HTML, EME and Open Standards

Open Standards are standards (specifications of formats or protocols) that follow five simple rules.

They have to be:

1. subject to full public assessment and use without constraints in a manner equally available to all parties;
2. without any components or extensions that have dependencies on formats or protocols that do not meet the definition of an Open Standard themselves;
3. free from legal or technical clauses that limit its utilisation by any party or in any business model;
4. managed and further developed independently of any single vendor in a process open to the equal participation of competitors and third parties;
5. available in multiple complete implementations by competing vendors, or as a complete implementation equally available to all parties.

The importance of Open Standards is somewhat highlighted by its definition itself: an Open Standard can simply be used by anyone, without restrictions. This allows any developer to implement such a standard, and avoids user exclusion - anyone is free to use an Open Standard. This importance has been recognized though the years, and lately that recognition has reached into higher policy levels, with countries like Portugal mandating that the Public Administration must exclusively use Open Standards, as a way to ensure citizens unrestricted access to public data and services.

One good example of an Open Standard is HTML. Even if you're not very aquainted with technical issues, you probably already heard about HTML -- or at least seen a "Web address" (called URL) like "http://somesite.org/this.html". This happens because HTML is the "language of the web": each webpage is written in a format, called HTML, and since all the web pages are written in that same format, and because that format is an open standard, anyone can create a computer program (in this case, a web browser) that reliably receives the web page in that format and knows how to correctly display it on your computer screen. This is what makes it possible for you to see the same web page on your phone, your computer, your tablet, even if you are using different programs to see it. It doesn't matter weather you're using Android's web browser on your phone or Firefox on your computer, while your friend is using iOS's web browser and Safari on his Mac laptop. Everyone can see correctly a web page: that's one of the beauties of the Web, and that happens because HTML is an Open Standard.

So, what's this EME thing? And why are people fussing about "DRM in HTML"?

EME is a proposed specification that aims to "extend HTMLMediaElement" (which is a part of the HTML specification). What this means is that, if EME is approved, a part of HTML's current specification is going to be updated. The "new version" includes two kinds of changes: some mandatory and some optional. In its own words, "Implementation of Digital Rights Management is not required for compliance with this specification: only the Clear Key system is required to be implemented as a common baseline." W3C argues that this constitutes no problem, and that they are not adding DRM into HTML, because implementing DRM is not required. However, the fact that implementing DRM is possible (even if not mandatory) means that, if a website uses such an implementation, either your web browser also uses it, or you won't be able to see that part of the website (remember what I said before about the web being seen by everyone? That wouldn't happen anymore.) Of course, this wouldn't need to be an issue at all: if the specification allows for that implementation, its just a matter of all browsers implementing it, right? Wrong. The problem here is that the "specification does not define a content protection or Digital Rights Management system".

In other words: EME introduces the possibility to use things (DRM systems) that are not part of the specification, so the complete specification (a way for an independent party to implement all the specification) isn't available -- EME is not an Open Standard. And since EME aims to be inserted into HTML (by updating part of its specification), then HTML will have an extension (EME) that has "dependencies on formats or protocols that do not meet the definition of an Open Standard themselves". Yes, EME approval would make HTML stop being an Open Standard.

Summing up

HTML is an Open Standard, and that is good for everyone. So good, in fact, that some countries, like Portugal, mandate that public administrations can only use Open Standards. However, there is a proposal (EME) that, if approved, will make HTML stop being an Open Standard. That will have an high negative impact in Public Administrations, citizens and the overall web community -- which nowadays means the citizens of the world.

This approval would have an high social, political and cultural impact everywhere. From the current era of shared knowledge, easy access to information, and overall making the world more accessible, we might be heading towards the dark ages of the web. There is, of course, a solution: let's make W3C know that we oppose EME, and ask them not to approve it.

Event about Copyright in Águeda (Portugal), next May

A workshop about Copyright and Digital Rights Management and a monkey on the poster? Are you lost? Here's an explanation... this famous monkey is a pro in taking selfies. If you want to know more, the rest of the story will be told next 9th of May!
I'll be talking about DRM on an event next to Paula Simões (Portuguese Education Freedom Association) who's going to talk about copyright levies, and Teresa Nobre (Creative Commons) who's going to talk about free culture.
It promises to be a great afternoon, I hope you'll be able to join us!

DRM hopefully to be fixed in Portugal

DRM bills being discussed, with a physical DRM'd book
sent by ANSOL serving as an argument

2001's European Directive 2001/29/EC says that member states must legally protect DRM measures, making it illegal to circunvent them. But it also states that they must ensure that it doesn't prevent uses permitted thanks to copyright exceptions (for instance private copy).

The transposition of that directive to the Portuguese Law (CDADC) was made in 2004, but the way that CDADC ensures that copyright exceptions is protected doesn't work. CDADC states that you can't circunvent DRM, but since you must be able to exercise the copyright exceptions, it states that in those cases you have to request the means to achieve your objective to IGAC (a state administration service). The problem is that if you request those means to IGAC, they won't hand them over to you because they don't have it.

Well, that is now going to change. Two Portuguese parties submitted to the Parliament a couple of bills with the same basic objective: to change CDADC, changing the way the law ensures the right to copyright exceptions by simply stating that if the DRM in question prevents any of those exceptions from being exercised, then you can circunvent them in order to exercise them. Simple and effective, right?
These two bills were debated in the parliament, and then approved in generality. Now they follow it's natural path, to a comission that will merge both bills and do amendments (amendments that will not change the essence of the bills, I hope), and the final text will be again voted in the Parliament, who can turn it into Law, finally giving back users the rights that were taken from them nine years ago.

Timeline:

2001 - 2011/29/EC EU directive is published

2004 - EU directive is transposed to Portuguese Law

2013-06-12 - general discussion about two bills aiming to fix the Law

2013-06-14 - both bills approved in general

2013-06-26 (10:00) - Comission meeting scheduled to discussion and vote of both bills in speciality

DRM in HTML5

Many people have doubts regarding how can possibly be an issue of having DRM on HTML, the foundation language of the entire web. One person in particular had the doubt of "how can it be possible that DRM (closed by its nature) is inserted into a standard?"

I have replied to her about it (in Portuguese), but I think that, with some adaptations and a translation, this text might also have a wider use for those of you trying to understand HTML, standards and DRM. Oh, and don't forget, click on the image in the right to sign a petition against DRM on HTML.

The "short answer"

You should attend to the Document Freedom Day 2013 celebration event nearer to you: they're happening starting today until April all around the world. There, I'm sure, there will be people knowing and willing to explain to you any questions regarding open standards in general and the "DRM in HTML" issue in particular.

The "long answer"

A standard should be considered open if it complies with a number of requisites. Here's the list (taken from this page, that explains each point better):

An Open Standard refers to a format or protocol that is:

• Subject to full public assessment and use without constraints in a manner equally available to all parties;
• Without any components or extensions that have dependencies on formats or protocols that do not meet the definition of an Open Standard themselves;
• Free from legal or technical clauses that limit its utilisation by any party or in any business model;
• Managed and further developed independently of any single supplier in a process open to the equal participation of competitors and third parties;
• Available in multiple complete implementations by competing suppliers, or as a complete implementation equally available to all parties.

Unfortunately not every format is an open standard, or, in other words, doesn't comply with the previous points. If the proposal to have DRM on HTML5 is accepted, HTML will stop being an open standard, since it will stop complying with the second requirement of the list.

In more detail: the proposal on the table is called EME (Encrypted Media Extensions). An HTML document can include EMEs, and the specification of EME enables the website to require a certain "Content Decryption Module" (CDM). And here lies the problem: CDMs aren't standards (much less open standards!) and the EME specification doesn't include or refer to any specification of any CDM. In other words: the definition of open standard we just saw isn't complied, because to implement HTML5 we have to implement EME, which has to accept any CDM, which isn't a standard and so we cannot implement.

In other words, with an example: I make a website, and put there a media object (video, for instance) using EME, and I specify in the HTML document that the EME object needs the CDM module (which is a form of DRM) called "OneTwoThree". Now, if you want to see that website, you need a web browser that knows how to undertand HTML5 and EME (both possible since there's the specification), and the browser then needs to get the CDM called "OneTwoThree" (imagine it as being a browser plugin, not unlike Flash) and use it to play the video. The problems are obvious now: what if the CDM only exists for one specific Operating System? What if the CDM isn't free? You know... the thypical problems of a non-open standard format.

Direitos contra Direitos

I'll be there, representing representing DRM-PT.

"Social DRM" is Anti-Social

In February 2007, right after Steve Jobs claiming to the world that he was Anti-DRM and that the fault of him having DRM in iTunes was that of the majors (which is nothing but a bunch of crap, but I digress), Adobe's Bill McCoy wrote in his blog about his vision of DRM, acting as agreeing with Steve Jobs. His ridiculous arguments leaded to a new concept: "Social DRM". I ditched the whole absurd idea and almost forgot about it. Until now.

It seems that there are lots of people thinking that "Social DRM" is a bright idea. Actually, I've seeing the term in my readings more, so I decided not to ignore the issue anymore, and write a quick post about why "Social DRM" is a really bad idea.

First, getting this straight: I really think that "Social DRM" is less bad than "traditional DRM", mostly because it isn't DRM at all. Yet, being less bad doesn't mean it is good, to the point of making me state that, like I don't buy DRM'd stuff, I wouldn't buy nothing with "Social DRM".

What is "Social DRM"? Well, nothing more than watermarking. Basicly, McCoy is trying to think of DRM on e-books, and his "idea" is to have a "Social DRM" that is in fact a mark in every page on the ebook, make it header or footer, stating something like "this book is for the exclusive use of [insert purchaser's name here]". Why is it bad?

Well, McCoy certainly choose the name "Social DRM" because he understands the "social" need consumers need to have in their "content". A book (or an album, or a movie) is social, because if you read and like it you want to share it, to recommend it to your friends, you're going to cite it on your blog, you'll make references to it in your day-by-day... you'll use it as a social tool. So, he [tries to] argue, when watermarking the book instead of making it have DRM, you're not taking the social part of having the book out of it. It is social because it isn't anti-social. But he's wrong.

Let me make a small and quick list of social things I can do with my books:

• I can borrow it;


• I can leave it on my desk and next time I know Paula is reading it;


• I can give it;


• I can sell it;


• I can trade it (bookcrossing-style);


• I can leave it on the bus bench after reading it;


• I can let it be used by everyone in the office;


• ...

Now, how many of this social things I can do with your "social DRM"? I can't borrow it, 'cause you're not "Marcos Marado", I can't let Paula wander around with it on her laptop, she's not "Marcos Marado" either; I can't give, sell or trade it, which means that if I abandon it (or loose it!) in my flash disk on the bus, I might get in trouble, 'cause you aren't me. Does this sound social to you? To me, like "tradicional DRM", this sounds exactly like "I'm having my freedoms removed".

Thanks but no, thanks, I'm too social to buy anti-social "Social DRM" stuff.

Motorola no more

If you know me for some time, you'll know that I am, or used to be, a Motorola fan on cellphones. The first time I bought a Motorola cellphone the choice was easy: I wanted a cellphone from a company that wasn't lobbying in Europe for the adoption of Software Patents, which discarded the chance of Siemens mobile phones, which was what I was used to use, despite not being really fond of them. Buying my C650 was a really cool choice: I really liked that cellphone, and it was that cellphone that made me think more about cellphones as mobile devices - mobile computers. At the end of 2005 the phone was getting ill, and in December it made me really pissed off. I decided that C650 was older than it should, and that I should put it to rest. Sonaecom (where I work) helped that decision, deciding to give me a cellphone. That time the choice was not so easy, but I knew I wanted a Motorola. I wanted to choose one inside my budget, and E1 was the only one with a music player, so I quickly went for it, replacing both my C650 and my portable music player. It was also a good bet: I both liked the cellphone and the company that made it, with their strong relationship with Open Source et al... and then using it as a modem via bluetooth made it an important piece of my digital life.

With all the hype around iPhone (curious this post being today, after an afternoon talking about this exactly), I even wrote about why, for me, E1 is better than the iPhone. Heck, I'll say it again: if E1 was from company A, and iPhone also was from company A, where A is a company I like, I would choose E1 over the iPhone.

Last March I decided that I should replace my E1 phone, and, once again, the choice was being made around several Motorola models. Other things stepped in the way of choosing one (basicly I've been dedicating more time in this blog - which is almost abandoned - than to choose and order a new phone), so, until today, the choice was postponed, with thoughts going to V3xx or K3.

But today... I read at Last100 that Motorola launched an online store, "selling" both music and movies for cellphones... crippled with DRM. Well, as you might already know by now, I don't support companies that like to spit on their costumers freedom. After this years, my relationship with Motorola as a cellphone costumer is now over.

So, I'm still searching for a new cellphone. The decision about the vendor is already made: it will be a Blackberry. I only have now to decide which one: Blackberry 8100 or the more powerful Blackberry 8800. Oh, and for those talking about the iPhone, here's already why BlackBerry is better than the iPhone, even the 2nd version of it ;-)

Freedom or Copyright?

I wrote about it before [1], but now Richard Stallman also did it, and better. Freedom — or Copyright? [2] is a text about Copyright, why did it appear, why was it good, and why is it bad nowadays. Thoughtful reading.

[1] - http://smallr.net/bazaar-blanket
[2] - http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-copyright.html

Nokia buys Trolltech: something to worry about?

You probably know by now: Nokia is buying Trolltech [1]. I didn't talk about this yesterday, besides releasing a "crap" shout as I read the news for the first time. I read a lot, specially from folks from Nokia, Trolltech and KDE. I'm somewhat confident that this might not be as bad as it first seemed. Still, I have two major issues with this aquisition:

• Nokia actively lobbies in favour of Software Patents. This might not be an issue for now, but a culture clash might happen soon. Gladfully, QT is licensed with GPLv3, but yet, this can be a showstopper for both FreeQT and KDE.
• Nokia have a no Ogg, pro DRM position regarding HTML5. If they somewhat forces this to Trolltech (instead of doing the right thing, supporting Ogg, rejecting DRM), once again this can be a showstopper.
  

What this really means, in fact, is that this two issues concern me and a lot of others - and that they should be answered before this aquisition ends... or else there's some uneasyness Trolltech and Nokia will have to deal with.

[1] - http://www.nokia.com/A4136001?newsid=1185531

DRM: Send a letter to EU

As I've told you [1] a couple of days ago, Viviane Reding, European Union commissioner for information society and media, issued a report sanctioning a "transparent" DRM framework for the EU. This irresponsible and senseless report comes just a day before Sony BMG announced that they would join Warner Music Group, EMI, and Vivendi's Universal Music Group in selling DRM-free music downloads in the United States.

If, as me, you oppose this attempt by the EU to sanction, promote, or endorse DRM technology platforms, please sign this letter [2] and let Europe know you're against DRM!

[1] - http://smallr.net/drm-EU
[2] - http://www.defectivebydesign.org/EU_Letter

BBC and DRM

So, BBC News wrote an article yesterday about DRM and why is it bad [1]. Man, I wholeheartedly agree. They give lot's of great examples of why DRM sucks too: Western Digital, Zune, Nokia, Google, Sony, iTunes, HD-DVD, Blu-ray, Virgin...

The day before, BBC News also had an article called "'Digital locks' future questioned" [2], also showing that DRM is bad for consumers.

What I don't know if is someone trying to be fired: when I type in your search engine for "BBC + DRM" the first result I get is an article on BBC World Service, called "BBC Launches DRM Service In Europe" [3].

Hypocrisy, no? Yes, DRM is bad, but BBC folks are also bad not only for using it but also for being DRM promoters. This also isn't a position they changed over the time: in October they avoided going to the European Competition authorities [4] for promoting Microsoft's abusive monopoly by "exploring alternative DRM systems" to Microsoft's DRM, refusing to just ditch DRM.

So, what is it then? DRM is bad for consumers, you admit it, and you force your own costumers to stick with it?

---

[1] - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7136527.stm
[2] - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7136069.stm
[3] - http://smallr.net/BBC-DRM-in-Europe
[4] - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7047381.stm

Links for today

http://advice.cio.com/why-cios-dont-care-about-open-source
Why CIO's don't care about Open Source?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1bec8a08-96cd-11dc-b2da-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1
DRM causes sales losses

http://remix.nin.com/
Major Labels still making copyright claims that hurts artists

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/%7Ejure/blogs/blogs-uc-pa.html
If you had to choose 100 blogs which ones should you choose to be best informed?

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/ippd-dppi.nsf/en/h_ip01456e.html
File sharing boosts CD sales, not the inverse

http://www.ananke.com.pt/
New Portuguese music venue... on Second Life

Cory Doctorow on Web 2.0 Expo Berlin

* 11:34 - He's making a great speach about why copyright acts nowadays are ridiculous. Nothing new here until now, but it's being great...

* IPRED2 - the worst copyright law in the world (we pay for fighting copyright; p2p gets illegal)
* CPCM - aaaaaarghhh...
* The database directive - absurd
* Extending copyright harms economy

What can you do?
* http://www.eff.org/
* http://www.edri.org/

My stand on DRM

DRM - Digital Restrictions Management [1]. I'm getting known as an advocate against DRM systems, mainly because I often speak about this matters and act accordingly. Some people still get surprised to know that I don't get more Marilyn Manson stuff, nor am I going to his upcoming concert in Portugal, not understanding how (arguably) the Portuguese guy with the biggest collection of Marilyn Manson material stops buying his stuff just because of DRM. But what really saddens me is when people call my actions stupid.

I don't think I'm stupid, nor I think that my actions are stupid. I don't think it is fair to be treated as such. Not that I really care: I am free to do what I do, and I know I'm doing what is, for me, the right thing, so the whole thing just saddens me. Yet, I decided to write some topics on why do I do what I do in relation to DRM.

I don't give money to those I despise

The most criticised act I have in relation to DRM is the fact that I just don't give any money to DRM people. This means that I don't buy CD's for any major label or any other company that sells products with DRM, I don't go to concerts when there's a cut going to those companies, and I don't give money to them (or try not to) at all, including not buying a Sony camera, a piece of Microsoft software, an Apple's iPod, not going to Lusomundo's theaters and so on. I don't do that simply because I despise those companies or corporations and their practices. I don't do that simply because they treat their customers like criminals, and since I'm not a criminal I won't do something (being their customer) to be treated as such. People come out in a shock, telling me that this makes no sense at all. I don't understand their point. To me, what doesn't make sense is giving money to those I despise. There are hundreds of new stuff everyday I wish I had. I have lots of places where to spend my money, thank you very much. I'm still an heavy music buyer and I've seen more than sixty movies this year already. I wish I had more time to read. I don't need to give money to those I despise, I also don't want to.

I don't like social irresponsibility

Since I don't like social irresponsibility, I try to avoid it. I think that since we're inserted in a society, we not only have the social responsibility of trying to actively make it better, but, more importantly, we need to act according to our society, or else we're violating our collective freedom.

This is why I don't like what nowadays people call "piracy". Not because what is done, not because I agree that it is wrong (I actually think it is not), but because it is illegal. Cracking DRM schemes, trying to crack them, developing, distributing or inciting the use of DRM crack tools, heck, even trying to crack a DRM system is illegal in Portugal. Yes, I know it is ridiculous that it is illegal trying to see a movie you bought, or trying to do a copy of your legally bought CD into your portable music player, but unfortunately that's the clear truth. So, not only I feel that I have the socially responsibility to fight against that law and try to change the things as they are (including making manufacturers stopping the use of DRM or resellers stopping selling crippled media), but more importantly, I utterly refuse to commit the social irresponsibility of cracking the DRM schemes just because "it works" or "it is easy". Doing that would be legitimizing DRM, approving the existence of DRM'd media in the market.

Some people also tell me something that I really don't agree: that media providers such as the major labels won't ever let it go, won't ever stop doing DRM schemes, so I should stop whining and help finding a "middle ground" solution. Not only I don't think that the first sentence is true (as a matter of fact all I see is the adoption of DRM schemes falling as major labels are starting to see that DRM isn't worth the bad publicity it brings attached), but, most importantly, it doesn't really matter for my take on the second part: I refuse to help finding a middle term solution, because middle term solutions are both parts giving some, and since it is my rights and freedoms we're talking about, oh, I'm sorry but I won't give them not even an inch of those. Media costs money, freedom and rights are priceless. Finding a "middle term" would be, in my point of view, an act of social irresponsibility.

I don't want to be a slave

I could explain this item in an handful number of ways, but instead of explain it exhaustively I will just give you an example. Talking a couple of hours ago with Paula over the phone, she was facing a problem. She's going to sell both her laptop and iPod, and buy a new laptop in which she's planning to run GNU/Linux. The thing is, she has some albums she bought at the iTunes Music Store, and if she's not going to have an iPod or iTunes, she doesn't have a way to listen to it now. She decided "oh well, I'll just delete all this stuff", but I instantly felt both sorry and angry. I'm an heavy music-buyer and lover, and I don't even want to think how I would feel if I had to pick some of my music and get rid of it. But there's no other choice: in her case it would be either that or being forced to continue using her laptop or her iPod. I don't want to be a slave of some technology in order to listen what I legally bought and own.

I don't "shut up and shop"

There's an excellent Jello Biafra's speech called Shut Up and Shop, where he basically goes on talking about how media corporations or governments try to force us to do something, to buy something (material, like a CD, or immaterial, like an ideology) and stop being inconvenient. "Shut Up and Shop" starts with the sentence:

Global Warming? Who cares? Inxx sixth album is the fastest selling one in all time! Everybody is buying it, therefore you should too! Shut up and shop! Shut up and shop! Shut up and shop is the mantra, if you will...

I'm sorry, but I don't shut up and shop.

I care

Finally, I do all this because I care. This should be pretty self-explainable, but it seems to me that sometimes it isn't. Not the fact that I do it because I care, but because I really care. Most people don't really care, most people don't even care. Most people (that knows what DRM is) knows that DRM is bad to the consumer. They know that sometimes they might buy a CD or DVD and then they'll have to return it, or live with the fact that the CD won't play in their car, or even having to throw away the music they bought. But they just don't care. There's nothing wrong in that, but please, don't call "idiots" those who do.

[1] - http://mindboosternoori.blogspot.com/search/label/DRM

Tell Netflix: No More DRM

Are you in USA? Are you against DRM? Jump over to http://www.defectivebydesign.org/blog/1093#netflix and say No to Netflix!

Weird feelings

Two episodes that I lived in the last few days, both while having a meal.

Last week I went to lunch somewhere in Moscavide, in a zone I'm not used to go, because I needed to go nearby to buy a cushion, and so I decided to eat near there after the deal was made. After being there, I soon realized that that place was really full of usuals trying to make money there: from little gipsy girls asking for some change to Cais sellers begging to sell a magazine (or if I could at least give them a few coins, despite "thou shall not beg" being one of their rules). But what astonished me, and soon enough made me unconfortable and disgusted was when a guy entered the place with hundreds of pirate CD's and DVD's to sell. Now, liking underground bands like I do, I've already seen a really fair bunch of poorly-packed demos, but those CD's and DVD's were even worse: bad printing in a folded sheet of bad paper with a cheap CD-r or DVD-r inside of it. Two guys in the table next to mine stared at him and started dealing: each CD costed 2.5€ but they managed to get five for 10€. While choosing the CD-r's the guys at the table were happilly chatting about "how bad piracy is", but that it is "also funny" and that they "like to help those sons of bitches". Their words, not mine. In the meanwhile, the "dealer" (I don't even know how to call this guys...) was patiently waiting, with no signs of fright or hurry - at all. It was like he was selling postcards - and passing a receipt. Unbelievable...

This evening I went to dinner to a simmilar kind of restaurant here in Lisbon, and while I was having dinner, alone, I couldn't help myself but listen to the atrocities the kids in the tables near mine were telling. They all make more money per month than me. Really. They know the underground, who to talk to, and - they said - the Chinese were the biggest buyers. I just can't make my mind on if they were only talking about the CD-r DVD-r business, or also other things... I only know that they all wake up before me and get into bed after, but they also makes a big load of money... at least partially out of piracy - true piracy. When the conversation diverged to their xenophobe bullshit (according to them Chinese people should be deported) I got so sick of listening to all of that that I went off that place.

So, there's really bad piracy to be fight on. It allways had been, but kids nowadays do less drugs and more bad-quality music and movies. What can I say? I just wonder why aren't the law entities fighting them, the real thing, and instead of that I must to bear with a clip full of "downloading is stealing" bullshit when I go to a movie theater, or have to deal with restrictive technologies like DRM, that sometimes stop me from watching the movies I have the right to see.

Amazon opens DRM-free music store

And to end the day, news that Amazon finally open it's DRM-free music store [1].

What's good

• Songs cost between 89 and 99 cents, meaning that the most expensive mp3 file there is at the same price and never more expensive than a DRM-encumbered file on iTunes. There are also albums as low as costing only $4.99.
• The store is to be used by Windows, Macintosh and Linux users, and not only Win and Mac like the iTunes music store.

What's bad

• So, I went to the store and it said to me that they wanted to recommend me some music. I clicked there and the result was a "Sorry, we have no recommendations for you in this category today." So, do you have it or not?
• You can buy mp3 tracks, but to buy full albums you need to install the Amazon MP3 Downloader [2]. Worse than being forced to use a standalone application is that it is not available yet for GNU/Linux systems...

Their catalog surprised me (negatively) both by choice and price, when searching for Indie records stuff. Yet conclusions about that, and the overall success of this new music store can only be taken when the first figures start coming out.

Oh, BTW, here's the link to the store [3].

[EDIT:] Despite some people are saying, the tracks and albums are taggen in US dollars, like everything else in amazon.com, but that does not stop you from buying them. The concept of buying the same thing by $.99, £.99 or .99€ depending on where you are is just silly, and people are only used to it thanks to Apple. BTW, since the EU is aiming to sue Apple also because of that, it wouldn't really be wise for Amazon to go the same route. For those don't understanding why I'm talking about this, remember that at this moment 1 U.S. dollar = 0.710378632 Euro, meaning that in Europe the tracks are way cheaper.


[1] - http://tinyurl.com/3cz4h8
[2] - http://tinyurl.com/yo679f
[3] - http://tinyurl.com/2gdkkn

Microsoft acting as a censor?

One comment from this anti-DRM petition [1] says:

Oh and guys signing this petition.. try saying http://freethebbc.info on MSN - the message send will fail! Microsoft are filtering the website on UK MSN at least, so this has loads of attention ;-) keep signing!

Can please someone confirm this behaviour?

UPDATE: OK, seems that they "censor" everything that has .info and profile.php . How pathetic this "security measure" is?

[1] - http://freethebbc.info

DRM. once again

Damn, when did Lusomundo started to cripple their DVD's with DRM? Once again, the story happens: last saturday I bought a DVD, checking for any indication of "copy-protection" or stuff like that. There was nothing telling me than the DVD was defective, with DRM, so I bought it. It does not play in my DVD player. DAMN.

Oh, BTW, if you're thinking of making comments like those on my last post about this, NO, I'm not going to change my DVD player NOR Operating System. My Operating System is fine, thanks, and my DVD player works well, playing every DVD I put there. It's not MY fault that some DVD's are DEFECTIVE.

Selling Music on Social Networks

On Reuters there was a piece where they were saying that labels are eyeing social networks as retailers, which isn't really news to me: I've been seeing this countless times, an effort made by both bands and/or labels in different kinds of promotion and profit. It's not small the number of record labels with a MySpace profile, but what's really interesting (and cool) to see is the number of record labels betting on social networks like Last.fm, showing that they have at least a glimpse of what they're doing. Also, it seems that major labels are seeing a bad side of DRM: besides the technical issues of implementing it, social networking users simply don't want DRM in their tracks, so an artist selling in those networks DRM'd files is in a clear disadvantage in relation to other, DRM-free, artists. I don't really like Snocap (I'll write about that in a later post), but Snocap's Rueff said something in conclusion that I want to quote:

"Social networks are the (peer-to-peer) networks of the future [...] They're this generation's MTV. If you want to be at a point of sale at the highest point of desire and consumption, be where the fan is."

Oddly, Gooveshark guys didn't like what they read: their first post about the Reuters' article basicly states that turning social networks (and services that float around them like Snocap) is a model "where your own network's members make a little side money for yourself, but a boatload of cash for your corporate overlords". They keep going, saying that "with more innovative services like Grooveshark out there, where you can not only make money off of your music but be part of a social network in the process? Who would deny that opportunity?". This quite amuses me, since the "innovative service" that Grooveshark presents is, basicly, the same as this Social Networks. Snocap, AmieStreet, GrooveShark, they're all the same concepts: bands sell, fans sell, buyers pay, a boatload of cash is supposedly made. What makes GooveShark different?

But they didn't stop here: a second article called "Damn Those Myspace Window Shoppers" was written. The writer quotes a study from EMR and Olswand saying that "More than half of internet users surveyed by Entertainment Media Research and the law firm Olswang said they surfed social networking sites such as MySpace and YouTube specifically to come across new songs.", but then tells us, without any kind of source, that "most of these people love to discover new music knowing full and well that they will ultimately dip from the illegal pool of music downloads to obtain the freshly discovered music". First, we don't know if that's truth, then there are no sources telling if illegal downloads contribute for sales increases or decreases - it surely depends from person to person but I doubt that they can find an imparcial source saying that it decreases sales, which should be good for them since GooveShark's business model depends on that. Then, he keeps randomly ranting, talking about how "added value" is needed, but saying that CD's give few or none (where's the extra value in digital music bought on GrooveShark?), even if "CDs had vastly superior sound compared to cassettes or records" (sorry mate, but vinyl records have way better sound!).

The conclusion? Well, there's really no directly related conclusion to take from this post. Finaly record labels are discovering the potential of the web and the turndowns of DRM, which is good. In relation to GrooveShark's comments, I just have to say that while it's preety important for a start-up to be close with their readers, using several ways to achieve it including mantaining a blog, a blog makes an image of that startup. Writing articles like these (and others) only contribute for people taking GrooveShark less and less seriously.