Blunders of the Traditional Music Industry in the Age of Technology

I found a really entertaining post by David Leichhardt that raises a few key questions revolving around the peculiar current behavior of the music industry, and how intellectual property is sold as a physical product. The blogger prefaces his punch with an account of a purchase he made in which he simply “handed over cash for a physical product,” in this case, a music CD.

“No, cries the music industry, you are bound by the licensing agreement that you did not sign and that we cannot produce for inspection.”

His purpose was to illustrate the bizarre conditions that what he just purchased was, in effect, not really his. The reality is he purchased a user license agreement, which he never agreed to, and can’t even be read.
The blunder, however, reveals itself in the following situation where the CD has been scratched and can no longer be listened to. Under the assumption that indeed his previous purchase is “a license agreement” for personal use, he deduces that he should be able to “reacquire [his] content, especially since it is digital data and can be produced an unlimited number of times at virtually no cost.”

“No, cries the music industry, you bought a product, not a license. You are not entitled to a free replacement, you need to buy it all over again. And when you do, you will be covered by another identical license. Until something happens to this new physical medium.”

It is interesting that either way, the customer is the one who loses. Not only is your product prone to physical corruption, but also its replacement, at literally zero cost, is not offered as a solution. When you buy a CD, you make a contribution to the artist and the effort of its distribution. In return you receive an agreement granting you access to listen to the songs. The instability of the medium works to the advantage of the music industry. When a medium is damaged, customers are required to once again contribute to the artist and the effort of its distribution.

This problem is, of course, weakened by the shift of “music user agreement packages” being sold purely in data form on the internet. I’m only assuming that these online companies would set up an account based structure in which previously purchased songs could be re-downloaded infinitely upon request. What a novel idea it would be, if the traditional music industry functioned in a similar fashion. I think this illustrates one of the many reasons that the traditional music is a dying breed.

Oldschool Cryptograpy via The Enigma Machine

Arthur Scherbius invented and developed the German Enigma Machine in 1926 in order to send encrypted messages. These devices used rotors to both decrypt and encrypt codes before and during the wartime. The technology was implemented into the German army for secure communication called "Wehrmacht Enigma." The machine found its way into the hands of Polish authorities who became one of the most pronounced code breaking which remained a secret to much of the public for nearly three decades. (1)

Marian Rejewski reveised and built upon Scherbius' technology and Poland began breaking German codes.

After the occupation of Poland, allied forces used the enigma device against the Axis powers in and information operation known as ULTRA.

Polish engineers implemented and improved upon the intricate machinery as the technology was brought into services for the German army.

"By 1933 the Poles were solving Enigma messages. They built their own copies to speed up the work. Then they improved on these with a cyclometer, which in effect joined two Enigmas, and then by 1938 their so-called bomba, which linked six Enigmas" (2)

Thousands of German messages were deciphered throughout the Enigma machine's actualization from the Bureau of the Polish Intelligence Service in Warsaw. The power of such early code breaking was truly an amazing thing. The Enigma Machine was a crucial Allied asset which aided in the outcome of the second world war. (3)

It's interesting to look back at how potentially pivotal such technologies have been in the past, and especially during the wartime. It will be compelling to see how these technologies evolve to encompass the sea of communication technologies today and in the future as well as their wartime significance.

Online Anonymity: A Fleeting Assumption

The implications of advanced data mining and personalized consumer experience on the Web seem to foreshadow an upcoming storm in commercial enterprise in the 21st century.

The apparent situation becomes obvious by the millions of investment dollars being spent on up-and-coming companies like Adchemy who aggregate and employ some of the most brilliant minds of our time in search of cutting edge computing techniques and algorithms designed to highly influence current standards in data mining, machine learning, and statistical inference (forming conclusions based on statistical data).

These companies hope to exploit masses of online data (generally) collected without the consent of participating consumers with the intention of personalized marketing and customer experience on the Web.

As explained by the chief executive of Adchemy here:

“It [Adchemy] doesn’t really identify a person,” but “it can identify the sorts of people -– by age, gender and interests -– that advertisers want to pinpoint.”

Basically, the company doesn’t reveal names to advertisers, and thus claims privacy is concealed. But what I wonder is that if all facets of a person’s life are available and being capitalized on by firms using algorithmic aggregators for “personalized online experience,” what’s the difference!? They’re tracking our movements down to the IP address through which we connect our computers to the Web. If you’re the sole user of your pc, then you could pretty much deduce that, to them, your name isn’t even relevant, and indeed your IP will work splendidly in identifying you and your not-exactly private activities. Companies like Accenture who invested heavily in Adchemy over the past year, know exactly whats up.

The blunt truth about the commercial implications of data mining technologies is summed up nicely in the last paragraph of an article I found at blogs.nytimes.com:

“…the technology raises all sorts of privacy questions. But this kind of targeted marketing is becoming the way of the Web, and Accenture wants to get into the game.”

I think developers understand precisely what the privacy concerns are, but until federal regulations stop them in their tracks, they’ll just continue doing it because it’s insanely lucrative.

Enterpreting the 4th Amendment: Olmsted & Katz

In the case of Olmsted v. United States, Mr Ralph Olmsted's claims for invasion of privacy by investigating officials were deemed to in no way violate his 4th Amendment rights. Only 39 years later in a fundamentally similar case, Katz v. United States, the supreme court ruled that 4th Amendment rights were indeed violated by F.B.I. detectives.

I decided to dig into the reasons behind such an obvious philosophical inconsistency in our highest office of law.

It appeared that the discrepancy was in the abstract interpretations of "unreasonable search and seizure" delegated by the 4th Amendment.

Olmsted v United States

Ralph Olmsted was tried for running alcohol during Prohibition on evidence gathered though electronic wiretapping of his home and office.

In an article discussing the Olmsted case here, the courts declared:

"The amendment itself shows that the search is to be of material things - the person, the house, his papers or his effects. The amendment does not forbid what was done here for there was no seizure. The evidence was secured by the sense of hearing and that only. There was not entry of the houses. The language of the amendment cannot be extended and expanded. Since the evidence was a conversation and no entry was made into Olmstead's home, there was therefore no violation of his rights against unreasonable search and seizure."

Simply put, the court concluded that search and seizure of physical things such has his person, house, papers, and effects constituted a violation of the 4^th amendment. Since they regarded the data recordings of fluctuations in air pressure coming from the mouth of Mr. Olmsted to be not physical in nature, the incriminating phone calls made by Olmsted were admissible, and did not violate his 4^th Amendment rights to “unreasonable search and seizure.”

Katz v. United States

39 years later “unreasonable search and seizure” was to be defined fundamentally contrary to the previous Supreme Court assessment. In the case Katz v. United States the defendant declared a violation in his 4^th Amendment rights and was acquitted on grounds that:

“The Fourth Amendment governs not only the seizure of tangible items, but extends as well to the recording of oral statements.”

and;

“Because the Fourth Amendment protects people, rather than places, its reach cannot turn on the presence or absence of a physical intrusion into any given enclosure.”

The previous quotes came from Cornell Law School here. As the succession of court rulings has shown, the Supreme Court has elaborated the meaning of the 4^th Amendment in their rulings of search and seizure to include intangible items. The courts also interpreted the 4^th Amendment in that because it “protects people,” the “presence or absence of a physical intrusion” is irrelevant in determining a violation of the amendment.

Interestingly, dissenting Justice Black argued that “the decision rendered by the Katz Court effectively amounts to a revision of the Fourth Amendment.” He brought fourth an ideological disagreement about interpreting v. elaborating constitutional amendments. Although I agree that rules should be interpreted within the confines of their corresponding literature, I disagree with Justice Black’s assessment about the magnitude of interpretation put forth by the court ruling. I think to look at the 4^th Amendment solely in terms of blunt objects is a misapplication and misinterpretation of privacy implied by our Bill of Rights in light of technological advances made in the twenty-first century. (qtd from here).

CQ Researcher - Online Privacy

1) Behavioral Targeting

"Behavioral Targeting," or compiled user-profiles that track online activity have raised privacy concerns because of their tendency to end up in the hand of third party advertisers. There are instances in which this type of information could be used detrimentally against online user.

"Would users about to apply for health insurance want the insurer to know that they had recently been searching for 'symptoms of colon cancer'?"

As the story about NebuAd has shown, there is legitimate public concern strong enough to topple firms that engage in behavioral targeting techniques regardless of the companies intentions.

It's unfortunate, though, that 65% of online marketing firms plan to use behavioral marketing practices despite public opposition and concern. Congressional hearings pertaining to this issue are in line of sight, and indeed, the only way public concern is likely to be addressed.

2) Tracking Technologies

Tracking technologies were first identified on a public level in an article published by Financial Times of London in February 1996. The article distinguished internet cookies as a potential threat to online users.

As explained in this article: "Cookies are the preferred method of accruing data because the information persists from session to session, and allows the Web server to recognize a user as having visited from the same computer as before."

These technologies exemplify a sort of precondition that is true for many online services to which we daily subscribe. It has to do with the arguments of risks vs. convenience; to participate in the convenience of online services we sign over bits of our privacy and anonymity.

3) GPS and Location-Based Services

"According to The Wall Street Journal, location-based services will be a $13-billion-a-year business by 2013, compared to $515 million last year."

Our mobile navigation and cellular services pose a threat to privacy because, in some cases, GPS tracking is used to inappropriately identify user's locations and is sold or given without user consent. Indeed, the problem lies in the absence of opt-out infrastructure.

Federal e911 rules require that cellular providers must, in the event of a 911 call, reveal location information in order to assist citizens in distress. The problem is that some users report that this information is being sent all the time! As discussed in another article: Verizon is defaulted to report locations of it's users at all times, but does, for those who care, provide an opt-out for locational privacy. The problem must lie in the fact that companies are not yet required by law to provide such an option which has raised considerable concern among users.

In addition, law enforcement should be required to obtain warrants in order learn the whereabouts of suspected persons.

http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre2009110600&type=hitlist&num=0

Full-Body Scans vs. Invasion of Privacy

I found an interesting article on nytimes.com this afternoon covering a flaring dispute between privacy advocates and airport authorities over the use of full-body scans which use Backscatter X-Ray technology to produce full body images.


“I’m on an airplane every three or four days; I want that plane to be as safe and secure as possible,” Mr. Chaffetz said. However, he added, “I don’t think anybody needs to see my 8-year-old naked in order to secure that airplane.”

“Your agency will be capturing the naked photographs of millions of American air travelers suspected of no wrongdoing.”


These legitimate concerns for privacy prove a difficult obstacle for further investment into this new technology. Although I consider myself a privacy advocate, there are compelling arguments supporting the contrary.


"Depending on the specific technology used, faces might be obscured or bodies reduced to the equivalent of a chalk outline. Also, the person reviewing the images must be in a separate room and cannot see who is entering the scanner. The machines have been modified to make it impossible to store the images, Ms. Lee said, and the procedure “is always optional to all passengers.” Anyone who refuses to be scanned “will receive an equivalent screening”: a full pat-down."


Like the article points out, I think that it all boils down to how these technologies are used when concerned with privacy. We all want to feel safe on our airborne journeys, but at the same time we don't want to be physically or "visually" molested, and we surely don't want our detailed "ghostly photographs" to appear on the web!

Jacek Utko designs to save newspapers

This is a prime example of what many media companies are being forced to do. Innovate. Indeed, it seems as fast as the mediums of communication are changing today, the harder it is for stagnating business practices to remain viable. All you have to do is take a look at the recording industry over the past few years to see exactly how maintaining old business models will get you nowhere in the 21st century. Jacek Utko has gone beyond the seasoned practices of his industry and provided an exciting fresh start for his small company. Good stuff!!

Privacy Issues with Google's Stored Internet Queries

European proponents of internet privacy have targeted Google over the length of time online consumer queries are stored.

Google's privacy counsel claims that the company complies with data protection regulations deleting internet search records every two years.

Data protection experts in the European Union are preparing to formally write Google with their claims of privacy infringement.

Google's 3.1 billion dollar acquisition of DoubleClick also raised concerns that the company will have "too much control in the Internet advertising market."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/20/technology/20iht-privacy.5.5378575.html