Gregarius » BetaNews.Com » août 1, 2009

BetaNews.Com (5 non lus)

Jury arrives at $675K fine for student's music downloading, $22,500 per track

Publié: août 1, 2009, 3:46am CEST par Angela Gunn

By Angela Gunn, Betanews

The jury in the Joel Tenenbaum case has fined the Boston College student $675,000 for copyright infringement of 30 songs, or $22,500 per track. The award is radically smaller than the $80,000 per track levied against Jammie Thomas-Rasset in a similar infringement trial earlier this year.
The jury was out, according to Copyright & Campaigns' Ben Sheffner, between two and three hours. Judge Nancy Gertner has already announced that she'll review the award to ensure that it does not violate the Constitution's due-process clauses. As for Mr. Tenenbaum, he told Mr. Sheffner that he plans to file for bankruptcy if the award amount stands, as the doctoral candidate (in physics) has no way of paying the fine.
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009
After Tenenbaum, who will take back the music industry from the RIAA?

Publié: août 1, 2009, 3:00am CEST par Angela Gunn

By Angela Gunn, Betanews

Because the Joel Tenenbaum trial hasn't been maddening enough, Engadget yesterday had a little item on how the RIAA is claiming that customers ought to just suck it up and accept that DRMed tracks will go poof even if they've been paid for, since no other products or service providers are expected to "provide consumers with perpetual access to creative works." That's interesting coming from a group that claims that alone of all industries, copyright holders somehow deserve to get paid in perpetuity for their output. I guess forever looks a lot longer when it includes server-maintenance duties.
If anyone's got a more enlightened response than "oy" to the Tenenbaum trial's result, I'm all ears. I respect Professor Nesson's legal acumen, and having fair use taken off the table just hours before the trial was probably not a setback from which any legal team could have recovered, but looking over the past year's proceedings -- the defense's push to make its processes open and transparent, the sustained effort to get the trial shown live on the Web, all that -- I wonder if we'd all have have been better off if both Tenenbaum, and Jammie Thomas before him, had simply rolled over.
No, I do not support the RIAA's extortion racket.
I think the recording industry is a culture-gutting abomination, and that the entire outfit ought to be torched like Rome during a Nero violin recital. Whatever figure the jury arrives at, the artists Mr. Tenenbaum loves will never see a cent of it; after over a century of treating most artists like sharecroppers, "the industry" takes the droit de seigneur approach to windfall profit.
Music is so much more than the music industry, and for the sake of music -- the transmission of it, the longevity of the worthwhile stuff -- I hope the industry which treats one of humankind's most powerful communication devices and repositories of memory like so much chattel withers and dies.
Now that distribution is a non-issue, A&R guys, vice-presidents of promotion, global distribution managers -- to all of the ranks that stand between us and the artists...
Buh-bye, hope an honest day's work happens to you someday.
The courtroom, however, is not a venue for accomplishing that goal, and I've come to the conclusion that Joel Tenenbaum was ill-served by the attempt to make it otherwise. It's simply not built to do that.
The record-industry representatives insinuated during testimony that any desirable track was easily available online. That's a pantload, but unless Neeson's team was prepared to prove it untrue, it's testimony they couldn't challenge. (Had anyone asked, I'd suggest trying to find the complete catalog of The Connells online as an exercise in how "easily available" stuff is, but hey.)
The courts aren't the place to conduct our battle against the music industry; they've got good lawyers while all we consumers have are good ears and good sense. The legislative branch is perhaps our only remaining hope to fix the legal nightmare that copyright has become. And yes, I am painfully aware that the US Congress is a clown college when it comes to parsing this stuff. But we've written ourselves, legally speaking, into a corner. Even the most activist of judges isn't going to get us out, no matter how strong the moral appeal.
I am also painfully aware that file sharing is having a cultural effect not unlike Prohibition did back in the day. Circumvention efforts lead to security holes; disdain for one set of laws opens up disdain for others, and the public is forced to choose between seeming unethical (for file-sharing) and seeming stupid (for believing what they're told about file-sharing and handing over its cash). Protip: No one chooses to look stupid. Result: Sharing will continue, and thrive, hamstringing potentially better delivery mechanisms (in the way that bad money invariably drives out good) and ensuring that journalists will always have stories to write about litigation that ruins some random music fan's life.
The real leaders in this, ironically, are the world's unacknowledged legislators -- that is, the poets, or in this cases the lyricists and musicians. The musicians who choose to avoid the industry and sell directly to fans; the artists who post tracks for download and set up fair means of (again) purchasing directly; the radio stations that eschew RIAA-beholden music in favor of independent fare; and most importantly every one of us who decides that there's better stuff to listen to than whatever's being shoved down the foie-gras-feeding-tube of Clear Channel / RIAA / music television / People magazine -- these are the forces of nature now.
Years ago I sat in on a panel of teenagers being queried about their downloading habits, and one of the boys said that he used to download but didn't much anymore, because he had everything he wanted and didn't think he'd need anything else. I smiled, because even the most backward adult usually finds at least an artist or two to like after 17. But I wonder sometimes how that worked out for him -- if he's still downloading and exploring, or if he let his obvious fear of the power of the music industry undercut what should be a lifelong source of joy.
I hope he's out there taking advantage of good DRM-free services such as Lala, checking out tracks on the music blogs, and maybe directly sponsoring the next recording due out from a favorite artist or two.
Most of all I hope he's not letting a group of vampires calling itself the music industry take away from him enjoyment of music. That's what Professor Nesson was trying to explain to that Boston jury -- that the enjoyment of music is, or should be, bigger than this passing "industry" situation. He didn't succeed. That doesn't mean he was wrong -- just that he was in the wrong place.
Let your geek flag fly.
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009
FCC investigating Apple's App Store policy after it rejected Google Voice

Publié: août 1, 2009, 2:32am CEST par Tim Conneally

By Tim Conneally, Betanews

Apple's rejection of the Google Voice iPhone app proved to be the last straw, and now the Federal Communications Commission is involved. The FCC has begun an investigation into the matter.
"The Federal Communications Commission has a mission to foster a competitive wireless marketplace, protect and empower consumers, and promote innovation and investment," FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said this evening. "Recent news reports raise questions about practices in the mobile marketplace. The Wireless Bureau's inquiry letters to these companies about their practices reflect the Commission's proactive approach to getting the facts and data necessary to make the best policy decisions on behalf of the American people."
In its letters to AT&T, Apple, and Google, the Commission asked each party to clarify exactly what happened and why the application was blocked from the iTunes App Store.
To Apple, the commission posed questions redolent of a criminal investigation: "Did Apple act alone, or in consultation with AT&T, in deciding to reject the Google Voice application and related applications? If the latter, please describe the communications between Apple and AT&T in connection with the decision to reject Google Voice..."
Among its half-dozen questions, the FCC bluntly asked Apple why the app was rejected, and whether there is a list of prohibited apps that is provided to potential vendors, developers and iTunes customers.
To AT&T, the commission asked a number of similar questions, and asked to "Explain AT&T's understanding of any differences between the Google Voice iPhone application and any Voice over Internet Protocol applications that are currently used on the AT&T network, either via the iPhone or via handsets other than the iPhone."
As the Wall Street Journal pointed out this evening, this inquiry is significant because the FCC received no complaints about the rejection, and it was spurred purely by "Recent press reports [which] indicate that Apple has declined to approve the Google Voice application for the iPhone and has removed related (and previously approved) third-party applications from the iPhone App Store."
Read the FCC's letter to Apple
Read the FCC's letter to AT&T
Read the FCC's letter to Google
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009
FCC investigates Apple's App Store policy after Google Voice rejection

Publié: août 1, 2009, 2:32am CEST par Tim Conneally

By Tim Conneally, Betanews

Apple's rejection of the Google Voice iPhone app proved to be the last straw, and now the Federal Communications Commission is involved. The FCC has begun an investigation into the matter.
"The Federal Communications Commission has a mission to foster a competitive wireless marketplace, protect and empower consumers, and promote innovation and investment," FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said this evening. "Recent news reports raise questions about practices in the mobile marketplace. The Wireless Bureau's inquiry letters to these companies about their practices reflect the Commission's proactive approach to getting the facts and data necessary to make the best policy decisions on behalf of the American people."
In its letters to AT&T, Apple, and Google, the Commission asked each party to clarify exactly what happened and why the application was blocked from the iTunes App Store.
To Apple, the commission posed questions redolent of a criminal investigation: "Did Apple act alone, or in consultation with AT&T, in deciding to reject the Google Voice application and related applications? If the latter, please describe the communications between Apple and AT&T in connection with the decision to reject Google Voice..."
Among its half-dozen questions, the FCC bluntly asked Apple why the app was rejected, and whether there is a list of prohibited apps that is provided to potential vendors, developers and iTunes customers.
To AT&T, the commission asked a number of similar questions, and asked to "Explain AT&T's understanding of any differences between the Google Voice iPhone application and any Voice over Internet Protocol applications that are currently used on the AT&T network, either via the iPhone or via handsets other than the iPhone."
As the Wall Street Journal pointed out this evening, this inquiry is significant because the FCC received no complaints about the rejection, and it was spurred purely by "Recent press reports [which] indicate that Apple has declined to approve the Google Voice application for the iPhone and has removed related (and previously approved) third-party applications from the iPhone App Store."
Read the FCC's letter to Apple
Read the FCC's letter to AT&T
Read the FCC's letter to Google
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009
The Value Question: Is the Apple or Microsoft Family Pack the better deal?

Publié: août 1, 2009, 1:43am CEST par Joe Wilcox

By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

Is three times the price three times the value? That's the question I'm asking about Microsoft's limited-time Windows 7 Family Pack -- three Home Premium upgrade licenses -- for $150. Mac OS X 10.6 "Snow Leopard" Family Pack, with five licenses, will sell for $49.
It's a rhetorical question really. Most people with Windows PCs won't have the option of running Snow Leopard. Intel Mac users, by comparison, can run Windows dual-boot, using Apple's Boot Camp, or by way of third-party virtualization software. That said, to qualify for the discounted Family Pack pricing, Mac users would still need Windows XP or Vista.
I've long advocated that Microsoft offer a Family Pack. Kudos. Good job, Microsoft. But that was before Apple cut the price of its Family Pack from $199 to $49 and before Windows XP-to-7 upgrades turned out to be hard going (more on that topic in a few paragraphs). Both circumstances raise questions about each Family Pack's value.
Mac users running Leopard can get Snow Leopard for $29 or the aforementioned five licenses for 49 bucks. Some people contend that the low pricing reflects that Snow Leopard -- hence the "Snow" added to "Leopard" -- is a minor upgrade. But that minor compared to Leopard doesn't mean minor compared to Windows 7.
A Question Asked Different Ways
So I'll ask you about which offers more value. Would you rather pay $49 for five licenses or $150 for three? That's the easy question. But it ignores mitigating circumstances regarding whom is eligible for what. Apple's discounted pricing is only available to Leopard users. Earlier Mac OS X users will pay more, but also get more. They must buy the Mac Box Set -- with Snow Leopard, iLife `09 and iWork `09 -- for $169, or $229 as Family Pack. So, would you rather pay $150 for three licenses or $229 for five licenses and two extra software suites?
But, again, the question is oversimplified. The majority of Windows users run XP, for which Microsoft has got a crazy-complicated upgrade process. Microsoft will issue you the rights to upgrade from Windows XP to 7, but not the means. XP users must back up their data, wipe the hard drive and install Windows 7. Tech guru reviewer Walt Mossberg aptly expressed last week:
The process will be so painful that, for many XP users, the easiest solution may be to buy a new PC preloaded with Windows 7, if they can afford such a purchase in these dire economic times. In fact, that's the option Microsoft (MSFT) recommends for XP users. (Conveniently, this option also helps Microsoft's partners that make PCs.)
Vista users can directly upgrade to Windows 7, but that's not most people -- although it might be the majority of Betanews readers. So, I'll ask: If a XP user, is $150 for three licenses a bargain for you -- or is it too much for the trouble?
Slide from Microsoft's Financial Analysts Meeting
Product activation is another consideration when answering the value question. Unless Apple changes policy with the new operating system, Mac users won't have to suffer onerous product activation. It's a sale based on trust. Hackers cracked Windows 7 product activation, even before the software released to developers; Microsoft claims to have already blocked the hack. Would you rather pay $150 for three licenses bound to three machines or $49 for five licenses that could be moved around?
Apple Tax or Microsoft Tax?
That brings me to a broader topic of value. Yesterday, during Microsoft's annual Financial Analysts Meeting, CEO Steve Ballmer droned on about how his company and Apple approach value:
I want to describe our value proposition. We are a high-volume player. We do not, say, like Apple, believe in low volume, very high prices, very -- Apple is a great company, does a fine job. But their model says high margin, high quality, high price. That's kind of how they come to market. We say we want big market share. But with big market share, you take a lower price...We can't be high priced, that doesn't get you the volume that we aspire to.
Steve Ballmer means hardware and software, even though Microsoft only sells the latter. He's right that people pay more to join the Mac club. The entry-level Mac laptop is $999 and iMac is $1,199. But in terms of software, Apple can claim much lower pricing, which the two Family Packs demonstrate.
Same applies to earlier releases. Apple sells Leopard full version for $129, or $199 for the Family Pack. Apple sells one Mac OS X edition that contains all the features and installs on a clean Mac, no upgrade over previous version or product activation required. By comparison, today, Microsoft Store sells upgrades to Windows Vista Home Premium for $129.99, Business for $199.99 and Ultimate for $219.99. The closest Vista edition to Leopard is Ultimate full version, which Microsoft Store sells for $319.95. Caveat: People buying Vista can get Windows 7 upgrade for free.
Steve Ballmer spoke about high-volume, low-cost. Who has lower cost for productivity suite software? Apple's sells iWork Family Pack for $99, with five licenses. Office 2007 Home and Student sells for $149.99, although Microsoft Store has a special: $99. The Mac Home and Student version isn't discounted, by the way.
How about server software? Apple sells Mac OS X Leopard Server for $499 with 10 client-access licenses, or $999 for unlimited CALs. By comparison, Microsoft Store sells Windows Server 2008 Standard Edition for $1,029. I assume this version comes with five CALs, but the product description doesn't say. CDW sells Windows Server 2008 Standard with five CALs for $954.99. Businesses with volume-licensing contracts pay less. But they still pay for CALs, which Apple includes in the $999 price.
Yesterday, Kevin Turner, Microsoft's COO, also dug at Apple pricing yesterday. He put up slide titled, "Apple: Customers Get the Apple Tax." He told FAM attendees about Mac shoppers: "They are thinking about buying an Apple laptop, how they are going to get ripped off and pay too much, quite candidly."
Whoa, "ripped off" is strong language. But is the $100 difference between Family Packs the Microsoft Tax? Or perhaps the nearly $191 difference between full versions of Windows Vista Ultimate or Mac OS X Leopard? Or for Microsoft server CALs? Is there a Microsoft Tax here? You tell me.
The point: For many software products -- and I could cite plenty more examples -- Apple charges less than does Microsoft. But price isn't the only measure of value, although yesterday Steve Ballmer made it that way with respect to Apple (but not Linux). Apple charges more one place, while Microsoft charges more somewhere else. It's not the price that matters so much as the value for the money paid.
So, I ask differently: Which company do you think offers more value, regardless of pricing, Apple or Microsoft?
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009