The following posts are from 2006

Reading a-ha for class 2

The first reading assignment layed a lot of groundwork for topics to come. I was previously unaware of what codecs were, and now feel that I have a strong enough grasp on it to really build upon. I also gained a lot from the discussion of the role bit rates and sample rates played in audio conversion. Coming into this class I knew almost nothing about video and audio compression, and am so pleased that we started with the basics. Even though it was dry reading, I know I would be lost if I hadn't read it.

How DRM has Failed...

The assignment here is to write about where DRM has failed, and to use personal experience if possible. Even though I'm sure DRM has failed me on many occasions, I didn't have a specific recollection that I felt significant enough to write about. I went searching on the Internet to read about the experience and complaints of others and found an abundant amount of information. After reading about five different accounts in the form of blogs, papers, and consumer rants I came upon a paper written by Corey Doctorow that was composed for a Microsoft Research DRM talk given on June 17,2004 to the Microsoft Research Group.

The full paper can be found at http://www.craphound.com/msftdrm.txt and is a very interesting and entertaining read. He illustrates some excellent points about the shortcomings of DRM very effectively. I have included a couple excerpts below that I felt particularly compelled to comment about, though I encourage you to check out the whole paper. The following paragraphs lend themselves to the idea that DRM has failed by not embracing the capabilities that digital media has to offer and fight them instead. In doing so they are fighting the one thing that keeps them a-float... the consumer.

“There's one thing that every new art business-model had in
common: it embraced the medium it lived in.

This is the overweening characteristic of every single successful
new medium: it is true to itself. The Luther Bible didn't
succeed on the axes that made a hand-copied monk Bible valuable:
they were ugly, they weren't in Church Latin, they weren't read
aloud by someone who could interpret it for his lay audience,
they didn't represent years of devoted-with-a-capital-D labor by
someone who had given his life over to God. The thing that made
the Luther Bible a success was its scalability: it was more
popular because it was more proliferate: all success factors for
a new medium pale beside its profligacy. The most successful
organisms on earth are those that reproduce the most: bugs and
bacteria, nematodes and virii. Reproduction is the best of all
survival strategies.”


“Whenever a new technology has disrupted copyright, we've changed
copyright. Copyright isn't an ethical proposition, it's a
utilitarian one. There's nothing *moral* about paying a composer
tuppence for the piano-roll rights, there's nothing *immoral*
about not paying Hollywood for the right to videotape a movie off
your TV. They're just the best way of balancing out so that
people's physical property rights in their VCRs and phonographs
are respected and so that creators get enough of a dangling
carrot to go on making shows and music and books and paintings.

Technology that disrupts copyright does so because it simplifies
and cheapens creation, reproduction and distribution. The
existing copyright businesses exploit inefficiencies in the old
production, reproduction and distribution system, and they'll be
weakened by the new technology. But new technology always gives
us more art with a wider reach: that's what tech is *for*.”

These arguments rang true to me and got me thinking more about the business models that are being produced around digital media and the limitations that are coming with them.

The best indication we have of future behavior, whether it is of an individual or an industry, is to look at past behaviors. The success of past media forms has largely been aided not only by the industries acceptance of that media and its capabilities, but also by embracing it. To use the advantages, not fight them, because ultimately they will prevail. Whether or not a business model does, in my opinion, depends upon to what degree you use the advantages in front of you.

A-HA FOR CLASS 8'S READING

Digital Rights Management and Licensing:

Of course it always comes back to the same question... how do we make the money? Digital Rights Management's role in the potential money to be made from streaming media is of great significance in my opinion. The only problem that arises over and over in Wotttton's writing is the fact that the industry standards, DRM, and the industry itself are in flux. This will most likely continue for some time making it risky to invest money and time into a business model and its implementation when it could very well become obsolete. As Drew mentioned in class, it is like the wild west in the field of streaming media right now.

On the other hand, this could be the very best time to get in the game and help set the standard. There is potential to make the business exactly what you need it to be for your products to succeed, though there are no guarantees. DRM provides a way to lock your content and allows you to control the key as to who and how content can be used. The biggest challenge, in my eyes, is understanding all of the ins and outs of DRM to be able to use them effectively and legally. Reading the fine print will make a difference here, especially because of the constant change and growth in the area. Even if you find a strategy to make money, if you encounter a liability that you weren't counting on you could be totally screwed. There are so many different levels on which you must consider these liabilities that it makes my head hurt!

A-ha for class 7's reading

Adding video to web pages is becoming increasingly common, but the quality of which it is executed varies greatly from site to site. There is nothing more irritating than going to a web site only to have it move incredibly slow while it tries to get a video to load. Sometimes the video doesn't work at all, or will just be "loading" forever...ugh! I think it is important is it is a feature that grows in popularity that the creators of the site keep the users best interest in mind. If they produce a slow or broken video it will only lead to consumer frustration as opposed to supporting their site.
I think having a seperate console for the video sounds like a good idea, allowing you to navigate around the site without having to wait for the video to finish. We all know how short our attention spans are, and if we need to move around the site to get what we want, we're not going to wait for the video to finish running. I've never been a fan of embedding video directly into a site, though it happens a lot.
In the area of protocols and plug-ins, I'm still a little hazy. I get the general point that to know the costs, benefits, and compatibility of each is key. This brings my brain back to the birst day when Drew explained that the planning of the media execution takes SO much more time than the actual execution. Testing different ways to deliver media to see what will be most optimal for the site is extremely crutial.

Mobile video seems to be creating its own little media category. It's limitations and technoloogy development around it, just like any new media, will really shape where it will go and how it will be used. I will be interested to see what kind of a response and what kind of use this media has in Asia.

Brightcove Partner Review

Blog for Tuesday July 11
Review two of the Brightcove partners and compare and contrast how they are implementing the technology

CODE.TV
The concept for using streaming video on this site is smart because CODE.TV is all about being a virtual guide to the city of New York. As it says in its intro video, it identifies places that you can read about or "actually see" by visiting the site. The streaming screen on my monitor is about 4x6. Unfortunately, the video quality is shoty. The screen is pixilated and the color quality is quite poor. There is a lot of movement and color in their footage, which might be why they chose a lower quality to achieve a higher speed. Either way... not so good. There were also a couple of instances where video buffering took place in the middle of the video. The audio was okay, but there was a lot of background noise and the volume was inconsistent. From one sentence to the next, the difference in volume was less than subtle.

Discovery
Discovery's use of video streaming was a major improvement over CODE.TV in my opinion. The streaming screen was about 3x4. The color quality and clear picture added so much to their story. The video was about the melting of a glacier in Patagonia, and was gorgeous. The only part that became pixilated was when severe movements took place. The sound was also excellent and clean. It is clear that they have put their best resources forward for a quality result.

Reading response for class #6

Windows Media:
It was interesting to read the QuickTime chapter before the Windows Media chapter simply to see how Wootton's tone changes from ultra-positive, to cautionary. The chapter about QuickTime was written as though it could do no wrong, where the Windows Media chapter always included a "but" even after the illustration of a benefit.

The clear message I got for this chapter is that Windows Media is a sort of safe bet when it comes to reaching the largest group of people. It may have its own challenges and benefits, but I think all players due. The point is to know what they are so that you can choose the best player for your specific needs, not to mention your target audience’s specific needs.

I am curious to know if there have been any significant developments in the H.265 and VC-1 standard ratification. I would also be interested to get a better grasp on this situation and what it means to the market through in-class discussion. I would also be interested in discussing Digital Rights Management in greater detail to help increase my level of understanding on what things to be looking out for and how the different media players differ in this arena.

Reading response #5

It seems that QuickTime has done an excellent job of allowing the most options that other formats have yet to offer. It has and continues to open new doors and explore new avenues that have not been touched by the other formats. I like the approach of the QuickTime player being a function of the movie being played as opposed to the configuration. It is this sort of innovative approach that, in my opinion, has helped develop QuickTime as such a unique tool compared to its competition. The biggest problem I see is the alienation of Linux users. I guess I am still not completely clear as to why there is no Linux version available and why there have been indications that there never will be.