The just-released Pocket PC edition of the Microsoft Reader finally offers screen rotation capablitity between portrait and landscape views. Other new wrinkes show up, too.
 
In the case of the roation, there's a catch. Only people with the second edition of Windows Mobile 2003 can use it. If you want this feature and a bunch of others--and don't need to be able to read Microsoft-format e-books--try Mobipocket.
 
(Found via the pda-ebook list.)
posted by David Rothman at 8:09 PM | permanent link

"John and John from They Might Be Giants speak to Newsweek about, amongst other things, digital rights management. My favorite exchange? 'How would you eat, then?' 'That’s my problem.' When are record companies going to realize that DRM isn't going to help them sell more of the bad music that dominates the airwaves?" - Slashdot.
 
The TeleRead take: In character, the RIAA has endorsed the INDUCE Act. Would that Netfolks could INDUCE the big music studios to stop gouging people for dreck.

posted by David Rothman at 6:29 AM | permanent link

Those proprietary DRM people won't stop. CyberKey is talking up an "agreement with EMI Recorded Music Holdings, Inc. (EMI) for digital music and video content" as well as other varieties, including e-books. Jim Plant, CyberKey founder, tells about "investing resources for some time into our proprietary patent pending DRM technology." He's hoping that a number of convent providers will sign up.

Alas, CyberKey is hardly the only company with this approach. What this means is that consumers will have to deal with yet more complexities--the last thing that content providers need, especially e-book publishers.

Of course, if an e-book consortium in the vein of Digital Radio Mondiale starts up and Jim Plant wants to contribute to a common standard, he'll be most welcome. But please--e-books need less balkanization, not more. A confusing maze of DRM schemes and related formats is one of the major reasons why revenue from e-books is a mere $20-$30 million a year globally, a fraction of sums once predicted.

Simply put, Plant's proprietary approach is a CyberKey to more confusion for consumers and underperformance for investors in e-book-related endeavors. It would be wonderful if he were open-minded about a OpenReader alternative picking up the best lessons from Digital Radio Mondiale.
posted by David Rothman at 4:30 AM | permanent link

Brian Levine, shown in this photo of Kerry policy advisors, is all of 22 years old. Maybe he's handling Net policy as his colleagues assure me. If so, however, how much rubber stamping is he doing? The Net comes with all kinds of technical, legal, economic and diplomatic complexities, and I'd love to know which Power People may be pulling his strings directly or indirectly. Any campaign donors with Hollywood connections?

Suppose Kerry-Edwards wins. Will K-E be more scrupulous in including representatives from schools, libraries and consumers in Internet policy bodies than the Hollywood-pleasing Clinton Administration was at times? Or will the RIAA and the MPAA set copyright policies as is happening, too, under the Bush Administration? Today's Washington Post is running an article called Kerry's Inner Circle Expands: Campaign Team Encompasses a Growing Army of Policy Advisers. I see a reference to the existence of dozens of Kerry advisory groups. So will Kerry publish the lists of the groups' members, especially those in Net-related areas? How much attention will he pay to schools and the rest, as opposed to the Hollywood crowd that dominated Clinton's 37-member National Information Advisory Council (with just one educator and one librarian included).

Mere body counts, of course, aren't enough. This is just a dream, but I'd love to know how much time a wunderkind like Levine is spending reading memos from Jack Valenti types and investment bankers vs. librarians, educators and the rest, including hardcore techies with pronounced concerns beyond commercial ones. And if Levine is spending so much time looking beyond the commercial interests, why isn't K-E speaking out against Bono, the DMCA and the Inducing Infringement of Copyright Act?
posted by David Rothman at 9:15 AM | permanent link

You make tape drives and you don't want third-party maintenance companies to compete and make it harder for you to overcharge customers? You've got a dandy weapon in the DMCA, at least if a preliminary injunction holds up for Storage Tek. The same concepts, of course, could apply in more consumerish areas such as increasingly computerized automobiles. We're talking about billions and billions in future consumer gouges.

Where is Kerry-Edwards on the DMCA and the proposed Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act? Perhaps too busy sucking up to Hollywood campaign donors and others interested in Draconian copyright law.

(Details on StorageTek case from CNET.)
posted by David Rothman at 2:12 PM | permanent link

"A new technology under development in Berkeley could help thousands of long-dead Americans to 'speak' again." - San Francisco Chronicle, via LISNews.

The TeleRead take: "So," an LISNews reader asks, "how do you think your CD's and DVD's are going to look in 40 years?" The same issues arise in the case of e-book preservation. Another argument for a library-style approach with due attention paid to archival issues from the start? The questions won't just be about physical preservation but changing formats and DRM-related access problems for future generations. Needless to say, OpenReader could help in both those areas.

Related: Delete our cultural heritage? (The Telegraph, via LISNews.)
posted by David Rothman at 12:42 PM | permanent link

A Nader campaigner listened with interest to the grubby details of John Edwards' $900K in so-far-unexplained PAC gifts from Hollywood producer Steve Bing. Will something happen? I don't know; but so far, so good.

Given the indifference of most in the media to the buyability of Congress, I'm delighted that we don't have just a Coke-Pepsi choice. "Minor" party candidates could be a great media bypass. I myself will most likely just hold my nose and vote for Kerry-Edwards--because I'm so eager for at least some change in Washington in the near future. But I'll certainly understand the motives of those who do vote for Nader as a protest against DC's sleaze. "Minor" parties are not a nuisance. They are a "must" as a precaution against the smugness and moral lapses of Republicans and Democrats alike. I wish Nader luck in qualifying for ballots in all 50 states so voters can more easily act out their convictions.

Sorry, Kerry-Edwards people. If you want my full support, not just my vote, then you need to speak up for citizen-consumers in net.copyright matters rather than wimping out to reel in more millions from Hollywood. I'm less interested in the details of the Bing donation--however much they might reveal about our political system--than in a consumer-friendly stand on copyright. It is actually more risky for Kerry-Edwards not to take a chance on incurring the wrath of Washington's powerful lobbyists. Believe me, I haven't been that far removed from just sitting out the election. Candidates' lobbyist-bought wimpiness on crucial issues is no small reason why so many Americans do not vote. I'd love for Kerry-Edwards to be an exception among pols.

Interesting detail about PAC donations to Edwards: Several hundred thousand of the money raised in 2002 by the New American Optimists PAC went to State Democrat Parties whose members potentially could be Edwards' allies in Iowa and New Hampshire. Forget all the BS about PAC money not being campaign money. In Edwards' case, the lines were thin enough to be meaningless.

Related: Still wanted: Copyright answers from John Kerry's policy people in photo below.
posted by David Rothman at 4:00 PM | permanent link

Tablet PCs are still more expensive than they should be, and one reason is the cost of the operating system. But Microsoft, to its credit, is said to be considering more rational prices. If that happens, e-books should benefit--given the ergonomic advantages of the tablet form factor. Good embedded linux tablets from a variety of vendors wouldn't hurt, either! (Via Engadget.)
posted by David Rothman at 3:39 PM | permanent link

Well, I doubt that. But already some are comparing Amazon to the old Napster just because it features used books along with new ones. Talk about whining, unimaginative industries. All too often publishers--and, yes, authors--remind me of buggywhip makers.

A TeleRead-style approach could send millions of extra dollars in the direction of books and literacy. But certain trogs in publishing care more about fighting the old copyright wars than about teaming up with librarians and others to come up with newer and more profitable business models. (New York Times (reg. required) Via LISNews.)
posted by David Rothman at 9:43 AM | permanent link

"...there is something like a critical mass of artists, young and old, uncovering new possibilities in this once-marginal form, and a new generation of readers, perhaps, who have grown up staring at cartoon images on their computer screens and in their video games, not to mention the savvy librarians and teachers who now cater to their interests and short attention spans." - Charles McGrath in the New York Times Magazine, writing on graphic novels.

The TeleRead take: Pain text alone won't cut it these days. Alas, McGrath is right about the need to cope with short attention spans. Furthermore, as shown by Art Spiegelman's Maus, the graphic novel has potential as art. OpenReader will strive to be responsive to the needs of graphic novelists, among other creators. What's more, I believe that well-chosen movies with conspicuous book tie-ins could be one way to use a well-stocked national digital library system to build interest in traditional e-books that contained only text or just a few illustrations. The Oprah effect, you know. One way or another, we have a literacy crisis on our hands when it comes to young people's appreciation of plain old text--and even adults' appreciation. We'd better act. And not while letting graphic novels displace traditional novels!
posted by David Rothman at 9:04 AM | permanent link

Ralph Nader presumably wants to stand apart from the pack and fight the special-interest laws that big media bought. Even more important, core principles count. So he would do well to consider speaking out against the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, the DMCA and other anti-Net, anti-consumer measures that will cost the public many billions and reduce the free flow of information needed in our democracy.

The Kerry-Edwards people claim to be for the small guy, but refuse to take meaningful public stands on the above legislation--all while pocketing millions and millions in campaign donations from Hollywood. An Edwards PAC received more than $900,000 from just one Hollywood producer early in the campaign, and yet neither the "People's Senator" nor producer Steve Bing would offer me an explanation despite Edwards' supposed interest in campaign reform. Perhaps Ralph Nader can press them for the full story--assuming that he does care nowadays about copyright. I'd hope so.

Zero mention of copyright debate

Alas, however, when I searched through the VoteNader.org site today under "Bono" and "DMCA", I could not find one copyright-related item. Even the word "copyright" brought forth just "All rights reserved internationally..." Did I miss something?

Just what's up, Ralph? You endorsed John Edwards--who sits on a copyright-related committee in the Senate--as John Kerry's vice presidential choice. Perhaps you can now hold him accountable for his stands or lack of stands on copyright. Given all the free speech and economic implications, not to mention the educational and cultural ones, I'd hate to think that balanced copyright was at the bottom of your priorities. Maybe if you speak out, the Kerry-Edwards people can catch up. For that matter, perhaps even the White House can listen to law professor's blogger Glenn Reynolds and understand that the real political payoff could be in doing the right thing. But I'd especially like to think that at least a little conscience survives among my fellow Democrats.

Getting Democrats to be democrats again

When it comes to the entertainment business, Democrats, not Republicans, tend to collect the most dollars. Part of this has to do with the liberalism of Hollywood. But mightn't part of it be that the Democrats have struck a Faustian bargain with Hollywood greedsters? Here is a chance for Nader to help the Democrats be democrats again and say no to past and future special-interest legislation.

Via existing laws and new threats like the INDUCE proposal, the standard corporate interests are trying to rewrite the rules at the expense of our liberties, cultural heritage and pocketbooks. Ralph Nader's participation in the counterattack would be most welcome.

Related: Glickman Rex, LA Times columnist Michael Kingsley's dissection of Washington's infatuation with powerful Hollywood lobbyists. We've reached the point where pols are asking for favors from lobbyists rather than the other way around. I live across the Potomac from DC, and even from here, the smell is overpowering--part of the general pollution. In the two parties' attitudes toward copyright, we have a Coke-Pepsi choice of tainted water. What better example for Nader to use in his efforts to be Dr. Pepper? For a general overview of the issues, his people can read Free Culture if they haven't already.
posted by David Rothman at 6:56 AM | permanent link

Wanna be an influence-peddler and make big bucks lobbying Congress against the public interest while the press snoozes? Or do you just want to learn more about how Washington screws the rest of humanity? With perhaps the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act as a prime example?

You could do worse than to study a Powerpoint presentation by Daniel Diermeier, IBM Professor of Regulation and Competitive Practices--and former director of the Ford Center for Global Citizenship at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. Sorry for that mouthful. But it's rather germane since Diermeier is hardly a Naderite and consults for Fortune 500 companies--and yet still describes copyright extension as the beneficiary of pubic ignorance. Major publicity, he said, would have focused "on the extent to which Disney" was "buying legislation that is harmful to public interests."

Matter of factly, his analysis for MGMT-450 tells how Disney and friends prevailed in 1998 over the schools and libraries and consumers in the Bono debate. Yes, business should enjoy influence in public discourse--I myself am an unabashed capitalist. But have we overdone it? Diermeier's presentation unwittingly suggests that we have, especially in copyright matters.

Here are some of the tidbits there for his students reliving the Bono debate for his course known as "Strategic Management in Non-Market Environments":

--The "pro groups" on his "Distributive Politics Spreadsheet" included not just Disney but also "other media" companies. Beyond the Clinton impeachment hearings and the complexities of the debate, could this be one reason why the press let Bono slide through without major coverage? That's not his question. Just mine. No, I'm not into conspiracy theories. But do you really think that journalists rise to the top of their profession without being aware of the self-interests of the owners? Although in a far more subtle form, the problems chronicled in Upton Sinclair's The Brass Check are still alive and well.

--Consumers enjoyed just "small" influence in the case of HR2589.

--Lobbying targets were House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott. "Message: Maintaining equity with Europe; do not focus on profits."

--Campaign contributions indeed mattered. One of the potential pitfalls was, "Will Clinton sign the legislation?" Diermeier's conclusion for his students in this exercise was, "President may not sign if legislation is portrayed as serving special interests; however, Disney and other entertainment companies are major democratic constituencies and sources of money." There! You don't have to be Nader or a blogger to say Washington is bought, bought, bought. Of course, I would quarrel with Diermeier's lack of capitalization of the "D" in "Democrat." I'm a lifelong member of the species but must confess that the small-d concept is more or less obsolete among my brethren.

--The Bono legislation thrived on lack of media exposure--to the extent that pro-Hollywood discussion of the legislation could have backfired. "What about grassroots mobilization/media campaign? NO! Avoid bringing the media into this. Media scrutiny will simply focus on the extent to which Disney is buying legislation that is harmful to public interests." Yes, that's a direct quote! Credit Diermeier with candor. While presumably not involved in the Disney efforts, he understands how the black hats hate scrutiny.

--"What about Orrin Hatch? Powerful committee chair. Received $50,000 from seven major studios, the Motion Picture Association of America and ASCAP. Second career as songwriter."

--"After concessions were made to restaurants and libraries, the Bill passed quickly through committee (adding amendment split the opposition; consumers were not organized)." Interesting, no? Consumer and library interests were perceived here as not quite the same. One wonders what would have happened if libraries had worried less about immediate institutional concerns and more about society as a whole. While exempting small bars and restaurants and small stores from certain copyright-related obligations, the legislation also said that during the extra two decades, libraries could reproduce and distribute items that otherwise would not be available through the usual commercial channels. See 17 U.S.C. 108(b). Did libraries sell out consumers? And in ways that we don't know about, did libraries reap rewards or avoid budget-related punishments for not fighting Bono as aggressively as they might have otherwise? Those are my questions, not Diermeier's.

"On Oct. 27, 1998," Diermeier notes, "President Clinton quietly signed the Bill into law (Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act)." Note the operative word here: "quietly." What if libraries had waged a better media campaign to overcome the built-in conflict of interest of the press?

Obligingly Diermeier noted the obscene amount of money working for Bono and other pro-Hollywood measures. "In the 1997-1998 election cycle, media companies and their political action committees contributed more than $6.5 million to members of Congress." Those statistics come from the Center for Responsive Politics.

Just to clarify one point, I'm not saying, "Diermeier is pro-bribery." He is merely laying out how to work within a corrupt system, and his candor should also be useful to white hats.

Of course, it isn't as if Diermeier is conducting his course for future Naderites. The Powerpoint or at least "Section 9" bears the title "Political Analysis for Business." Furthermore, the professor's course description for "Strategic Management in Nonmarket Environments" says among other things: "The concepts, skills, and analytical tools that students will learn in the course rest upon a foundation of economic principles, political analysis, and, to a lesser extent, social psychology and law. They identify patterns of behavior and outcomes, ways of thinking about those patterns and outcomes, methods of analysis that facilitate understanding and prediction, and, ultimately, the shaping of strategies to improve business performance."

Presumably Bono improved Disney's performance at least a smidgen despite Michael Eisner's generally mediocre record in recent years. He personally took time to lobby the pols. Mightn't he have better invested his efforts in, say, improving his relationships with the creative community? Or perhaps in making Disney more clueful in its Net-related activities? I'm all in favor of corporate profitability. But mightn't there be more effective ways of achieving it than bribing DC with massive campaign donations?

Along the way, another question arises about Disney's copyright jihad against the public. Is it just history? Not necessarily in the case of this company and others. John Kerry and the Democratic National Committee received $5 million from one show-biz fund-raiser. And John Edwards got more than $900,000 in PAC donations early in the presidential campaign from producer Steve Bing--and sits on a copyright-related committee. No legal violations alleged. But I am curious if Bing felt compelled to make his contribuitons for career purposes. Just as importantly, will the Kerry-Edwards donations buy more legislation in the vein of Bono? Ditto for Hollywood's money for the Bush campaign and Republicans on the Hill.

Meanwhile the media are not asking Edwards and Bing to explain the latter's generosity, and so far they've both stonewalled me. I'd welcome more curiosity from the media about the two men. Remember, Hollywood's bad guys thrive on secrecy. And, just as in the Bono debate, the press has been obliging so far regard to copyright and the 2004 presidential campaign.

I can hardly wait for Diermeier's future analysis of copyright-related lobbying, especially his comments on the sleepy and easily distracted press.

Revealing: The Ford Center's home page says the center "subsumed the Center for the Study of Ethics in Business and the Environmental Research Center." Hmm. It isn't as if the Diermeier presentation abounded with ethics-related material. If the Powerpoint is typical, I don't buy the argument that the Center "It is dedicated to an interdisciplinary approach that combines ethical with strategic and organizational concerns." While the Diermeier presentation is useful to all sides in the Bono debate, it isn't as if his presentation dwelt on the ethical concerns other than to aknowledge that Bono Act was against the public interest. Although Diermeier teaches Values and Crisis Decision-Making, the big emphasis seems to be more on topics like "Crisis Management" than on the encouragement of moral actions. Students learn, for example, how to "Develop strategies for managing stakeholders, public opinion, media relations, and public officials." Hmmm. Do the press and public really need to be "managed" this way?

Still on the way--perhaps later this week: An essay on the harm that longer copyright terms can do to writers. But first I couldn't resist sharing with you the material above.
posted by David Rothman at 2:27 AM | permanent link