A Posteriori

With the results of the recent ruling against No side in 1995 Quebec referendum for violating spending rules, this is a perfect time to reflect on the Quebec elite’s attitude toward the twin scandals of the 1995 referendum. One scandal is real. The other is imagined:

A) The effect of increased campaign spending on the number of votes allocated to any party or outcome in an election or referendum is entirely theoretical.

B) The effect of deliberately discarding valid votes in an election, for the purpose of giving an unfair advantage to one political party or one outcome in an election is entirely factual.

Only in Quebec could A) be highlighted with righteous indignation, and B) be deemed so irrelevant as to be totally ignored.

The controversy over B), or the rigged voting scandal, is still ongoing with no clear resolution:

Quebec 1995 Referendum reject ballots controversy

Within the context of a society that claims to be a democracy, it strikes me as totally hypocritical and an absolute double-standard for anyone to passively accept, let alone, uphold the principle that the vote of one ethnic, linguistic, national, or religious group should take precedence over another. Yet that is exactly this implied principle that is at best condoned and at worst actively promoted by the Quebec political elite. It is an entirely multi-partisan attitude that is totally consistent among the Liberals, the ADQ, and the PQ (among other parties).

In my view, the separatists have made, and continue to make, a spurious, incoherent, and morally inconsistent “argument” that they can simultaneously:

1. Establish the rules by which their past and any future separation referendums are held to the exclusion of any other other stakeholders, including Canadians in the rest of Canada and the federal government, not to mention any “federalist” opposition in Quebec.
2. Make the result of such a referendum binding upon Canadians in the rest of Canada, the federal government, Quebec “federalists” who voted no.
3. Make 50% + 1 vote the litmus test by which the rules of 1) are unilaterally imposed on 2. The Fallacy of Quebec Separation by 50% + 1

In order to be morally consistent, the separatists must accept one, and only one, of two mutually exclusive propositions, or models of the truth:

• Any Quebec referendum is a purely consultative process, or a glorified opinion poll, by which the Quebec government obtains authority to initiate negotiations with the federal government. Such negotiations would contain an explicit requirement of consent from the federal government (and by extension Canadians in the rest of Canada), for Quebec to leave the federation. As a purely consultative process, to be deemed non-binding without the consent of Canadians in the rest of Canada, the separatists can formulate whatever campaign rules they see fit to establish.
• Any Quebec referendum result is binding upon Quebec and the rest of Canada. Therefore, as a process in which all Canadians hold a stake, the rules must be determined by all stakeholders, not just the separatists. Otherwise, the outcome of such a process would be biased against all of, and the rest of, Canada, and by extension, Canadians in the rest of Canada.

Somehow, I doubt either of these two proposals would sit well with the separatist leadership. The separatists have shown a pathological insistence to bias in favour of the outcome, and against any fair and impartial process.

Apple’s 2007 World-Wide Developer’s Conference takes place from June 11th to June 15th. Here are my predictions as to what Apple will announce:

1. Apple replaces the MacMini with a new product that will serve a similar purpose and market segment, much like the iPod Nano replaced the iPod Mini (no MacNano jokes please )
2. Leopard features an enhanced BootCamp that will allow for easier emulation of Windows programs within OS X. The requirement that the user purchase and install a copy of Windows will still apply.
3. Finder will no longer be the centre of OS X. It will be replaced by a version of Spotlight on steroids. The Finder will still be available, but it will not be running by default.
4. The iMac loses its chin and will allow users to swap hard drives as they do RAM. They won’t be able to open up the back as they did with the very first iMac.
5. Leopard includes a graphical version of MacPorts that can also be used as a repository for open source .app programs.
6. Apple open sources its version of Java. Now that Sun’s version is open sourced and Apple’s Java 6.0 is over 6 month behind Sun’s, Apple has to do this. Also, since Apple’s devs are also working on the iPhone and Apple TV, they no longer have the resources to maintain a separate version of Java on their own. It will not open source the native Aqua code that’s used by Swing, only the Java classes that access that native code.
7. Bonjour takes a prominent role in Leopard, as well as the AppleTV and the iPhone (this is inspired from roughlydrafted.com, so I can’t take full credit for this prediction).
8. Now that all first party apps (Finder, Safari, iTunes) have had their themes unified, Apple will replace the Mac look n’ feel with something radically different from Aqua, far more significant than the change to brushed metal from pinstripes and just as significant as the move to OS X itself.

When looking to consume music, it is important to act morally. Given the politically charged and complicated subject of music downloads, it is easy to choose the wrong course of action.

Contrary to the predictable knee-jerk interpretations by those at both extreme ends of the music downloading debate, this is neither a lecture on the evils of, nor a rationalized condoning of, what is described as “illegal” file-sharing.

Here are the central planks of my moral position on obtaining music:

1) Boycott Digital Rights Management (DRM):

Paying for music with DRM, which should be called Digital Restrictions management, offers little value over and above paying for bottled air. The selling of content with digital protects flies in the face of the doctrine of first sale. If I pay for a good in a transaction that has been described by the seller as a “sale”, from that that point forward I should obtain total control of the product, aside from giving copies to other people. There should be nothing preventing me from using said product in the way that I choose. Were it be practical to do expect me to do so with a digital product, it should be permitted for me to sell my last copy to a third party, removing all other copies. The act of placing restrictions on my legally obtained copy of song, whether it be from making so many personal copies for personal use, transferring them to the devices of my choice, or using them in other ways I choose, amounts to an egregious violation of my rights as a customer. Furthermore, there appear to be no mechanisms at any of the major music stores that sell DRM’d music to obtain a replacement copy should my song intentionally or unintentionally deactivate itself.

Music rented for a short period of time should obviously have some sort of DRM to enforce the length of the transaction, but the music must be provided with that explicit caveat. So far, services offering music rented as part of a subscription service have done poorly. Also, even rented music should not be trusted, because the rented copy could deactivate itself before the consumer expects it to.

* Music obtained morally is music obtained with no DRM whatsoever.

2) Refuse to pay for or otherwise encourage any record label’s immoral or illegal behaviour:

Recently, Sony was sued as part of a class-action for including a rootkit in their music CDs.

According to Google Define:

Google Define: Rootkit

A rootkit is a program that runs hidden on a victim’s computer that obtains information about a user’s activities and sends them to either the author of the rootkit or a third party.

This rootkit installed itself irrespective of whether the user agreed or declined that End User License Agreement that appeared when that user inserted the CD into their computer. Such as action represents what is in my opinion an act of wanton vandalism on Sony’s paying customers. Furthermore, it was a flagrant violation of those users’ right to privacy. Sony was effectively spying on its users.

Other immoral acts by record companies involve suing people for copyright violations that were either incapable of committing those acts, or too young to be considered criminals.

Such companies don’t deserve the business of honest customers. They should not even get business indirectly though allofmp3.com, which is legal under Russian law and has attempted to send royalty checks to major record labels (who have refused to cash the cheques).

If you object to the practises of a particular record label and refuse to buy their music, then don’t obtain that music at all. If you download a particular song from a company you’ve chosen to boycott (ex: Sony), then you shouldn’t be listening to their music at all (aside from as background noise in shopping malls, etc). Downloading that music sends the wrong message to the record label you’ve deemed immoral. It tells them there’s demand for their music: demand that they could somehow monetize. This could be done either with a copyright infringement lawsuit, or some sort of government-sanctioned internet tax for music sharing.

* Music obtained morally is music that is not obtained (paid or otherwise) from companies that don’t seek to inflict harm upon their customers.

3) Pay a fair price for music that is offered fairly:

There is no moral justification for downloading music that the copyright holder has not agreed not to share freely. Granted, such legally free music exists, and should not be ignored when making arguments about file sharing. There are also works license under a Creative Commons license. Such works become freely available after 14 years, for any works the copyright holder chooses to license under the Creative Commons.

Record labels who sell music morally deserve financial support for their business. Selling music morally involves:

A) No DRM
B) No rootkits
C) No unfair lawsuits
D) No other immoral behaviour against customers or artists
E) Charging a reasonable price for that music

Music sold at a dollar a track is extravagant. Given the proliferation of independent labels and independent music stores:

* emusic.com
* zunior.com
* magnatune.com
* beatport.com
* and many others…

… it makes no sense to pay top dollar (no pun intended) for music. Independent music (with some notable exceptions) is by and large more innovative, creative and artistic than large record label music.

Also, given the large choice of competing entertainment options, from video games to DVDs to YouTube to blogs, large record label music has no business being this overpriced. It’s proposterous that most DVDs (most of which offer special features) continue to be far cheaper than most music CD’s. It’s also preposterous that the very best video games offer months of continuous entertainment, whereas the best music CD’s have far less continuous value.

* Music obtained morally is music obtained with only a reasonable financial sacrifice according only to fair terms (paid or free) set forth by the copyright holder.

4) Support The Artists:

This is the hardest one of all. Music would be nothing without musicians. However, RIAA rhetoric aside, most musicians are exploited by their record labels. Most of the time, the artist assigns his/her/their full copyrights to their record label.

The only internet music store I know of (I hope there are more) that insists on fair payment for their artists is Magnatune:

magnatune.com

It’s the first internet-only record label. According to its FAQ, it offers 50% of album, licensing and merchandising profits go directly to the artist(s) responsible for each album:

http://www.magnatune.com/info/model

* Music obtained morally is music obtained with a view to ensuring the artists are compensated fairly, instead of merely either paying lip service, or believing others’ lip service, to fairly compensating those artists.

Microsoft has recently made the headlines by making allegations against various open source projects of patent violation:

This patent attack is not motivated by rational thinking. It is motivated by fear.

Fear is forcing Microsoft into abandoning rational decision making processes. Fear is forcing Microsoft to intimidate its own clients who maintain anything less than a pure Microsoft IT environment.

Microsoft’s recent behaviour is analogous to that of a wounded animal. Feeling threatened, it lashes out against anyone and anything it perceives can do it further harm, keenly aware that it has very little to lose.

So what exactly is Microsoft so afraid of? What has them clawing in all directions?

According to Roughly Drafted, Microsoft has three core business that allow it make money:

These are:

1) Windows (retail and corporate users)
2) Office
3) Server products (Windows Server, Exchange, Sharepoint, etc)

1) flows through Microsoft’s monopoly in PC operating systems (OS). It achieves this by strong-arming computer retailers such as Dell and HP to install Windows by default on all PC’s they sell, to the explicit exclusion of all other OS’s.

2) flows through Microsoft’s near-monopoly in desktop Office software, including Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook and Access. This near-monopoly was achieved by using Windows’ monopoly profits to cross-subsidize early versions of office. Microsoft sold early versions of office for the cut-rate price of USD$40, effectively starving competitors like Lotus and Borland, who couldn’t afford to take a loss on their products. The result is that MS Office is the de-facto standard for Office programs. Their file formats are secret and proprietary, raising the cost of switching to competing office products like OpenOffice.

3) was achieved with the help of 1) and 2). Microsoft developed the Exchange email and calendering product partly by tightly integrating it with Windows and Office. Competitors have thus far failed failed to come up with competing products, despite the rise of Linux in the server market.

For several years, Microsoft has been losing money attempting to get a foothold in new businesses such as internet (MSN), gaming consoles (XBox), and mobile computing, as well as continuing anti-trust lawsuits.

So long as their three core businesses of Windows, Office and server products bring in billions in revenues, Microsoft can afford to subsidize its infant money-losing ventures.

A few weeks ago, a major development occurred that threatened to substantially reduce the profitability of market 1).

Now that Dell has promised to sell desktop computers with Linux pre-installed, Microsoft is in danger of losing its monopoly on PC desktop operating systems. The only thing holding back Linux on the desktop has been issues with running that OS on certain kinds of PC hardware, and that OS not coming pre-installed on new PCs. Now that Dell has promised to pre-install Linux on some of its PCs and laptops, those two problems have been eliminated.

Dell is the first major PC retailer to sell Linux PCs. It most assuredly will not be the last.

Couple this with the very tepid uptake of Vista, the latest version of Windows, and Microsoft is in serious trouble. Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer has even resorted to an ad hominem attack, effectively blaming the slow sales on pirates:

To add insult to injury, Vista has only sold a couple hundred copies in China:

Somehow, Microsoft was ill-prepared for these two developments, either having not seen them coming or refusing to accept them. Now, Redmond is in full panic mode. Sensing a dramatic reduction in profitability, Microsoft is compelled to so something anything to stem the tide.

Microsoft feels fear. It feels the kind of fear it hasn’t felt in at least a decade, when Java was first released. After so many years of inciting fear, Microsoft is finally getting a taste of its own medicine.