Amazon.com launches Kindle at $399. End of an era ?

Online retailer Amazon.com has launched an e-book reading device, called Kindle, at US$399, according to this report.

The Kindle has received a number of advance reviews as it uses technology that brings the reader experience as close as possible to reading a print book.

That Amazon.com has decided to throw its weight behind the e-book reader indicates that the company is seeing a significant shift from print books to e-books, at least in developing markets like the US.

A lot of people are however going to hate this transition, including readers. Whatever happened to tucking into bed with a nice book to read, and the familiar rustle of paper, and the smell of ink and paper ? Will print books go the way of the vinyl record, wooden toys, natural Christmas trees ?

Don't know if I will be able to make the transition. Perhaps our children will as they did with MP3 music. It would also be worthwhile investigating the impact of digital books on our informal culture of sharing books. It is not physically possible for me to let a neighbor read an interesting digital book in my catalog, unless he has a digital reader. In case he has a reader, it is also not quite clear whether it is lawful under copyright laws for me to beam my download to his reader.

On the flip side, e-books will push down the cost of publishing, as the cost of printing, paper, and physical distribution will go. Books will become more easily accessible, because they can be easily downloaded. Amazon is offering 90,000 e-books in its catalog, with most priced at US$9.99 each. Not yet basements prices, but e-books are bound to get cheaper as more vendors start getting into this market.

YouTube sued in India for copyright infringement

Google Inc. and many Internet companies hold that they cannot be held liable for whatever happens on their video sharing and social networking sites. Telephone companies aren't held liable if people plan a murder over the telephone, so why should Internet companies, according to Google.

An Indian company, the makers of the T-Series music and videos, thinks otherwise. It has sued Google and YouTube for allegedly infringing its copyrights, as a lot of its copyrighted content is claimed to be available without permission on YouTube. A court in Delhi has passed an interim restraining order on Google and YouTube which would require YouTube to pull down all content on their site that could be in infringement of T-Series' copyrights, according to this report in InfoWorld.

Google has been pushing for an amendment to section 79 of the Indian Information Technology Act 2000 that will remove the liability of network service providers for content posted by users. The current version of section 79 requires that the network service provider prove that the offense or contravention was committed without their knowledge or that they had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offense or contravention.

Interestingly, T-Series seems to have filed the case under the Indian Copyright Act, and not under the Information Technology Act, according to this blog. The lawyer for T-Series is quoted by Infoworld as saying that YouTube is not a neutral intermediary but a web site that makes money from clicks on advertising on its site.

The dispute between Internet sharing sites and media companies is unlikely to get resolved anytime soon. There have however been moves by companies like NBC Universal and Walt Disney and other media companies who announced last month a set of guidelines for user-generated content (UGC) services, without infringing copyrights. Among the measures proposed is the implementation of filtering technology with the goal to eliminate infringing content on UGC services, including blocking infringing uploads before they are made available to the public. Google was not among these companies, though MySpace was part of the annoucement.

Google seems to be worried that too much control may make sharing and social networking sites less popular. The issue is about how much of control. The media companies are willing to allow fair use of copyrighted content, which is what is required for the flowering of creativity around orginal content. Lowering controls beyond that would be a license for illicit use of copyrighted content.

Just as media companies want to push for copyright enforcement on networking and sharing sites, there is a section of government and society in India that is pushing for greater control over what gets posted on these sites. The offer by Google and other Internet companies to pull down objectionable material post-facto is not seen as good enough. If there can be filters to prevent uploading of copyrighted material, why can't tech savvy companies come up with filters for pornography for example. Google should listen rather than play the same old tune of intermediary neutrality.

Related article:

Google says don’t shoot the messenger

Media companies see the light with Hulu

Hulu, an online video service from two large media companies, News Corp. and General Electric's NBC Universal, started testing its service Monday. Using an advertising based business model, Hulu will have programming from a number of media companies including now shows from Sony Pictures Television and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios.

The move by these companies to move their programming online indicates the growing popularity of online video, as is evident from the success of Google Inc.’s YouTube. Besides adding a revenue stream for these companies, the programming online may also prove to be a promotional medium, providing users a sample of movies and other video that they could then buy on DVDs or view at the local theatre.

Along with Hulu's own site, the company said its videos would be available through partners such as America Online Inc., MSN and MySpace.com, although links for Hulu on these sites were not apparent at the time of writing, according to a report by Computerworld.

The companies involved are likely to ensure tight control over their copyrights on content, including discouraging download and distribution of their content. Leading Internet and media companies announced earlier this month a set of guidelines for user-generated content (UGC) services, without infringing copyrights.

Among the measures proposed is the implementation of filtering technology with the goal to eliminate infringing content on UGC services, including blocking infringing uploads before they are made available to the public.

Given that the high Internet bandwidth required for the services proposed by Hulu is not available even in some parts of the US, Hulu will likely be more popular for viewing short clips from movies, and other short content, rather than as an alternative to television, and other medium for watching TVs.

Related articles:

Media companies announce plans to protect copyright online

Che Guevara: from revolutionary to commercial icon

Commercial interest and advertising companies have systematically appropriated and transformed symbols of protest, while robbing them of their original content and meaning.

The most glaring instance is a snap of Ernesto "Che" Guevara taken by Cuban photographer Alberto Korda, which inspired Jim Fitzpatrick, an Irish artist, to make pictures of the revolutionary, based on that photograph.

The iconic snap and the pictures have Che Guevara in his long hair and beard, sporting his beret with a single star on it - a picture not many would have missed.

Guevara was executed by the Bolivian Army on October 9, 1967. A number of Latin American countries plan memorials this week in his honour.

In the west the pictures have been used as a decoration for products from tissues to underwear, reports the BBC. With time Che Guevara the image and Che the revolutionary got separated.

Ironically, the widespread commercial use of the pictures is partly due to a decision by Fitzpatrick not to take a copyright on his poster.

The poster, produced by Fitzpatrick under his own imprint in 1968, achieved worldwide circulation and he was quite famous as a result. But because he made the image copyright-free, he earned nothing from it personally, nor did he wish to, Fitzpatrick is quoted as saying on his web site.

As for the original photo by Korda, he allowed it to be used without charging for royalties because he thought that the more the picture spread, the more would Che Guevara’s ideals.

But in 2000, 40 years after he took the picture, he sued an advertising agency, and the company that supplied the photograph for use in an advertisment for a vodka brand, according to Famous Pictures: The Magazine.

To use the image of Che Guevara to sell vodka was a slur on his name and memory, as he never drank himself, he was not a drunk, and drink should not be associated with his immortal memory, Korda told the media according to this report. He was able to affirm his ownership of the photo and won an out-of-court settlement of US$50,000, which he donated to the Cuban medical system, according to Famous Pictures: The Magazine.


Related articles:

Thoughts on Che Guevara and the cruelty of capitalism

The Internet helps RIAA squeeze profits

Internet technology has made it easier to track sharing of copyrighted content, and music labels and the powerful Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) are making the most if it to clamp down, no drive to bankruptcy, individuals who are only following an age-old tradition of sharing.

Jammie Thomas, a Native American from Minnesota, has to pay whopping fine of US$220,000 to record companies for offering songs online through a Kazaa file-sharing network. The sum is equivalent to about five times her annual salary, and will surely drive her bankrupt, according to a report in The Times of London.

Jammie’s first mistake was that she thought that the world was still a place where people shared nice things, without monetary gain. Her other mistake was to take on RIAA and the powerful music labels, who get away with their usurious prices on music.

RIAA will certainly argue that you have to pay for the music whatever the rates, or compose your own music, because they have the copyright laws behind them. Besides, sharing is no longer fair use because RIAA and company can now track you down on the Internet, and make money from you.

If you buy a print magazine and pass it around to your office colleagues, and your neighbors, nobody can do anything about it. But once you go on the Internet and download a digital edition of the magazine, the company that manages the downloads, evidently in agreement with the publishers, allows you one download, and maybe even allows you to give a friend a free copy. But any distribution beyond the set limit attracts digital rights management (DRM) and the weight of copyright law.

By the same token, iTunes from Apple Inc. allows you to rip CDs and burn new ones, but digital music downloads from its online store attract a whole lot of restrictions, including what player you can use to play the music. Now that is double standards !

Technology has made it possible for music companies, publishing houses, and other content providers to put more restrictions on consumers, and make them enforceable.

If I buy a CD, I can rip it using iTunes or any other media player software, and burn scores of CDs from it. Ordinary people don’t usually do it. They may at the most pass the CD to a friend to listen or burn a copy to give to that friend. That is part of a culture of sharing and fair use.

Note that is not an argument against copyright. It is an argument to support a culture of sharing and fair use on copyright, that has been around for decades. We share recipes, we share an interesting poem, or a touching prayer as well. We sometimes record a nice song playing on the radio. Do you really want me to call up the radio station, and submit a lengthy form to take permission to record the song ?

Today if I download a file from audio books downloading site Audible.com, the file that is downloaded has my name on it. My use of the downloaded audio book can be tracked, as also my alleged misuse.

As the terms for purchase of music, books, and content are far more liberal offline than online, maybe many of us will now go back to hassle-free consumption of offline content like CDs, print books and newspapers, and even DVDs. The controls on the Internet are just too many.

Or maybe I will buy at online stores that sell non-DRM content. They are offering non-DRM content because they see the writing on the wall, because they recognize that many like me are decent folks, because they recognize that sharing is social glue which the money-grabbing barbarians can never understand.

Related articles:

Amazon.com gets onto MP3 music bandwagon
eMusic’s foray into audiobooks may help aspiring writers