Been a while since I've written, but I've been tied up with college and the variety of odd jobs I do to try to keep money in my pocket.
College is going well. Despite this being my third time attending post-secondary (I've got two years of a Physics major as well as Comp Sci, Business and Philosophy from previous years) I feel pretty confident in my ability to get that damnable piece of paper that might help me get a better job.
Aside from that, I've also been working on a project proposal for the Labrador Institute. They've got an archive of old video tapes that they'd like converted into DVDs, so I've been conducting a lot of research into how to get the best quality captures from each tape. Considering they'll want several hundred tapes turned into 4 DVD sets each, it could take quite some time, but should be worth it in the end. Some of these tapes are the last remaining copies, so I'd like to do the best job possible.
Finally, last week a group of physicists in Singapore validated another idea I'd been toying with since I started researching peltier elements almost 3 years ago. Although I was thinking more along the lines of a 'thermal processing engine' that could also provide quantum elements, they've labelled it a Phononic Computer, which basically amounts to the same thing: a computer that uses heat to process information rather than electricity. However, they aren't looking for quantum elements, just standard logic gates with binary output, so I've still got my own little contribution to make somewhere along the line. Might have to go ahead and complete my electronics engineering program before I'll be taken seriously. You'd think it wouldn't be that difficult considering I called that solar cell advancement a year and a half before it was ever published, but thats life I guess.
I worked crushing uranium ore samples for three days. Just long enough for me to get to gamma radiation in my reading and have a chance to play with their old-school geiger counter, but not before I'd already crushed and milled over a hundred samples. And it's not easy work. The cotton masks they give you cut off a hefty percentage of your oxygen supply while you're working, leaving you constantly gasping for air when you've got two machines in full swing. I still can't breathe properly and it's been almost two weeks now. The machine that produced the most radioactive dust during the whole process was appropriately named "The Terminator."
So I went into work on the fourth day, told them it wasn't working out, then immediately went down to the college and registered for their engineering program. I've got a ton of ideas floating around in my head for different design geometries for traditional solid state devices, as well as some brand new concepts that I'll probably spend the next three years researching. Real exciting stuff... to me at least.
Either way, I've finished my first two days and am avidly reading over the material thats been supplied. I hope to stay ahead of the class, as I seriously slacked off during my 'searching' period at University. I think it's safe to say that I'm in more of a 'seek-and-destroy' mentality now.
Upon further thought, I've decided that most of the ideas surrounding intellectual property are garbage anyways and patents will require too much time and energy to write when the system electrical systems that will be required are possibly still decades away.
Instead, I'm taking all this bullshit and chucking it out the window. There's no point in one person stressing himself out so much over things that he can not control.
I'm thinking I'll probably put together a quick YouTube short featuring some info about the Weedshare alternative... simply because it was a real step forwards in digital distribution that's currently being moved against by most corporate interests. DRM is now being phased out in favor of watermarking, which means that instead of restricting access to media, it'll just be easier to figure out who you stole it from. Although MS will definitely still be seeking financial gain through their two patents which cover the Weedshare-style distribution and Zune-a-like media marketplace.
I'm going to coin a new term for this blog:
D. R. E. - Digital Rights Enforcement
While the RIAA is (apparently) acting to reduce piracy and ensure that artists benefit from their work (doubtful), there's no real agency acting to preserve and protect the rights of the consumer.
A digital distribution system that allows consumers to act as middle marketers for their favorite bands is a definite step forwards. However, if the companies responsible for maintaining the database of purchases and ownership cannot be trusted to stay float indefinitely, they do not actually create a form of permanent 'record label', as a simple software update can wipe them out.
Culturally, the vast majority of the world has already accepted that computers are here to stay. Yet we still live in a society of obsolescence. Not only hardware-wise, but software-wise as well. How many people are still using Windows 3.1? How about DOS? One might argue that advances in hardware quickly made these older platforms go the way of the dodo, but why should digital media platforms have to go the same way?
Sooner or later, we'll need to establish a permanent cultural digital record. One that can be given an absolute virtual value and can remain "Future Compatible" into the indefinite future. It shouldn't be that difficult to create. The actual codecs required would need to be extremely robust. You'd need to aim for the perfect range for the human audio and visual range, achieving a higher resolution than anything possible with analog recordings or current digital standards.
These codecs would also have to be extensible, allowing for 'upgrades' to the code as the hardware advances to new levels.
The business model that would back this format should be based around a sharing system like Shared Media Licensing's system, but with the new Cultural Record acting to give back to the society that's acting to give it it's indefinite and virtual value.
I'm going to take a friend's advice and begin processing patents on all the devices I've come up with over the last few years.
This covers everything from the next generation of LEDs (untested) to any home or industrial appliance that requires a heating or cooling solution. The cooling solution might need to reference another patent, but the heating solutions so far are out of left field.
I'll need advice on how to process these though. I've got the designs, but need help writing the patent applications themselves.
Over a year and a half ago, I gave away a design for a new solar cell thought up by myself and a friend. We considered it an obvious advancement over the old design simply because it removed a series of successive layers in the cell design and replaced them with a prism and multiple solar cells tuned to different wavelengths to allow for better absorption.
We also suggested, in the same email, using carbon nanotubes to deal with an heat-induced electron over-excitation problem, and suspending the quantum dots used in the design in a solution to allow them to be printed directly onto a substrate. These suggestions would serve to increase the efficiency while decreasing the cost.
We made these suggestions in January 2006. I'd been in contact with Evident Technologies regarding the obvious flaws in their peltier element design and they'd fired back a white paper on their solar cells to inform me of the potential in their QD design. I don't believe they were at all expecting to recieve a new solar cell design back.
I've contacted the 'inventors' of our design, who claim this 'revolutionary breakthrough design paradigm' is their own creation. However, they won't share who thought up the idea or any other information.
I'm pissed. We thought we were being naive when we sent off the design. Surely there must be scientists with lists of degrees longer than my arms that have already been over these pathways and had the same thoughts, tested them and discounted them.
Apparently not.
And now they're going to sell these cells to the American Military to make them better and more efficient killing/policing machines.
Here's the text from every email I recieved and sent to Evident. I've bolded the specific suggestions that have since been implemented.
My name is Andrew Abbass and I'm... well, I'd like to say an amature physicist, but I'm pretty much an amature everything else as well. (Meaning I don't get paid.)
However, I've got this idea regarding a design for a peltier device that i believe is a step forwards in the field, but I haven't found a receptive ear to explain it to yet.
If you've time to spare to hear me out, I'd appreciate it. -Andrew Abbass
Andrew Abbass
Thu, Jan 5, 2006 at 5:09 PM
To: strouse@chem.ucsb.edu, fwise@ccmr.cornell.edu, company@nanocrystals.com, info@evidenttech.com, andrew.abbass@gmail.com
Hello,
I'd sent my original email a few days ago concerning a development in peltier designs, but i still have not recieved a response.
My interest isn't in the composition of the devices, but the orientation. I believe I've found something that's been overlooked in the designs that has instant and immediate applications in everything from computer cooling to home heating.
I'd like to speak further with a someone regarding this.
I await your response. -Andrew Abbass Newdor.com Media Inc.
[Quoted text hidden]
Amib2@aol.com
Thu, Jan 5, 2006 at 7:47 PM
To: andrew.abbass@gmail.com
Send me a phone no where I could call you. I may not be able to help you a great deal but I least I would be appreciate your vision.
Ramesh Bhargava
Andrew Abbass
Thu, Jan 5, 2006 at 9:14 PM
To: "Amib2@aol.com"
Hey,
It's not much of a vision yet. I just noticed something I'd never seen done with a peltier circuit.
I'm in Labrador, which is a long distance call no matter where you are, but you can if you want.
My number is (**********.
I've got three basic scematics that I think might serve a different purpose than current peltier device configurations. -Andrew Abbass
[Quoted text hidden]
Christian Seemann
Fri, Jan 6, 2006 at 11:35 AM
To: Andrew Abbass
Dear Andrew,
Thank you for your interest in our products. I apologize for not responding to you sooner. I would appreciate the ability to speak with you more about this application. Please contact me either by phone or email at your convenience. I look forward to future correspondence with you and to the development of an opportunity.
Best regards, Christian
Christian Seemann Nanomaterials Technical Inside Sales Representative Evident Technologies Inc. 216 River Street, Suite 200 Troy, NY 12180 USA T: 518-272-6266 x2214 F:518-273-6267
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail, including attachments, is for the sole use of the individual to whom it is addressed. This message is confidential and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and is exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy this message and its attachments.
[Quoted text hidden]
Andrew Abbass
Sun, Jan 8, 2006 at 1:35 PM
To: Amib2@aol.com, cseemann@evidenttech.com, andrew.abbass@gmail.com
Hello Gents,
Thank you for sparing the time to hear me out.
I've been taking my time trying to come up with a way to describe this, but I'm not really sure of the language I'll use. So... I'll just go ahead and run with what I've got and see if any of it makes sense.
I've been looking at peltier gates and their classical uses and wondering if the current generation of peltier devices have been designed with the wrong dimensions in mind. Currently, the devices are designed like a sandwich with a hotside and a cold side.
I'm wondering about the applications of this gate when used in as a 2 dimensional lattice. I've attached a basic design that I hope will help get the idea across. I've also got in mind another version that's Y-shaped with one element transfering heat into two seperate elements to increase the surface area the heat can be spread over and radiated away from. (I call that one a 'flux capacitor', although the makers of Back to the Future may want to claim the rights to that one.)
The version shown in the attached diagram I've dubbed an 'entropy wheel'. I haven't completed a test version yet, but if if works the way I think it will, a current in one direction should produce a net decrease in heat inside the central point of the diagram, while a current flowing in the other direction should produce a net increase in heat.
If my theory holds out, then I believe I've successfully suspended the 2nd law of thermodynamics by vectorizing entropy in an organized construct. There should also be a net increase or decrease in entropy in the area surrounding the circuit depending on the direction of the current flow to preserve the 1st Law, but the energy is being dispersed over a larger surface area.
-Andrew Abbass
Thanks for your time.
figure5.JPG 39K
Andrew Abbass
Mon, Jan 9, 2006 at 6:28 PM
To: Amib2@aol.com, cseemann@evidenttech.com, andrew.abbass@gmail.com
I've got more information on these devices. And I've worked out a few theories on what might be possible with them. This is just a general overview. I've put a bit of thought into it... I'd just like some confirmation from other sources. -Andrew
Andrew Abbass
Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 12:39 PM
To: Amib2@aol.com, cseemann@evidenttech.com
Any thoughts? -Andrew Abbass
Christian Seemann
Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 6:43 PM
To: Andrew Abbass
Dear Andrew,
This sounds very interesting; I'm assuming that you are interested in the possibility of incorporating our EviDots into your device and using them as semiconductor material. From what I have read I would recommend that you use either our CdSe or PbSe EviDots as both are known for their energy transfer abilities. I have attached a white paper on the use of these EviDots in Solar Cell Energy Conversion. I believe that you will find this paper to be informative and interesting. I look forward to you thoughts.
I've been conversing with a friend of mine over the information you sent me. We were very intrigued by your approaches towards improving the efficency of solar cells using your EviDots and the Gratzel cell.
Your story reminds me of one written by Robert A. Heinlein called "Let There Be Light". I believe you can find it to read in his book "The Man Who Sold The Moon". The story concerns itself with the invention of a sunscreen solar panel and our suggestions may have some similarities.
1. Use a carbon nanotube lattice combined with a modfied peltiercircuit to actively dampen your over-excitation problem. The nanotube lattice should be able to keep the phonon vibrations at a minimum,maintaining an optimum operating temperature.
2. Rather than stacking the different elements of your Gratzel cell,why not use a prism to break the light into individual spectrums soeach nanocrystal layer is absorbing it's own frequency directly?
The characters in the aforementioned story used a similar technique to obtain their efficency levels. I believe it may offer you a similar result.
I look forwards to your response. -Andrew Abbass
Andrew Abbass
Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 3:48 PM
To: Christian Seemann , andrew.abbass@gmail.com, "Amib2@aol.com"
Hello,
It's been a while since I've heard a response from either of you gentlemen.
I've pondering the general applications of p-n semiconductor junctions and have come to a number of conclusions, but am unable to justify my results without further labratory testing.
One conclusion is that thermal diodes will never be able to attain a much higher efficency rating that currently available. It's like trying to make water flow up a waterfall. I do have another thought on their uses, as well as applications for even the low efficency levels, but would require an investor to develop the technology required to manufacture the thermal lattice i've got in mind.
Christian, your solar cells still interest me, and I'm wondering if my thoughts on quartz diffraction for your gratzel cell were of any use.
My main thoughts seem to concern the orientation of each p-n junction in relation to the wavelengths they are attempting to absorb. It seems to me that if a peltier junction would operate more efficently in 2 dimensions as a heat spreader than it currently does in traditional peltier devices, maybe there's an efficency issue to be found in solar cells for the same reason. -Andrew Abbass
Frank Wise
Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 8:46 PM
To: Andrew Abbass
I know almost nothing about the details of Peltier coolers, but I do know the main properties of QDs. If you want to run your thought by me or ask some questions I will try to help but I don't want to mismanage your expectations.
---------------------------------------------------------------- Frank Wise Department of Applied Physics 212 Clark Hall Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853 T: (607) 255-1184 F: (607) 255-7658 fwise@ccmr.cornell.edu www.aep.cornell.edu/FFR/Faculty/Wise.html ----------------------------------------------------------------
[Quoted text hidden]
Andrew Abbass
Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 4:01 PM
To: Frank Wise
Hey Frank,
I've got a question for you. When manufacturing a device using yourQDs, can you suspend it in a solution to print the dots onto asubstrate as if you were printing with ink?
Because if you can, I think I've got a manufacturing process as wellas circuit designs for you that will cut your solar cells productioncosts down, increase their efficency, as well as give you a whole new type of solid state heat engine for spot cooling of CPUs... I've even got a few ideas for LEDs, thermal diodes, the new e-ink devices, etc...
Anyways, I'm looking forwards to a response. -Andrew Abbass
Andrew Abbass
Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 12:34 PM
To: Frank Wise , strouse@chem.ucsb.edu, company@nanocrystals.com, info@evidenttech.com
Hello,
I'm attempting to contact someone regarding some new applications for your nanocrystals in the areas of heat transfer gates, solar cells and cheaper manufacturing processes. I've been trying for months now and have yet to make a solid connection.
If someone out there would care to respond, I've been working on a unified field theory based around the actions of PN junctions on the quantum level. I think I've got it. -Andrew Abbass
Frank Wise
Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 9:43 PM
To: Andrew Abbass
We do not make any real devices. QDs are synthesized in solution, typically organic solvents. We can redisperse them in other solvents, and we can deposit them as films. Dots probably could be deposited or sprayed in a pattern. I don't know if anyone has done it nor the degree of control one would have.
[Quoted text hidden]
Andrew Abbass
Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 2:47 AM
To: Frank Wise
Well, modern computer printers and produce a pretty fine dropletcontrol. As long as you could maintain a fairly decent regularity youcould deposit the dots in a 2 dimensional diode formation on a film? If it's already been printed with the necessary copper wiring you should be able to print quantum dot circuitry using two or more seperate tanks of QDs? Then you could seal the whole thing in one layer of laminate.
Just a thought. I'm interested in testing a few designs for solar cells and heat transfer devices using a new 2 dimensional pn-junction lattice instead of the traditional 3 dimensional designs. -Andrew Abbass
[Quoted text hidden]
Andrew Abbass
Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 3:32 AM
To: Frank Wise
Hello Frank,
I did some looking, and there should be a way to provide for a relatively cheap conductive ink to use with the QDs in the printing process.
I on the topic of QDs though... do you have anyone on your staff that studies quantum mechanics? I've got some material I'd like to run by them if possible. -Andrew Abbass
[Quoted text hidden]
Frank Wise
Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 11:44 AM
To: Andrew Abbass
Yes, one of the benefits of colloidal synthesis is processability.
I don't recall if we discussed it, but there are people working on potential applications of nanocrystals based on thermoelectric properties.
[Quoted text hidden]
Andrew Abbass
Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 5:03 PM
To: Frank Wise
Well, I've been putting some thought into your QD products and their current applications.
I think your biggest stumbling block is that you're still working with a passive layered design which is expensive to manufacture and doesn't provide for much in the way of efficency.
I believe you have to change your stance towards designing a 2 dimensional light processing engine instead. This will mean that your energy collection process will be occuring at 90 degrees to your absorbtion process. This has already been shown to have a beneficial effect on solar cells.
This company has already make attempts using a nanospike technique, but I believe their just working on a middle ground step between the current layered design and a much more efficent 2 dimensional design.
Think of it more like a light transistor and you're getting closer to what i'm thinking about.
There's also a heat engine I've got in mind using a 2 dimensional version of a peltier gate. I'll go into more detail on that one with my next email. -Andrew Abbass
Andrew Abbass
Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 8:24 PM
To: Christian Seemann
Hey Christian,
I found something on the net that I think would apply to our earlier discussions about using your quantum dots in gratzel cells.
Using this holographic technique, you would be able to focus certainbands of light on certain portions of the gratzel cell, maximizingyour absorbtion ratios.
If you printed your gratzel cell as a single-dimensional superlatticein a two dimension space similar to the techniques used to printprocessors, you'd have a flat, easy to manufacture solar cell that youcould print onto a substrate using your dots.
Also, I don't know if you know this yet, but my hometown of Goose Bay, Labrador just became the world's largest supplier of high grade titanium oxide for use in these cells.
Damn greedy American Science Community, sucking on the teat of the American Military.
Thankfully, I saved the high output LED designs. I'd rather they didn't end up in the US Military's hands. Between that and the heat management system I've got in mind, these two components a key ingredients to producing efficient miniaturized solid state laser systems.
Maybe I'll give it to the Chinese just to be a prick.
The Zune Scene and Slashdot are reporting that the Zune Marketplace DRM is now broken and 100% removable.
There was a real precedent set with the Weedshare incident. Two 'security upgrades', supposedly to protect the Zune Marketplace, were the official reason that SML closed it's doors. The fact that this can occur should shake the faith any might have in a digital media marketlace. Should the marketplace gain acceptance, simple software updates could trigger the next Great Depression. There has to be a mandated responsibility to the public.
Now that this protection has been broken as well, can we break through to daylight and try to examine this subject above the table and in full public view.
After half a dozen rejected submissions to Slashdot, someone else finally got the MS patent mentioned, although for different reasons than I'd have highlighted.
I have a dream... where the world finally abolishes money as a 'necessity' for life.
After World War One it was demonstrated by Germany that producing large amounts of currency without the product to back that currency up would devalue the money itself.
I realized in 2004, when introduced to the WeedShare (We'd Share? As in 'We Would Share'?) licensing system, that it might be possible to reverse the situation. Digital media represents an infinite supply of virtual products.
The Weedshare distribution system was a good start. Not only did it create the foundation for this infinite supply, it also allowed for the wealth it generated to be redistributed on a large scale to those participating in the creation and distribution of these products.
Instead of the Apple distribution model, which operates on the principle of Simultaneity (where production and consumption occur at the same time), the Weedshare model gave birth to a new kind of valued product creation. A song purchased from iTunes is an end product. It carries no additional value. A song purchased through the Weedshare system carried an additional unlimited potential value, making it a permanent addition to the product economy instead of an instant consumable.
Tomorrow Apple introduces the iPhone. It would be possible to build this kind of distribution model on this generation of hardware. You could make it operate at the click of a simple 'buy' button on a touch screen, whether you find the file while surfing online or while surfing distribution networks that spontaneously arise when in proximity to another device (As in the Microsoft Zune). The entire process can remain completely anonymous, no personal identities ever needing to be exchanged.
For an independent artist, simply having one of these devices in your pocket means a supply of income. You can carry around your own virtual store in your pocket, the only limit to the number of customers you can serve being the bandwidth of your personal device.
However, after reading through this latest patent by Microsoft, I've come to realize that there's no interest in the means for abolishing money's absolute value from the people in real power. (IE: Apple, Microsoft and Google.) They enjoy holding the reins too much and will not relinquish them without a fight.
Having finally secured a patent for money, the root of all evil, Bill Gates can rest easy with the knowledge that Microsoft is truly, and for all time, the Evil Empire.
(Edit: The actual quote is "For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." -1 Timothy 6:10 KJV -- Thanks David.)
During my conversations with Mr. Stallman, he voiced his final opinion on the matter:
DRM is evil because it prevents sharing. But DRM is also evil since it produces things that can't be used without proprietary software.(Proprietary software is evil, too.) - Richard Stallman
I don't disagree with Mr. Stallman on this point, but I do believe he's missing a bigger picture. We're talking about a purely digital means for valuing an abstract concept like art. Since the aim of this system is to give an abstract construct an tangible monetary value, and money is the root of all evil, then by necessity this form of DRM is inherently evil.
It creates a system of control that restricts access to digital culture, perpetuating a system of private and public media, despite the fact that it can create a new valued media marketplace where everyone equally trade and participate in valuing a digital culture.
The real question is, which is the lesser of the necessary evils?
Do you allow private corporations to control access to emerging forms of media through patent acquisition and lobbying for more restrictive legislation to prop up their monopolies?
Or do you design a new system to minimize the ability of these same private entities to control access to online media and culture, and provide new means for generating an online participatory culture where everyone stands to profit equally?
Prop Culture or People Culture?
Difficult questions to answer... but they will resolve themselves over time.
But I will say this... spending your days thinking about the means for developing a more stable and long-lasting digital media distribution technology does not make you popular amongst friends. Most of the people I know don't think twice about stealing music.
Hell... neither do I. I'm one of the biggest pirates I know. I steal movies, music, video games, software... But that's only because it's the easiest and fastest way to get access to it. In some cases, there is no alternative media for these materials other than through non-legal channels.
How long will it take before the Old World catches up with the New One?
Someone linked this to a forum I was blogging in a month or so back. I thought it was pretty neat, although the person who created it was dead set against any form of corporate-DRM, no matter how beneficial.
I might get a t-shirt made with this printed on it sometime in the future.
During the past week, I've tried to reach out to various members of what I'd like to refer to as the "informed opposition." Despite my earlier failures in speaking with Russell McOrmond a member of the FLOSS/FSF community, I contacted Richard Stallman to see what he thinks of the idea. For those of you who don't know who I'm talking about:
I figured that despite McOrmond'sinsistence that I'd "Drunk the DRMKoolaid", Stallman might be reasonable enough to see the benefits of what I've been talking about. During a week of back and forth emails, we debated the benefits of a Free and Publicly accessible online independent media distribution outlet. He went to great lengths to enlighten me of the differences between the labels Free Software and Open Source. Once I'd explained the basics of the concept to him, he was much more receptive to the idea than McOrmond had been. However, he had this to say:
"I look at your proposal in terms of the ethico-political philosophy of the free software movement. This is totally different from the apolitical philosophy of open source. For more explanation, see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html. The basic idea of the free software movement is that non-free software is unethical because users must have control over the software they use. I think that your proposal involves using some non-free software on the DVD. One can buy audio CDs with free software, play them with free software, and copy them with free software. A system which requires the use of non-free software would be a change for the worse." (Stallman - May 20, 2007)
He was quite adamant at this point, and I'm pretty sure we'll choose to differ on this until I can more completely outline the system I'd like to help build. While it is possible to build a DRM-Free database online that sells music in standard formats, it does nothing for physical distribution. Nor does it allow a consumer to repost their DRM-Free versions to their own website, at least not without the chance of legal action from the artist for violating their rights.
There has to be a way to generate this additional value system, which relies more on a link to a unique database. Instead of punishing or seeking legal action against consumers who're posting their purchased media online, we create a new system where their registered file is given a unique identity within the online database. This was what Weedshare started out as, but it quickly became obvious that the system was tailored more towards the restrictive aspect of media distribution than was necessary. For example, one Kelly Clarkson track was released into the Weedshare system, Since U Been Gone (club radio edit alt version) for $1.09. However, this track couldn't be played in Canada, which only demonstrated how easy it is to enforce those kinds of restrictions.
These kinds of tactics also fall under the term DRM, but are more a form of Digital Restrictions Management. The moment this file was released, I knew that Shared Media Licensing Inc. was doomed to fail. Admittedly, they were just enforcing content protection rules put forward by the Record Label who owns the rights to Kelly's music, but any form of media distribution that exists to control access based on nationality deserves to cease to exist.
However, the physical distribution aspect of the technology, as well as the revenue pass-along system they created, should not be allowed to disappear into the realm of digital artifacts.
Why am I so interested in this aspect of the system? I was trying to make use of it myself with the Weedshare system. I had loads of ideas for marketing the music, and I was pretty vocal about sharing those ideas with other ICPs, as well as trying to enlighten bands to the potential inherent in the system. However, Shared Media closed it's doors much too early for anyone to really demonstrate how to use this technology.
The idea that anyone with a computer and Internet access could start making money from their taste in music appealed to me too much. I sat to try to think of as many different ways this technology could be implemented by anyone. One idea I had was starting a web radio station that can broadcast and resell purchased music. The artists would get a much bigger cut from this system than currently exists through traditional royalty payouts, and would allow web radio to subsist off something other than advertising. (It would also eliminate the whole 'cheque is in the mail' aspect of current systems like SOCAN as transactions and payouts would be instantaneous.)
I've really got to sit down and break all this down into the bits and pieces that will be required to make this technology work. I'll see what I can put together for the next blog.
This project, while conceptually laid out, will take a long time to come to fruition at it's present rate of development. All I can do at this point is try to raise awareness of whats available.
On a sidenote, I got my name in the Montreal Mirror.
Over 100 hours of music on one DVD, available for sale for $5. Want to hear the best tunes from every Indie band in Atlantic Canada? That's a 5 DVD set. $20. Listen to every song three times for free. Over 100 hours of uninterupted music per DVD.
After you've exhausted your DVD, you can keep listening, but you've got to click 'pay later' on the song on a pop-up every time. If you choose to buy a song, the account setup is a two step breeze. Username, email address and password. The email address is for paypal, credit card or online banking deposits for purchasing music.
If you choose to buy a track, you've got two options now available for exporting your music.
1. A Complete DRM-Free mp3 (or ogg vorbis, or whatever.) 2. Your own unique DRM record.
With the first option, you can listen to the tune on anything.
With the second option, you can post your music online or burn it to a new CD or DVD and sell it yourself. And if the OS community can pry the doors open on the Zune, you could just sit on a subway and share your taste in music with the world and profit from it.
Yes, you can also share your free mp3 with your friends. And the option to strip the DRM from each file on the DVD will probably be created at some point and duly ignored. But no one in their right mind would sell a $5 DVD packed with over 500 songs without having some tiny measure of protection.
Artists recieve a full 100% of the track price for every sale directly from these DVDs.
I've given this a lot of thought over the last few years, and the DRM container I'm going to pursue is one built on the Matroska container system.
The Matroska container system is currently completely cross-platform. It supports Linux, Mac, and Windows machines, as well as PDAs and cellphones. It's also open source, so ensuring complete cross-platform compatibility would be much easier.
I've been talking to a couple different agencies about the backbone database required to maintain this consumer incentive program for this file system, which is currently the patented property of Microsoft and Shared Media Licensing Inc. Although reverse engineering this database shouldn't be too difficult, it may prove costly unless more support shows up from the Free Software community.
I've just gotten off the phone with Brad Beutlich, the Director of Business Development from SafeNet, Inc.
He informed me that a Canadian version of the solution I'm looking for would have to pay out to none of the patents that would be required to operate a system like this in America. He informed me that paying out royalties to these companies to use such a system in the States requires a fee of around 10 cents per user per year (which is pretty small), but in Canada these issues can be sidestepped completely. However, this gives a means for comparison against the system developed by Shared Media, which charged 15% of every transaction to cover their overhead costs.
Therefore, it's possible to setup a Canadian Independent Digital Publishing system without the need to bow to any sort of regulatory system. This system would allow independent Canadian artists and consumers to distribute media without lining the pockets of a private corporation. Thanks to the Internet, this coverage can be extended outwards to other artists living around the world.
Mr. Beutlich has quoted me a startup cost of $150,000 required to build the database and frontend that would keep track of these files as they move through the digital economy. He also gave me the names of two more companies, SyncCast and Entriq, who should be able to build such a system for the cost previously mentioned. He's also offered his services as a third-party in seperating the fact from the fiction in regards to the overhead costs of setting up this enterprise.
As a sidenote, I've also been in contact with Russell McOrmond, a member of the policy board of a Free/Libre Open Source Software community. When I explained the possibilities inherent in such a system, despite the broad economic and environmental benefits he said:
"Trying to convince me that DRM is good for me is like trying to convince me that DDT is good for me, or that the world is flat. We can discuss ways to accomplish your business model goals without DRM, but I don't see a point in discussing these things if you have already decided to fail by introducing DRM."
Which is flawed logic based around a knee-jerk reaction to the acronym DRM. The entire DRM concept is based around the creation of Rights systems. Instead of being purely restrictive, it's possible to consider DRM a means of drafting a Digital Constitution that can provide additional rights and freedoms. However, he went on to tell me that DRM is an inherent evil which will never be truely cross-platform largely due to opposition from the Open Source initiative itself.
"All DRM requires that you remove the encryption in order to enjoy it given there is no encrypted interface into our brains."
I found this sentence quite confusing. It doesn't get much better when placed in the context of the email. No encrypted interface into our brains? Whats that supposed to mean? What would you call a computer then? Further discussion degenerated past hope of recovery. When I insisted that DRM was Human Rights issue first and a software issue second, his response was:
"You have drunk the DRM cool-aid. That is your choice, and obviously you are closed minded to not be interested in recognizing the costs."
At which point I asked several questions in regards to the environmental benefits provided by DRM systems and the potential for providing additional Fair Use benefits to the consumer, which were disregarding as being irrelevant.
All things said and done, these conversations have led me to two conclusions:
1. The Free Software community, despite advocating fairness to the consumer, is more interested in playing mp3s and DVDs on a Linux box than fighting for the Rights of the consumer and the artist.
2. Members of the corporate community are perfectly willing to assist in initiating this kind of change. However, the cost for the time investment of the coders who build the final database, as well as the hardware infrastructure, have to be considered.
A friend of mine has just passed away. I spoke to him a little over 2 weeks ago, and he asked me to make sure his music could still be heard. I'm fulfilling his request. Here are all the songs from the 2 Watt Bulb Album, in a completely Free Format.
Update: I've re-encoded everything into mp3 format, so this music is completely universal and free now.
To elaborate, the last time I spoke to Cream was in the The Deoxyribonucleic Hyperdimension. He recognized my screen name as I was in there campaigning for signatures for my petition. He asked me to make sure his music was free after the Weedshare system closed its doors. These were the last words spoken between us.
I don't know anyone else in the world quite like Sheldon. He was unique. And he had a unique point of view... one that was rarely appreciated. I hope you found the answers you were looking for, Sheldon.
This post is in commemoration of the Weedshare network.
April 20th is the 'unoffical' but world recognized Pot Smokers Day. And although the Weedshare network was 'officially' in no way a marijuana reference, anyone can see an obvious relationship between music and drugs in the name.
I've been in contact with several DRM databasing companies that I've been directed to by Intertrust, attempting to discover the background cost of setting up a media database similar to the original Weed network. Since the database and purchasing system is entirely automated, there's no reason why the cost of the DRM should be anywhere near 15% of every sale. Pennies per transaction would still amount to a significant amount of money for any company managing a Universal DRM Media database. More than enough to pay for the evolution of the network infrastructure itself.
I'm not personally interested in being an ICP in the Shared Media network anymore, it's caused me nothing but stress, frustration and a whole lot of debt. However, under the Original Sharing Incentive program, anyone willing to purchase a file 3 times can see the same Early Adopter distribution benefit available to ICPs. So while there is still a need for the ICP arrangement between the media licenser and the artist, it provides no real lasting benefit, so it wouldn't matter to me either way.
Provided the system was kept in it's previous form, anyone with an email address could earn money reviewing and marketing music and then withdraw it through a paypal registered bank account. Instead of the Record Label model where the real profit is accrued by one major corporation, this system acts directly to support the consumer and the artist, thereby acting to redistribute wealth on a large scale.
I can do it.
You can do it.
Anyone can do it.
Just not right now...
So for anyone who'd invested a lot of time and money in this distribution format, like myself, the system has basically crashed and there's no faith left in the digital media marketplace. Why would I want to invest time and money if someone can just shut the whole thing down on a whim? If anything, the WM-DRM beta version should have been left open indefinitely, with the new DRM versions being phased into the system instead of directly replacing the format. But... corporate whims being what they are, this isn't what was done.
So roll a big blunt today and think about a possible future thats being taken away from the world.
I had a stack of Newdor CDs with the new interface that I wanted to bring around to demo at various locations. I quickly discovered a few stores that were interested in carrying them, although mostly as a novelty item. I also started thinking about various ways to distribute these CDs, and ways the average consumer could make a living doing the same kind of distribution.
Most of this came to an end with the closure of the Weedshare program. Upon reviewing a lot of the work I've been doing these past few years, I realized that I'm not really interested in supporting this kind of restricted corporate model, even if the founders originally had good intentions. I'm looking for more of an independent solution, one capable of providing a maximized benefit for the consumer and the artist, with the corporation existing only to provide for a level playing field for everyone over the Internet.
DRM - Digital Rights, Records and Restrictions Management
The problem with DRM is that most people, including the 'Open Source' and 'Free Software' organizations, see it as a means of control. This bias has prevented these same organizations from developing open-source solutions for DRM that would allow independent artists and media outlets to use DRM as a potential business model.
What is not realized is that DRM has more potential to benefit the Independent Media industry than the older media organizations. Through use of technologies like 'file wrapping', it's possible to deliver content through the Web or CD and recieve a benefit for both the artists and the consumers.
Building a DRM solution that caters to the artist and the consumer, allowing both to share in the revenue stream, eliminates much of the issues regarding corporate greed in relation to DRM. I'll try to outline how such a model could flow.
Shareware Music - DRM as a delivery system
Imagine being able to purchase, for just $2, a preview CD or DVD packed with hundreds or thousands of songs from independent artists around the globe. Tracks can all be previewed an unlimited number of times, but will request the user to purchase a song to remove the 'nag screen', as is normally used in the Shareware Software model.
Once purchased, a unique file is created, licensed to the individual consumer for general use. The consumer then has the ability to create a DRM-Free file (mp3) for their own personal use on a variety of devices, without worries of compatibility. They are simply asked not to share the DRM-Free version over p2p programs. In this manner, this solution is no different than the recent steps taken by EMI in regards to Apple's iTunes, yet now consumers can share the unique file they've purchased.
Purchased DRM'd files under this type of wrapper/incentive system protect themselves through a more ethical means than traditional DRM. Although consumers have the option of sharing a DRM-Free version of their purchased file with their friends, this is where the line is drawn between stealing and fair use. Unlike current corporate DRM models, the consumer is only stealing from themselves and the artists, should they choose to share the DRM-free version of their media. If they've already paid for the track, their unique file is now registered to them and serves as a means for recouping the costs of purchasing. Although the concept of stealing from the 'corporations' is not seen as morally wrong, stealing directly from the artist and fellow consumers removes several of the grey areas from the equation.
DRM as the New Newspaper
Newspapers and magazines have long relied on advertising to pay for their production. Although paper and ink are relatively inexpensive, and we've long since had access to printing presses that can produce these items in mass quantity, their production cost still far out weighs their retail cost. Publishers offset these costs by providing advertising space which helps pay for the production before it's hit the market. Using wrapper-style DRM, CDs and DVDs gain new life as a cheaper and more efficent publishing medium than paper print media.
Say, for example, someone wanted to produce an Arts & Culture review magazine in Montreal. CDs can carry 700 MBs of data, which amounts to a whole years worth of newspaper articles. However, with DRM these CDs can now carry music and video for sale as well. A well-designed Media Magazine on a CD could feature music from local artists, offer information concerning local hot spots in the music scene, as well as thousands of stories, poems and artwork from local artists. Profits from advertising them become the icing on the cake instead of a means for covering production costs.
Overhead Value
A Music Magazine CD, retailing for $2, if produced in volume has a production cost of below $1. In this case, each sale pays for it's own production, unlike print media. Advertising revenue from ads placed within the CD tack on an additional profit margin. And finally, if the CD is even half-filled with DRM'd media for preview and purchase, it can have an additional potential value of upwards of $50-$100, depending on how artists price their tracks. Although the production costs were paid for with the inital purchase, both artists and the publisher can benefit from this new revenue model.
Thus it can be shown that using DRM to benefit independent media instead of the large corporate interests, it's possible to develop a whole new branch of multimedia publishing where the consumer, the small-scale publisher and the artist can all benefit from the new publishing formats.
In starting this blog, I've made contact with a number of people in the digital media industry.
One of these contacts pointed me in the direction of Intertrust. A California company that holds the original DRM patents. This organization is owned by a conglomerate of larger companies, including Philips, Sony, Samsung and I know I'm forgetting some.
Intertrust, if anyone, would have the ability to create an DRM-distribution model for independent artists where the databasing company only takes pennies per transaction instead of a hefty 15%.
I've approached this company and outlined the distribution model potential, the benefits for the fan and the artists, and it's effects on physical distribution. I've also suggested test marketing the social networking aspect of future hardware through creation of virtual devices inside Linden Labs virtual world.
The first step towards establishing a new digital media marketplace will be discovering which DRM solution will allow for this form of revenue sharing to work. So... to begin I'm looking at non-Microsoft based DRM solutions that appear to be more cross-platform.
I'll be posting more as more information comes back to me.
Viodentia, FairUseWM and the End of the PlaysForSure format.
In the Summer of 2006, years after it was released for commercial use by interested parties, the PlaysForSure format hit it's first major 'snag'. The release of a piece of software called FairUseWM, which allowed a consumer to strip the DRM from a piece of media, was developed. This software completely bypassed the security inherent in the DRM system, allowing consumers to convert and play these files across platform.
FairUseWM's creator, an anonymous hacker named Viodentia, has been sought by Microsoft for 'crippling' the security of their format.
However, there may be more here than meets the eye. The program itself requires a certain degree of technical expertise. Most FAQs regarding its use are somewhat cryptic and difficult to understand for the average consumer. One might ask, "Whats the point, then? Why freak out?" If anything, this kind of software add-on would have been a boon for the MS format, making purchased files playable on any platform or portable device, including the iPod.
This isn't how MS viewed the situation. Instead, they launched an investigation into their own departments, claiming that the knowledge of how to strip these DRM tags would require an inside knowledge into the inner workings of the PlaysForSure format. Viodentia responded by claiming he used nothing more than publicly available static libraries to crack the DRM.
Microsoft has since dropped their case against Viodentia. When placed in context with the way Microsoft has treated some of it's PlaysForSure partners, including Shared Media, one begins to question the way they're doing things.
Following the FairUseWM debacle, Microsoft released a new proprietary format for their Zune player. Instead of continuing to support the PlaysForSure format on this player, Microsoft kept this piece of technology seperate from the PFS companies in hopes of offering direct competition with the iPod and iTunes model. They also introduced a bit of technology with their format... the ability to wirelessly share files.
This system of sharing media was a direct copy of the Shared Media Licensing Inc. business model, but with one quite important difference. With Shared Media, consumers became the real 'middlemen' between the artists and the fans, and were able to financially benefit from trading music and other forms of media. In choosing to support the Zune format over the PlaysForSure format, they eliminated this consumer revenue stream in favor of their own corporate bottom line.
Double Overkill - Microsoft uses Windows Media Player 11 and Vista to kill Weed
Following the release of the Zune, Microsoft quietly dropped support for the PlaysForSure format in favor of a new DRM-based format, yet to be released, named PlayReady. While the PlaysForSure model still works on older MS software platforms, there were two 'bugs' present in the updated system that made it impossible to continue using Shared Media's superdistribution network.
Windows Media Player 11 came first. While rolling out this update, Microsoft added and additional 'security feature' that registered if a file had been tampered with or not. This 'bug', as it's been called, effectively castrated SML's distribution model. SML registers files to individual accounts, adding a small unique bit of tracking data to each file as it sells to ensure customer payment when they trade files. However, the updated version of Windows Media Player now picks up this tracking data a 'tampering' and refused to play the purchased file. This 'bug' in no way effects the Zune distribution model.
If that wasn't enough, the purchasing system was further crippled during the Vista rollout. Updates to the ActiveX security system eliminated the end users ability purchase files altogether, even when using a seperate media player.
In response to Microsoft's crippling updates, Shared Media Licensing Inc. closed it's doors as of April 9th, 2007, disabling the purchasing and relicensing abilities of all it's consumers.
But why? The PlaysForSure format works fine on older computers not running Vista. And the Vista rollout is seen by most as premature. I myself have a Vista computer, and while it does look pretty, it's buggy as all Hell. It hogs memory like crazy and I can't even watch a movie without my videocard hiccuping every few minutes. If anything, Shared Media had grounds for pursuing an Anti-competition lawsuit against Microsoft for closing out their format in favor of their own technology. Yet they chose not to do so.
Who was Shared Media Licensing Inc.?
I signed on with this corporation in May of 2004. I thought the model was a step towards a fair and equal system where artists and fans alike could profit from creative works. I was so entranced by the system, I began studying it's model of product creation as a possible foundation for the next dot.com bubble.
If digital media, a product of pure creativity, could be given a absolute value on the world market, it would open the door for an infinite volume of valued products to fill a new Digital Media Marketplace and Stockmarket.
However, that majority of the people who worked with Shared Media never recieved more than an email or fax in regards to who this company was and what they stood for. I've exchanged emails back and forth with the President and CEO of SML, John Beezer, yet I have no idea what he even looks like, nor what he stands for as an individual.
This additional barrier between the company and the people supporting the corporation led to eventual disagreements. Suggestions regarding specific means for implementing the DRM often went unheeded or unnoticed. New applications for consumers wishing to use their technology or become ICPs began to take longer and longer. I've been in communication with one individual who had an application for access take six months to process, only to have the entire project close down less than a month after her application was processed.
So what happened here? A DRM is released that allows for cheaper distribution on CD, ensures a fair percentage for independent artists, eliminates the need for large record labels, and provides an incentive to the fans for not cracking and continuing to trade licensed files. Even Macs can dual-boot to Windows now, so these files could run on any modern machine (pre-Vista) and most of the PCs released in the last 10 years.
If MS themselves had incorporated the DRM stripping utility into their programs, there wouldn't be a computer or portable device on the planet that wouldn't have been able to play these files. We arrive at two conclusions from the aforementioned data: Either someone in these two corporations is very Greedy... or very Stupid. Or perhaps a mixture of both.
Maximumizing Greed - Corporate Sabotage
Everyone in the software industry knows that software often goes through major revisions before the code is ready for general use by the public. While the software issues surrounding the PlaysForSure model had already seen millions of dollars invested, the business model that would control the flow of value had not.
It's surprising that Microsoft and Apple, of all companies, are permitted to profit from the demise of the Recording Industry. These two entities are directly responsible for destroying an entire corporate business model, and despite being the biggest supporters of piracy in history, are also being looked at to fix the problem they've created at a net profit for themselves.
Shared Media Inc., while founded on interesting ideals, still demanded a 15% upfront fee for licensing files. After all someone has to maintain the database. But with a technology this disruptive, that's like laying claim to 15% of the Future of Media, which is a step towards a corporate monopoly. So in the end, none of these model sufficed to create a system that was truly just and existed to benefit everyone equally.
What did the Consumer Lose?
The average music consumer is the person who suffers the most under these corporate manipulations. For the past 4 years, a new technology has been available that has a number of benefits, but has been under-exploited.
1. Access to an online media marketplace where anyone can buy, sell, make or share music. 2. A means for re-introducing 'bulk indie music' to Music Stores, thereby saving smaller francises. 3. An equal right to earn a living buying, selling and reviewing music.
Diminishing Equal Rights in favor of Middle Management
With the closure of Shared Media Licensing Inc., as of this date, the World's first Music Stockmarket has crashed in value. The licenses, legitimately paid for, no longer allow consumers to gain access to the independent music they've already purchased.
Despite the fact that the vast majority of the computerized world will not be upgrading to Windows Vista in the near future, Shared Media has thrown in the towel and closed the doors on everyone else.
These kinds of technologies should not be permitted to remain as playthings for corporate hands. ICANN was setup as a non-profit organization to prevent these kinds of imbalances from occuring. Too much power over the economy rests in the hands of those who're only interested in lining their own pockets.
The key words in this next blog right now are RIGHTS (as in Rights and Freedoms. Declarations. Constitutions. Charters. Bills.) and MANAGEMENT (as in Managers, Marketers, Distributors, Middlemen, etc.).
Apple Lies to Sell You Ipods
Though the big four music companies require that all their music sold online be protected with DRMs, these same music companies continue to sell billions of CDs a year which contain completely unprotected music. That’s right! No DRM system was ever developed for the CD, so all the music distributed on CDs can be easily uploaded to the Internet, then (illegally) downloaded and played on any computer or player. (Apple's Thoughts on Music, Feb 6, 2007)
And here we have the first untruth being fed out to the general public. "No DRM system was ever developed for the CD." This is false and hasn't been true for 4 years. But thanks to the complexity of the internet, it's quiet easy for information of this kind of be lost. However, I'm pretty sure Steve Jobs of all people would have know of the Weedshare network. It is Internet dependent. It also requires a PC made during the last 10 years and also run on Macs that boot Windows. But it most assuredly runs on CD. And CDs are cheap to make. So are DVDs.
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. (Apple's Thoughts on Music, Feb 6, 2007)
Now lets look at Apple's iPod sales since they first released the iPod in 2001. They are currently closing in if not passing the 100 million sales mark. Estimating a low value of $300 per iPod, that means they're currently topping $30 billion in sales on these luxury music machines. Yet at the same time, this is only a fraction of the income from a purely digital marketplace, which sold under 2 billion songs in 2006. Which means that the rise of file-sharing in regards to their distribution model now makes all currently existing digital media effectively worthless or valueless except for it's abstract value as art, which remains priceless. Instead, the hardware is where the real value is now. Effectively, Apple and the Major Labels are more interested in selling you iPods than music. (Labels hit back at Apple, now want share of iPod revenues)
With Apple and record labels like EMI jumping off the DRM bandwagon, it appears that the DRM Revolution is over. Like the dot.com bubble of the 1990s, the DRM bubble seems to have burst. But appearances can be decieving... this is as far from the truth as possible. What has really happened is that DRM's biggest supporters have just realized they will not be the prime benefactors of this new technology. Instead of supporting the corporate bottom line, DRM technology is more geared to providing easier access for independent artists who, thanks to the advent of the Internet, no longer need these large media conglomerates to gain a foothold with new audiences. Against all appearances, the DRM Revolution has just begun. We are only witnessing the beta testing of the new system.
DRM was initially devised as a means for distributing copyrighted material over the Internet while protecting the content against piracy. The Major Record Labels and Movie Studios lauded DRM as the solution they were waiting for. To finally plug the digital hole the Computer Age had inadvertently opened in their distribution channels. They expected DRM to solve all their problems, yet in the end it will prove to be their undoing.
How Major Record Labels Killed your Local Music Store
The major labels wanted to kill the single. Instead they killed the album. The association wanted to kill Napster. Instead it killed the compact disc. And today it's not just record stores that are in trouble, but the labels themselves, now belatedly embracing the Internet revolution without having quite figured out how to make it pay.
Therein lies the crux of the problem. Major Record Labels were founded on their ability to produce high volumes of physical media. Vinyl records, 8-tracks, tapes, CDs... these all represent a significant investment when produced in volume.
However, the digital age has said quite clearly that these older physical means for distribution are completely unnecessary. At this point in time, all the Majors exist to provide is marketing money. Money that can take a mediocre artist and make them famous, even if their music is actually quite terrible. While this kind of 'Mediocre Music' model has existed since the birth of the Recording Industry, the rise of digital distribution should finally end it.
Honesty in Advertising
Digital distribution has the ability to offer customers a new experience in music and media purchasing. Free previews of anything they wish to purchase. In days gone by, a fan might purchase an entire album of music only to discover that the one track they'd heard on the radio was the only good one. This system of defrauding the consumer is no longer necessary to ensure a profitable music industry.
Since digital distribution formats are no longer tied to physical media, we see a two-fold revolution over the old formats. First off, fans can pick and choose the music and media they wish to purchase individually. Bands that turn out to be 'one-hit wonders' can still make some money from their single, but won't be forcing consumers to shell out $20 for one song. The second benefit from the DRM revolution is that CDs and other forms of compact physical media can find new life.
How to Save your local Music Store
CD Audio, while enjoyed by consumers as the simplest means for enjoying their purchased (or stolen) music, is an ancient format. As the Sony Rootkit DRM debacle demonstrated, it's much too old to even attempt to save as a prime distribution channel. And mp3s, while another a much enjoyed technology for the consumer, can not save the CD either. Even if it's possible to pack 150 mp3s onto one CD, no one will pay $150 for 1 CD. And if more reasonably priced, the artist suffers. Thankfully, DRM can provide a middle ground that can save the physical media format.
Using files with DRM tags, similar to the Weedshare format, CDs can now be massive compilations, featuring entire archives of music for a fraction of the price of a traditional Audio CD. The album itself can retail for a mere $2 (or lower) to cover physical manufacturing costs, dropping the price to the consumer to a mere %10 of the previous standard. This new album format allows a consumer to preview a much larger volume of music and select the individual tracks they'd like to purchase. Instead of an absolute value of $20, the CD now has a potential value of over $150 (based on 150 tracks valued at $1 a piece). This is a potential value limited on a per customer basis. Should these CDs be passed around the other friends, the potential value of individual CDs skyrockets.
What about the Music Stores?
Music stores have traditionally been repositories for older formats of media as well as featuring new artists. Using these new distribution formats, these stores can now stock over 10 times as many artists in the same volume of space. And where a customer would previously purchase 1 album for $20, the can now purchase 10 full compilation albums for preview at the same price. This also leaves more money in the consumers pocket while inside the music store, meaning this money can be spent on older formats such as CD, tape or vinyl that they may wish to purchase.
In using DRM formats similar to the now disappearing Weedshare format, the music store sees an additional benefit. They can become record labels themselves. They can compile their own selections of music to feature alongside the mass produced compilation albums. And, provided the incentive program remains in place, they can see an additional benefit from the digital sales as well.
The Environmental Impact
Finally, one must examine the environmental impact of establishing a new physical media distribution model. CD Audio represents an inefficent distribution model. Compiling 10 times as many bands onto 1 CD means that you cut your petroleum waste by 90%. And as the medium scales upwards to DVD, HD-DVD and BluRay and beyond, these environmental savings increase exponentially.
A Clean Sweep
Thus, while dealing one crushing blow to the Major Record labels in favor of independent artists, saving the local Music Store, DRM also has the potential to help save the environment by providing for an exponential decrease in petroleum waste.
