Category: Life

Liscencing is [unfortunately] the wave of the future. No longer do you actually own anything you purchase; rather you obtain the ability to use it for a set period of time, after which point you lose that right. It makes sense in some fields, such as Antiviri software, in which the bandwidth used updating the products’ definitions rack up real money over time. However, it is being more and more applied in fields where it doesn’t belong. Then there’s DRM, a form of liscencing that restricts you on use rather than by time…

eBooks are a great example. If you buy a DRMed eBook (which consists a large proportion of all commercial text out there), then you purchased a Liscence to use the eBook. You don’t actually own it. The difference? Well, when you’re liscenced, you can’t do what you want with your property. You cannot print off your eBook more than twice, for example. You can’t have a computer speak it out loud. You can’t do this or that, even though you payed $15. A real book in comparison is much better: you pay the same, but you can do whatever you want with it. A very clever quote somewhere? You want to photocopy that page? No problems. And such activity by the way is legal. Companies just would rather nick you for every cent.

Another example is for example internet music. You just payed $25 for 15 tracks of music from an online service such as iTunes. However, even though you bought the music, it still isn’t yours so to speak. You cannot burn it to an actual CD. You cannot listen to it on other players. No, instead, you are restricted to use it as the company sees fit. A real CD in comparison is much better: you pay the same, but you can do whatever you want with it. Back up to MP3 and listen on your iPod? No problem. Listen on a DVD/CD player? No problem. Again, such activity is legal, but the companies still don’t allow you to use it.

Another example is liscencing with Microsoft Office for example. You as a government entity or agency pay Microsoft thousands of dollars, and in exchange you get to use their software for a year. After that point, even though the software is zero-maintenance on the part of Microsoft… you still can’t use it. It is this type of liscencing which I find especially worrisome.

Picture this:
You spend $40 on a chair. But that only gives you the right to use it for a year, because liscencing isn’t the same thing as actually owning property. Then, after that year: BAM. Spikes come out of the chair, and you have to spend another $40 if you want to use it again.

Companies like giving the illusion that you own the things they sell you. Else you wouldn’t buy it. Not only that, but the government realising the nefarious potential of this system would legislate acts to prevent overuse of the system. However, companies don’t have to try very hard putting up this fake front: the government doesn’t care. People don’t care. Why? Because this is all still in the “computer world”, a field that few higher-ups bother to understand.

However, this will soon exit this computer world as it becomes standard business practice. It will be interesting to see how its dealt with then.

Exeem was the the highly touted P2P application brought to us from the same group that had brought us the excellent Bittorrent tracker site SuprNova. It was known upon release that the app would include adware in order to appease the anonymous corporate donor that helped support the project. However, what was not known is that this app would also include Spyware. The spyware application in question is “CyDoor”.

According to WikiPedia, Cydoor is a spyware program that causes popup and pop-under ads to be displayed while you are browsing the Internet. It also re-routes your web requests through third-party servers for the purpose of capturing your web surfing habits.

To counter this, the Exeem Lite project is underway. Like the original KazAa Lite and so forth, this modified Exeem client will not have the spyware/adware. That said, why would anyone want to use Exeem to begin with? I’ll remind you that though Exeem can make use of Torrents, those are not its native protocol. It uses another protocol, under a system very similar to the eDonkey2000 network. Furthermore, its based on an unestablished network with little in the way of selection… so what motivation is there to get on the bandwagon?

These photos was taken in 1985 right after the Windows 1.0 release.

This is the bane of new things: some people don’t understand it. This is especially the case of the geriatrics that line the various Senates. This means that they are allowed to introduce ridiculous bills that, if passed in any other field, would raise an incredible uproar.

What if you invented something? Potentially something incredibly mindblowing and useful! Everyone would use it on a daily basis to make their lives easier! But that unfortunately that thing was also used by a minority for illegal activities? Should you be liable? Should you be jailed? Sued?

California seems thinks so in a new bill they introduced.

The bill specifically targets makers of P2P software, which by its own uninformed definition includes Internet Browsers, E-Mail Clients, and Internet Radios. However, apply the logic anywhere else and you’ll realise how little sense the bill makes:
– Should Ford be liable because one of their cars, driven by a drunk driver, killed someone?
– Should a utensil maker be liable because someone used one of their forks to stab someone?

Now if the bill were applied anywhere else, one would see a notable stifling in innovation. People wouldn’t want to invent the new great things anymore. So what do you think this is doing to P2P? I’ll remind you that P2P is the foundation of the Internet: the Internet itself is a P2P and we need the innovations in this department to make the network overall more efficient and thus faster. If we are to sue everyone that makes leeways in this respect because of the abuse of some of their products by a few, what will that do for us?

The Recording Industry are the ones responsible for getting this bill in. Ironically, they’re shooting themselves in the foot with this. Though some people use P2P for piracy, alot more use it for legitimate commercial purposes [iTunes, Napster 2.0]. By stifling innovation in this field, it wouldn’t help the online industry who already struggles trying to pay the RIAA the exhorbitant and disporportionate royalties demanded of them. The people don’t benefit. The RIAA doesn’t ultimately benefit from this. The geriatrics won’t benefit from this. Who will?

Way to go California.

It’s often been stated by media pundits that piracy is akin to stealing from a store. I beg to differ, or at least in the case of the piracy of productivity software. I write this article because I tallied that my theoretical expenditures for the necessary computer software to even participate in school would exceed $1000. That’s for Microsoft Office 2003 ($240-$550), and Microsoft WindowsXP ($550 for the non half-ass version). I say “theoretical” because in my instance I am fortunate enough to know and make use of OpenOffice and Linux, and therefore avoid these costs equivalent to a little under two month’s pay (25hr/wk student job).

Productivity software is much like a paintbrush. They both are necessary tools in the creation of something else. Now the lobbyists would claim that piracy would be me stealing the paintbrush outright. As such, all the efforts spent by the person collecting the hairs and putting the brush together were lost.

However, that is an innacurate perception of the concept of “copying”. I view that type of piracy as such: someone comes along and needs a paintbrush for school. Problem is, even though the paintbrush cost $5 to make, and maybe $10 for research, the brush itself has a pricetag of $5000. Unable to afford this, the student takes a close look at the paintbrush and makes an identical one on his own. In fact, the student payed for the $1 of materials it took to build it himself (analogy for burning onto CD). The student simply cannot afford the absurdly high price tag imposed by the company who makes the paintbrush.

The company more than made its fair share of profits, for as much as the student cannot afford the fees, the targeted corporations and governmental agencies for whoom the pricetag was set can.