Archives for category: digital products

Here’s some delightful news to wake up to on a gloomy Monday morning.

Minister of State for Enterprise Seán Sherlock is to publish an order early in the new year that is expected to allow music publishers, film producers and other parties to go to court to prevent internet service providers from allowing their customers access to pirate websites. (Irish Times)

It’s being done because of a court case involving record company EMI, where they took out an injunction against the cable company UPC, ordering it to block access to websites that allowed illegal downloading. They failed in their injunction, and now the Irish Government is helping them push it through with supportive legislation.

Let’s think about that for a second. Along with the usual suspects, there are other companies that in their own way, “allow illegal downloading”. They go by the name of Google, Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter. In other words, the companies that add the most value to the Internet may well be in the firing line. This legislation does not target users or accounts, it goes after whole websites. If the record companies get their way, they have carte blanche to gut the Internet to protect their failed business model.

And here’s another problem. Now, let me make this clear: I’m not into file sharing in any way. I don’t know the first thing about setting up torrents and peer-to-peer networks. It’s not that I have any sense of superiority about it, just because I’m simply not that big into music and movies. Blogs and reading seem to be more my kind of thing. In principle, I’m quite happy to pay the producers for the content that they produce. If they have gone to all that effort to create something of value, I think they should be rewarded for it. But paying companies whose sole purpose in life is to limit distribution through copyright laws? Not so much.

EMI are a dinosaur. They made money when CD’s and DVD’s were in vogue. They are suffering now, because a far more open and efficient system – the Internet – has displaced them. Gutenberg II has arrived and the likes of EMI are trying to burn the pamphlets. Unless they adapt, the EMI’s current business will be dead in ten years. The law might not be dead, though.  So, it’s quite feasible that we might have a draconian off-switch on the Internet, whose current use does not match the original intended purpose. How good is that?

Which gets me to my third problem with this. Ireland is a country whose growth prospects depend greatly on its attractiveness towards large and emerging technology companies – companies that have thrived because of Internet freedoms. We have the highest percentage of tech workers in Europe. A huge proportion of our GDP (and consequently, tax revenue) is tied up with the fortunes of the technology and Internet industry. These companies want to do business with governments that understand the dynamics of the Internet. By bowing to the dubious demands of the likes of EMI, our government will be demonstrating, in a very unambiguous way, that they don’t understand it at all. Instead of towing EMI’s line, we should be listening to what the technology companies are saying about this. They seem to be very angered about the US’s SOPA law. Why would it be different here? Do we really have such bad lawyers in this country, that they are not prepared to stand up to the record industry on such a crucial matter?

Dear Sean Sherlock TD, the proposed legislation is bad legislation. You are going to punish legitimate users of the Internet and you playing with the growth prospects of our country, all in an attempt to appease a pack of dinosaurs whose day has come.

2256774751_2ce50621ff

via MATEUS_27:24&2 5's photostream (Flickr)

This week, the French government decided to adopt a”three strikes” policy against illegal file sharers on the  Internet. Effectively, it means that if you are caught illegally sharing music, you risk a large fine and a one year Internet ban. The law is soon to be adopted in UK, and there are signs that other European countries will follow with similar laws of their own.

On one hand, government action seems reasonable. Musicians and music companies spend significant time and energy creating and promoting new music. It seems unfair that, after all this hard work, the product of their efforts is subject to a free-for-all with no obvious flow of money back to the producers. There is a parallel here with common theft.  Arguments such as “the record companies make enough money, so a free copy of my own won’t make a difference” are equally applicable in the case of shoplifting, for instance.

On the other hand the Internet is totally unsuitable for a pay-per-copy model. It’s impossible to police without draconian measures that have impacts way beyond the stated intent of preventing piracy. From the viewpoint of the file sharers, it costs the music companies nothing to distribute their songs and the products are infinitely available, so the whole meaning of theft needs to be re-assessed in this new digital environment. There is also the argument that copyright restrictions greatly limit creativity in the digital realm, although this issue applies to many physical products also.

Personally, I don’t file share. I’m happy enough to get what music I want through iTunes without resorting to BitTorrent or Limewire. Call me a traditionalist, but the idea of having thousands of illegally obtained video and music titles clogging up my hard disk space is somewhat distasteful. If I like a piece of music, I’ll buy it, and I don’t have a problem with that.  However I can also understand the argument that, with the Internet, the world has changed. I think the idea of limitations being placed on personal usage of digital products (i.e. Digital Rights Management, or DRM) repulsive. I think there are serious issues with governments and private firms monitoring our Internet usage. I’m inclined to agree that a radical re-assessment of the whole business is necessary.

With the Internet, we seem to be moving into a world of openness, rather than protection. Openness implies sharing, collaboration, continuous improvement and mass-participation. Although it’s obvious that many traditional businesses are suffering in these circumstances, it’s not obvious to me why there would be a whole-scale business implosion over time. Indeed the Internet might well create new ways of generating wealth, through, for instance, extension of brand image and mind-share leading to greater demand for performances, merchandise and premium downloads.  The examples of Radiohead and Trent Reznor certainly point to some interesting ideas in this area.

I’m interested in your thoughts on this. Is file-sharing just a polite word for stealing or is it symptomatic of a changing world order? What are your thoughts about file-sharing and why you think it’s good or bad?

In the last few years, some delightful technologies have become available to consumers, driving a new boom in electronics sales. These technologies include touch-screen, wireless Internet, accelerometers and global positioning systems to mention the key ones. I happen to be writing this blog entry on a device that has all of these and more.

But what is next? Have we reached some sort of technological pinnacle now? I think not.

I’m eagerly awaiting one big technology to arrive soon. Proximity sensing.

I’m slightly myopic, but most people don’t realize this. They never see me with glasses on. The mundane reason is that I have an amazing propensity to lose glasses. Most glasses I have ever had take their leave from me after a few months, with the last set disappearing forever on a plane back from the US. What I would love is a device that monitors their position and alerts me if they are no longer in my immediate viscinity.

I can conceive of other applications immediately. Finding golf-balls when they get lost in the rough. Keeping tags on errant toddlers or pets. Finding the car in the car park. Maybe even finding partners to all the odd socks in the house..

The key to such a technology is a thingy known as a RFID tag. It’s a small transmitter that can be attached to any object, so that its location can be determined by an appropriate detection device.

RFID’s are still somewhat expensive, which explains why we don’t see them in the shops just yet. They are already being used in certain specialist industries and their size and cost is reducing yearly. I can concieve a time, however, when rolls of tiny, machine washable or transparent RFIDs will be bought in shops for just a few pence each, or that they will already be embedded in most items bought in the shops.

The detection devices are also relatively straightforward, using simple triangulation to pinpoint objects. Indeed a small pocket device such as a mobile phone should be more than adequate to find missing things quicky.

Add in some some software to determine specific rules, associate items to the tags and enable specific applications and those missing socks will be a thing of the past.

%d bloggers like this: