As the semester's end finally hit, I realized something. I was going to need a job, and I hadn't even started looking. Then, almost on cue, the phone rang.
The article's author should consider himself fortunate to have landed a job without even looking for one. The next time around, when he actually puts some effort into finding a job at a good company instead of taking whatever falls into his lap, maybe he'll actually have a job he enjoys at a company that treats him right.
There are a few things that can go into advertising that people will watch. I speak mostly from my own opinion as a consumer of entertainment products, so YMMV depending on who else you ask. But please, if there's anyone out there in a position of power that you can convert into a believer in the principle of Not Annoying Potential Customers, please do so:)
One is humor. People watch the Super Bowl to see two things: the game (and the associated cheerleaders, hehe) and the hilarious commercials that come out each year. Admittedly, I don't drink Budweiser, because their product sucks, but at least they make some damn funny commercials.
Two is informativeness. By this, I mean true informativeness. People are far less likely to mind a quick ad showing what's on TV next weekend, because it provides factual information about the show (excerpts are shown) and when it's on. Likewise, people don't mind actual trailers before movies (though sometimes the sheer vast quantity bothers people), because it gives them a chance to find out what's coming out next summer or holiday season, and gives them the feedback of one's peers as people mutter things like, "Yeah, that's gonna suck," between trailers.
Three, related to informativeness, is tailored interest. Here, I mean a matching of the interests of the viewer with the information provided in the ad. Channels that are already tailored for certain types of customer are great for this sort of thing - for example, an ad for history-related books or DVDs would do well on the History Channel, or an ad for a feminine hygiene product would work well on Lifetime (Television for Victims).
But the more narrowly-tailored the interest category is, the more likely it is that the viewer will take interest. This is why Amazon.com's product suggestions work so well, at least when their system's recommendations aren't thrown off by those gifts you recently bought your niece for her birthday. Also take Planetside for example, which recently started placing ads in-game. An ad for a new graphics card would garner a lot of attention there. Everyone playing that game is at least in the market for new graphics hardware (whether they can afford it or not). Unfortunately, SOE got suckered into running a bunch of Fanta ads, which is one step above running ads for feminine hygiene products there (which, afaik, they haven't done... yet).
One caveat here is that if customers feel like they're being spied upon, they will complain - Amazon gets away with it because when people surf Amazon, they're interested in buying something. The information Amazon provides makes shopping easier and more productive. But when people surf their favorite news website and get tailored ads, it feels like Big Brother is watching. That's why cookies are so often blocked, especially from Doubleclick.
Four is unobtrusiveness. This is the one that Intarweb ad execs really don't get (except for Google). The hallowed days of Punching the Monkey and Winning $20 are long gone, and people hate ads with a passion these days because they get more annoying instead of less. More and more people filter out ads because they blink and move and pop up/under and make noise and generally ruin a pleasant websurfing experience. Viewing an ad that gets past such filters may garner brand recognition, but it's in the context of "Fuck me if I'm gonna buy their product!" (This is the main reason I refuse to use Orbitz, and their TV ads don't help matters either.) On the other hand, most people don't bother filtering Google ads, because they're text, they don't blink/move/make noise, and frequently, they are related (if sometimes only tangentially) to the websurfing topic of interest.
The same thing applies to TV ads. Placing a gigantic ad for a channel's next show after every commercial break right on top of the show you're trying to watch and then making sound effects to boot pisses people off.
Quoth the article: The DRM initiatives are generating complaints from fans, many of whom own iPods. The message boards of artist fan sites and online retailers are filled with complaints from angry consumers who did not realize they were buying a copy-protected title until they tried to create music files on their home computers.
Enter the DMCRA, which, in addition to guaranteeing the right to circumvent copy prevention systems for the purposes of making non-infringing use of a work, also mandates that when companies put copy prevention on a CD, they also add an adequate warning to the case indicating that the CD may not work in all players.
I didn't think that the DMCRA would actually get attention because of the warning label provision, mainly because I'm more interested on the circumvention for non-infringing use provision, but perhaps the warning label provision is the way to get music consumers interested in getting the DMCRA passed.
This represents a stunning defeat for the music industry, and combined with Apple's iTMS success, could indicate the beginnings not only of a change in how music is priced, but also of a change in how music is produced, promoted, and distributed - i.e., without the RIAA and its members.
Ignignokt: Did anyone see an eight-foot spider wearing a diaper in the parking lot anywhere? Cybernetic Ghost of Christmas Past from the Future: I did see that spider, but when I was in that parking lot, it was about 375 thousand years ago....
The CNN article alludes to an interesting question.
A substantial rise in used game sales may lead to the expansion of digital distribution - in other words, downloading games rather than buying a disc.
At first glance, one would think that solves the problem. But even if we buy software online, downloading it rather than receiving physical media, aren't we still allowed to make a backup copy of that software onto removable media? Why wouldn't the first sale doctrine apply to software paid for, downloaded, and then moved to a CD, as long as the seller doesn't keep a copy of the software for himself?
When an article says "First Giant Squid Captured On Film", and then there aren't even any pictures in the linked article, I think that level of pointlessness merits a good joke. Or fifty.
But now that the article has been updated with the NG link that actually has a few of the 500 pictures taken of the animal, I do have to say that it's pretty cool.
A looter might say "theft is already illegal, nobody needs bars and alarms to prevent it," but that's because they see things from a different perspective than the people they are ripping off.
But looters don't have any right to use your house in any way. There is no such thing as noninfringing use of your house, unless you invite someone to come in, and once you do that, the bars and alarms no longer restrict their access.
everything is cool as long as we can break and exploit everyone else's IP and do what we like with other's content, simply because 1) we've made a purchase at some point (confusing a license with a royalty free distribution agreement) or 2) because we can.
I'm not defending the infringing uses (distribution, public performance, etc., without permission). I'm only defending noninfringing uses. It just so happens that the entertainment industry is trying to kill two birds with one DRM stone - preventing unlicensed distribution as well as limiting the end user's ability to make noninfringing use of a product. Breaking DRM is thus necessary to protect the rights of the end user, even if that also enables others to abuse the broken DRM and make infringing use of the product.
The ??AA, FBI, etc., have already indicated their willingness to combat piracy through litigation under basic copyright law. It is widely expected that DRM will be no more effective at piracy prevention than lawsuits have been, since it only takes one person to crack the DRM and distribute the media to the world.
However, what DRM will be effective at doing is preventing Joe Sixpack from consuming the media/electronics he pays for (or that is broadcast over the air to him at the pleasure of the federal government) in a noninfringing way, whether that be skipping the unskippable ads at the beginning of a DVD, installing Linux on his locked game device, making backup copies of his copy-protected CDs, or recording and archiving broadcast-flagged TV shows for his personal use. Those noninfringing uses are what the entertainment industry wants to prevent, but they use piracy as a scapegoat to get politicians (and, they hope, the general public) to see things their way, even though the law already has harsh penalties for it.
The point is that safety devices can be removed or disabled, and they otherwise don't prevent you from making legal use of the tools to which they are attached. Not so in the electronic world, evidently, as these "safety devices" have the added bonus function of permanently restricting the legitimate uses of the tool.
If you buy a CD, do you have the right upload it to a torrent and obliterate the music marketplace?
No, of course not. And such activity is already illegal - there is no need for an additional measure to prevent me from doing that, if said measure also prevents me from accessing the music on the CD in every possible legal way.
If you buy a student copy of Office, do you have the right to install it on all the PCs in your company?
No. But see my answer to the previous question.
If you buy a GPS device, do you have the right to hack it to use military grade accuracy?
I'm not sure what the law is on this, but if it is illegal, then I'd say no (the government gets a special break because we're talking about national security).
If you buy an iPod, and you hack the ability to play WMA, do you have the right to use it for that? how about distributing your hack? how about cracking Fairplay AAC? How about WMA encryption?
Yes, yes, yes, and yes, as long as you don't then use the hack/crack to make infringing uses of copyrighted works (which is already, of course, illegal). It's unfortunate that the law conflicts with our rights in this case, though there has been legislation introduced to fix that problem.
Is "homebrew software development" the new euphemism for "piracy"? You know, how 99.99% of everyone who got mod chips for their ps2 and xbox was just so they could "run linux" ?
"Homebrew software development" is about making legal use of the technology we pay for. Piracy is just along for the ride.
It's sort of like how you can kill someone with a hammer. Murder-by-hammer is already illegal, but that doesn't mean that hammers should be encumbered by use management technology that both prevents homicides and blocks you from using nails made by someone other than the hammer manufacturer.
From an e-mail Danny O'Brien sent me when I asked him pretty much the same question:
I was considering holding off on this post until we knew enough to be able to take some sort of action, but in the end felt it was better to give everyone a (longish) briefing as to what was gong on behind the scenes, and then push heavily when we finally see the language. I'd rather explain now, and push it into people's consciousness, than have to overexplain things later on.
There's a chance there'll be something to do as early as later this week: at the moment it's all behind doors.
So keep watching - more news is forthcoming. Hopefully it'll be good news.
And that's when the fun begins. The content providers have made known their intent to cripple players whose keys have been compromised, by revoking their keys on new media. The task for the free information counterculture becomes obvious - compromise and release as many keys for as many best-selling players as possible, to face the content providers with the choice of either abandoning their DRM aspirations or incurring the wrath of the proletariat.
In other news this morning, Slashdot has reportedly provided copious free traffic to three major web advertising presences in one fell swoop. Says one stunned Slashdot reader: "WTF??"
Slashdot Mirror
As the semester's end finally hit, I realized something. I was going to need a job, and I hadn't even started looking. Then, almost on cue, the phone rang.
The article's author should consider himself fortunate to have landed a job without even looking for one. The next time around, when he actually puts some effort into finding a job at a good company instead of taking whatever falls into his lap, maybe he'll actually have a job he enjoys at a company that treats him right.
There are a few things that can go into advertising that people will watch. I speak mostly from my own opinion as a consumer of entertainment products, so YMMV depending on who else you ask. But please, if there's anyone out there in a position of power that you can convert into a believer in the principle of Not Annoying Potential Customers, please do so :)
One is humor. People watch the Super Bowl to see two things: the game (and the associated cheerleaders, hehe) and the hilarious commercials that come out each year. Admittedly, I don't drink Budweiser, because their product sucks, but at least they make some damn funny commercials.
Two is informativeness. By this, I mean true informativeness. People are far less likely to mind a quick ad showing what's on TV next weekend, because it provides factual information about the show (excerpts are shown) and when it's on. Likewise, people don't mind actual trailers before movies (though sometimes the sheer vast quantity bothers people), because it gives them a chance to find out what's coming out next summer or holiday season, and gives them the feedback of one's peers as people mutter things like, "Yeah, that's gonna suck," between trailers.
Three, related to informativeness, is tailored interest. Here, I mean a matching of the interests of the viewer with the information provided in the ad. Channels that are already tailored for certain types of customer are great for this sort of thing - for example, an ad for history-related books or DVDs would do well on the History Channel, or an ad for a feminine hygiene product would work well on Lifetime (Television for Victims).
But the more narrowly-tailored the interest category is, the more likely it is that the viewer will take interest. This is why Amazon.com's product suggestions work so well, at least when their system's recommendations aren't thrown off by those gifts you recently bought your niece for her birthday. Also take Planetside for example, which recently started placing ads in-game. An ad for a new graphics card would garner a lot of attention there. Everyone playing that game is at least in the market for new graphics hardware (whether they can afford it or not). Unfortunately, SOE got suckered into running a bunch of Fanta ads, which is one step above running ads for feminine hygiene products there (which, afaik, they haven't done... yet).
One caveat here is that if customers feel like they're being spied upon, they will complain - Amazon gets away with it because when people surf Amazon, they're interested in buying something. The information Amazon provides makes shopping easier and more productive. But when people surf their favorite news website and get tailored ads, it feels like Big Brother is watching. That's why cookies are so often blocked, especially from Doubleclick.
Four is unobtrusiveness. This is the one that Intarweb ad execs really don't get (except for Google). The hallowed days of Punching the Monkey and Winning $20 are long gone, and people hate ads with a passion these days because they get more annoying instead of less. More and more people filter out ads because they blink and move and pop up/under and make noise and generally ruin a pleasant websurfing experience. Viewing an ad that gets past such filters may garner brand recognition, but it's in the context of "Fuck me if I'm gonna buy their product!" (This is the main reason I refuse to use Orbitz, and their TV ads don't help matters either.) On the other hand, most people don't bother filtering Google ads, because they're text, they don't blink/move/make noise, and frequently, they are related (if sometimes only tangentially) to the websurfing topic of interest.
The same thing applies to TV ads. Placing a gigantic ad for a channel's next show after every commercial break right on top of the show you're trying to watch and then making sound effects to boot pisses people off.
Do they have some way to recycle all this plastic? We're entering the biggest petroleum crisis in history,
Problem solved!
Quoth the article: The DRM initiatives are generating complaints from fans, many of whom own iPods. The message boards of artist fan sites and online retailers are filled with complaints from angry consumers who did not realize they were buying a copy-protected title until they tried to create music files on their home computers.
Enter the DMCRA, which, in addition to guaranteeing the right to circumvent copy prevention systems for the purposes of making non-infringing use of a work, also mandates that when companies put copy prevention on a CD, they also add an adequate warning to the case indicating that the CD may not work in all players.
I didn't think that the DMCRA would actually get attention because of the warning label provision, mainly because I'm more interested on the circumvention for non-infringing use provision, but perhaps the warning label provision is the way to get music consumers interested in getting the DMCRA passed.
The more apt analogy would be the one readily available: CDs versus CD players.
...three cheers for Microsoft!
This represents a stunning defeat for the music industry, and combined with Apple's iTMS success, could indicate the beginnings not only of a change in how music is priced, but also of a change in how music is produced, promoted, and distributed - i.e., without the RIAA and its members.
First one, then the other.
I think I've figured out where their "75%" figure comes from:
1. Purchase speech recognition software
2. Purchase telephone
3. ???
4. Profit!
Ignignokt: Did anyone see an eight-foot spider wearing a diaper in the parking lot anywhere?
Cybernetic Ghost of Christmas Past from the Future: I did see that spider, but when I was in that parking lot, it was about 375 thousand years ago....
Bad example, as Maytag wants to share their profits - all their profits - with Whirlpool.
(Your point still stands, of course, unless Apple accepts a buyout offer from one of the big media corporations.)
Holy shit, a real law firm. Linked right underneath their half-assed picture, no less.
The unfortunate downside to using elephants is that they still insist on using 5.25" floppies.
When an article says "First Giant Squid Captured On Film", and then there aren't even any pictures in the linked article, I think that level of pointlessness merits a good joke. Or fifty.
But now that the article has been updated with the NG link that actually has a few of the 500 pictures taken of the animal, I do have to say that it's pretty cool.
A looter might say "theft is already illegal, nobody needs bars and alarms to prevent it," but that's because they see things from a different perspective than the people they are ripping off.
But looters don't have any right to use your house in any way. There is no such thing as noninfringing use of your house, unless you invite someone to come in, and once you do that, the bars and alarms no longer restrict their access.
everything is cool as long as we can break and exploit everyone else's IP and do what we like with other's content, simply because 1) we've made a purchase at some point (confusing a license with a royalty free distribution agreement) or 2) because we can.
I'm not defending the infringing uses (distribution, public performance, etc., without permission). I'm only defending noninfringing uses. It just so happens that the entertainment industry is trying to kill two birds with one DRM stone - preventing unlicensed distribution as well as limiting the end user's ability to make noninfringing use of a product. Breaking DRM is thus necessary to protect the rights of the end user, even if that also enables others to abuse the broken DRM and make infringing use of the product.
The ??AA, FBI, etc., have already indicated their willingness to combat piracy through litigation under basic copyright law. It is widely expected that DRM will be no more effective at piracy prevention than lawsuits have been, since it only takes one person to crack the DRM and distribute the media to the world.
However, what DRM will be effective at doing is preventing Joe Sixpack from consuming the media/electronics he pays for (or that is broadcast over the air to him at the pleasure of the federal government) in a noninfringing way, whether that be skipping the unskippable ads at the beginning of a DVD, installing Linux on his locked game device, making backup copies of his copy-protected CDs, or recording and archiving broadcast-flagged TV shows for his personal use. Those noninfringing uses are what the entertainment industry wants to prevent, but they use piracy as a scapegoat to get politicians (and, they hope, the general public) to see things their way, even though the law already has harsh penalties for it.
Turn off Javascript.
The point is that safety devices can be removed or disabled, and they otherwise don't prevent you from making legal use of the tools to which they are attached. Not so in the electronic world, evidently, as these "safety devices" have the added bonus function of permanently restricting the legitimate uses of the tool.
If you buy a CD, do you have the right upload it to a torrent and obliterate the music marketplace?
No, of course not. And such activity is already illegal - there is no need for an additional measure to prevent me from doing that, if said measure also prevents me from accessing the music on the CD in every possible legal way.
If you buy a student copy of Office, do you have the right to install it on all the PCs in your company?
No. But see my answer to the previous question.
If you buy a GPS device, do you have the right to hack it to use military grade accuracy?
I'm not sure what the law is on this, but if it is illegal, then I'd say no (the government gets a special break because we're talking about national security).
If you buy an iPod, and you hack the ability to play WMA, do you have the right to use it for that? how about distributing your hack? how about cracking Fairplay AAC? How about WMA encryption?
Yes, yes, yes, and yes, as long as you don't then use the hack/crack to make infringing uses of copyrighted works (which is already, of course, illegal). It's unfortunate that the law conflicts with our rights in this case, though there has been legislation introduced to fix that problem.
I think almost every geek's heart must skip a beat when they hear about giant squids
Mmmmm.... Tentacle hentai....
Is "homebrew software development" the new euphemism for "piracy"? You know, how 99.99% of everyone who got mod chips for their ps2 and xbox was just so they could "run linux" ?
"Homebrew software development" is about making legal use of the technology we pay for. Piracy is just along for the ride.
It's sort of like how you can kill someone with a hammer. Murder-by-hammer is already illegal, but that doesn't mean that hammers should be encumbered by use management technology that both prevents homicides and blocks you from using nails made by someone other than the hammer manufacturer.
So keep watching - more news is forthcoming. Hopefully it'll be good news.
The last attempt was never *actually* attempted. Public outcry prevented it from being brought up in committee at all.
That is providing you RTFA! as most /.'s dont :)
/. effect, obviously.
Hence the
And that's when the fun begins. The content providers have made known their intent to cripple players whose keys have been compromised, by revoking their keys on new media. The task for the free information counterculture becomes obvious - compromise and release as many keys for as many best-selling players as possible, to face the content providers with the choice of either abandoning their DRM aspirations or incurring the wrath of the proletariat.
"If we can hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards... Checkmate." - Zapp Brannigan
In other news this morning, Slashdot has reportedly provided copious free traffic to three major web advertising presences in one fell swoop. Says one stunned Slashdot reader: "WTF??"