Quentin Fottrell brings up a subject I’d never thought about: What happens to the digital versions of songs, books and movies that you purchased? Unlike CDs, paper books and DVDs or VHS tapes, you apparently can’t just pass them on to your children, or anyone else, when you die.
Someone who owned 10,000 hardcover books and the same number of vinyl records could bequeath them to descendants, but legal experts say passing on iTunes and Kindle libraries would be much more complicated.
And one’s heirs stand to lose huge sums of money. “I find it hard to imagine a situation where a family would be OK with losing a collection of 10,000 books and songs,” says Evan Carroll, co-author of “Your Digital Afterlife.” “Legally dividing one account among several heirs would also be extremely difficult.” …
Apple and Amazon.com grant “nontransferable” rights to use content, so if you buy the complete works of the Beatles on iTunes, you cannot give the “White Album” to your son and “Abbey Road” to your daughter.
According to Amazon’s terms of use, “You do not acquire any ownership rights in the software or music content.” Apple limits the use of digital files to Apple devices used by the account holder.
“That account is an asset and something of value,” says Deirdre R. Wheatley-Liss, an estate-planning attorney at Fein, Such, Kahn & Shepard in Parsippany, N.J.
But can it be passed on to one’s heirs?
Most digital content exists in a legal black hole. “The law is light years away from catching up with the types of assets we have in the 21st Century,” says Wheatley-Liss. In recent years, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Indiana, Oklahoma and Idaho passed laws to allow executors and relatives access to email and social networking accounts of those who’ve died, but the regulations don’t cover digital files purchased.
Hadn’t given that a thought. Sounds like something that should be fixed in the law.
93 comments
1 ping
Skip to comment form ↓
Alverant
September 6, 2012 at 12:45 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It’s not just going to be with content, what about online games where people have invested time and money? Do they own anything acquired in game and what happens when the servers go down?
Modusoperandi
September 6, 2012 at 12:49 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
You don’t own digital content. You have a license to it. (Remarkably, this means copyright is currently, if memory serves, “author’s life + 70 years”, but your license ceases, at most, when you do)
Reginald Selkirk
September 6, 2012 at 12:50 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Just wait until next week, when I announce that I hold the patent on the ‘1‘ bit and sue Apple, Google, and every other digital tech company for infringement.
Gregory in Seattle
September 6, 2012 at 12:54 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
This is the principle reason why I avoid buying digital media, and why my e-reader is gathering dust. If I read a book I like, I may want to share it with someone else; if I didn’t like it, I can sell it to a used book store or give it away to a charity rummage sale. Same with music CDs or video DVDs. Same with software (I don’t give a rat’s tail what the licensing agreement says: I have a physical copy, and I am legally allowed to give it away or resell it if I please.)
dingojack
September 6, 2012 at 12:57 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
And in related news from the wonderful world of Estates and Will(is)…
Dingo
Tabby Lavalamp
September 6, 2012 at 12:58 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It sounds like instead of buying something, you’re instead renting it long term for a one time fee.
One of the issues this doesn’t address is one of my issues with the digital format in the first place – will you even be able to easily access it in 20 years? I can easily play a vinyl album from 1956, but a video game from 1996 is much more difficult. I have legally acquired mp3s that I can’t listen to anymore because a change in hard drive resulted in a loss of the digital licenses and the site I got them from no longer exists in the same way it at the time, and much of the music is no longer available there. I have floppy disks filled with data that are interesting remnants of a time long past
As nicely portable as technology is making everything, I’ll gladly take most of it in a format I can still use in 20 years any day.
Michael Heath
September 6, 2012 at 1:00 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Gregory in Seattle,
There are several people I know in meat-world who have both e-readers and share prodigiously. I’m not sure how they do it, but I know this is popular in their circle.
kagerato
September 6, 2012 at 1:11 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
This is indeed a rather serious problem, but the cause is pretty easily tracked to corporate greed. The companies selling you these products could, if they cared, sell unlimited time transferable licenses to the content. Most of them don’t (in fact, they often explicitly contravene any such possibility) because they’re more interested in having you (and your children, friends, et cetera) repeatedly purchase the same product over and over again. It’s a lot less work for more profit than actually producing something new.
As to what should be done about it? Congress ought to amend Title 17 to make copyright sensible by default. Something like a non-transferable license ought to be illegal. Any time limitations on licenses should have to be advertised as such in large text at the point of sale. Fair use ought to be an automatic exemption from lawsuits, instead of an affirmative defense to be brought at civil trial. Perhaps most obviously, the length of the copyright term needs to be sane. (Twenty-four years was the maximum originally, and that seems more than reasonable even today.)
eric
September 6, 2012 at 1:12 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Michael – they could just be swapping units. Also, some libraries now offer e-books, where you can download the books for free but they disappear from your unit after a couple of weeks. So your friends may be “sharing” books by recommending what the other should download from a library.
Bronze Dog
September 6, 2012 at 1:13 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
A while back I read the next Playstation console was rumored to be downloadable content only. It really rubbed my brother the wrong way, since he likes being able to go to used game stores, both for buying and trade-in value. (Those stores also tend to give you an idea of how often people trade back crappy games and how desperate the owners are to get rid of that shelf space.) Downloadable games also take up the consoles’ limited hard drive space, and you can’t transfer them onto a backup drive if you want to clear up room. You have to delete the game and hope the server remembers you still have the right to re-download. That will become an issue when the PSN decides to stop supporting the old systems. If we both like a downloadable game, we both have to get copies, since we can’t just hand over the disk when the other wants a turn.
Of course, I think I’ve heard similar rumors for the next XBox, so we can have bipartisan groaning, there.
Tim DeLaney
September 6, 2012 at 1:14 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Apple’s position is unenforceable, and should therefore have no legal effect. Do they imagine that the buyer is forbidden to play a song where others can hear it? Show a movie where family members can view it?
Simply asserting a claim doesn’t make it so. If Apple actually intended a song to be strictly for the original purchaser, then it is incumbent upon them to demonstrate a method by which that claim could be enforced. Retinal scan? Fingerprint? Voiceprint? All these are theoretically possible, and could be implemented at minimal cost.
I argue that if such measures are not employed, that the product sold is the property of the current holder.
Alverant
September 6, 2012 at 1:17 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It really depends on what kind of copyright is being used. I purchased songs as downloads from musicians with Creative Commons license. As I understand it, it’s a good faith gesture trusting me not to give them out freely without giving credit to the IP owner. In terms of music, the artists I listen to want to attract more listeners so don’t mind if some of their stuff gets out. More listeners means more potential customers and if there are a few leeches who don’t pay, well that can’t be helped provided most people are decent enough to throw a few bucks their way for their work. I think it works great on a small scale.
unbound
September 6, 2012 at 1:19 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The key for much of this is the account. Need to have legally transferable rights of moving the account to heirs (not being able to split it up is a different issue that is much more complicated). Outside of a few purchases here and there, I always buy CDs, DVDs, and books so that I can always put my hands back on it regardless of the latest technology / provider.
In regards to this problem, it is exactly the situation that Amazon, Apple, et al wanted to create. They don’t want you to transfer these items to someone else…they explicitly want you (or your heirs) to pay over and over again. This war has been brewing for decades with music…just becoming a bit more of a mainstream news item now.
dingojack
September 6, 2012 at 1:21 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
INAL but – If you bought the product thinking you owned it then that’s the contract you understood you made with the vendor and that’s the contract that stands.
It’s the vendor’s responsibility to explain the contract they want to enforce before the purchaser buys the product, otherwise it’s in violation of the Trades’ Practices Act (or your local equivalent).
Dingo
lofgren
September 6, 2012 at 1:30 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
That makes no sense. Record players are harder to get than computers.
Many if not most games can be downloaded on the internet for free. I have over 300 games from the mid-90′s and I could play any of them without even leaving my chair, on Mac or PC. I can play Sega games and SNES games. And of course the games I have from this period that are on CD-ROM still run just fine. I could easily create a backup (or multiple!) of those disc images so that I don’t need to carry the CD around with me.
Records, on the other hand, degrade over time, degrade with each play, and require specialized equipment to play. They can be scratched or broken. They need to be stored properly, and their specialized equipment includes parts that degrade with each use and need to be replaced. Anecdotally, turntables breakdown much more often than computers.
I’m sorry, this assertion is just ignorant.
Bronze Dog
September 6, 2012 at 1:32 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@dingojack
Naturally, that’s probably what terms of service, EULAs, and so forth contain in detail, and in the event of a dispute, their lawyers can point out that you did check the box saying that you read and accepted the whole thing.
joeina2
September 6, 2012 at 1:33 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
An important difference – itunes enforces it’s digital ownership with DRM software. Amazon does not, although it uses some watermarking, (which, if I understand it correctly, means that it would possible to track that a particular mp3 was purchased through amazon.)
In short, there’s nothing stopping you from creating physical copies of your Amazon mp3s, or copying them on as many different computers and devices as you wish.
I’m not wired in enough to need a cloud, so all my mp3s (for which I use amazon, unless they’re a CC-licensed artist) are backed up and stored locally. In this case, the difference about “owning” these digital files is moot. They’d have no way of knowing I died, no way of tracking if the files were being transferred or copied (since its done all in meatspace), and the process of finding out either of the above and identifying those items which were purchased from them would be extremely cost prohibitive.
So if you don’t rely on the cloud, feel free to use amazon, your loved ones will get your music files.
puppygod
September 6, 2012 at 1:33 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@6 Tabby Lavalamp
Sure you will. For any non-totally obscure file format available 20 years ago there is a conversion software available somewhere on the net. And for almost any game system available twenty years ago there is an emulator. I don’t see any reason why it would be different in the next two decades. And many formats can be read just as is – gif, for example is 25 years old, ASCII almost 50… There might be some problems with the hardware side – it’s not exactly easy to get tape player nowadays, but once you get data into memory, you can do anything.
dingojack
September 6, 2012 at 1:41 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Gee lofgren you don’t hang with Hip-Hop/Rave types do you? Turntables have made a big comeback – now complete with USB3 for all your static-ram copying/connectivity needs (along with the rediscovery of vinyl).
Dingo
—–
My nephew, and his friend, found a near perfect copy of Micheal Jackson’s Album ‘Bad’ and they wanted to play it on my parent’s turntable.
As he was loading it onto the turntable my nephew’s friend said: ‘Hey there’s a groove that goes round and round and round, all the way into the centre!’. That’s the moment when I suddenly realised I was really old. :)
Tabby Lavalamp
September 6, 2012 at 1:46 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I bought my current record player brand new for $99 from a major Canadian drug store/electronics chain. A quick scan of the American Best Buy website shows turntables ranging from $65 to over $500. Walmart has turntables starting at $43.
Yes, vinyl records aren’t perfect, but that doesn’t change the fact that one that is treated well and hasn’t been played to death can last a very long time and can be played on any modern record player without the need to download emulators or worries about software conflicts.
You can disagree with me without having to insult me, so fuck you, asshole.
d cwilson
September 6, 2012 at 1:49 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Michael Heath:
Your friends could be nook users. Barnes and Noble’s devices allow for users the lend ebooks to each other. The catch is, if you lend an ebook to your friend, you can’t read it until they “return” it to you, just as if you had lent them a physical copy.
The current is a joke and if isn’t amended, it’s only going to encourage people to adopt extra-legal ways (ie, hacking the DRM)to transfer them from one device to another.
puppygod
September 6, 2012 at 1:57 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Well, whatever rocks your boat. But please notice that it’s your personal preference. And your fears about not being able to access digital data within 20 years are baseless. And, well, good luck putting that turntable into your pocket.
dingojack
September 6, 2012 at 2:05 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
puppygod – OK then, can you show me a link to the original 1991 CERN webpage that launched the intertoobs?
That’s 21 years ago so no problem, 100% backwards compatibility, right?
Dingo
BrianX
September 6, 2012 at 2:07 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
And that’s why stripping DRM should not be illegal and archival-quality optical media should become the standard.
lofgren
September 6, 2012 at 2:07 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Tabby Lavalamp
September 6, 2012 at 2:09 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I own an mp3 player, though I rarely use it. Much of the music I put on it is burned from my CDs, and many turntables today have USB connections so you can also put your vinyl records into mp3 format. Which seems to me another advantage of having hard copies – more options.
Tabby Lavalamp
September 6, 2012 at 2:10 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
This from the towering intellectual who thought turntables are difficult to obtain.
baal
September 6, 2012 at 2:14 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Keep in mind the DMCA is much more pro-business and downright draconian to anyone else. It also could be described as copyright on steroids. The original version of the DMCA did get amended a little once it became known that Sony was perfectly legally (or in accord with the DMCA) installing hidden root-kits on your machine to scan your hard drive for illegal copies of their content. 1, 2
lofgren
September 6, 2012 at 2:16 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
This request makes as much sense as demanding that I play a Trip to the Moon for you with its original tinting in a movie theater equipped with an original 1900 Lumiere projector.
The problem here is not compatibility, it’s simple preservation and accessibility.
Assuming a digital copy of the website exists, somewhere, you could definitely find a way to make it work if you are familiar with the NeXTStep operating system and you are a computer programmer.
Likewise, if you can find a copy of A Trip to the Moon with the original tints which hasn’t been destroyed, you would be able to find a way to play it.
But the fact that I cannot lay my hands on the data at this very moment does not mean that it doesn’t work.
eric
September 6, 2012 at 2:16 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
c dwilson @21
I agree the current (laws? agreements?) are a joke, but there is also negligible enforcement even by the companies that make them. Here’s an example. I recently sold my (v1) Kindle reader when I got a new version. So I formally disconnected the old one from my account, formally connected the new one to the account, downloaded a bunch of books to the new reader that I hadn’t yet read, handed the old one to its new owner, and off I went.
Notice what I didn’t say I did: erase the old books from the old unit. There was no hardware or software requirement to do that. Disconnecting a unit from an account does not cause erasure of the material on the unit. Amazon does not even try to enforce their limited use licence. In fact, in the v1 reader, you could store your books on a standard pop-out SD memory card, so there was not even a possibility of Amazon controlling your transfers (Kindle has since gotten rid of that, probably not due to any nefarious control reason but simply because core unit memory is so big now, SD cards are unnecessary).
lofgren
September 6, 2012 at 2:17 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Yeah, if I had said that I would have been an idiot.
Of course, since I said “more difficult than a computer,” which I stand by given the fact that computers are fucking everywhere and turntables are not, this would only be further evidence of your ignorance.
BrianX
September 6, 2012 at 2:18 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
dingojack:
http://www.w3.org/History/19921103-hypertext/hypertext/WWW/TheProject.html
(The actual server is probably back in storage after its costarring turn at the Olympic opening ceremonies.)
If I’m reading puppygod correctly, the point is about data formats, not the original location of the data as such; archival stability is pretty important too, and that’s the big weakness of digital data right now. Vinyl is probably better for audio, although you would have to use a laser turntable for playback for best results, and those are kind of insanely overpriced. Text… well, there’s still no beating a book, although something that’s to be kept for posterity benefits greatly from acid-free paper and a readily OCRable font. For video… well, I might go with something laserdisc-like. Film partisans have some very strong arguments, but you still have the issue of trying to store long strips of plastic; acetate isn’t so bad, but the older nitrocellulose stuff is very dangerous to have around and not nearly enough of it has been transferred to modern stock.
There’s also digital formats like optar — they aren’t particularly common, but at least some of them are readily available in source form.
dingojack
September 6, 2012 at 2:18 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Lofgren – any idea how much an Atari console (in working condition) is going for? ‘Cause if I want to play an Atari game I have to buy a dedicated piece of equipment to play those games I store for years to play only infrequently….
Dingo
lofgren
September 6, 2012 at 2:23 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
You have one additional option: Playing it on the turntable. And the only advantage offered by the record is that it can still be played in a hypothetical future where all computer technology has been completely lost to humanity. Assuming nobody “plays it to death” first.
dingojack
September 6, 2012 at 2:24 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
BrainX – Here’s a big hint. Forget it, it’s gone.
Data is lost over time, it’s called entropy, especially it the wonderful world of digital.
Dingo
lofgren
September 6, 2012 at 2:33 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
There are some caves in France that would like to have a word with you.
That’s what it comes down to, really. Longevity of the medium is not always, in fact rarely, the most important or useful metric for determining the best storage. We could record every written word on steel plates, but collating your receipts every April would give new meaning to the phrase “tax burden.”
My first response to this got held because it contained links to an Atari emulator and Atari roms. Go ahead and search for those two phrases on Google. You could be playing Atari games in about five minutes. No need for specialized hardware, no need to store them, no need to limit your frequency for fear of playing them to death.
dingojack
September 6, 2012 at 2:41 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Lofgren – actually as amply demonstrated turntables as as easy or easy to purchase than a commputer.
Also how much does that USB3 connected external CD reader cost? Bet you can’t carry it around in your pocket & etc. @@
Dingo
dingojack
September 6, 2012 at 2:42 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
*Ahem* ‘as easy or easier’ (Sheesh!)
Dingo
Tabby Lavalamp
September 6, 2012 at 2:43 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Giving your albums to your children, friends, or other loved ones. Selling them. Buying them secondhand. Hell, you can even turn records into art if you want if they do become damaged.
But go ahead. Insult me further if that’s what it takes to make you feel like you’re superior or your penis is worthy or whatever reason it is that you’re not able to have a civil discussion without tossing out an insult. Just know this – if you didn’t throw in that “ignorant” line, this would have been a much different conversation with me perfectly willing to admit where my fears were unjustified (while still preferring hard copies). As it is, I just see you as a contemptible turd.
chrisj
September 6, 2012 at 2:44 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Note that the EU court of justice recently ruled that preventing your customers from transferring digital licenses to someone else is a breach of EU consumer-protection law (unless it’s a short term-limited license). That particular court decision deals specifically with software licenses, but I don’t see any reason to expect them to treat music, e-books, etc, differently. Whether this leads to an outbreak of sense, or to companies trying to move explicitly to a purely rental model, we’ll have to wait and see. But it’s a step in the right direction, and the EU is a big enough power-block to make the idea stick if it tries.
lofgren
September 6, 2012 at 2:48 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
First of all, I don’t agree that it has been “amply demonstrated.” You can order both online, so I could concede that the two can be equally easily purchased.
However, over 75% of American households already own a computer. Do you think that turntables are about that common? I would wager no. I’m going to guess, based on my experience, that turntables are owned by about 10% of American households. Of those, based on my experience, only about half have them hooked up and functional without additional effort.
Er, what? Did you have a stroke?
lofgren
September 6, 2012 at 2:58 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
All entirely possible with digital media.
I just want to be clear on how your mind works.
When you say something clearly ignorant, you feel fine.
When somebody else points out all the ways that your statement is ignorant, you feel fine.
But if somebody actually calls your statement ignorant, then they are a contemptible turd?
And even though your statement is irrefutably ignorant, and clearly meets the definition of ignorance, and in fact cannot be described in any way except ignorant, to the point that ignorance is actually the most charitable way of describing it, you will refuse to back down from that statement, in fact you will continue to double-down on its ignorance, based entirely on the fact that it was properly labeled?
And I’m supposed to feel bad?
Look, you opened your mouth and ignorance came out. It does that. We all think we know more about some subjects than we actually do, and occasionally we say things that reveal our lack of information on that particular topic. When that happens, these statements are, by definition, ignorant. Labeling them as such is not an insult.
An insult would be “You’re a fucking dumbass. So you said something stupid in an anonymous comment on a blog. Get over yourself, suck it up, and admit your fears are based on ignorance so the world can be a better place, you stupid fucking asshole.”
“This assertion is just ignorant” is merely a statement of fact.
Ace of Sevens
September 6, 2012 at 3:20 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
THe gaming issue is more complicated. Playstation and Nintendo 64 can be easily emulated (though neither has emulators with 100% compatibility), but anything after that is a problem. Emulators, if they exist, will require high-end computers and good luck with the DRM. If you want to play the downloadable extra content for Tom Clancy’s Splinter Cell or Knights of the Old Republic, you pretty much need an Xbox that downloaded then before Xbox live shut down and it’s worse if you want to play a networked game that didn’t support LAN (most of them).
Tabby Lavalamp
September 6, 2012 at 3:30 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’m fine with being ignorant if I’m corrected in a way that educates me and doesn’t isn’t done in a way that seeks to demean me while puffing up the person doing the correction.
Touchy, but I can live with that.
A point we can disagree on. Even if 75% of households have a computer, that doesn’t cover how many are very out of date. The cost of getting one can be bad enough, but maintaining/upgrading/replacing just adds expense. If it was just about music, $99 is more affordable to a lot of people than even a cheap computer. Cost alone makes a record player easier to get than a computer, though there are more places that carry computers in stock.
Here we’re fine. Personally, I’ve had issues getting emulators to work properly in the past, but maybe things have changed and while my past experience soured me on them, I’d be willing to give them a try. I wasn’t aware that old cartridge games are now available online, so I’m being educated. We can have a healthy discussion.
But then you insult me for absolutely no good reason. None. There is absolutely no need for this line to have been included except that you meant to insult me. That is why you are a contemptible turd.
Many things are statements of fact that don’t need to be stated unless you’re trying to be hurtful. I can go up to someone who is overweight and say, “You’re fat,” but adding, “that’s merely a statement of fact” isn’t a Get Out of Douchebaggery Free card. I may be ignorant on the subject of digital storage, but I can easily learn. I doubt you can so easily stop being a douchebag.
uncephalized
September 6, 2012 at 3:34 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Jesus H. Christ. Are we seriously having a debate about the relative merits of fucking vinyl record technology vs. modern digital media? In 2012? To anyone who isn’t hopelessly lost in nostalgia this is a question a mentally-impaired child could answer.
Digital media is (effectively infinitely) more portable, better-preservable, can be copied an effectively infinite number of times with no loss of quality, and is orders of magnitude cheaper than physical media. When properly managed and protected it is next to impossible to lose your collection to theft or disaster. I can’t conceive of a single real-life scenario where a person who had no emotional attachment to outdated music technology would willingly choose to obtain a week of music in vinyl format, comprising some 200 LP records weighing 80+ pounds without their packing materials, each of which has a limited lifetime in terms of number of plays, and is susceptible to damage if subjected to any abuse, rendering it distorted or unplayable, and requires a bulky and breakdown-prone turntable system to play. Not when they could get the same ~10,000 minutes of music, even at CD quality with lossless compression, on an 80GB iPod with room to spare. It is not difficult to only buy DRM-free digital music (iTunes and Amazon both are DRM free these days), which means that with 5 minutes of Google research and some free conversion software you can put it in any format you want, make as many backups as you want and put them anywhere you want, and play them on any device you want, anytime you want, with the portable, inexpensive, user-friendly and high-fidelity playback device known as your smartphone, which you probably already own.
Not to mention the innumerable advantages in modern playback software, like, I don’t know, not having to rummage through a shelf of records to play one song, or being able to make custom playlists from multiple albums and artists in seconds, or being able to set your entire music collection to play on random shuffle with a couple of clicks or taps.
It’s just… not even a contest.
Digital publishing hasn’t caught up to music yet, but I expect it will get their in the coming years, and music has a way to go too before I will consider it truly convenient and usable in the way that digital media promises to be once we finish shedding the less-useful conventions of hard-copy publishing. But the time when there was still a reasonable argument to be made for holding off on moving to digital music from CDs is long gone, much less fracking vinyl.
becca
September 6, 2012 at 3:42 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
For ebooks, at least, there’s a simple solution: Calibre and Apprentice Alf are your friends.
Ace of Sevens
September 6, 2012 at 3:43 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Vinyl takes quite a few plays before it sounds worse than mp3. It seems most people care more about portability than quality though, considering the popularity of $10 earphones and the failure of DVD-Audio, Super Audio CD and Blu-ray audio.
lofgren
September 6, 2012 at 3:47 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
We’re talking about the ability to play a video game from 1996. Unless a large number of those computers from 1995 or earlier, the fact that many of those computers are not new is irrelevant. My primary computer is 7 years old and it plays these video games just fine.
I never did.
Actually, I included it because the statement was ignorant. Properly labeling ignorance is, well, kind of one the things this blog is all about. It’s a pretty consistent theme in Ed’s writing. Probably once a week he posts about the importance of properly identifying ignorance and pointing it out.
You should not feel insulted because I called your ignorant statement ignorant. Maybe a little disappointed in yourself. Maybe a little irrationally frustrated with me for being correct where you are wrong.
Well, I would agree that there are many statements of fact that people nevertheless feel hurt by, and that it is polite to limit exposure of these facts in situations where they are not relevant.
Here on the great internet, publicly identifying ignorance not only needs to be done, it is the only way of combating the mountain of bullshit that accrues from millions of people sharing their ignorance with each other on a daily basis.
If people criticizing your statements is hurtful to you, I would very much recommend keeping your mouth shut.
BrianX
September 6, 2012 at 3:47 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
dingojack:
Yes, over the long term, entropy always wins. That’s no excuse for being pointlessly fatalistic over the short term. Anything that extends the life and readability of digital data is a good thing.
uncephalized:
I think you’re missing the point. It’s not a one-or-the-other scenario; while most of the arguments supporting vinyl are silly and/or misinformed, phonographic records, properly handled, are simply more robust than optical digital media, and both beat the shit out of magnetic media. If I want to hear it now, I want it on digital — smaller storage media, better sound quality. If I want to hear it again in a hundred years, I want it on vinyl, played on a laser turntable please so my clone a hundred more years down the road can listen to the same record.
BrianX
September 6, 2012 at 3:55 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Also, uncephalized, please do not be confusing file formats with media formats. When we talk about a CD, we’re talking about a storage medium as well as a specific definition of PCM data files on a very simple filesystem. It’s not perhaps the best use of space in light of DVD and Blu-Ray, but 800MB of uncompressed PCM data on an object the size of a CD is not half bad, even if it’s 33-year-old tech.
Tabby Lavalamp
September 6, 2012 at 4:03 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Criticism is fine. I’ve stated that. A needlessly insulting “statement of fact”? That requires a hearty “fuck you” in return.
I like learning things. Today I’ve learned that my original impression of emulators is something I should look at changing. I’ve also learned that you are a contemptible turd who prefers insulting people to educating them. After all, why try to show someone why they may be wrong when it’s so much easier to try to make them feel like shit? Did your original insult hurt my feelings? Yes. But that hurt has been greatly lessened by learning that you’re a self-important turd.
Ace of Sevens
September 6, 2012 at 4:03 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@lofgren: A computer from 1995 won’t be able to play PlayStation games from 1995. Emulation takes considerably more powerful hardware than the original.
D. C. Sessions
September 6, 2012 at 4:04 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
There are reasons (and this is just one) why I refuse to acquire any DRM’d works.
davem
September 6, 2012 at 4:05 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
But if you copied the tracks to 2 CDs, you could one away to each, and who’s the wiser? I have a Hi-Fi system sitting on a shelf, with a tape deck, CD player and turntable attached. The whole thing is bypassed by a cable coming out of this very computer I’m using right now, which makes them all redundant. I don’t really know why I still have the turntable; it’s been unplayed for 20 years. Also what uncephalized said.
lofgren
September 6, 2012 at 4:11 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Just so we’re clear:
“This assertion is ignorant.” = accurate and fair criticism, as you have acknowledged.
“Contemptible turd” = insult.
There is a difference, actually.
Um, what? I explained in the very same post where I called your original statement “ignorant” exactly why it was ignorant. Did you just skip the middle two paragraphs?
You are taking this way, way too personally.
Azkyroth, Former Growing Toaster Oven
September 6, 2012 at 4:15 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Anyone still willing to defend the modern state of copyright law?
lofgren
September 6, 2012 at 4:15 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
True, true. But still probably irrelevant. Most of those 75% of households are not using computers from 1995, so who cares?
Azkyroth, Former Growing Toaster Oven
September 6, 2012 at 4:17 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
A fund ought to exist for the defense of parties sued for fair use or otherwise for exercising their constitutional rights. Parties who bring such suits, where a reasonable person would have recognized that the suit fell into that category, should be executed on the third offense.
frog
September 6, 2012 at 4:19 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Digital is great for portability, but if we have some sort of civilization-destroying event, the archaeologists of 3000 years from now may not have any idea what those little plastic boxes were for. Their function is not obvious to someone who isn’t already familiar with the concept of digital data storage.
We may not have been able to read hieroglyphics without the Rosetta stone, but people damn well knew they were writing.
—-
That said, of course I own an ereader and relatively new computer and two different game systems and so on. But I also backup all of my downloaded music onto CDs, and I run all my ebook purchases through Calibre. And if I want a whole album, I buy it on CD and rip it.
Because I like to own the shit I pay for.
Tony Sidaway
September 6, 2012 at 4:27 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Never spend money on entertainment that can be disabled by the people you paid. If you pay for something, make sure you get it in a form that you will be able to use as you see fit.
Tabby Lavalamp
September 6, 2012 at 4:29 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Tabby Lavalamp
September 6, 2012 at 4:30 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
And you can say what you want about me forgetting to close the blockquote tag.
lofgren
September 6, 2012 at 4:39 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
That’s not a fair comparison. The societies that examined Egyptian hieroglyphics before the Rosetta stone lived in a society that was familiar with murals, graffiti, pictographs, and in fact were a part of a thousands-of-years old tradition of writing that stretched back to the dawn of human kind.
Obviously I can’t argue that hieroglyphics are not a more basic technology than a harddrive, and therefore more easily reverse-engineered or deciphered, but a lot of these arguments for older forms are clearly presupposing their reliability simply because they are already older. This ignores the fact that these media are themselves the product of a very similar competition in their own time.
Some caves have been drawn in continuously for 5,000 years of human history. The people who painted in them undoubtedly made other forms of art. Tattoos, wood carvings, dyed skins, etc. Those artifacts are almost entirely lost to us. When it came to preserving the tribe’s knowledge, they probably didn’t settle on cave walls, even though they knew that their ancestors had drawn in the caves for generations. No, they probably chose songs, even though they had no way of recording them at the time. Songs made the knowledge easier to memorize, they organized it well, they did not require long trips to the mountains to verify, they could not be stolen by other tribes or hoarded by a faction within the tribe.
Cave pictographs are more durable and accessible (over the long term) than any form of writing, speaking, or recording. I think we can all agree that doesn’t make them “the best.”
lofgren
September 6, 2012 at 4:43 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Nah, just the experience of a person who has been called out for ignorance before. On this very blog, in fact.
I’m curious to know how you did that. We started out this conversation total strangers, and now you seem to know everything about me.
Well that was forgetful of you. OH CRAP WHAT A NASTY INSULT I’M SUCH A DOUCHE.
BrianX
September 6, 2012 at 4:44 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Frog:
I think the answer to the question can be summed up with this: would a computer geek from, say, 1965 be able to recognize a pocket calculator or laptop for what it is? (I’m not sure a PDA wouldn’t actually be easier to recognize in that era; I doubt Star Trek was the first show to invent the PADD, even if very few people would have a clear idea how it would have functioned in those days.)
lofgren
September 6, 2012 at 4:52 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I think if you make the question about, say, an iPad, the answer might significantly depending on whether or not it still has any battery power left. If a hypothetical pre-electrical society stumbles upon an iPad in the distant post-apocalyptic Mad Max future, they would probably figure it out fairly quickly if they could turn it on. If they can’t turn it on, they might be inclined to think it is a very elegant cutting board.
I think any society specialized enough to have dedicated archaeologists would probably figure out what digital media is for, although possibly not before they destroyed it. Examination of the physical drive itself would reveal that it is a system for reading and writing an incredibly complex code onto a metal disc.
Decoding it would probably take a very, very long time, unless some of the analogue documentation of the microprocessor revolution remained intact. Which is not entirely unlikely.
BrianX
September 6, 2012 at 4:58 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
lofgren:
Well, there are ways to preserve digital data fairly robustly (I mentioned optar above — maybe combine that with some kind of etched ceramic?), and it’s critically important that the specifications for said data be preserved as well. I would also suspect computer chips would be fairly recognizable to any sufficiently advanced civilization — considering the forms chip packages take now, it’s kind of hard to imagine a chip design that isn’t some kind of self-contained data storage device not being obviously a computer chip, and even for flash memory I’d suspect the external contacts would be a giveaway.
Data retrieval on the other hand… well, that’s definitely a completely different question, I agree.
Chiroptera
September 6, 2012 at 5:09 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I wouldn’t put too much worrying about how best to store our music and videos for future generations.
In 2000 years, if our descendents manage to pull themselves out of the Dark Ages that Global Warming will put us through, they may not even recognize what a vinyl record is (if any even survive in playable form).
D. C. Sessions
September 6, 2012 at 5:26 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Not perhaps the best choice of examples. The HP desktop machine that I was using in high school (1966) was essentially identical except for size with the HP calculator I bought in 1972. Just sayin’.
lofgren
September 6, 2012 at 5:33 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Actually, it’s the same question I think. The fact that a harddrive can survive thousands of years in ideal conditions isn’t of much benefit if you can’t get anything off of it.
The problem with digital media is that if we assume a society that is not contiguous with our own (e.g. aliens, teenage cave men), we have to assume that they will not only be reverse engineering our technology, they will be decoding our writing. Digital media encodes text at least thrice: once as binary, but also in ASCII/UTF/whatever text encoding you use, and also in English (or whatever modern living language the document is in).
It’s all well and good for the information to make it to the distant future, but what’s the point if nobody can figure out what it says?
kermit.
September 6, 2012 at 5:37 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
DingoJack: That’s the moment when I suddenly realised I was really old. :)
For me, it was sitting in a college lecture, admiring the fine young lady in the row in front of me. I heard her remark to a friend about her daughter in high school, and I thought “Crap! She’s somebody’s mother!”. I had an uncomfortable self insight immediately after.
Many years later… I realized the future was here. I was working out in a small apartment in 1997, and had dialed up and connected to the internet. I found an internet radio station, and found myself listening to a disk jockey talking in Russian to a dial-in listener, followed by some good Cajun and down-home blues. I realized how small the world had become, and my hair stood up on end.
Now, I listen to those same internet radio stations, which have diversified widely, and capture the streaming audio. I have an extensive CD collection from the 1980s and 90s, but I’ve heard them all too much. My long commutes are now spent listening to new music from all tribes and genres.
zmidponk
September 6, 2012 at 6:40 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Absolutely agree. Laws like the DMCA seem to be set up on the basis of ‘preventing piracy’ or ‘protecting copyright’, but where are the corresponding laws set up on the basis of ‘protecting consumer rights’? From what I can see, in many places, including the US, there aren’t any, when it comes to digital content – only laws and/or legal arguments that might, possibly, maybe be valid. This issue is exactly why I have no qualms about stripping DRM from any digital content I buy, or, alternatively, downloading a pre-stripped version from the internet, and, frankly, don’t really care about the legality of doing so.
uncephalized
September 6, 2012 at 8:20 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
BrianX posted:
A hundred years from now I fully expect that we will have solid-state digital storage so fast and bulletproof it will make all of our current technologies look like doodling in a sandbox by comparison. But for the sake of argument, sure, maybe vinyl is good for archival purposes. The main point of my support for digital media is that 10 million distributed copies of a song, each one of which can then be copied indefinitely, even if each one of those copies has a high chance of being erased in the 100 years, is statistically vastly preferable to a single, durable copy in terms of longevity. This is only possible with digital technology and the Internet. And no matter how good a copy you make of an analog record, you ALWAYS lose some fidelity with each transfer, period, which limits the number of copies that can be made. Not so for digital storage.
Which, by the way, isn’t stopping us from putting digital music on vinyl, if that’s a more robust medium as you claim. I am just in support of using digital encoding over analog representation. I don’t care what the actual medium is.
Also, what’s your basis for the idea that vinyls are more robust than CDs? I’ve ever heard this before (not denying it’s true). I’ve never seen a CD melt and get all wavy, CDs are surprisingly resilient to dropping and impacts, and AFAIK both are similarly susceptible to scratches.
BrianX posted:
Well sure, if your definition of “not half bad” is “better than vinyl”, but that’s not setting the bar very high, is it? :D
Armored Scrum Object
September 6, 2012 at 9:29 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Lawrence Lessig wrestled with a lot of these kinds of questions 10+ years ago in Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace (which now, true to form, exists as a community-maintained wiki) . I could try to summarize the concepts with respect to this specific issue, but it would still be a wall of text, and it would still end with a recommendation to read Code. I know this because I tried, and that’s exactly what happened, so I’ll just spare you the wall of text and tell you to read the book.
scienceavenger
September 6, 2012 at 11:17 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
What the fuck are you people yammering about? I have more music, more movies, available to me, than I would ever have the time to enjoy, all free, all permanent, all easily transferrable to anyone I care to give them to. And I’m an old fucker with no special hacking talents. If you paid money for any of that in a form you can’t do that with, sorry, you’re an idiot.
dingojack
September 7, 2012 at 12:21 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ah – well there’s ya problem!
a) Every-one’s got a computer. Well yes, and in the 1950′s everyone had a radiogram. Now they’re collectible. (Oh and argumentum ad populum).
b) I can play this game on my computer. Yes but the question is can you play a game encoded in a late 70′s Sega Game-cassette? Can you source and read ‘Starlanes’ distributed on magnetic-tape cassette by Broderbund?
c) The Rosetta Stone Problem – just because I can see there’s data there doesn’t mean I can read it. Even your CDs are fast becoming nothing more than shiny drinks coasters. Like tape-readers, punch-card readers, magnetic-tape, cassette, 5½” floppies and 3¼” disks, computers don’t come with readers for them any more. Data in these formats are lost, unless you buy special equipment.
d) Oh, but buying a turntable costs money. And buying an external CD drive (or the like) to plug into my laptop doesn’t? Fail.
e) It’s more portable. When I’m standing on the bus to Bankstown it’s just sooo convenient to lug the external CD player out of it’s bag, plug it in and play (original media remember. Oh and some games are coded to look for an physical disk) not to mention the battery drain.
f) but, but turntables are harder to source (and more expensive) than computers. From forty-nine bucks at Wallmart. Fail.
Your so-called ‘fact’ that others are ignorant just isn’t stacking up.
Dingo
dingojack
September 7, 2012 at 12:55 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
scienceavenger – “I have more music, more movies, available to me, than I would ever have the time to enjoy, all free, all permanent, all easily transferrable to anyone I care to give them to”.
I’m assuming you meant theoretically, otherwise our friends in ‘teh evul gubberment’ might take that as a confession to the commission of criminal acts.
[tightens tinfoil hat and waves to those listening in].
:D Dingo
Shplane, Spess Alium
September 7, 2012 at 1:31 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I have no idea how anyone could possibly ever try to argue that vinyl is in any way better than digital storage mediums. It’s like arguing that we totally could have gotten to Mars on horseback if we were just willing to feed our prized stallions the right kind of oats.
TheBlackCat
September 7, 2012 at 2:47 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Another issue, as others have hinted at, is issues with the file formats and storage media. For many popular file formats, there are ways to convert it. But if you are using a less popular or more specialized file format, there may not be. If the company goes out of business, or decides that they no longer want to support that format, your data is just gone. Especially if you go the way Apple has gone and decided they can delete programs off your device if they decide they don’t want to support it anymore.
It gets even worse when you include software patents. A company could, as I understand it, decide that they no longer want people using the format, or want to charge huge fees for using it, and you have no choice for accessing your own data.
dingojack
September 7, 2012 at 2:53 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Shplane – Sound Engineers* prefer vinyl, apparently, because of the ‘warmer tone’ and better sound, particularly in low frequencies. I can’t tell the difference myself, digital Barrie White sounds identical to the vinyl one to me.
I’m not really qualified to call them ‘ignorant’ or sneer at them for being ‘luddites’ just because I paint every thing like it’s lit by flouros and they prefer natural light (so to speak).
Dingo
—–
* yes I know a few of them, via my brother.
lofgren
September 7, 2012 at 3:38 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
dingo, you are taking arguments made specifically against the claim that a record from 1956 is more accessible than a video game from 1996 and broadening them to apply to other media in other situations.
This broadening has already occurred naturally in the conversation, probably more than once. Generally the loose consensus, if you can call it that, was that for long-term accessibility, several media have sufficient pros and cons that the specifics of the situation would need to be known to make a final decision.
I argued that digital media is probably more reliable over the near long term (100 years), but ultimately the crudest technology wins out over the longest period of time.
Since narrowing the discussion to these specific items, a 1956 record and a 1996 video game, effectively does away with arguments a-c, I’ll just mention d-f here.
d) My only point with regards to the turntable being specialized equipment was that we should assume it to be a portion of any discussion on accessibility. The record player is a dedicated piece of equipment. The computer is probably already present and performs a thousand other functions besides playing games. If we want to stipulate dedicated hardware, you can still buy computers and game consoles from 1996 that work, and at a pretty good price. A Sega Genesis used goes for $25.
So dedicated hardware is an accessibility impediment that records have that video games do not. Video games are playable on hardware that is already almost omnipresent in the US. I can walk down the street, and if I feel a hankering I can duck into a nearby game shop/arcade and buy some time on their Wii to play Sonic and Knuckles (1994) on their virtual console.
e) was not an argument made by me, but I can tell your response is absurd. A video game from 1996 does not require a CD drive. Hell a quick search on YouTube will teach you to install a Sega on your smartphone. If your game does require a CD for some reason, this again only puts games on an equal footing with records. Occasionally, a game from 1996 will require dedicated hardware or be non-portable for some reason. Again, this is always true of the record.
f) I never claimed that record players were difficult to get, or expensive. I said that they are less accessible than a computer. Tabby Lavalamp decided that I thought they were incredibly hard to find or ridiculously expensive. I realize that record players are still available. I have one myself. A wire went missing sometime in the early aughts and it hasn’t played since, but it sits dutifully in a heap in the attic waiting to be called upon when it is needed. But it is simply absurd to argue that record players are generally more available than a computer capable of playing most video games from 1996. Thus the lack of availability of the record player will more often be an impediment than the video game. Again, some households will have both and a small number will have a record player but no computer (they’ll have to play their 1996 video games on their smartphones).
And I will just reiterate my point that this is basically highlighting that computer technology has evolved a lot faster since 1996 than the record has since 1956. This is not particularly surprising, and frankly it doesn’t trouble me much. Long term storage and accessibility of digital data is something that specialists are more and more aware of, not less. Some things will be forgotten along the way, just as some analog audio recordings are permanently lost, some books were permanently burned, some scrolls were permanently corroded, some hieroglyphs were permanently defaced, and some cave walls were permanently buried. But as a percentage I suspect it will probably be less. That is, you will have more of your current digital media available to you in 60 years than you currently have records available from 1956. If you have an exceptionally well-kept record collection, it might not be more by percentage but it will almost certainly be more by volume.
democommie
September 7, 2012 at 4:38 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’ve got maybe 16,000 tunes stored in several places. None of them were downloaded off of the web. I ripped them all from CD’s or, in a few cases, recorded them from a tape player or turntable using a program from Sony (may those fuckers burn in some digital hell, forever) before I found out what those underhanded fucks were up to.
I have about 500 or so cassettes (three different tapes of John Hiatt doing, “Icy Blue Heart”–which tune Emmylou does a much nicer version of) that I keep saying I will convert to digital, with that lovely Ion cassette to disc unit that is gathering dust on my shelf.
I like to own the albums, for two reasons. The first is that I like to OWN the music. The second is that I could just fuck something up and fry every every one of my 7 or 8 hard drives, so I still have the turntable and the CD player. I don’t own an Ipod because it’s just one more thing to lose.
Ace of Sevens
September 7, 2012 at 4:39 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Vinyl isn’t better than digital media in general. It’s better than mp3s, which have lossy compression (which is pretty noticeable) and at least theoretically better than CDs, which are a relatively low bitrate. In practice, high-resolution digital formats are better than vinyl, but you can’t buy those for the msot part. Their only real use is on Blu-ray, which hasn’t caught on as a music format, even though there’s a spec for it.
puppygod
September 7, 2012 at 5:17 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Whoa. I’m off internet for several hours and I’m missing such a nice flaming going on.
Most of my points were already addressed, so just to clear several things.
I do like vinyls. I think that they are kinda cool and stylish. I even own a turntable. I left it at my Moms house some ten years ago and never took it back. Never needed it.
My point being that advantage of digital media is that they are independent from hardware. You can play your vinyl on turntable – and only on turntable. You can play your file on desktop, notebook, smartphone, tablet, mp3player, hi-fi set, car audio, TV set, heck, probably there are fridges that could do it. And you can store it on HDs, CDs, BRs, pendrives or, if you are in frivolous mood, on magnetic tapes. Or send a copy for storage to the server located in Australia or South Africa just in case western civilization got wiped by nuclear holocaust. Sure, some of the storage media might need a specific hardware to read it, but it’s exactly the same for any analog storage device. And even vinyls can have compatibility issues with different rpm standards.
The question about digital formats was
- and the answer is that, save for global nuclear holocaust scenario or obscure/DRM broken proprietary format, certainly you will. And for the reasons I pointed out in previous paragraph – that today data is independent from hardware.
Most of my music now is high quality FLAC and since nowadays I pretty much gave up on great studios and listen mostly to Japanese and European garage bands none of it is even available on vinyls. And never will be. Yet I can listen to it at home or from my player or use it as a ringtone for my phone – and it doesn’t matter whether desktop is running Windows or Linux and phone powered by Android or iOS. And it will be true for whatever system will appear in the future. Heck, I recently set my old (about twenty years old, btw) graphics made on Amiga as my wallpaper on the phone. All it took was to plug old Amiga HD into PC, open file (with .iff extension, heh) with free software (GIMP), resize/crop into desired resolution and click “save as…”, and then save it through the Wifi on my phone. Like, two minutes total to access and use two decades old data available in rather exotic format.
Ace of Sevens
September 7, 2012 at 5:27 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@86: You are assuming DRM-free. This is mostly the case with music, but not with other digital products. If you back up regularly, you can keep copies of your MP3s forever, but iTumes won’t necessarily be around to download them if you don’t. Bruce Willis can give his iPod to his kids and they can copy all the songs off it onto their computers, but this may not actually be legal, which is the point of contention here.
For something like a movie or video games, you can generally only watch on a limited number of devices (sometimes limited to the device on which you bought it) and transferring is limited if allowed at all.
To use a real example, if I bought extra mechs for MechAssault 2 on Xbox, I can copy them to a new Xbox because the system won’t let me. If my Xbox breaks, they are just gone. I can’t redownload them because the service no longer exists.
Ace of Sevens
September 7, 2012 at 5:31 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Also, what if something goes out of print? I can buy old books that are out of print from people who bought them when they were sold. If I want a copy of the Battlestar Galactica game for Xbox 360, I have to find someone who bought it before it was pulled who will either sell me their Xbox (and hope it never fails because I have no way to transfer the game without their account) or sell me their account, which also is tied to their personal achievements and everything else they ever bought.
John Phillips, FCD
September 7, 2012 at 7:21 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
+1 for Calibre and the Apprentice Alf plugin for anyone into ebooks of any format.
puppygod
September 7, 2012 at 7:51 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Yeah. The problem with current laws is that they still are based upon assumption that content and media are somehow connected. When you buy book, you buy both medium and content. But it’s simply not true for, say, those Mechs. You can buy just content. You can buy just access to the content. And thanks to DRMs this content can be irreparably crippled so it can be run only within specific conditions, including specific timeframe. “Sorry, this service is no longer available”. I’m pretty sure that in two decades you will be able to download XBox emulator and software for disabling long-outdated DRMs, but all bets are off when it comes to data that is stored on the server side (cloud or whatever you call it). Is it yours? Is it rented? Can you back it all up? Are they obliged to back it up for you? What kind of protection is provided? Can you set up your own server after they come out of bussiness? Some of this issues might be addressed in the license agreement, but most aren’t, and, frankly, most of them is in some kind of gray area.
And all this is made even more complicated by the fact, that different countries have different laws, and nobody have a fucking clue which law should be applied – from country where servers are located? Where user is located? Where licence provider is registered? There is a problem with laws regarding ownership of data (much broader concept than intellectual property) and it needs to be addressed. I’m just not sure how to do it.
DuWayne
September 7, 2012 at 9:01 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Not sure if it was mentioned, but Amazon mp3s are *not* DRM protected. They don’t allow buyers to re-download them (though they can be saved to your Amazon cloud for free), but as long as you back them up that isn’t a problem. Kindle books, Nook books and I imagine others can be loaned out – though you cannot access them while they are on loan. Audible books are not so easy to loan, but you can activate multiple devices to your account making it possible to put any book you own on a friend’s device.
This is an issue that definitely needs to be addressed, especially the issue of inheritance. I definitely don’t want my kids to miss out on the digital content I own and will purchase before I die. I think the big problem is that we need to play legal catch up with technology.
I also think it’s important to recognize that in a lot of cases the digital content costs considerably less than equivalent hard copies. Audible is a great example of this. There are compatibility problems with some devices, but that is becoming a fading issue as Android and iOS are taking over the market for running digital players and phones. And with membership prices running from $10-$15 a credit (there are few books that cost two credits, most are one) for permanent access to your purchases, I don’t think it unreasonable that they aren’t transferable. Full price audiobooks generally start around $25 for bargain titles, running upwards of $50+ for popular/new titles.
zmidponk
September 7, 2012 at 2:23 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
TheBlackCat #80:
This is correct. However, open source software is growing in popularity, and the advantage of open source is that there is no legal barrier to someone making and distributing their own version of that software, even if they aren’t the original developers of it, and some of the most widely used file formats are just as open. This means, for example, if you took some photos, saved them as jpegs on an external hard drive, say, then forgot about them for 20 years, and, in that time, jpegs were succeeded by something newer which made jpeg a ‘dead format’, when you discovered those old files again, there would be nothing legally to stop you creating your own jpeg program so you could then view and/or print those photos, or getting someone else to do that for you.
Of course, when it comes to actual media, that’s a different story, because there we are actually talking about physical discs/cards/whatever, and they, of course, require the proper hardware, not just software to access. For example, it’s somewhat uncommon for a new PC to come with a 3.5″ floppy disc drive, and many PC cases on sale no longer even have a 3.5″ internal bay for one, largely due to the fact you can get much better portable storage on your typical USB flash drive, and no modern software really has any use for a floppy drive. Therefore, if you have something from years ago saved on floppies, and are trying to access it on a PC you bought last week, it’s probably going to require the purchase of additional hardware (such as an external floppy drive) and setting that up.
kagerato
September 7, 2012 at 2:35 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
That’s correct but still understated. Perfect emulation of all the commercial games made for the SNES, hardly an advanced machine even for 1991, is still in progress. One of the key issues is that the software (the games) suffers from substantial design limitations. This includes the utter lack of any explicit synchronization; all the code contains implicit ordering of results reliant on the hardware to function with extremely precise timing. If the exact execution of all operations were explicitly defined, most of the timing complexity of the emulation could be avoided.
To put it in perhaps simpler terms, these types of simple games still perform multiple simultaneous functions. Among them, they render graphics, output audio, accept input, and perform core game logic. In a sane design, all of these operations need to be separated into distinct threads of execution which are effectively independent and must be explicitly synchronized by having each thread wait until any dependent operations are completed. However, these old games do not contain proper information about the order of events but simply perform them in an order that may look arbitrary. The actual result is determined by the hardware, which because of its deterministic design can be counted on to always behave in the same way on each play through. In short, the programmers incorporated many hardware assumptions directly into the writing of the game itself.
On a modern system, you cannot write that kind of code and have it work anymore. The premises about having predictable hardware that operates exactly the same way on every execution no longer hold. (Pipelining, out-of-order execution, superscalar architecture and other advanced hardware design decisions are the reason.) Further, the operating environment of the program has typically changed to make direct access to the hardware impossible to begin with. (That is for security reasons and to make running multiple applications simultaneously possible.)
MP3 is lossy, yes, but noticeably so? Double-blind testing has shown the vast majority of people cannot tell the difference between the lossless source and 192 kilobit/sec MP3s. MP3′s maximum bitrate is 320 kbit/sec, more than sufficient. The average bitrate of MP3s distributed on the internet has also steadily risen over the years. I rarely find anything using less than variable bit rate (VBR) averaging 160 kbit these days.
If you train your ears really well for it, have extremely good playback equipment, and perform the playback in a very quiet room with good acoustics, you may be able to pick out some characteristics of MP3 even at high bitrates. You’d be by far the exception, not the rule, and I encourage you to participate in a double-blind test before making any judgements about it. Many people spending extraordinary time and money on “audio quality” have never bothered to actually test the limits of their own hearing.
CDs are also not a “low” bitrate, not even close. Audio CDs are lossless stereo 44100 Hz, 16 bits per sample PCM. That’s 2 * 44100 * 16 = 1411200 bits per second = 176400 bytes per second = ~172 kilobytes per second = ~1378 kilobit per second. The only thing that’s a little weak on the CD quality side is the 16 bits per sample, but that’s almost never noticeable on a good quality recording that was properly mastered. It becomes somewhat apparent in some cases because many CDs were mastered for maximum loudness instead of maximum quality, an extremely dumb thing to do considered volume can always be increased lately at the amplifier.
Later standards like DVD Audio using sampling rates higher than 44100 Hz is largely pointless, because the human ear cannot even hear frequencies above 22050 Hz or so. The only justifiable reason to use higher rates is for post-processing purposes, since it gives slightly better final results if you start with some additional information about the waveform. That said, a heavy emphasis on post-processing is at least as likely to damage quality as to improve it.
TheBlackCat
September 7, 2012 at 4:21 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Crissa
September 8, 2012 at 5:01 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Amazon does have an MP3 service which does have DRM for mobile devices. It sucks, using storage on their server which they can rescind (and does you no good if you go out of network).
But yeah, emulation is sucky, not in a bright white legal position, whereas I can plug a tape amchine in or a record player – or buy a new one – and play the media. I can’t buy a 486 computer and play X-Wing. It’s a pretty big technical leap to get it running and keep it running.
Link farm – seed planting edition « The Words on What…
September 6, 2012 at 8:45 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
[...] is a complicated legal situation regarding inheritance of digital property (via). What I think should be done is that these should be treated as just as willable as any other sort [...]