Month: February 2007

visualizing

363 Tons of Cash:

… that’s TONS people, on big wooden pallets, sent to Iraq. $4 billion in cash in loose change and twenties.

Most people are outraged at the blinding mismanagement that’s finally coming out after all these years. Finally, oversight, which is Congress’ goddam job.

I was wondering earlier how you visualize such a large amount of anything, let alone money. People know what money is, but in hundreds, maybe thousands of dollars. Four billion dollars in 100s is a lot of stuff. If 100s come in bundles of 50, that’s 800,000 bundles.

Or a stack 271 miles high assuming a thickness of .0043 inches. I’m not going to work out how many pallets. Assuming one ton per pallet is obscene and I suspect that’s too high.

business, not art

Will Steve Jobs drop iTunes DRM in a heartbeat?:

If Steve Jobs comes through with his promise to offer DRM-free music from artists who will allow it, we’re at the beginning of the end of the DRM wars.

Of course, he never said that: he said this:

Perhaps those unhappy with the current situation should redirect their energies towards persuading the music companies to sell their music DRM-free.

The word “artists” never appears. An oversight? I doubt it. I’m sure Apple wants to hire a building full of entertainment lawyers to work with individual artists on their iTunes licensing — perhaps not.

The message is directed at the music companies and their customers, not to artists.

Steve Page from Barenaked Ladies is ready to take Steve Jobs up on his “in a heartbeat” offer to sell BNL’s music without DRM.

Well, yeah, who isn’t? My question there is, who owns the rights to do that? The Ladies are signed to a label and the label makes the deals with iTunes et al. That’s how everyone gets paid (setting aside how the Man always rips off the Artist).

Don’t misunderstand, I think this is a great development, but the simplistic attitude some people take to this kind of thing amazes me. Nothing I have read about this points to any advantage for a hardware manufacturer to make life difficult for customers: it’s always the content owner (the label in this case) who makes those decisions.

I’ve wondered for years how we got to this situation where the copyright in a recording is owned by the manufacturer of plastic/aluminum ware, not the performer, and the performer — the reason for the whole process — gets very little say in how their work is marketed. Perhaps that will start to change now as well, as artists seek out labels that offer DRM-free music downloads, ie, who don’t hate the people who buy music.

Big news: we’ll see what comes of it.

Feb6Aapl

AAPL up US$.21 on the day with the gain coming in the last couple of hours of trading.

who wants DRM-encumbered music? It ain’t Apple or Microsoft.

On the heels of the new accord with the Beatles over the Apple name, this from Steve Jobs:

Apple – Thoughts on Music:

[…]
Since Apple does not own or control any music itself, it must license the rights to distribute music from others, primarily the “big four” music companies: Universal, Sony BMG, Warner and EMI. These four companies control the distribution of over 70% of the world’s music. When Apple approached these companies to license their music to distribute legally over the Internet, they were extremely cautious and required Apple to protect their music from being illegally copied. The solution was to create a DRM system, which envelopes each song purchased from the iTunes store in special and secret software so that it cannot be played on unauthorized devices.
[…]
In 2006, under 2 billion DRM-protected songs were sold worldwide by online stores, while over 20 billion songs were sold completely DRM-free and unprotected on CDs by the music companies themselves. The music companies sell the vast majority of their music DRM-free, and show no signs of changing this behavior, since the overwhelming majority of their revenues depend on selling CDs which must play in CD players that support no DRM system.

So if the music companies are selling over 90 percent of their music DRM-free, what benefits do they get from selling the remaining small percentage of their music encumbered with a DRM system? There appear to be none. If anything, the technical expertise and overhead required to create, operate and update a DRM system has limited the number of participants selling DRM protected music. If such requirements were removed, the music industry might experience an influx of new companies willing to invest in innovative new stores and players. This can only be seen as a positive by the music companies.

Much of the concern over DRM systems has arisen in European countries. Perhaps those unhappy with the current situation should redirect their energies towards persuading the music companies to sell their music DRM-free. For Europeans, two and a half of the big four music companies are located right in their backyard. The largest, Universal, is 100% owned by Vivendi, a French company. EMI is a British company, and Sony BMG is 50% owned by Bertelsmann, a German company. Convincing them to license their music to Apple and others DRM-free will create a truly interoperable music marketplace. Apple will embrace this wholeheartedly.

Yeah, it’s self-serving but does that make it any less true? The fact is — and has always been — that the RIAA’s customer-hating members are the reason for DRM. I’m sure Apple and Microsoft really love keeping engineers busy patching DRM software instead of making stuff they can sell.

He brings out some interesting points about how little music on iPods is actually under DRM, vs the DRM-free stuff the record companies are selling. I’m sure an analysis of the stuff on the P2P networks would show similar imbalance, of stuff ripped from CD vs DRM-stripped tracks from online services.

Now playing: Karma Police by Radiohead from the album “OK Computer”

I just ordered mine

Free WiFi routers from FON for 10,000 Americans:

Cory Doctorow: FON, the Spanish
WiFi-sharing system, is offering 10,000 free WiFi access points to
Americans. The APs are totally free, without contract, obligation,
or shipping charges:

– Order a FREE La Fonera WiFi router with no taxes and
FREE shipping
– Join the Community and start using FONspots for FREE around the
world
– FREE membership in the FON Community
– FONspots for FREE around the world
– This is a limited time offer – only 10,000 La Foneras are
available

Link (Thanks,
Marko!)

See also: Spanish
ISP wants its customers to share WiFi

And I offered it to SeattleWireless.net, since I have wireless here already.

Now playing: Jokerman by Bob Dylan from the album “Infidels”

what happens when you get used to losing

A reader submits…

[…] a modest proposal. Why don’t the Senate Democrats put forward a proposed rule that the debate:

(1) is subject to any and all amendments (for binding resolutions, for the “no cutting off funds” proposal that McConell wants) and that there shall be no limit on the debate;
(2) will be held from 9 am to 7pm every weekday, Monday through Friday, until the debate is concluded;
(3) will require, just like the Clinton impeachment trial, that every Senator be physically present in their seats for all of the debate (I mean, the issues are at least equally important).

Maybe the inability of Tim Johnson to be present will cost the Democrats a vote. Maybe the Republicans can filibuster adoption of this rule. But at least the Democrats would have a clean record on which to argue that the Republicans really do not want to debate. If the Republicans manage to get the substantive votes to adopt some alternative resolution, so be it. They will be stuck with their vote come 2008.

And, as a cherry on top, the rule should also specifically invite the President of the Senate to preside personally over the entire debate, every weekday, until it is over. Let’s see Dick Cheney say he has more important things to do.

I get tired of procedural maneuvers that no one but the most hardened political junkies can understand. Get the issue front and center and see who’s for it and who’s ag’in’ it.

Now playing: Exposure by Peter Gabriel from the album “II”

how would you answer this?

Kidless asks – why vote for Seattle school levies?:

“Why should I vote for the Seattle schools levies? I didn’t feel the need to populate the earth with children. I don’t care about your kids or your schools or anybody else’s kids for that matter.”

Since I call myself “Educating Mom,” I’m bound to get emails like that. When I came up with the name for this blog, I was hoping the verb would work in my favor – as in, most of the time YOU would be educating me. In this case, I do have an answer for “Kidless in Seattle” as the e-mail address indicated.

Dear Kidless,

Why are you reading an education blog if you don’t care about kids or schools?

Scratch that. Too snarky. Try again.

Dear Kidless,

Even though you don’t have children, I encourage you to vote in favor of Props 1 and 2 tomorrow. They are vital funding measures for Seattle public schools. They’re important for you too.

A 2006 National Association of Realtors survey found that one-third of home buyers cited the “quality of the neighborhood school” as a main factor in their decision. If you own a home, schools have an effect on your property’s resale value. I haven’t seen data on how much a good school district adds to the price of a home, but a few real estate friends tell me it can be significant.

We need a well-educated generation of young people to help Seattle, the region and the world deal with many challenges. Think of the alternative – a poorly educated society with an increase in poverty and crime. Bad.

Plus, the Seattle props are not new taxes.

And, because I said so. šŸ˜‰

Thanks for reading, thanks for writing.

EM

P.S. Check back for comments from readers who might have more reasons for you to consider. Good day.

My response:

I have no idea how to reply to something like that. State-funded public education is in the state constitution, so perhaps “kidless” needs to find a state more in tune with his “me first” beliefs.

I confess, I have never met anyone whose views could be construed as anti-education, based on costs. What next, police and fire protection by auction? If you can’t outbid your neighbor, your house burns while his is saved?

You could answer that question with another: what did they get from their education? Was citizenship or civics covered at all?

What if one of these state-educated kids is his caregiver when he gets old? Oh, of course, people like that don’t need anyone, they’re the rugged individualists.

Feh. It’s a shame their parents chose “to populate the earth with children.” I’m sure they would be impressed with the public spiritedness their children exhibit.