You Get The . Info

It’s no secret that we live in a world of moral panics — where new technologies are feared by those who don’t understand them, often leading to regulations that block their potential. For years now, a number of politicians have sought laws to ban social networks in schools, assuming that they are either bad or simply inappropriate for schools. While those laws have yet to pass, many schools already do ban access to social networks and other sites. I’ve never quite understood how this makes sense. Rather than training students to use those sites properly, now they’re seen as forbidden — which only makes them more attractive to students, while making it even clearer that students won’t be prepared to handle those sites properly. On top of that, as more powerful mobile phones become popular, students will easily bypass the school’s own network and access those sites on their own — and there will be nothing the schools can do about it.

So it’s nice to see a sensible opinion piece in Slate arguing that rather than ban or block social online services like Facebook and YouTube, schools should be embracing them and looking for ways to incorporate them into the learning process. There are a variety of strong arguments for why this makes sense, but two that stick out:

1. Students already like using these sites quite a bit. Using those sites to make other things more relevant and interesting seems like a good way to reach kids in a manner that they understand, and which doesn’t feel quite as much like “education,” but more like something fun that they want to do.
2. Using these kinds of free tools may be cheaper, easier and much more effective than a number of the super expensive e-learning tools out there, which would require a steep learning curve anyway. But incorporating lesson plans and info and assignments into the tools that students already use would be both cheaper and more likely to actually be used.

Of course, some will decry that these sites are automatically bad for kids — or that it makes no sense to waste time on such issues. But the fact is kids are going to use these sites no matter what. Ignoring that doesn’t change that. Banning the sites doesn’t change that. It just makes the activity more underground without any oversight or reasonable lessons. But incorporating the technology into the educational efforts could actually get a lot more attention. Yes, some of the examples in the Slate article seem pretty lame (and would be seen as such by the kids), but if done right, it really could add a lot more value to students’ educations.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

By Mike Masnick

admin Uncategorized

Usually when you see copyright infringement claims, it’s for copying something that someone else held a copyright on, but THREsq points us to a case where Canadian songwriter, Gordon Peterson, is suing singer Eddie Vedder for supposedly changing lyrics in a version Vedder did of Peterson’s song “Hard Sun.” Assuming that the song was properly licensed (which is also in dispute, but that seems to be a separate issue), it’s difficult to see what sort of copyright infringement claim there would then be for modifying the song. After all, the modifications wouldn’t be covered by Peterson’s copyright at all. But, alas, this is what you get with today’s “ownership culture,” where people just assume more ownership rights over something than they actually have under the law.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

By Mike Masnick

admin Uncategorized

A few years back, someone sued Apple, claiming that the iPod caused hearing loss, saying that the devices have an “inherently defective design” and that they need more warnings that you can acquire hearing loss if high volumes are used. The lawsuit eventually turned into a class action, which a district court dismissed. Now an appeals court has agreed, saying that the plaintiffs showed no evidence that an iPod “poses an unreasonable risk of noise-induced hearing loss.” Basically, the argument amounted to “you know, Apple could make iPods that are less likely to lead to hearing loss.” But that’s not legally actionable, and it’s good that the courts were quick to point that out.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

By Mike Masnick

admin Uncategorized

theodp writes “The USPTO has granted IBM a patent covering the Resolution of Abbreviated Text in an Electronic Communications System, lawyer-speak for translating “IMHO” to “In My Humble Opinion” and vice versa. From the patent: “One particularly useful application of the invention is to interpret the meaning of shorthand terms…For example, one database may define the shorthand term ‘LOL’ to mean ‘laughing out loud.’” So much for Big Blue’s professed aim of stopping “bad behavior” by companies who seek patents for unoriginal work!”

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

By Mike Masnick

admin Uncategorized

I’m always amazed at the claims by some of our usual band of critics in the comments that “remixing isn’t creative.” They never seem to explain how something like what Kutiman has done could ever be considered not creative. Nor do they explain how taking a clip of a note and using it to make a new song is really different from using a keyboard (which plays “pre-recorded” notes) and playing a song. And we’ve certainly seem plenty of content creators encourage remixing of their work, and now more and more musicians have been purposely releasing stems and asking fans to make their own mixes. But how about with a book?

A few months back, we wrote about how author Robin Sloan was offering a tiered support model, similar to what many musicians have done, so he could write a novella. He used Kickstarter, and it turned out to be a huge success, with him earning much more than he originally targeted as his goal. The novella has been published, and apparently it’s getting quite a response. But Sloan has realized that you don’t stop there.

He’s taking things a step further, and has reserved $1,000 as a “remix fund,” to encourage people to take the book that he just wrote (which is available for download in a variety of formats under a Creative Commons license) and do some sort of remix project on it. He’s asking his supporters to pitch remix ideas (including how much it would cost to do), and then those who helped pay for the creation of the original story will vote on the ideas — and the top ones will get funded (until the $1,000 runs out):

I wrote and published Annabel Scheme with the help of about 600 patrons. It’s got­ten a warm reception from read­ers, but I’m greedy! I want more: I want other people to trans­form it and make it their own. If you’re a writer, an artist, a musician, a mathematician, a pastry chef–or a fan of one of the above–where could you or they take this story? I want to find out.

It’s yet another cool way of connecting with fans, and going explicitly against what copyright allows. It’s explicitly encouraging people to copy his work and even offering money to them if they do a good job. I imagine this will confuse those who will say “but… wait, he should be getting paid any time anyone wants to do something with his characters.” But what Sloan appears to recognize is that building up a larger audience for his works will certainly pay off a lot more in the long run than trying to squeeze people in the short run.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

By Mike Masnick

admin Uncategorized

Reader BakaYaro points us to this article about OPTi, the company that recently won a $21.7 million patent ruling against Apple, where the company’s CEO insists it’s not a patent troll because it’s only suing over patents that it got itself. It seems that Bernie Marren is trying to redefine what a “patent troll” is to mean just someone who buys patents and sues. But the real story shows that OPTi is yet another example of patents harming, not helping, innovation. The company used to produce products, but other companies eventually caught up, and OPTi couldn’t compete. Now, in a true capitalistic society, the companies that can’t compete, go out of business. And that’s a good thing. Failure is important for free markets to work. But, thanks to the very un-capitalistic concept of government granted monopolies, known as patents, tech companies never need to fail and go out of business. They can just sue over patent infringement. So, OPTi went from a 235-person company producing products and adding value to the market, to a 3-person company that just sues and extracts money from the companies who actually provide value on the market. So OPTi went from providing value to sucking value out of the market. It might not be a troll, but it’s difficult to see how it’s good for the economy or for innovation.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

By Mike Masnick

admin Uncategorized

Honestly, at what point do entertainment execs finally figure out that by purposely not making content available in the format people want it in, they’re only encouraging them to get that content through unauthorized means? We already knew that the big movie studios were annoyed with Netflix and trying to get Netflix to delay movie rentals until at least a month after the DVD comes out. Now we have an explanation why. As JJ was the first (of a few) to send in, the studios apparently are quite annoyed that, in order to jumpstart its movie streaming offering, Netflix routed around the movie studios, and signed a deal with Starz that allowed it to stream the same movies without a direct deal with the studios. It’s not clear how or why Starz had the right to also stream movies through Netflix, but I’m guessing it was a loophole in Starz’ deals with the studios — a loophole that’s now closed. So, Netflix is saying it needs to convince Hollywood it’s not the enemy, but Hollywood isn’t quite buying it yet.

This really shouldn’t be a huge surprise. After all, this is Hollywood, where reports that actually show that the movie industry will grow quite a bit in the next decade are also used to claim that rental services like Redbox and Netflix are killing off jobs. It’s also the world where Hollywood execs still think that the answer to their problems (problems like its best box office year ever) is to just add more release windows. It’s as if they still think that keeping content away from people makes them more likely to buy.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

By Mike Masnick

admin Uncategorized

In domain name arbitration disputes, it often seems like the big name almost always wins — but apparently not always. Canadian search engine Groovle (which actually uses Google as its underlying technology) has won a domain name dispute with Google, as the panelists reviewing the dispute said that Groovle wasn’t simple enough to confuse people, and people probably thought of the word “groovy” or “groove” more than Google when they saw Groovle. This really is a bit surprising, since it’s pretty rare for the small players to win these sorts of disputes.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

By Mike Masnick

admin Uncategorized

This post is part of the IT Innovation series, sponsored by Sun & Intel. Read more at ITInnovation.com.
Of course, the content of this post consists entirely of the thoughts and opinions of the author.

You don’t often get to see the details of a massive data center. The companies that run them tend to keep things pretty quiet, as they view the datacenter as a competitive advantage. Thus, what happens in Google’s datacenters remains mostly a mystery. And yet, it seems that the folks at Weta Digital, famous for providing the computing horsepower behind major Hollywood blockbusters like Lord of the Rings and now Avatar are apparently willing to open up a bit and provide some details about its setup. What struck me as interesting wasn’t so much the hardware specifics, but how they had to switch from the industry standard cooling system of raised floors and air-cooling, because the machines were too close together to get the necessary bandwidth. So, instead, they went with water-cooled racks. Water-cooled data centers have been increasingly common over the past few years (and were typical with many old mainframes), but they’re still a technology that not all data center operators are comfortable with, and which many still think create more problems than they solve. So it’s always interesting to see another one in action.

At the same time, as neat as it is to read about Weta Digital’s massive computing power (which apparently represents one of the 200 largest “super computers”) in the world, I’m still left wondering if the trend — even for amazing movie effects — isn’t moving away from such massive data centers. We’re seeing more and more what can be done on the cheap. And, no, it doesn’t come close to matching the stunning effects found in the blockbuster movies that Weta works on, but it does have all the symptoms of a classic innovator’s dilemma scenario, where the new stuff isn’t “as good” as the old stuff, but is improving at a faster rate, and quickly reaching a point where it’s “good enough” at significantly lower price points.

Given the regular discussions around here concerning movie budgets, where do people think the technology is headed for movie special effects? Will it always be run in giant datacenters, or is there a place for making high quality (even blockbuster-type) films on cheaper hardware?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

By Mike Masnick

admin Uncategorized

I actually had decently high hopes for Vevo, the partnership between Universal Music and YouTube to create a website for official music videos (currently from three of the four major record labels). I mean, I always figured that eventually the labels would screw stuff up, but I thought it actually had a shot at maybe being useful. The fact that Universal put Rio Caraeff in charge seemed like a good sign as well, since Caraeff seemed like the sort of music industry exec who understood the new marketplace for music, and wasn’t encumbered with the “old ways” of doing things. But rather than a useful site, Vevo has basically been a cookie cutter version of what you would do if the record labels created their own YouTube. That is, it took none of the good parts of YouTube. Hell, it didn’t even take the ability to handle a lot of traffic. For the first few days after it launched, Vevo just didn’t work at all.

Its latest screwup was that it didn’t include its preroll ads in the YouTube API, meaning that others who used the API could access and repurpose Vevo content without the ads, and even show the content outside the US (which Vevo currently does not allow). It didn’t take long for one enterprising startup, Muziic, to do exactly that. Muziic has received some attention for basically using the YouTube API to create an iTunes-like experience out of YouTube videos (it also gets attention for being founded by a 16-year old). Muziic sent out an announcement this week about how it was using the YouTube API to add Vevo content, meaning you could access Vevo videos without the preroll ads and outside the US.

Vevo’s first response? To send a cease and desist. At the very least, it wasn’t a legal nastygram, but a more friendly cease & desist sent by Caraeff himself. But “cease” what? Muziic was using the API as designed, and even though Caraeff admits that Vevo is quickly scrambling to change the API, he still says Muziic needs to cease from using the Vevo logo or referencing the company’s name. But Muziic used the name in an accurate and descriptive manner. It accurately noted that it was now offering Vevo content — without ads and outside the US — all legally via the use of the API provided by YouTube/Vevo itself.

Muziic’s co-founder responded to Caraeff’s email over at Hypebot, saying that he “was as shocked as anyone when I realized there were not yet any “pre-roll” advertisements for Vevo content in the API,” but since it was how the company set up the API, it seems perfectly reasonable to use it that way. He also notes that he had reached out to Vevo prior to this to try to work out an arrangement with the company and got no response.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

By Mike Masnick

admin Uncategorized