Category Archives: Rants and Raves

Let’s all drink the Intellectual Property Koolaid…

The Times Online reports that Britain is considering doubling the length of copyrights on pop classics, in an attempt to march in step with American laws. Currently Britain’s copyright protection lasts 50 years, while in the U.S. copyrights go for 90.

Their justification?

James Purnell, the new minister for creative industries, believes the change will allow record companies to generate extra revenue to look for new talent and nurture it. Purnell, who will outline his plans in a speech next week, said: “The music industry is a risky business and finding talent and artists is expensive. There is a view that long-term earners are needed so that the record companies can plough money back into unearthing new talent.”

Frankly, I dispute this idea. It isn’t expensive to unearth raw talent: it’s expensive and time consuming to become talented. Finding talented people is actually pretty simple. What’s expensive is the ridiculous process that the music industry goes through to market and promote their music.

You see, the problem isn’t that a couple of pop classics will be protected. It’s that all works will be. You are robbing the public of their property by keeping it from entering the public domain, with absolutely no reasonable recompense.

Let their dying business model die. Let new ones, based upon building on our shared cultural heritage begin.

Perhaps it is just my aching knees…

But I feel a full on rant coming on, brought on by my favorite corporate shill, Robert Scoble. I know, I know, he’s an easy target, but he really brings it on himself with absurd nonsense in defense of Microsoft.

My rant today is response to this bit of absurdity which Scoble posted in response to Dan Gilmor’s criticism of Microsoft’s position on security:

In winning and sustaining its monopoly in the operating system and browser markets, Microsoft has exposed countless millions of people to woes from security holes that have become conduits for viruses, worms and spyware. Now the software giant is planning to charge its captive customers to clean up the mess it created.

Robert Scoble goes on to describe how Microsoft are really good guys, after all, they released Windows XP Service Pack 2 for free, they released their (beta) Anti Spyware product for free, how more altrusitic can you get?

I suppose in Scoble’s world, he thinks that when he buys a car which is later found to have serious defects, that the manufacturer’s are being altruistic when they fix those shortcomings for free. But he’s mistaken. Recalls are forced upon manufacturers because consumers need to be protected against systematic defects in automotive design and manufacturing which can cause loss of property or life. While consumers don’t pay for these repairs when they are fixed, consumers do pay for them in the form of higher sticker prices on automobiles when they purchase them.

Software of course, is shipped without any warranty of any kind. Script kiddies break into your business’ computer and deletes all your files? Not Microsoft’s fault. Lose all your personal data to an identity theif? Not Microsoft’s problem. Oh, and that will be $180 for XP, thank you very much.

Last I heard, Microsoft was still making stacks of money. They aren’t doing anything for free, they are doing the bare minimum necessary to try to keep their business alive and growing. Often, this is more about creating the appearance of doing something about security than actually doing something about security.

The other thing to note is that part of the reason that IE7 and Longhorn have such substantial security updates is because Microsoft wasn’t really ever focussed on security. Many of their systems are virtual construction sets for virus writers, and always were. Now they are playing catch-up, and asking to be praised for doing the work that they could have done years ago.

Sorry Robert, no free rides for Microsoft from this blogger.

Childish Rant of the Day

For some reason, Dave Winer’s Scripting News hasn’t fallen off my blogslines blogroll. It must be for the “reality TV” factor, where people who should know better act out their personal issues for the shock and amusement of all.

Witness today’s rant:

Scripting News: 5/14/2005

Thing is — Adam’s star is fading, again. At some point he’s going to need some friends, and then I’m going to kick him in the ass, and then look him in the eye and say “Shouldn’t have lied so much, dickhead.”

You see Dave, it’s like this. You may like to lay claim to being the inventor of Podcasting. There may even be some legitimacy to that claim. But the fact is that, well, people didn’t like you very much, and mostly ignored your efforts. It took the involvement of somebody with some (albeit minor) celebrity and personality to make it take off.

The fact is, you didn’t capture the imagination of the public: Adam mostly did. And what’s completely unsurprising is that public’s vision about the future of podcasting is considerably larger, more diverse and beautiful than Adam or you could possibly imagine.

I was a big fan of both of you until Bloggercon 3. It was then that I realized just how vain Adam is , and just how much of a self-important blowhard you are. The fact is that you were entirely happy with calling yourself Adam’s friend as long as you thought there was some personal advantage you were going to get in terms of fame and recognition, and when that wagon appeared to pass you by, you reacted like above, as a petulant, snotty nosed child.

To any podcasters: think long and hard about whether either of these two people is the person you want to use as models for your podcasts, or your life in general.

I’m left wondering: why the hell does anyone hang out with Dave Winer at all?

Grump!

Know how to get grumpy? Spend consecutive weekends in Reno and San Franscisco in the company of lots of people and food, and then go to your Sunday Weight Watchers and discover that you’ve put on nine f*cking pounds.

Nine pounds.

I f*cking hate this crappy pudgy body. You work and work and work and work to lose one pound, and then you just relax for a week, don’t even go too crazy, and you lose three months of hard effort.

Addendum: A new morning dawns. My weight is now reading 6.5 pounds less than yesterday. I walked from the Bart to Pixar. My Toy Story 2 coat that I chose to wear this morning looks like a tent on me.

I’ve got nothing to fret over, so I should stop fretting.

No Intelligence in Intelligent Design

Periodically Slashdot runs a story to punch the creation versus evolution button. I must admit, it’s one of my hot button topics. I’d could rant substantially about it, but instead I’ll just ask that you read the comments and see how many of its proponents seem to be unable to spell the word “intelligent”.

A brief list:

  • intelegant
  • intellegent
  • integgegant

They also can’t seem to spell the word “atheist”, or apply it correctly.

Thoughts on ClearPlay

This morning as I was driving in (and running late since traffic was bad, and the UPS outlet where I was supposed to be able to pick up my monitor wasn’t even open so I went out of my way for nothing and… oh, never mind, I digress) and our local PBS affiliate ran a story about ClearPlay and the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act.

I see the bill as a mixed bag: it increases the penalty for clandestinely using a camcorder in a movie theater. The shocking claim made by the usual talking-head industry type is that such illegal copies cost the movie industry billions. BILLIONS! Get real. Watching one of these DVDs is like watching a kindergarten class do Shakespeare. The existance of a $2 copy of Lord of the Rings does not prevent the sale of a $25 authorized version in anywhere close to the one-to-one ratio that such extravagant claims require. I oppose this only because the penalty is so large in proportion to the actual damage done.

But the other thing that the FECA does is legalize companies like ClearPlay. ClearPlay manufactures a DVD player that downloads “filters” from their website which automatically instruct the DVD player to skip violent or sexual material, thereby making Natural Born Killers appropriate for viewing by your five year old. Some stories have run about this with the rather radical slant that Congress has legalized the censorship of DVD content. This is not censorship. Censorship occurs when someone desires to see material which is made unavailable by another agency. This is the reverse of censorship: I specifically choose not to view some kinds of content, and the player now makes that simple.

Studios don’t seem to like this idea much, and again, their reasoning is puzzling. The existance of such technologies does nothing to decrease the sales of their products: in fact, if anything it should have a positive effect. They instead choose to complain that the “integrity” of the movies they produce will be harmed. Yes, the integrity of Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle will be harmed when the references to sex and drugs are dropped. What a pity. Perhaps the sounds of cash registers will help alleviate their inner angst.

Ed Felton has a nice summary on his blog:

The soccer-free version of “Bend It Like Beckham” is speech. The FMA allows that speech to occur, by preventing a copyright owner from suing to block it. And the FMA does this in an ideal way, ensuring that the copyright owner on the original work will be paid for the use of their work. That’s the purpose of the “from an authorized copy” and “no fixed copy” language — to ensure that a valid copy of the original work is needed in order to view the new, modified work.

It isn’t clear to me whether the Family Movie Act (section 201 of the FMA) allows a certain kind of remix to be done. It would be kind of cool to be able to create a media player which allowed you to scramble, augment and annotate an existing DVD. As long as no fixed copy of the DVD content is made, it would seem to be no different in spirit than the modifications made by ClearPlay. The language of the bill does include specifications that such modifications be “limited” and may be only “deletions”, so I’m not sure my interpretation would be legal. Still, interesting…

I don’t want to join any club that would have me as a member…

I’ve supported the notion that I think that the world is a much better place when people can communicate with one another. It’s one of the reasons that I blog.

Sometimes, this is a hard philosophy to live with. Creationist knuckledragger Ken Ham has apparently figured out how to use WordPress and podcast.

Sigh.

I have to console myself with the notion that some will at least listen to him and realize what a collosal dumbass he is.

Steve Ballmer’s email about anti-discrimination bill

Cowardice.

It saddens Scoble.

Is it really surprising that a company as large, predatory, and self-centered as Microsoft might not be a good guardian of individual rights? Let’s face it: companies aren’t good guardians of individual rights. The best you can hope is that they just stay out of the way. But it’s hopelessly naive to assume that your employer will act in your best interest. It sometimes happens, and those companies should be treasured, but it surprises me every time it happens. You can’t expect companies to behave ethically or with conscience.

Nikon respond to RAW WB concerns: Digital Photography Review

There is a bit of a tizzy going around some of the blogs I frequent about the Nikon D2X. You see, Nikon has decided to encrypt some of the information in their NEF or “raw” format, so that you need to use their utilities or their SDK to get appropriate color correction of pictures from their applications. This shouldn’t be a really big deal, because apparently they did a really poor job, and a couple of people have already reverse engineered the encryption. But there is a small problem: it’s possible for Nikon to sue people who circumvent such a measure under the DMCA. It might not actually be a DMCA violation: after all, for it to be a violation of the DMCA there has to be some copyright of the underlying data, and it is hard to imagine that the white balance data is copyrightable. It’s also pretty clear that the encryption of this white balance data doesn’t actually serve any copy protection. This recalls some of the findings in the recent Lexmark cases, and should be struck down on a similar finding.

But they could definitely make life miserable for software developers in the mean time. They may not win, but they really don’t have to prevail in court. They can just write checks until they do.

What is truly mystifying is why Nikon chooses to limit the functionality of their hardware. Why they choose to screw their customers. Why they choose to slow the adoption of their equipment. Nothing about this policy serves their customers in the slightest degree. Presumably they think they can make some money by licensing their SDK to developers. Hey, here’s an idea: stay out of the software business, except to the extent that it allows you to make better cameras. Then, sell more cameras.

Dpreview.com (an excellent website by the way, highly recommended before any camera purchase) has an article which reproduces Nikon’s response to this controversy.

Nikon respond to RAW WB concerns: Digital Photography Review

Through use of the Nikon Software Developer Kit, authorized developers can produce software by applying creative concepts to their implementation and adding capabilities to open Nikon’s NEF file and use NEF’s embedded Instructions and Nikon’s Libraries. Nikon photographers reap benefits from independent developers’ approaches, because it allows the photographer to open and process their NEF images.

So, tell me Nikon: how are your customers well served by denying motivated developers from developing software for your cameras? Just what does a developer need to do to become “authorized”? Do they need to demonstrate some really cool application? Insight into digital imaging? I suspect not. I suspect that the way they become authorized is by signing a licensing agreement and a check.

I’m a software developer, and I’m a consumer of digital products including cameras. The two are not disjoint things: I’m capable of operating in both spheres and I like products (indeed, seek out products) which enable me to operate in both spheres. Your design decisions make it very easy for me to select my next digital camera: hello Canon.

Nikon’s press release ends with the incredibly condescending line:

Nikon continues to welcome dialogue with bona fide software developers.

Kiss my ass Nikon. I don’t need your bone fides to develop software.

Canon: are you listening? Don’t follow them down this path.

‘Cool it, Linus’ – Bruce Perens

Over on the Register, there is an article on the ongoing row between Linus Torvalds, Andrew Tridgell, author of the Samba software you’ll find as part of many operating system distributions, and Larry McVoy, CEO of Bitkeeper software, the proprietary revision control software which is used to help maintain order in the Linux kernel source tree.

It’s turning into quite a tiff, and Bruce Perens has weighed in and asking for cooler heads to prevail.

The problem is as far as I can tell, entirely Linus’ fault. He made what must be viewed as an incredibly short sighted decision: to use a propietary product as a key element in open source development. It’s a bad idea, for a number of reasons.

First of all, proprietary software is managed by commercial entities. They are allowed to sign NDAs, they can purchase and sublicense proprietary technology and they go out of business. When such a company goes out of business, there is no guarantee that the software which you are using will continue to be available. Putting the long term viability of your open source project at risk in this way is wreckless.

Secondly, if your goal is to promote open source software promote open source software by sleeping in the bed you’ve made. If the open source alternatives aren’t as good as the proprietary ones, then through your weight behind new or existing projects to improve by using them. Linus wrote:

“So I think open source tends to become technically better over time (but it does take time), but I don’t think it’s a moral imperative.” he writes.

The real issue is of course not whether it is a moral imperative, but rather do most people who would work on such a project view it as better to use and improve open source tools which can be made available to all, or to simply use the best tool available, despite it being against the principles which supposedly you began writing open source software to espouse?

Lastly, Linus simply didn’t take the feelings of a large subset of kernel developers into account. For projects which rely on volunteer labor, that’s just dumb.

I’ve used cvs for years, and spearheaded its use within a couple of different organizations. It’s got its flaws, but it is open, and available, and I’m willing to wait until other open source code revision systems have features which make it profitable for me to change. In my career I’ve used SCCS, RCS, CVS, Perforce and subversion, and will probably use some more before it’s all over. For my own personal work, work that I care about, I’ll choose open alternatives every single time.

The Long Slow Ride To Cancellation

Lisa has some comments for the writers on CSI, so I thought I’d pile on with a couple of my own:

  • The original CSI still has the best characters of any of the shows, but they are slipping. Early episodes actually presented them as secondary plot elements, not merely props to advance the plotline. Get back to character development to serve as a stable backdrop. Oh, and CSI: Miami and CSI: NY? Try getting some characters.
  • Mobsters? Boring. Hookers in trouble? Boring. Jealous spouse? Boring. Work on some better angles. The stories of humanity are incredibly varied. Find some of them.
  • Stop using technology as magic. There aren’t magical databases of every shoe ever made. You can’t pull images of license plates from a single bad frame of video taken a quarter of a mile away.
  • Realize that mostly CSI is a show for nerds. Appeal to the nerd sensibility and be smart first, and titilating second.

Tale of our times…

New instant messaging phone for your son Free
Ability to have him ignore your calls when you call him Free
Ability for him to call you and remind you that he needs some money Free
What happens when he starts talking to a new girl and spends ten 24 hour days on the phone $560 in overage charges

For when you absolutely need to let your son yap about nothing for $25/hour: T-Mobile.

How to tune your BS-o-meter

My BS-o-meter was tripped today while I was reading this article on Media Matters. One of the doctors appointed by the Florida court to examine Terri Schiavo, Dr. William Hammesfahr, was repeatedly referred to as a “Nobel prize nominee”.

Sigh.

Apparently he got “nominated” because his Congressmen sent the Nobel committee a letter saying he should get the Nobel prize. But, of course, you don’t get nominated by just having anyone send a letter to the committee. You have to follow the rules.. And in particular, the Nobel committee prefers to keep details of those who are nominated secret.

Information about the nominations, investigations, and opinions concerning the award is kept secret for fifty years.

When you see someone claim that they are a Nobel prize nominee, they are full of it.

Read the rest of the Media Matters article for more of the poor reporting that outlets like Fox are pushing.

Choice alone is not enough

My blog is mostly a lark. Someone once said that sports were invented just so men would have something to talk about besides themselves and their feelings when they congregate in groups, and this blog serves much the same purpose.

But some people think bigger thoughts, and I enjoy reading their blogs too. Again, I found myself back at Lisa’s blog, where she is talking about the role of choice in society, and why choice is not enough. Go ahead, wander over there and read it, then come back. I’ll still be here…

Okay, just a few things to add. The problem with a society which says “oh well, they made their choice” is that often the individual under consideration didn’t really make a choice, at least not in the sense of “weighing the alternatives and picking a rational course of action”. Most teenage mothers don’t really make an informed choice about becoming parents. Most individuals don’t make informed choices about drugs and alcohol. And perhaps most notably, people don’t make informed choices which result in their living in poverty.

It’s a neat, tidy philosophy to presume that everything which happens to a person is solely their fault and solely their responsibility. It’s just not a very realistic one. The poor are largely poor because their parents were poor. Teen mothers are often teen mothers because their mothers were. Very few of us have the perspective, knowledge and control over a large enough segment of our lives to actually have any real effective choices about our lives.

Consider a reasonably popular idea: the idea of “giving choice” to parents in where they send their kids to school. Politicians have promoted the use of school vouchers, which would give the parents a choice of either attending a public school, or opting out and sending their child to a private school and receiving a voucher to help pay for this private school. Proponents would say this is a great thing, because parents now have a choice.

But do they really have a choice? The amount of these vouchers is not sufficient to fund attendance at a private school if you are poor, so for poor parents (presumably, those in most need of help) this represents no real choice at all. If you come from a well-to-do family, then you already could afford to send your child to a private school, so this doesn’t expand the choices available to you at all. If you are in the middle, where private schools were just slightly out of reach, you may have an additional choice, but here’s the rub: private schools are under no obligation to educate anyone for any particular price. Therefore, they could just charge more money to all their current (well-to-do) students), make higher profits, and continue to be out of the price range of middle income parents. So in fact, no one here gets any more choices at all.

Some of our choices aren’t really choices at all.