Category: Things that matter

Suggested name change for DRM – I concur

(via Dubious Quality)

David Berlind at ZDNet has come up with a name change suggestion for Digital Restriction Mangling (DRM – real meaning Digital Rights Management). Instead, he proposes calling it CRAP instead. A fitting name, and very accurate.

Hi, I’m David Berlind, Executive Editor at ZDNet. Today, we’re going to talk about a rather uncomfortable subject, CRAP. That’s right, CRAP. Now, CRAP stands for Content, Restriction, Annulment and Protection. It’s my catchy buzz-phrase for a technology that’s really called DRM. Now DRM technically stands for Digital Rights Management, and it’s a rather cancerous technology that technology vendors are actually building into most of the products that we’re buying today.

So for example, if you own an iPod, it’s got CRAP in it. That’s right, it’s got this technology that will restrict what you can do with your content, allows the owners of the content to annul that content-in other words, take it away from you-or protect it from being copied out onto the internet.

[tags]DRM, CRAP[/tags]

JC Penney makes unfortunate abbreviation choice for new clothing line

This is just unfortunate. I don’t believe for a second JC Penney intended to name their new clothing line anorexia nervosa, but it seems that’s what happened anyway.

Whilst flipping through the Sunday circulars, reader Thomas B. was surprised to see JC Penney’s new clothing line called, “a.n.a. : A New Approach.”

A worker in the mental health field for several years, he was reminded of another meaning for “ana,” that it’s a slang term for anorexia nervosa, an eating disorder characterized by not eating to the point of extreme weight loss and malnutrition, amongst some anorexia or “pro-ana” communities. As a proper name, “Ana” serves as a sort of anorexic avatar or imaginary anthropomorphization amongst anorexia groups.

[tags]JCPenney, anorexia[/tags]

AP steals blogger’s article, doesn’t care to attribute

A blogger, Larisa Alexandrovna, spent scads of time documenting changes in security clearance policies.  She shared this information with others, and after getting it checked by others, released her work.  The work apparently showed a tightening of requirements for granting security clearances.  Since one of the items of interest was guidance on sexual behavior, some GBLT groups picked up on it, shared the story with the Associated Press, and said the AP needed to cover this story.  How AP handled it was not quite professional…

In response, several GLBT groups contacted us and issued a statement. We gave the advocacy groups our notes and article, which they then took to the AP and demanded that the story be covered. The AP was given our article and maybe our notes.

On March 14, 2006, the AP did their own article, left out any attribution to me or my publication and lifted not only my research but also whole sections of my article for their own (making cosmetic changes of course).

We contacted an AP senior editor and ombudsmen both and both admitted to having had the article passed on to them, and both stated that they viewed us as a blog and because we were a blog, they did not need to credit us.

Hmmmm, so stealing from bloggers isn’t plagiarism?  Interesting.

[tags]AP plagiarism[/tags]

IHOP joy (long rant)

I love IHOP. Great pancakes (and other foods), affordable meals, usually decent service. I would be much fatter than I already am if I were to eat at IHOP as often as I’d like. Given that, it’s a bit disappointing when I have a bad experience there. But when I do, you, my attractive and above-average-intellect reader (both characteristics developed by virtue of reading my work) get to share my pain.

Thursday night after work, several co-workers and I decided to go to an IHOP near the office for dinner/breakfast. We arrived around midnight, went in together, and waited just a minute for a serv-o-tron to offer to seat us. We asked for seating for 5, as that happened to be the number of people in our group, and we didn’t plan on changing seats frequently enough during the meal to need extra chairs. To our surprise, we are informed that seating 5 together will result in an automatic 15% gratuity added to our bill and we will not be allowed to split that bill when it is time to pay.

A quick thinking cow-orker suggested we be seated at two tables, with two at one table, and three at the other. At this, the delightful young lady (hint: look up sarcasm here, folks) turned to the person who would actually be serving us and said “You want to take care of them? I don’t have time for this.” And then she walked off. “Never mind,” said we, and off we went. After all, once any trouble is associated with your party, you are more likely to get the serv-o-tron special sauce added to your meal, and we each preferred to only consume/sample our own saliva that evening.

Had this happened on a Sunday afternoon with the church crowd amassing and leading to a 30-60 minute wait, we could understand. Had the restaurant been busy in any way, we could possibly understand. But this was right around midnight on a Thursday. There were 5 guests at 3 tables. There were 3 visible employees, and likely more out of sight. There was almost no visible traffic outside the IHOP, so a mass of unexpected customers swarming the site was unlikely. The chances that the extra 60 seconds it would have taken to handle our orders separately causing a major back-up for the rest of the serving staff, food preparation staff, or any other staff was so miniscule I’d suggest it was actually non-existant. I’m going out on a limb here and suggesting that perhaps this delightful young lady just didn’t want our type. Of course, I’m not sure how to classify our type other than well-paid technology workers who over-tip, don’t ask for much attention during the meal, and try to not disturb others. She might have had a different idea of what we were like.

Normally, I never give additional business to a company that I feel has slighted me. When a BP station failed to compensate me for a broken gas pump that resulted in my getting charged for gas I could not actually get, I stopped getting gas at any BP. After receiving bad service from a truck-rental company when moving one time, I started to always go to a competitor when I need a truck in the future.

But I love IHOP. Shoot, I even mentioned that at the start of this article. Do I just stop going to that location (4725 Showcase Boulevard in Memphis, TN in case you are wondering) and continue going to the others where I have gotten good service? Do I maintain my standard of hatefullness and punish all IHOPs for the misdeeds of one (my typical response to bad service)? Do I pretend it never happened, and just act like 4725 Showcase Boulevard doesn’t exist? I’m not sure. I know I won’t ever go back to that site, even though I’d never had trouble there before. I just don’t know if I’ll stop going to all other IHOPs as a result.

Does it even make sense that a business would make it standard practice to not split checks? I don’t even carry money with me most days. If I can’t pay with debit/charge card, I don’t think I’d be able to eat out usually. I don’t speak out against the added gratuity, but the serv-o-tron gets slighted by automatic gratuities when I eat out, because I won’t add to the required “tip” due to the offense I take at this being foisted upon me. Maybe for 10-12 people and up this makes sense, but at 5, it just seems obnoxious.

Internet Explorer exploits in the wild

According to F-Secure, there are now exploits running the ‘net at large for the latest Internet Explorer security vulnerability.  If for some reason you don’t want to run Mozilla, please consider switching to Opera or some other browser.  Just don’t use Internet Explorer.  I know all browsers have security problems at times, but do you really need to keep using the one with the most problems?  In any situation where you control what software you run, please change your browser.  It will make the ‘net better for all of us.

[tags]IE insecurity, Internet Explorer vulnerability[/tags]

Universal loves customers?

(via Engadget)

Now here I go, just minutes after posting my rantish article about Universal hating digital distribution and customers, I find this article indicating Universal won’t downsample their next-gen hi-definition DVDs when displaying on non-HDMI capable hi-def TV sets. At least, not initially. How odd that the movie studioes demand this feature which will force downsampling on non-HDMI sets, and then all but Warner Home Video announce they won’t be using the feature (again, at least no initially). Could this be an indication that movie studios believe fans will use their products legally given the chance? Or is it just a move by the studios to avoid pissing off the hi-def early adopters who are going to be so important in the early success of next-gen optical technology? I’m betting on the latter, but I’m just cynical that way.

New software included on both Blu-ray and HD-DVD releases, however, will automatically slash the image, making it only marginally better than current DVDs, unless consumers have a relatively new connector and cable called HDMI to hook up players to their televisions. Only one in 20 HD sets sold to early adopters over the past few years has the right version of the connector. Only 15% of new sets sold this year will include it, and deliver the full 1080 resolution capable of showing such detail.

Sony execs say a majority of Blu-ray content, at least initially, will play at the highest resolution possible on a consumer’s HDTV, regardless of how the player is hooked up. Four major studios — Sony Pictures, 20th Century Fox, Disney, and Paramount say they initially will not use the new copy protection on their releases. Universal execs told BusinessWeek on Mar. 21 that they, too, will forego the protection. Execs at Warner Brothers declined to comment, but sources with knowledge of the studio’s plans say “at least some” of the 20 HD-DVD releases planned through April will use the software. “What do you have then? A very expensive DVD player,” says Sony Senior Vice-President Tim Baxter.

[tags]hi-def TV, next-gen optical media[/tags]

Universal hates digital distribution (and customers)

(via The Consumerist)

I will admit to being in love with the “Company X hates blah” general title, but it just seems so many companies don’t want customers, or don’t want customers to have a good experience.  This latest is based on the news that Universal pictures is going to offer movies for download starting next month.  That doesn’t sound bad, until you look in to pricing.  The first movie available will be King Kong, for the amazing price of $35.  The same movie I can get from Amazon.com for $15 and rip to digital format myself using free tools, I can download in a Digital Restriction Mangled (DRM) format for only $35.  I can’t decide if Universal is doing this to show how much they hate consumers, to show the market how “selling downloadable movies doesn’t work,” or if the executives in charge of this just have no clue how this works.  I’m pretty sure those are the only three choices, but I’m willing to entertain other options if my readers have other thoughts. Continue reading “Universal hates digital distribution (and customers)”

Bell South hates Katrina victims

(via The Consumerist)

Well, that title may be a bit strong, but I like how it sounds.  After the Katrina disaster, the city of New Orleans instituted a free Wi-Fi service to help get businesses and individuals going again on the telecommunication side of a recovery.  Lobbyists from Bell South are working to get this service shut down because it violates a law restricting the government from competing with telecommunication companies.  Legally speaking, the company is correct, and the city is exceeding its legal allowed offering.  On the other hand, this is no way to build goodwill with customers.  Not that goodwill matters when you have a government assured monopoly.  But it still stinks.

One of the surprising acts of compassion and competency that came out of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina was that the city began providing a free WiFi service to business owners and residents whose phone service had been wiped out. The 512 kbps service allowed many business owners to begin struggling back to their feet and corporate sponsors like Yahoo and Google were in discussion to expand the service in the coming months.

Well, no longer. Telecommunication lobbyists from Bell South have put the lean on New Orleans, demanding that the free service be outlawed. Apparently, it violates a law that prevents the public sector from competing with the telecommunication sector. By law, then, cities can provide no more than a 128 kbps service to citizens.

Again – legally, Bell South wins.  Morally, meh, it stinks.  Why don’t these massive companies do more to help people insetad of screwing consumers whenever given the chance?  Oh, that’s right – they don’t have to.  The monopolies never do.

[tags]New Orleans, Free Wi-Fi[/tags]

Download or stream Lessig’s “Free Culture”

You can now get the audiobook version of Lawrence Lessig’s “Free Culture” at lessig.org.  Unlike so many other providers of downloadable content, this is not protected by draconian DRM restrictions.  Get the streaming version or download the complete audiobook and put it on your preferred MP3 player.

[tags]Lawrence Lessig, Free Culture, Free audiobook[/tags]

Your rights as a photographer

Given our governments ever growing desire to restrict our rights here in the US, it is more important than ever to be aware of your rights.  If you plan on taking photographs of public buildings, you face a real possibility of getting harrassed.  In case that happens, it might be handy to have a guide to your rights as a photographer.

If you are interested in what set this off, read this ABC news story about a photographer arrested for taking pictures of flags in front of a courthouse.

[tags]Citizen rights[/tags]

Music companies apparently still hate consumers

(via BoingBoing)

A new CD from EMI in Brazil comes with DRM that cannot be uninstalled, must be agreed to even though not written in the local language (Portugeuse), and installs even if you decline the potentially unreadable agreement.  Apparently, the DRM also prevents playing the CD on Linux and MacOS systems or an iPod (although I’m not sure how this is accomplished).

One user’s experience follows:

When you insert the CD in your computer, it automatically opens a window with the “License Agreement” of the CD. This is a very large contract in Portuguese, but it is very difficult to read. The agreement is opened in window programmed in flash, so it is impossible to cut and paste the text into another program. In some computers, when you try to scroll down the contract using the arrows, the text slides completely out of control, making it impossible to read.

After taking some time to read the agreement, the first thing that called my attention is that the text says that a full copy of the contract is available at the address “www.emimusic.info/”. That is NOT TRUE. If you go to the “Brazil” link at the page, there is no copy of the agreement whatsoever at the website, contrary to what the agreement itself expressly says.

The text of the agreement says that the CD will install software in your computer in order to make the cd playable. However, it says that the user must acknowledge the fact that “certain files and folders might remain in your computer even after the user removes the digital content, the software and/or the player”.

Additionally, it says the following: “This contract has been originally drafted in English. The user waives any and all rights that he or she might have under the laws of his or her own country or province, in regard of this contract drafted in any other language”.

Finally, my favorite part. There are two buttons below the agreement. The first reads “Accept the Agreement” the second reads “Reject it”. After reading all the above, I decided to reject it, and pressed the “reject” button. Immediately a screen with the word “Initializing” appeared, the proprietary software was installed, and the music started to play in my computer using the proprietary EMI player, as if I had “accepted” the whole thing.

[tags]DRM, Consumer rights[/tags]

Before he disagreed with French gov’t, Jobs suggested the same

(via BoingBoing)

Recently the French government, in an unusually intelligent display of government doing the right thing, proposed a law which would require all companies which restrict music portability to license their DRM technologies to any company that wants to build a music player.  In response to this, Apple, via Steve Jobs, has criticised the French government, saying this would result in customers filling their iPods with “pirate” music and videos.  Of course, Apple does not want to license their DRM, as that would make it possible for other companies to get iTunes protected tunes to play on non-iPod devices.  The funny thing is, in 2002 Steve Jobs said consumers needed the right to play any licensed music on whatever device they chose.

Apple CEO Steve Jobs offered a critical view of the recording industry in an interview, following Apple’s acceptance of a technical Grammy award from the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences last week. As reported by Don Clark of The Wall Street Journal, Jobs suggested that recording labels need to make it easier for consumers to use their own music however they want.

“If you legally acquire music, you need to have the right to manage it on all other devices that you own,” said Jobs.

So back when iTunes/iPod technologies were starting and not the dominant force, Apple was a consumer advocate saying music legally acquired should be playable on the device of the customers’ choosing.  Now, music should be restricted to the device permitted by the music download provider?   Hmmmmm.
[tags]Apple, Steve Jobs, DRM[/tags]