democracyandculture.com

The fact that the RIAA has been allowed to roam free and do what it has done over the past decade is both disgusting and appalling. While music pirates continue to make this organization look bad all over the world, the RIAA is going after US citizens to make up for all of its piracy losses. And in so doing, the organization has single-handedly shown how despicable it can be.

Knowing this, why has the RIAA, an organization who has gone on record saying “college students have yet to reach their full development”, continued its practice of suing or settling out of court? Simply put, the organization believes it works.

The RIAA is and always has been the voice of the record labels that enjoy keeping the artists hungry while the executives enjoy the fruits of someone else’s labor. The RIAA isn’t doing what’s best for the artists, it’s doing what’s best for the record labels and those that pay their salaries. Knowing this, why does it feel the need to pretend it’s on the artist’s side? Doesn’t it know that we can see through every lawsuit and ever PR move for what this organization really is?

Does that sound a little harsh? Good. The fact of the matter is the RIAA has operated for years as the so-called “recording industry’s protector” and has tried numerous times to tell the world that what it’s doing to people all over the United States is best for us all.

I really don’t like the RIAA and I never will. You’ve probably heard that said by thousands of people on the Internet and some have said worse than I, but as I learn more about this organization and the industry it “protects”, I dislike it more each day. If you ask me, this organization is the lowest of the lows.

The RIAA is one of the worst organizations in the world and one that should be held in contempt until it changes its practices and stops hunting easy prey. Is piracy right? Of course not. But neither are the practices the RIAA currently employs.

Of course not.

And it’s that last point that tells you everything you ever needed to know about the RIAA. This organization has the gall to sue people for more than 1,000 times the value of a song because it was pirated? Wow.

According to one report released in the Journal of Law and Economics, the lawsuits have not been effective at all. In fact, the organization has only been able to reduce the number of files currently available on large file-sharing sites, but smaller sites and piracy in general has plateaued or steadily grown at a slow rate.

And yet, the organization actually won a court case against Jammie Thomas last year doing just that. According to the court documents, Thomas was forced to pay $222,000 for allegedly pirating 24 songs. In other words, the RIAA was able to win a case where the damages amount to a whopping $9,250 per song.

And while some misguided artists have come out in favor of the organization’s practices, the vast majority of people in the recording industry have started to realize that the RIAA is a a PR nightmare for musicians and is the root of much of the evil you see in this anti-piracy campaign.

Is there ever an excuse for trying to force a woman’s 10-year old daughter into a deposition that could incriminate her mother? Is there ever an excuse for suing people for a ridiculous sum of money? Is there ever an excuse for battling the low-hanging fruit when huge overseas piracy cartels are free to roam and steal music? Never.

But alas, lawsuits don’t work and the chances of the RIAA winning big cases going forward are slim. And although it’s quick to cite its stance as the artist’s friend, don’t be so quick to believe it. If the RIAA was truly the “artist’s friend”, wouldn’t it give all of its lawsuit cash back to the people who create the music? Wouldn’t it to fight long and hard for artist rights in music and help them get out from under the thumb of the recording industry?

If these facts sound staggering, they should. But what the RIAA is quick to point out is that it’s doing this for the artists and the lawsuits have been effective. Of course, most recent surveys suggest otherwise.

Every now and then, some organizations come along that make me wonder what’s wrong with this world. How did we ever get to a point where an organization is free to hunt poor college students in the hopes of more cash? How did we get to a point in this country where people are being charged more than 100 times the value of a song because they allegedly pirated it? Am I missing something?

In just the past six years, the RIAA has allegedly: tried to acquire privacy data from ISPs in the hopes of finding pirates; mostly (albeit not completely) abandoned its practice of going after services in favor of individuals; attempted to sue a mother and after losing, sued her children; was forced to pay attorneys fees because of “alleged abusive legal action”; filed a lawsuit against AllofMP3.com for $1.65 trillion (11 million songs times $150,000 per song); tried to sue someone based on the term “making available”; and had a case thrown out because a judge called the RIAA’s specifications for damages — $750 per song — unconstitutional because the real cost to the recording industry is just $0.70.

And during a CNBC broadcast, it was said that Yahoo executives were planning to hold a meeting among themselves Monday regarding the Microsoft bid.

Shares of Yahoo dropped to $27.01, or 4.76 percent, in after-hours trading, after Reuters, citing a source, reported Microsoft was considering re-evaluating its bid. The report noted that the possible re-evaluation stemmed from a concern that Yahoo’s value may have declined since the initial offer was made February 1.

Yahoo shares fell roughly 5 percent in after-hours trading, as rumors swirled Microsoft was considering lowering its buyout bid for the Internet search pioneer.

For Microsoft, the threat of lowering its bid may be as effective a weapon as waging a proxy fight or an exchange offer. In part, it would allow the software giant to appear to take the high road in its battle to bring Yahoo to the negotiating table, without possibly alienating Yahoo’s employees, which the software giant hopes to retain in a merger.

Previously, sources familiar with the deal said Microsoft wanted to do a friendly merger and retain Yahoo employees.

A Justice Department spokesman said the agency had no comment. Google spokesman Steve Langdon said “Google did not work with Jane Horvath on this issue when she was at DOJ.”

Update at 8:50 a.m. to clarify judge ruling in subpoena case, and at 2:55 p.m. to add further comment from the EFF.

Horvath, quoted in an article afterward, was critical of the initial subpoena, saying she had privacy concerns with it, the EFF says.

“Google has an unprecedented ability to collect and retain very personal information about millions of Americans, and the DOJ and other law enforcement agencies have developed a huge appetite for that information,” EFF Senior Counsel David Sobel wrote in a statement Tuesday about the foundation’s lawsuit against the government agency (PDF). “We want to know what discussions DOJ’s top privacy lawyer had with Google before leaving her government position to join the company.”

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice seeking information about communications between a former top privacy official and Google, which eventually hired the official.

At the time Jane Horvath was named as the Justice Department’s chief privacy and civil-liberties officer in February 2006, Google was challenging a subpoena by the department for Web searches. A federal judge granted part of a Justice Department request for Google search data allowing Google to share information about random URLs but said users’ search queries were off-limits.

In the fall of 2007, Horvath was named as Google’s senior privacy counsel. The EFF asked the Justice Department for information about communications between Horvath and Google by filing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, but the Justice Department has not responded, according to the EFF.

“There is no suggestion on our part that there was anything inappropriate by her being hired by Google or that there was a quid pro quo,” he said in an interview. “The obvious question is what contact had the DOJ’s chief privacy officer had with a large data collecting company like Google on data retention?”

Sobel explained that the nonprofit would probably have filed the lawsuit even if Google had never hired Horvath.

I use
Firefox for pretty much everything, so my main desktop and laptop (both running Windows XP) still had Internet Explorer version 6 until recently. I also run Windows Update manually, so keeping IE 7 off my machine involved nothing more than unchecking a box once a month. But now that IE 7 has been out for roughly a year, and I’m addicted to tabs, I finally got around to installing the browser.

To get rid of the language bar, go to the Control Panel, click on Regional and Language Options (the globe), then click on the Languages tab, then the Details button, then the Advanced tab. Finally, put a check in the box to “Turn off advanced text services”.

The first thing I noticed afterward was that IE 7 turned on the language bar toolbar on the task bar. It doesn’t take up much room, but I have no interest in the language features and the fewer things running the better.

See a summary of all my Defensive Computing postings.

The same thing happens when you install version 2 of the .Net framework. There are three versions of the .Net framework, and all are optional–until, that is, you try to install software that requires it.

All seems well at this point, but it’s not. A critical bug fix having to do with something called VML is missing. The fix goes by the names KB938127 and MS07-050 (see Critical Vulnerability in Vector Markup Language Could Allow Remote Code Execution) and dates back to August 2007. Yes, Microsoft has had eight months to make Windows Update smart enough to install this critical bug fix when it installs IE 7. Or, at the least, warn us to run Windows Update again. But no, it instead installs known buggy software.

There is no excuse for a software update application, such as Windows Update, to install known buggy software. No excuse, but there is a reason: either incompetence or a corporate laziness that sets in when a company is not challenged in the marketplace. I am not sure which applies in this case.

Installing IE7

Back to Windows Update and, finally, everything is up to snuff.

Again, I started with a Windows XP system that was up-to-date on all bug fixes and installed nothing but version 2 of the .Net framework using Windows Update. As before, I ran Windows Update manually (Tools -> Windows Update in IE) and opted for a Custom install. All went well, and I rebooted afterwards, just for good luck.

.Net Framework Version 2

Though all seems well, I ran Windows Update again. Sure enough, the just-installed .Net framework needed updating. And not just one bug fix; it was missing an entire service pack (KB110806). Installing the service pack was uneventful other than the required reboot.

It’s the very definition of irony: bugs in the application designed to install bug fixes. Such is Windows Update, which in the two instances described below installs known buggy software–and tells you that all is well when it is not.

Since I was up-to-date on bug fixes, IE 7 was the only thing Windows Update had to install. The installation process includes the option shown below about installing “the latest updates for Internet Explorer,” which I did. All went well, at least according to Windows Update.

The problem is Adobe Systems’ Acrobat, which is simply more software than I need to meet my meager PDF requirements. (It’s also more annoying than any two Office apps combined.)

(Credit:
Zamzar)

Zamzar is free for files smaller than 100MB and up to five concurrent conversions. The service gives you one week to retrieve the converted file. For $7 a month you can convert files as large as 200MB, have up to seven conversions at one time, and store up to 5GB of files on the service. If you pay $16 a month, the file-size limit expands to 400MB, concurrent conversions to 10, and online storage to 20GB. The top-tiered service costs $49 a month for converting files as large as 1GB, up to 15 simultaneous conversions, and 100GB of storage.

Just select the file on your PC, choose the format you want to convert it to from the service’s drop-down list (it supports many different image, text, audio, and video formats), enter your e-mail address, and click the Convert button. In just a few seconds, an e-mail arrives with a link to a page on the Zamzar site from which you can download the converted file.

I’m a big fan of the PDF file format. It lets you share files with people using almost any type of computer without worrying about whether they have the right program installed to view it, or whether it will look to them the way it looks to you.

Convert PDFs to other formats for free at Zamzar.com.

Use Gmail’s built-in ‘conversion’
An even quicker way to get a different view of your PDF files is to attach them to an e-mail you send to your Gmail account, and then click View as HTML to open the file in your browser, though this shows you only the text of the file. Then you can save it as an HTML or text file and reopen it for editing in Word or some other application.

The fee-based services also give you higher-priority delivery of your converted files, a personal in-box, ad-less pages (with the top two tiers), and the ability to delete and rename your files. The most expensive plan also lets you encrypt your converted files.

Tomorrow: confessions of a Linux newbie.

Files converted, delivered to your in-box
Have you ever wished you could open a PDF file in Word? There are plenty of programs that let you convert a PDF to Word’s .doc format (or some other file format that Word supports), but you can manage the same trick for free at Zamzar.

Some programs are more trouble than they’re worth.

The fact is, you can create, convert, and edit PDF files without adding any software to your system. And if the files you work with are small in size and number, you can do so without paying a dime by using the Zamzar e-mail-based conversion service.

The bill also establishes a grant program for organizations to track and promote Internet usage.

The bill requires the commission to redefine broadband. In April, the commission voted to consider 768Kbps, which is the entry-level speed offered by major DSL providers like Verizon, the low end of “basic broadband,” a range that extends to under 1.5Mbps. For years, the commission had considered 200Kbps service to be “high speed.”

“With this legislation, the Senate has taken a crucial step toward a national broadband policy,” said Ben Scott, policy director of Free Press, a media reform organization. “The data collected would lay the foundation for policies in the next Congress to promote universal, affordable high-speed Internet access for all Americans.”

Internet service provider reports to the FCC would also have to be adjusted under the bill, so the FCC can identify the actual numbers of broadband connections by customer type and geographic area. The commission would also be required to identify tiers of broadband service in which most connections can transmit high-definition video, as well as collect demographic data for geographical areas not served by any advanced telecommunications provider. The bill also requires other government offices to collect information, such as whether Internet subscribers use dial-up or broadband.

“We cannot manage what we do not measure,” Inouye said. “This bill will give us the baseline statistics we need in order to eventually achieve the successful deployment of broadband access and services to all Americans.”

Providing universal broadband may very well start with simply finding out who has broadband access and who doesn’t. The House of Representatives on Monday passed a bill that could help answer that question by improving broadband data collection.

Passed unanimously in the Senate on Thursday, the Broadband Data Improvement Act now awaits the president’s signature. The legislation, introduced by Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, in 2007, calls for the Federal Communications Commission to collect a broader swath of information regarding who has broadband access.

Be sure to keep an eye on Webware throughout the day. We’ll have continuing conference coverage as the day progresses.

There are two levels of service, one free with limited storage and time-expired messages, and premium plans that add additional storage and archiving. Eyejot’s CEO David Gellar says the company has enjoyed a “double digit uptake” of users who upgrade to the pro.

Gellar also noted that a mobile client for the service is not in works (at the moment). Gellar calls the mobile field a “moving target” because of hardware and network differentiations between the U.S. carriers.

Ribbit’s consumer application called Amphibian, which blends your Web presence with your mobile phone, is launching in the next few months. We profiled it back when it was announced at DemoFALL.

First up was Eyejot, which we’ve covered several times. The core service revolves around video e-mail, although it has recently moved into other areas like Eyejot This, which lets you annotate Web pages with video clips from your Webcam (and even share them via Twitter). There’s also a platform that lets site owners add video notes and mail to their service.

Ribbit, a telephony platform that’s meant to be integrated into Web applications, showed off its wares. Its application for Salesforce.com is launching next month and will cost $25/mo per user. VP of Technology Crick Waters demonstrated the upcoming interface and noted that more than 53,000 calls have been made on developer network. The coolest feature is a familiar looking telephone keypad that can be integrated into Web apps and services.

Update: Fixed Vello’s URL and and info on Eyejot’s mobile efforts. For more see the comments. (thanks David)

Mark Dzwonczyk, president and COO of Vello, showed off the service live by calling nearly everyone in the room who had given their numbers up at the cocktail party the night before. The one rub is that minutes on Vello cost nearly three times the price of normal conference calls for the host. Dzwonczyk says that the company will adjust to market prices, but for now are going for large businesses that are going for simplicity.

The Under the Radar conference kicked off this morning with one of my favorite panels: three video and voice companies that are trying to take services we’re already using and make them better.

(Credit:
CNET Networks)

Vello, “the conference that calls you,” solves a wonderfully irritating problem with conference-calling services. Instead of having people deal with special call in numbers and PIN codes, it only requires meeting creators to plug in phone numbers (from Outlook or your Web contact list) and the service will create the conference call and phone all the members. It also has a single number people need to call (1-888-Vello) that will connect you to the right conference based on your phone number.

Ribbit's Salesforce.com app will let you call your contacts right from Salesforce. It's launching next month. (Click to enlarge.)

The TV unit struggled though, and in April the company announced it was replacing its top TV exec. But Sony has higher hopes for this year. It said it plans to sell 17 million flat panel TVs in the next year, an ambitious goal. To do so, it will continue selling entry-level models, a practice it began last summer at Target and Wal-Mart.

Revenue for Sony’s video game unit, which competes head-to-head with Microsoft’s
Xbox 360 and the
Nintendo Wii, grew by 26 percent in the past year based on better sales of the
PlayStation 3 console.

Weighed down by its financial unit, Sony posted a $45 million loss for its fourth quarter earnings Wednesday.

Still, the bright point of the company’s quarterly report was its electronics business. Revenue was up 9 percent due to increased sales of its digital cameras, video cameras, and notebook PCs.

Analysts were expecting an average estimated profit of $260 million for the quarter.

For those commercial open-source vendors out there, this means your first order of business should be to focus on adoption and the user experience, rather than proprietary extensions (if any). These may be convenient, but they will corrupt priorities if they are the first order of business.

I love my
Mac. I love its look and feel. I love the software. I actually look forward to using my Mac. It’s not a Dell, dude. It has class.

Focus on the average users within your potential user demographics, not the alpha geeks. Average people buy more software than the uber-geeks do. Microsoft learned this long ago, lowering the bar to computing. It has lost its way of late as it tries to complicate the user experience a bit by adding bells and whistles designed to drive upgrades, not customer satisfaction. That’s why it’s slowly starting to lose.

Google has won the search wars primarily because Google focused first on pleasing consumers. It didn’t try to stripmine the search experience in search of every last penny of profit from ads, the way Yahoo! and Microsoft did. These latter two littered their pages for years with absolute rubbish, neon advertising, making the search experience feel like Vegas.

But it’s not just Apple.

I’m rereading Businessweek’s excellent article, “The Mac in the Gray Flannel Suit,” and it became very clear why Apple is succeeding in the enterprise despite not focusing on the enterprise.

As we focus on the unwashed masses rather than the elite, which begs a focus on adoption first, software will become easier to use and more pleasurable to use. Like Apple. Like Google.

Not Google. It focused on adoption first. It focused on making the search experience simple, fast, and useful.

In a way, successful open-source projects have thrived in much the same way. Linux is popular because it focuses on its consumers first. Same with Apache and MySQL. These are not “consumer” applications in the way that, say, Apple’s iMovie is, but they are consumer-ish in the way I’m describing because they put the end user’s experience first in the equation, rather than the cash in her pocket.

commentary

Another (overused) way of saying this is that Apple has “consumerized” the computing experience. As it turns out, enterprises employ consumers. Lots of them.

Apple has made computing pleasant.

If you’re an open-source or proprietary company, there’s a lesson in this. Focus on adoption first. Focusing on adoption helps a company to fixate on how to make software (or hardware) enjoyable, and not necessarily what will make it sell better. The sales follow the adoption.

Apple’s secret is that it cares more about the consumer experience than in milking its potential market for every last penny. It could hire an expensive enterprise sales force, but lets its users sell the Mac experience instead.

But the basic idea would be that Apple and its software development partners could build richer “desktop-like” Web applications for
Safari on either the
iPhone or the
Mac without having to license Adobe or Microsoft’s plug-in technology. This could also allow Windows developers to create Web applications that resemble Mac applications.

Apple may be looking at an open-source solution as a way to get around Adobe Systems’ Flash technology.

Web applications are big these days, and developers are continuously looking for ways to improve the performance and sex appeal of their applications. To that end, they often find themselves using frameworks like Adobe’s Flash or Microsoft’s Silverlight technology to save time and take advantage of flashier graphics. But once you choose to develop a Web application for one of those standards, you’re essentially locked into the browser plug-ins for that one particular standard.

Roughly Drafted was able to find a developer willing to talk about last week’s Worldwide Developers Conference sessions, which are supposed to be confidential. But these things have a way of coming to light, and one session on Friday apparently covered a technology called SproutCore that could give Apple a way to get its Cocoa development frameworks into the hearts and minds of Web developers.

Check out Roughly Drafted or a similar article from Appleinsider for more details on how SproutCore works for Web developers; I’m not going to be able to do the topic proper justice without a few Web development courses.

SproutCore gets around that lock-in by letting more of the Web application run inside the browser, rather than in the plug-in. Apple apparently used SproutCore to build the Web applications unveiled last week as part of the new MobileMe service, which replaces the aging .Mac service.