Got thoughts on the Ars Open Forum? Share them with us and you’ll help us improve our forums and become eligible to win a $250 American Express gift card.

Read More…

Originally Syndicated via RSS from Ars Technica

We’ve been talking about the variety of new and different business models springing up around investigative reporting, and here’s another interesting take on the matter. Wikileaks, the site that’s become rather infamous for publishing all sorts of leaked documents is experimenting with auctioning off the latest set of documents its received (in this case, emails from the Venezuelan government). Wikileaks will publish the emails itself eventually, but wants to offer a news organization a chance at the exclusive rights to publish the initial stories on the documents, seeing that as a way to raise money to keep Wikileaks going.

As the folks at Wikileaks point out, it’s not all that different than various tabloids paying millions of dollars for “exclusive” photos of some celebrity’s new baby. However, with newspapers struggling with their own business models, it’s unclear who’s really going to cough cash up to get exclusive access to these documents. Also, this model runs all sorts of risks: what if the emails don’t really reveal that much of interest? Then you’re going to have a pissed off buyer. Plus, the whole obsession with “exclusive” news stories is pretty silly. You can’t own the news, and while being first on a story may gain some initial traffic, other news sources will pick up the story pretty quickly themselves.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Originally Syndicated via RSS from Techdirt

A federal judge ruled yesterday that video-sharing site Veoh qualifies for a DMCA safe harbor, freeing the company from the responsibility of playing the copyright cops. What does this mean for the billion dollar lawsuit against YouTube? According to Viacom, it means nothing.

Originally Syndicated via RSS from Ars Technica

Back in June, we were bothered by the fact that the FBI was wasting its time investigating a blogger who had posted some unreleased Guns N’ Roses tracks on his site. Music gets leaked all the time, and it’s difficult to see why this is an FBI matter in any form. Turns out that the FBI takes its GNR leaks seriously. They’ve now arrested the blogger for posting the songs to his website. This seems questionable for a variety of reasons. First, why is the FBI involved at all in what should be a civil matter, not a criminal one? Why is it so important to track down this particular leaker, given how many music leaks happen all the time? And, how, honestly, is this going to hurt the band in any way? The music was going to get leaked sooner or later anyway. It’s not going to change who will and who will not buy the CD. And, most importantly, doesn’t the FBI have more important things to be working on?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Originally Syndicated via RSS from Techdirt

A study published by student public interest research groups calls for schools to embrace open source textbooks. The study condemns the crippling DRM that encumbers commercial e-textbooks and suggests open licensing as a compelling alternative.

Read More…

Originally Syndicated via RSS from Ars Technica

A judge has ruled that online video hosting site Veoh is not guilty of copyright infringement for videos uploaded by its users. The judge made the proper ruling here, noting that the DMCA’s safe harbors protect Veoh. The lawsuit was brought by adult video entertainment firm Io, who was upset that Veoh’s users kept uploading clips from its films. As the judge properly noted, Veoh follows all the rules necessary under the DMCA to avoid liability (this doesn’t mean that the individuals doing the uploading aren’t liable, however).

While this may seem like a small case, it is quite similar to Viacom’s infamous lawsuit against YouTube/Google. Considering that YouTube follows the DMCA’s rules in a similar manner to Veoh, this ruling suggests that YouTube is also protected by the DMCA safe harbors, just as many had stated from the beginning. The key issues raised by Io (and also raised by Viacom) is that these sites lose their DMCA safe harbors because they take action on the content, often transcoding the content from one format into flash. However, the judge in the Veoh case trashed that argument pretty easily:

Here, Veoh has simply established a system whereby software automatically processes user-submitted content and recasts it in a format that is readily accessible to its users. Veoh preselects the software parameters for the process from a range of default values set by the third party software… But Veoh does not itself actively participate or supervise the uploading of files. Nor does it preview or select the files before the upload is completed. Instead, video files are uploaded through an automated process which is initiated entirely at the volition of Veoh’s users

The folks over at Google are, understandably, pretty happy about this ruling, which confirms their position that YouTube is protected: “It is great to see the Court confirm that the DMCA protects services like YouTube that follow the law and respect copyrights.”

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Originally Syndicated via RSS from Techdirt

Microsoft has released the long-awaited first public beta of Internet Explorer 8. Our experience with it shows that Microsoft is serious about catching up with the browser competition, but still has a ways to go.

Read More…

Originally Syndicated via RSS from Ars Technica

The Patriot Act allows the FBI to issue “National Security Letters” to ISPs and other organizations, seeking information on users of those service providers — with an automatic gag order forbidding the service provider from telling anyone that they have received an NSL. Not surprisingly, this resulted in the NSLs being

Originally Syndicated via RSS from Techdirt

How come it took the FCC 365 days to reject a telco’s single-page petition with hardly any data about the company?

Originally Syndicated via RSS from Ars Technica

Following the recent post we had about Apple taking down popular games from its App store, the latest buzz in on Apple denying a comic book reader entrance to its iPhone app store because the primary comic book being offered was too violent. This has created quite an uproar — though, again, Apple has been upfront about the fact that this is a closed system from the beginning. So, it’s not entirely clear why people are pissed off at Apple. It hasn’t mislead anyone about the fact that it will block and censor content and apps.

Still, it does make you wonder why Apple is bothering? All it seems to do is piss off people. It takes extra work and effort on Apple’s part and it’s hard to see who benefits. Plenty of other systems out there allow anyone to develop apps and content, and they get by just fine, often using user feedback systems to make sure that “bad” content and apps get weeded out fast, without any complaints from users. Having Apple set itself up as the ultimate gatekeeper isn’t “censorship” — it’s just pointless.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Originally Syndicated via RSS from Techdirt

At some point, it won’t make sense to post these sorts of examples any more because it will just be common sense that bands can and do benefit from so-called “piracy,” but every time we post one of these stories, we get people complaining that this couldn’t possibly work for others. When a band is big, then it will never work for small artists. When they’re small, it’ll never work for big artists. Once we even had a commenter complain that it might work for big artists or small artists — but it was the all important artists in the middle that it would never work for.

So, here we go again, with yet another example of a band that isn’t worried about piracy. It’s an award-winning acoustic folk duo out of the UK, called Show of Hands, where one of the members admits that one of the most popular ways that people find out about the band is when others share the band’s music, and this often drives them to come out to shows and buy CDs as well. The band points out that “piracy” is a bad description of what happens:

You may call this process ‘piracy’ if you wish – for me it is an act of generosity and it both increases our audience size and record sales. And as I always say on the night – if you’re going to do it anyway you may as well feel good about it! I believe the official term is ‘viral marketing’, and we depend utterly upon it.

Yet, if he listened to the RIAA or the IFPI, apparently, all this viral marketing that the band depends on would be “no different than common theft.”

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Originally Syndicated via RSS from Techdirt

Sony’s CTO talks up “Open Market,” a domain-based DRM system that Sony and other movie studios hope will break Apple’s growing dominance of the paid video download market.

Read More…

Originally Syndicated via RSS from Ars Technica

Apparently this is the week for force feedback “haptics” company Immersion to settle its various patent lawsuits. We already noted the infamous teledildonics case has been settled and now it’s settled an ongoing lawsuit with Microsoft as well. We wrote about the details back in May. It’s a case that highlights just how wasteful some patent lawsuits can be.

In this case, Immersion had sued both Sony and Microsoft for violating its patents, and it offered them a deal that’s becoming all too typical: giving competitors a chance to settle first in order to join the other side of the case. It’s a neat trick. Basically, you tell both sides that they can just pay up, and close out the case, while also getting the chance to claim some of that money back if Immersion wins against their competitor. Of course, Immersion took it to another level after Microsoft agreed to this deal, originally handing over to Immersion $26 million. After it got Sony to pay $130 million, it told Microsoft that the deal wasn’t technically a “settlement,” and thus it was excluded from the terms of the deal it gave Microsoft. Hence the lawsuit from Microsoft.

This latest settlement has Immersion apparently realizing it was never going to win the case, and forking over $20.75 million back to Microsoft, ostensibly from its winnings against Sony. It makes you wonder what’s up that Immersion seems to be rushing to settle its various cases. Either way, it shows another aspect of how the patent abuse game is played these days, with patent holders pitting competitors against each other to pressure companies into settling.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Originally Syndicated via RSS from Techdirt

Ask.com hopes to use children to gain some market share among the search engines, and their newly relaunched Ask Kids is a surprisingly well-designed weapon in that fight.

Read More…

Originally Syndicated via RSS from Ars Technica

NASA is admitting that laptop brought to the international space station in July

Originally Syndicated via RSS from Techdirt

New details on an old bug could bring the BGP protocol’s vulnerability back into the spotlight, some ten years after it was first reported. This particular problem is considered by experts to be at least as bad as last month’s well-publicized DNS, but in this case, there’s no ready-made solution.

Read More…

Originally Syndicated via RSS from Ars Technica

For the last few years, various connectivity providers sold “unlimited” data plans when the reality was the plans weren’t unlimited at all. Many providers are now changing the plans and instituting more clear caps, but it still seems a bit ridiculous to have marketed unlimited data plans and then pulled the rug out from under those who bought exactly what you sold them. Up in Canada, it seems that TELUS is taking it a step further. Not only did it sell people “unlimited” plans that it now regrets, it’s exercising some vague language in its contract that allows them to simply cancel the plans of those who had bought into the “unlimited” plan even just a short while ago. The company is forcing users to switch from a $75 unlimited plan to a $65 plan that is limited to just one GB per month, and dumping anyone who won’t switch. That would seem to be a pretty strong bait-and-switch claim. Sure, perhaps the telcos oversold these unlimited plans, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be required to live up to what they sold.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Originally Syndicated via RSS from Techdirt

The 463 blog points us to an interview with Mitch Kapor of Lotus and EFF fame, in which he makes the case for a national Chief Technology Officer. The idea seems to be that technology policy in the United States is currently fragmented among a bunch of different positions, and having a designated top technologist in the government would help to bring coherence to the nation’s technology policy. It sounds like a reasonable idea at first blush, but on closer examination it might create more problems than it solves.

To start with, it’s important to distinguish between two jobs that are really quite different. One job is to coordinate the government’s own IT infrastructure. Currently, IT decisions are made by the various federal agencies and departments within the federal government. A national CTO could conceivably set guidelines or policies related to IT infrastructure that would apply across the executive branch. The other job is to advise the president on substantive tech policy issues like network neutrality, patents, copyrights, etc. The two jobs are very different, and it’s not at all clear it would make sense to have the same guy doing both. But let’s consider each position in turn.

It’s not clear how significant the potential savings or efficiency gains would be from having a single guy in charge of all government IT deployments. Up to a certain point, there are efficiency gains to be had from greater IT integration, but the federal government is probably so large that those economies of scale have already been exhausted. That’s especially true when we consider that the different parts of the government have widely different requirements. Some parts, such as the FBI and NASA, have offices all over the country, while others are located almost entirely in Washington. Federal agencies do different kinds of work and need a wide variety of software packages. The current arrangement, in which each agency manages its own IT infrastructure, seems likely to give each agency more flexibility to choose technologies that meet its specific needs.

The idea of a designated tech policy advisor is more promising, but that also has potential downsides. A good choice could help bring coherence and vigor to a president’s tech agenda, but, given enough power, a bad choice could cause just as much mischief. Therefore, if the next president does create a CTO position, he ought to limit its function to advising the president, rather than pursuing an independent policy agenda. A good model for this is the president’s Council of Economic Advisors, which advises the president on economic policy and produces an annual report on the state of the economy but doesn’t wield any significant authority in its own right.

Timothy Lee is an expert at the Techdirt Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Timothy Lee and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Originally Syndicated via RSS from Techdirt

The Associated Press has been having a hard time keeping up with the times. While there was the highly publicized situation where it threatened some bloggers with its own, highly questionable definition of fair use, a much bigger deal is that it’s increasingly competing with its own member newspapers by doing things like cutting deals with Google that take traffic away from those member papers’ own sites. Apparently, some of those newspapers are paying attention. Romenesko points us to the news that the Star Tribune in Minnesota has alerted the AP that its canceling its membership. It will be worth watching to see if other newspapers start joining in as well. The AP has had many years to learn how to adapt and change in the internet era, and so far it’s failed repeatedly. Seeing its member newspapers leaving is just the inevitable result of its botched strategy.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Originally Syndicated via RSS from Techdirt

Want to know when someone is preparing to take away your First Amendment rights? It’s when they claim that they have a proposal that involves

Originally Syndicated via RSS from Techdirt

A promising new protocol for securely and easily transferring data between websites is now ready for prime time. All contributors, including Google and Yahoo, have signed a covenant not to sue over OAuth implementations, freeing it for use by virtually anyone.

Read More…

Originally Syndicated via RSS from Ars Technica

Apparently Judy Estrin, a well-known Silicon Valley tech entrepreneur and exec, is coming out with a new book warning that the infrastructure needed for innovation in Silicon Valley is going away. The complaint basically appears to be that there’s too much emphasis on the short-term, with companies focusing on the quick flip rather than the long haul trends that need to be satisfied to drive real innovation.

I can absolutely understand where this is coming from — but I think it’s wrong. There absolutely are a bunch of folks in Silicon Valley who are focused on the quick flip and the easy cash out. Those folks have been around for a while. They get a lot more attention in the boom years, and during the down cycles you see them fleeing for somewhere else. But that doesn’t mean that the overall culture of innovation is in trouble.

In some sense, the argument sounds similar to the complaints we hear from long-time journalists bemoaning bloggers, or professional television producers whining about YouTube. The tools of innovation have changed the marketplace, allowing many more entrants — and not all of those entrants are all that serious about it, or even that good at it. So, there’s a ton of crappy blog content, and millions upon millions of videos that would never, ever show up on a television. Yet, there are also plenty of gems exposed by these systems that would never have come out otherwise.

And the same is true for innovation culture in Silicon Valley.

The “tools” for creating a startup make it easier and cheaper than ever before to simply throw something up and see if it sticks. And, yes, much of it is terrible — just like plenty of online content is terrible — but out of that some great stuff evolves. The fact that there are plenty of short term thinkers just throwing stuff quickly at the wall isn’t necessarily bad for innovation — it just means that innovation is taking a slightly different path. There are plenty of folks in Silicon Valley still thinking about the long haul, and looking at the trends and understanding them. But the ability to throw something up and see if it sticks is valuable as well, as it allows a lot more testing of ideas in the real world, without having to make huge initial investments. That isn’t to say that short-term thinking is a good thing. It’s not. But some folks doing short-term thinking doesn’t preclude others from using those lessons to build real long-term innovation.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Originally Syndicated via RSS from Techdirt

After years of dispute and litigation, the patent infringement lawsuit between Sony, Microsoft, and Immersion has come to a close, as Immersion has agreed to pay Microsoft $21 million of Sony’s dollars.

Read More…

Originally Syndicated via RSS from Ars Technica

Is there really enough room for another local entertainment and review site? The Onion thinks there is, and has decided to launch a beta of its new site, Decider, to compete with the likes of Yelp and CitySearch. There’s no satire here though, just clean lines and an easy-to-use interface.

Originally Syndicated via RSS from Ars Technica

One of the more well-publicized lawsuits involving the RIAA was the Howell case, which got a lot of press when some folks misread the RIAA’s filings against Howell. Either way, that point became meaningless when the judge ruled in Howell’s favor that “making available” is not infringement by itself. Of course, that argument was just for the RIAA’s attempt at a summary judgment. So the case still went on, and it turns out that Howell was caught destroying evidence — a big no-no. So, despite all of this, it’s no surprise that the RIAA has prevailed in the overall case. It does make you wonder why people who have strong evidence against them still end up fighting the RIAA. It’s completely admirable to fight the RIAA if they’re using faulty or flimsy evidence and you’re innocent, but when the evidence suggests otherwise, what good does it possibly do to fight them in court? In the meantime, the RIAA will certainly talk up this “victory” but will skip over the part that it wasn’t on the actual issues, but over Howell’s decision to destroy evidence.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Originally Syndicated via RSS from Techdirt

Northwestern University is the latest school to adopt the University of Michigan’s open source Be Aware You’re Uploading program. Turns out that simple e-mail notifications can make a real difference.

Read More…

Originally Syndicated via RSS from Ars Technica

A few weeks back, we wrote about Ryanair’s decision to cancel flight tickets that had been bought by travelers via third party websites. This made no sense to us whatsoever. These third party websites were acting as resellers, and doing something that seemed perfectly legal: providing new avenues for travelers to buy Ryanair tickets. And then to have Ryanair flat-out cancel the tickets without any refund just seemed to do the opposite: to piss off travelers who had happily paid for Ryanair tickets.

The airline is now defending the decision, but is doing an awful job of it. First, it complains that these other sites were jacking up the price on Ryanair tickets. Fair enough, but if the travelers were still willing to pay those fees, where’s the problem? Everyone got what they wanted in that scenario, as opposed to the current scenario where everyone is worse off: the travelers are out money without the plane tickets they thought they had bought, Ryanair has a bunch of really pissed off customers and the third party sites are none too happy as well. How is that possibly a better situation?

Then Ryanair claims that these 3rd party sites are violating its copyright in reselling its tickets, but it’s difficult to see how such a claim could stick. First of all, as long as the sites are legitimately passing on the lead or buying the tickets themselves, then where’s the copyright violation? It’s certainly not in visiting Ryanair’s website. It’s not in displaying the prices (which Ryanair admits are different than its own, and prices aren’t copyrightable anyway). So, again, we’re left wondering how this move could possibly make sense for Ryanair?

Update: As pointed out in the comments by discojohnson, the original article at the Independent reports that refunds were given to the websites involved, but the decision to refund the customers themselves was then left to up to those particular websites. We have corrected this post to reflect that clarification.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Originally Syndicated via RSS from Techdirt

A new prototype from Mozilla Labs provides a rich, interactive command interface for the Firefox web browser. It offers tight integration with remote web services and can easily be extended to support additional functionality.

Originally Syndicated via RSS from Ars Technica

Over the past few years, the “but think of the children!” crowd constantly talks up the importance of having parents monitor their kids’ online activities, and often puts out studies like the following one,

Originally Syndicated via RSS from Techdirt

Internet Explorer 8 will include new privacy features to help safeguard personal information. Designed to stop both fellow computer users and websites alike from snooping on your browsing behavior, the new features are a boon for the privacy-conscious. Advertisers might not be so pleased, however.

Read More…

Originally Syndicated via RSS from Ars Technica

An academic from the University of Amsterdam is seething after the European Commission requested several reports from him, then utterly failed to mention them as it proposed a 45-year copyright term extension that he had argued against.

Originally Syndicated via RSS from Ars Technica

California recently listed gallium arsenide, a common material in LEDs, as a human carcinogen. Ars looks at the studies behind that listing, and what effect California’s decision may have on the semiconductor industry.

Read More…

Originally Syndicated via RSS from Ars Technica

I tend to be something of an innovation optimist, believing that most resource constraint problems are eventually solved through ingenuity and innovation, but there can be some hiccups in the process along the way. Here’s an article looking at the airline industry, and trying to spin some scenarios of what would happen if it simply turns out that the commercial airline business is completely unsupportable. Obviously, with fuel costs so high, it’s become more and more difficult to keep airlines running (and it was never all that easy back when fuel costs were cheap). However, people seem to take for granted what cheap and readily available air travel allows. It touches on so many different businesses that it’s hard to fathom how deep the eventual impact would be if air travel needs to be significantly curtailed in the future.

It’s not just the obvious industries: airlines, tourism, etc. It would impact things like e-commerce companies that rely on cheap shipping. It would impact conferences. It could impact all sorts of industries when sales people can’t as easily go visit customers. The more you think about it, the more industries you can find hurt by a decline in the availability of cheap air travel. Of course, there are other industries that would benefit as well, such as telecom companies and video conferencing firms.

Still, the optimist in me just sees the scenario as an opportunity for innovation. In fact, all of those other industries that would be hurt by a reduction in air travel would have it in their own best interests to help fund research and development into alternatives and improvements, so the funding for such innovation could come from many, many different places. But if it takes a while to figure out the problem — and the airlines keep screwing things up themselves, there may be a rather unpleasant interim while everything shakes out.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Originally Syndicated via RSS from Techdirt

Get FISA Right, the group of socially-networked civil libertarians that formed to pressure Barack Obama on warrantless wiretapping and telecom immunity, is turning its Argus eyes toward John McCain and his Republican allies in Congress, and urging supporters to pool online donations for ad buys targeting the GOP.

Read More…

Originally Syndicated via RSS from Ars Technica

You may recall stories involving a small patent holding firm called Klausner Technologies, which claims to hold patents on the concept of “visual voicemail.” It seems to have interpreted these patents pretty broadly to the point that it considers anyone who offers any graphical interface to voicemail as infringing. Over the years, that’s meant lawsuits against AOL, Vonage, Apple, eBay, AT&T and others. Apparently, suing one by one was too much trouble, because Klausner has now sued another bunch of companies including Google, Vonage and Embarq. Of course, the company is playing up the fact that all those other companies it sued settled, but we’ve seen that game before. There’s not much new here as this scenario is all too common. We have a company with an overly broad patent on a concept that was a natural obvious progression of the art, suing pretty much every company that actually innovates, thus making actual innovation more expensive.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Originally Syndicated via RSS from Techdirt

Mathew Ingram notes that Google is continuing its campaign to use television “white spaces” for Internet connectivity, a promising concept that hasn’t panned out so far. I think the most interesting tidbit in Ingram’s post comes from an interview with Richard Wiley, the guy who chaired the committee that developed what became the current digital television standard. Ingram says Wiley told him that one of the broadcasters’ criteria for the new standard is that it use as much spectrum as possible. That sounds backwards, but it made sense for the broadcasters, because they knew they’d have to give back any spectrum they didn’t use. And it’s consistent with past experience; we’ve written before about the broadcasters’ spectrum-hoarding tendencies.

Perverse incentives like this are an inevitable consequence of the FCC’s Soviet-style process for assigning spectrum usage. As long the uses for spectrum are decided by fiat by the FCC, current licensees are going to play these kinds of games to ensure they get the biggest slice they can, even if they waste spectrum in the process. A better way to handle the transition (and still a good idea today, for that matter) would have been to give the broadcasters a fixed spectrum allocation and then allowed them broad flexibility on how to use it—including the right to lease or sell unused portions to third parties. That way, if they found a way to transmit television signals with less spectrum, they would have been able to lease out the unusued portions to third parties who could put it to more productive use.

In addition to promoting more efficient spectrum use in the short run, putting more spectrum on the market (as they’re doing in the UK) would have positive effects on the overall telecom market. By driving down the price of spectrum it would make it easier for new firms to get into the wireless market. So far, the relatively small number of licenses that have been put on the market has allowed incumbents to snapped them up and keep out new entrants. Putting more spectrum on the market would make this strategy a lot more difficult to pull off.

Timothy Lee is an expert at the Techdirt Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Timothy Lee and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Originally Syndicated via RSS from Techdirt

As the kids go back to school, Ars takes a look at the state of P2P on campus. Sure, Big Content is still sending out letters and serving up lawsuits, but how some schools are responding to P2P’s legal and technical impact on their networks may surprise you.

Read More…

Originally Syndicated via RSS from Ars Technica

With UK law firm Davenport Lyons

Originally Syndicated via RSS from Techdirt

The RIAA may win its battle against the unlicensed music discovery service Muxtape. But an open source version that can be installed and run from any server means that everyone can share their favorite mixes now.

Originally Syndicated via RSS from Ars Technica

Intel’s new Classmate PC reference design includes a tablet mode with touchscreen support. An Intel ethnographer explains that tablet technology brings micromobility to the classroom and makes computers a more streamlined part of the education experience.

Read More…

Originally Syndicated via RSS from Ars Technica

Over at the Technology Liberation Front, my co-blogger Adam Thierer discusses the trade-offs between platform competition and standardization, a subject Mike has written about in the past. Adam explores the mobile phone and console markets, and points out that the proliferation of incompatible devices has created real costs for developers who want to build on top of those various platforms. He makes some good observations, but I think he’s missing the importance of reverse-engineering in resolving the dilemma he identifies. If a platform is proprietary, then we really do face a trade-off between standardization and competition. But open, flexible standards allow both: many firms can offer competing products, but they all work together because they’re all designed for a common platform. Moreover, if the standard is well designed, the competing products can offer a wide variety of different features, and the standard can grow and evolve over time as vendors propose and adopt new extensions. That’s the story of the web, for example, which features both competition and interoperability. The standard has evolved organically, as various vendors proposed and adopted new standards and often adopted those of their competitors.

The question, of course, is how to reach this “sweet spot” of an open, flexible, and universal platform. Sometimes (as with the web) we just get lucky, and the designer of the initial standard has the foresight to make it open and extensible. But when that doesn’t happen, and it often doesn’t, the next best hope is reverse engineering: a company (e.g. IBM) develops a proprietary platform which achieves popularity and is then reverse-engineered by competitors, transforming it into a de facto open standard. The modern PC platform isn’t really controlled by anybody, although Microsoft and Intel have more influence than most other vendors. And because nobody controls it, it’s both fiercely competitive and highly interoperable.

Because reverse engineering is so important in transforming closed standards into open ones, we should be especially worried about laws that stand in the way of that process. I’ve written before that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is one such roadblock. For example, one would expect companies to be working hard to reverse-engineer Apple’s iTunes-iPod ecosystem in order to sell iPod clones. We might expect the emergence of a de facto open standard around Apple’s platform, with a variety of iPod clones and drop-in iTunes replacements. Unfortunately, in part because the DMCA limits the reverse-engineering of FairPlay, Apple’s DRM technology, few vendors have attempted this. Hence, the DMCA is helping to perpetuate the competition-versus-standardization dilemma Adam laments.

Timothy Lee is an expert at the Techdirt Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Timothy Lee and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Originally Syndicated via RSS from Techdirt

Nintendo and Sony’s portable gaming units may be all the rage these days, but the newest open source handheld called the Wiz is raising eyebrows. The specs look nice, and you can play classic games via emulation.

Read More…

Originally Syndicated via RSS from Ars Technica

When old school journalists complain about the supposed “threats” from companies like Craigslist and Google or things like blogging, one of the common refrains is: “but who will pay for investigative reporting.” The idea is that these other services can replace the basic news facts, but it’s tough to see how true investigative reporting will get funded. Yet, as with all markets in a state of flux, we’ve seen that if there’s a real demand, new business models will come along to handle it — and that seems to be exactly what is happening in the investigative reporting realm. The NY Times points out a few different experiments in other forms of funding investigative reporting, with the bulk of the story talking about getting interested parties to pay up front for an investigation. In other words, if there is a concerned group of folks worried about, say, dangerous chemicals leaking into the drinking water, it could put that story up, and if enough people contribute to the investigation, a reporter can get paid and do the investigation.

While there are some concerns that this would lead to biased journalism, there’s nothing saying that the journalist’s results have to support the initial worry. In fact, I would imagine that in cases where folks are worried about things like chemicals in the drinking water, they’d be much more relieved to find out that it’s really nothing. Either way, this model fits exactly with the business models we’ve discussed in the past: getting people to pay for the creation of content. The creation of new content is a scarce good, and there may be some group of people for whom its worth paying for. In this case, the example fits the business model we describe for content after it’s created as well, since the organization doing these investigative reports will then offer them to newspapers for free (so long as they don’t want an exclusive right — which would not be free). That’s exactly how it should be: it costs money for the initial creation, but then the content is freed, where it adds much more value (and attracts more people to fund later stories). Who knows if this particular effort will work (execution is everything, after all), but the model is sound, and shows that despite gloomy whining from old school reporters, the new business models will show up.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Originally Syndicated via RSS from Techdirt

Fans of social news site reddit will be pleased to know that, if they choose to become “redditors” themselves, they can now completely customize their own reddit with whatever design they please, in addition to plopping it onto a custom domain name.

Originally Syndicated via RSS from Ars Technica

J.K. Rowling has been an aggressive user of intellectual property laws against anyone who she feels has done her wrong, and the latest target, as sent in by a bunch of readers, is an Indian film by the name of Hari Puttar: A Comedy of Terrors, about a young Indian boy who gets left home alone. If anything, you almost have to wonder if the makers of the film purposely picked a bunch of recognizable themes. There is the name, which potentially plays on both Harry Potter and Shakespeare’s Comedy of Errors (which, of course, is public domain). Then there’s the story line, which seems similar to the Home Alone movies. So this film isn’t copying Rowling’s work, but the name certainly sounds like it could be.

The movie makers insist their Hari Puttar has nothing to do with Harry Potter. The storylines are entirely different. Hari is a popular Indian name and Puttar means “son” in Punjabi. Plus, when pronounced correctly, it doesn’t even sound like Harry Potter. That doesn’t mean that it wasn’t done on purpose, of course. So, yes, I can understand where Rowling is coming from, but that still doesn’t necessarily make this a smart move. Leaving the movie as is doesn’t take any money away from Rowling. If anything, all this effort is doing is providing a lot more free publicity for the Hari Puttar movie — which may be exactly what the movie makers wanted.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Originally Syndicated via RSS from Techdirt

A few months after rejecting the RIAA’s argument that making a file available over a P2P network is copyright infringement, a judge is handing the labels a victory after the defendant reformatted his hard drive, nuked his KaZaA installation, and downloaded and used a file-shredding program.

Read More…

Originally Syndicated via RSS from Ars Technica

It’s really amazing how many times we see companies using the DMCA to shut down and stamp out fan efforts to help promote some content. Take, for example, the latest situation pointed out by MG Siegler over at VentureBeat. Apparently, cable TV network AMC has

Originally Syndicated via RSS from Techdirt

A few years back, we asked if it should be illegal to get hacked. In that case, we were referring to some fines that the FTC had handed out to companies that had leaked data to hackers. This raised some troubling questions — as it’s often difficult-to-impossible to stop your computer systems from getting hacked, and putting liability on the company could lead to some serious unintended consequences. Yet, at the same time, over the past few years, we’ve heard about large security breaches on a regular basis (thanks, in large part, to new disclosure laws) — and often those breaches definitely seem to be due to negligence on the part of a corporate IT team that failed to lock down the data in any significant manner. That seems to be leading more people down the path of saying that companies should be liable for getting hacked.

For example, Slashdot points us to a blog post at InfoWorld, where it’s suggested that companies should be criminally liable for leaking such data. I can certainly understand the sentiment, but it may go too far. Again, it’s impossible to totally protect a system from getting hacked. Sooner or later there’s always going to be some sort of leak. Increasing penalties could make companies take things more seriously — especially in cases of gross negligence (which do seem all too common). But making the rules too strict can have serious negative unintended consequences as well, even to the point that some companies may stop accepting credit cards altogether, since the liability would just be too great. Would people be willing to give up the convenience of credit cards to protect their safety? From what we’ve seen, for most users the answer would be no. They know their credit cards are at risk, but they still use them because the benefit of the convenience still seems to outweigh the danger of the risk.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Originally Syndicated via RSS from Techdirt

Ars Technica has given EA’s free to play PC title Battlefield: Heroes quite the play test. The verdict? It’s easy to play and much fun, although we’re still left wondering what we’ll be asked to pay for.

Read More…

Originally Syndicated via RSS from Ars Technica

As you recall, Hasbro’s decisions on how to deal with upstart Scrabulous backfired badly. The company first threatened Scrabulous, then tried to do a deal with them. When that failed it (finally!) built its own Facebook Scrabble and then sued Scrabulous. Rather than working to Hasbro’s advantage, this backfired in a huge way — pissing off plenty of people who swore never to use Hasbro’s version of the game. And then it was just a matter of days until the Scrabulous guys came out with a new game that was close to Scrabble, but different enough to likely avoid all copyright and trademark claims.

Now, Hasbro only owns the rights to Scrabble in the US and Canada. Mattel owns the rights elsewhere. Now, seeing that Mattel had the distinct advantage of seeing how much backlash there was against Hasbro for its actions, and how poorly Hasbro’s own Facebook Scrabble was received, you might think that Mattel would try a different path. Nope. Mattel has now forced Scrabulous offline outside of the US as well. To be fair, the guys from Scrabulous overplay their reaction as well. It’s not that shocking. After all, this is how companies react these days. Rather than going with the faux outrage, why not just release WordScraper and get people to sign up for that, rather than any “licensed” version of Scrabble?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Originally Syndicated via RSS from Techdirt