Author: Karl Bode

We recently noted how Sony decided to make their Playstation 3 game console less useful by removing the ability to run alternative operating systems. Sony wanted to retain stricter control of the hardware to battle piracy, but it’s something that annoyed some hobbyists — who’d found a number of creative uses for the feature. The decision made it clear that in the broadband age, the product you thought you purchased isn’t always the product you now own — and it raised the question whether products made less useful post purchase demand a refund. One UK customer thought so, using a UK consumer protection law to force Amazon to give him a 20% rebate. At the time, we noted how a class action lawsuit seemed likely in the U.S., and right on cue — Sony’s now facing a lawsuit:

"The suit claims that the "Install Other OS" function was "extremely valuable." According to the suit, the plaintiff he has not yet installed the latest firmware update so that he can continue to use the Other OS feature. The suit also notes that PS3 owners who choose not to update their firmware cannot access the PlayStation Network, play PS3 games online, nor can they play new games or Blu-ray videos that require firmware 3.21."

So with the recent Avatar DRM flap in mind, users not only lose useful functionality, but if they refuse to update their system with the latest firmware — they also lose the ability to go online, or watch/play the latest Blu-Ray titles or games. In other words, if you refuse a hardware downgrade designed to battle piracy (which punishes paying customers), your PS3 console becomes progressively less useful. So what exactly is a Playstation 3 worth if it can’t be used to do anything?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

As the FCC gets closer to crafting network neutrality rules (assuming they even have the authority to do so), AT&T lobbyists have worked overtime to push the idea that creating such rules would automatically result in job losses. To help nudge this scary meme into the press, they hired their old friend Bret Swanson, formerly employed at the Discovery Institute — a think tank that created both the “Exaflood” (debunked here countless times) and “Intelligent Design”. Back in February Swanson, like most AT&T hired policy wonks, used completely bogus “science” to insist that network neutrality rules would result in 1.5 million job losses. He came to that number simply by adding up all of the people employed by companies that submitted comments to the FCC opposing network neutrality (seriously).

Now AT&T is back at work again, this time pushing the job loss claims through an AT&T-backed group called Mobile Future. Mobile Future has sponsored a new study (pdf) claiming that network neutrality laws will result in 340,000 lost jobs over the next 10 years — and 1.5 million lost jobs across all sectors by 2020. Using the impact the 1996 Telecom Act and local loop unbundling requirements had on the broadband sector as a broad foundation, the study tries to somehow project that FCC neutrality rules would slow broadband revenues by one-sixth. But as Bob Cringley notes, linking the complicated fight over line sharing (however you felt about it) to network neutrality isn’t a coherent foundation:

"…it’s hard to see how government regulation was the problem when the Bells largely refused to comply with it. You’d think being forced to share aging copper lines with startups would have encouraged the Bells to invest in better, higher-speed networks, not the opposite. Extrapolating from that regulatory situation to Net neutrality is like taking laws regulating manure production by draft horses to make projections about the future of the space shuttle."

Just as with bogus piracy statistics, there’s simply too many moving parts to make these kinds of projections one way or the other (and the study doesn’t try too hard to support the idea that neutrality could bolster content industry employment). You’d be hard pressed to get a room full of people to agree on what network neutrality even is after years of muddled debate — much less find a way to tie concrete job loss figures to the nebulous concept. Meanwhile, the AT&T-funded study unsurprisingly skips over the fact that companies like AT&T and Verizon are already laying off a significant number of employees as they lose landline customers (or in Verizon’s case, intentionally hang up on rural markets and slow FiOS deployment).

There’s also the small fact that while the FCC has issued proposals for new network neutrality rules, they haven’t crafted any concrete rules yet or defined key terms — making job loss predictions premature at best and completely absurd at worst. Even if the FCC were to craft rules defining “fair” network management practices, it seems likely that the final rules (once they run the lobbyist gauntlet) would be just as timid as the agency’s national broadband plan, which avoided tackling competition or truly rattling the status quo for fear of upsetting powerful carriers. For all of the annoying and ridiculous hysteria surrounding network neutrality, the most the rules seem likely to cause is a few sleepless nights for carrier lobbyists — who have to stay up late designing scary-looking pie charts.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Apple’s recent scuff up in the media over banning a Putlitzer prize-winning cartoonist from the application store only served to once again highlight Apple’s inconsistent and seemingly arbitrary application store approval process. It also directed people’s attention to the fact that Mark Fiore certainly wasn’t the first person to have an application banned for strange things like “ridiculing public figures,” which violates Apple’s iPhone Developer Program License Agreement. In fact, there have been 16 applications banned for this most grievous of offenses, and as is usually the case with Apple, the company spent most of their time ignoring questions about why content continues to be inconsistently blocked.

This latest scuff up about Apple gate-keeping also gave some people a platform to once again complain that Apple shouldn’t be blocking access to pornography. While Apple’s PR department can’t apparently answer a straight question about their app approval process, Steve Jobs did personally take time to respond to one user’s e-mailed porn concerns by telling him to go buy an Android phone:

"Fiore’s app will be in the store shortly. That was a mistake. However, we do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone. Folks who want porn can buy and (sic) Android phone."

Not that Google and the porn industry didn’t appreciate the shout out, but porn isn’t really as big of an issue as Apple’s inconsistent approval process (which Jobs once again really doesn’t explain). Apple already makes a very nice porn application called Safari for those interested. While Apple does ban porn, they’ve perhaps more annoyingly banned applications for being porn that weren’t (like a swimsuit sales application). Meanwhile, even though Jobs says he has a "moral responsibility" to keep porn off the iPhone, the Parents Television Council this week proclaimed he’s not doing a good enough job. The group personally, painstakingly cataloged everything they felt was filthy in the app store:

"Typical content has included items with names like
“Shawna Lee Private Dance,” which shows a porn starlet with her hand down the front of her bikini bottom fondling herself; “Love Positions Free,” with a drawing titled “doggystyle,” showing a couple having sex; “1001 Boobs Lite;” and “Tasty Pasties 18+ Amateurs” (at one point, the 11^th most popular “app” out of thousands on iTunes). All of these applications are free — and available to children."

Of course if the Parents Television Council’s findings show anything (aside from the fact the Council spent a lot of time looking at half-naked women) it highlights — once again — that nobody understands how Apple determines worthy content. Amusingly, the Council didn’t bother to complain about the Android Marketplace, where users can freely get porn of all kinds — not just the odd smattering of soft-core apps that passed Apple’s incoherent muster. Not that trying to censor porn apps really matters, given the existence of something some people call “a browser,” which provides people of all ages access to a universe of content of all kinds. Apparently, nobody can win in this strange equation, be it porn fans, porn opponents, developers, or Shawna Lee.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

We just got done exploring how German privacy regulators are "horrified" about how Google is (just as many other companies have been doing for years) gathering publicly-available Wi-Fi hotspot data for GPS triangulation and localized search. Of course the data being collected can’t really identify users outside of their router brand preference and use of nerd SSID humor — but that didn’t stop a flood of hysterical articles that assumed Google was using this data for some nefarious purpose. As if on cue, Germany’s complaints have now drawn the attention of UK regulators — who say they’re now going to quiz Google about the practice. While Wi-Fi clearly confuses many regulators and the press (look at the usual reaction to war driving), it is important that Google is transparent about this process, but so far there’s every indication they’re doing a good job on that front. The company posted another blog post this week and sent this filing (pdf) to privacy regulators in multiple countries highlighting exactly what’s being collected, what it’s being used for, while reiterating that the data can’t identify specific users and isn’t being published. So the question then is: how long before U.S. and other European regulators start to freak out?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Adam Singer writes in to direct our attention to yet another silly study claiming to highlight the evils of technology and Internet addiction. According to this latest study, Researchers at the University of Maryland asked 200 students to give up all media of any kind for one full day — and found that after 24 hours "many showed signs of withdrawal, craving and anxiety along with an inability to function well without their media and social links." Researchers say the disconnected test subjects strangely equated being without these connections to "going without friends and family" — which of course is exactly what they were doing. However, if you look at the press release, researchers appear to base their conclusion that students were "addicted" to media by the very scientific fact that students simply said they were:

"A new study out today from the International Center for Media & the Public Agenda (ICMPA) at the University of Maryland, concludes that most college students are not just unwilling, but functionally unable to be without their media links to the world. "I clearly am addicted and the dependency is sickening," said one person in the study. "I feel like most people these days are in a similar situation, for between having a Blackberry, a laptop, a television, and an iPod, people have become unable to shed their media skin."

Just taking common modern media consumption and communications tools away from users for 24 hours doesn’t seem to prove much of anything — aside from the fact that people have grown used to modern media consumption and consumption tools — which they’d adapt to living without in time. The American Psychiatric Association does not recognize so-called Internet addiction as a disorder (despite efforts to change this to help sell more "cures"), and real addiction generally involves people with real problems who usually aren’t quick to admit they even have an addiction. As we’ve discussed countless times — the real problem is that we’re annoyingly in love with (but not addicted to) calling everything an addiction. At least when we’re not busy getting high off of everything.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

German authorities launched a new fit of privacy hysteria last week after discovering that Google’s Street View cars are not only taking photographs — they’re recording the publicly-available router MAC addresses and SSIDs seen as the cars travel past Wi-Fi hotspots. UK and European politicians had already been up in arms about Americans wandering the streets taking pictures of citizens and completely non-secretive government buildings, and now Germany’s data protection chief is supposedly "horrified" by the discovery that Google is also collecting public wireless hotspot data. Of course a number of companies and individuals (like Skyhook Wireless and war drivers) have been doing this exact thing for years, but because it’s Google — somehow hysteria reigns.

Neither German authorities or those covering the story seem able to say how precisely an aggregate collection of public data will be used for nefarious purposes. The assumption simply is that Google has somehow figured out a way. The Register for instance informs readers that Google’s "uniquely cavalier approach to privacy" and "potential ability to cross reference the information raises additional concerns." Yet the report seems unable to tell readers what those concerns are, instead just assuming that Google must be doing something mischievous, and quoting CEO Eric Schmidt as saying users "shouldn’t worry about privacy unless they have something to hide." Of course what Schmidt actually said in that interview with CNBC was somewhat less sinister:

"If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place. But if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines like Google do retain the information for some time, and we are all subject to the Patriot Act, and it is possible that that information may be made available to the authorities."

Though Schmidt does veer awfully close to the surveillance state meme of “if you don’t have anything to hide you’ve got nothing to worry about,” in context he’s simply saying the obvious: that if you want information kept private — don’t share it — given public data these days is collected and by proxy easily accessible to law enforcement.  With the outcries over Street View taking photographs of your front door, there’s nothing being collected that users can’t already see should they walk by. With Google’s collection of Wi-Fi data, there’s again nothing being collected that isn’t publicly available. MAC addresses (and in this case we’re just talking about hotspot MAC addresses) are changeable, and users can hide their SSID if they don’t want the world to see it.

That said, how the aggregate data is used by such a large corporation is very important, and people should push Google to be as transparent as possible — but there’s a difference between asking reasonable questions about Google’s data collection practices and just assuming the worst possible scenario. Google isn’t publishing this data — and two different blog posts explain how much data they’re collecting, why it’s being collected, and how it’s being used largely to aid in GPS triangulation and local search. Though clearly from there they’ll feed this data into the heads up displays of Google shock troops clad in black gunmetal body armor — who can then carry out Google’s master plan of taking over the planet using your Linksys details.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

The film studios apparently should have spent as much time making sure their DVD new release DRM actually works with popular Blu-Ray players as they did on their new 28 day new release delay scheme. Avatar, which of course Netflix and Redbox users now won’t be able to rent for a month, was released on DVD last Friday. While the title’s hype and box office success easily translated to disc sales records, AdamR writes in to note that some customers were rewarded for their purchase by finding out the disc wouldn’t play on many Blu-Ray players. While some users are able to fix the problem if they can manage to download new firmware that plays nice with the new Avatar DRM, new firmware for players like the Samsung BD-UP5000 doesn’t (and may not ever) exist. It’s almost as if the studios are trying to perfect the art of annoyance when it comes to Blu-Ray — something that has helped contribute to the platform’s less-than-anticipated adoption rates. While DVDs have always been loaded with unskippable crap (that ironically pirates don’t have to deal with) newer Blu-Ray DVDs seem to enjoy taking this to an entirely new level — with even more unskippable previews, promotions and warnings downloaded to your player via broadband.  Somehow the studios continue to believe that layers of seemingly-endless annoyances (DRM, delaying new releases, unskippable "features" — none of which pirates experience) are actually going to help keep piracy at bay and physical media relevant forever.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

A UK ISP has teamed up with the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) to create a new parental control and filtering system that’s based on the same classification system being used by the UK film industry. UK Wireless ISP Tibboh uses internet filter technology created by Netsweeper to classify websites under the BBFC’s rating system (U, PG, 12, 15 or 18). Facebook and Twitter are given a “12” rating (only suitable for those over twelve), Blogger and WordPress sites are given a “15” rating, while major news outlets are given a “U” certificate (suitable for everyone). The idea seems like a fusion of a bunch of ineffective and bad ideas. It’s based on Internet filters that, of course, will block some useful content, but which kids will be able to bypass anyway. The filter system adds a new wrinkle by pretending it’s possible to assign a valuable age restriction metric to information delivery platforms — as if your kid couldn’t possibly run into something foul via Twitter, in a blog, or in the news. The service provides the illusion of safety to people who’d rather pay twenty Pounds a month than pay attention to what their kids are doing — or talk to them face to face about smart technology use.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

We’ve seen no limit to stories over the years about wireless customers (including a few semi-famous ones) who wind up with fairly insane wireless broadband bills for any number of reasons. Usually the stories involve someone traveling overseas and not understanding the roaming charges and overages involved, though sometimes the users don’t even need to leave port to find themselves hit with a $27,000 3G bill. The latest story of this type (via the Consumerist) involves a user getting a $7,865.84 Verizon Wireless bill after taking his Mifi portable 3G hotspot on a business trip to Tel Aviv. In this case however, the user called Verizon before the trip, studied the overage penalties, and still wound up using 350,000 kb of bandwidth before concluding it was Verizon who screwed up:

"The ugly truth is that upon investigating the issue, I found a number of things could have been done by Verizon to protect me as a consumer. They may not mention them outright, but they are there. The fact that these things were not done can only lead me to assume that Verizon would rather their consumers "understand" as little as possible about their TOS.‘"

Except as a consumer, it’s his responsibility to read the find print on his contract and understand the limitations and penalties of his plan. The user studied the charges, spoke with representatives — even seemed to have at least a base understanding of what he was going to be charged per kilobyte — and then chose to use expensive 3G data on an overseas trip anyway. Consumer responsibility and research plays a big part of the equation.

That said, we’ve been saying for a long time now that these bills demonstrate the fact that carriers aren’t doing a particularly good job making service limits clear or educating customers. Many consumers (more than you would think) can’t tell the difference between a kilobyte and a lemur, and Verizon’s math skills on this front aren’t always reliable to begin with. While most carriers have some kind of mechanism in place to help notify users of excessive usage, carriers haven’t done a great job notifying users when their bill starts to go nuclear (like many credit card companies do when a large charge appears on your card) or making overages clear. Fortunately, carriers often agree to slash these bills — but usually only after they receive media attention.

In the UK, where they’ve seen the same kind of insane 3G bills, regulators have jumped in and addressed the problem by first capping roaming charges — but then by also requiring (as of July 1) that carriers allow users to set a monthly maximum cap that limits how much they can spend on data each month. Consumers get an automated alert as they approach 80% of that total, then their service is temporarily suspended when the user crosses the spending cap. If users don’t choose a limit, a limit of $68 per month is set for them (that’s only data and doesn’t include voice minutes or other bill totals). Of course here in the States carriers aren’t going to want to voluntarily employ tools that reduce how much money they can make off of confused users, and will fight any regulation that limits how much they can charge. So nothing changes, and story after story emerges about users whose phone bills resemble the GDP of small countries.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Back in February Google announced that the company would be deploying 1 Gbps fiber to the home connections for a lucky community or two. Google’s plan is to create a playground to test next-generation ad delivery and to explore fiber deployment options. The announcement has been nothing short of a PR miracle for Google — the resulting clamor created by the thousands of cities eager to be the target market has kept the Google brand consistently present in the media every single day since and all without a single byte being delivered. The network itself will operate under an open access model, with Google inviting ISPs to come in and compete, and this week Google’s Minnie Ingersoll extended an invitation to Comcast and AT&T to participate:

"We (sic) definitely inviting the Comcasts, the AT&T service providers to work with us on our network, and to provide their service offering on top of our pipe — we’re definitely planning on doing that. Our general attitude has been that there’s plenty of room for innovation right now in the broadband space, and it’s great what the cable companies are doing, upgrading to DOCSIS 3.0, but no one company has a monopoly on innovation. We’re looking for other service providers to be able to come in and offer their service on top of our network so that residents have a choice when they open up their accounts. They get the connection from us, and then they have a choice as to who they subscribe to."

While that’s sweet of Google, it’s unclear that the nation’s wealthiest carriers will want to come over and play today. These are companies who spend millions of dollars each year lobbying to eliminate competition of any kind — and probably aren’t keen to participate in a trial designed (in part) to highlight how competition keeps prices low, keeps service quality high — and organically limits network neutrality violations. The nation’s wealthiest carriers already disliked Google for the company’s positions on everything from network neutrality to white space broadband. They, of course, see (correctly) that products like Google Voice pose a serious disruptive threat to traditional cash cows, and these carriers spend a lot of time smearing Google by using outsourced policy wonks.

These same carriers will probably feel even less cooperative after being subjected to several months of national coverage with one central theme: they aren’t providing the broadband speeds or prices people want. Keep in mind too that part of this network’s purpose will be to collect a mountain of data — the kind of data these carriers don’t like to share (congestion, bandwidth delivery costs, etc.) all of which will be useful to Google in their political battles against these same operators. While Google has repeatedly stated they aren’t interested in being an ISP or in expanding this project beyond 50,000 to 500,000 users — this new network (whenever it actually gets built) might be a more suitable playground for smaller ISPs; smaller ISPs eager to show what open access and competition can really do for a community in an environment free of the influence of the usual assortment of monopoly/duopoly carriers.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Qwest was founded in 1996 by Philip Anschutz, who at the time owned the Southern Pacific Railroad and used the opportunity to deploy fiber lines along railroad tracks. It seems like only yesterday that Qwest paid $45 billion to acquire US West in 2000, one of seven baby bells created by the antitrust breakup of AT&T in 1983. Since then, Qwest has stumbled through accounting scandals and watched its stock plummet as the carrier struggled with traditional voice defections without a wireless division to buoy revenues. Meanwhile, it almost was yesterday that CenturyTel merged with Embarq to create "CenturyLink." This morning Qwest and CenturyLink announced they in turn would be merging in a deal worth $22.4 billion (including $11.8 billion in Qwest debt).

At first glimpse it’s not entirely clear what the point of the merger is, unless the two companies were simply interested in losing landline and last-generation DSL customers to cable competitors even faster. Neither company has exactly been lighting it up on the network upgrade front — and Qwest has spent most of the last few years trying to trim debt for an acquisition instead of investing back into the network. The result is a company with aging last-mile infrastructure who (in the markets where it actually sees competition) pits slower DSL against faster alternatives like cable DOCSIS 3.0 technology or community fiber (which they have spent millions suing and fighting in Utah and Washington State).

Creating a larger company doesn’t magically spawn a wireless division, and the company is still going to need substantially more cash to upgrade all of that outdated copper if they want to stay relevant. They may be thinking that by merging they can create a "too big to fail" super-rural telco with a better shot of getting USF and stimulus funds. As we’ve long noted, the USF is a very, very broken program that funnels money to carriers with historically little to no oversight into how that money is spent (and $25 billion has been dumped into e-Rate alone since 1998). Qwest recently applied for $350 million in federal stimulus funds, and lobbyists have been pushing the FCC to expand the USF to cover residential broadband and give more of that money to bigger carriers.

So the result will be a new, massive phone company primarily serving uncompetitive, rural markets using outdated last mile connections, with consumers helped through this transition via a support infrastructure that just grew incredibly fast. All of this will be propped up by the historically-broken (but soon to be supposedly "reformed") USF system and taxpayer subsidy, guided by Qwest lobbyists and an FCC with no real interest in improving competition in the sector. Surely this will turn out well for everybody involved, right?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

We’ve been covering how Ubisoft’s new DRM requires that users be constantly connected to the Internet if they want to play even the single-player portion of the game. That didn’t exactly thrill customers to begin with, but the DRM was made considerably worse by the fact that many paying customers couldn’t play the game they owned because Ubisoft’s servers initially kept going down or their connection wasn’t particularly reliable. Of course like all DRM’d games Ubisoft’s games eventually wind up being cracked anyway — which makes all the annoyances customers experience all the more pointless. Ubisoft’s latest game to carry this DRM, Assasin’s Creed 2, has also now been cracked, with hackers sending a personal message to Ubisoft in the pirated copy’s .nfo thanking them for the challenge:

"Thank you Ubisoft, this was quiete [sic] a challenge for us, but nothing stops the leading force from doing what we do. Next time focus on the game and not on the DRM. It was probably horrible for all legit users. We just make their lifes [sic] easier."

This latest title lasted all of a month before being fully cracked (there was an earlier crack that worked, but only for certain localized versions), and while the crackers may not be the best spellers, they apparently understand that Ubisoft leeches value from their products by layering them with obnoxious DRM solutions. Hmm, perhaps if Ubisoft makes their next DRM solution even more annoying….

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

For several years TV carriers have enjoyed bickering over which company has the most HD channels, in part because it creates a debate focused on perceived value — and steers the conversation away from who offers the lowest prices (or the fact that companies seem to impose annual or bi-annual TV hikes in unison). Carriers only just recently surpassed the 100 HD channel count, so it was surprising this week when Dish Network suddenly and proudly announced that the company was the first to pass the 200 HD channel mark — insisting "only DISH Network has delivered" on this supposedly-epic promise. Except amusingly, Dish Network didn’t bother to include a full list of the channels they added, and when reporters and bloggers on the TV/telecom beat started asking Dish questions, the company started getting a little bit uncomfortable:

"I asked Dish Network’s PR department for a list of the 200 HD channels, numbered from 1 to 200. Not too surprising, the company was evasive, saying the 200 HD channels could be found at its web site. However, when I told them I could not locate more than around 130 HD channels listed at DishNetwork.com, the company’s PR department got even more evasive — and started to act a bit strange. At one point, a company spokeswoman said she could give me a breakdown of the 200 HD channels on "background only," meaning I couldn’t attribute the information to Dish Network."

As it turns out, Dish’s marketing department had gotten creative — and was suddenly counting 57 different On Demand movie titles as"channels" (the Alvin & The Chipmunks 2 channel, anyone?) and just hoped that nobody would notice. So instead of being seen as the TV operator that offers the most HD channels, Dish Network is now being seen as the TV operator who assumes everybody is stupid, which we’ll assume wasn’t what the company’s PR department was aiming for.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

The film studios have convinced Netflix to sign deals that expand the company’s access to streaming film licenses — in exchange for agreeing to delay new releases by 28 days. Studios, of course, think this will somehow magically ramp up user purchases of physical DVDs, though it seems the primary result is going to be a lot of confused consumers, who see new releases for rent in one place, but not in another. But the studios are likely quite pleased with themselves, given the deal gives them more license negotiation power — and allows them to charge companies more money if they want a perceived leg up on Netflix. If nobody is willing to pay, the studios figure they’ve still managed to create a wider delay window (the exact opposite of what should be happening in the broadband age).

But Blockbuster quickly jumped at the opportunity, throwing money at the studios, not only to avoid the new release delay, but so they could use the opportunity to mock Netflix instead of having to innovate. DirecTV has also now decided to play along, and will be paying for the honor of offering new releases under the “DirecTV Cinema” brand. Like Blockbuster, it didn’t take DirecTV long to brag that unlike Netflix or Redbox, they’ll be getting Avatar the same day it hits store shelves:

“As many as 400 new movies will be available this summer through DirecTV Cinema. Titles from Universal Studios Home Entertainment, Twentieth Century Fox and Time Warner Inc.’s Warner Bros. will be given to DirecTV subscribers 28 days before they can be rented on Netflix, said Paul Guyardo, DirecTV’s chief sales and marketing officer“

Granted this might not hurt Netflix much, given the fact that DirecTV agreements with the studios ban them from offering subscription service, so if users want these new releases — they have to pay between $4.99 and $5.99 per title — nearly the cost of a Netflix subscription. You also had better hurry up and watch your movie, given that under a 2008 DirecTV agreement with the studios, movies you store on your DVR will be automatically deleted after 24 hours. While the studios think layering restriction upon restriction onto how, where and when customers can consume their product is helping them save the traditional DVD — all they’re really doing is delaying the inevitable death of physical media, annoying and confusing customers, and making it harder for people to consume their product.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

After fighting every step of the way to keep the ACTA secret, the USTR last week disengenuously proclaimed that it was finally time to make the international agreement public — to "help the process of reaching a final agreement." Of course this proclamation of transparency and cooperation comes only after much of the agreement had been hashed out without substantive public input, after the European Parliament voted 633-to-13 to demand the release of ACTA’s text, and after most of the agreement had already leaked to the press. Today the European Union finally released the full agreement (pdf) — as well as a statement by EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht insisting that the release proves ACTA concerns have been unfounded (shockingly it turns out that’s not true).

Most of what’s in the agreement isn’t a surprise given the leaks, and while the ACTA remains a bevy of awful policies, there are a few minor changes to degrees of said awfulness. While the leaked versions of the ACTA didn’t explicity mandate ISP "three strikes" provisions, they did threaten to take away ISP safe harbor protections if ISPs didn’t agree to police copyright, with the only real example of acceptable behavior being — to employ three strikes provisions. This freshly-released version of the agreement gets rid of that language, instead simply insisting that ISPs can only retain safe harbor protections by adopting a "takedown" policy that will "address the unauthorized storage or transmission of materials protected by copyright."

That’s of course simply taking our notoriously unreliable DMCA letter warning process and exporting it to Canada and elsewhere. Here in the States several major ISPs are already voluntarily taking this idea one step further — by threatening users with disconnection for trading copyrighted files via BitTorrent (in some cases these threats, which no ISP is willing to transparently discuss, have been found to be a bluff). Some new language in the bill also appears to take aim at softening European law, allowing countries to "terminate or prevent an infringement" and pass legislation "governing the removal or disabling of access to information." Meanwhile, Michael Geist notes that three strikes may not be dead yet given countries still need to hash out their differences:

"However, that does not mean that three strikes has disappeared from the draft entirely. The U.S. proposal for ISP liability is one of three options currently being considered. The European option preserves, but does not require, three strikes . . . The EU will argue this is consistent with the law in a few of its member states. If the approach is adopted, it will clearly keep three strikes on the table and could be used in other ACTA member countries to encourage its adoption."

Most of the language that critics have grown familiar with (making the bypassing of copy protection illegal even in cases of fair use, making copies of a large quality of content illegal even if no money is exchanged, mandating that ISPs become copyright nannies) remain at the heart of the ACTA. The agreement’s central thrust continues to be to foist clearly dysfunctional, unreliable, and draconian U.S. DMCA-style copyright enforcement policies upon other countries. Other than that? Sure, ACTA concerns are "unfounded" with the release of this latest draft. Of course it can still get better (or worse) in time.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Chodelord writes in to note that the Escapist website recently decided it would be a good idea to ban users from  their forums simply for mentioning Adblock. The thread in question started after a user complained that an add for Time Warner Cable was slowing down his computer. Apparently, users who responded to the poster by suggesting the user "get Firefox and AdBlock" found themselves banned from the forums. Users didn’t even need to admit they even used AdBlock to get banned — they simply had to recommend it as a solution to a seemingly-annoying ad. Looking at the forums recently amended posting guidelines does confirm that the folks at the Escapist believe that giving browsing preference advice is a "non forgivable" offense:

Do not confess, teach, admit to, or promote ad-blocking software that will allow users to block the ads of this site.

Indeed. Users quickly (and justly) started complaining about the fact that friends they’d had for years were suddenly being bashed over the head with the ban hammer simply for mentioning an incredibly popular and legal application. After a lot of complaints, the Escapist ultimately wound up unbanning the users according to a forum post, and instead just settled on trying to make the community feel really guilty:

I truely hope that everyone that reads this will consider turning off their ad-blocker for this site. If we have offended you or you don’t deem this site to be worthy (and would like to have it shut down instead), do what you will, but don’t pretend to be surprised if the site dies.

While it’s nice that the Escapist listened to their community, saw reason, and backed away from their ridiculous decision, that doesn’t make the decision any less ridiculous (and while they reversed course, the posting guidelines remain unchanged). It also doesn’t justify telling your readers that they’re responsible for the failure of your business model should users decide to block annoying ads. As Ars Technica recently found out, mandating what your users can and can’t do with their own browsers doesn’t exactly foster adoration within your community to begin with, but subsequently telling those users they should take a hike if they don’t like your position (or in this case even mention ad blockers) isn’t particularly endearing, either.

As we’ve mentioned previously in great detail, if you’ve got ads on your website that are annoying your users, that is your fault — not your users’ fault. The failure of your business model is also your problem, not theirs. It’s up to you to develop a new model that doesn’t involve your users being annoyed. Meanwhile, telling your users (essentially) that they’re worthless if they don’t directly generate ad revenue is misguided. Site visitors bring value to your website in other ways — whether they block your advertisements or not — through conversation, participation and links to your content. Of course none of that will happen if you treat them like escaped felons for simply discussing their browser plugins.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

A recent GAO study found claims of piracy’s supposedly-devastating impact on the economy (shockingly) usually aren’t based on real science — despite the fact that such claims (which usually originate from the entertainment or software industries) are repeatedly parroted by government officials. The study also found that there were a few instances where file trading could actually be a good thing — and could actually result in increased product sales. The GAO’s overall conclusion? No government agency actually bothers to track piracy statistics, and instead just regurgitates scary industry claims without question. The study also found that there’s so many moving parts involved — that making broad claims about piracy’s impact on the economy (for better or worse) may not even be possible.

In the UK, the recent Digital Economy Bill was rushed through without any real debate — but with plenty of typical claims of how piracy was going to lead to economic armageddon if the bill wasn’t passed. Just like in the States, the UK government never actually bothered to study whether any of these claims were accurate. If they had, they would have found that — also just like in the United States — the claims weren’t based on real science but on the usual combination of flawed logic (assuming a copy shared naturally equates to a lost sale) and skewed, industry-supplied data. Looking more closely at the most recent reports that most heavily influenced Digital Economy Bill voting found that very little (if any) data originated with independent, scientific studies:

"So the net result of this 68-page report, with all of its tables and detailed methodology, is that four out of the top five markets used for calculating the overall piracy loss in Europe draw on figures supplied by the recording industry itself. Those apparently terrifying new figures detailing the supposed loss of money and jobs due to piracy in Europe turn out to be little more than a *re-statement* of the industry’s previous claims in a slightly different form. As a result, as little credence can be placed in the the report as in those criticized by the US GAO."

Of course none of this surprises anybody who watched the BPI manipulate and massage reality in order to get the bill passed. Meanwhile, the passage of the Digital Economy Bill has file traders heading further underground (where they’ll be harder to track), with anonymous BitTorrent protection services seeing a pronounced spike in new users. While the BPI waits for their pet legislation to kick in, they’ve meanwhile announced that they plan to "reluctantly" return to suing potential customers.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Earlier this year a school outside of Philadelphia was busted giving students laptops that included hidden software that covertly allowed school officials to turn on the cameras and monitor the students — no matter where they were. The not-so-brilliant scheme came to light when one child was disciplined for behavior that was only captured thanks to these laptops. Not surprisingly, a fairly huge scandal was born, followed by a lawsuit against the school district. The school district has long claimed that the surveillance system was only used to locate missing laptops. But a new motion (pdf) filed as part of the lawsuit now claims that not only were thousands of photos taken, many were taken of students who never reported their laptops missing. Meanwhile, the lawyer claims to have e-mails from the plan administrator (who has been pleading the fifth) highlighting how she was really having a great time watching student "soap operas" unfold:

"Back at district offices, the Robbins motion says, employees with access to the images marveled at the tracking software. It was like a window into "a little LMSD soap opera," a staffer is quoted as saying in an e-mail to Carol Cafiero, the administrator running the program. "I know, I love it," she is quoted as having replied."

One family involved in the suit provided evidence that their 15-year-old son was photographed more than 400 times over the course of two weeks last fall (his laptop was neither missing or stolen), but their lawyer provided just one surprisingly well lit and framed (for a laptop) photo taken of their son sleeping. The school district has subsequently issued a statement admitting the system took photos, but denying that they engaged in any deliberate wrong doing or that the photos were used for any "inappropriate purposes." Senator Arlen Specter, engaged in a heated battle for re-election, used the story as a springboard to call for tougher federal wiretap laws. Specter went so far as to hold a hearing near the school, where one parent insisted that warnings would be enough:

"Bob Wegbreit said a warning might suffice to let families know the district might activate webcams without a student’s knowledge. Students could then choose to keep the computers in other parts of the house, instead of their bedrooms, said Wegbreit, whose group fears the lawsuit will damage the upscale district’s finances and reputation."

It might be a little too late for that, Bob (besides, "warnings" don’t trump that whole Fourth Amendment thing). Even if you could somehow argue the project didn’t violate the Fourth Amendment, it remains mind boggling that anybody, at any level in the district, would think that off-site covert photography of students was a bright idea for any reason. As more and more schools offer kids laptops and netbooks, this case acts as a reminder to parents and students to ask questions as these kinds of programs are developed elsewhere. It’s also a warning shot to administrators who think protecting their property (or personal amusement) trumps a student’s right to privacy at home. You do start to wonder where people could possibly be getting the idea that surveillance with no recourse to law or common sense is a good idea.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

The Obama Administration has appointed Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson to lead an 18-person, bi-partisan commission tasked with tackling the country’s deficit. USAToday is running a fairly typical piece looking at the multitude of moving pieces that contribute to the nation’s fairly-staggering $12.8 trillion debit load, and the variety of partisan and often factually-challenged bickering that surrounds the debate. Buried down at the bottom of the piece is an odd solution to a very complex problem. According to Bowles, the commission has contacted Microsoft’s Steve Ballmer about Microsoft creating “a deficit-reduction video game” that would allow the average American to attempt balancing the budget. Details are scarce, but it would appear that the likely browser-based game would act to “virally” educate the public on how reducing the deficit isn’t easy. In other words, it’s a PR move designed to seemingly justify why we continue to fail — instead of solving the problem. And here we were busily waiting for a Tea Party MMORPG, or Halo 4: Die Deficit Die.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story