The battle is now fully joined over what “television” means. Once upon a time, TV was what broadcasters put over the air on the scarce frequencies that the government gave them for free. They had to keep it clean and, every four years, send their news divisions to the national political conventions. Gradually, “TV” came to mean HBO and ESPN and Discovery and C-SPAN, as cable networks carved the American population up into marketing niches. The still-powerful broadcast networks say that digital television gives them a second chance. But to do what? They don’t know. That’s why the networks are the biggest players in the cable industry.
Meanwhile, all that beachfront property sits, vastly underutilized. Cable doesn’t care about the spectrum, even though the cable industry may cause broadcasters to give it up. But as Powell came to realize, there are plenty of other people clamoring to get on the beach. “Rural broadband would be much more feasible” if WiFi providers could use the spectrum that broadcasters are supposed to vacate instead of their current desert territory at 2.4 gigahertz, said Peter Pitsch, Intel’s director of communications policy. “Broadcasters’ spectrum would provide a plethora of services that are far more important to the future of the country than digital reruns of Friends,” said Gigi Sohn, president of the nonprofit Public Knowledge. A lifelong public-interest advocate who sided with broadcasters in their fight to get carried on cable, Sohn has abandoned a no-win effort to force “public-interest” obligations on broadcasters, she says. “Wouldn’t it be better if we just took all the spectrum away?”
Sony BMG expects that by year’s end a substantial number of its U.S. releases will employ either Sunncomm’s newly enhanced MediaMax or First4Internet’s XCP to address piracy concerns. No matter which technology a CD uses, it will include such extras as photo galleries, enhanced liner notes and links to other features.
“What matters the most to us is the consumer experience,” Sony BMG Sales Enterprise co-president Jordan Katz says. “Both technologies offer playability across all standard players, including CD players, boomboxes, DVD players, PCs, Macs, car stereos, video games and clock radios.”
Katz says the company wants to alert the industry that it is implementing the content-protection technology, because extensive consumer research indicates widespread customer acceptance of it.
And to play at, if you have the skills! A project in progress: The Copyfight – documentary on copyright reform. Seems like I’m going to have to get my BitTorrent setup working before April 3.
The aim of The Copyfight is to serve as a link between the scholarsâ€™ debate and the general public. Notwithstanding the successes of recent political documentaries, video has traditionally been the most suitable medium for reaching a mass audience. People spend more time watching television than reading the newspapers and listening to radio combined. To reach its objective, The Copyfight will adopt a two-front approach. First, a sixty-minute documentary will be produced and released under a permissive Creative Commons license to allow file-sharing. Second, the website will serve as an index of videos related to copyright reform – be it recorded lectures or moderated debates. Along with the interviews gathered to produce the documentary, these videos will be available for the public to download and edit for their own documentary narrative. Tutorials will be designed to assist in that process.
Sylvester believes it costs Apple about $59 for the materials to build the 512MB device. The most expensive component in the Shuffle is its flash memory chip, which right now costs about $31, Sylvester wrote.
Thus Apple appears to have a profit margin of about 40 percent on the 512MB player, she wrote. Sylvester estimated that Apple’s margin on the 1GB Shuffle is slightly smaller, about 35 percent. The report did not mention costs beyond the components, such as marketing, packaging, labor and other overhead. Also, while Apple sells iPods directly, it would not receive the full retail price of those sold through other stores.
Several consumer electronics makers balk at the $1 charge for anti-piracy technology proposed by the Open Mobile Alliance (OMA), they told Reuters. The OMA is a group of handset makers, wireless telecoms operators and other technology companies.
Mobile phone makers and consumer electronics makers said $1 per device is too high a price only to protect music and video against illegal copying. They will not be able to recoup that money through revenues expected from digital entertainment.
“This kind of price is certainly unreasonable. It’s not in proportion to the economic value,” said one senior executive at a top five mobile phone maker who declined to be named.
Then again, what would be its economic value?
One more statistic:
He points out that last year alone 684 million mobile phones were sold. If handset makers had put anti-piracy protection software in those phones, the $684 million in royalties would have exceeded total digital music sales on the Web last year.
The BBC’s Bill Thompson is always good for a different take on things. Here, he suggests that an increasingly backwatered legal doctrine ought to get more attention: The copyright ‘copyfight’ is on
However the question of reusing work does uncover a fundamental divide in this debate, one which I think may be irreconcilable.
It concerns moral rights – the rights I have as a creator to control how my work is used and exploited.
Moral rights are not about money but about integrity, and they pose great problems for those who want to liberalise copyright because they open questions of judgment, taste and even politics.
Put simply, if the law is changed to allow for remixing of work without my explicit permission, perhaps by introducing a compulsory license, then I cannot stop people I do not like or approve of using it.
This is not about getting paid – I would not want an article I had written to be used by a neo-Nazi group in their newsletter, however much I was offered.
Unfortunately most of the copyfighters take the US view of copyright as entirely about economics, and neither understand nor are interested in moral rights.
(Lessig’s response: on the challenge of moral rights)
Later: commentary at The Register – Doonesbury savages Pepperland’s copyright utopians (Lessig’s response: well, no one ever called him Jimmy Olsen) – also see Seth’s comments – Bill Thompson, Creative Commons, and “Moral Rights” in Copyright
Note that the Doonesbury comics cited are actually reprises, with new words and positions as Trudeau shifts his position. Here’s the current cycle
Hmmm – He’s put up a pay wall, so you’ll have to decide if you want to pony up the change to see how he’s changed – here’s an archive of my postings discussing the way he revisits this topic
Take weather data. The United States makes complete weather data available to anyone at the cost of reproduction. If the superb government websites and data feeds aren’t enough, for the price of a box of blank DVD’s you can have the entire history of weather records across the continental US. European countries, by contrast, typically claim government copyright over weather data and often require the payment of substantial fees. Which approach is better? If I had to suggest one article on this subject it would be the magisterial study by Peter Weiss called “Borders in Cyberspace,” published by the National Academies of Science. Weiss suggests that the US approach generates far more social wealth. True, the information is initially provided for free, but a thriving private weather industry has sprung up which takes the publicly funded data as its raw material and then adds value to it. The US weather risk management industry, for example, is ten times bigger than the European one, employing more people, producing more valuable products, generating more social wealth. Another study estimates that Europe invests €9.5bn in weather data and gets approximately €68bn back in economic value – in everything from more efficient farming and construction decisions, to better holiday planning – a 7-fold multiplier. The United States, by contrast invests twice as much – €19bn – but gets back a return of €750bn, a 39-fold multiplier. Other studies suggest similar patterns in areas ranging from geo-spatial data to traffic patterns and agriculture. “Free” information flow is better at priming the pump of economic activity.
Some readers may not thrill to this way of looking at things because it smacks of private corporations getting a “free ride” on the public purse – social wealth be damned. But the benefits of open data policies go further.
The National Academies does have a WWW page on the Committee on Partnerships in Weather and Climate Services, but I can’t find the NAS publication to which Prof Boyle refers. Note that Peter Weiss seems to have been writing on this theme for some time. Some examples:
- International Information Policy in Conflict: Open and Unrestricted Access versus Government Commercialization [pdf] by Peter N. Weiss and Peter Backlund, found in “Borders in Cyberspace,” Kahin and Nesson, eds., (MIT Press 1997)
- Borders in Cyberspace: Conflicting Government Information Policies and Their Impacts on International Meteorology; Peter Weiss; in Proceedings of the Workshop on Strategy for Providing Atmospheric Information; 2001.
- Borders in Cyberspace: Conflicting Public Sector Information Policies and their Economic Impacts; Peter Weiss, Summary Report; February 2002.
You’ll be pleased to know that communism was defeated in Pennsylvania last year. Governor Ed Rendell signed into law a bill prohibiting the Reds in local government from offering free Wi-Fi throughout their municipalities. The action came after Philadelphia, where more than 50 percent of neighborhoods don’t have access to broadband, embarked on a $10 million wireless Internet project. City leaders had stepped in where the free market had failed. Of course, it’s a slippery slope from free Internet access to Karl Marx. So Rendell, the telecom industry’s latest toady, even while exempting the City of Brotherly Love, acted to spare Pennsylvania from this grave threat to its economic freedom.
A couple of Register articles on the state of play in the EU:
The European Commission (EC) has confirmed it is looking into allegations that Apple’s iTunes Music Store discriminates against UK consumers by charging them more to download the same song than it charges other European music buyers.
UK retail giant Woolworths today put pressure on rival – and better known – online digital music services like Napster and Apple’s iTunes by offering sales tax-free downloads, bringing the per-track price down to 67p.
[…] There’s a catch, of course: the new price is only available for the next six weeks. Woollies is simply absorbing the 17.5 per cent VAT due on each download itself as a loss-leader to encourage sales.
It’s 9:20 p.m. on a recent Wednesday. P.Vo, known by day as Paul Vodra, is the first of 21 DJs — ahead of Seeking Irony and Weird Curves — who will play at this city’s version of an iPod DJ party. On this night, the most popular MP3 player, the iPod, serves as the lounge’s source of music, roughly three songs at a time. No turntables. No vinyl. Bring an iPod. Be the DJ. Please sign your DJ name on the white board in the front.
[…] Sure, there’s an intimate feel to the lounge, a friendly, down-to-earth vibe. Still, there’s always someone like Paul Straka who sneers upon hearing “Pieces of Me,” not Ashlee Simpson’s, but the cut from the local go-go band Rare Essence.
“Listen to this awful, awful music,” says the 28-year-old computer programmer from Manhattan who’s in town visiting friends. Just because it’s iPod night doesn’t mean the music is going to be any good, he says.
Wotowiec decides tonight is not the night for his iPod debut. So a few hours after arriving at the lounge, fresh from evening Mass, Wotowiec makes two vows: to come back next month, and to come back with “better stuff.”
“Next time, I’m gonna come back with more edgy stuff: You know, one hard-core country song, one hard-core metal song, one really, really, really dark techno song. Maybe a movie clip. Next time, when I come back, I’ll be prepared, I’ll be myself.”