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.
Hi,It's official. Unfortunately, Weed will suspend operations on April 9th. We are announcing this in advance to ICPs, and we will announce it publicly early next week.
As everyone on this list knows, there are two serious problems with the system, one of which is caused by Windows Vista and the other by Windows Media Player 11. The problem with Media Player 11 is the worst of the two and we have been unable to find a solution.
Essentially, Media Player 11 looks at the tracking data that Weed adds to purchased files as evidence of file tampering and refuses to play the files. We add this data to a section of the file that is designed to be tamper-resistant and in the past we've done it in a way that does not appear to Media Player as tampering. With Media Player 11, the security features have been improved and it now detects any and all changes. We have not been able to find a way around this.
After April 9th:
- Weed licensing dialogs will be disabled. An explanatory message will appear in the dialogs, but purchases and free plays will be blocked. - New accounts and new deposits to Weed accounts will be prevented, but withdrawals will still be processed. - Most of the rest of weedshare.com will be disabled and a message explaining the situation will appear on the main page
I use the term "suspend operations" because if it becomes possible for Weed to resume operations, we will restore the system. Regardless, we will fulfill all withdrawal requests from users and artists.
Purchased Weed files will remain playable indefinitely. However, it will no longer be possible to re-license files on new PCs. Therefore, we recommend burning your purchased Weed files to CD. We plan to return using a more open media format - shared files should be playable on all computer platforms: PC's, Macs, portable devices, and cellphones. We were already working on plans to upgrade to a format more suitable for superdistribution when the current problems surfaced. We do not know how long it will take or exactly what form it will take, but we believe it's possible to come back with a better system.
We will keep the Yahoo groups running indefinitely in order to maintain the connections we've made with each other.
We apologize for the disappointing end to the Weed service. We're grateful to everyone who has participated and contributed to the Weedshare community over the last four years. If you have any questions or comments of general interest, please send them to this list. Otherwise, we can be reached via mailto:minfo@weedshare.com or support@weedshare.com.
My response to this post was to inquire how much money they were being paid to close down the program and what it represents. They're going to offer the ability to trade music anyways, but only right now it looks to be only at a profit for the Artist, the licensing agent and the databasing company.
My take on this was an attempted monopoly of the patent and technology.
If all the PlaysForSure companies had access to this kind of tagging information from the beginning, they would have all started on a level playing field. Instead, Microsoft let only one company share in the patent and technology while it was still pending.
Now that the patent process is all but complete, they can reabsorb Shared Media and no one will be the wiser when this form of digital marketplace disappears from the face of the Earth forever.
The digital age has been considered a Pandora's Box by many, letting loose a variety of evils upon the world. However, it has also offered Hope for the Future. Since the creation of the Internet and the dawn of the Information Age, a new means of communication has erupted into mainstream culture. Where older technologies such as cellular phones, televisions and radios allowed people to connect with each other on a larger scale, these connections still operated on either a 1-to-1 basis or a 1-to-All format. The Internet has since changed all that. New technologies, new means of connecting with each other, new means of communicating ideas and collaberating on these ideas rapidly altered the landscape of the digital realm and created a 'level playing field' for any wishing to champion a cause, put forth their art, or merely express their ideas.
One of the pinnacle achievements of this age became the creation of a relatively unknown distribution network known as 'Weedshare'. Through this distribution system, artists gained access to digital technologies that allowed them to distribute their audio and visual art to a world-wide audience and recieve a maximum benefit from their intellectual property. Fans also benefitted from this system in that they suddenly gained access to a new form of legalized file sharing. Instead of restricting access to digital media, fans who legally purchased music and videos through this system were granted a new ability: They could now legally share these files at a profit for themselves.
In one fell swoop, all the old walls regarding the Fair Use of media had fallen. A simple independent media outlet had suddenly brought a new message into the world. To quote fellow Canadian, Marshall McLuhan:
"The medium is the message. This is merely to say that the personal and social consequences of any medium - that is, of any extension of ourselves - result from the new scale that is introduced into our affairs by each extension of ourselves, or by any new technology."
What would be the message of this new technology, this new medium for communication combined with a media that allowed for the distribution of art and culture between individuals and artists? The answer is simple.
Everyone is equal.
Man need no longer be judged by the color of his skin, his religious convictions, or any other qualifier that sets us apart and makes us different. On the Internet, everyone is already equal and the only difference is one of pure mind and opinion. Under this new system for the distribution of culture, the only divisor that exists between individuals is their taste in art. Surprisingly, this one simple corporate entity succeeded in fulfilling the unitary dream set forth in the American Declaration of Independence over 230 years ago:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Through the development of a simple distribution model that decentralized the power of the Pop Culture Record Labels, a new system of 'People Culture' had emerged that allowed anyone of any race or creed to publish their artwork to a world-wide audience, and anyone in the world could legally distribute their artwork for them without fear of repercussions. Freedom of Speech had found a new home and a new form of value. Yet despite the global possibilities now available, this format remained relatively unknown. Aside from a handful of content providers around the world, scattered to the winds and attempting to raise awareness of this new system on their own, the message had never been truly recieved by the much broader mass of mankind. Only time and energy would suffice to see this system evolve into a form that would see broader acceptance to a world-wide audience.
Corporate Roadblocks
This was not to be the case. Entrenched corporate interests that current control the access to the media are not as interested in seeing everyone on a 'level playing field.' At that point, the old corporations would become redundant and the need for their existence would fade. Technology represents intellectual property and as such the current system of patents and copyrighting does more to uphold the old mentality of centralized corporate governance and power. Instead of Equality for All being shouted from the rooftops, this system has been marginalized and now virtually eliminated through the actions of the corporate agencies it was based upon. Microsoft, the corporation that originally opened the Pandora's Box that is known as 'Free Music' is directly responsible for the disappearance of this new form of equality.
During the 1990s, an Antitrust suit was brought against Microsoft for infringing on the rights of companies like Netscape, a web-browser development company, for manipulating their operating system into favoring MS' Internet Explorer over other 3rd-party browsing software, denying them the right to Fair Use of the platform. For a while, the suit appeared to be on the verge of dividing Microsoft into a series of smaller companies that would each be responsible for the development of a single facet of their corporate vision, preventing the development of a full-blown technological monopoly. This division never took place. Microsoft has since grown to be one of the world's largest and most profitable corporations. The first of the MegaCorporations that initially provided a secure foundation for the development of the Weedshare distribution system through use of their PlaysForSure DRM.
In 2007, this all changed. In rolling out their new Vista operating system, Microsoft effectively eliminated the entire Weedshare distribution model. Through use of several 'bugs' in the system, they effectively ruled out the ability of Weedshare consumers to purchase and trade music over the Internet. The technology that made the Weedshare system possible has not dissappeared, however. Instead it has found a new home in Microsoft's Zune distribution model, originally a direct copy of the Weedshare business model, but without the incentive to fans for sharing the music. In one fell swoop, Microsoft's Zune distribution model had announced a new message to the world.
Everyone is somewhat Equal... Under Microsoft.
This new message, announced to the World in finality with the closure of the Weedshare distribution network as of April 9th, 2007, is in direct violation of the clauses that follow the opening statements of the Declaration of Independence:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
As the closure of the Weedshare distribution system removes a system of equality from the world marketplace, it is the aim of this blog to outline the injustices taking place and how they directly contravene the long established goals set forth in the American Declaration of Independence. The arrogance of the corporate state has grown to such a level that we are verging on a the birth of a Digital Dark Age, where instead of providing for a world of Equality and Freedom, manipulations of business and patent law have given rise to a world founded on Absolute Control of the rights of the individual to freely express their viewpoint to the widest possible audience and to profit from the fruits of their intellectual achievements.
Free Music - Valueless or Priceless?
At the core of this concept lies some of the deepest philisophical questions of the Digital Age. Should music, art and culture be subjected to corporate systems of control? Or, should the agencies in charge of managing our digital future and history instead be founded on new principles? The Freedom of Information Act, properly applied to a corporate model, could still fulfill this dream. A not-for-profit corporation could be setup to manage and maintain the databases required for such a system to exist. This new global corporation, completely open-book, with all it's information, transactions and payouts completely open to public scrutiny, would more than be able to provide for the technological backbone that would maintain this system at a minimalistic cost. Instead of one corporation rising above all others, one corporation would be providing a solid foundation for the level playing field everyone can stand on.
Another question, rarely asked in the frevor of people championing the concept of 'FREE MUSIC', is whether or not Human Culture is Valueless or Priceless. The mp3 revolution gave rise to valueless music that contributes nothing to the world economy. The RIAA, long upheld as an example of the evils of corporate extremes, is right in one aspect of their argument. If 1 million people download a song for free, nothing is contributed to the world economy. If those same people each paid 1 dollar a piece for the art they've recieved, the economy benefits from the product creation and movement of funds. However, free mp3s mean that the art is never given value and does not contribute any additional value to the world marketplace. Music and culture deserve to be valued. It's impact on the human condition is priceless not worthless, and providing for a system of values that contributes to the overall human condition through the new digital economy is the most important product of the Information Age.
The final aim of this blog, is to raise awareness of not what is... but what could be. The possibilities inherent in the system of communications we have created for ourselves are endless.
The Digital Age should not be an age of Darkness and Control... it should be an Age of Wonder.
