Categories
Geek / Technical Marketing/Business Politics/Government

FOSS Is Not To Blame For Piracy

Linux News says Digital Rights Management Picking on the Wrong People is an article to defend Free and Open Source Software against the charges that they are the ones who promote piracy.

I was surprised to hear from someone on the Indie Gamer Forums many months ago that all of the contact he had with FOSS was with people who only wanted things for free and would pirate everything from movies to games. There is also a lot of animosity towards FOSS in the ASP newsgroups, and a few months ago there was even an article in the newsletter about how FOSS was supposedly bad for business and didn’t offer any benefits to the public.

My experience is very different. I have a friend who refuses to buy DVDs because he doesn’t want to support the media cartel and the digital restrictions management used in most DVDs. I know people who pirate games and movies, but I also know people who refuse to use anything to do with Windows. If it isn’t available, they do without. After all, if you can’t play a game on Gnu/Linux, what would be the point in pirating it? Rather than break the law to watch his own movies, my friend just decides to be very selective with his DVD purchases. Revolution OS is one of the only DVDs I know that doesn’t use stupid region encoding, something that does nothing but punish paying customers while allowing commercial piracy to still occur.

In any case, it seems to me that most people who use Free and Open Source Software are fully aware of the licensed terms under which they may use their software. They are the ones who refuse to use Windows Media Player because they would prefer that their software doesn’t change the way their computer works without them knowing about when, how, and why. You can read the WMP EULA and see that it is pretty absurd what you have to agree to allow Microsoft to do. If anyone is committing piracy, whether casual or not, it’s more likely the people who don’t realize what it is the license allows them to do. Why would FOSS supporters be part of a group of people who ignore licenses and EULAs?

Sure, there are those who don’t care about the license and just want everything to be available at no cost. Open source usually is free-as-in-beer, and so if you want freely available software, it’s definitely safer than trying to get away with copying software illegally. Still, some people are going to make illegal copies of Windows, or games, or office software, or even shareware, and it is definitely possible that those same people might support FOSS.

But what a broad paintbrush we would have if we made the assertion that FOSS users in general are the ones who will most likely copy software illegally. It really makes no sense that people who consciously use FOSS to avoid vendor lock-in or support software freedom would at the same time pirate software that was proprietary or work only on a proprietary system that they are not using.

I guess I don’t interact with enough people outside of the FOSS community. I haven’t heard of too many people who believe that we’re all criminals or out to destroy the livelihoods of software developers or that we’re just anti-Microsoft zealots, but those people exist. Somehow they “heard” or “learned” what they believe FOSS is all about. They get almost as shrill defending what they think as people do when you try to tell them that copyright infringement is not the same as “theft”, and it is probably because the two issues are so related in their minds.

Maybe it is just because it is an issue related to copyright, which is fairly complicated and even people who think they know about it can be wrong. Maybe it is because FOSS is really different; when you’re driving an automatic all your life and someone gives you a manual, you’d freak out at first because you have no idea how to drive. “Why is it so complicated?! I just want to get from point A to point B!!” Or, since a lot of you are probably geeks likes me, it’s like when you give someone vi or emacs after they have been using text editors like Notepad or Pico for years. It’s a different way to think about typing. Similarly, FOSS is a different way to think about software.

Some people dismiss FOSS for their own good reasons. They’ve at least thought about it, researched it, and come to their own conclusions. But it seems that when I do meet people who “don’t get it”, they really don’t get it. They don’t understand that Free, with a capital ‘F’, as in Freedom, is different from free, lowercase ‘f’, as in “no cost”. “But why is it such a problem to pay for it?” It isn’t! There is no problem with paying for FOSS. People can’t wrap their heads around it because of the unfortunate double-meaning of “free”.

But people for some reason have no problem making the leap from “FOSS means no cost”, however erroneous that thought is, to “FOSS means stealing software”, which is an even worse assumption. While I believe some might have an agenda and would purposely lead people astray, and some other people might honestly feel that they are fighting a good fight to defend non-FOSS, I think most people just attack what they don’t understand.

Categories
Politics/Government

Even More DRM Stupidity

DRM: A Personal Story is another excellent article from ZDNet on the topic of Digital Restrictions Management.

The Digital Millenium Copyright Act was supposed to be legislation to update the copyright laws to protect copyright in an age of computers and one minute downloads. The biggest change to come from it was the idea that circumventing copy protection, no matter how simple and no matter what your intent, is now a felony. Unfortunately, technology talk goes over most heads, and when you mix in copyright, most people will have their eyes glaze over.

Well, this article makes it quite clear how DRM and the DMCA can affect customers adversely. Imagine trying to take a copy of a television program from your TiVo and copy it to your new video-playing iPod. It’s easy. It’s simple. It’s a felony.

And the fact that it is a felony is stupid.

Let’s ignore the fact that it is already illegal to upload a copyrighted file to a friend and that making it illegal to circumvent copy protection is just absurd overkill that doesn’t do much to discourage it anyway. What public benefit comes from turning your customers into felons just because they wanted to interoperate with other devices they own? You know, Fair Use? The reason why I am allowed to use my VCR to copy a television program for later viewing? The reason why I can take a VHS tape and convert it to DVD? The reason I can rip my music collection to OGG Vorbis or MP3 and play it on my computer? Why do my potential Fair Use rights have to be nullified simply because it would be illegal to take action to exercise those rights?

Who benefits? TiVo gets to keep its business model? Yeah, that’s nice. I can only watch a video on a device because that device makes it impossible to play the video on another device without requiring a law to be broken.

So, I will never get a TiVo. I will never get an iPod. I will never get a device that prides itself on being so proprietary and restrictive.

I would really love to read some decent pro-DRM articles, but any that I’ve found are just spreading Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. I really don’t believe that paying $15-$20 for a Dave Matthews CD and ripping it to my computer would actually bring about the downfall of the music entertainment industry. I really don’t think that the lack of a Broadcast Flag on television signals is going to destroy television. After all, the VCR didn’t bring about the ruin of the movie industry, even though the movie industry would have loved to have made the VCR illegal.

Categories
Politics/Government

Today’s Juxtaposed Headlines

The Chicago Tribune: “TERROR STRIKES JORDAN”

The Chicago Sun-Times: “SEX BLANKETS TV”

Both are supposed to be alarming headlines. The sad thing is that I think more people would be shocked and concerned about the latter. Last I checked, tens of people weren’t killed by televised sexual innuendo exploding into their living rooms.

Categories
Geek / Technical Politics/Government

I Would Like My Digital Rights Back

Rant Mode Equals One: Score: Digital Privacy 0, Digital Piracy 1 is an interesting article talking about the problem with digital piracy.

But not the kind everyone thinks about. It isn’t trying to defend the movie, computer, and recording industries with their draconian copyprotection and laws. It’s an article arguing that individual rights are being compromised.

How does Sony get away with putting a root-kit on your system? Why is any company allowed to compromise the security of your computer just so they can determine that you haven’t made a copy, whether legally or not? And why are laws being passed to allow it?

Yeah, thanks, but no thanks. I’ll just keep control of my own computer.

Categories
Politics/Government

Jack Thompson Loses An “Ally”

America’s National Institute on Media and the Family sent out an open letter asking Jack Thompson to stop acting as if the institute is an ally in his fight against the video game industry.

Your commentary has included extreme hyperbole and your tactics have included personally attacking individuals for whom I have a great deal of respect. I believe that respect is essential in all our dealings, including respect for those with whom we disagree. Some of the people that you have publicly criticized are not only people of integrity, but are people who have worked to improve the lives of children.

Even though we have no formal relationship your use of my name and your inclusion of my name in correspondence have created the impression that we condone these tactics. We do not. The result is that our position and reputation as a research based, non-partisan, solution-focused organization has been jeopardized. Consequently, I ask that you cease using the Institute’s or my name in any way that would give the impression that we support your efforts. I also ask that you remove the link to our website that appears on your site.

Maybe it might not mean much, but it shows that it isn’t just 13-year video game fans and predatorial game developers who think Thompson goes a bit too far.

Categories
Politics/Government

Game Developer Unions?

Code Union, Code Better in the latest Escapist talks about the benefits of organizing software developers to reverse the pendulum which has currently swung “in the direction of upper management, to the point where workers are forced to accept low pay and long hours out of fear”.

The author fears that besides the threat of outsourcing cogs in a wheel to cheaper nations, the current developers are working for longer hours and little pay as it is. He compares the situation with the meatpacking or coal mining industries of yesteryear.

In ea_spouse, we had our Upton Sinclair, but we’re without a Teddy Roosevelt. Without a friend in politics, we’re a massive blob with no direction, no drive. Someone is going to have to step up from within to give us a figurehead. The industry is in the middle of a rockstar drought, but we need someone like the industry’s founding fathers, able to capture our hearts and minds, not only with a game, but with a personality and a cause. But with corporate cultures disintegrating as bottom lines and mergers usurp artistic vision, rockstars are getting harder and harder to come by.

Pray for one to rise from the bowels of some dungeon-like cube farm. We need a savior-caliber leader to keep us together, and to keep us employed.

I’m not intimately familiar with EA’s work practices, but I’m familiar with the stories. Near-80-hour weeks without pay to make up for it. If you can’t handle it, we’ll find someone who will. With EA being such a giant in the game industry, a lot of people feel that they have no choice but to work in such dismal conditions.

But Blancato has brought up a good point: where is the strong leader to say “No!” to EA? With EA working with so many development teams and such big names as Will Wright and now Steven Spielberg, why haven’t any of them said anything?

Obviously some people love working for EA, and the bad news is getting a lot more press than it might otherwise have at some other company. Still, if people hate the conditions so much, wouldn’t some of their major game developers have a say? Will Wright at EA Maxis? Rick Hall at EA Origin? Heck, Peter Molyneux’s games get published by EA. Why not him? Wouldn’t someone want to step up for their teams and say, “You know, I don’t think you should treat the rest of them so badly. They need better work conditions, or I’m out of here.”? Would it be too farfetched to hear one day that Spielberg decided not to work with EA due to the conditions of the developers?

It’s generally considered normal in the game industry to work long hours and go through crunch periods to meet deadlines. It’s almost been a badge of honor. Still, plenty of studies have shown that there are fewer errors when working sane hours and people get to take breaks and go get some sleep. Forcing people to work 60+ hour weeks for months at a time is not only abuse but also counterproductive. EA took it to an extreme.

Some EA studios apparently do better than others as far as employee satisfaction. They come in expecting crunch periods towards the end of a project, but they also get great benefits and extra vacation time. According to ea_spouse, some or all of these benefits were going to be revoked. It definitely can’t be all good there.

I write all this not being someone on the inside. I’ve never worked at any major game company, let alone any of EA’s studios. I don’t really know too many game developers, but I’ve heard and read from some of them. Everyone knows the horror stories, whether they are glorified or not. Maybe someone will read what I have to say and dismiss it as just another irrelavant opinion. Still, why haven’t we heard from some of the studio’s major figures regarding EA’s work practices? Obviously no one wants to lose his/her job, but they can’t really fire everyone, nor could they allow some non-EA game studio to pick up their stars, right?

Categories
Politics/Government

Jack Thompson’s Modest Proposal

I was about to make a huge post about Jack Thompson’s “modest proposal”, but I just realized that besides the game industry magazines and news sites, no one is reporting it. It is probably just as well.

If you’re curious, I’ll link to the Joystiq article.

I gained slightly more respect for him after listening to the interview podcast on Game Politics, but this proposal sank my opinion of him.

EDIT: Ctrl-Alt-Delete has a comic and an open letter about the “modest proposal”.

Categories
Geek / Technical Politics/Government

Digital Restrictions Management

I’ve talked about so-called “Digital Rights Management” before, but I’ve noticed that it is coming up a lot on ZDNet. For instance, Sun is trying to come up with an open DRM, but I don’t care how open a system is if the purpose of the system is to restrict what I can do with music and movies. “I’ll bind your arms and legs to a chair, but I’ll tell you where I got the rope, how much it cost, and how much pressure I applied to tie the knot.” Thanks, but no thanks.

The latest I’ve read is We the Sheeple (and other tales of DRM woe). Basically, another ZDNet blogger didn’t think that DRM was that big of a deal, and so the author tried to make better arguments.

People will readily point out the dangers and health risks of smoking. It’s fairly straightforward and easy to understand. Smoke, and you get cancer. Smoke, and your family and friends will get sick. It’s easy to fight against companies that make so much money off of a product that is so dangerous to the public.

Copyright law, on the other hand, is confusing enough as it is. People in general don’t know an operating system from the company that produces it, and since DRM is tied so intimately with technology, most people won’t care enough to be up in arms about it.

There are some serious concerns, of course. DRM puts a lot of control into the hands of the copyright holders, which isn’t so bad in and of itself. What is bad is how overreaching it is. Fair use is still fair use, but just owning the means to circumvent DRM in order to do something protected under fair use is a felony in the United States under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). Very clever. “Yes, you are allowed to play your music on any player you want. Yes, you are allowed to use a few seconds of audio for your class project. Yes, you are allowed to make a mix CD. No, you can’t copy the music from the original CD to do so.” Absurdly lovely.

Or how about when TiVo automatically deletes episodes of shows you haven’t had a chance to watch yet? Or when your new VCR isn’t allowed to tape certain shows because the television broadcast contains a no-copy bit?

Be a good little consumer and roll over.

Digital Restrictions Management: just one of the reasons I prefer to use a Free operating system.

Categories
Geek / Technical Marketing/Business Politics/Government

Happy Software Freedom Day!!

Happy Software Freedom Day!

Software Freedom Day (SFD) is a worldwide celebration of Free and Open Source Software (FOSS). Our goal in this celebration is to educate the worldwide public about of the benefits of using high quality FOSS in education, in government, at home, and in business — in short, everywhere! The non-profit company Software Freedom International provides guidance in organizing SFD, but volunteer teams around the world organize their own SFD events to impact their own communities.

Elsewhere in the Starter Manual:

Software Freedom Day is not about any individual companies or people; Software Freedom Day is a positive community celebration of Software Freedom.

w00t!!

Categories
Marketing/Business Politics/Government

EFF on DRM: Customer Is Always Wrong

Thanks to Blue Sky on Mars, I found The Customer is Always Wrong: A User’s Guide to DRM in Online Music, the EFF guide to Digital Resctrictions Management.

Many digital music services employ digital rights management (DRM) — also known as “copy protection” — that prevents you from doing things like using the portable player of your choice or creating remixes. Forget about breaking the DRM to make traditional uses like CD burning and so forth. Breaking the DRM or distributing the tools to break DRM may expose you to liability under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) even if you’re not making any illegal uses.

In other words, in this brave new world of “authorized music services,” law-abiding music fans often get less for their money than they did in the old world of CDs (or at least, the world before record companies started crippling CDs with DRM, too). Unfortunately, in an effort to attract customers, these music services try to obscure the restrictions they impose on you with clever marketing.

This guide “translates” the marketing messages by the major services, giving you the real deal rather than spin. Understanding how DRM and the DMCA pose a danger to your rights will help you to make fully informed purchasing decisions. Before buying DRM-crippled music from any service, you should consider the following examples and be sure to understand how the service might limit your ability to make lawful use of the music you purchase.