MESSAGE
| DATE | 2005-08-20 |
| FROM | Ruben Safir
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] New Book on DRM reviewed in the NY Times
|
By DAN MITCHELL
Published: August 20, 2005
THE new book "Darknet: Hollywood's War Against the Digital Generation,"
by J. D. Lasica, covers ground that's been pounded before: the
often-draconian or clueless ways big entertainment companies try to
control content or subvert emerging technologies, and how people work
around those efforts by sharing content online often in walled-off,
anonymous places like private Internet Relay Chat rooms and the Free
Network Project (freenet.sourceforge.net).
Mr. Lasica, a journalist, brings a storyteller's flair to the subject,
but what really makes Darknet unique is that it was born online and
lives there still at www.darknet.com. The book, just one part of the
overall project, was written in collaboration with its audience via a
wiki - a Web application that allows any user to add or edit content. At
the site, Mr. Lasica and his readers continue to share news and expand
on the ideas presented in the book. His site also offers many excerpts.
Skip to next paragraph
Sara Varon
RelatedDarknet
Free Network Project
Fortune: "Sex, Lies, and Videogames
The Watchful Investor
Death by Caffeine Calculator
Readers
Forum: Technology and the Internet
"Darknet" was a term coined by a team of Microsoft researchers in 2002.
According to Mr. Lasica's account, they advised that "media companies
ought to use copy protection judiciously."
"Because users don't like digital locks, somebody will figure out how to
pick them, and content will spill into the Darknet despite the best
efforts to wall it off. The best way companies can fight darknet piracy,
they said, is by offering affordable, convenient, compelling products
and services. In other words, the most effective copy protection system
is a great business model."
Big media have largely ignored that advice - to their peril, Mr. Lasica
says. The industry's war on its own customers will just alienate them
further, and darknets will thrive.
PLAYING GAMES When it was discovered recently that the video game Grand
Theft Auto: San Andreas included a hidden sex scene, many questioned the
resulting moral outrage. Why, some people asked, is anyone appalled by
this, given the way the game has for years made a rank sport out of ugly
brutality and breathtaking violence?
Now Bethany McLean, a reporter for Fortune magazine, in an article
(fortune.com) is asking a new question.
"What's most shocking about the controversial - and top-selling - Grand
Theft Auto isn't embedded sex scenes," Ms. McLean writes. "It's the
financial chicanery of the game's maker. Why don't investors care?"
She recounts the "history of financial improprieties, hefty stock sales
in the midst of scandal, and revolving-door management," at Take Two
Software, the game's maker, and wonders why the stock hasn't
appropriately tanked.
LESS IS MORE More data is better, especially when it comes to investing.
Right? Wrong, says Jim Waddell, keeper of the Watchful Investor.
The aim of watchfulinvestor.blogspot.com is to present "the
underreported, the underappreciated, and the overlooked news from the
markets." But there isn't enough of that, Mr. Waddell decided this week.
So he's broadening the site's scope. "Most days, there isn't that much
news you really need to know as an investor. Sure, a slew of statistics
are reported, almost daily. Most are just noise."
The new material - political rants, personal finance tips - hews to the
site's mission, though, to cast a contrarian eye on news events . The
site's smart investment commentary continues, including Mr. Waddell's
thoughts on Google's secondary offering this week.
FILLED TO THE RIM Ever wondered how much of your favorite caffeinated
drink it would take to actually kill you? O.K., you haven't. But if
you're curious, you can find out by using the Death by Caffeine
Calculator at energyfiend.com, an odd little blog dedicated solely to
buzz-inducing beverages. Just pick your poison from a drop-down menu
then enter your weight and hit the "kill me" button. Someone weighing
175 pounds would die upon consuming 1,592.50 bottles of Diet Sun Tea
Snapple, according to the blog. A mere 99.53 cans of Starbucks Double
Shot would kill the same person.
E-mail: whatsonline-at-nytimes.com.
Next Article in Technology (2 of 13) >
Order an Online Edition of The NY Times & Read at Your Leisure
Related Articles
* A New Arms Race to Build the World's Mightiest Computer (August
19, 2005)
* 14,159,265 New Slices of Rich Technology (August 19, 2005)
* A Lemonade Stand for the 21st Century (August 18, 2005)
* Comics Escape a Paper Box, and Electronic Questions Pop
Out (August 17, 2005)
|
|
