The Zune is 100% Broken

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.

Slashdotted

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.

Microsoft Patents Process To "Unpirate" Music

This means pretty much every techie in the world should be wondering what Microsoft has done.

I Have A Dream...

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.

The Evil Empire

Microsoft has sucessfully patented a sharable digital media economy that would allow the average consumer to buy and sell digital media.

United States Patent 20070136608: Off-line economies for digital media

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.)

Necessary Evil

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?

Fan Art

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.

Philosophizing about DRM and Free Software

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:

In September 1983, he launched the GNU Project to create a free Unix-like operating system, and has been the project's lead architect and organizer. With the launch of the GNU project he started the free software movement, and in October 1985 set up the Free Software Foundation. He co-founded the League for Programming Freedom. Stallman pioneered the concept of copyleft and is the main author of several copyleft licenses including the GNU General Public License, the most widely used free software license.
Since the mid-1990s, Stallman has spent most of his time advocating for free software, as well as campaigning against both software patents and what he sees as excessive extension of copyright laws. (From his Wikipedia article.)

I figured that despite McOrmond's insistence that I'd "Drunk the DRM Koolaid", 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.