Futurismic

The eBook future looks pretty bright for consumers, with devices improving and dropping in price, and a wealth of material to read thereon. But writers are worried, with some justification – after all, if the Kindle does for publishing what the iPod has done for the record labels, no one’s going to get much money for writing short stories any more.

Writer Luc Reid has been scratching his head over the Digital Rights Management question in an attempt to satisfy his requirements as both a writer and a reader, starting from the premise that DRM is necessary to enable authors to be paid for their work:

In general, the biggest argument against DRM seems to be that it provides positive things for the seller but only negative things to the buyer. Here’s a DRM proposal that actually helps the buyer, while taking away some of the biggest nuisances. I’m sure I’m not the first one to come up with it. It’s account-based DRM.

What I mean by “account-based” is that when a person buys a book, that person gets a permanent license to read that book on any eReader device they own, from a smart phone to a dedicated eReader to, who knows, their wide-screen TV with a little black box attachment. Computers might or might not be included; that would be mainly a technical issue.

This “account-based” idea is different from what’s usually talked about when people talk about eReader DRM, which is “device-based.” That is, much of the thinking about DRM has been that when I buy a book, I get to read it on the particular device I bought it for and nowhere else.

It’s a well-thought out set of ideas, and Reid has worked hard at including the flaws and objections. Unfortunately, I suspect it’s predicated on too many ‘ifs’ for it to be viable. An industry-wide standard retail structure complete with hardware and software that supports the system may sound easy on paper, but the real world is a little more messy, and getting competing companies to work together is like herding cats.

That said, Reid’s piece is one of the most honest defences of DRM I’ve ever read; maybe the publishing houses should get a think-tank of smart writers and readers together to boil up new ideas instead of leaving it to the beancounters and engineers?

If there are two concepts in the computing world that could be more antithetical than Open Source and Digital Rights Management, I can’t imagine what they might be^[1]. But it’s real: an outfit called Marlin say they’re ready to take on the software behemoths with DRM systems that “works in a way that doesn’t hold consumers hostage [... and] allows you to protect and share content in the home, in a way that people own the content, not the devices.”

Well, bravo to them for making the effort. I give it a maximum of two weeks of the system being out ‘in the wild’ before someone cracks it open like a seasonal hazelnut.

[ ¹ - Unless you count 'Apple' and 'Value For Money', I guess... ]

Sven Johnson reports on intellectual property wranglings in Second Life for the latest instalment of Future Imperfect.

Second Life’s unique content creation tools have been its strongest unique selling point, resulting in a vigorous virtual economy. But there, just as in real life, intellectual property rights are a thorny issue – and there are signs that the social media masses are starting to change their attitude to content theft.
Continue reading “Second Life, 3D dildos and the intellectual property mindset inversion”

Sins of A Solar Empire by small independent game company Stardock (and their developers Ironclad) is the biggest selling pc game of 2008 so far, despite a tiny budget and much less coverage by the gaming press.  Stardock owner Brad Wardell posted an excellent analysis of why their games are having success. (last year’s Galactic Civilisations II was another underground hit.)

He talks a lot about the bad policies taken by much of the PC game industry. For example, why bother targeting the Chinese market when piracy is so rife many people won’t purchase your game? His main point, and it’s a very good one, is that very few people upgrade their computer often so targeting the graphics of your game to only work for the ‘hardcore’ pc gamers is limiting your market. Rather than trying to break the latest processor if you just make a game that’s fun and works on most computers people will play it.

Sins is a fun game that combines the 4X ideas of ‘eXplore, eXpand, eXploit and eXterminate’ of games like Civilisation with Real Time Strategy elements of space games like Homeworld. I’ve enjoyed myself whenever I’ve played it but what’s even more impressive is the attitude of the people behind it – updates are frequent, there’s no DRM, the developers comment frequently on the game’s forum and they listen to requests from players about bugs and new features. In an industry full of high budget Hollywood games, it’s comforting to see that small companies can be a big success if they just concentrate on pleasing their audience.

For the past few months, people have been talking about the give-it-away-and-they-will-buy-it model for content distribution.  Now, NiN’s Trent Reznor has released his new Ghosts I-IV albums at a variety of price points, from the first album free to $300 for the super-duper deluxe version – and he sold all 2,500 of the latter.

While it’s not exactly the same as Radiohead’s deal – there were price points of $0, $5, $10, $75, and $300, each of which got you different things – it demonstrates innovative thinking on how to get music out there and be noticed, yet still make money.  The notable thing about NiN and Radiohead are both famous groups already.  It’s hard to know if this sort of model would work for unknown bands.

Incidentally, for another album-funding method, check out Scottish band Amplifico, who got the funding for their first studio-produced album by asking fans for donations.  As an apology for releasing the album late, they made a 3-track album available for free download from their website.

(image from NiN website)