hard deadlines

Last week I blogged about the brouhaha over Steve Jobs' comments on DRM; now copyfightin' Cory Doctorow, (late of the EFF, visiting professor at USC) weighs in via a Salon essay, with his usual vigor and style:

While it's true that most of us haven't loaded our 10,000-song iPods with $9,900 worth of iTunes songs, it doesn't follow that the switching cost for even casual iTunes customers is negligible. If you'd bought just one iTunes track every month since the launch in 2003, you'd have rung up $82 in lock-in music. Throw in a couple of $9.99 albums and maybe an audiobook or two and you can easily find yourself in $150 down the lock-in hole.

That's $150 you kiss goodbye if you buy a sexy little Creative Labs Zen or a weird little no-name from the wildly imaginative entrepreneurs of Malaysia. Not only won't your iTunes Store music play on those devices, it's illegal to try to get it to play on those devices. — Via Salon

The one spot where Cory seems to be skating a bit close to open water is his assertion that "Once you put music on your iPod, you can't get it off again without Apple's software." That is so close to true that it's hard to argue with, but my inner nerd has to point out that it is theoretically possible to mount an iPod under Linux (google "ipod mount drive linux"). As a practical matter, savvy iPod users also use third-party apps to move music off iPods, though I wouldn't know a thing about that, since it is apparently against the law, as would be using a tool like Jack to route the copy-protected AAC output of an iTunes track into a DRM-free mp3. Like Cory sez, DRM is a mug's game.

---

Update: A reader suggested the freeware Floola for iPod management, and it rocks. Intuitive GUI file operations, and it runs on Mac, Win, and linux. (Thanks, Andrew K, via Jhodi!)

On Feb 6, Apple CEO Steve Jobs posted an open letter, "Thoughts on Music" that argued persuasively against Digital Rights Management (DRM). Last week, the CEO of Macrovision (those folks who brought you VHS copy protection, amongst other wonderful things) responded to Jobs, essentially offering to take over the job of adding zero-value-add crippleware to digital music.

The folks at Daring Fireball have a wonderful translation from corporate-speak to English of the Macrovision screed. A sample:

Similarly, consumers who want to consume content on only a single device can pay less than those who want to use it across all of their entertainment areas -- vacation homes, cars, different devices and remotely. Abandoning DRM now will unnecessarily doom all consumers to a "one size fits all" situation that will increase costs for many of them.

Translation:
Abandoning DRM will prevent us from forcing our customers to keep paying us over and over again for the same movies and songs they’ve already paid for.

Well maintained and reasonably implemented DRM will increase the electronic distribution of content, not decrease it.

Translation:
I am high as a kite.

Visit Daring Fireball for the whole thing, it's way tasty.

Shakespeare's Sister is one of best political blogs on the Net. When one of their bloggers signed on to the Edwards campaign, I thought that was a sign that the blogosphere was finally being accepted as the voice of the true majority.

Not so fast, bodhisattva. The religious right and their echo chamber worked the MSM up into a fine, frothy furor over an alleged bias they attributed to one of the Edwards bloggers. While Edwards did his best to stand up for them, it was probably inevitable that a resignation would be forthcoming.

That doesn't mean we give up. Many in the blogosphere (including our colleague at Newport9 who, as always, captures the essence and backstory elegantly) are publicly standing with Shakes, and I'm proud to join in: I am Spartacus.

Read more from Kathryn Cramer.com, Driftglass, and Scott Rosenberg.

Update: Rep. Kennedy's press secretary called me, and we had a great, clarifying discussion. See here. I'm not going to edit this post, because I think that would be intellectually dishonest. But I will point out that it was based on very incomplete information, and that Rep. Kennedy's staff took my concerns quite seriously and answered them most effectively.

No response yet from Patrick Kennedy's press secretary to my question about whether his newfound opposition to Iraq signals a repudiation of his vote authorizing Bush's war. He was the only member of the Rhode Island delegation to support the war, I might add — remember that Lincoln Chafee was the sole Republican in the Senate to oppose this madness. Linc: Principles that rise above party. Kennedy: Apparently, not so much.

Since I'm still home sick, I had plenty of time to look for evidence that Kennedy, as he said in his bulk e-mail newsletter, has "long argued" for change in Iraq. Maybe I'm just not a good researcher, or my fever has affected my web skills, but here's all I could find, from Kennedy's own web site at House.gov. At the beginning of the Iraq war:

"I also believe we must support our nation's leaders and the leaders of our military. Now is a time for unity, not divisiveness." — March, 2003

Oh, and here's a good one.
"Like most people around the world, I watched today’s historic events in Baghdad with great interest. I was heartened to see many Iraqi citizens welcoming our troops into their capital city with open arms." — April 9, 2003

"Open arms." Oh, yeah, that has a nostalgic ring to it.

In 2005, as public opinion begins to shift on the war, Congressman Kennedy begins to cautiously stand up for his Democratic colleague Jack Murtha. Why do I say "cautiously?" Look at how Kennedy hedges his bets, just in case Murtha is too far to the left:

"We may not all agree with his conclusions, but we would all benefit from considering his wisdom and asking how we best correct the Bush Administration’s failures." — November, 2005

Last December, with the election confirming a national mandate, and the Iraq Study Group to provide air cover, suddenly the Congressman has grown...uh...a conscience.

"Today’s release of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group Report can be the catalyst for a change of course in Iraq. The Bush Administration’s strategy in Iraq is failing, President Bush needs to acknowledge the reality there, and change strategy.

As I have long believed, the primary mission of U.S. troops in Iraq must transition from combat to training and support, which would pave the way for a draw-down of U.S. forces to begin. " — December, 2006

Wow. This is something he has "long believed," eh?

Which brings us to this week. He quotes his uncle, the great Robert F. Kennedy, slamming Johnson on Vietnam, then says:

"I will not stand by, the American people will not stand by, and allow the President to repeat that mistake." — February, 2007

I guess it was quoting Bobby that got up my nose. He was one of my heroes as a child, and I remember watching his funeral train on a 5" B&W TV, devastated. The awful lost possibilities of 1968 are not something to be cynically deployed by someone with the kind of poll-driven public record illustrated above.

We all make mistakes. All I'm asking from Representative Kennedy is that he square his initial vote authorizing force with his newfound opposition. Heck, even Bobby was ambivalent on Vietnam before he came down against it. But there is just no excuse for a runaround on this -- nobody in either his RI or DC offices can say what his position is. That's just unacceptable.

And I'm going to keep saying that, for the next two years, if necessary.

Sources
Couldn't find any public statement by Kennedy indicating a rethinking of his authorization vote in these sources
Patrick Kennedy newsroom at House.gov
Project Vote Smart
New York Times
Washington Post