logictortured.com Blog

Public conversations are not private

A bunch of people are complaining that lawyers are able to access and use “private” facebook content in lawsuits.

The people who are complaining have a complete misunderstanding of what private means. If you tell someone, even one person, something private, it’s no longer private. Unless the person you told has some sort of legal duty to keep it private.

So if you talk to your physician (or wife, or lawyer, etc.) about something private, it’s against the law for the physician to tell anyone else about it. Accordingly, a court cannot order the physician to tell anyone else about it.

However, if you tell your physician something private in room full of people who overheard you, you’ve waived the privilege. To put it simply: the second you tell someone without privilege something private, it’s no longer private.

As I noted before, facebook is full of “people who want to be able to reveal all — but don’t want for anyone else to violate their ‘privacy.’”

To the facebook generation: If you want your privacy, simply stop divulging it. If you want to divulge every detail of your life with your friends, accept the consequences of your actions.

Share this:

Microsoft’s Bing does not read minds

Microsoft has a new advertisement about its search engine Bing. The ad has two guys shopping. One guy asks the other guy whether they should get salsa. The other guy starts talking about salsa dancing.

The point of the ad is that language is ambiguous. And due to that ambiguity, internet searches can be filled with irrelevant results.

The selling point of the ad is that somehow Bing cuts through the ambiguity inherent in language and somehow “knows” what you’re really searching for.

My hypothesis is that Microsoft has developed mind reading technology. To test that hypothesis I’ve decided to do three searches of the word “salsa.” During the first search I’ll think about how delicious salsa is to eat. During the second search I’ll think about how sexy salsa dancers are. And during the last search I’ll think about pink elephants. Here we go….

Ok, I’m back. I did the three searches and got the exact same results each time.

As you can see, Bing did not read my mind. Despite the fact that I was thinking about salsa to eat and sexy salsa dancers, I got results about bicycles. What’s up with that?! What does bicycles have to do with eating salsa or sexy salsa dancers?! And not once did I get any results about a pink elephant eating salsa or a sexy pink salsa dancing elephant.

Share this:

Happiness is…

Running a network cable from your first story computer room, down into the basement, up an old chimney into the attic, then down through a wall into the kids’ second story playroom, and having it work after only three attempts to connect the CAT5e end.

Share this:

Too Smart for Me

Apparently you can solve any Rubik’s Cube™ in no more than 20 moves. I wish I was smart enough to understand the mathematics behind this.

Share this:

When Tech turns Disney

Ed Felten has summed up exactly what’s wrong with the iPad in just a few paragraphs. Brilliant!

To me, the iPad is Disneyland.

I like Disneyland. It’s clean, safe, and efficient. There are lots of entertaining things to do. Kids can drive cars; adults can wear goofy hats with impunity. There’s a parade every afternoon, and an underground medical center in case you get sick.

All of this is possible because of central planning. Every restaurant and store on Disneyland’s Main Street is approved in advance by Disney. Every employee is vetted by Disney. Disneyland wouldn’t be Disneyland without central planning….

There’s a reason the restaurants in Disneyland are bland and stodgy. It’s not just that centralized decision processes like Disney’s have trouble coping with creative, nimble, and edgy ideas. It’s also that customers know who’s in charge, so any bad dining experience will be blamed on Disney, making Disney wary of culinary innovation. In Disneyland the trains run on time, but they take you to a station just like the one you left.

I like living in a place where anybody can open a restaurant or store. I like living in a place where anybody can open a bookstore and sell whatever books they want. Here in New Jersey, the trains don’t always run on time, but they take you to lots of interesting places.

To me, even if the iPad was an open platform, exactly how are men supposed to carry it? Does Steve Jobs really want us all carrying satchels? Fat old guys like me don’t look good as metasexuals.

Share this:

Will Google become a TV network?

After watching NBC screw up yet another Olympics, refusing to show the events in real time, making it difficult to watch online, etc, it occurred to me in passing that Google could “broadcast” the Olympics on YouTube. Every single event could be streamed live. Or you could watch them when it’s convenient for you. Everyone would be happy.

The more I think about it, the more I think it’s a fantastic idea. In fact, I think eventually Google will turn YouTube into a broadcasting juggernaut.

The first problem to overcome is getting YouTube in your living room. However, that problem is already solved. There are plenty of devices in your living room which can already stream YouTube. PS3, Xbox 360, and the Wii, just to name a few. And just in case you cannot access YouTube on your living room TV, Google is building their own set-top box to make it easy.

Second, Google certainly has the technological backbone to handle the audience the Olympics would demand. If it could handle the Olympics, it’d have no problem handling a normal night’s programing.

And I have to admit that YouTube’s 720 and 1080 HD video options look pretty damn good. Not as good as blu-ray discs, of course, but way better than SD cable or satellite. While cable and satellite providers are holding onto HD programing with an iron fist and making viewers pay extra for the privilege of watching it, YouTube has the technology to put all their programing in HD.

And I’m sure some of you are thinking that YouTube uses a lot of bandwidth that costs Google a ton of money. Think again, Google has so much fiber optic cable around the country that Google essentially pays nothing for YouTube’s bandwidth.

A third problem is programing. I’m sure plenty of you are thinking, will the big four broadcasters let their shows air on YouTube? To me the question is irrelevant and incredible short-sighted.

The vast majority of programs only survive three years tops. Sure, CBS, ABC, NBC, and Fox might have tons of cools shows right now. But will those same shows be cool in three years? Probably not.

To get next years’ cool shows Google would not have to pay anyone. Google would simply let the producers put their own shows up and take a cut of the advertising.

Instead of the big four’s approach of throwing out a hand full of shows each season and seeing what sticks, Google could throw out hundreds of new shows every day.

And while the networks are constantly accused of pulling shows prematurely, before they can build up audiences, Google could let any show run its course until the producers get tired of doing it.

And let’s face it, niche programing is in. Back in the old days of television, it was about getting the largest audience possible. Shows were dumbed down so every idiot could watch. Now it’s about getting specific and narrow demographics for advertisers to target.

It simply will not matter if Google does not have even one huge hit. Because it will have hundreds of niche hits that advertisers will kill to be involved in.

And YouTube eliminates the old networks’ problem with DVRs. Remember, they live and die by ratings. Thus, the networks want you everyone to watch at the same time. All Google cares about is views. It does not matter when someone views, just that he does.

So let’s recap, chances are that YouTube is already available in your living room. YouTube has the infrastructure in place to make it possible. And there are thousands of creative people chomping at the bit to get their shows in our living room, so Google has the programming.

The question is not really whether this will happen, but when.

Share this:

The Copyright Industry and the Three Stooges

Right now the copyright industry, music, books, movies, etc., are cruising along in sinking ships. Some ships are sinking faster than others. The movie industry has record ticket sales this year while the music industry is shadow of its former self.

The “problem” of the internet as a means to cheaply distribute copyrighted material has been around since the early 90s. It’s been about two decades later and still very little action has been taken.

In watching the inaction take place I can’t help but think of the Three Stooges. Remember the Three Stooges bit where they are in a sinking row boat? They get the idea to drill another hole to let the water drain out. It was pretty funny. But it’s not that funny when it’s taken seriously and is used as a part of a business plan.

Music Industry’s Sinking Ship:

The music industry finally allowed Apple to open its iTunes music service in April 28, 2003. Windows users were not allowed in the store until October of 2003. iTunes has been very successful. But it was too late to stop piracy. Much too late.

People were sharing music online since the mid 90s. Back then they used IRC and Usenet. Those services were hard to use and were avoided by most people because of the difficulty.

The original Napster solved the difficulty problem when it was released in 1999. Suddenly, it was easy for everyone to share music.

In the four years between Napster and iTunes, people were used to downloading DRM free music for no money. If iTunes had been released in 1998, before the floodgates of Napster had opened, the music industry would be in a much different situation right now. (But let’s not forget that iTunes really only works with iPods. Those millions of people who use non-Apple MP3 players could not take advantage of iTunes and were forced to use P2P services because there were no legitimate services available to meet their needs.)

But I don’t blame Napster. I blame the music industry’s refusal to take action in providing a service people were willing to use.

Book Publisher’s Sinking Ship:

A similar thing is happening with eBooks. There are publishers and authors who are refusing to release eBooks out of fear of piracy. Think about that for a second. They refuse to give customers a legitimate eBook option because they’re afraid someone else might choose to download it from a widely available and free illegitimate source.

People were sharing music for a decade prior to iTunes opening. The delay in releasing legitimate music did not delay or impede pirated music. It caused and facilitated pirated music. When consumers were faced with no legitimate option, they used Napster.

When a Kindle owner looks for his favorite book in eBook form and is unable to find it on Amazon, where is he or she going to look? The Pirate Bay? Most likely, or somewhere else.

How does not providing a legitimate eBook for customers stop piracy? How could anyone think something so completely ludicrous. I actually think this refusal to sell legitimate eBooks is more asinine than drilling a second hole in a sinking boat.

Movie Industry’s Sinking Ship:

A similar problem is happening with the movie industry. DVD sales are sinking and blu-ray sales are not taking off. It’s partially the fault of the economy, but it’s also a simple fact that the vast majority of people have no need to own a copy of a movie.

Sure you might be a huge fan of the Godfather and maybe you watch it every month. But who really needs to see Paul Blart: Mall Cop more than once? The vast majority of movies are at best, one time events. The vast majority of people who enjoy movies do not obsess over them to the point of watching and re-watching them. The entire business model of people buying hard copies of movies was nothing more than an anomaly.

You might remember an advertisement from several years ago, I think it was for a company called Quest, about a little motel offering every movie ever made. That service is technically possible. Who would not love a service where they could instantly rent any movie or any TV show ever made for a couple of bucks. A few bucks for high def.

But the movie industry is paralyzed. There’s the old DVD/Blu-ray division that is trying to prop up that dead model. There are theater owners worried about their business being marginalized. There’s actors, producers, music people, and the studios all fighting for their cut. And everyone is demanding too much of a cut.

While the movie industry spins its wheels, you can currently get nearly any TV show or movie via bittorrent in about an hour or two. Heck, you can get the entire series of any TV show you want in about 6 hours.

By the time the movie industry finally gets its act together and provides the service I described above at a fair price, will it be too late? The longer they wait, the lower the “fair” price will be. If this service had been introduced back in the early 00s when downloading a movie was unheard of, they probably could have charged a 10 buck rental rate for the privilege of getting it instantly without leaving your house. But now that people are used to getting movies they want without any DRM restrictions, they’d only be willing to pay less. My guess is that $5-6 for a HD rental and $3 for a SD rental.

But of course someone within the industry would complain that the price would cut into its DVD sales and would interfere with its broadcast licensing deals. And they’d be afraid of piracy if they put their movies online. And they’d be afraid of marginalizing some other profit area. So even if this system is ever opened, I highly doubt the prices charged will be considered reasonable.

Cause and Effect:

Of course the copyright industries will bitch about piracy. They’ll blame the immoral pirates and downloaders. They’ll claim we need new draconian laws to prop up their business models. They’ll eventually turn copyright laws in to our next drug war. Already people are being ordered to pay millions of dollars merely because they have 24 dollars worth of music on their computers. (For those not familiar with the Jammie Thomas case, there was no evidence presented at trial that she shared any music with anyone unauthorized to have it.)

But the problem was not caused by piracy. Piracy was caused by the copyright industries’ refusal to provide what customers wanted. In the 90s, music fans wanted to buy MP3s. The music industry did not let them. In the 2000s movie fans wants wanted portable movies, or to stream movies from their PCs to their TVs, or to watch movies on their laptops without discs, etc. But the movie industry refused to offer such services. As we speak book authors and publishers are forcing eBook fans to go to the Pirate Bay because the authors and publishers refuse to provide any legitimate option.

I’ll say it again, pirates did not cause piracy. The internet did not cause piracy. Piracy was and is caused by the lack of any legitimate, reasonably priced, and easy to use alternatives. It’s their fault, not ours. But we’ll probably end up paying for it. I only wish this comedy was a joke.

Share this:

Apple vs. Psystar: Our first sale rights are safe

There are some who believe that reselling our legitimately bought CDs, games, and DVDs is somehow stealing and should be made illegal. However, the right of first sale gives us the right to sell and resell what we’ve bought without any interference from the original owner.

The company Psystar has been selling Mac clones. Apple does not like the clone market and sues any company that tries it. In part Psystar argued that they have a right to buy Apple’s OSX software and resell it to customers. The Court disagreed and completely rejected Psystar’s first sale defense.

Initially, I was troubled that our first sale rights were being eroded. However, the good news is that the Apple vs. Psystar case really has nothing to do with the right of first sale. From the opinion:

Even assuming arguendo that Psystar was the owner of a copy, the first-sale defense fails here. Section 109 provides immunity only when copies are “lawfully made.” The copies at issue here were not lawfully manufactured with the authorization of the copyright owner. As stated, Psystar made an unauthorized copy of Mac OS X from a Mac mini that was placed onto an “imaging station” and then used a “master copy” to make many more unauthorized copies that were installed on individual Psystar computers. The first-sale defense does not apply to those unauthorized copies.

In other words, Psystar was not buying and then reselling Apple’s OSX software. It was reselling an unauthorized copy. Psystar was likely buying licenses for each copy. However, the first sale doctrine does not apply to the right to resell and transfer copyright licenses, it only pertains to the physical copy. (Whether it applies to the MP3s bought on a site such on Amazon has not yet been decided.)

Share this: