One Down, Four to Go: The Death of DRM

So it looks like the fax machine managed to outlive DRM on my list of technologies which will be gone in 10 years.  A few weeks ago Apple bit the bullet and offered 100% of the iTunes library DRM-free after watching Amazon MP3 eat away at their market share with thousands of 99 cent DRM-free tracks.  We all knew DRM was gonna die, but honestly this was a little sooner than I thought.

So in celebration last week, I purchased my first music file on iTunes. Plus, this all happened in the wake of the RIAA announcing they're going to stop suing their customers. Things are definitely looking up.

Even so, the thought occurred to today that it's possible I spoke too soon. Maybe one day, in a different form, digital rights management will be all that matters.  If in the future we are all constantly connected by a high-speed, wireless, broadband internet connection (on our phone, in our car, in our home, at work, etc), why couldn't all music be streamed?  Instead of buying a piece of data on iTunes which is transferred from Apple's server to your computer, you could by the rights to play the music off of Apple's server.  You open iTunes and click play on a song you've purchased.  Apple streams that song from their servers to your computer and out of your speakers.  Because your internet connection is so wide and so fast, the music is delivered in CD quality.  Not only that, but because your music is on Apple's server instead of your laptop or iPod, it's accessible from anywhere - your phone, your car, your work computer, your parents' house.  No more downloading, no more 40 gigs of music filling up your hard drive, no more losing music in a crash, no more lugging music around with you.  This could be the future.

But back to the present, where DRM controls files instead of streams. In a hilarious and sadly predictable move Microsoft launched a DRM-laden music service in the UK last week in utter defiance of the obvious advancement of music technology (please note the perfect image used for that article). Not only that, they also released a silly Garageband clone with their characteristicly awful marketing to go along with it. The following video will make you lose all faith in humanity. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Hat tip to Jared for this soul-crushing piece of internet marketing.

Image: defectivebydesign.org

Quotes from My Sisters

"I have given someone their first bath. And I've given someone their last bath." Jessica Scott

"The blueberry muffins with the crumblies on top have stolen my heart." Anna Scott

Gosh I love these people.

"Legitimate Philosophical Differences?"

On my way home today, I heard the President of the United States say, "There are some legitimate philosophical differences with parts of my plan that the Republicans have and I respect that."

Seriously. Who taught this kid politics?

Erin Scott Photography: The Next Level of Awesome

Friends, there is something you need to understand.

My wife is awesome.

Now I know this not the first time you've heard a relatively newly-married fellow gushing praise for his bride on some sort of social networking internet-type portal. But this is serious. This is on a whole 'nother level, my friends.

I present for your consideration, the following photograph:


The photo that just blew your mind was taken by Erin Scott (of erinscottphotography) at a very special New Years Eve wedding of some close friends of ours. Erin worked for a wedding photographer in Greenville for the last year, and this was her first wedding after quitting her job to tackle the business on her own.

What you probably don't know about this photo (which just blew your mind) is it was taken in about 10 minutes. The bride and groom understandably weren't too keen on leaving the reception for longer than that. Thus the original photo had about zero cars in it (1am New Years Day isn't exactly rush hour). After the wedding was over, Erin and I returned to the same spot and I posed (an activity which I usually decline, but for this it was worth it) while Erin shot for another twenty minutes. So what you're looking at is a composite of about six different shots artfully and seamlessly combined by Erin's mad Photoshop skills.

But her skills of an artist don't begin to give you the full picture of just how awesome Erin is at this. Erin had envisioned this shot not the day of the wedding, or the day before, but two weeks ahead of time when she used Google Street View to check out the church online. Yeah. I KNOW.

I hope the married fellas out there can sympathize with this, but there is nothing quite like watching your wife hit it out of the park at her job, particularly if it's something she's passionate about. The fact that she is in the business of making people happy by creating art which finds beauty and drama in ordinary events just sweetens it all the more.

Here are a couple more gorgeous shots from the wedding, and a link where you can find a few more.

More photos from this wedding
ErinScottPhotography.com

*UPDATE: People are really digging this post. Wanted to let you know that Erin Scott Photography has an RSS feed here which you can hit up if you'd like to know when Erin adds new photos to her site.

Joe Pug - "Nation of Heat"

It is very hard to listen to this young man and not feel he is on his way to becoming our generation's Dylan (move over, Oberst).

It ain't rare to hear the streetlights call themselves stars...

Outside the train station there's a bold painted sign
It says try to be patient - don't forget to choose sides
We got the loudest explosions you ever heard
We got two dollar soldiers and ten dollar words
If I didn't own boots I wouldn't need feet
I come from the nation of heat

The Onion: Hillary Clinton Mouthing Along To Presidential Oath

Hillary Clinton Mouthing Along To Presidential Oath

WASHINGTON—Network news cameras covering Barack Obama's inauguration ceremony Tuesday captured Hillary Clinton silently moving her lips along with each word of the minute-long presidential oath of office. As she stood watching several yards from Chief Justice John Roberts, the former Democratic presidential candidate could be observed placing her left hand on a leather appointment book and raising her right hand slightly from her hip. Clinton, who carefully followed the swearing-in procedure with her eyes shut tightly, only varied from the president's words once, when she soundlessly mouthed her name instead of Barack Obama's.

Tanks Beaten into Tractors

In case you missed it, you need to hear this:



And all God's people said...

Ray Charles - "America the Beautiful"

Patrick Moberg

Ray Charles - "America the Beautiful"

Negotiating with Terrorists

I was remarking the other day that I just can't believe so little time remains for the Bush Administration, and now there's only one day left. In light of the tumultuous eight years it has been, I thought this seemed an appropriate topic to breech, an appropriate idea to question.

I don't think I've mentioned here before that my family contains many lawyers. I have three uncles and one grandfather in the business, mostly insurance law. I also don't think I've mentioned that one of my absolute favorite things to do when visiting someone's house is to spend time investigating their bookshelf - preferably even reading a chapter or two. Over the holidays Erin and I were staying in my uncle's old room in my grandparents' house, and on his shelf, amidst books on Florida wildlife, was a book called "Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In" by Roger Fisher and William L. Ulry - most likely required reading for one of my uncle's law classes. I later found out it's one of the most famous books on negotiation ever written.

At the back of the book was a question and answer section, and one question in particular caught my eye: "Should I negotiate even with terrorists: or someone like Hitler?" Well obviously we all know the United States' (and GW Bush's, and John McCain's, and Hillary Clinton's, and Barack Obama's...) answer to this question. But the intriguing thing was this book was published in 1991 - "pre-9/11" as they say. I couldn't help wondering what the world thought of this topic eighteen years ago.

I managed to find the entire text of this section of the book online, and I've posted it in its entirety below (legally, I hope). If you're not that interested, here are some key points:

• The answer is yes
• The better the communication, the more likely you are to exert influence
• If you have a good case, you are more likely to influence the other party than they are to influence you
  
• Negotiating does not mean compromising your beliefs
• Negotiating does not mean giving in
• Saying you do not negotiate with terrorists is indirectly negotiating with them
• The US has negotiated with terrorists before, with positive results
• War (or "the military option") is not always an option, or even usually a beneficial alternative

The question of course is did 9/11 change all of this? Now that we've seen the capability and homicidal determination of terrorist groups, do these principles no longer apply? Read on and decide for yourself, but I must say after reading this I'm not convinced.

(By the way, BATNA below stands for "best alternative to negotiated agreement," a term apparently widely used and coined by the authors of this book.)

Question 5: "Should I negotiate even with terrorists: or someone like Hitler? When does It make sense not to negotiate?"

However unsavory the other side, unless you have a better BATNA, the question you face is not whether to negotiate, but how.

Negotiate with terrorists? Yes. In fact, in the sense that you are trying to influence their decisions—and they are trying to influence yours—you are negotiating with them even if you are not talking with them. The question is whether to do so at a distance by actions and words (such as "We will never negotiate with terrorists!") or whether to do so more directly. In general, the better the communication, the better your chance to exert influence. If questions of personal safety can be resolved, it makes sense to establish a dialogue with terrorists, whether they are holding hostages or threatening some act of violence. If you have a good case, you are more likely to influence them than they are to influence you. (The same arguments apply to dealing with negotiation "terrorists," who try to use dirty tricks.)

Negotiation does not mean giving in. There are high costs in paying ransom or blackmail. Rewarding kidnapping encourages more kidnapping. Through communication it may be possible to convince terrorists (and possible future terrorists) that they will not receive a ransom. It may also be possible to learn of some legitimate interests they have and to work out an arrangement in which neither side gives in.

With the help of Algerian mediators, the United States and Iran were able to negotiate the release in January 1981 of the American diplomats who had been held for more than a year in the U.S. embassy in Tehran. The basis of the settlement was that each side got no more than that to which they were entitled: The hostages would be released; Iran would pay its debts; when those amounts were settled, the balance of the funds seized by the United States would be returned to Iran; the United States would recognize the government of Iran and would not interfere in its internal affairs; and so on. It would have been difficult if not impossible to work out a settlement without negotiation. And despite the gross illegality of the seizure of the U.S. embassy, both sides benefited from the negotiations that finally took place in the fall of 1980.

It is sometimes said that officials should refuse to talk with political terrorists because to do so would confer status and reward their illegal action. It is true that for a high government official to meet with terrorists might well appear to enhance their importance to an extent that outweighed the potential gain. But contact at a professional level is quite different. Urban police negotiators have learned that direct personal dialogue with criminals who are holding hostages frequently results in the hostage being released and the criminals being taken into custody.

During the 1988 hijacking of Kuwait Airways Flight 422, extensive negotiations occurred with the hijackers but over increasingly small issues. The government of Kuwait said flatly at the beginning of the incident that they would not release Shiites convicted of terrorist acts who were held in jail in Kuwait, and they never retreated from that fundamental principle. But local authorities in Cyprus and Algeria negotiated incessantly over things like permission for the plane to land, requests for additional fuel, access to news media, and deliveries of food. For each transaction these authorities successfully obtained the release of more hostages. At the same time, they appealed - as fellow Muslims - to Islamic ideals of mercy and the Prophet Muhammad's admonitions against the taking of hostages. Eventually all the hostages were released. The hijackers were also allowed to leave Algeria, but their prolonged and embarrassing failure to achieve any of their announced goals no doubt contributed to a subsequent reduction in terrorist hijackings.

Negotiate with someone like Hitler? It depends on the alternative. Some interests you have may be worth fighting and even dying for. Many of us feel that ridding the world of fascism, standing up to territorial aggression, and putting a stop to genocide fall into that category. If such interests are at stake and cannot be met by less costly means, you should be prepared to light if that will help, and—some will say—sometimes even if it won't.

On the other hand, war is a nasty business, too often romanticized. If you can achieve a substantial measure of your interests through nonviolent means, you should give that option serious consideration. Few wars are as one-sided as the United Nations liberation of Kuwait. Even there, a negotiated withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait might have avoided the oil fires in Kuwait, the environmental damage to the Persian Gulf, and the enormous human suffering caused by the war.

Most important, war offers no guarantee of results better than could be achieved by other means. As premier of the Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin was in many ways as objectionable to the world as Hitler had been. He committed a variety of territorial aggressions, engaged in genocide, and promoted a state·centered ideology that in practice looked a lot like National Socialism. But in an age of hydrogen bombs, conquering the Soviet Union as the Allies had conquered Germany was no longer a viable option. Nor did the principles at stake seem to justify mutual annihilation. Instead, the West waited, patient and steadfast in its moral opposition to Soviet communism, until it began to collapse of its own accord.

Even with someone like Hitler or Stalin, we should negotiate if negotiation holds the promise of achieving an outcome that, all things considered, meets our interests better than our BATNA. When a war does occur, in many cases it is actually a move within a negotiation. The violence is intended to change the other side's BATNA, or their perception of it, so that they will more readily agree to our terms for peace. In such cases thinking in negotiation terms is vital, so that we do not neglect to craft and communicate our offer in ways that we can reasonably expect will be persuasive to the other side.

Negotiate where people are acting out of religious conviction? Yes. Although people's religious convictions are unlikely to be changed through negotiation, the actions they take, even those based on their convictions, may be subject to influence. Such was the case with the Kuwait Airways hijacking. A key point, worth repeating, is that negotiating does not require compromising your principles. More often success is achieved by finding a solution that is arguably consistent with each side's principles. Many situations only appear to be "religious" conflicts. The conflict in Northern Ireland between Protestants and Catholics, like the conflict in Lebanon between Christians and Muslims, is not over religion. In each case, religion serves as a handy boundary line for dividing one group from another. That cleavage is reinforced as it is used to divide where people live, where they work, who their friends are, and for whom they vote. Negotiation between such groups is highly desirable, as it improves the chance that they will be able to reach pragmatic accommodations that are to their mutual interest.

When does it make sense not to negotiate? Whether it makes sense to negotiate and how much effort to put into it depends on how satisfactory you find your BATNA and how likely you think it is that negotiation will produce better results. If your BATNA is fine and negotiation looks unpromising, there is no reason to invest much time in negotiation. On the other hand, if your BATNA is awful, you should be willing to invest a little more time—even where negotiation looks unpromising—to test whether something more satisfactory might be worked out. To do this analysis, you need to have thought carefully about your BATNA and the other side's. You should not make the mistake of the bank that was negotiating with a bankrupt energy company. Legally, the bank was entitled to take over ownership of the entire company, but the judge in the ease said that he wanted the parties to settle. The bank offered to take 51 percent of the stock and reduce the interest on the loan, but the company (owned by management) stonewalled. Frustrated, the bank spent months trying to get the company to show an interest in negotiating. Understandably, the company refused-»-the company saw their BATNA as merely waiting for oil prices to rise. At that point they could pay off their loan and they would still own 100 percent of their company. The bank had failed to think clearly either about their own BATNA or the company's. The bank should have been negotiating with the judge, explaining how this situation was unfair and appealable. But the bank thought negotiating with the company was its only choice.

Governments often make the mistake of assuming that they have a better BATNA than they do—for example, when they imply that if "political" and "economic" means fail in a given situation, then there is always "the military option." There is not always a viable military option. (Consider most hostage situations, in which there is no military option that can realistically promise the hostages' safe retrieval. Raids like that of the Israeli military on the Ugandan airport at Entebbe—-an airport designed and built by Israeli engineers—are exceptional and become more difficult with each success, as terrorism adapt to new tactics.) Whether or not we have a self-help option depends on the situation: Can the objective be achieved solely through our own efforts, or will someone on the other side have to make a decision? If the latter, their whose decision will we have to influence, what decision do we want, and how, if at all, could military force help influence that decision?

Don't assume that you have a BATNA better than negotiating, or that you don't. Think it through. Then decide whether negotiating makes sense.

From Getting to Yes by Roger Fisher and William Ury
Copyright: New York: Penguin Books, 1991

Mark Sanford Strikes Again

What to do when you've bankrupted a state with one of the worst education rankings in the country? Cut higher education, that's what!

Ol' Mark Sanford wants to close three schools in an effort to get South Carolina out of the red. Oh and he's proposing pay freezes so teachers won't get bonuses for completing national certification.

Classy.

All this in the state with the lowest cigarette tax in the country. Cause sometimes you have to shut down a school or two, but smoking is an investment in our future.

Quotes: Gaskets, Growth, and the Mother of Necessity

"After an access cover has been secured by sixteen hold-down screws, it will be discovered that the gasket has been omitted." De la Lastra's Corollary

“You’ll never become what you aren’t becoming.” Rich Ramsey (via Costa)

"Invention is the mother of necessity." Thorstein Veblen

Et tu, Google?

A while back I wrote about my distaste for Google's tendency to start projects and then abandon them (Bookmarks, Video, Notebook) instead of killing them.

Well, it looks as though these economic times are convincing Google to do just that. Google recently killed Lively (their Second Life clone - if you can believe it), and now it has announced plans to kill or at least halt development on Video, Notebook, Catalog Search, Dodgeball (never heard of it), Jaiku, and Mashup Editor.

Now that Notebook is dying, maybe my dream for a Google bookmark manager (with social features) will be realized. But the more important issue here, the sign of the times, is that Google is hurting. They're laying off engineers and recruiters.

Google is the tech company of tech companies, so rapid changes shouldn't be a surprise. Still, kinda scary.

Image: Stuart Brown

Ahh, Clemson

Some Dude: I think I'll steal $20,000 worth of equipment from the Clemson Performing Arts department and put it on Craigslist the next day.

Clemson University: That's cool. Don't bother turning yourself in, we figured it out pretty easily. If you could just do some community service and pay back some of the money, we'll let you graduate on time without anything on your record. And don't worry, our student newspaper won't even bother printing a story on it.

Thanks to Jana Breitmeier for this story.

Don't Buy Stuff You Can't Afford

Thanks to Harrison for reminding me of this excellent SNL skit which perhaps could have prevented the housing crisis.



(Money comment from a site hosting this video: "It's an SNL skit, AND it's funny... I'm confuuused!")

Progress?

When I was younger, I was convinced I was right about a lot of things. I looked down on those who disagreed with me.

Now I am older, and I'm unsure about a lot of things - so I look down on those who are convinced they are right.

2008 Election Candidates You Missed

My uncle was kind enough to send me a copy of the 2008 Miami ballot, and for fun I decided to Google some of the names which were unfamiliar to me. I knew all of the candidates on the SC ballot very well, but the Miami ballot had a slew of independent socialists, a Boston Tea Party candidate, an Objectivist Party candidate, and Personal Choice Party (featuring Charles "Brains - For a Change" Jay) candidate, and my personal favorite, a Prohibition Party candidate.

The fact that all of these candidates made it on the ballot gives me a glimmer of hope in the American political process, but none so much as Prohibition Party candidate Gene Amondson, pictured here:

Image: Rick Dahms, Wikimedia Commons

"As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God"

If you read one article this month, it needs to be this one. My father, who has been working to start, supply, and train schools in Tanzania for I think eight years now, sent me the following article from the Times (the UK's largest newspaper). For a guy who is constantly struggling to see past Christianity's failures to God's goodness, it was one of the most amazing and encouraging things I've ever read.

I've written here before (with less charity and understanding than I hope I posses now) about my belief that the most effective method of serving and helping the less fortunate in Africa is not through government aid (which largely funds corrupt governments) but through local, long-haul, faith-based initiatives. The following article supports this idea and goes a step further by explaining how Christianity is not only well-equipped to meet Africa's physical needs, it is also uniquely gifted to meet the continent's spiritual ones - its need to change minds and hearts as well as feed mouths and heal bodies.

Of course the unique vantage point of the article is that it's written by an atheist - a man who doesn't believe God exists and yet finds him at work in Africa. It reminds me of this article written by an atheist who finds God in music. How exciting is that?

Ok ok enough commentary. Here is the article, and a particularly awesome quote from it:

As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God
Missionaries, not aid money, are the solution to Africa's biggest problem - the crushing passivity of the people's mindset

Now a confirmed atheist, I've become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. Education and training alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people's hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good.

Image: discount bling

How Rick Warren and Melissa Etheridge Became Friends

At this point you've probably heard about Obama's choice of his friend Rick Warren for the invocation at his inauguration. You've probably also heard that gay/lesbian rights groups are livid about the decision because of Warren's open support of Prop 8 (the California ban on same-sex marriage).

What you may not have heard is the open-minded, loving article written by openly lesbian music star Melissa Etheridge, titled "The Choice is Ours Now." She speaks to the members of the gay and lesbian community asking them not to demonize Warren, but to reach out to him. She praises him as open, thoughtful, and (in this NPR story) a good man. She ends the article with these words:

When we met later that night, [Warren] entered the room with open arms and an open heart. We agreed to build bridges to the future.

Brothers and sisters the choice is ours now. We have the world's attention. We have the capability to create change, awesome change in this world, but before we change minds we must change hearts. Sure, there are plenty of hateful people who will always hold on to their bigotry like a child to a blanket. But there are also good people out there, Christian and otherwise that are beginning to listen. They don't hate us, they fear change. Maybe in our anger, as we consider marches and boycotts, perhaps we can consider stretching out our hands. Maybe instead of marching on his church, we can show up en mass and volunteer for one of the many organizations affiliated with his church that work for HIV/AIDS causes all around the world.

Now I'm not saying I believe the revolution Etheridge hopes for is necessarily coming soon - at least the political one. But I do hope the revolution of conservative Christians and the lesbian/gay community reaching out to each other can be realized to some extent. Of course in many places, it already has. There are conservative Christians and homosexuals the world round who love each other and care for each other despite their disagreements. But I have never seen this openly acknowledged and even plead for by an activist member of the gay/lesbian community and a popular conservative pastor. It's exciting.

Obama's part in these events has been exciting as well. From this article:

At his news conference, the president-elect talked about being invited to speak at Warren's church two years ago “despite his knowledge that I had views entirely contrary to him when it came to gay and lesbian rights.

“During the course of the entire inaugural festivities, there will be a wide range of viewpoints that will be presented and that's how it should be,'' Obama said. He said the majesty of the country “is that we are diverse, noisy and opinionated and that's the spirit in which we have put together what I think will be a terrific inauguration. And that's hopefully going to be a spirit that carries over into my administration."

Despite members of the Christian community attacking Warren for inviting Obama to his church. Despite members of the homosexual community calling Obama a bigot. Despite members of the media who think this is just another political move to gain political capital...

I hope so too.

In the end though, I have no grand hope that Obama's administration itself will change the landscape of the American Evangelical/LGBT divide - I agree with NYT columnist Frank Rich: "Folks [should] choose their battles wisely, [and] judge Obama on the content of his policy-making, not on the character of his ministers.” But I do hope that the discussion which has now been brought front and center by this whole crazy sequence of events will result in more Rick Warrens and more Melissa Etheridges - more people who are willing to reach out to the other in friendship.

Someone is Lying to Us

I know, I know, that's not exactly news. But it is reaching a fever pitch, and thus I'm here writing another post about how I don't know what to think.

Everywhere people are saying the free market is dead - or rather, that the current economic crisis is a direct result of the failure of free market policies upheld by Clinton, Bush, Greenspan, you name it. This article from the Washington Post, sent to me by the thoughtful Nathan Elmore, says just that. However, every day I read another article by an economist or libertarian (or both) who responds that losses are just as much a part of the free market as gains, and it is government regulation (FDIC, Fannie/Freddy, Clinton pushing for less stringent requirements to get housing loans, and on and on) which has worsened this crisis, not deregulation - for example, this one*.

Interestingly enough, both sides are pointing fingers to the Depression and the New Deal. The more liberal folks say the New Deal was a resounding success (as many of us were taught in high school), a fiscal stimulus package that put people to work and gave hope to the working class. The more conservative folks respond that that the New Deal didn't actually lower unemployment, and instead created a slew of government regulatory agencies (FDIC, SEC, Social Security, etc) which actually prolonged the Depression rather than shortened it. Some say WWII ended the Depression. Others say it didn't. Still others say the Depression was a mild recession worsened by bad policy.

It's enough to make you throw up your hands and say to heck with it, except that from everything Obama's said lately, it looks like we're in for the New Deal part II. We're about to repeat history and I'm not convinced we know what happened the first time. Or at least I don't know. I sure hope someone in the Obama economic advisory team does - or even better, Congress. But when was the last time you had hope in Congress?

There is no doubt the New Deal gave Americans hope, and there is no doubt the New New Deal could do that too. In an economy that seems to me to be nothing more than a giant confidence game, hope is pretty important. So maybe it will be a good thing.

Or maybe it will spiral us into so much debt that the global economy is brought to it's knees.

One of the two.

*I will offer here one piece of particularly insightful wisdom which was sent to me by Winn Collier, the storyteller: "There is a place for regulation in this complicated and global economy, regulation required to actually allow the markets to operate freely and fairly. I think that is the real question - what does regulation and government involvement look like in the new century, the new world we find ourselves in?" We must remember the completely free market isn't dead - it never really existed.

Better Know a District - Washington, DC

A while back I posted my favorite Daily Show clip, so I thought I'd post my favorite Colbert Report clip as well just to be fair. All of Stephen T's Better Know a District segments (in which he attempts to interview all 435 US Representatives) are hilarious, but this one tops them all.

The Colbert Report Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Better Know a District - District of Columbia - Eleanor Holmes Norton