Comcast P2P, Expensive Music Downloads — Consumers Always Pay

Ars Technica reported Comcast's announcement of its plan to lead an industry partnership in the creation of a "P2P Bill of Rights and Responsibilities" that would apply both to users and to ISPs. I think client p2p sponsored or offered by telcos, cable companies and their ISP operations has been lurking in the shadows for some time. I also think that previously the perceptible delay or the palpable resistance to p2p functionality by the telcos has resulted largely from an inability of the telcos to devise a worthwhile monetization plan. The obvious financial gain resulting from bandwidth usage and the accompanying charges to customers doesn't offset the huge potential load that existing infrastructure and switching would have to carry. But now that all the telcos and cable providers have thrown down the gauntlet and declared, essentially, that net neutrality (another buzzword for sure) is here and in the process of being implemented, it's quite possible that p2p functionality will suddenly become viable (and specifically chargeable as a service distinct from texting, phone calls, voice mail, caller ID, etc.).

The other question that giants like Comcast have recently asked their legal staff is "Are we opening the company to legal action brought by copyright holders if we enable p2p?" The most frequent answer seems to be that as long as Comcast promotes the use of p2p functionality, and more important, as long as copyright holders and managers such as Apple (through its iTunes web site) are willing to pay Comcast a tithe to ensure customers have fast access to the iTunes site (thereby provide sufficient revenue to make infrastructure loading and improvements worthwhile), everybody's ass is covered. No lawyer can then make a case against Comcast for enabling illegal file sharing the day after the same legal staff approves a deal for Apple to pay a fee to Comcast to ensure that Apple customers who are also Comcast customers have fast access to the iTunes store.

It's initially a complex equation. The most worrisome factor might be the degree to which Comcast and its competitors decide to impose potentially invasive usage monitoring to ensure specifically that p2p usage remains legal and within the guidelines for Fair Use set out in section 107 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Is the potential sacrifice of privacy worth the dubious privileges conferred by paying for a p2p feature on your cell phone? Possibly worse still, what will bandwidth payments by Apple to Comcast do to the purchase price of music downloads?

In the end, consumers pay, then pay again, and then yet again. What's the real cost of a music download on iTunes in such a situation? After accounting for the small proportionate cost of your ISP contract, cell phone plan, data plan, p2p client fee, bandwidth charges if you go over a monthly limit, the cost of a song download, the cost for the time required to burn a CD at home (for those people who prefer to listen to a CD in the car), the cost of the CD itself, the proportionate cost of hard drive storage space and backup storage space, and the cost for the time needed to make redundant backups of Digital Rights Management (CRM) licenses, purchasing music online may not be the bargain anyone thinks it is.

Respected Bloggers and Podcasters Need to Get the Facts

In show 354 of CNET's Buzz Out Loud podcast, Tom Merritt & Molly Wood mused about the efficacy of a translation of part of the new Harry Potter novel posted on a French web site. The basic complaint that Tom & Molly addressed was the apparent pressure, according to them, felt by frustrated non-English speaking Harry Potter fans waiting until October 25th for translated versions to appear in book stores around the world. The point of this blog post is to express surprise and shock that two otherwise brilliant commentators, bloggers and podcasters would even hint at supporting any rationale for copyright violations as obviously nasty as illegal Harry Potter translations (or for that matter, illegal translations of any books written by Tom or Molly).

For a fine piece of fiction such as a Harry Potter novel to be effectively translated, the best and most appropriate writer has to be found for each language. To put it bluntly, the vast majority of writers in any language simply aren't up to the task of translating J.K. Rowling's prose at anything close to the quality needed to effectively tell the story. In fact, if this type of task was in any way easy, we'd all be able to do it for ourselves in our native language. A writer contracted to do such work for a long series of novels must be available at the appropriate time. Sometimes writing schedules work out quite well. Sometimes they don't. In any event, a writer good enough to do the French translation of a Harry Potter novel, may not be sitting around idly wasting the days, weeks and months of her life waiting for Ms. Rowling to do her thing. Even if completed chapters can be sent to translators relatively early in the process, e.g., in the last few months of the rewrite and revision process, it takes months (even after using the finest translation databases) for the translating writer to plow through something as complex and idiomatic as a Harry Potter novel. That the book is being released around the world in so many languages throughout the rest of 2007 is actually a remarkable achievement.

Publishers, editors and authors form a closely linked team which produce a popular work of fiction through a clearly delineated process of original writing, submission, editing, rewriting, revision and publication. Effectively adding languages other than the author's requires that a similar process be undertaken for each one. Readers in France boast the possession of immensely powerful language and literary traditions which in many areas predate English. To think that the partial translation of the latest Harry Potter novel by some greedy and selfish youth could possibly provide anything close to the quality French readers deserve is absurd. That lack of quality is both a defense and an affront of course, in addition to being grossly offensive and illegal. Tom & Molly did not support copyright violation, but they provided an intellectual excuse which cannot in fact be justified in any way.

Copyright exists to protect authors first and foremost. J.K. Rowling has by every account worked very hard to create the wonderful series of books which have essentially placed her in the ranks of one of the richest women in the world and among the pantheon of most loved writers. From where I'm sitting, she deserves every bit of approbation, respect, money and copyright protection. Anyone who monkeys around with her writing should be punished and held up as an example to others. I don't propose for one minute that we treat copyright violators like murderers or anything of the sort. I do however believe that appropriate punishments can be meted out which thoroughly discourage thoughtless or greedy fools from taking the best quality literary sustenance away from those who so dearly want it. Patience in this case will be rewarded with a superb translation, untarnished by the pathetically written eructations of an impatient fool bent on showing the world that he knows better.

Content producers, Tom Merritt & Molly Wood included, need to protect the spirit and efficacy of copyright at all times. Tom, Molly and many other pundits also need to clearly separate the loony tenets of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), from the legitimate application of traditional copyright applied to unlawful web postings and other demonstrable offenses against legitimate writers and their works. Buzz Out Loud is heard by hundreds of thousands. In our view, Tom & Molly have to do a better job of eliminating the support of childish impatience by helping to explain exactly why popular books often cannot be released simultaneously in multiple languages. Simply discussing an understanding of childish impatience on the part of the French malefactor lends efficacy to a copyright violation which is clearly enormous because of the vast size of the Harry Potter target. Wrong is wrong, in any language.

Digital FAIR USE Bill Introduced.

Frank Ahrens of the Washington Post, has posted a blog entry, detailing a Bill introduced in congress to support fair usage rights of media for consumers. Reps. Rich Boucher (D-Va.) and John Dolittle (R-Calif.) introduced what they call the "Freedom and Innovation Revitalizing U.S. Entrepreneurship" (FAIR USE) Act, which they say, will make it easier for digital media consumers to fairly use the content that they buy. The post indicates that this legislation is backed by the Consumer Electronics Association. Roll on FAIR USE ... I'm looking forward to hearing more.