The Dutch Anti-Piracy organization "Brein" has decided to sue ISP's UPC, KPN, T-Mobile and Tele2 after their recent victory in court. I really don't understand why. First of all, blocking a handful of IP addresses hasn't had any effect at all.
But most of all, if you really want to fight piracy you got to have support from the public. And that support is crumbling with each and every effort to enforce compliance to that 10 minutes of pesky messages you get when you insert a "legal" DVD. Yeah, you name them all: SOPA, PIPA, ACTA or whatever they may be called. Crowds are cheering on the streets and can't wait to have them ratified.
Metallica, once one of the most fierce fighters of piracy, has seen the sign on the wall and radically changed its position. These guys are not stupid. They know their stand on piracy affected their popularity, so they took the only decision they could take.
I've never been a downloader. I simply don't like the hassle that comes with it. But I have friends who are. One of them is a gray haired hippie, who also happens to be a record collector. Consequently, a burned CD has little value to him. But he is also a great fan of vintage science fiction movies. You hardly find those movies in the local stores and when you do the prices are outrageous. So every now and then he ordered one at Amazon. When you add all the additional costs they're not quite cheap either.
So when he wanted "to go on the Internet" in the early 2000's I told him to buy a Mac and get XS4ALL. A whole new world opened up to him. One night when we were having an beer and he told me how hard it was to get a decent copy of "Jason and the Argonauts" for a reasonable price. So I introduced him to the world of torrents, clearly stating that although downloading wasn't illegal in the Netherlands, it wasn't quite legal as well.
"Unlawful" isn't black and white down here, but has quite a few shades of gray. E.g. contrary to popular belief marijuana isn't legal here, it's just not.. completely illegal. It's - as we Dutch say - "condoned", which means you aren't prosecuted.
We quickly found a viable torrent and started downloading. It trickled down at about 10 kB/s, but he wasn't in a hurry. And a day or so later it was there. The weeks that followed he went into a kind of download frenzy, but then it settled down. I mean, they don't make movies like that anymore and the more recent ones you can get in the shop.
We met on the street a few weeks ago and we quickly landed on the subject of the recent Ziggo/XS4ALL verdict. He was furious. "Who are they to tell me where I can or cannot surf?!" he said. I told him he still could. I told him to take a look at my blog and simply follow the links.
That evening he phoned me to say everything worked fine and he was currently downloading "Captain America, the first avenger". "I'm gonna boycott them!" he said "I spend about 20 Euros a week on DVD's and if this is how they're treating me, they're gonna lose a customer! That thing is in the store for about 15 Euros - that's too expensive for my taste, but I'm gonna watch it tonight! You won't believe the download speed I'm getting, about 500 kB/s!! It's even got Dutch subtitles!"
I wasn't surprised. Everyone knows that the more popular a title is, the more seeders and leechers are offering it, which really helps to speed up the download. He had already downloaded "The Thing 2", "The Green Lantern" and I'm sure more were coming. So that is in effect what Mr. Kuik, spokesman of "BREIN", achieved. And he's making himself more popular by the minute.
The point is that the entertainment industry seems to be unable to listen to their best customers. They want the world to play by their rules, but every enterpreneur knows that's a very bad business model. Studies prove that the entertainment industry can survive and even make money, but they simply have to start to use their brains ("BREIN" means "BRAIN" in Dutch).
One of these pioneers is "Iron Sky", that partly uses "crowd funding" to raise money. And they will offer the movie for download once it has been in the theatres. Now that's creative thinking. I won't say it will work, but at least they're trying. Most importantly, they have the support of the community.
In contrast, the music industry have tried to tie down their customers with DRM. Needless to say they failed miserably - as I predicted - and nowadays it is very hard to find a CD or download with DRM. It simply doesn't work that way, despite state-of-the-art technology and elaborate schemes to "hide" the disadvantages from DRM to the public.
Now they're relying again on technology to fight piracy, but this time the technology is not in their hands, so it is even easier to find a way around it. Technology has always been a double edged sword for Hollywood. The introduction of the TV almost brought it to its knees, CGI on the other hand, produced some of its most famous blockbusters.
However, it has to realize that the Internet is nothing more than the 21st century equivalent of the TV. It can't be controlled and you can't legislate it away. Hollywood will have to change its game. Mikhail Gorbachev once said "Those who come too late will be punished by life itself".
Hollywood may not realize it, but the Internet is not the last challenge it has to face. In 15, 20 years, may be sooner, every kid with a computer will be able to create his own Hollywood grade movies. There will be digitilized Marilyn Monroes, James Deans, Humphrey Bogarts, landscapes from all over the world, cars from every era. Of course, most of these movies will be very, very bad. But some of them will be great. Most important of all: they will be free. And when they're not ready for the Internet, they aren't prepared for that.
With the turn of the millennium I expected "20th Century Fox" to change its name. It didn't. Now I understand why.
Showing posts with label Intellectual property. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Intellectual property. Show all posts
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Venn diagrams: the intersection of morons and judges
Few people know it, but the Internet as we know it, has its roots in military technology. It's predecessor was called ARPANET, which was funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency of the United States Department of Defense. Some of its design objectives were:
A few years later politicians thought it was a good idea to unleash this military grade technology onto the world, just like they thought it was a good idea to introduce the Euro. In both cases, without thinking about the consequences. The impact of a decentralized, open architecture has become clear now - and they don't like it. And worse, they are unable to keep up.
Yes, Pandora's box is wide open and they are struggling to contain the monster. But they try and manage to make themselves ridiculous and less credible with every step of the way. You can't complain about states censoring the Internet - for different reasons, agreed - and proposing similar legislation at the same time. In the US you have SOPA, PIPA and ACTA and in the Netherlands we have judges like mr. P.H. Blok, mr. R. Kalden and mr. M.P.M. Loos.
They decided not only that IP addresses 194.71.107.15, 194.71.107.18 and 194.71.107.19 had be blocked by ISP's, but also gave BREIN (the Dutch equivalent of the MPAA) the authority to add any IP address they want to that list, which means that in principle they can take out any website at will without ever having to go to court again. Needless to say that these judges not only proved they are completely clueless about the nature of the Internet, but they also violated every rule in the book.
Imagine there was a bookstore selling counterfeit books, would those same judges give a plaintiff the authority to simply close up any bookstore he wants? Of course not! As a matter of fact, they gave BREIN the possibility to change the verdict of the court. Which - by the way - is in conflict with European jurisdiction. Speaking of Europe, Neelie Kroes, the grand lady who got Microsoft on its knees, commented: "Speeding is illegal too: but you don't put speedbumps on the motorway".
That the court came to this decision was no big surprise. One of the judges, P.H. Blok, is also employed (for a fee) by Wolters Kluwer, one of the largest publishing companies in the world. Why he was wasn't substituted by another judge is anybodies guess. If this isn't a conflict of interest, what is?
But we cloggies don't take such violation of our rights laying down. In the days that followed, tutorials popped up on how to install TOR and VPN networks or use proxies and anonymizers. Mirrors were created, proxies installed, by the time the "offical" site went on black there had never been so many ways to reach the Pirate Bay.
Tim Kuik, spokesman of BREIN, commented: "Smart hackers will always find ways to circumvent measures like this." So according to Tim Kuik, if you're able to click this link, you're an accomplished hacker.
What were these guys thinking? Either they knew that their measures were ineffective and consequently merely symbolic or they were completely ignorant of what the Internet is and how its community acts on threats. Either way, it is unworthy of a judge who considers himself to be an expert on the field of IT and law.
So what's next? Outlaw links to proxies and anonymizers? Outlaw access to proxies and anonymizers? Outlaw sites who offer proxies, anonymizers, TOR or VPN? Outlaw technologies like proxies, anonymizers, TOR and VPN? Outlaw writing about proxies, anonymizers, TOR and VPN? Maybe I should emigrate to North-Korea or China. As long as you leave politics alone, you can at least blog about technology!
Of course it doesn't stop there. The weakest link in the current torrent architecture are the centralized torrent repositories. However, other technologies will emerge that eradicate this flaw as well and become completely decentralized. All that is left then is deep packet inspection, a technology that ironically has recently been banned by that same juridical system.
End of story.
Update: One of the blocked IP addresses: a list of computers. The other one: the word "Yeah". This proves how little the verdict has to do with the actual content of a site. There is nothing illegal down there. It has just been taken down because they are in the IP range of the Pirate Bay. And yes, you XS4ALL and Ziggo subscribers can click too..
Update: This almost forces me to change the title of this post: it turns out that we're dealing here with blatant corruption. Read this and this (Dutch).
Update: I wondered several times why the lawyers of the ISP's didn't try to substitute the judges. Well, as a matter of fact, they did! But they were turned down, because "there just aren't enough judges". Go figure.. (Dutch).
- Providing for host-to-host "pipelining" so that multiple packets could be rerouted from source to destination at the discretion of the participating hosts, if the intermediate networks allowed it.
- Gateway functions to allow it to forward packets appropriately. This included interpreting IP headers for routing, handling interfaces, breaking packets into smaller pieces if necessary, etc.
- Each distinct network would have to stand on its own and no internal changes could be required to any such network to connect it to the Internet.
- Communications would be on a best effort basis. If a packet didn't make it to the final destination, it would shortly be retransmitted from the source.
- There would be no global control at the operations level.
A few years later politicians thought it was a good idea to unleash this military grade technology onto the world, just like they thought it was a good idea to introduce the Euro. In both cases, without thinking about the consequences. The impact of a decentralized, open architecture has become clear now - and they don't like it. And worse, they are unable to keep up.
Yes, Pandora's box is wide open and they are struggling to contain the monster. But they try and manage to make themselves ridiculous and less credible with every step of the way. You can't complain about states censoring the Internet - for different reasons, agreed - and proposing similar legislation at the same time. In the US you have SOPA, PIPA and ACTA and in the Netherlands we have judges like mr. P.H. Blok, mr. R. Kalden and mr. M.P.M. Loos.
They decided not only that IP addresses 194.71.107.15, 194.71.107.18 and 194.71.107.19 had be blocked by ISP's, but also gave BREIN (the Dutch equivalent of the MPAA) the authority to add any IP address they want to that list, which means that in principle they can take out any website at will without ever having to go to court again. Needless to say that these judges not only proved they are completely clueless about the nature of the Internet, but they also violated every rule in the book.
Imagine there was a bookstore selling counterfeit books, would those same judges give a plaintiff the authority to simply close up any bookstore he wants? Of course not! As a matter of fact, they gave BREIN the possibility to change the verdict of the court. Which - by the way - is in conflict with European jurisdiction. Speaking of Europe, Neelie Kroes, the grand lady who got Microsoft on its knees, commented: "Speeding is illegal too: but you don't put speedbumps on the motorway".
That the court came to this decision was no big surprise. One of the judges, P.H. Blok, is also employed (for a fee) by Wolters Kluwer, one of the largest publishing companies in the world. Why he was wasn't substituted by another judge is anybodies guess. If this isn't a conflict of interest, what is?
But we cloggies don't take such violation of our rights laying down. In the days that followed, tutorials popped up on how to install TOR and VPN networks or use proxies and anonymizers. Mirrors were created, proxies installed, by the time the "offical" site went on black there had never been so many ways to reach the Pirate Bay.
Tim Kuik, spokesman of BREIN, commented: "Smart hackers will always find ways to circumvent measures like this." So according to Tim Kuik, if you're able to click this link, you're an accomplished hacker.
What were these guys thinking? Either they knew that their measures were ineffective and consequently merely symbolic or they were completely ignorant of what the Internet is and how its community acts on threats. Either way, it is unworthy of a judge who considers himself to be an expert on the field of IT and law.
So what's next? Outlaw links to proxies and anonymizers? Outlaw access to proxies and anonymizers? Outlaw sites who offer proxies, anonymizers, TOR or VPN? Outlaw technologies like proxies, anonymizers, TOR and VPN? Outlaw writing about proxies, anonymizers, TOR and VPN? Maybe I should emigrate to North-Korea or China. As long as you leave politics alone, you can at least blog about technology!
Of course it doesn't stop there. The weakest link in the current torrent architecture are the centralized torrent repositories. However, other technologies will emerge that eradicate this flaw as well and become completely decentralized. All that is left then is deep packet inspection, a technology that ironically has recently been banned by that same juridical system.
End of story.
Update: One of the blocked IP addresses: a list of computers. The other one: the word "Yeah". This proves how little the verdict has to do with the actual content of a site. There is nothing illegal down there. It has just been taken down because they are in the IP range of the Pirate Bay. And yes, you XS4ALL and Ziggo subscribers can click too..
Update: This almost forces me to change the title of this post: it turns out that we're dealing here with blatant corruption. Read this and this (Dutch).
Update: I wondered several times why the lawyers of the ISP's didn't try to substitute the judges. Well, as a matter of fact, they did! But they were turned down, because "there just aren't enough judges". Go figure.. (Dutch).
Friday, January 20, 2012
Fight SOPA/PIPA, change your license
All over the free world, government laws and court decisions are limiting our access to free Internet. Not that these measures are very useful, most of us hackers are able to circumvent them within minutes. But in essence, these counter measures are simply work-arounds - they do not eliminate the root cause.
The root cause are the big media moguls who successfully lobby our governments and judges to adopt unconstitutional new laws and regulations. Consequently, they are by definition an anti-democratic force. No, it's not about the artists (as a matter of fact, most of them can be considered victims of this industry), it's not about IP (they violate IP laws themselves on a daily basis - just count the lawsuits), it's just about MONEY. Think about it: these industries are obviously willing to trade in our most fundamental civil rights just for a little extra cash. No, they're not the kind of people only a mother can love - they already sold their mothers.
Our politicians are no better. Instead of defying the pressure of a dying industry they have chosen to simply sell out their voters. Often without even having any idea which consequences their decisions may have on their citizens, their own information industry or even the very reputation of the nations they should represent. Ignorance may be a bliss, but not in this case.
So far the community has responded in a variety of ways:
In the meantime we will have to ensure that we will continue to have free and unlimited access to the Internet, our information highway. It is no secret that governments and even the music and entertainment industry itself have benefited from everything the FOSS community has produced. And we can stop that.
GPLv3 was created to defeat any attempts to make free software less free. A new license may prevent governments and the industry to make the Internet less free. Simply don't allow them to use our software anymore. Change the license.
I know that it is one of the pillars of Free Software - anyone may use it, no restrictions. But as I said, I don't consider it a permanent measure. Just until every attempt to restrict the Internet has ceased permanently. Just until the right to free access to the Internet is part of every international treaty and constitution.
I don't know about you, but I just don't feel comfortable someone who denies me to exercise one of my most basic rights is happily using my software..
The root cause are the big media moguls who successfully lobby our governments and judges to adopt unconstitutional new laws and regulations. Consequently, they are by definition an anti-democratic force. No, it's not about the artists (as a matter of fact, most of them can be considered victims of this industry), it's not about IP (they violate IP laws themselves on a daily basis - just count the lawsuits), it's just about MONEY. Think about it: these industries are obviously willing to trade in our most fundamental civil rights just for a little extra cash. No, they're not the kind of people only a mother can love - they already sold their mothers.
Our politicians are no better. Instead of defying the pressure of a dying industry they have chosen to simply sell out their voters. Often without even having any idea which consequences their decisions may have on their citizens, their own information industry or even the very reputation of the nations they should represent. Ignorance may be a bliss, but not in this case.
So far the community has responded in a variety of ways:
- Shutting down their own websites in protest;
- Petitioning;
- Attacking government and industry websites;
- Educating users on how to circumvent blocks;
- Developing new ways to make it even more difficult to block free Internet access.
In the meantime we will have to ensure that we will continue to have free and unlimited access to the Internet, our information highway. It is no secret that governments and even the music and entertainment industry itself have benefited from everything the FOSS community has produced. And we can stop that.
GPLv3 was created to defeat any attempts to make free software less free. A new license may prevent governments and the industry to make the Internet less free. Simply don't allow them to use our software anymore. Change the license.
I know that it is one of the pillars of Free Software - anyone may use it, no restrictions. But as I said, I don't consider it a permanent measure. Just until every attempt to restrict the Internet has ceased permanently. Just until the right to free access to the Internet is part of every international treaty and constitution.
I don't know about you, but I just don't feel comfortable someone who denies me to exercise one of my most basic rights is happily using my software..
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Surf naar de Pirate Bay in 5 minuten
Voor degenen, die geen zin hebben om een VPN of TOR in te richten en na het effectief worden van de blokkade van Ziggo en XS4ALL toch naar de Pirate Bay willen surfen zijn er een paar eenvoudige oplossingen - zelfs zonder iets te installeren.
De eenvoudigste manier is om gebruik te maken van een zogenaamde "Anonymizer". Dat is een computer, die vanuit Nederland vrij te benaderen is en voor jou contact maakt met de Pirate Bay of welke andere computer dan ook. Een aardige lijst van gratis anonymizers is hier te vinden. Tegenwoordig zijn er trouwens een groot aantal gespecialiseerde proxies, zoals deze. Het gebruiken ervan is doorgaans erg eenvoudig: tik de URL in en de computer verbindt je door. Een klein voorbeeldje is hier te vinden. Voila!
Een meer permanente oplossing is beschikbaar voor gebruikers van Firefox. De "Stealthy" add-on tovert een F-117 naast de taakbalk, die bij het opstarten rood is. Klik 'm aan en hij wordt groen. Je kunt dan gewoon weer naar de Pirate Bay surfen. Lukt het eerst even niet, klik dan op het pijltje-naar-beneden naast de F-117 en klik op "Configure". Klik dan het vinkje "Something went wrong?" aan en druk op "Ok". Dat zou het een en ander op moeten lossen.
De meest briljante methode is toch wel gebruik maken van je bloedeigen /etc/hosts file (dat op Windows overigens c:\windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts heet). Voeg daar de volgende regels aan toe:
Waarom ik dit met u deel? Omdat het zoveelste een bewijs is van de debiliteit van zowel de klagers (de media concerns) en vooral ook de Nederlandse rechterlijke macht. "Content" is allang niet meer gebonden aan het medium, waarop het opgeslagen is en ondanks het feit, dat deze ontwikkeling al twintig jaar gaande is, is de industrie er nog steeds niet in geslaagd om een business model te vinden, dat hierbij aansluit.
Nee, nog steeds klampt ze zich krampachtig vast aan een paradigma, dat de facto allang achterhaald is. Een industrie die zo dom is, verdient het gewoon ten onder te gaan. Ter vergelijking: voerden bioscopen in de jaren '50 en '60 processen tegen TV maatschappijen? Laten oliemaatschappijen electrische auto's verbieden?
Naief is dat de rechtbanken van Nederland zich voor het karretje van deze concerns laten spannen en maatregelen eisen, die technisch gezien neerkomen op het slaan van spijkers in een wegdek. Weliswaar zullen er een paar mensen met een lekke band eindigen, maar na verloop van tijd rijdt iedereen er omheen.
Nog triester is, dat dat de rechter aangeeft dat er nog meer spijkers in het wegdek geslagen mogen worden als "dat nodig is". Trekken we deze uitspraak in "extremio ad absurdum" verder dan eindigen we met een weg, die zo vol spijkers zit, dat zij niet meer de functie van weg kan vervullen.
Daarom vertel ik dit u.
Update: Het linken naar deze pagina is illegaal geworden in Nederland. Overigens ook de links naar het "Tor" netwerk en zelfs naar de Opera webbrowser.
Update: Een paar nieuwe methoden toegevoegd. We blijven scherp!
De eenvoudigste manier is om gebruik te maken van een zogenaamde "Anonymizer". Dat is een computer, die vanuit Nederland vrij te benaderen is en voor jou contact maakt met de Pirate Bay of welke andere computer dan ook. Een aardige lijst van gratis anonymizers is hier te vinden. Tegenwoordig zijn er trouwens een groot aantal gespecialiseerde proxies, zoals deze. Het gebruiken ervan is doorgaans erg eenvoudig: tik de URL in en de computer verbindt je door. Een klein voorbeeldje is hier te vinden. Voila!
Een meer permanente oplossing is beschikbaar voor gebruikers van Firefox. De "Stealthy" add-on tovert een F-117 naast de taakbalk, die bij het opstarten rood is. Klik 'm aan en hij wordt groen. Je kunt dan gewoon weer naar de Pirate Bay surfen. Lukt het eerst even niet, klik dan op het pijltje-naar-beneden naast de F-117 en klik op "Configure". Klik dan het vinkje "Something went wrong?" aan en druk op "Ok". Dat zou het een en ander op moeten lossen.
De meest briljante methode is toch wel gebruik maken van je bloedeigen /etc/hosts file (dat op Windows overigens c:\windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts heet). Voeg daar de volgende regels aan toe:
178.73.210.219 thepiratebay.seOok deze truuk werkt met een proxy uiteraard, maar je merkt er gewoon niks meer van. Tenslotte kun je ook gewoon http://194.71.107.80 intikken, maar waarschijnlijk is die URL alweer geblokkeerd als je dit leest.
178.73.210.219 www.thepiratebay.se
178.73.210.219 thepiratebay.org
178.73.210.219 www.thepiratebay.org
Waarom ik dit met u deel? Omdat het zoveelste een bewijs is van de debiliteit van zowel de klagers (de media concerns) en vooral ook de Nederlandse rechterlijke macht. "Content" is allang niet meer gebonden aan het medium, waarop het opgeslagen is en ondanks het feit, dat deze ontwikkeling al twintig jaar gaande is, is de industrie er nog steeds niet in geslaagd om een business model te vinden, dat hierbij aansluit.
Nee, nog steeds klampt ze zich krampachtig vast aan een paradigma, dat de facto allang achterhaald is. Een industrie die zo dom is, verdient het gewoon ten onder te gaan. Ter vergelijking: voerden bioscopen in de jaren '50 en '60 processen tegen TV maatschappijen? Laten oliemaatschappijen electrische auto's verbieden?
Naief is dat de rechtbanken van Nederland zich voor het karretje van deze concerns laten spannen en maatregelen eisen, die technisch gezien neerkomen op het slaan van spijkers in een wegdek. Weliswaar zullen er een paar mensen met een lekke band eindigen, maar na verloop van tijd rijdt iedereen er omheen.
Nog triester is, dat dat de rechter aangeeft dat er nog meer spijkers in het wegdek geslagen mogen worden als "dat nodig is". Trekken we deze uitspraak in "extremio ad absurdum" verder dan eindigen we met een weg, die zo vol spijkers zit, dat zij niet meer de functie van weg kan vervullen.
Daarom vertel ik dit u.
Update: Het linken naar deze pagina is illegaal geworden in Nederland. Overigens ook de links naar het "Tor" netwerk en zelfs naar de Opera webbrowser.
Update: Een paar nieuwe methoden toegevoegd. We blijven scherp!
Friday, January 14, 2011
The .wwf format in practice
This week I promised myself to put the .wwf format to the test. So, I sent a .wwf file to my girlfriend at work and I distributed all documents at work that I didn't find worth printing in the .wwf format. These were the reactions I got:
Update: For some reason unknown, WWF Italy is now collaborating with forest managers to "develop awareness on the issues of sustainable management of forest resources" and "promote (..) the purchase of forest products"!
Update: As I predicted, the WWF violates FOSS licenses.
Update: The WWF have promised to comply to the "Skim" BSD license. As always, I'm not holding my breath. Even with a buglist the size of your arm, their Windows driver is still the same old v1.03 Release Candidate.
- My girlfriend wasn't even able to open it, because the MIME-type wasn't known in her Vista installation.
- I p*ssed off a very expensive consultant at work who ordered me to send a printable version or I'd have to look for another assignment.
- A colleague of mine who prints virtually everything sent it to another nerd colleague of mine who returned a printable version of the document using my "cracking" pages.
Update: For some reason unknown, WWF Italy is now collaborating with forest managers to "develop awareness on the issues of sustainable management of forest resources" and "promote (..) the purchase of forest products"!
Update: As I predicted, the WWF violates FOSS licenses.
Update: The WWF have promised to comply to the "Skim" BSD license. As always, I'm not holding my breath. Even with a buglist the size of your arm, their Windows driver is still the same old v1.03 Release Candidate.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
What the WWF has to learn about FOSS
The WWF must have understood by now that you cannot enter the realm of software development without finding the FOSS community on your way. Where and when software is concerned, FOSS is a force to be reckoned with.
For example, the French April organization, dedicated to the promotion of FOSS and open standards, sent a letter to the WWF, voicing the same objections as Tracy Anne of LXer and other members of the FOSS community:
The WWF have promised to publicly address these concerns, but don't hold your breath..
In the meanwhile, there is not much help from the industry either. Rick Brown, senior director, product management, Acrobat Solutions said: "Adobe Acrobat allows customers to create PDF with a range of security permissions, including the ability to disallow printing. The .wwf format is based on the PDF standard and it is great to see WWF leveraging PDF in creative ways. At this point, we don’t intend to support the .wwf file extension."
As if that is not enough, the software itself is giving the WWF headaches as well. In addition to their OS/X driver the WWF recently published their Windows driver. It features the following annoyances:
Consequently, as of January 5th an overwhelming majority of "Chip" readers dislike it. Note that the OS/X version has its problems too.
It seems it will be some time before the WWF will release a Linux version. But wait a minute: Linux is already supported! Yes, a set of simple bash scripts was able to fill the gap, simply because the FOSS ecosystem is very rich already. And it is performing very well.
In a test performed by Hermann Radeloff this file was printed using the WWF driver, which resulted in this file. The same file generated by the Linux .wwf toolkit resulted in this file. In short, a 104 KB file was bloated to a massive 686 KB file, while the Linux .wwf toolkit reduced it to a meager 95 KB. That is: with WWF banner.
So WWF, why not release the mess you made under a free license and let the FOSS community take care of it? Why not work together? Or would you rather persist in continuing this public relations disaster?
Update: Well, it's come to this: the WWF have threatened to kick me off their Facebook page. Obviously, I've gone on their nerves. For those who want to make up their own mind, here is the full thread.
Update: I've just released the .wwf toolkit manual as .wwf. FOSS style. ;-)
Update: Neither a search with the Swiss trademark organization, nor the German trademark organization, nor the European trademark organization gave any hits for "Save as WWF". As a matter of fact, no trademarks have been entered for the WWF after August 4th, 2010 for "One Planet MBA".
Matt von Jung, WWF's advertising agency in Germany, has applied for several figurative marks (3020100743719, 3020100743727, 3020100743735 and 3020100743743) on December 18th 2010 at the German Trademark Office (DPMA). Since they are still just applications, the trademarks itself are still unspecified.
For example, the French April organization, dedicated to the promotion of FOSS and open standards, sent a letter to the WWF, voicing the same objections as Tracy Anne of LXer and other members of the FOSS community:
Re: request for a meeting concerning your campaign "Save as WWF, Save a Tree"
Madam President,
The April organization is dedicated to the development and promotion of free software. It tries to make people aware of the dangers of leaving certain information and knowledge in the hands of private enterprises. Free software - like GNU / Linux operating system and OpenOffice.org office suite - is designed to ensure that users have control over their own computer.
It was with some surprise that we learned of the WWF initiative to create a new file format, which is just a PDF using DRM to disable printing.
We understand the need of the WWF to draw attention to the ecological impact of computers and even support it. However, we regret the the WWF have resorted to DRM for this purpose. In effect, the WWF format is merely a PDF format with restricted functionality, designed to constrain the user.
DRM is not only ineffective but are also detrimental in many ways (technical, economical, cultural). These issues were recently addressed in an April publication, which I've included.
However, although the goals themselves are laudable, the form this initiative has taken is regrettable for several reasons. The fact that this format is based on DRM, a secret format locked by means of cryptography, makes it impossible to read with free software. Moreover, the WWF disregards users of free software, since the software in question is only available to proprietary systems like Apple MacOS X and has not been released under an Open Source license.
In addition, WWF should note that the lack of interoperability is a major contributor to obsolescence. Obsolescence is in the interest of the manufacturers, since it promotes consumerism, which causes many environmental problems if not properly controlled. This initiative is therefore catastrophic. For example, if I want to read a WWF file and I can not get the software required to read it, the only thing I can do is to buy a new computer that does. Because computers are so quickly outdated and consequently so quickly replaced, the ecological impact of these "gadgets" is particularly detrimental.
Finally, it is regrettable that WWF seeks to address social problems by means of coercive technology. Because DRM is primarily there to enable publishers to interfere with the privacy of their clients.
Because we really want to help you to make the public aware of the ecological impact of computer usage, I propose a meeting in order to discuss the subject. The WWF may approach the Free Software Foundation on an international level. Couchet Frederick, Executive, and the team at April are available for more information.
Madam President, I'm hoping to see you soon.
Yours truly,
Tangui Morlier
Chairman of April
The WWF have promised to publicly address these concerns, but don't hold your breath..
In the meanwhile, there is not much help from the industry either. Rick Brown, senior director, product management, Acrobat Solutions said: "Adobe Acrobat allows customers to create PDF with a range of security permissions, including the ability to disallow printing. The .wwf format is based on the PDF standard and it is great to see WWF leveraging PDF in creative ways. At this point, we don’t intend to support the .wwf file extension."
As if that is not enough, the software itself is giving the WWF headaches as well. In addition to their OS/X driver the WWF recently published their Windows driver. It features the following annoyances:
- If you haven't installed .NET v2.0, you will have to install it first.
- It requires a certain Windows driver. If it is not installed, it will ask for your Windows CD.
- It will install itself as the default printer.
- Kaspersky Internet Security will prevent you from installing it, since it triggers a virus warning.
- Other unidentified installation errors have been experienced.
- It has a problem with large files, printing only the first page.
- There are issues with the 64bit version.
- Some people dislike the capitalization of the printer: "SAVE AS WWF".
- It is unclear whether it phones home. But I wouldn't be surprised.
- The size of a PDF file saved with this driver may increase sixfold(!).
- Adjustment of the settings to select a different resolution or an alternative color space crashes the system completely.
Consequently, as of January 5th an overwhelming majority of "Chip" readers dislike it. Note that the OS/X version has its problems too.
It seems it will be some time before the WWF will release a Linux version. But wait a minute: Linux is already supported! Yes, a set of simple bash scripts was able to fill the gap, simply because the FOSS ecosystem is very rich already. And it is performing very well.
In a test performed by Hermann Radeloff this file was printed using the WWF driver, which resulted in this file. The same file generated by the Linux .wwf toolkit resulted in this file. In short, a 104 KB file was bloated to a massive 686 KB file, while the Linux .wwf toolkit reduced it to a meager 95 KB. That is: with WWF banner.
So WWF, why not release the mess you made under a free license and let the FOSS community take care of it? Why not work together? Or would you rather persist in continuing this public relations disaster?
Update: Well, it's come to this: the WWF have threatened to kick me off their Facebook page. Obviously, I've gone on their nerves. For those who want to make up their own mind, here is the full thread.
Update: I've just released the .wwf toolkit manual as .wwf. FOSS style. ;-)
Update: Neither a search with the Swiss trademark organization, nor the German trademark organization, nor the European trademark organization gave any hits for "Save as WWF". As a matter of fact, no trademarks have been entered for the WWF after August 4th, 2010 for "One Planet MBA".
Matt von Jung, WWF's advertising agency in Germany, has applied for several figurative marks (3020100743719, 3020100743727, 3020100743735 and 3020100743743) on December 18th 2010 at the German Trademark Office (DPMA). Since they are still just applications, the trademarks itself are still unspecified.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
I like my bazaar!
In his article "Why the Linux world should embrace the BSD's", Steve Lake proposed a closer cooperation between Linux and BSD. Although I have the utmost respect for BSD and what its developers have accomplished, I don't see what good it would do. I think his reasoning is flawed and the arguments he uses are - at least partially - invalid.
First, I don't agree that the cathedral is the best development method. There are many good programmers out there and they should not be denied the privilege to submit code. Note that Linus does not blindly insert all submissions. He or one of his lieutenants judge the code on its merits and decide to include it or not. Since many programmers can work on the code it is obvious that development can take place at a much faster pace. Note how the development of schedulers took place. Several different varieties were made, a lot of testing was done and in the end Linux gained overall. That is a far cry from the handgrenade method which Steve suggests Linus uses.
On the other hand, how many ports of Linux were done? It runs everything from mobile phones to mainframes. I don't see cathedral-developed software doing that (I was proven wrong here; there are 58 ports of NetBSD). From a philosophical point of view the bazaar is more democratic, allowing users to participate on every level and determining largely where development is going (Linus has acknowledged that on several occasions). You may call BSD a meritocracy, but you may also view it as a oliarchy.
Second, to me the BSD license equals to software theft. It is well known that BSD software enabled Microsoft to "steal" several key components, without doing anything in return for the community that developed it. Speaking of "sleeping with the enemy".. To use an analogy, the BSD license equals to a naked woman standing in the middle of skid row at night screaming: "Rape me! Rape me!". I don't mind anyone using my code (including Microsoft), but return the improvements that were made to the community or individual that developed it. My software was used in at least two different commercial products and the developers always submitted their modifications, which resulted in several key improvements. BTW, I use the LGPL - I'm not a Stallman groupie.
Third, I have nothing against a cooperation between both projects, but I do see legal issues. E.g. swapping code can be beneficial to both projects. May be the BSD group can live with the fact that Linus will use the GPLv2 for that code, but I'm not so sure that Linus can live with the fact that his code is published under a BSD license. That is what it boils down to in the end, even after accepting that the BSD and GPL communities have very different philosophies concerning development and licensing.
Finally, I'm desperately trying to see what he is actually proposing. What should this "partnership" do? Should it end in a complete merger of both projects? And why? Simply because "there can be only one"? Why not a merger between Microsoft and the FOSS world? Hell, let's turn over all the code we got! Then there is only one that (should) fit all. So, why not stop this silly game and let there be only Microsoft Vista? Aero isn't that bad..
Your answer will tell you why Linux and BSD should exist beside each other, why there are KDE, GNOME and Enlightenment and why the Tiny C compiler was developed (although a perfectly good GCC already existed). It is the classical error of cathedral proponents. A bazaar means choice, shopping malls, not the bleak shops of the Soviet era and - most of all - no high priests and Politbureau's. Being someone who has seen with his own eyes what dictatorship and elitarism can do to people in particular and society in general, I like my bazaar.
First, I don't agree that the cathedral is the best development method. There are many good programmers out there and they should not be denied the privilege to submit code. Note that Linus does not blindly insert all submissions. He or one of his lieutenants judge the code on its merits and decide to include it or not. Since many programmers can work on the code it is obvious that development can take place at a much faster pace. Note how the development of schedulers took place. Several different varieties were made, a lot of testing was done and in the end Linux gained overall. That is a far cry from the handgrenade method which Steve suggests Linus uses.
On the other hand, how many ports of Linux were done? It runs everything from mobile phones to mainframes. I don't see cathedral-developed software doing that (I was proven wrong here; there are 58 ports of NetBSD). From a philosophical point of view the bazaar is more democratic, allowing users to participate on every level and determining largely where development is going (Linus has acknowledged that on several occasions). You may call BSD a meritocracy, but you may also view it as a oliarchy.
Second, to me the BSD license equals to software theft. It is well known that BSD software enabled Microsoft to "steal" several key components, without doing anything in return for the community that developed it. Speaking of "sleeping with the enemy".. To use an analogy, the BSD license equals to a naked woman standing in the middle of skid row at night screaming: "Rape me! Rape me!". I don't mind anyone using my code (including Microsoft), but return the improvements that were made to the community or individual that developed it. My software was used in at least two different commercial products and the developers always submitted their modifications, which resulted in several key improvements. BTW, I use the LGPL - I'm not a Stallman groupie.
Third, I have nothing against a cooperation between both projects, but I do see legal issues. E.g. swapping code can be beneficial to both projects. May be the BSD group can live with the fact that Linus will use the GPLv2 for that code, but I'm not so sure that Linus can live with the fact that his code is published under a BSD license. That is what it boils down to in the end, even after accepting that the BSD and GPL communities have very different philosophies concerning development and licensing.
Finally, I'm desperately trying to see what he is actually proposing. What should this "partnership" do? Should it end in a complete merger of both projects? And why? Simply because "there can be only one"? Why not a merger between Microsoft and the FOSS world? Hell, let's turn over all the code we got! Then there is only one that (should) fit all. So, why not stop this silly game and let there be only Microsoft Vista? Aero isn't that bad..
Your answer will tell you why Linux and BSD should exist beside each other, why there are KDE, GNOME and Enlightenment and why the Tiny C compiler was developed (although a perfectly good GCC already existed). It is the classical error of cathedral proponents. A bazaar means choice, shopping malls, not the bleak shops of the Soviet era and - most of all - no high priests and Politbureau's. Being someone who has seen with his own eyes what dictatorship and elitarism can do to people in particular and society in general, I like my bazaar.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Who pays the DRM man?
When Al Gores 'An inconvenient truth' was released on DVD it featured a bio-degradable box. Yes, the industry really cared for the environment. It brought tears to my eyes. To my surprise I found the very same DVD a few months later in an ordinary box. What had happened. Had the danger been averted in these few months? Had the news agencies missed this remarkable fact? No. For the simple reason that the industry never cared for the environment, not now not ever.
Even playing this documentary adds to the problem it is trying to solve, because the hardware burns 25 to 30 percent more energy than it actually needs to. Why? DRM. All this decoding needs cycles, more cycles means more power – about 15 watts on an average computer, more power means more carbon dioxide. And in the end, who pays for all that? You, the consumer.
Microsoft - and all its DRM buddies - continue to claim up to this very day that DRM won't affect the consumer too much, "given that cost (..) is most heavily influenced by volume". However, behind closed doors the bird is singing quite another song. The following is taken from a presentation at the WinHEC 2005. Read this and shiver.
Encryption logic
And for what? AACS has already been broken, like CSS, just as I predicted. I'd love to give you the link, but several blogs have been banned for doing this. And because I want you to read this, I can't help you more than I just did.
But next time Al tries to convince you to trade in your car for a bicycle, to invest in renewable energy and to walk to your vacation instead of taking the plane, be sure to tell him he has to convince his political buddies not only to accept the Kyoto protocol, but also to discard an ill-conceived law that has polluted and continues to pollute our environment. Yes, you guessed it, the DMCA. And while you're at it, mandatory use of Linux would be nice too. Vista uses too many resources, don't you think so?
Bibliography
c't "Machtsmisbruik" - September 2007, Patrick Smits
Even playing this documentary adds to the problem it is trying to solve, because the hardware burns 25 to 30 percent more energy than it actually needs to. Why? DRM. All this decoding needs cycles, more cycles means more power – about 15 watts on an average computer, more power means more carbon dioxide. And in the end, who pays for all that? You, the consumer.
Microsoft - and all its DRM buddies - continue to claim up to this very day that DRM won't affect the consumer too much, "given that cost (..) is most heavily influenced by volume". However, behind closed doors the bird is singing quite another song. The following is taken from a presentation at the WinHEC 2005. Read this and shiver.
Encryption logic
- When content crosses 'user accessible buses' the compliance rules require it to be encrypted
- This requires additional encryption/decryption logic thus adding to Visual Processing Unit (VPU) cost
- This cost is passed on to all consumers.
- Since this uses CPU cycles, an OEM may have to bump the speed grade on the CPU to maintain equivalent multimedia performance
- This cost is passed on to purchasers of multimedia PC’s.
- One way to avoid encryption for discrete graphics is to solder the VPU to the motherboard
- This increases motherboard design costs, increases lead-times, and reduces OEM configuration flexibility
- This cost is passed on to purchasers of multimedia PC’s and may delay availability of high-performing platforms.
- Broadcast flag requirement for analog high definition broadcasts
- Encryption logic is required
- Costs are passed on to consumers
- Cable Labs approval for cable high definition broadcasts
- High initial development and certification costs
- Certification gates design improvements, including cost reductions
- Costs are passed on to consumers, especially early adopters.
And for what? AACS has already been broken, like CSS, just as I predicted. I'd love to give you the link, but several blogs have been banned for doing this. And because I want you to read this, I can't help you more than I just did.
But next time Al tries to convince you to trade in your car for a bicycle, to invest in renewable energy and to walk to your vacation instead of taking the plane, be sure to tell him he has to convince his political buddies not only to accept the Kyoto protocol, but also to discard an ill-conceived law that has polluted and continues to pollute our environment. Yes, you guessed it, the DMCA. And while you're at it, mandatory use of Linux would be nice too. Vista uses too many resources, don't you think so?
Bibliography
c't "Machtsmisbruik" - September 2007, Patrick Smits
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Software patents are just the beginning
When I was younger, I did what I thought was the right thing: I felt European. My pizza's were Italian, my wine Spanish, my cigarettes (bad habit, true..) French, my girlfriends German and my place of birth Dutch. I spoke four languages fluently and felt as home in Berlin or Paris as I would in Amsterdam. I thought a "United States of Europe", "Vereinigte Staten von Europa" or "Etats-Unies d'Europe" would be a great thing.There was some logic in there. Although we tend to hear more news from the federal American government, American states have a great deal of autonomy. The central idea is to decentralize what can be decentralized and to centralize what needs to be centralized. People can vote for every single institution, from their local sheriff up to the president. The actual implementation may not be ideal, but the fundamental idea is sound. A Europe like that couldn't be bad in a world where globalization seems inevitable. But it wouldn't come to that..
In Europe, the European Commission and Council expand their powers and interfere more and more with the internal affairs of the member states. Note that those two institutions are not elected by European citizens, but appointed! The only European institution elected by its citizens is the European parliament and even this institution has been plagued by scandals and corruption for years.
And even if it were perfect, their powers are quite limited. When we were asked for a vote on the European constitution it was stated that the European parliament would get more power, but only if we gave up a large part of our sovereignty: our ability to say "No". To me that was like the promise of a used car salesman: "If you invest another $5000, trust me: it will be a great car."
The undemocratic nature of Europe is illustrated again by recent events. Although the people of France and the Netherlands have said no to the European constitution, chairman Barosso said in an interview: "People change, governments change. The constitution is not dead at all". Obviously Barosso considers democracy to be a wheel of fortune: if you don't like the result, you just spin it again.
Another example are the software patents. For one time the European parliament did something useful: it said "No". It seems the only word that can stop the Moloch called EU. And even then, the EU has hearing difficulties. Or to quote a Dutch politician: "Which part of 'No' wasn't clear"? Again, the same trick is used: just give the wheel another spin. So next time you are cheering that Microsoft has to pay another half a billion dollars in fines, remember that they will happily do so in order to get their patents through.
In short, the EU gives another meaning to the expression "What comes around, goes around". You can't say they don't have patience or persistence. And they are getting more powerful every day. But what really worries me that I even haven't a clue who "they" are.. Certainly not the representatives of the European people. Even the penal code of member states is in jeopardy, according to todays newspapers. If that is the case, a thing like software patents should really be a piece of cake for "them". I can only paraphrase George Orwell on this: if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on our democratic rights and traditions - for ever.
All in all, I really see only one solution for democracy in Europe: dissolve this monster we have created and return to the basics, which was an economic community. If that can't be achieved, I call on all European citizens to urge their governments to get out of the European Union. Get out while you still can. After that, software patents will be a piece of cake, I promise you..
In Europe, the European Commission and Council expand their powers and interfere more and more with the internal affairs of the member states. Note that those two institutions are not elected by European citizens, but appointed! The only European institution elected by its citizens is the European parliament and even this institution has been plagued by scandals and corruption for years.
And even if it were perfect, their powers are quite limited. When we were asked for a vote on the European constitution it was stated that the European parliament would get more power, but only if we gave up a large part of our sovereignty: our ability to say "No". To me that was like the promise of a used car salesman: "If you invest another $5000, trust me: it will be a great car."
The undemocratic nature of Europe is illustrated again by recent events. Although the people of France and the Netherlands have said no to the European constitution, chairman Barosso said in an interview: "People change, governments change. The constitution is not dead at all". Obviously Barosso considers democracy to be a wheel of fortune: if you don't like the result, you just spin it again.
Another example are the software patents. For one time the European parliament did something useful: it said "No". It seems the only word that can stop the Moloch called EU. And even then, the EU has hearing difficulties. Or to quote a Dutch politician: "Which part of 'No' wasn't clear"? Again, the same trick is used: just give the wheel another spin. So next time you are cheering that Microsoft has to pay another half a billion dollars in fines, remember that they will happily do so in order to get their patents through.
In short, the EU gives another meaning to the expression "What comes around, goes around". You can't say they don't have patience or persistence. And they are getting more powerful every day. But what really worries me that I even haven't a clue who "they" are.. Certainly not the representatives of the European people. Even the penal code of member states is in jeopardy, according to todays newspapers. If that is the case, a thing like software patents should really be a piece of cake for "them". I can only paraphrase George Orwell on this: if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on our democratic rights and traditions - for ever.
All in all, I really see only one solution for democracy in Europe: dissolve this monster we have created and return to the basics, which was an economic community. If that can't be achieved, I call on all European citizens to urge their governments to get out of the European Union. Get out while you still can. After that, software patents will be a piece of cake, I promise you..
Speed limits do not apply to Bill Gates
Imagine you were as rich as Bill Gates. What would be the first thing you'd do? If you're male you'd probably buy that slick car you've admired so many times. Just think of it. You pay the money and just drive away in an awesome, brand-new car. May be you're still living in a state where 55 is the speed limit. Gee, that's too bad. Now when you've finally got all that horse power at your disposal you realize there is nothing you can do with it.Or can you? Even if the fine is a few thousand dollars, you've got billions. Hey, if I were you I wouldn't even take the trouble to stop for a police car. Even if they'd fine you every second it would take them months before you saw a slight dent in your fortune!
OK, time for a reality check. Of course it doesn't work that way. In real life you probably never even have to pay a fine, because you can hire the best lawyers available. You can make it so expensive that even the state will give up wasting tax dollars. Probably you won't even make it to court. When you're that rich you can probably convince Congress that it is vital for the national automobile industry to pass the "Transportation Safety Act", which allows cars to drive as fast as they possibly can. Well, you can in Germany, you know..
OK, time for a reality check. You're not that rich and neither am I. All we can do is write programs and update our blogs. And even that is in jeopardy. If you happen to live in Europe, that is. In the United States the battle is already lost where patents are concerned. The DCMA has already poisoned jurisdiction all around the world.
Patents are a strange thing. They were created to protect inventors, just like copyright was created to protect artists. The idea was that nobody would write books or invest in research if ideas could be taken and duplicated without restriction. Both had clearly defined time limits to prevent the creation of monopolies. Some inventors invested their life savings in order to make their dream come true, taking immense financial risks. Writers lived for years in poverty to create their masterpiece. But all that has changed.
In order to create a computer program you need a few hundred bucks. In order to create a patent you need a pencil, the back of a cigar box and tens of thousands of dollars. You don't even have to be creative, you just have to describe something you've found on the Internet and thought it was a neat idea. Needless to say "rich and the clueless" love patents.
But it is even worse. Most of these patents don't even make it into products. Patents have become the legal equivalent of ballistic nuclear missiles. They are silently stored in their drawers until they are deployed in order to prevent the creation of innovative products or simply to retaliate.
I doubt very much that this was the intension of those who wrote "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries", since they were also the men that wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Note that the world in the late 18th century was quite different. There were no large corporations. The demise of the biggest (and arguably the only) corporation at the time, the Dutch VOC, was imminent. There were very few republics, most countries were monarchies. Religious prosecution was still very common.
The Constitution was drafted to address those problems, not transnational, corporate monopolies that were at least 100 years away. The trouble is we have failed to correct this omission in the 230 years after the first signature was set and we're paying dearly now. Corporations have accumulated so much power that it is very hard to stop them. At least as hard as Bill Gates in a Mercedes SLR McLaren.
You'd expect that big companies really respect "intellectual property". Au contraire, mon cher ami. The Danish company KiSS, now Cisco, simply "used" MPlayer's GPLed code. Without honoring the license, that is. Their comment: "but it is clear that as a commercial company living off selling its product, can not and will not release its proprietary code" and "there is no place in the world that I know of where the GPL has been tested in court, so from a business perspective I would say that the license is relatively weak".
Simply an incident? I don't think so. It is well known that corporations don't have any respect for privacy nor the integrity of my computer. Microsoft can deny me the access to my own documents, which is unheard of, even if I didn't pay them a penny for any of their products. A lock smith better not try similar practices if he wants to collect a bill. "XP phone home" is a complaint I hear only too often, but it doesn't stop there, unfortunately.
German company "Kino-welt" installs drivers on your computer making it unstable and disabling optical devices. Sure, you clicked a license agreement, like you did a million times before. You would have clicked that darn button even if it said the whole European division had the right to sexually abuse your dog. Who reads those silly things! Imagine you had to read and sign five pages of legal stuff every time you bought your groceries or lit a cigarette! I can't think of anyone but a lawyer falling for that trick. So let's discard that argument here and now. Let's get really serious.
Everybody has heard about the recent scandal around Sony's copy protection. This one was much more serious than "Kino-welt", because Sony hid the components it had installed and left the computer vulnerable to attack. Less known is the fact that it stole GPLed components, again without honoring the license.
But why should this amaze us all? Microsoft has done this for years and years. After conducting what was termed "original marketing research," Microsoft dubbed its new product the Palm PC. Palm Computing Inc., a division of the 3Com Corporation, quickly filed a trademark infringement suit in Europe, complaining that Microsoft was deliberately attempting to confuse consumers by borrowing the first five letters of their product's name. And the list goes on an on, Stac Electronics, Eolas Technologies, Forgent Networks and InterTrust, that has a massive 143 patent violation claims registered against the software giant. "Cultures that value ingenuity, creativity and progress, have good reason to value intellectual property". Obviously, Microsoft doesn't, because it isn't.
The Business Software Alliance is ostensibly a trade association that tracks down pirated software on behalf of its members in the software industry. It has absolutely nothing to do with intellectual property, but corporate profit. The BSA files suits against offending organizations, but quickly drops them when they agree to sign deals to purchase Microsoft software exclusively.
The RIAA tries to make us believe that "Each sale by a pirate represents a lost legitimate sale, thereby depriving not only the record company of profits, but also the artist, producer, songwriter, publisher, retailer, … and the list goes on". In reality, Courtney Love says that "recording artists have essentially been giving their music away for free [to the record companies] under the old system" and Don Henley, thinks that "the recording industry is a dirty business. Always has been, probably always will be. I don't think you could find a recording artist who has made more than two albums that would say anything good about his or her record company. [..] Most artists don't see a penny of profit until their third or fourth album because of the way the business is structured. The record company gets all of its investment back before the artist gets a penny, you know. It is not a shared risk at all".
Downloaders of the world, think of it like this: when you're copying a $20 disk, you're ripping off the artist for a measly $2 (and sometimes even less) and the record companies for $18. And that is alright since they already owned me for all the IP I've paid double and triple. Although they claim I got a license and not a good, why can't I sent in a broken CD and get a new one? Or an old vinyl record and get a CD? Or download all the iTunes I already got for free?
It is even worse in the Netherlands: most of the DVD's I buy are not only copy-protected, it is also unlawful to copy them. Still, I have to pay an extra tax on empty DVD-R's "to compensate the artists", which leads to the inevitable conclusion that the government considers most of their citizens to be criminals.
Can it get any worse? Yes, it can. German media report that the film industry's German lobby group "Gesellschaft zur Verfolgung von Urheberrechtsverletzungen" is actively involved in illegally distributing copyrighted material online. The privately-run GVU has been paying for illegal FTP servers frequented by film piracy groups. When authorities struck out at European copyright pirates with an orchestrated multi-national crackdown on January 24th, police also conducted a surprise search of the GVU's Hamburg offices. The targets included two popular FTP servers allegedly paid for by the GVU. Evidence found strongly suggests that over the course of their hunt for online piracy, the GVU has overstepped boundaries of legality.
It seems that the lawlessness we find outselves in has no limits. The large corporations rule our lives, instead of the governments we've elected. "Imagine if anything you thought, made, or distributed could be legally reproduced and freely given away by others. What incentive would there be to continue your hard work?" I know it now. And it motivates me even more to do it. Freedom. Not like a beer. Not like speech. Like not in a prison.
OK, time for a reality check. Of course it doesn't work that way. In real life you probably never even have to pay a fine, because you can hire the best lawyers available. You can make it so expensive that even the state will give up wasting tax dollars. Probably you won't even make it to court. When you're that rich you can probably convince Congress that it is vital for the national automobile industry to pass the "Transportation Safety Act", which allows cars to drive as fast as they possibly can. Well, you can in Germany, you know..
OK, time for a reality check. You're not that rich and neither am I. All we can do is write programs and update our blogs. And even that is in jeopardy. If you happen to live in Europe, that is. In the United States the battle is already lost where patents are concerned. The DCMA has already poisoned jurisdiction all around the world.
Patents are a strange thing. They were created to protect inventors, just like copyright was created to protect artists. The idea was that nobody would write books or invest in research if ideas could be taken and duplicated without restriction. Both had clearly defined time limits to prevent the creation of monopolies. Some inventors invested their life savings in order to make their dream come true, taking immense financial risks. Writers lived for years in poverty to create their masterpiece. But all that has changed.
In order to create a computer program you need a few hundred bucks. In order to create a patent you need a pencil, the back of a cigar box and tens of thousands of dollars. You don't even have to be creative, you just have to describe something you've found on the Internet and thought it was a neat idea. Needless to say "rich and the clueless" love patents.
But it is even worse. Most of these patents don't even make it into products. Patents have become the legal equivalent of ballistic nuclear missiles. They are silently stored in their drawers until they are deployed in order to prevent the creation of innovative products or simply to retaliate.
I doubt very much that this was the intension of those who wrote "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries", since they were also the men that wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Note that the world in the late 18th century was quite different. There were no large corporations. The demise of the biggest (and arguably the only) corporation at the time, the Dutch VOC, was imminent. There were very few republics, most countries were monarchies. Religious prosecution was still very common.
The Constitution was drafted to address those problems, not transnational, corporate monopolies that were at least 100 years away. The trouble is we have failed to correct this omission in the 230 years after the first signature was set and we're paying dearly now. Corporations have accumulated so much power that it is very hard to stop them. At least as hard as Bill Gates in a Mercedes SLR McLaren.
You'd expect that big companies really respect "intellectual property". Au contraire, mon cher ami. The Danish company KiSS, now Cisco, simply "used" MPlayer's GPLed code. Without honoring the license, that is. Their comment: "but it is clear that as a commercial company living off selling its product, can not and will not release its proprietary code" and "there is no place in the world that I know of where the GPL has been tested in court, so from a business perspective I would say that the license is relatively weak".
Simply an incident? I don't think so. It is well known that corporations don't have any respect for privacy nor the integrity of my computer. Microsoft can deny me the access to my own documents, which is unheard of, even if I didn't pay them a penny for any of their products. A lock smith better not try similar practices if he wants to collect a bill. "XP phone home" is a complaint I hear only too often, but it doesn't stop there, unfortunately.
German company "Kino-welt" installs drivers on your computer making it unstable and disabling optical devices. Sure, you clicked a license agreement, like you did a million times before. You would have clicked that darn button even if it said the whole European division had the right to sexually abuse your dog. Who reads those silly things! Imagine you had to read and sign five pages of legal stuff every time you bought your groceries or lit a cigarette! I can't think of anyone but a lawyer falling for that trick. So let's discard that argument here and now. Let's get really serious.
Everybody has heard about the recent scandal around Sony's copy protection. This one was much more serious than "Kino-welt", because Sony hid the components it had installed and left the computer vulnerable to attack. Less known is the fact that it stole GPLed components, again without honoring the license.
But why should this amaze us all? Microsoft has done this for years and years. After conducting what was termed "original marketing research," Microsoft dubbed its new product the Palm PC. Palm Computing Inc., a division of the 3Com Corporation, quickly filed a trademark infringement suit in Europe, complaining that Microsoft was deliberately attempting to confuse consumers by borrowing the first five letters of their product's name. And the list goes on an on, Stac Electronics, Eolas Technologies, Forgent Networks and InterTrust, that has a massive 143 patent violation claims registered against the software giant. "Cultures that value ingenuity, creativity and progress, have good reason to value intellectual property". Obviously, Microsoft doesn't, because it isn't.
The Business Software Alliance is ostensibly a trade association that tracks down pirated software on behalf of its members in the software industry. It has absolutely nothing to do with intellectual property, but corporate profit. The BSA files suits against offending organizations, but quickly drops them when they agree to sign deals to purchase Microsoft software exclusively.
The RIAA tries to make us believe that "Each sale by a pirate represents a lost legitimate sale, thereby depriving not only the record company of profits, but also the artist, producer, songwriter, publisher, retailer, … and the list goes on". In reality, Courtney Love says that "recording artists have essentially been giving their music away for free [to the record companies] under the old system" and Don Henley, thinks that "the recording industry is a dirty business. Always has been, probably always will be. I don't think you could find a recording artist who has made more than two albums that would say anything good about his or her record company. [..] Most artists don't see a penny of profit until their third or fourth album because of the way the business is structured. The record company gets all of its investment back before the artist gets a penny, you know. It is not a shared risk at all".
Downloaders of the world, think of it like this: when you're copying a $20 disk, you're ripping off the artist for a measly $2 (and sometimes even less) and the record companies for $18. And that is alright since they already owned me for all the IP I've paid double and triple. Although they claim I got a license and not a good, why can't I sent in a broken CD and get a new one? Or an old vinyl record and get a CD? Or download all the iTunes I already got for free?
It is even worse in the Netherlands: most of the DVD's I buy are not only copy-protected, it is also unlawful to copy them. Still, I have to pay an extra tax on empty DVD-R's "to compensate the artists", which leads to the inevitable conclusion that the government considers most of their citizens to be criminals.
Can it get any worse? Yes, it can. German media report that the film industry's German lobby group "Gesellschaft zur Verfolgung von Urheberrechtsverletzungen" is actively involved in illegally distributing copyrighted material online. The privately-run GVU has been paying for illegal FTP servers frequented by film piracy groups. When authorities struck out at European copyright pirates with an orchestrated multi-national crackdown on January 24th, police also conducted a surprise search of the GVU's Hamburg offices. The targets included two popular FTP servers allegedly paid for by the GVU. Evidence found strongly suggests that over the course of their hunt for online piracy, the GVU has overstepped boundaries of legality.
It seems that the lawlessness we find outselves in has no limits. The large corporations rule our lives, instead of the governments we've elected. "Imagine if anything you thought, made, or distributed could be legally reproduced and freely given away by others. What incentive would there be to continue your hard work?" I know it now. And it motivates me even more to do it. Freedom. Not like a beer. Not like speech. Like not in a prison.
DRM is (almost) dead
Recently, Fred Amoroso of Macrovision published his response to Steve Jobs call for a DRM free world. Needless to say, he did not agree with Steve, mainly because that is what Macrovision does: its main product is DRM. Several readers pointed out to me that Steve Jobs did not object to DRM for ethical reasons and I agree: Steve is a businessman, not an activist. Steve Jobs statement is important however, since it signifies a departure from the stance most corporations have had so far concerning DRM. And recently EMI announced that they also left the DRM bandwagon. That's not good news for Macrovision.Of course, the arguments Fred Amoroso uses are flawed to say the least. I'll tell you why. First he states that DRM is broader than music. Those of you who use a PDA of a DVD player probably know that. Every copyrighted content is affected. But the arguments against DRM apply there too. A tautology at best, but hardly an argument of any importance.
Second, he states that DRM is in the customers best interest. Why? Because it enables the industry to use electronic distribution channels. In what way is that interesting to the end user? That he can see a movie at home instead of going to the cinema? That he can see a movie in Europe at the same time it has been released in the USA? Or simply that he can stay at home instead of renting a DVD? Even if only some of these possibilities are used I can only see advantages for the industry: cutting out the middle man. And of course, there is the price argument: DRM makes content cheaper. That is true, if we would have a choice. The point is: there is no choice! EMI CD's come with DRM, end of story. They don't offer the same CD at a higher price without DRM. Are copy protected CD's and DVD's cheaper as their unprotected counterparts? Again, no. Prices are comparable. Did DRM make recordable media cheaper in Europe? No. You pay the same price for a DRM infested CD and pay a fee on top of your recordable media. And since you're not able to rip your CD and transfer the resulting files to your MP3 player, you pay even more. So, DRM only increases the price consumers pay for content and limits their choice, not the reverse as Fred wants us to believe.
Third, dear Fred claims that DRM will increase electronic distribution. As I've already pointed out, how does that benefit consumers? It does only benefit the industry. Even worse, if they step out, somebody else will step in. The industry left electronic distribution to Apple, because they stated – and I quote here – that the industry only produces content, not distributes it. And even that is an overstatement. Most companies serve as a bank. They give loans to artists, which need to be repaid, so most artists so not see a penny from a record company until after their second album. On the other hand, the technology is here and will be used, whether the industry uses it or not. Books will be scanned and OCRed, music and video digitized and the whole electronic highway will serve as a split second distribution medium, simply because it is there. The only option is to label every single copyrighted bit, outlaw any device that cannot be "trusted" and ship all hackers with more than one braincell to Guantanamo Bay. Ok, am I getting ridiculous yet?
Finally, Fred wants "interoperable DRM". So what. DRM infested content will never be as easy to share and manage as unprotected content, no matter what. This is one of the most fundamental flaws of DRM: unprotected content has better value than protected content. Where there is a margin, there is profit; where there is profit there is a market; where there's a market there are suppliers. DVD Jon is not the problem, he is the inevitable consequence.
Neither Prohibition nor "the war on drugs" have been successful in eradicating the problems they addressed, because it is a simple question of supply and demand. DMCA is flawed in itself and in some cases even detrimental. Even when all political and technical goals are achieved, DRM will give rise to a new form of piracy, much more professional and malignant than anything they've seen before. As long as pirates can provide the content at a lower price than the official channels - and they will - the black market will continue to exist and even thrive. Think of it: Blueray offers the possibility of mass producing Blueray disks loaded with DVD quality, unprotected movies. Mod chips that will allow you to view it on any machine you want. And how much priority do you think the police will give to piracy? "Terrorists robbed the Federal Reserve Bank, eighty-nine civilians were raped and decapitated, five million K of cocaine was brought into country, but we did capture at least three bootleggers and two kids who traded MP3's in a schoolyard".
And whatever you may think of piracy, it is still a petty crime compared to trafficking drugs, firearms or alcohol because there are no health issues here. I think public support for DMCA will drop dramatically when the first eleven year old is thrown in jail for hacking his way into a HD-DVD he legally bought. Already political support for DMCA is subsiding. Consumers are also voters and votes still beat money where politicians are concerned.
So far, corporations have come up with inadequate solutions to piracy. The first one is to offer a better quality. The first step, digital media, is usually successful. The audio CD was a success and so was the video DVD. The second step - pushing the envelope - usually doesn't work. SACD and DVD audio are hardly mainstream and I expect HD-DVD and Blueray to fail as well for the very same reason: good is good enough and more is too expensive. Note that most illegal downloads are of inferior quality. Still people are willing to view an entire film shot in some obscure Asian movie theater with a mobile phone as long as it is the latest hit and it is free. The second one is putting up hurdles for Joe Average. True, Joe Average will not crack any DRM issues. But may be he has a friend or colleague who can open up that DRM infested CD that he cannot play in his car stereo. The CD-R Joe brings home does not only play in his car stereo, but he can also make a copy for a friend or family member after telling them "not to buy the CD", because you can't play it on car stereo, MP3 player or computer. And next time Joe will wait until an unprotected, illegal copy pops up because he now knows what that darn logo means. Even better, since the inability to play the CD on certain devices violates basic consumer rights, Joe's friend can simply rip the thing and get his money back. The conclusion that DRM promotes piracy is almost unavoidable.
But the industry seems to avoid the most effective and obvious measures at all cost: offer more choice and lower prices. In the beginning DVD's came with a lot of extras and a hefty price tag. Nowadays you can choose between the single disk version – feature only – and the full fledged double disk version. There are many ways to differentiate and offer consumer choice. And don't tell me differentiation costs money: it wasn't me that invented the region code. But it were the consumers and the electronics industry that defeated it. Globalization works two ways as the industry has learned by now.
The confusion the industry is in is best illustrated by Bill Gates, who told a bunch of bloggers that he advised users just to rip their CD's and on the other hand Steve Ballmer, who not only released the most DRM infested software product in the history of computing, but also proposed even harder anti-piracy measures (read: DRM). As if WGA works perfectly.. NOT!
The main question is when (and not if) the majority of consumers will fail to adopt a new, costly technology, creating a major debacle for the corporations that developed it or when the electronics industry will cease to play along with the increasingly absurd demands of the content industry.
IMHO the industry should start to consider alternatives for DRM, simply because there is no alternative. The Dutch have a saying "an ass doesn't stumble over the same stone twice", meaning a smart man learns from his mistakes and doesn't repeat them. What do you think we call people who do?
Second, he states that DRM is in the customers best interest. Why? Because it enables the industry to use electronic distribution channels. In what way is that interesting to the end user? That he can see a movie at home instead of going to the cinema? That he can see a movie in Europe at the same time it has been released in the USA? Or simply that he can stay at home instead of renting a DVD? Even if only some of these possibilities are used I can only see advantages for the industry: cutting out the middle man. And of course, there is the price argument: DRM makes content cheaper. That is true, if we would have a choice. The point is: there is no choice! EMI CD's come with DRM, end of story. They don't offer the same CD at a higher price without DRM. Are copy protected CD's and DVD's cheaper as their unprotected counterparts? Again, no. Prices are comparable. Did DRM make recordable media cheaper in Europe? No. You pay the same price for a DRM infested CD and pay a fee on top of your recordable media. And since you're not able to rip your CD and transfer the resulting files to your MP3 player, you pay even more. So, DRM only increases the price consumers pay for content and limits their choice, not the reverse as Fred wants us to believe.
Third, dear Fred claims that DRM will increase electronic distribution. As I've already pointed out, how does that benefit consumers? It does only benefit the industry. Even worse, if they step out, somebody else will step in. The industry left electronic distribution to Apple, because they stated – and I quote here – that the industry only produces content, not distributes it. And even that is an overstatement. Most companies serve as a bank. They give loans to artists, which need to be repaid, so most artists so not see a penny from a record company until after their second album. On the other hand, the technology is here and will be used, whether the industry uses it or not. Books will be scanned and OCRed, music and video digitized and the whole electronic highway will serve as a split second distribution medium, simply because it is there. The only option is to label every single copyrighted bit, outlaw any device that cannot be "trusted" and ship all hackers with more than one braincell to Guantanamo Bay. Ok, am I getting ridiculous yet?
Finally, Fred wants "interoperable DRM". So what. DRM infested content will never be as easy to share and manage as unprotected content, no matter what. This is one of the most fundamental flaws of DRM: unprotected content has better value than protected content. Where there is a margin, there is profit; where there is profit there is a market; where there's a market there are suppliers. DVD Jon is not the problem, he is the inevitable consequence.
Neither Prohibition nor "the war on drugs" have been successful in eradicating the problems they addressed, because it is a simple question of supply and demand. DMCA is flawed in itself and in some cases even detrimental. Even when all political and technical goals are achieved, DRM will give rise to a new form of piracy, much more professional and malignant than anything they've seen before. As long as pirates can provide the content at a lower price than the official channels - and they will - the black market will continue to exist and even thrive. Think of it: Blueray offers the possibility of mass producing Blueray disks loaded with DVD quality, unprotected movies. Mod chips that will allow you to view it on any machine you want. And how much priority do you think the police will give to piracy? "Terrorists robbed the Federal Reserve Bank, eighty-nine civilians were raped and decapitated, five million K of cocaine was brought into country, but we did capture at least three bootleggers and two kids who traded MP3's in a schoolyard".
And whatever you may think of piracy, it is still a petty crime compared to trafficking drugs, firearms or alcohol because there are no health issues here. I think public support for DMCA will drop dramatically when the first eleven year old is thrown in jail for hacking his way into a HD-DVD he legally bought. Already political support for DMCA is subsiding. Consumers are also voters and votes still beat money where politicians are concerned.
So far, corporations have come up with inadequate solutions to piracy. The first one is to offer a better quality. The first step, digital media, is usually successful. The audio CD was a success and so was the video DVD. The second step - pushing the envelope - usually doesn't work. SACD and DVD audio are hardly mainstream and I expect HD-DVD and Blueray to fail as well for the very same reason: good is good enough and more is too expensive. Note that most illegal downloads are of inferior quality. Still people are willing to view an entire film shot in some obscure Asian movie theater with a mobile phone as long as it is the latest hit and it is free. The second one is putting up hurdles for Joe Average. True, Joe Average will not crack any DRM issues. But may be he has a friend or colleague who can open up that DRM infested CD that he cannot play in his car stereo. The CD-R Joe brings home does not only play in his car stereo, but he can also make a copy for a friend or family member after telling them "not to buy the CD", because you can't play it on car stereo, MP3 player or computer. And next time Joe will wait until an unprotected, illegal copy pops up because he now knows what that darn logo means. Even better, since the inability to play the CD on certain devices violates basic consumer rights, Joe's friend can simply rip the thing and get his money back. The conclusion that DRM promotes piracy is almost unavoidable.
But the industry seems to avoid the most effective and obvious measures at all cost: offer more choice and lower prices. In the beginning DVD's came with a lot of extras and a hefty price tag. Nowadays you can choose between the single disk version – feature only – and the full fledged double disk version. There are many ways to differentiate and offer consumer choice. And don't tell me differentiation costs money: it wasn't me that invented the region code. But it were the consumers and the electronics industry that defeated it. Globalization works two ways as the industry has learned by now.
The confusion the industry is in is best illustrated by Bill Gates, who told a bunch of bloggers that he advised users just to rip their CD's and on the other hand Steve Ballmer, who not only released the most DRM infested software product in the history of computing, but also proposed even harder anti-piracy measures (read: DRM). As if WGA works perfectly.. NOT!
The main question is when (and not if) the majority of consumers will fail to adopt a new, costly technology, creating a major debacle for the corporations that developed it or when the electronics industry will cease to play along with the increasingly absurd demands of the content industry.
IMHO the industry should start to consider alternatives for DRM, simply because there is no alternative. The Dutch have a saying "an ass doesn't stumble over the same stone twice", meaning a smart man learns from his mistakes and doesn't repeat them. What do you think we call people who do?
Learning Microsoft how to get the facts
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."Well, not much has been changed since Mark Twain spoke these wise words. The recent survey of Associate Professor Alan D. MacCormack, most well-known for his article "Intellectual Property, Architecture, and the Management of Technological Transitions: Evidence from Microsoft Corporation" proves this once again. True, the very first page clearly shows Alan's association with the software giant by clearly stating that it concerns "a study funded by the Microsoft Corporation". Usually this is enough for us Linux zealots to write it off and concern ourselves with more important things. Still, eWeek found it important enough to mention. Knowing a thing or two about statistics and how to manipulate them, I thought let's see how well the professor does.
In short, it is garbage. There are three basic flaws:
At the time of writing, there were 42,909 projects listed at Freshmeat of which about 72.5 percent had a GPL or LGPL license. That is about 31,102 projects. For the sake of argument, let's assume they are all one man projects. Because that is not true. A study from the Haas School of Business shows that there were 121 maintainers and 2,605 developers working on the Linux kernel in 2000. For your information, that is kernel version 2.2.x.
So on one hand we have 31,102 open source developers and 2,726 Linux developers. What do you consider to be a reasonable representative sample? 10 percent? Less? One percent, which boils down to 311 open source developers and 27 Linux developers? No. According to our Harvard professor only 34 open source developers (of which 7 are Linux developers) are required. Every high school kid will tell you that you can draw no significant conclusions from such a small sample.
If you don't believe me, I will allow Alan to speak for himself: "Based on the selection criteria for the developers, and the semi-structured approach we felt that the 34 interviews was more than sufficient to conduct exploratory research." and a bit further on: "The semi-structured approach we felt that the 34 interviews was more than sufficient to conduct exploratory research to identify the predominant developer opinions on the most critical issues."
Dear Alan, how many times do I have to explain to you that it doesn't matter how you feel about matters, but how well you can prove them. That has been a sound scientific principle for the last two thousand years. You'll never make a full professor that way!
And to prove that I know what I'm talking about, here is the proper way to determine a reasonable sample size. First you need three parameters:
The confidence level tells you how sure you can be. It is expressed as a percentage and represents how often the true percentage of the population who would pick an answer lies within the confidence interval. The 95% confidence level means you can be 95% certain; the 99% confidence level means you can be 99% certain. Most researchers use the 95% confidence level.
So, using a 95% confidence level and a confidence interval of 5 we need to interview 379 developers, not 34. See Alan, proving your point isn't too hard..
The selection is flawed
Okay, maybe there were too many open source developers who didn't want to participate in this survey. Yell 'Microsoft sponsored' and most of us Linux bigots will say 'thank you' and hang up. So how many developers were actually contacted? I'd say from the various mailing-lists it shouldn't be a problem to contact at least 10,000 developers. No. Only 354 were contacted. Less than 10% responded. The others either used the 'bounce' option in KMail or flatly declined.
Now the real fun comes. Alan quotes Lakhani and Wolf who did a structured quantitative study of 684 developers from 287 distinct projects in 2005. They divided the community in four distinct clusters:
"In the first cluster, developers were most commonly motivated to contribute to open source because of a work need or because they were paid to contribute. All developers in the second cluster were motivated by non-work needs. Developers in the third cluster were most commonly motivated by intellectual stimulation or a desire to improve their skills. Finally, developers in the fourth cluster were most commonly motivated by a belief that they were obligated to give back in return for having used open source code or a belief that code should be free."
This classification is used by this study, although they found it appropriate to merge clusters two and three. Why?
"In this research, we combined clusters two and three because they have the same set of top motivations that are distinct from clusters one and four, and they both have intellectual stimulation as the second highest motivation."
Pardon me? First of all, I object to this classification in the first place. When I start programming I usually have an itch to scratch, either for work or for pleasure. When the project really begins to interest me I start to explore uncharted ground, just for fun. And yes, since I've been using Linux and associated programs I feel obliged to give something back in return. That puts me in all four categories. Second, when I have a problem to solve (let's say to change the copyright message in all my private sources – wow, that's intellectually motivating!) my motivation puts me in cluster two. When I'm fiddling around with a tiny multitasking environment I've suddenly shifted to cluster three. Since my motivations are quite different in both cases I don't see any reason to merge both clusters.
All four clusters have roughly the same size, about a quarter. Depending on their answers developers are assigned to one of these clusters:
"We assigned developers to one of three groups based on their response."
The distribution of these clusters is as follows:
This shows that either Lakhani's research was flawed (where the distribution of clusters is concerned) or MacCormack's sample is not aselect. Using the "de Hond method" this could be corrected, but MacCormack fails to do so.
Finally, Alan even admits he has made an atypical selection:
"We targeted developers for our research based on two criteria: the projects to which they had contributed, and their role on those projects."
Even if this was intentional, by doing this Alan severely limits the applicability and validity of his research. Also, criteria for the importance of the role of those interviewed are lacking. Table B just lists them as "developers" which can be anyone, even the guy who merely wrote the print routine. Remember those 2,726 Linux developers?
Interpretation is done by researchers
This really makes me shiver. I do not hold much of opinions to begin with. Opinions are like noses; everybody has got one..! I don't like highway troopers to stop me just because they thought I was speeding too much. All judges will require at least some kind of measurement. MacCormack doesn't think that is necessary:
"Given the complexity of licensing implications, we felt the topic was not well suited for a structured / quantitative survey. Instead, we used a semi-structured document to facilitate discussion and conduct exploratory research to identify developers’ opinions on open source and proprietary software licensing issues."
In laymens terms this means "say what you think and we'll tell you what you mean":
"From the responses, we used an inductive approach to synthesize the developers’ responses into key themes. After defining these themes, we looked across responses to identify indicative phrases and responses of a pro or con position on each theme. We then compared each developer’s statements against these indicators to classify each developer as either pro or con on that theme. If a developer provided statements that were mixed (i.e. matched both pro and con indicators for a theme), we examined their responses to related questions. We used the broader context to assign them as pro or con on the theme."
MacCormack also fails to state why licensing implications are more complex than the war in Iraq, the greenhouse effect and save the whales. What does MacCormack? He feels again. Never seen such a sensitive professor. BTW, Lakhani found no problem in using a structured, quantitative approach to survey his topic. Open source is obviously not as complex an issue as closed source.
I won't go so far as to say that MacCormack has deliberately manipulated his findings, but in any case his research is seriously flawed IMHO. I'm a lecturer at colleges and universities too and when some student of mine would offer me a survey like this he wouldn't make the grade, believe me. I advise Microsoft to buy its surveys somewhere else in the future.
In short, it is garbage. There are three basic flaws:
- The sample taken is far too small to be representative;
- The selection is flawed;
- The interpretation of the questions and the responses is done by the researchers.
At the time of writing, there were 42,909 projects listed at Freshmeat of which about 72.5 percent had a GPL or LGPL license. That is about 31,102 projects. For the sake of argument, let's assume they are all one man projects. Because that is not true. A study from the Haas School of Business shows that there were 121 maintainers and 2,605 developers working on the Linux kernel in 2000. For your information, that is kernel version 2.2.x.
So on one hand we have 31,102 open source developers and 2,726 Linux developers. What do you consider to be a reasonable representative sample? 10 percent? Less? One percent, which boils down to 311 open source developers and 27 Linux developers? No. According to our Harvard professor only 34 open source developers (of which 7 are Linux developers) are required. Every high school kid will tell you that you can draw no significant conclusions from such a small sample.
If you don't believe me, I will allow Alan to speak for himself: "Based on the selection criteria for the developers, and the semi-structured approach we felt that the 34 interviews was more than sufficient to conduct exploratory research." and a bit further on: "The semi-structured approach we felt that the 34 interviews was more than sufficient to conduct exploratory research to identify the predominant developer opinions on the most critical issues."
Dear Alan, how many times do I have to explain to you that it doesn't matter how you feel about matters, but how well you can prove them. That has been a sound scientific principle for the last two thousand years. You'll never make a full professor that way!
And to prove that I know what I'm talking about, here is the proper way to determine a reasonable sample size. First you need three parameters:
- Population size
- Confidence level
- Confidence interval
The confidence level tells you how sure you can be. It is expressed as a percentage and represents how often the true percentage of the population who would pick an answer lies within the confidence interval. The 95% confidence level means you can be 95% certain; the 99% confidence level means you can be 99% certain. Most researchers use the 95% confidence level.
So, using a 95% confidence level and a confidence interval of 5 we need to interview 379 developers, not 34. See Alan, proving your point isn't too hard..
The selection is flawed
Okay, maybe there were too many open source developers who didn't want to participate in this survey. Yell 'Microsoft sponsored' and most of us Linux bigots will say 'thank you' and hang up. So how many developers were actually contacted? I'd say from the various mailing-lists it shouldn't be a problem to contact at least 10,000 developers. No. Only 354 were contacted. Less than 10% responded. The others either used the 'bounce' option in KMail or flatly declined.
Now the real fun comes. Alan quotes Lakhani and Wolf who did a structured quantitative study of 684 developers from 287 distinct projects in 2005. They divided the community in four distinct clusters:
"In the first cluster, developers were most commonly motivated to contribute to open source because of a work need or because they were paid to contribute. All developers in the second cluster were motivated by non-work needs. Developers in the third cluster were most commonly motivated by intellectual stimulation or a desire to improve their skills. Finally, developers in the fourth cluster were most commonly motivated by a belief that they were obligated to give back in return for having used open source code or a belief that code should be free."
This classification is used by this study, although they found it appropriate to merge clusters two and three. Why?
"In this research, we combined clusters two and three because they have the same set of top motivations that are distinct from clusters one and four, and they both have intellectual stimulation as the second highest motivation."
Pardon me? First of all, I object to this classification in the first place. When I start programming I usually have an itch to scratch, either for work or for pleasure. When the project really begins to interest me I start to explore uncharted ground, just for fun. And yes, since I've been using Linux and associated programs I feel obliged to give something back in return. That puts me in all four categories. Second, when I have a problem to solve (let's say to change the copyright message in all my private sources – wow, that's intellectually motivating!) my motivation puts me in cluster two. When I'm fiddling around with a tiny multitasking environment I've suddenly shifted to cluster three. Since my motivations are quite different in both cases I don't see any reason to merge both clusters.
All four clusters have roughly the same size, about a quarter. Depending on their answers developers are assigned to one of these clusters:
"We assigned developers to one of three groups based on their response."
The distribution of these clusters is as follows:
| Cluster | %MacCormack | %Lakhani |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 56 | 25 |
| 2+3 | 24 | 56 |
| 4 | 21 | 19 |
This shows that either Lakhani's research was flawed (where the distribution of clusters is concerned) or MacCormack's sample is not aselect. Using the "de Hond method" this could be corrected, but MacCormack fails to do so.
Finally, Alan even admits he has made an atypical selection:
"We targeted developers for our research based on two criteria: the projects to which they had contributed, and their role on those projects."
Even if this was intentional, by doing this Alan severely limits the applicability and validity of his research. Also, criteria for the importance of the role of those interviewed are lacking. Table B just lists them as "developers" which can be anyone, even the guy who merely wrote the print routine. Remember those 2,726 Linux developers?
Interpretation is done by researchers
This really makes me shiver. I do not hold much of opinions to begin with. Opinions are like noses; everybody has got one..! I don't like highway troopers to stop me just because they thought I was speeding too much. All judges will require at least some kind of measurement. MacCormack doesn't think that is necessary:
"Given the complexity of licensing implications, we felt the topic was not well suited for a structured / quantitative survey. Instead, we used a semi-structured document to facilitate discussion and conduct exploratory research to identify developers’ opinions on open source and proprietary software licensing issues."
In laymens terms this means "say what you think and we'll tell you what you mean":
"From the responses, we used an inductive approach to synthesize the developers’ responses into key themes. After defining these themes, we looked across responses to identify indicative phrases and responses of a pro or con position on each theme. We then compared each developer’s statements against these indicators to classify each developer as either pro or con on that theme. If a developer provided statements that were mixed (i.e. matched both pro and con indicators for a theme), we examined their responses to related questions. We used the broader context to assign them as pro or con on the theme."
MacCormack also fails to state why licensing implications are more complex than the war in Iraq, the greenhouse effect and save the whales. What does MacCormack? He feels again. Never seen such a sensitive professor. BTW, Lakhani found no problem in using a structured, quantitative approach to survey his topic. Open source is obviously not as complex an issue as closed source.
I won't go so far as to say that MacCormack has deliberately manipulated his findings, but in any case his research is seriously flawed IMHO. I'm a lecturer at colleges and universities too and when some student of mine would offer me a survey like this he wouldn't make the grade, believe me. I advise Microsoft to buy its surveys somewhere else in the future.
Teaching Microsoft: the aftermath
A lot has happened since I debunked Alan MacCormack's research. First, a very clever attack from some "Rufus":"Insufficient sample sizes because the survey is not meant to be representative. Additionally, for exploratory research, it is nothing unusual to use a semi-structured approach. The goal is, for example, to extract key words the can be used for proper measurement in the later, the 'real' survey."
This may all be true, but I'm not interested in whether this is a valid methodology in social sciences. What I'm interested in is whether the methodology justifies the conclusions. Obviously not, according to Rufus:
"The intention of the study was not to reject any hypotheses or to be representative."
If the study was not intended to be representative the conclusions are a priori invalid. Still, they are presented as if they are valid and applicable. Rufus continues:
"You still decided to use lots of rhetoric to 'prove' your point. For example, this one: 'MacCormack also fails to state why licensing implications are more complex than the war in Iraq, the greenhouse effect and save the whales'. This is of course a rhetoric attack."
No, this is not rhetoric attack. When a researcher makes choices I expect him to explain why he chose to do that. McCormack does not or not sufficiently.
Finally, Rufus debunks his entire rhetoric himself:
"The problem is obviously that his results shouldn't have been advertised in the first place. However, is this the professor's fault or Microsoft's?"
Obviously, the professor's. Remember that in the eWeek article he comments in great length on his research. If this research wasn't intended to be published in this stage he should have said so. He had every occasion to do so, didn't he? I have contacted Rufus through email, but have not received any response yet. Maybe what "DB" wrote isn't too far from the truth:
"Looks like Microsoft are reading this too. And if this was an exploratory survey they wouldn't be trumpeting it as the real thing."
Of course, I tried to comment on the eWeek article, only to find that I was banned:
Sean Gallagher. I haven't had a response yet, for all I know it may be an error. If you want to know what I wrote, here is the comment I submitted:
[Update: It has been reported that Sean Gallagher doesn't work for Ziff Davis anymore, so guys, update your messages! And Sean, you're out of the equation, sorry for mentioning your name, man. After weeks not a single email has made it to my inbox.]
This may all be true, but I'm not interested in whether this is a valid methodology in social sciences. What I'm interested in is whether the methodology justifies the conclusions. Obviously not, according to Rufus:
"The intention of the study was not to reject any hypotheses or to be representative."
If the study was not intended to be representative the conclusions are a priori invalid. Still, they are presented as if they are valid and applicable. Rufus continues:
"You still decided to use lots of rhetoric to 'prove' your point. For example, this one: 'MacCormack also fails to state why licensing implications are more complex than the war in Iraq, the greenhouse effect and save the whales'. This is of course a rhetoric attack."
No, this is not rhetoric attack. When a researcher makes choices I expect him to explain why he chose to do that. McCormack does not or not sufficiently.
Finally, Rufus debunks his entire rhetoric himself:
"The problem is obviously that his results shouldn't have been advertised in the first place. However, is this the professor's fault or Microsoft's?"
Obviously, the professor's. Remember that in the eWeek article he comments in great length on his research. If this research wasn't intended to be published in this stage he should have said so. He had every occasion to do so, didn't he? I have contacted Rufus through email, but have not received any response yet. Maybe what "DB" wrote isn't too far from the truth:
"Looks like Microsoft are reading this too. And if this was an exploratory survey they wouldn't be trumpeting it as the real thing."
Of course, I tried to comment on the eWeek article, only to find that I was banned:
You have been banned from posting. If you feel this is an error, pleaseSure, I contacted
email sean_gallagher@ziffdavis.com
I've written an article on this: The Beez speaksI leave it to you to decide whether that is sufficient cause to be banned or a valid comment. I never expected to follow the fate of Groklaw. Let's see what comes next.. I can only say that I'm a real person and I'm not paid or sponsored by IBM. Just your average blogger. ;-)
It is interesting that one of my comments states that although the method used is a valid practice, the conclusions as stated in this article cannot be backed by the method used.Bad journalism.. pity.
[Update: It has been reported that Sean Gallagher doesn't work for Ziff Davis anymore, so guys, update your messages! And Sean, you're out of the equation, sorry for mentioning your name, man. After weeks not a single email has made it to my inbox.]
A little history of Fuddenheim
The last decades a little war has been fought in the small town of Fuddenheim, located near the border between the Principality of Liechtenwald and South Prussia. A group of private citizens, led by Rinus Poortvliet and Rik de Knegt from Belgium, decided some 15 years ago to introduce free public transport in order to combat air pollution and congestion. Donations allowed them to buy a few buses which were operated by volunteers.
At first, the commercial public transport company Omnifast GmbH hardly reacted. The schedules of the new service, called Linexx eV, weren't very attractive to the general public, they said, and on top of that they operated just a few lines. Commercial transport was much more professional and offered more choice.
Recently, a small group of volunteers made an agreement with Omnifast. Omnifast agreed to give away free Linexx vouchers. Furthermore both companies were allowed to use each others 'dedicated bus lanes'. "Not that we are using any dedicated bus lanes from Omnifast", a spokesman of the dissident Linexx volunteers hastened to say "We just want to make sure that if we do, our customers won't have to pay an additional fare."
The other volunteers of Linexx reacted quickly and changed the GCU, making an agreement like this impossible. Omnifast in response hired the headmaster of the local business school. "Most volunteers of Linexx don't want to change the GCU" the local newspaper 'Die Woche' reported "Most of them even think it is smart to cooperate with commercial transport companies". It proved he had interviewed only three drivers, of which two weren't even working for Linexx.
The end of the story is that the chairman of Omnifast yelled "Linexx is using our dedicated bus lanes, but we won't tell which ones." When asked, he grumbled again: "We may go to court one day. But not now." Linexx reacted quickly, saying "We're sure Omnifast is using some of our lanes too. If they sue, we sue. But maybe it is better to refrain from having dedicated bus lanes altogether. Life is much easier that way." Which may prove to be true, because later 'Die Woche' found out that lines downtown were not covered by the Omnifast agreement.
The small war rages on in the streets of Fuddenheim. It just illustrates once more time how ridiculous people can get. We'll keep you informed.
At first, the commercial public transport company Omnifast GmbH hardly reacted. The schedules of the new service, called Linexx eV, weren't very attractive to the general public, they said, and on top of that they operated just a few lines. Commercial transport was much more professional and offered more choice.
However, the free transport slowly became a hit and Omnifast couldn't ignore it anymore. So they hired a performance testing company called Artibus to compare both offerings. It published the report a little later, showing that a comparable ride with the free service took a lot longer and required more transfers. Careful investigation showed that the research was rigged. Measurements of Omnifast were excluding the waiting time required and were restricted to the lines were Omnifast offered a direct service.
But dedicated to offer the best possible service, Linexx quickly improved their shortcomings. Now Omnifast was really in trouble. "Once you start using this service, you can never transfer to our professional services again." the chairman of Omnifast raged "This is a thing the General Conditions of Use (GCU) of Linexx explicitly prohibit." Which was not true. Omnifast was just not allowed to charge passengers for that part of the trip which was traveled with Linexx coaches. "Communism, that's what it is!" the chairman cried "They want us all to work for free!"
Omnifast launched a big publicity campaign which they baptized "Raffst du es nicht?" (Don't you get it?) in order to scare away potential passengers, saying that although the service was free additional costs made it very expensive. For instance, if you used a prepaid Omnifast Travelcard. All of them were performed by Artibus, which continued to claim that "although they were sponsored by Omnifast, they had no influence on the methodology used or the findings" which of course nobody took serious.
A small local taxi company called Fuddenheim Taxi Gesellschaft (FTG), which had been hired by Linexx from time to time to provide additional vehicles, now claimed that buses from Linexx were using dedicated taxi lanes and required a fee for their use. Linexx asked which lines were affected, so they could be rerouted. FTG answered "they could not say which ones, but there were many".
After years in court it became clear that there were hardly any 'dedicated taxi lanes' in Fuddenheim at all. Rumors said Omnifast was behind the claim, but that was never proved. Due to the negative publicity, FTG lost many customers and is now on the brink of bankruptcy.
Recently, a small group of volunteers made an agreement with Omnifast. Omnifast agreed to give away free Linexx vouchers. Furthermore both companies were allowed to use each others 'dedicated bus lanes'. "Not that we are using any dedicated bus lanes from Omnifast", a spokesman of the dissident Linexx volunteers hastened to say "We just want to make sure that if we do, our customers won't have to pay an additional fare."
The other volunteers of Linexx reacted quickly and changed the GCU, making an agreement like this impossible. Omnifast in response hired the headmaster of the local business school. "Most volunteers of Linexx don't want to change the GCU" the local newspaper 'Die Woche' reported "Most of them even think it is smart to cooperate with commercial transport companies". It proved he had interviewed only three drivers, of which two weren't even working for Linexx.
The end of the story is that the chairman of Omnifast yelled "Linexx is using our dedicated bus lanes, but we won't tell which ones." When asked, he grumbled again: "We may go to court one day. But not now." Linexx reacted quickly, saying "We're sure Omnifast is using some of our lanes too. If they sue, we sue. But maybe it is better to refrain from having dedicated bus lanes altogether. Life is much easier that way." Which may prove to be true, because later 'Die Woche' found out that lines downtown were not covered by the Omnifast agreement.
The small war rages on in the streets of Fuddenheim. It just illustrates once more time how ridiculous people can get. We'll keep you informed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)