<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;storage&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 29 Mar 2013 19:39:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>This Is Not The Cloud Computing We Should Have</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20130321/01021322403/this-is-not-cloud-computing-we-should-have.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20130321/01021322403/this-is-not-cloud-computing-we-should-have.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Even though I was never a big Google Reader user, its <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130313/17262322315/killing-google-reader-highlights-risk-relying-single-provider.shtml">death</a> has got me thinking about online services quite a bit lately -- and really reminded me that <b>we've done the cloud wrong</b>.  Rather than build true cloud computing, we've built a bunch of lockboxes.
<br /><br />
<b>The cloud was supposed to free us, not lock us in</b>
<br /><br />
"Cloud computing" went by a variety of other terms in the past before this marketing term stuck, but the key part of it was that it was supposed to free us of worrying about the location of our data.  Rather than having to have things stored locally, the data could be anywhere, and we could access it via any machine or device.  That <i>sort of</i> happened, and there definitely are benefits to data being stored in the cloud, rather than locally.  But... what came with today's "cloud" was a totally different kind of lock: a lock to the service.
<br /><br />
<b>I can point many apps to data stored locally</b>
<br /><br />
I wrote something related to this a few years ago, concerning <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110606/13200014569/were-missing-point-cloud-its-not-supposed-to-be-locked-to-single-service.shtml">music in the cloud</a>.  If I have a bunch of MP3s stored locally, I can point any number of music apps at my music folder, and they can all play that music.  As long as the data is not in a proprietary format, I can find the app that works best for me and the data is separate from the app.  Even when you have proprietary formats like Microsoft's .doc, other apps can often make use of them as well -- so, for example, I can get by with Libre Office, and I don't lose access to all of my old Microsoft Word docs.
<br /><br />
This is really useful, because it helps us avoid vendor lock-in in many cases.  Even when, say, Microsoft or Apple dominates the market.  It's still possible to come in and be compatible.  The competition then focuses on building better services, rather than reinventing the data model.  That's much more useful to consumers, because the innovation is focused on making their lives better, rather than reinventing the wheel.
<br /><br />
<b>Today's cloud brings us back to walled gardens</b>
<br /><br />
For the most part, today, however, "cloud" applications bundle the storage and the service as one, and the two are linked inseparably.  You check your data into a new cloud service, but the application layer and the data are both held by the same company.  Yes, you can often <i>transfer</i> data from one service to the other -- such as Google's "data liberation front" effort, which is fantastic (and goes beyond many other companies' efforts), but just the fact that data needs to be liberated suggests we're taking the wrong approach altogether.  Rather than having to "export" all of your feeds from Google Reader and then waiting patiently for 50,000 other people who are trying to upload them to the few small Reader competitors out there, why shouldn't we have each had an OPML file stored somewhere that <i>we control</i>, and that we could easily point <i>any</i> reader application, whether its local or "in the cloud."  And, yes, there are some services that attempt to do this, but it's not where the whole "cloud" space has gone.
<br /><br />
<b>Separate and liberate the data from the infrastructure</b>
<br /><br />
What the cloud should be about is both freeing us from being locked to local data, and <i>also</i> freeing us from having that data locked to a particular service.  I should be able to keep my data in one spot and then access it via a variety of cloud clients -- and the clients and the data shouldn't necessarily be directly connected or held by the same party.  If I don't want to listen to my music via one app, I can just connect a different app to my personal data cloud and off we go.  If Google Reader shuts down, no problem, just point a different app at my RSS data.  No extraction, no uploading.  Just go.
<br /><br />
There are, of course, plenty of players around which sort of do this.  DropBox, Box, Amazon's S3 and even Google Drive are setting themselves up as personal data clouds, and there are a growing number of apps that run across them.  Projects like <a href="http://lockerproject.org/" target="_blank">the Locker Project</a> are thinking about how we store personal data separated from apps as well.  And I know there are a bunch of other projects either around today or quickly approaching release, that also seek to do something in this space.
<br /><br />
But, for the most part, all of the stories that people talk about concerning "cloud" computing almost always involve services that tie together the app and the data and all you're really doing is trading the former limitations of local data for the limitations of a single service provider controlling your data.  Many service providers <i>want</i> this, of course.  It's a form of lock-in.  Plus, having some sort of access to your data and your usage can enable them to do other things, such as more accurately data mine you and your usage.
<br /><br />
But, as users, we really should be pushing more towards embracing the apps that separate the app from the data and that let you point their "cloud" app at any particular place you store your "cloud" data.  Some of this may involve standardizing certain data formats, but that makes sense anyway, as, once again, that's an area where there are tremendous benefits to <b>not</b> reinventing the wheel, so that the innovation and competition can focus on the service level.  While some vendors may fear losing lock-in, if they truly believe in their own ability to provide great services, it shouldn't be a problem.  At the same time, they should also realize that embracing this kind of world means that it's easier for others to jump in and test <i>their</i> services as well.
<br /><br />
The death of Google Reader raised a lot of issues around trust, and while you could "export" the data, that process is still messy and archaic when you think about it.  The future of cloud computing should be much more focused on separating the data from the service.  That would remove the fear that many are now talking about concerning adopting new cloud services that might not last very long.  If the data is stored elsewhere, and entirely in the control of the user, then you don't need to trust the service provider nearly as much, but can dip in and test out different apps operating on the same data, and switch with ease.
<br /><br />
If we're going to see the real promise of "the cloud" take place, that's where things need to head.  We should be increasingly skeptical of "cloud" apps that also control the data.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20130321/01021322403/this-is-not-cloud-computing-we-should-have.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20130321/01021322403/this-is-not-cloud-computing-we-should-have.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20130321/01021322403/this-is-not-cloud-computing-we-should-have.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>we've-got-it-all-wrong</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130321/01021322403</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2012 17:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: The Future Of Storage</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Ho</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100925/01465811164/dailydirt-future-storage.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100925/01465811164/dailydirt-future-storage.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Storing digital data can be <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100907/10153310924/dailydirt-year-2525.shtml">unreliable</a> if you want it to last a really long time. But there are many ways to store vast amounts of data, and if you're not in a hurry to retrieve the data, it can be somewhat cheap to maintain an enormous amount of information nowadays. Here are just a few examples of storing LOTS of data in somewhat unconventional ways.
 
<ul>
<li> <a title="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=highest-possible-resolution-color-images-achieved" href="http://bit.ly/ONvb8Y">Printing at about 100,000 dots per inch in full color has been achieved by researchers at the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR) in Singapore.</a> As a proof of principle, a test image of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenna">Lenna</a> was formed on a silicon wafer covered with a nanoscale metal coating. [<a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=highest-possible-resolution-color-images-achieved">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://aws.typepad.com/aws/2012/08/amazon-glacier-offsite-archival-storage-for-one-penny-per-gb-per-month.html" href="http://bit.ly/PbtnIi">Amazon is starting to offer archival storage for just $0.01 per gigabyte per month.</a> This Glacier storage service is aimed at replacing old tape archives and geographically distinct facilities, but retrieving the data isn't so convenient: data retrieval requests can take hours (hence the name Glacier) and there's also a retrieval fee after you've accessed more than 5% of your data vault in a month. [<a href="http://aws.typepad.com/aws/2012/08/amazon-glacier-offsite-archival-storage-for-one-penny-per-gb-per-month.html">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://www.nature.com/news/dna-data-storage-breaks-records-1.11194" href="http://bit.ly/Puvbze">Geneticists in Boston have stored a 5.27-megabit book (containing 53,246 words, 11 JPG image files and a JavaScript program) on DNA.</a> This is the highest density of non-biological data ever encoded by DNA, and a gram of material could store 455 exabytes of data. [<a href="http://www.nature.com/news/dna-data-storage-breaks-records-1.11194">url</a>]</li>

</ul>


If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/stumblethru:www.techdirt.com" href="http://bit.ly/fagV8c">Techdirt post</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100925/01465811164/dailydirt-future-storage.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100925/01465811164/dailydirt-future-storage.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100925/01465811164/dailydirt-future-storage.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100925/01465811164</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Aug 2012 17:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: In The Year 2525...</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Ho</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100907/10153310924/dailydirt-year-2525.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100907/10153310924/dailydirt-year-2525.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Computers have made it easier and easier for people to create incredible amounts of data -- passing the <a href="http://www.emc.com/collateral/analyst-reports/idc-extracting-value-from-chaos-ar.pdf">zettabyte barrier</a> in 2010. The growth of data is actually surpassing our ability to store it, and it's a bit concerning that our ability to store digital information for long periods of time isn't too reliable (just try to access stuff on a 5.25" floppy). Here are just a few interesting links on preserving information for thousands of years.

<ul>

<li> <a title="http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/07/a-million-year-hard-disk.html?" href="http://bit.ly/NF0Qx6">Digitally-stored information about nuclear waste needs to be accessible many thousands of years from now.</a> Engraving the info on sapphire discs with platinum is just one proposed solution that could work for future archaeologists -- but in what language should it be written? [<a href="http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/07/a-million-year-hard-disk.html?">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://millenniata.com/m-disc/" href="http://bit.ly/PqbaXW">If you thought your burned CDs/DVDs lasted forever, think again.</a> But if you still want to store your data on plastic discs, there's a company (Millenniata) that sells an optical disc engraving technology for writing CDs/DVDs that work with standard CD/DVD readers -- and that claims to last for about 1,000 years (or at least hundreds of years). [<a href="http://millenniata.com/m-disc/">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/06/120614-neanderthal-cave-paintings-spain-science-pike/" href="http://bit.ly/RhTanZ">Neanderthals were making cave paintings over 40,800 years ago in Spain.</a> How much of our art will survive the next 40,000 years? [<a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/06/120614-neanderthal-cave-paintings-spain-science-pike/">url</a>]</li>

</ul>


If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/stumblethru:www.techdirt.com" href="http://bit.ly/fagV8c">Techdirt post</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100907/10153310924/dailydirt-year-2525.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100907/10153310924/dailydirt-year-2525.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100907/10153310924/dailydirt-year-2525.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100907/10153310924</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 5 Jun 2012 20:59:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Germany Increases 'You Are All Pirates' Tax On Solid State Media By 2000%</title>
<dc:creator>Glyn Moody</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120601/07161319164/germany-increases-you-are-all-pirates-tax-solid-state-media-2000.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120601/07161319164/germany-increases-you-are-all-pirates-tax-solid-state-media-2000.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=techflaws">Techflaws</a> alerts us to an announcement by ZP&Uuml;, the organization responsible for setting the levy on storage media in Germany, that fees will rise rather significantly (<a href="http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/ZPUe-erhoeht-Abgaben-auf-USB-Sticks-und-Speicherkarten-drastisch-1583790.html">German original</a>).  For a USB stick with a capacity greater than 4 Gbytes, the tax would increase from 8 eurocents (about 10 cents) to 1.56 euros (about $1.93), a rise of 1850%; for a memory card bigger than 4 Gbytes, the fee would go up from 8 eurocents to 1.95 euros (about $2.42), an increase of 2338%.
</p><p>
No justification for such a huge jump was offered, but since one of the constituent members of  ZP&Uuml; is the German music collection society <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111114/02034116758/gema-once-again-demands-royalties-creative-commons-music-it-has-no-rights-over.shtml">GEMA</a>, which seems to have an unlimited sense of entitlement when it comes to demanding money from the public, that's hardly a surprise.  
</p><p>
In particular, no rationale is given for including memory cards, which are used almost exclusively in cameras to record content produced by end-users -- so the idea that the levy is somehow justified as a way of compensating creators for revenue supposedly "lost" by piracy is manifestly absurd. 
</p><p>
Basically, this outdated and insulting approach treats all Germans using digital storage as if they were pirates.  Of course, arbitrarily imposing 2000% tax hikes on storage is probably the quickest way to turn them into something much more dangerous to GEMA and its friends: ardent supporters of the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120513/23472618897/german-pirate-party-wins-seats-fourth-straight-state-election.shtml">German Pirate Party</a>....
</p><p>
Follow me @glynmoody on <a href="http://twitter.com/glynmoody">Twitter</a> or <a href="http://identi.ca/glynmoody">identi.ca</a>, and on <a href="https://plus.google.com/100647702320088380533">Google+</a></p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120601/07161319164/germany-increases-you-are-all-pirates-tax-solid-state-media-2000.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120601/07161319164/germany-increases-you-are-all-pirates-tax-solid-state-media-2000.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120601/07161319164/germany-increases-you-are-all-pirates-tax-solid-state-media-2000.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>how-not-to-win-friends</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120601/07161319164</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 25 May 2012 17:31:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Spotify In A Box: Why Sharing Will Never Be Stopped</title>
<dc:creator>Glyn Moody</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120525/07364719076/spotify-box-why-sharing-will-never-be-stopped.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120525/07364719076/spotify-box-why-sharing-will-never-be-stopped.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>Most people will be familiar with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moores_law">Moore's Law</a>, usually stated in the form that processing power doubles every two years (or 18 months in some versions.)  But just as important are the equivalent compound gains for storage and connectivity speeds, sometimes known as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Kryder">Kryder's Law</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nielsen%27s_Law#Contributions">Nielsen's Law</a> respectively.
</p><p>
To see why, consider that the IBM PC XT had a 10 Mbyte hard drive when it was launched in 1983, which meant you couldn't even fit a single song on it.  Similarly, the first widely-used modem, the 1981 Hayes Smartmodem, had a maximum speed of 300 baud: to transfer a digitized song using a dial-up connection would have taken around 500 hours. 
</p><p>
With those kind of figures, it's easy to see why the recording industry underestimated the threat that file sharing would become once the Internet arrived: based on the past, it was almost inconceivable that people would ever swap music between computers.  Of course, once that did start to happen, and the shape of the future became obvious to many, the industry nonetheless wilfully ignored the facts and the trends at every turn, when instead it should have taken the lead in re-inventing media for the Internet age.
</p><p>
That woeful history of refusing to accept the implications of rapidly-advancing technologies makes this <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9227382/60TB_disk_drives_could_be_a_reality_in_2016">prediction</a>, found via Slashdot, even more fateful:

<i><blockquote>Technologies that will make it possible to expand disk density include heat-assisted magnetic recording (HAMR), which Seagate patented in 2006. Seagate has already said it will be able to produce a 60TB 3.5-in. hard drive by 2016.</blockquote></i>

Assuming Seagate or someone else delivers, that 60 terabyte hard disk could store around 10 million typical MP3 files.  <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2011/07/22/spotify_vs_girl_talk_what_is_spotify_s_music_catalog_missing_.html">A year ago, Spotify was said to have 15 million tracks</a>, which means that you could store most of today's Spotify on that future Seagate drive.  Spotify is likely to grow even larger by 2016, but it probably won't grow as fast as the storage capacity of hard disks, so there will be some point in the not-too-distant future when you can place all of its holdings on a single hard disk: Spotify in a box.
</p><p>
Obviously, few people will choose to do that, but storing your favorite million songs will not only be realistic, it will be cheap -- and even portable.  Provided the transfer rate to and from such disks also keeps up with the growth in capacities -- an indispensable technological requirement, otherwise they become impossible to use -- this means that people will be able to move around huge collections of music, without ever touching an Internet connection.  That makes all those three-strikes plans moot, since you won't actually need your broadband line in order to swap files with friends.  You'll just plug in your portable hard drives to a common computer and exchange stuff directly (as probably already happens with today's terabyte-sized portable disks.)
</p><p>
In an ideal world, we would also see a kind of constant scaling of the intelligence of the recording industry, such that by 2016 it would finally accept that trying to stop sharing -- whether online or off -- is simply pointless.  Somehow, though, I think we'll just have to make do with the other variants of Moore's Law.
</p><p>
Follow me @glynmoody on <a href="http://twitter.com/glynmoody">Twitter</a> or <a href="http://identi.ca/glynmoody">identi.ca</a>, and on <a href="https://plus.google.com/100647702320088380533">Google+</a></p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120525/07364719076/spotify-box-why-sharing-will-never-be-stopped.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120525/07364719076/spotify-box-why-sharing-will-never-be-stopped.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120525/07364719076/spotify-box-why-sharing-will-never-be-stopped.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>jukebox-of-alexandria</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120525/07364719076</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 10 Apr 2012 15:45:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>What Obstacles Are There To Storing Your Own Media In The Cloud: Step2 Startups Feedback Wanted</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/startups/articles/20120405/04582318387/what-obstacles-are-there-to-storing-your-own-media-cloud-step2-startups-feedback-wanted.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/startups/articles/20120405/04582318387/what-obstacles-are-there-to-storing-your-own-media-cloud-step2-startups-feedback-wanted.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The latest in our Step2 Startups series is from QVIVO, a maker of home based media center/storage systems, who have added a cloud syncing system, and are <a href="https://www.insightcommunity.com/step2/501/know-the-biggest-obstacles-see-hosting-your-media-the-cloud" target="_blank">wondering what the biggest obstacles are</a> for people hosting their own media in the cloud.  Is it a legal issue?  Cultural? Technological?  What would it take for you to be willing to make use of such a service?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/startups/articles/20120405/04582318387/what-obstacles-are-there-to-storing-your-own-media-cloud-step2-startups-feedback-wanted.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/startups/articles/20120405/04582318387/what-obstacles-are-there-to-storing-your-own-media-cloud-step2-startups-feedback-wanted.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/startups/articles/20120405/04582318387/what-obstacles-are-there-to-storing-your-own-media-cloud-step2-startups-feedback-wanted.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>step2-startups</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120405/04582318387</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 30 Aug 2011 07:55:57 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Verizon Removes FTP Access For Security... Well, Security Of Its Revenue At Least</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110828/22170015717/verizon-removes-ftp-access-security-well-security-its-revenue-least.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110828/22170015717/verizon-removes-ftp-access-security-well-security-its-revenue-least.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It's really amazing that companies don't recognize that <i>taking away features</i> to charge for them almost never goes over well.  Adding features that can be charged for will work, but removing features that were free and widely used is rarely a good idea. It appears that Verizon is still learning that lesson.  The company apparently provides some hosting space for all of its customers, and until recently allowed subscribers to access that space via FTP.  However, it recently announced that <a href="http://consumerist.com/2011/08/verizon-takes-away-ftp-access-charges-for-it.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&#038;utm_medium=twitter" target="_blank">it was doing away with FTP access</a> and instead, users were now forced to make use of Verizon's own clunky web tools interface.  That's quite a nuisance for some users.
<br /><br />
But where this gets more interesting is that it appears Verizon is simply lying about the reasons why.  The company is telling users it's for "security" reasons.  But... while it's discontinuing FTP for its regular subscribers, those who pay up for a higher level hosting plan (starting at $5.95 per month) seem to still be able to use FTP.  In other words, it's only a security problem if you're not paying -- suggesting that the "security" is more about Verizon's revenue than the security of your content.  And while it's true that unencrypted FTP can have some security issues (mainly on untrusted networks), there are ways to deal with that with secure, encrypted FTP offerings.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110828/22170015717/verizon-removes-ftp-access-security-well-security-its-revenue-least.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110828/22170015717/verizon-removes-ftp-access-security-well-security-its-revenue-least.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110828/22170015717/verizon-removes-ftp-access-security-well-security-its-revenue-least.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>lame</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110828/22170015717</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2011 07:20:07 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Microsoft Still Claiming That It Can Use The DMCA To Block Competing Xbox Accessories</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110620/10505614766/microsoft-still-claiming-that-it-can-use-dmca-to-block-competing-xbox-accessories.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110620/10505614766/microsoft-still-claiming-that-it-can-use-dmca-to-block-competing-xbox-accessories.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ One of the many problems with the DMCA is the way that companies try to abuse it and twist it to stop competition.  Thankfully, the courts have been <i>pretty good</i> (but not perfect) about shutting down such attempts, but more companies keep trying.  You may recall cases such as the time Lexmark tried and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050221/1133205.shtml">failed</a> to block competing ink cartridges from being used in their printers, by claiming that the cartridge violated the DMCA, by getting around a bit of software whose only purpose was to stop competing printer cartridges.  The court correctly realized that this was not at all what the DMCA was supposed to cover.  There was a similar case involving <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20040901/0056251.shtml">garage door openers</a> (though the losers in that case, have figured out a workaround <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091217/0152127402.shtml">via its terms</a> that effectively allows it to do the same thing).
<br /><br />
The latest example of a company trying to abuse the law this way is... Microsoft.  We've been following this story for a while.  Back in 2009, Microsoft suddenly announced that it would <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091019/0504276591.shtml">break third party memory cards</a> for the Xbox, basically because it could.  This pissed off a lot of people, and kicked off an <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100430/1301469263.shtml">antitrust lawsuit from Datel</a> one of the third party makers of such cards.  That case is now moving forward, with Microsoft arguing there's no antitrust issue, because its merely blocking Datel and others because they're <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/06/accessory-aftermarket-doomed/" target="_blank">violating the DMCA's anti-circumvention clause</a>, in that third party cards have to get past some software used to block them.
<br /><br />
If I had to guess, I'd say Microsoft is going to lose this case.  It seems that courts are seeing through attempts to abuse the DMCA when it comes to stopping hardware competition.  That's not the case when it comes to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101214/13170212274/some-good-some-bad-new-ruling-whether-not-wow-bot-infringes-copyright.shtml">software</a>, where things get murkier, but this seems like a pretty obvious attempt by Microsoft to abuse the intent and language of the DMCA solely to stop third party competition of a physical product.  Hopefully, the court recognizes this.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110620/10505614766/microsoft-still-claiming-that-it-can-use-dmca-to-block-competing-xbox-accessories.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110620/10505614766/microsoft-still-claiming-that-it-can-use-dmca-to-block-competing-xbox-accessories.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110620/10505614766/microsoft-still-claiming-that-it-can-use-dmca-to-block-competing-xbox-accessories.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>not-what-it-was-designed-for</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110620/10505614766</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 May 2011 12:54:55 PDT</pubDate>
<title>RIAA Wants To Start Peeking Into Files You Store In The Cloud</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110520/03411314352/riaa-wants-to-start-peeking-into-files-you-store-cloud.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110520/03411314352/riaa-wants-to-start-peeking-into-files-you-store-cloud.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The RIAA really just doesn't know when to give up attacking and to start innovating.  Its latest legal move is to file for a subpoena <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/riaa-picks-a-new-legal-190232" target="_blank">to get information from cloud storage provider Box.net</a> to see if some people are using the service to store and share unauthorized music.  There are, of course, a variety of different services out there for cloud storage, that allow individuals, small groups and companies to share files -- not for illicit purposes, but because that's how collaboration and sharing work.  I use just such a service to share photos with my family, and another to share documents with coworkers.
<br /><br />
But, of course, technologically speaking, the actions of these systems can just as easily be used to share unauthorized content in a potentially infringing manner, and it appears that this is what the RIAA is targeting.  As Eriq Gardner notes at the link above, it's not at all clear what the RIAA intends to do with the information it gets.  It's difficult to see how it could sue Box.net, who almost certainly has no real liability here, but it could go after the users -- something we'd thought the RIAA had sworn off for the time being.
<br /><br />
The whole thing just seems like a waste of time.  This is what computers do.  They copy.  There's always a way to copy.  Pretending you can stop that isn't rational.  What would be rational is helping the RIAA member labels adapt, but for whatever reason, that just doesn't appear to be within the RIAA's skillset.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110520/03411314352/riaa-wants-to-start-peeking-into-files-you-store-cloud.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110520/03411314352/riaa-wants-to-start-peeking-into-files-you-store-cloud.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110520/03411314352/riaa-wants-to-start-peeking-into-files-you-store-cloud.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>of-course-they-do</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110520/03411314352</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 7 May 2010 04:16:27 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Canadian Writers Guild Wants 'You Must Be A Criminal' Tax On Both Distribution And Storage Of Content</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100506/1244539328.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100506/1244539328.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Canada has long had a blank media levy on things like blank CDs, which is a sort of "you must be a criminal" tax on things.  Of course, what it really does is drive down the usage of blank CDs by making them ridiculously expensive -- such that, in some cases, it accounts for <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090522/1513204985.shtml">90% of the price</a> of a blank CD.  There have been failed efforts to extend such a levy to things like iPods, and <a href="http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5011/196/" target="_blank">Michael Geist</a> alerts us to the news that the Writers Guild of Canada is proposing <a href="http://techmediareports.com/reports/content/10739-writers_guild_proposes_broad_creator_levy_collected_at_all_digital_distribution_and_st" target="_blank">extending levies to all <b>distribution</b> and <b>storage</b></a> -- including things like DVRs.  Yes, because when you time shift that TV program, you're a thief and should have to pay extra for it.  Beyond just being a "you must be a criminal" tax, this really seems like a way of double, triple or quadruple charging people for the same media.  Say you buy a song on iTunes, which you've paid for.  But then you also need to pay the levy to the ISP for distribution.  So now you've paid twice.  But then you need to pay a levy for your hard drive to store it.  So that's three times.  Oh, and then another levy on your iPod to transfer the song to that.  So you've paid four times for the same song.  That makes so much sense, doesn't it?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100506/1244539328.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100506/1244539328.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100506/1244539328.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>well-that's-sensible</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100506/1244539328</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 2010 01:56:21 PST</pubDate>
<title>Do You Have Any Legal Right To Privacy For Information Stored Online?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100118/0232247789.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100118/0232247789.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A year and a half ago, we had an interesting discussion here about whether or not the Fourth Amendment and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080530/2014171272.shtml">your right to privacy extended to information you stored online</a> via any sort of "cloud" service.  The arguments basically fell into two camps, with some citing the "third party doctrine," which basically says that once you gave up info to a third party, you no longer have any right to expect it to be kept private.  This argument came from a lawsuit (Smith v. Maryland) that basically said phone numbers you dialed were not "secret" because you were supplying them to the phone company.  Of course, the other side of that argument is that it's ridiculous to extend this concept to online storage, noting that the Supreme Court had recognized in the Katz case (about wiretapping public pay phones) that the Fourth Amendment applies to "people, not places."
<br /><br />
It looks like this debate is kicking off again, with a discussion on News.com over whether or not <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-19413_3-10436425-240.html?part=rss&#038;subj=news&#038;tag=2547-1_3-0-20" target="_blank">the Fourth Amendment covers information stored in "the cloud."</a>  It tackles some of the same ground that we covered a while back, but points to a <a href="http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/sites/default/files/Couillard_MLR.pdf" target="_blank">recent law review paper on this topic</a> (pdf) by David A. Couillard.
<br /><br />
The paper does a good job separating out the thinking here, and explaining why the Fourth Amendment absolutely <i>should</i> apply to information you store online.  As it notes, while the Smith case said that phone numbers dialed might not be private, that did not extend to the contents of the phone call itself.  And that's key.  The reason that the phone company gets the phone numbers dialed is because that information is key to it delivering its service of connecting the phone call.  So you can make a reasonable argument that while such information (the information needed to initiate a service) might not be subject to privacy protection, everything else communicated or stored via that service still deserves those protections.
<br /><br />
The issue is that right now we really don't know how the courts feel about this -- and you can bet this is going to become an issue that shows up in the court system before too long.  Hopefully, the courts will recognize that any "third party doctrine" when it comes to the Fourth Amendment is limited to a very narrow subset of information provided for a particular purpose, rather than all information stored on third party servers.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100118/0232247789.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100118/0232247789.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100118/0232247789.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>there's-a-legal-fight-brewing</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100118/0232247789</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 3 Dec 2009 16:35:18 PST</pubDate>
<title>Are Newspapers The TiVo Of News?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091128/1752587099.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091128/1752587099.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Earlier this year, <i>The Daily Sho</i> did a segment about the New York Times, where correspondent Jason Jones had the classic line where he referred to the paper newspaper <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090614/1849365226.shtml">as providing "aged news"</a>.  Danny Sullivan has posted an interesting rethink on that, noting that rather than "aged news," what if we just <a href="http://daggle.com/newspapers-aged-news-tivoed-news-1527?utm_source=feedburner&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed%3A daggle %28Daggle%3A Danny Sullivan%27s Blog%29" target="_blank">think of newspapers as "stored news,"</a> or more specifically "a TiVo for news" or an "iPod for news."  It's based on a recent talk given by Kevin Marks, where he notes that despite all the hype about "real time" info, people will pay plenty to store and delay information, such as with a TiVo or iPod.  
<br /><br />
It's an interesting idea, but if that's the case, I'm not sure the newspaper is really the best or most efficient means of "storing" news.  Part of the reason why the TiVo (or other DVRs) and the iPod have been so successful is not just because they allow for the storage of content, but because they allow for the customization of <i>what</i> content, and give significantly more control over how it's consumed.  Newspapers aren't quite like that.  They tend to be more "here's what we've decided you want," rather than a delivery of what you've asked for or chosen to store.  I would think that something like an RSS aggregator would be a lot more like "TiVo'd news" than any newspaper.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091128/1752587099.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091128/1752587099.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091128/1752587099.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>maybe,-but-not-quite</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091128/1752587099</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 2 Jun 2009 11:11:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>When You Can Hold Every Song Ever Recorded In Your Pocket... Does $1/Song Still Make Sense?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090530/2256555068.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090530/2256555068.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Martin Thornkvist, who runs a (very cool) indie record label in Sweden that believes in treating fans right, has written up an opinion piece where he tries to <a href="http://www.digitalrenaissance.se/2009/05/29/musicians-and-fans-will-continue-to-gain-power/" target="_new">envision the role of the record label in five years</a>.  The opening is certainly right in line with my feelings of optimism for the music industry:
<blockquote><i>
When it comes to the future of music I've always consider myself an optimist.
<br /><br />
For one I'm certain that musicians and music fans have a prosperous future ahead of them. That's because music is the single most important ingredient in the music business soup and music is of course a result of artists' creative minds. And it's when musicians interact with listeners that a window for business is opening. Not before, and not just because some A&#038;R person, marketeer or CEO open their wallet. That the relationship between musicians and fans is the foundation to the business is the single most important piece of knowledge that we all have to submissively recognize. This is the key to the future for the middle men we call record labels â€&ldquo; we have to encourage the interaction and realize that it will live without us.
<br /><br />
We as middle men have to remember that we always need to convince our customers (musicians and fans) why they should engage with us. Music on plastic discs or plain mp3s just ain't enough anymore. Competition is hard and consumers don't take bullshit anymore. If they love something you don't offer, they'll go create it themselves.
</i></blockquote>
The whole thing is worth reading, but the final paragraph makes a really important point that we've <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071008/162858.shtml">discussed</a> in the past, but which often gets forgotten in trying to understand trendlines and the music business.  It's that storage is growing ever bigger and ever cheaper at an incredibly rapid pace -- and as such it won't be all that long until you can carry every song ever recorded on a device in your pocket:
<blockquote><i>
In five years a hard drive available to ordinary consumers will carry 35 TB of data. Data = music. 35 TB = 2.5 million songs. Watch this development closely. It's easy to get blinded by Spotify, but imagine when file sharing on the street means transferring the entire music history. At least it is a wild card. Anyhow it seems that we will have to work on better ways of charging for music than 1 dollar a song. Don't you think?
</i></blockquote>
Indeed.  When you can carry every song ever... do people really think that $1/song is going to make sense?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090530/2256555068.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090530/2256555068.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090530/2256555068.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>think-it-forward</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090530/2256555068</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 7 Jan 2009 21:29:59 PST</pubDate>
<title>Storage Isn't Much Of An Issue Anymore</title>
<dc:creator>Carlo Longino</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090107/0926583311.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090107/0926583311.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The trade group behind the SD memory card format today announced a new standard, called SDXC, that will support memory cards <a href="http://www.gearlog.com/2009/01/ces_2009_sd_association_announ.php">of up to 2 terabytes</a> for devices like digital cameras and cell phones. While the amount of storage that can be crammed into smaller and smaller physical formats continues to grow, the idea of being able to carry around 2 terabytes of data in a device like a smartphone still seems pretty amazing. Combined with the growth of broadband networks, particularly wireless ones, are we nearing a point where the accessibility of data will no longer be a concern? Between being able to easily carry around most, if not all, of your data and always-on broadband networks making the rest of it constantly accessible, the point at which we can easily access any of our information from any location looks to be just over the horizon. That's not to say that plenty of obstacles remain, including our ever-growing demand for more and more storage space, and the need for more pervasive (and <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20081218/0355013163.shtml">less restrictive</a>) wireless broadband networks, but those obstacles are becoming less and less formidable all the time.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090107/0926583311.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090107/0926583311.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090107/0926583311.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>is-that-the-library-of-congress-in-your-pocket-or...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090107/0926583311</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:12:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>The Browser Is The New Operating System</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Lee</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080530/0022021266.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080530/0022021266.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>A couple of weeks ago TechCrunch had a good write-up of <a href="http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/05/29/the-next-gen-web-browser-storage-support/">the move toward open local storage APIs in web browsers.</a> As websites have come to look more and more like applications rather than static pages, they've begun to bump up against the limits of what today's web browsers can do. Developers have responded by using a variety of proprietary plug-ins and workarounds to expand the browser's functionality. One example of this is local storage. There aren't a lot of good options for applications that want to store significant amounts of data client-side in a way that will continue to be available if the Internet connection goes away. Google has Google Gears, while Adobe has Flash. Each offers local storage, but neither is compatible with the other, nor are their APIs likely to be adopted by other browser vendors in the future. 
<br /><br />
Luckily, as part of the HTML 5 effort, it looks like the major browser vendors are moving toward a set of open APIs for local storage that will (theoretically, at least) enable developers to write an application targeting this functionality and have it work on any modern browser. It appears that the latest versions of Firefox largely already support the API, and support has been added to recent builds of WebKit, the foundation of Apple's Safari browser. The big laggard is Internet Explorer, which has some but not all of the functionality. But even IE users have the option of installing Google Gears, which has <a href="http://gearsblog.blogspot.com/2008/04/gears-and-standards.html">promised</a> to add HTML 5-compliant local storage APIs. The broad support of these APIs by other browsers, along with the fear of giving the edge to its arch-rival Google, will put a lot of pressure on Microsoft to jump on the bandwagon.</p>

<p>What's really interesting about this is that browsers are starting to resemble operating systems in their own right. One of the most fundamental features of operating systems is to provide a consistent interface for data storage. OS developers call it a file system, rather than "local storage," but the concept is the same. And as websites come to increasingly resemble full-blown operating systems, I think browser vendors are increasingly going to have to solve the same kinds of problems that operating system vendors do. 
<br /><br />
For example, it has become increasingly common for my browser to slow to a crawl because one poorly-written, JavaScript-heavy website is sucking up all the CPU. Just as operating systems have preemptive multitasking to prevent one application from bringing the whole system to a crawl, browsers should have mechanisms to prevent one misbehaving website from bringing my browser grinding to a halt. Safari has an extremely primitive version of this - I'll sometimes get a dialog box informing me that a particular website's Javascript is creating problems and asking if I want to stop it - but there's a lot of room for improvement. The browser should automatically limit the amount of CPU one website can use when others are waiting. And I should be able to call up a "task manager" that shows me all the websites I've got open and gives their CPU and memory usage. When websites begin to resemble full-fledged applications, browsers are going to start behaving like full-fledged operating systems.</p>

<p>In a sense, this is the belated fulfillment of Netscape's "middleware" strategy to make the web browser the new operating system. As <a href="http://biz.yahoo.com/msft/p7.html">detailed</a> in the Microsoft antitrust saga, Netscape's hope (and Microsoft's fear) was that the browser would supplant the operating system as the default platform for user applications. That's now starting to happen, although it didn't happen fast enough to save Netscape.</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080530/0022021266.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080530/0022021266.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080530/0022021266.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>local-storage</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080530/0022021266</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2008 10:09:29 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Help Define The Future Of Storage With The Techdirt Insight Community And Dell</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080415/031109854.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080415/031109854.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It's been a little while since we last updated you on the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/insightcommunity.php">Techdirt Insight Community</a>, but there's plenty happening there that you're missing out on, if you're not a member.  First, we've put together a site, sponsored by Dell, on <a href="http://thefutureofstorage.com/" target="_new">The Future of Storage</a>, which is powered by the Techdirt Insight Community.  We're building an ongoing conversation around the future direction of the storage market.  You can join in the conversation itself just by heading straight to the site and commenting on the posts, but if you have experience with storage area network technology, you should join the community itself and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/insightcommunity.php?p=tic_issue&#038;iid=1189">submit your insight</a> on where you think the market is heading.  The best insights not only get published to the site, but can earn you quite a bit of money.  Basically, you can be smart, earn a bunch of money and get recognition for being smart all in one shot.  Tough to beat that.
<br /><br />
In the meantime, if storage isn't your thing, there are some other open cases within the Insight Community that may interest you, including ones on <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/insightcommunity.php?p=tic_issue&#038;iid=1194">helping a major beverage company</a> provide online value to its retail partners, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/insightcommunity.php?p=tic_issue&#038;iid=1191">the market for accounting software</a> and a look at <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/insightcommunity.php?p=tic_issue&#038;iid=1199">what Sales 2.0 might really mean</a>.  All Techdirt Insight Community cases work on the same basic premise: be really smart, write up your insights and earn money and reputation.  We've got lots more coming from the Insight Community in the next few months, but there's no reason to wait.  Join now, be smart and earn some money.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080415/031109854.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080415/031109854.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080415/031109854.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>be-smart,-make-money</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080415/031109854</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 11 Sep 2007 06:24:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Cheap Storage, Digital Pack Rats... Opening Up New Possibilities</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070910/002740.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070910/002740.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Back when Google first launched Gmail, the big revolution wasn't necessarily in the interface, but the fact that it was offering 1 Gb of storage for online email, with the announcement noting that you should never have to delete email again.  It turns out they were a little hasty in that claim, and even though the company has added a lot more storage, some people still found themselves running out of room and deleting stuff (and now even Google is charging extra for additional storage).  However, it certainly is reaching the point where digital storage is so cheap that many companies are finding it easier to just save everything possible.  There's no reason to throw out data any more.  This has certainly resulted in some problems, such as when companies <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070815/143218.shtml">leak</a> data -- but it's also leading to <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=printArticleBasic&#038;articleId=300982">new potential tools and services</a>, such as much better computer learning systems, that can simply process tons and tons of stored data to figure things out.  So, perhaps the quest for better artificial intelligence will actually be served better not by all the attempts at better algorithms or other tricks -- but by the fact that there's so much data out there that no one's getting rid of, that we'll be able to create machines that learn how to be intelligent by going through all of it.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070910/002740.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070910/002740.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070910/002740.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>everything-must-stay</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20070910/002740</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 7 Sep 2007 17:11:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>40,000 Explanations For Why The Recording Industry Is Wrong About Business Models</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070905/230107.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070905/230107.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Among Apple's new iPod <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070905/115922.shtml">announcements</a> was the inclusion of a 160Gb iPod Classic.  As Steve Jobs noted, that means you could carry around 40,000 songs in your pocket.  Forty thousand songs.  Leave it to Bob Lefsetz to use this fact to point out <a href="http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/index.php/archives/2007/09/05/160-gig-ipods/">how wrong the recording industry has been about music business models</a>.  He points out that this highlights how people want music -- in fact, they want <i>lots</i> of music -- and they want it conveniently and reasonably priced.  That means at much cheaper prices (are you going to carry around $40,000 worth of music purchases in your pocket?) and without DRM.  
<br /><br />
He also highlights how the idiotic focus on getting more per song just as everything else about music and technology gets cheaper is hurting the record labels much more than it helps them.  He compares the situation to how expensive it was to use mobile phones a dozen years ago.  People were scared to use mobile phones because the charges were ridiculously high.  You only used it in special circumstances.  Today, however, the rates are <i>much, much lower</i> and that's massively grown the market for mobile services.  Do you think the mobile operators would prefer to go back to $1/minute charges?  Yet, why does the recording industry insist on $1/song charges when the infrastructure can support an entirely different model.  Instead, make the music cheap and easily accessible.  Take advantage of the infrastructure that allows people to carry around 40,000 songs in their pocket.  Sell iPods that are pre-loaded with all kinds of music and watch them fly off the shelves.  The record labels (and their supporters) will claim that it doesn't make sense to sell music for less when people are clearly willing to pay $1/song, but that's misunderstanding the market potential.  People were willing to pay $1/minute for mobile phone calls too.  And they were willing to pay $150/month for broadband access.  But as all of those things got much, much cheaper it opened the markets up much wider, provided all sorts of new applications and services that made them more and more valuable -- and helped make the companies much richer by providing better services at cheaper prices.  Why can't the recording industry understand that?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070905/230107.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070905/230107.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070905/230107.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>start-counting</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20070905/230107</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>