Category Archives: copyright

DRM being dropped?

A nice set of white earbud headphones.I read some good news related to DRM and music releases on the internet last week.
Universal is going to start selling DRM-free music “as a test to see how it goes”. According to this Wired article this change of course is a move to try and take some power away from the mighty Apples iTunes online store.
Whatever it is, it’s good for the customer, and I’m hoping this is a staying trend.

Another Wired news post is claiming the same thing, and has some more details. It’s funny to see that they finally realised what a lot have been claiming before. That treating the customer like a criminal by putting DRM protection on what they buy from you is not a good idea.
Since they won’t be putting the tunes up on iTunes, Google’s new gBox is one of the services that they will be using to pimp their mp3s. It’s interesting to see Google join the battle, and I’m wondering if they will be able to kick ass like usual on this front as well. gBox will be offering be offering DRM-free and version with DRM at the same price. I don’t see why you’d buy the ones with DRM though.

But then again, it’s more likely I’ll go shopping at Warp’s Bleep.com though, which has been offering DRM-free 320kbps mp3s from the start. Oh, and the music is better over there too. Have a peek.

flickr now more secure… bugger

Yep, Flickr.com got a bit more “secure” recently, if you can call it that, and I have to say that I’m sorry to find out about it.

You see, flickr users posting their nifty pics could disallow surfers like myself from viewing the original photo and only allow the preview on the main photo page.
This makes sense of course, as some people in there are professional photographers who want to store their hi-res pictures on flickr but don’t want just any bozo (like me) to be able to rip and download their pictures for free. These guys have their property and income to protect right? The fun part however was that the protection was only half arsed. Yep, it’s was pretty easy to bypass, and you could nicely download the original if you knew the naming scheme flickr used for the original.

Now this has changed sadly enough. There’s no way you can get to the original, since the name now seems to be in no way related to the other resized versions, and well… that means I won’t be able to get those bitching backgrounds on my desktop anymore from the pros. It’s sad, yet understandable. *sigh*.

Luckily however, there are also more generous folks in there, shooting professional pictures and allowing them to be downloaded, or even better… share them under a CC license.
Bravo!” I’d say to those, and just because we like them so much, here are a hand picked examples of such great snips of those oh-so generous flickrites.



Pretty darn good stuff isn’ it? And if you click the pictures, you’ll get more eye pleasing goodness from the camera of the same photographers, and if you just can’t get enough… there’s always the Flickr CC search!

"De Morgen" ripping pics off Flickr

Copyright infringement warningThis is sad isn’t it. Turns out a major Belgian newspaper called De Morgen ripped some guys pictures about the Burning Man festival off his Flickr foto gallery without paying, or even contacting him.

This kind of stuff is extra sad because a newspaper should damn well be aware of things like copyright violations and such, and definitely be respecting the copyright of others, if they want their own rights to be respected as well.

They sure lost my respect, but I guess they wouldn’t care less about the little man, judging from what they where up to…

i'm being copied

By pure chance I came across this site sproutworks.com that seems to be containing a copy of my blog (actually, I was doing an ego search on Google, but I’d rather not mention that).

In fact it copies all blogger.com blogs in a so called Blogger Aggregator by fetching the atom.xml, and storing it in a database. I don’t really see the point, but hey, who am I to judge what people feel like writing in PHP these days.

When it comes to my blog there really isn’t much of a problem. It’s published under a Creative Commons license which allows copying, but I didn’t really see any attribution links or something like that in there, so I guess that’s something that needs to be added to be in line with the license. Problem is there might be other Blogger.com blogs that are copied which are published under more restrictive licenses… something worth looking into I guess.

So basically I’d like to see a link pointing to the original blogs in there, and also a bit of a layout change, cause those blue on blue hyperlinks I’m seeing… that’s just hard on the eyes imho.

Funny thing is, this post will also appear on the site itself, so maybe I can do the attribution thing myself, by simply linking to my own blog right here. According to a post on the site itself, this should be in there in about 10 minutes… lets find out!

sampling is bad mkay

Something scary I read on Wired today :


A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that rap artists should pay for every musical sample included in their work � even minor, unrecognisable snippets of music.

Though the article focuses mainly on rap artists, who are making big bucks using unknown samples from older funk (or whatever) tunes, this could easily be extrapolated to other musical genres, such as electronic ones which are based on sampling old funk, hip-hop, rave and hardcore tunes. Genres like drum’n’bass, breakcore, breaks and a dozen others heavily depending on recycling sounds of the past could become more or less endangered by a law like this.

Keep you hands off our Amens and Firefights judges, or your in for a shit load of trouble… :)
Lighten up on the copyright thing ffs.

clownstep and John B on file sharing

I ran into this John B interview by accident while checking what kind of fun stuff could be found on Google when looking up the word “Clownstep”.
Now since the guy made some really sweet tracks in the past, and he has a new album out, I thought I’d make the effort and find out what he had to say.

It’s mostly the same stuff you read in most of those kind of articles, but his opinion on p2p networks seems a bit stupid to me.

Here’s what he has to say:

Well, if people have bought my music and want to play it out, I don’t mind what they do with it. If I found somebody who has downloaded my music illegally, that is where I have a major issue with it. I understand people are going to download stuff and there’s not a lot you can do about it, apart from flooding the file sharing networks with fake versions of your tracks, which is what I’ve been doing aggressively. I’m going to do whatever I can. I’ll put viruses in them, or just make a track identically titled to what’s out there and make it 10 seconds of the track and the rest just noise, or, “Ha ha! Buy it here, you bastards!”

Ok, well, let’s see, so you don’t mind what people do who have actually bought your music, but you are thinking about infecting mp3’s with viruses anyway…
Hmmmm, how will you tell the difference between someone who is downloading the infected tunes and has bought the album, and those who haven’t?

Luckily for John B there is no way to infect mp3’s with a virus, otherwise he could get himself in some serious trouble, and frankly, I think that trying to get bad copies out there is more hassle than it’s worth since in the long run people are going to keep getting that tune until they get a good copy. And when they do they will share that one as well (unless they’re lame leechers) which will result in more sources for the good version than the bad ones, which will automatically make people download the good version instead of the bad one(s).

Funny artist still have a problem with seeing p2p downloads as a form of free mouth-to-mouth promotion. Maybe he doesn’t need this kind of promotion any more being one of the big names in the business, but I can tell you there are a lot of drum’n’bass artists I might have never bought anything from if I hadn’t learned about them by downloading some tracks off file sharing networks.
A lot of people will simply not buy the stuff they download, that’s true, but the question is, where they going to buy it if they wouldn’t be able to download it?
Don’t fool yourself into thinking that every single download is a sale lost.

Oh, I also noticed this clownstep merchandise, in John B’s blog, which is kinda funny.

land of the free, home of the…

This is amazing, picked it up from slashdot

The Senate Judiciary Committee, led by everybody’s favorite senator, Orrin Hatch, is moving to outlaw P2P entirely by making it illegal to produce such applications.

The plan is to make p2p apps illegal in The States because they “indice” copyright violation.
It’s like WTF!? What kind of a stupid idea is that anyway. What’s next, are they gonna outlaw weapons next because they “indice” murder? They should actually, but they just don’t get that one apparently, but when it comes down to software and p2p, oh yeah, after being seriously brown nosed by MPAA and RIAA they’ll be passing that one for sure.

What happened to freedom of speech? Couldn’t that be applied to writing software as well? I guess not, since nobody in the US will have the right to write a filesharing app when this bill passes.
Funny though, but what about webservers, don’t they allow sharing of files as well? Maybe we’ll get rid of MicroSoft after all. Hey, when you come to look at it, this bill might not be so bad after all… not!

And since Europe isn’t following quite yet, we’ll be writing all the p2p apps over here (or the rest of the world for that matter), and the evil US filesharers can download and use those instead.
Besides, if I remember correctly Kazaa for instance isn’t even on US soil anymore, so how is this bill going to stop that in the first place.

Ah well, I’m glad I don’t live in the US. Now let’s hope the European lawmakers are just a tad smarter and manage to keep software patents out of the European patent system.