February 27th, 2012Top StoryHow You're Breaking the Law Every Day (and What You Can Do About It)By Adam Dachis
Why It's Almost Impossible to Avoid Breaking Copyright Law
To make matters worse, a spectrum of illegality makes it acceptable to break the rules in some circumstances yet not others. Experience tells us that uploading a home video to a video sharing web site (e.g. YouTube) that features a copyrighted song is sometimes okay, but downloading a television episode is not. Both of these actions are similarly illegal, but the first example is regularly tolerated while the second can lead to a loss of internet connectivity, a fine, or even jail time (depending on the number of offenses and how often copyright holders decide to "catch" you). Just as it's easier for us to circumvent copyright law online, it's easier for copyright holders to come after us. I spoke with Derek Bambauer, Assistant Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School, who explained this is particularly problematic because infringement is often only a byproduct of the way we communicate and bears no intention of doing anything illegal:
But because rights holders are often fickle about what they choose to have removed and what to leave alone, it's difficult to rely on the law for guidance. The result is that we—the average users and consumers of the internet—are unsure of how to proceed when dealing with copyrighted works and either have to assume we have no rights or make our best guess and hope it doesn't lead to legal consequences. It all comes down to this reality: you will often have to circumvent or ignore copyright law to go on with your regular activities. Fortunately, there are ways to handle these circumstances better and keep yourself out of trouble. In this post, we're going to look at specific situations you encounter on a regular basis and what you can do to protect yourself. The Ways You're Breaking the Law (and How You Can Protect Yourself)Tolerated Action: Mix "Tapes"
While you're putting yourself at risk by uploading your music to, say, a web host, there are several services you can use to share music with others without the likelihood of retribution. Turntable.fm is one of our favorite collaborative playlist services. It allows you to upload songs online and faux-DJ with others who join your room. They can contribute songs to the playlist as well and everyone can provide live feedback about the music they're hearing. Chatting is also an option. While there are few dire consequences nowadays when it comes to sharing music online, using a service like Turntable.fm offers a better experience than simply posting files. This kind of reasonable use is tolerated, even though it's not perfectly legal or desired by the recording industry. Illegal Action: Downloading TV Shows and Movies
So what can you do? As you might imagine from Derek's example, your options are pretty limited. Although you can find many shows and movies on services like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, and iTunes, those services are often lacking in content (like Game of Thrones) that is too difficult, expensive, or sometimes even impossible (e.g. if you live outside of the United States) to acquire. Although you can encrypt and anonymize your BitTorrent traffic or subscribe to a Usenet provider that offers a connection via SSL to protect yourself when downloading anything from either service, you still have no legal right to download any copyrighted content without expressed permission. For now there is little we can do to make this situation better other than encourage the film and television industries to regard piracy as competition. As iTunes has proven with music and cartoonist The Oatmeal has cleverly illustrated, when it's easier and affordable to use the legal route, that's the route most people will take. Tolerated Action: Mashups and Other Derivative Works
A popular example of a derivative work that has both been prosecuted and tolerated is the Downfall/Hitler Reacts meme. Despite the approval of the original film's director, the production company (Constantin Films) began serving DMCA takedown notices to YouTube for the parodies because they were seen as distasteful by one of the company heads. Many were re-uploaded to YouTube and other sites and Constantin Films gave up the pursuit after a few months. The derivative work was simply too popular to silence.
Though Lessig's hopes for the future of remixes and mashups are better for creativity, for now they are just hopes. That said, you're not forced into simply posting your work online and hoping for the best. There are a few things you can do to avoid those overeager lawyers. Derek Bambauer offers a few suggestions:
Of course, creating a mashup or other kind of derivative work without expressed permission means you are breaking copyright law. If you profit from the work, you are absolutely putting yourself at risk. Although recent history has shown us that derivative works generally receive little more than a DMCA takedown notice, the risk is still present. Consider it heavily before you choose whether or not to proceed. Illegal Action: Removing Copy Protection
When it comes to reasonable personal use, the law really isn't on your side. The advantage you do have, in most cases, is anonymity. If you're breaking copy protection so you're able to use legally-obtained media or software in the way that you want without sharing it, it's virtually impossible for anyone to find out. It's also very unlikely that you'd prosecuted for breaking copy protection solely for personal use because proving damages would be difficult and not worth the cost. For the most part, you're in the clear and really only have to worry if you find yourself in the highly unlikely circumstance of having your hard drive seized during a legal investigation.
Quote via the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Illegal Action: Using Commercial Software You Didn't Pay For
Although these routes are available to you, it's best to avoid piracy altogether. If you're considering software piracy because of the high cost of software, don't forget that there are lots of ways to get steep discounts. Ultimately there are few reasonable justifications for pirating software and the law will not be on your side. What About Everything Else?The above examples only scratch the surface of the various copyright issues you can run into on a daily basis, which leaves the question of "how do I communicate and share online without putting myself at risk?" While there's currently no clear answer, Derek Bambauer suggests you ask yourself one simple question: "does this feel wrong to me?" While the answer may not always guide you to a fully legal answer, as copyright law is currently comprised of so many gray areas, your own moral compass is often your most reliable guide. A very special thanks goes out to Derek Bambauer, Assistant Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School, for his assistance with this post. You can find his blog here. Also, thank you to my anonymous government pals who provided guidance in the early stages of writing this article. You keep me hopeful. Images by Ukranian Guide, Hacking Home, Defective by Design, Nuevos Memes, OpenBytes, Wikipedia, and Beyond the Wall. |
|
No matter how carefully you plan your goals they will never be more that pipe dreams unless you pursue them with gusto. --- W. Clement Stone
Monday, February 27, 2012
How You're Breaking the Law Every Day (and What You Can Do About It)
Mountain Lion Review: What Happened to Apple's Innovation?
February 27th, 2012Top StoryMountain Lion Review: What Happened to Apple's Innovation?
I've been using Mountain Lion for more than a week now, and I got the same feeling I got from Lion: Scott Forstall—Apple's own Doctor Moreau—is still pushing for an ungodly desktop/iPad hybrid. This is not the future; it's a patched up genetic experiment anchored in Apple's past and present successes. For all of Mountain Lion's good new features—and there are a few—the new OS raises a terrifying brace of thoughts: that Apple has run out of ideas. Or worse, that Apple is too afraid to implement new concepts, fearing it will kill the company's golden goose. Too afraid to change the world once again, as Steve Jobs used to say, one desktop at a time. Mountain Lion has the same Finder and the same app-centered approach as its king-of-the-jungle forbearer: more of the same gimmicky interfaces full of leather and ripped out pages; more outdated graphic metaphors and unnecessarily cute eye candy. And yes, it has a few good new features, which are useful and welcome, but nothing zowielala amazing or innovative. And some of these new good features also have dark sides. Good new features—loaded with venomMy favorite thing about Mountain Lion is Notifications, a live-updated panel that hides on the right side of your screen. If you have an iPhone or iPad with iOS 5, you know how it works: When a new email, Twitter DM, or any other alert comes in, a notification briefly blips onto your screen. After a moment it disappears and gets stored in the Notifications panel. To see the panel, just slide two fingers from the right edge of your trackpad over to the left or click on the little icon that sits in the top right corner of your screen, the latest addition to the endless row of icons in OS X menu bar. (I still remember Steve Jobs commenting on how much he hated this endless icon row back in the Mac OS 8 days—messy.)
Actually, any third-party app can use the Notifications programming interface—any app that is sold through the App Store, that is. Apple's not going to miss out on its 30-percent cut and control over the platform. And why should it? It's Apple's platform and service, after all. But it still feels like Don Corleone making an offer devs can't refuse. Same deal with iCloud, another good feature that finally gets fully implemented and useful. Any third-party app that wants to use iCloud must go through the App Store. And as with Notifications, Apple is banking on the fact that everyone will want a piece of iCloud action, because it works great (most of the time).
It's the antithesis of Jon Ive's minimalistic design, all essence devoid of artifice. In fact, it goes against everything Apple used to defend when it was king of user interface development: that everything should follow the same language in order to make everything intuitive and familiar to the user. With iOS, Apple backtracked, saying that the application should mimic the real-world item it was to replace. It made a little sense on a phone, but almost none on your desktop. And it opens the door to a fragmented design language that could make the future of Apple design very unappealing. It is a slippery slope heading to a future in which every app has their own interface—a garish clusterfuck of onscreen gadgets.
In fact, I think this makes Gatekeeper—a new nice security feature—almost unnecessary. Apple says that Gatekeeper is designed to protect you against evil apps: Mountain Lion will require any app to either use an Apple unique identifier or be sold through the App Store. Users can run any other app at their own risk, but Gatekeeper will offer a warning. That will protect—and scare—a lot of newbies, who will be inclined to only use the App Store to download their software. (Even though the App Store is not the safest place anymore.) It's Apple's not-so-subtle way of corraling developers into its walled garden. But with iCloud kicking so much ass, it's unlikely that most people will stray outside the App Store for software anyway. After iCloud, my other favorite feature is AirPlay Mirroring, which lets you beam anything that can play on your Mac screen to any Apple TV or AirPlay-enabled AV receiver or projector. That includes Adobe Flash and Microsoft Silverlight content, DVD discs, and any other video playback app. So you could see any movie or TV series without having to go through iTunes. I'm actually amazed that Apple did this, since it opens a hole in the walled garden. In fact, I live in fear that this feature won't be fully available in the final version. After all, Apple doesn't allow Hulu in Apple TV—not even through Airplay—because it competes against the iTunes store. Apple says there are over a hundred new features and refinements, like Twitter sharing implemented across all apps. Or Safari's new unified address bar which, like Google's Chrome, can now accept search queries and web addresses in the same field. All Apple apps—and most third-party apps I have—can now run on full screen mode as well, which is good if you have a trackpad. In my Lion review I argued that the lack of full screen apps made the full screen mode useless. Now, except for Photoshop and a few other professional apps that still don't support full screen mode, you can live in full screen land all of the time. I really like having my mail take over one screen and Chrome with work-related tabs on another; I have Chrome with for-fun tabs on another, and then a frame full of Reeder a swipe away. It's so convenient and fast to flip through them. And it helps me to focus on tasks, with the new Notifications acting as a central link to the rest of my activities while I'm zeroing in an article or editing some video. It works. To a (sore) point. The sore point is the little apps. Why would I want Messages running in full screen mode? The innovator's dilemma
Look at Microsoft and Windows 8, with its split screen design: Users can assign a quarter of the screen to another app. It's a brilliant way to implement full screen apps—which I still think are the perfect way to interact with devices nowadays—without sacrificing the in-your-face, always-available multitasking that some apps—like instant messaging—require. Apple could have taken that route. Or any other route. Instead, it's either full-screen mode like iOS shoehorned into OS X or a clusterfuck of windows in a separate space. Workable? Sure. I can make it work. But it's not ideal—certainly confusing for many users and annoying for others, including myself. I'm not saying that Microsoft's approach is the only way to do this, but it is a great and intuitive solution. Which is basically what's wrong with Mountain Lion—and the difference between Apple and Microsoft these days. Apple—no longer the underdog but the leader—is anchored in its iOS legacy. The former innovator is scared to change its cash cow, even if it's grazing on user experience principles from Newton and Palm in the 1990s. It just feels like Apple isn't trying to make things better. Instead, the Cupertino Crew seems happy to just corral everyone—users and developers—into their walled ecosystem using familiar interfaces, convenient services like iCloud, and some gimmicky features. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that. Obviously, it works well enough for most people. Just like Windows 7 and the old Mac OS X work well enough. But it's a flawed approach. It's more of the same. It's not a path for future growth. Which is what I was hoping for Mountain Lion: a version that would correct the many flaws of Lion and introduce actual new ideas geared to make both the desktop and iOS better. As it turns out, it seems that this is not in the cards. Apple is happy where it is—just as it was in the 1980s. But, unlike the 1980s, the company's nemesis is not copying its stuff. It's breaking new ground. That's the most surprising thing about Mountain Lion. Not what Apple did, but that it makes clear a startling reality: Microsoft is the new Apple, thinking of ways to make a better, more productive experience for users. Sure, MS might fail, but at least Redmond is breaking new ground and trying to push computing forward.
Hell. It froze. This is a review of the beta version of OS X Mountain Lion. While I found some bugs and performance problems—it screwed my iMac's sound output, for example—these are normal in beta products. This review disregards those bugs and only analyzes the feature design. Images by Shutterstock/Eric Isselée |
|