Blogcritics Author: trenchier

Announcement: Short-content feeds

Phillip Winn — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT

Sunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding.

Is Firefox really better than IE ?

trenchier — Fri, 29 Apr 2005 12:43:38 EDT

First of all, I'd like to point out that I use Firefox exclusively. It's great software. It's small and its fast. And it's open source.In this post, I chose to use 'better' rather than 'secure' or 'faster' because this is my opinion. This is not a test on security or whatever. This is my two cents worth. The Mozilla Foundation was founded in 1998. Since then, the Mozilla Suite has just reached version 1.8.x and Firefox has reached a glacial 1.0.3. needless to say, deveopment has been slow.The question whether open source software is more secure is debatable. I wouldn't say Firefox is more secure. It is more standards compliant, but hardly anymore secure than IE. For example, while Firefox does not support vbscript or activeX, it does support extensions. A lot of people install extensions from unknown sites. Also, most of the extensions are not signed. Hypothetically, this means that if you install extensions regardless of the source, you could get screwed. Besides, IE has allowed control over vbscript and activeX for a while through Internet Zones. Its a pity people don't/haven't use(d) them (Win XP SP2 removes this problem alltogether). IE also features much better cookie management.Firefox's security is an illision. The only reason, it feels secure, is because it doesn't have enough market share to warrant significant spyware development. Given time, I'm sure Firefox will have just as many problems as IE.People have always been quick to blame Microsoft for not rolling out patches on time. I'm sure the Firefox users are going to face the same problem sooner or later, with the increasing popularity of the 'fox.Note 1 : I wrote this post a while ago. While I still like Firefox, I've noticed that it seems to have memory leaks. One window, with no other tabs open uses about 44MB RAM and 86MB virtual memory. Since then I've been using Opera more and more. Note 2 : As always, this post is mirrored on my blog at http://trenchier2.blogspot.com/2005/03/is-firefox-really-better-than-ie.html

Am I and other (bloggers) violating copyright laws ?

trenchier — Thu, 21 Apr 2005 21:51:04 EDT

I rarely if ever look at the copyrights on the sources I quote. Recently, I researched the issue more and figured that with a few exceptions, I am indeed guilty of violating the copyrights of several entities. What's more, I doubt I'm alone. I'd guess most bloggers are guilty too. For example, the Reuters copyright states "Reuters content is the intellectual property of Reuters Limited. Any copying, republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Reuters, the Reuters Logo and the Sphere Logo are registered trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world. For additional information on other Reuters Services please visit the Reuters public web site - http://www.reuters.com."The New York Times has a less restrictive but largely similar copyright, which statesCopyright NoticeCopyright 2005 The New York Times CompanyAll rights reserved.All materials contained on this site are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of The New York Times Company. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.However, you may download material from The New York Times on the Web (one machine readable copy and one print copy per page) for your personal, noncommercial use only.For further information, see Section Two of the Subscriber Agreement.To contact other Times departments, see the Site Help area of our Member Center.Here's the link to their < href="http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html"copyright notice. Now, I personally don't ask for permission before blatanly stealing off a website. I don't think a lot of the others do either.The US Code TITLE 17 >CHAPTER 1 > Sec. 107 (the US copyright laws) statesIn determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. Discussion: (1) works okay for my blog, but what about blogs like boingboing.net or fark.com ? Those are most certainly commercial.(2) seems rather vague. (3) Most blogs quote the entire article, so I guess this would not be a violation.(4) If a blog quotes the entire article, I doubt anyone would visit the original source. For example, if I qouted an article in its entirety from NYT, would the reader go to the same article on NYT? I don't think so. This could result in a potential (however misicule) loss of revenue for NYT. I don't know enough about US copyright laws to pass any judgement on the restrictiveness of US copyright laws. I guess it'd be nice if more websites used some kind of a Creative Commons License. I do understand however that most websites sites with restrictive copyrights spend (a lot) of money in the business of gathering news.This post is on my blog, too.

The RIAA , I2 and DRM : Why Music Should Be Free

trenchier — Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:38:03 EDT

Recently, the RIAA chose to sue about 400 students. Apparenlty they're now trying to crack down on piracy on I2. I can understand their position (RIAA). I don't agree with it, but I can see it from their point of view. They see I2 as yet another domain to worry about. If I was the RIAA, I'd be worried about a network that could transmit a DVD in 30 seconds too. But the RIAA are approaching the problem wrong. They want to outlaw I2 entirely. That's hardly possible, because they don't control I2. I2 is a high speed academic network. They would be be alienating a lot of customers ( read students), by outlawing I2. However, the RIAA's biggest problem is also probably its biggest saving grace. The student's are easy to sue. They're easily intimidated. Once caught, they'd do probably anything to avoid a payout and possible jail time.I2 is however just a part of the problem. What is the problem ? Piracy, declining music sales (to whatever extent) etc. Is there a way to stop this ? Frankly, No. At least I don't think so.The Current : As Andrew Orlowski said, music has always been free. Today is music free ? I think not. Copied music is not legal and thus not free. The RIAA has gone to great extents to avoid piracy (I say avoid because they cannot prevent piracy). They have promoted DRM like no technology before. However, this attitude raises a question. What happens when the copyright expires ? Will I have to pay the RIAA for eternity just to enjoy Vivaldi's Spring. Besides, the DRM models will always fail. I cannot imagine that music encoded with the state of the art in DRM today will remain DRM'ed ten years form now. I find that quite improbable.The Future : The RIAA should be more worried about the future that it is about the present. The digital distribution model is important for the RIAA. There however is no way to embrace this model without DRM. But they have a problem with this too.DRM willl never be secure. It isn't now. It won't be in the future. Besides there is nothing to pique public interest as much as the unobtainable. DRMed music is gonna be available for 'free' sooner rather than later** on the p2p networks.The 'only' way to permanently lock down music is to lock it down at the source. At the computer/OS itself. Will the computer manufacturers comply. Hell No. It's a dog eat dog world. Royal Philips Electronics openly said they would not comply with the whims and fancies of the music and film industry. They also went on to say that even if other manufacturers did make equipment to prevent recording, they would not. And Philips is a huge.I don't think the RIAA would want to piss them off. In any case, who would buy a computer that prevented recording. I'd bet my last penny that we won't see any such computers in my lifetime.As Orlowski correctly says, the only way for the RIAA to go right now is to embrace p2p downloads not oppose them.They should tax the consumers instead. He suggests a $5 broadband tax a month. I'd suggest a tiered approach. Maybe $2 a month for dialup, $5 for broadband and $10 for lans. They could make universities charge $20 per student per month in exchange for amnesty. I think this fair, because the Napster model allows unlimited downloads for $14 or so a month.This tax model will piss off a lot of people. But will it work? Possibly. Because it allows me to download what I want from p2p networks and not have to worry about being bankrupted. It'll be cheaper for the RIAA too, to have a couple laws passed instead of paying their lawyers and having the EFF breathing down their neck.Note 1 : Andrew Orlowski's keynote address is here http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/09/23/orlowski_interactive_keynote/Note 2 : This post is on my blog at http://trenchier2.blogspot.com/2005/04/riaa-i2-and-drm-why-music-should-be.html

Obscure Mp3 Player Names

trenchier — Tue, 19 Apr 2005 22:34:51 EDT

Am I the only one to recognize this ? Why do most MP3 players have such obscure names ?I don't like the iPod. I really don't. But one still has to acknowledge the ingenuity of their marketing people. The iPods are just named 1G, 2G, 3G, and now the 4G ( 'G' is for generation..for the uninitated ). The screen-less avatar of the iPod is just the ' Shuffle ' .No 'SLA 5' or some such thing.No. Its just 'Shuffle'. I presume they're gonna call their next generation Shuffle 2G and so on. In contrast, look at Creative. They have the Creative Nomad Jukebox, Creative Nomad Zen, Creative Nomad Zen USB 2.0, Creative Nomad Zen NX, Creative Nomad Zen Xtra. They could all potentially compete with the iPod. How one earth is one suppposed to know which is the newest (whithout knowing the rhetoric ). Philips is even worse. They call their iPod competitor the HDD120 and the Shuffle competitor HDD060. I dont have a freakin clue as to what the numbers stand for. I'm sure they have a meaning, but how on earth am I the consumer supposed to know the difference ? What about iRiver ? Well, their most expensive player, is the H340, which is 40 GB.The 20 GB version in that is the H320. I guess the last two digits stand for the capacity. Maybe 'H' stands for 'hot'? Their Shuffle-esque players are called the H10.Maybe I'm bitching, but I do have a valid point. Hell, even if Creative /Philips/iRiver/everyone else made an MP3 player that had a 100 GB capacity, was the size of a credit card, cost ten bucks and could do everything , including mow your lawn, it would'nt gonna help them one bit if they named it HDD007, would it?Note1 : I've only named the major brands.They're all the same.Note2 : The post is on my blog at http://trenchier2.blogspot.com/2005/02/obscure-mp3-player-names.html

thepiratebay.org to RIAA/MPAA etc : GO SCREW YOURSELF

trenchier — Mon, 18 Apr 2005 18:58:24 EDT

The guys at thepiratebay.org have publicized the email they've received from various legal agencies. They've also posted their rather humorous responses. They're Swedes and they're crazy. But I still have to admire their guts. I doubt they'll be online much longer. Below is the email (and their response) to them from Dreamworks.From: anakata To: KMWLAW@flash.net Subject: Re: Unauthorized Use of DreamWorks SKG PropertiesOn Mon, 23 Aug 2004 KMWLAW@flash.net wrote:> Dennis L. Wilson, Esq. > KEATS McFARLAND & WILSON, LLP > 9720 Wilshire Blvd., Penthouse Suite > Beverly Hills, CA 90212 > Tel: (310) 248-3830 > Fax: (310) 860-0363 > > > August 23, 2004 > > > VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL > AND U.S. MAIL > > ThePirateBay.org > Box 1206 > Stockholm 11479 > SWEDEN > > tracker-40-aa-5f-03-412675c8@prq.to > > Re: Unauthorized Use of DreamWorks SKG Properties > http://www.thepiratebay.org > > To Whom It May Concern: > > This letter is being written to you on behalf of our > client, DreamWorks SKG (hereinafter ^�DreamWorks^�). > DreamWorks is the exclusive owner of all copyright, > trademark and other intellectual property rights in > and to the ^�Shrek 2^� motion picture. No one is > authorized to copy, reproduce, distribute, or > otherwise use the ^�Shrek 2^� motion picture without > the express written permission of DreamWorks. [...] > As you may be aware, Internet Service Providers can > be held liable if they do not respond to claims of > infringement pursuant to the requirements of the > Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). In > accordance with the DMCA, we request your assistance > in the removal of infringements of the ^�Shrek 2^� > motion picture from this web site and any other sites > for which you act as an Internet Service Provider. > We further declare under penalty of perjury that we > are authorized to act on behalf of DreamWorks and > that the information in this letter is accurate. > Please contact me immediately to discuss this matter > further.As you may or may not be aware, Sweden is not a state in the United States of America. Sweden is a country in northern Europe. Unless you figured it out by now, US law does not apply here. For your information, no Swedish law is being violated.Please be assured that any further contact with us, regardless of medium, will result in a) a suit being filed for harassment b) a formal complaint lodged with the bar of your legal counsel, for sending frivolous legal threats.It is the opinion of us and our lawyers that you are fucking morons, and that you should please go sodomize yourself with retractable batons.Please also note that your e-mail and letter will be published in full on http://www.thepiratebay.org.Go f*** yourself.Polite as usual, anakata ...below is an excerpt from the Sega cease and desist letters From: anakata To: law@iprights.com Subject: Re: URGENT - FOOTBALL MANAGER TRADE MARK INFRINGEMENTOn Mon, 1 Nov 2004 law@iprights.com wrote:> Dear Sirs > > > > Further to your response below, you should be aware that your misuse of the FOOTBALL MANAGER trade mark in relation to your services constitutes an infringement in the UK, irrespective of Swedish law and whether or not you are based in Sweden, not least because your �^�^�thepiratebay.org�^�^� website is targeting users in the UK (as evidenced by the fact that a substantial number of UK users have already used your services to download this game in the UK). This gives a cause of action and jurisdiction to sue you in the UK. Our client would then proceed to enforce the UK judgement against you in Sweden. > > > > In the circumstances, we repeat our request once more that you immediately remove the link complained of and confirm that there will be no further misuse of the FOOTBALL MANAGER trade mark in relation to your services. > > > > We look forward to hearing from you. > > > > Yours faithfully. > > > > Willoughby & Partners > > The Isis Building, 193 Marsh Wall, Thames Quay, London, E14 9SG, United Kingdom > > Tel: +44 (0)207 345 8888 Direct Fax: +44 (0)207 345 4555 law@iprights.com > > www.iprights.com > > > > IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege and/or protected by copyright. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. We recommend you carry out your own virus checks.Dear Prokaryote(s),Please sue me in Japan instead. I've always wanted to visit Tokyo. Also, I'm running out of toilet paper, so please send lots of legal documents to our ISP - preferably printed on soft paper. No, but seriously. That's simply not how international law enforcement works. Using the same logic, a country where web sites are forbidden could press charges against you for having one.That's a rather interesting argument.Apparently, Swedish law prevents access to IP addresses. The only time access is given to an IP address , is when the person with the IP address can be sent to jail. The authorities cannot determine whether the person can be sent to jail, unless they monitor the IP address.Swedish law is good for P2P. As usual, the post is also on my blog at http://trenchier2.blogspot.com/2005/03/thepiratbayorg-to-riaampaa-etc-go.htmlNote : As of this post, thepiratbay.org website is *still* online

RIAA Bullshit ?

trenchier — Mon, 18 Apr 2005 00:21:40 EDT

"Global music sales declined 22 per cent over five years to 2003 in countries rapidly adopting high-speed broadband internet connections."This was in the Sunday Morning Herald a couple days ago. These statistics make no sense whatsoever. Why? Well, first of all, I very much doubt the RIAA pulls in a lot of money from 'developing countries'.Secondly, most of the downloading occurs in the developed countries. So, they should be interested in the statistics for those countries. Why don't they mention the statistics there? Because the sales are rising in the US . Yesterday, the RIAA releasd a report that doemstic music sales increased for the first time in five years. That means, since 1999, music sales did not incraese year to year. However, music sales did increase from 1999 to 2000. I couldn't find figures for other years.Back to the first statement..why is the RIAA worried about sales in developing countries?I hdon't have a clue.I can't imagine the developing countries make up more that 10% of RIAA's sales (I couldn't find figures).Sales increased till 2000. Sales dipped from 2001-2003 because of the economy. Sales increased in 04 because of improving economy.Sales will probably continue to improve. Various research firms have at different periodss reported that downloading is up/down. However, music sales seem to always be down. In 2002, researches at Harvard and UNC conducted a study on the effect of downloading on music sales. Their conclusion? Nothing.Nada.Zero.More recent research also shows that there is no conclusive evidence that there is any relationship between p2p downloads and music sales.I think I've established that the RIAA propaganda is baseless. My advice to the RIAA: quit worrying about downloads and put the money in the bank instead of paying your lawyers. Besides, your lawsuits are working. At least on me.Another thought : If as the RIAA says, p2p downloads hurt music sales, then last year (2004), p2p downloads should have decreased. Well they increased. So, if p2p downloads increased and sales increased, how can there be any correlation between p2p and music sales ?Note 1 : Sunday Morning Herald requires compulsory registration. Login/password is available on bugmenot.com.Note 2 : This post is mirrored on my blog. Note 3 : Prince is one of the (few) artists who have spoken out against the record labels.