of the device manufacturers and thereby misplacing the control of the content as Doctorow points out.   This creates an artificial inefficiency in the marketplace for all you hard-core capitalists out there, and the business models the public is getting ticked off by (Apple’s closed one-source-only app store, DVD protection, eBook protection, Cell phone locking) are all from this one simple law.   If it were legal to break the locks for personal non-infringing use or for interoperability to create alternative competition, then there would be little objection, and there would likely be solid consumer-friendly and market-expanding alternatives too all of these closed environments.

I’m quite alarmed that our own minister feels that those that oppose a proposed piece of legislation are labelled “radical extremists” as quoted in this article on canoe.ca:

International trade group calls on G20 to act on piracy

So if you look at the list Michael Geist quickly cobbled together, over here you get the impression that Minister Moore is basically trying to throw an inflammatory label out to quell the healthy public debate that is rapidly gaining momentum in the country.

He states the opposition hasn’t tabled any proposed amendments.   Not yet.   But then, we shouldn’t comment on the bill before it was introduced, even in principled discussion, so perhaps he shouldn’t comment on amendments that may or may not be released in the future.

The debate centres around the legal removal or circumvention of digital locks for legal use.   If that was in there, this wouldn’t even be a debate, but instead, Minister Moore sided with the nonsense the USA put together in the DMCA act that says you will live and consume the way the companies want you to in your own home even after you’ve paid for your media, regardless of what they do to the media or devices, including when you just want to enjoy it privately and legally in your home.

Focus on the crime.  Punish the act of distribution of copyrighted material without permission and counterfeiting, and quit kicking the crap out of those of us trying to support the industry and artists.

The C-32 bill is actually pretty decent.   In fact, it’s more frustrating that it is so CLOSE to being a fair, reasonable and modernized copyright bill that balances copyright protections and consumer rights that it’s all the more frustrating in falling short.

If you want to know what we’re facing, look here.   As usual Michael Geist puts a solid summary together.  The big pain is, as usual and has been the pain the US for almost 10 years, DRM.   This really should be a non-issue, but C-32 is put together that ANY breaking of a digital lock is illegal.   Even if it’s your legally purchased property and you are looking to gain access to it for legal home use and/or transfer between devices, or if say you have lost or misplaced your key for accessing it.   That’s all illegal.   Basically, that’s like saying if you cut the padlock on your own shed because you broke the key off, you’re going to jail for Break and Enter.   How archaic is our thinking that we arrive at that sort of law?

Why is this a pain?   I’ll show you what industry does with DRM.   I have a number of eBooks.   All except one are DRM free.   Some are watermarked with my name in them (Pragmatic Programmers) and others are just unprotected (O’Reilly).   Hundreds of dollars of books.  I’ve never made them available to anyone, nor do I plan to unless I were to sell one and transfer the rights and delete the copies on my machines.   These are great books.   I want the authors to write more.   I want the authors to support their families.   I pay for the books and I protect their rights by not distributing them illegally.   They trust me and I can drag them into various eReader applications as I see fit based on the features of the eReaders, not on what DRM scheme they support.

The other book?   The lone tome causing me angst and showing just how much contempt the industry has for customers (and that C-32 has for customers as a result)?   Rework by the crew at 37Signals.   It’s protected with Adobe’s Digital Editions DRM.   As a result, I must use Adobe D.E. software on my Mac to download and read it on my Mac, and kobobooks.com eReader (where I purchased it) to read it on my iPad or iPhone.   Every other book I have in either Stanza on the iPhone, read it as a PDF on my Mac (I can download all the other books in either PDF or ePUB as I choose, including both formats for different machines) or using iBooks on the iPad (and soon iPhone).   Kobobooks is a junk reader in my opinion.   Formatting is poor, options are weak, but most of all, I now have one book on a bookshelf in kobobooks and all the rest in iBooks.

Why?   DRM.   Imagine buying a book and you can only put it on a Chapter’s bookshelf at home.   All your other books can go on any shelf you want, or on the desk or coffee table.   Of course, if you also get books from Amazon delivered, they need their own shelf too if they use DRM and usually it’s proprietary, so each book vendor has their own bookshelf in this metaphor.

So.   This all helps reduce piracy though right?

Well, if you google DRM-free Ebook and the titles, you usually get a lot of hits on torrents, and how-tos to remove the DRM.  Which while I wasn’t about to break the law even though I am in the right in most people’s opinion on this issue, the people that pirate are very unlikely to be deterred.

So as usual, the DRM just creates a pile of inconvenience and irritation to those of us that actually are willing to support the authors.   kobobooks.com is now on the list with Amazon as places that don’t trust their customers though.   And that list doesn’t tend to get a lot of repeat business from me.   Amazon never gets ebook business from me, just hardcopy.

Because that can go on any shelf I want it to.

It’s about time our laws worked in the interest of the consumer for once.

CTV Calgary- Apple could be in violation of provincial laws – CTV News

As a side note, you can now gift applications between accounts and it appears the terms of service have changed to allow allowances and gift cards to buy anything on the store including applications but I have not verified this as yet.   If you know, please pass it along.   This proves it was Apple that was disallowing the sale via gift cards, probably due to internal process or accounting, as I was suspecting, not Canadian law as they had claimed at one point.

Win for the Canuck consumers.   Better service as a result from Apple.

UPDATE:   iPhoneInCanada notes that the gift cards now do work for apps and all goodness in the Canadian iTunes Store.   Huzzah!   At last!  Read the story here.

I’m frankly amused at the way reporters will do anything to sensationalize.   I will hold this one up and link to is as I’m sure it’s more damaging than helpful overall, but hey, he wrote it.  Keep in mind when you read about this reporter switching to iPhone, it’s based on a demo of a phone, web benchmarks, and something he cannot even hold in his hand, based on the demonstration by the company that built it.   That’s critical reporting?

Sayonara, iPhone: Why I’m Switching to Android – Techtonic Shifts Blog – Newsweek.com: “

Now, I will say a few things in Google’s favour.   They are doing things right.   They are putting out solid technology, and opening it up for many vendors.   They are going where the market is with Flash, and in general they have in other areas reached the bar Apple put out there.

What’s wrong with that?   Nothing.   I love competition.   I am an Apple fan, developer and user of their technology, but they have issues.   I don’t like the unclear policies on the app store most of all.   I don’t like that they snubbed the Mac devs this year by not having Mac app Apple Design Awards, just iPad and iPod.   But let’s look at the “advantages” Google is claiming.

Flash – Yup.  Only mobile device doing it.   In Beta.   2 years plus after Adobe promised it.   After many larger web properties have started switching to H.264 and HTML5 already.  Advantage?   I suppose so.   Not a selling point on my list.   I have installed click-to-flash on my laptop and the amount of crap that suddenly doesn’t get loaded by default on pages is astounding.   I’m sure the advertisers will soon move that to HTML5 but I’ll enjoy my bliss in the mean time.

Speed – This is sitting around a demo by google covered here by TechCrunch (who are a lot more objective about it all).   It is a lot faster than the iPhone rendering a web page with a bunch of javascript.   Based largely on the javascript engine in Froyo/Andriod 2.2 that is indeed a lot faster.   Googles been working on that for a while, and it’s their bread and butter, so kudos on good tech.   Note to Newsweek, that doesn’t make the device faster, it shows that the device is faster running a javascript benchmark.   Real world scenarios are likely to be improved, but are limited to javascript and are unlikely to be as dramatic.

Tethering – Blame AT&T on that.  The rest of the world has been tethering to their iPhones since iPhone 3.0 came out last year.   The device works just fine doing it thanks.   No win there for Android.  Loss for Apple having a very, very poor wireless carrier in the USA.

It’s outselling the iPhone, yup, as it is likely to do on introduction to a tech-savvy crowd that hasn’t wanted to use the iPhone.   It’s a different market at the outset.   A LOT of technology people will jump on Android 2.2 and roll with it.   It will succeed as another major mobile platform.   So will iPhone.   And Apple will adjust and compete.   It’s not the Apple of the 80s, contrary to most of the press wishing they would gaffe up as badly so they could sell more ink like they did in the 80s.

I’m quite glad there’s a credible competitor out there at last.   It will help all of us who use the devices, and develop for the devices.   That’s the benefit.   The mobile phone companies and carriers are what held the industry back for so long, and now that Apple and Google are in there and going hard, we’re going to see much better devices and applications in our hands.   That’s what matters.

For my preference, I’ll wait a while and see how the open Android system evolves.   It’s version 2.2 notice, and there wasn’t a lot of press about the first 1.0-2.1 that was all that glowing.   Glad they got it mostly right at last.  The race will be between an open system with many hardware manufacturers trying to differentiate themselves for advantage with the same software (much like the Windows computer market) vs. an integrated device manufacturer that controls the stack and experience soup-to-nuts (the Apple phone and iPad market).  I think Apple will open up the app store a bit, but after people are tired of fighting with their tech, it will be interesting to see how Google avoids the platform fragmentation that has plagued them to date, and if they can avoid competing with their phone partners… wait… no they already released their own phone after they said they wouldn’t.

Google is a bunch of very bright people great at technology.   I’m not convinced they are all that good at consumer experience though.   Other than in search, and that is even seeing some cracks.   Personally I’m tired of everything being “Beta” for years or changed on a whim if you company is relying on it, no notice, no option.   It’s more of having to fix and adjust to technology than having technology help you get your real work done.   Google needs to get serious about their customers.

Edit:   John Gruber puts together a solid summary (as usual) and also points out with more clarity as I alluded to that Microsoft is the market model Google is using, and as a result, he notes Google may have taken Microsoft out of the mobile game, at least for a roun http://daringfireball.net/2010/05/post_io_thoughts

The original article is at:

Michael Geist – PMO Issues The Order: Canadian DMCA Bill Within Six Weeks

Our Prime Minister has, if Mr. Geist is right (and he’s usually well connected enough to be right), ignored a full public consultation, completely discounted studies and findings that show the DMCA is ineffective and a pile of public opinion looking for some fair dealing with consumer rights balancing the protection of copyright.

That’s to say nothing of the simple fact that objective organizations have stated clearly that Canada is not a piracy haven, and the only thing saying that we are is a list by the US, reference it here (Reuters) that pegs us at $710M in piracy, and China at $3.5B.

The Industry Association that put this nonsense out wants Canada to support the law enforcement agencies to allow seizing of counterfeit goods and pirated products.   Maybe they should read the news.  We don’t need garbage laws for that, we already explicitly prohibit those actions and prosecute the commercial piracy activities.

Perhaps our Prime Minister and Industry Minister should read those and keep them well in mind before they do anything foolish like pass a lobby-group-written industry-centric bill on copyright reform in Canada and cost themselves a pile of votes and goodwill.

Mr. Geist encourages us to write our MPs, the PM, the ministers, and the Liberal leader to inspire some further thought and perhaps give Mr. Ignatieff a clue on a platform (although the Liberals also tried to pass such nonsense previously in a bill as well).     Don’t let the government pass a bill that essentially allows the recording groups and motion picture associations to exploit us at will with DRM and format changes on material we already paid for.   This is more punishment for the honest consumer, and a way for an industry to double- and triple-charge their customers for the same material.

Buy your music from the artists direct when you can.  Support artists that are looking for a fair business model like these.   Look for artists on iTunes that are their own labels or full indies.   iTunes removed all the DRM at last remember, and have always ensured a policy of fair use.

Finally, get ready to remove a government if they decide that the country-wide consultations were meaningless theatre they conducted rather than the extensive policy-forming process they claimed it was.

So, I was looking to get one of my old Fido phones unlocked for use as I travel. Trick is it’s a Nokia 5200. Apparently those can ONLY be unlocked by the provider. So I phoned Fido and wended through their voice menus and wait times to talk to a technical representative.

The will not unlock the phone. The quote from the rep was “We don’t have the unlock codes. Please check page 2 of your invoice for the conditions on your phone. We don’t provide unlock codes.

Generally, it’s in the contract and all, and that’s fine, but I feel ripped off as the phone is paid for in full with the outrageous contract terms they bind us to, and at the end, you don’t own the phone, you own a crippled phone that only works on their network.

The CRTC does nothing on this. In Germany, it was actually illegal to lock a phone, and if locked, the providers must unlock it for the customer at no charge on request.

As usual, we totally get screwed in Canada by the cell providers. Fido isn’t likely any different from anyone else. They all treat the customer base with complete contempt. Apple is no better in this aspect by locking the iPhones to carriers as well. It’s outrageous. Device locking should be limited and/or banned when the phone is paid for (contract terms fulfilled) or when the device is purchased outright.

Thanks for nothing Fido. Count on never having my business again.

Over at: The York Osgoode law school, a preliminary analysis of the Canadian Copyright Consultation has been posted by Richard Owens. If you have been following this matter here and with Michael Geist and others, it’s a worthwhile read of his main analysis. Unfortunately, I think it’s also a call back to “business-as-usual” lawmaking, and dismisses some very valid submissions. There are legit concerns with some of the process, but overall, removing the form letters, by Owens’ count it’s 333 Against C-61. Owens dismisses that by citing the lobby groups in favour of it represent “hundreds of thousands of Canadians”. I can’t help but think, on an individual basis of those outside the industry those groups represent, the ones the law affects, what level of support 333 people taking the time to write an individual submission represent, in contrast to apparently no individual submissions in favour of it? It’s an open consultation, so those supporting it should be vocal as well, though likely on a lesser scale given the social dynamics, but even Owens didn’t submit apparently according to one commenter.

The WIPO issue is very interesting in that the bulk of the opposition was from the CCER, which Owens discounts as a lobby group. I think it’s a pretty legitimate lobby group personally, though Owens’ comments around the validation of submissions have some credibility. Citizen groups are never going to be as funded or as organized as the industry lobby groups. That’s why citizens don’t usually get represented properly in the law-making process. In my opinion, Mr. Owens suggests that process if fine and should continue. My full response (still awaiting moderation on the site as I write this) follows:

The biggest concern I have with Mr. Owens’ analysis is that there is a prevalent tone that the copyright matters should be decided by well-informed, involved parties, which, as history shows, tend to be special interest lobby groups and lawyers. The is one reason we wound up with a copyright levy for blank media that taxes everyone for use of a data backup device whether or not they use it to infringe copyright law. It is the equivalent to placing a tax on blank paper as it may be used with photocopiers or scanners and printers to infringe copyright law of printed material.

I have submitted my own writings to the honourable ministers on this matter, and I am a concerned citizen as well as a musician and software developer. Thus I span both sides of the issue, and while I am not a lawyer or likely in the group of people Mr. Owens is likely referring to in understanding the law completely, these laws do affect every Canadian that utilizes digital media, and as such, the deserve at the most fundamental level the right to be heard and participate in the making of this policy that governs their lives. This attitude that because a citizen is not a master of laws that they should not be represented and participate in the process is the attitude of elitists, and smacks of authoritarianism.

The laws are not for industry Mr. Owens, they are for all of society. Intellectual property law is to justly and fairly reward creators for their work while allowing the dissemination, enjoyment and fair use of those properties when purchased by a consumer. Going into patents further brings a responsibility to benefit society by that sharing.
There are errors in all processes, and in all laws. Those errors cannot be corrected or even fully understood behind closed doors with small subsets of lawyers, lobbyists and corporate representatives as it most often removes the consumer. There is no balance in such a system, and such a system will not improve our laws and processes.

Mr. Owens’ analysis claims that he is in line with Mr. Geist on the process needing to be “open and representative” to be legitimate. The issue is the comment he makes that “Much more useful is to solicit the opinions of the members of the communities that are truly informed.” Who decides who is “informed enough” Mr. Owens? We all live in this country, and many will be affected by this law, and have been affected by those that come before it. Too often have the industry groups steered the laws without public input or consultation. I would submit the CCER submissions are an indicator that people are listening and taking an interest this time, and as it is public policy, they have a right to express those views.

I daresay the majority of the submissions were people that were informed to a degree and understood the issue much more clearly and fully compared to the understanding most voters have of the issues when they go to the polls. Taken in public policy perspective, there are concerns with the process, but it represents a much more involved voice than has been seen prior.

Currently playing in iTunes: Orange Crush by R.E.M. (As always, fully paid for and legally acquired, regardless of what the industry thinks is really happening out here. I support the artists.)

Well, the new year is here and it seems that Wal*Mart’s supplier might finally be running out of mercy from the rest of the world. China is basically screwing up what portions of the world economy work to restore trade imbalances and it’s been working their way for a long time now. A columnist from the NY Times has laid out why that’s broken. Have a read.

Op-Ed Columnist – Chinese New Year – NYTimes.com

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: December 31, 2009
It’s the season when pundits traditionally make predictions about the year ahead. Mine concerns international economics: I predict that 2010 will be the year of China. And not in a good way.

I have no beef against China personally. They compete on cost, not on quality in the majority of things which doesn’t make them my preferred supplier of goods in general, but they are a respected and powerful country with smart, industrious people in it. We’ll leave the politics aside as I have a major beef there, but we’re talking just economics for now.

China wants to play in the world, but only with the rules that favour them. Thus they have for a very long time pegged their currency by mandate rather than market. That’s bought them most of their hyper-accelerated growth and industrialization, but now it’s gone past being irritating and as the columnist puts it, it is turning predatory.

All I have to say is, either unpeg the currency and let it float or every single industrialized nation should create a slowly increasing set of duties on import goods from China that will increase quarterly until the values of the goods are close to the estimated value if the currency was floating.

This means a good chunk of our goods get more expensive. But we ladder it in. The flip side is that China doesn’t build everything for the entire world, but manufacturing gets distributed around again as it should in a free-trading economy. The other benefit is the Chinese people get some purchasing power in the world, rather than just selling power. Some standards of living might go up as the Yuan is worth more on the open market. That will deplete some of the Chinese hard currency income and even reserves, but the system will slowly balance itself out to some extent from the huge inequity it’s in now.

The shocker is that the Chinese leader is complaining about the duties. Maybe he really doesn’t understand market economics and the fact that the rest of the world isn’t a game he plays on a spreadsheet. We look out for our countries and people too. Too bad it took so long for that to happen this time.

Currently playing in iTunes: Holiday by Green Day