蓋瑞基實驗室 Your brain networks

8.2.07

Steve's Thought on Music

Yes, He is trying to convince us all again. Apple CEO Steve Jobs wrote an article on Apple website explaining why apple has to screw you on iTune store.

Here is the quote

" With the stunning global success of Apple’s iPod music player and iTunes online music store, some have called for Apple to “open” the digital rights management (DRM) system that Apple uses to protect its music against theft, so that music purchased from iTunes can be played on digital devices purchased from other companies, and protected music purchased from other online music stores can play on iPods. Let’s examine the current situation and how we got here, then look at three possible alternatives for the future.

To begin, it is useful to remember that all iPods play music that is free of any DRM and encoded in “open” licensable formats such as MP3 and AAC. iPod users can and do acquire their music from many sources, including CDs they own. Music on CDs can be easily imported into the freely-downloadable iTunes jukebox software which runs on both Macs and Windows PCs, and is automatically encoded into the open AAC or MP3 formats without any DRM. This music can be played on iPods or any other music players that play these open formats.

The rub comes from the music Apple sells on its online iTunes Store. Since Apple does not own or control any music itself, it must license the rights to distribute music from others, primarily the “big four” music companies: Universal, Sony BMG, Warner and EMI. These four companies control the distribution of over 70% of the world’s music. When Apple approached these companies to license their music to distribute legally over the Internet, they were extremely cautious and required Apple to protect their music from being illegally copied. The solution was to create a DRM system, which envelopes each song purchased from the iTunes store in special and secret software so that it cannot be played on unauthorized devices.

Apple was able to negotiate landmark usage rights at the time, which include allowing users to play their DRM protected music on up to 5 computers and on an unlimited number of iPods. Obtaining such rights from the music companies was unprecedented at the time, and even today is unmatched by most other digital music services. However, a key provision of our agreements with the music companies is that if our DRM system is compromised and their music becomes playable on unauthorized devices, we have only a small number of weeks to fix the problem or they can withdraw their entire music catalog from our iTunes store.

To prevent illegal copies, DRM systems must allow only authorized devices to play the protected music. If a copy of a DRM protected song is posted on the Internet, it should not be able to play on a downloader’s computer or portable music device. To achieve this, a DRM system employs secrets. There is no theory of protecting content other than keeping secrets. In other words, even if one uses the most sophisticated cryptographic locks to protect the actual music, one must still “hide” the keys which unlock the music on the user’s computer or portable music player. No one has ever implemented a DRM system that does not depend on such secrets for its operation.

The problem, of course, is that there are many smart people in the world, some with a lot of time on their hands, who love to discover such secrets and publish a way for everyone to get free (and stolen) music. They are often successful in doing just that, so any company trying to protect content using a DRM must frequently update it with new and harder to discover secrets. It is a cat-and-mouse game. Apple’s DRM system is called FairPlay. While we have had a few breaches in FairPlay, we have been able to successfully repair them through updating the iTunes store software, the iTunes jukebox software and software in the iPods themselves. So far we have met our commitments to the music companies to protect their music, and we have given users the most liberal usage rights available in the industry for legally downloaded music.

With this background, let’s now explore three different alternatives for the future.

The first alternative is to continue on the current course, with each manufacturer competing freely with their own “top to bottom” proprietary systems for selling, playing and protecting music. It is a very competitive market, with major global companies making large investments to develop new music players and online music stores. Apple, Microsoft and Sony all compete with proprietary systems. Music purchased from Microsoft’s Zune store will only play on Zune players; music purchased from Sony’s Connect store will only play on Sony’s players; and music purchased from Apple’s iTunes store will only play on iPods. This is the current state of affairs in the industry, and customers are being well served with a continuing stream of innovative products and a wide variety of choices.

Some have argued that once a consumer purchases a body of music from one of the proprietary music stores, they are forever locked into only using music players from that one company. Or, if they buy a specific player, they are locked into buying music only from that company’s music store. Is this true? Let’s look at the data for iPods and the iTunes store – they are the industry’s most popular products and we have accurate data for them. Through the end of 2006, customers purchased a total of 90 million iPods and 2 billion songs from the iTunes store. On average, that’s 22 songs purchased from the iTunes store for each iPod ever sold.

Today’s most popular iPod holds 1000 songs, and research tells us that the average iPod is nearly full. This means that only 22 out of 1000 songs, or under 3% of the music on the average iPod, is purchased from the iTunes store and protected with a DRM. The remaining 97% of the music is unprotected and playable on any player that can play the open formats. It’s hard to believe that just 3% of the music on the average iPod is enough to lock users into buying only iPods in the future. And since 97% of the music on the average iPod was not purchased from the iTunes store, iPod users are clearly not locked into the iTunes store to acquire their music.

The second alternative is for Apple to license its FairPlay DRM technology to current and future competitors with the goal of achieving interoperability between different company’s players and music stores. On the surface, this seems like a good idea since it might offer customers increased choice now and in the future. And Apple might benefit by charging a small licensing fee for its FairPlay DRM. However, when we look a bit deeper, problems begin to emerge. The most serious problem is that licensing a DRM involves disclosing some of its secrets to many people in many companies, and history tells us that inevitably these secrets will leak. The Internet has made such leaks far more damaging, since a single leak can be spread worldwide in less than a minute. Such leaks can rapidly result in software programs available as free downloads on the Internet which will disable the DRM protection so that formerly protected songs can be played on unauthorized players.

An equally serious problem is how to quickly repair the damage caused by such a leak. A successful repair will likely involve enhancing the music store software, the music jukebox software, and the software in the players with new secrets, then transferring this updated software into the tens (or hundreds) of millions of Macs, Windows PCs and players already in use. This must all be done quickly and in a very coordinated way. Such an undertaking is very difficult when just one company controls all of the pieces. It is near impossible if multiple companies control separate pieces of the puzzle, and all of them must quickly act in concert to repair the damage from a leak.

Apple has concluded that if it licenses FairPlay to others, it can no longer guarantee to protect the music it licenses from the big four music companies. Perhaps this same conclusion contributed to Microsoft’s recent decision to switch their emphasis from an “open” model of licensing their DRM to others to a “closed” model of offering a proprietary music store, proprietary jukebox software and proprietary players.

The third alternative is to abolish DRMs entirely. Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players. This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. If the big four music companies would license Apple their music without the requirement that it be protected with a DRM, we would switch to selling only DRM-free music on our iTunes store. Every iPod ever made will play this DRM-free music.

Why would the big four music companies agree to let Apple and others distribute their music without using DRM systems to protect it? The simplest answer is because DRMs haven’t worked, and may never work, to halt music piracy. Though the big four music companies require that all their music sold online be protected with DRMs, these same music companies continue to sell billions of CDs a year which contain completely unprotected music. That’s right! No DRM system was ever developed for the CD, so all the music distributed on CDs can be easily uploaded to the Internet, then (illegally) downloaded and played on any computer or player.

In 2006, under 2 billion DRM-protected songs were sold worldwide by online stores, while over 20 billion songs were sold completely DRM-free and unprotected on CDs by the music companies themselves. The music companies sell the vast majority of their music DRM-free, and show no signs of changing this behavior, since the overwhelming majority of their revenues depend on selling CDs which must play in CD players that support no DRM system.

So if the music companies are selling over 90 percent of their music DRM-free, what benefits do they get from selling the remaining small percentage of their music encumbered with a DRM system? There appear to be none. If anything, the technical expertise and overhead required to create, operate and update a DRM system has limited the number of participants selling DRM protected music. If such requirements were removed, the music industry might experience an influx of new companies willing to invest in innovative new stores and players. This can only be seen as a positive by the music companies.

Much of the concern over DRM systems has arisen in European countries. Perhaps those unhappy with the current situation should redirect their energies towards persuading the music companies to sell their music DRM-free. For Europeans, two and a half of the big four music companies are located right in their backyard. The largest, Universal, is 100% owned by Vivendi, a French company. EMI is a British company, and Sony BMG is 50% owned by Bertelsmann, a German company. Convincing them to license their music to Apple and others DRM-free will create a truly interoperable music marketplace. Apple will embrace this wholeheartedly."



to conclude: Apple makes money and all responsibilities go to others.

More......Warner Bros Chief disagree

19.1.07

Tagging whatever


Web2.0的精髓就是讓不管是任何degree使用者, 皆可以對網路產生貢獻, 但在這麼多的貢獻內容當中, 又沒有Webmater 在做分類, 那這些內容到底怎麼自動的整理給讀者看, Tagging 的概念就產生了. 那我們是不是可以什麼都tag呢(tagging whatever)?

Wikipeidia 對Tag 有詳細說明 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tags, 它用keywords 來形容Tags, 是方便讀者下關鍵字找到該篇文章, 其實Tagging 簡單來說就是讓作者自己下分類, 畢竟內容如何分類, 作者是最清楚的, 只是每個作者對metadata的邏輯和知識本體(Ontology)的詮釋不盡相同, 這樣隨便沒系統的Tagging, 說實話對節省讀者找到文章或內容的時間並沒太大幫助, 它大概能幫一大堆有相關的objects 全串起來, 但可沒辦法分出關係連結的強度

例如 A 寫了一篇關於東京街頭的咖啡屋, 它提到店裡最有名的爪哇咖啡, A 認為因為爪哇咖啡是這家店的特色, 所以就把爪哇跟咖啡Tagging 起來, 但事實上當讀者會用爪哇咖啡去找文章或內容時, 應該是要知道關於這種咖啡的訊息, 可是搜尋後卻出現東京的咖啡聽, 不能說他們兩者沒關連, 只是關連強度太低, 是否有必要Push給讀者, 這是我們要討論的.

或許我們可以將Tag 分級(+-), 來計算出tagging 後文章和內容的關連強度, 再用強度去分類給讀者去選擇, 也許可以將Garbage Information降到最低. 做法可能可以由作者手動或由人工智慧去做, 但重點是在瞭解人類對語言的多重反應, 才能設計一個正確方式

11.1.07

從Second life 來看網路社群未來性

對於近年來網路虛擬社群發展, 有一個網站一定都會被提起, 它就是Second life, 它可以說是一個線上遊戲, 但它的社群發展精神卻大於遊戲本身的故事架構 http://secondlife.com/



網路的好處是打破實體世界的疆界, 而Second life 更是跨越了網路的疆界, 這個疆界就是"行為", 從WWW發展至今, 早期的web1.0 莫過於e-commerce 或 content 的傳達, 以行為分就為



  1. 瀏覽

  2. 搜尋

  3. 購買


到現在 web 2.0 時代, 更多的社群產生, 但行為上也只增加了


4. 回饋content


不管是1.0或2.0, 每一個網站其實都已經預設了使用者的固定行為模式, 而second life 卻是建構在一個未限定行為的型態, 這是最接近現實人類生活模式的一種方式. 如果是建立社群, 社群也是應由一群有共通意識, 但行為不盡相同所產生的互補模式而來, 分工負責本是應該造就這世界的力量, 人類知識也是因此而累積. 如果說21世紀是知識經濟的世界, 單一科學知識的累積是不夠的, 我相信能掌握跨知識的人才會是最大贏家


See you in second life!



開放與自由:公眾創用國際研討會

The garage lab next step

實驗室因大家生活上的忙路停擺了一陣子, 這陣子也讓我決定一定要將這實驗室升級, 目前也正在規劃中, 期望能於短期內有進度
目前車庫中起始的專案有

車庫實驗室擴建工程 起始人 Sean
Online Game 2.0 起始人 Sean
昆蟲2.0 起始人 Ben


請參考

9.12.06

昆蟲2.0計劃

個人寵物部平台

寵物一覽表
項目
編號
命名
名稱
所屬
蟲形
年齡
飼養日期
來源
捕獲地點
親代
狀況


用日記(寫記錄)
 編號
 取得來源/取得日期/數量
 取得說明
 目前狀況
  幼蟲期
  記錄日期/幼蟲/身蟲/體重/數量/處置行為/提醒:下次時間與動作/
  成蛹:
  羽化日:
  成蟲:
  育種
  標本:死亡日/製作日/採用方法/存放地點
  日誌位址:

日誌(養蟲心情)
  

採集日記
  主題/項次/日期/地點/出訪目的/攜帶裝備/取得蟲形/同行人/記錄蟲種/觀察心得
  

相簿
  相本/相簿

留言

記事本
  個人用/眾人用
  提醒用

活動
  活動名/內容說明/活動日期/參與活動方式/參與人/連絡方式/參與日期/是否截止
  蟲卵100顆(可串連日記)/每人可申請2顆;限台北自取;先登記為先/

  陽明山採蟲記/採集主題(可串連)/2006/12/9/集合地點/

育種
  蟲名
  大小/
  蟲齡
  協議

蟲蟲商業(個人參與或主持)
  拍賣(個人化拍賣)
  EC (挑蟲)
  集購

養蟲知識平台
一.個人寵物平台搜尋
(全部)
二.建立WIKIA
  發起人/(專對某一蟲形.或某一主題)
三.精選WIKIA
四.WIKIA分類
五.WIKIA最新新聞
六.新成立的WIKIA
(語系更換:日文.英文.中文)日文是一定要的啦!


蟲蟲影片網
一.外出拍攝


育種協議平台
媒合機制

蟲蟲商業網
歡迎
集購
拍賣
EC

個人桌面
參與WIKIA的選擇
最新目標WIKIA的新聞
養蟲提示(該換土.該換果凍)
活動提示
拍賣提示
目標蟲種(出現)
桌面的資料建立AP(不用上網到某一網圵)

21.9.06

科瑞基實驗室成立宗旨

科瑞基實驗室 the garage lab成立的原因是要為一些廣大離開學校的創意人或夢想家, 再一次有機會集結起來, 能夠合作案件, 就像回到學校實驗室或工作室般. 這裡希望能夠提供大家找伙伴的環境, 做創意發想,與執行, 我們希望能做到的是大家能在這裡創造出改變人類生活的新經濟模型或改善自己生活的經濟模型.


科瑞基實驗室 the garage lab, 正確英翻中叫車庫實驗室, 這名字的由來取予兩個單字, 一是車庫garage, 一是實驗室 lab, 我們都知道在矽谷有一群從車庫創業的年輕人, 他們創造了這一二十年來的經濟奇蹟, 希望我們能將這個空間就當成那些車庫一樣, 有一群對創業有憧憬但沒有車庫可用或沒有伙伴的夢想家, 在此執行專案和發明, 另外實驗室一字的意義是在希望大家能有實驗的精神, 勇於發想嘗試, 這裡不怕失敗, 沒有畢業壓力, 而且甚至你就成為教授, 自己開你自己的專案實驗室, 呼招你的合作人, 在這裡是能量是無限的, 空間是無限的, 時間是無限的, 其許大家都能成為下十年的公司創辦人

Lab Janitor
Sean Chiu
The garage Lab

20.9.06

To do lists

thinking this as real lab in school. What do we need? what will do inside?
create a platform for partners
member system
project managment system
member relation managment system
administration platform

I recently saw a blog talking about Hitachi data system held a event called Lunch 2.0. I thought we can create a conference space and time for our users. at lunch or dinner hour, system will send invitation to project runners if their project leaders want to have meeting with them. Lunch is a good time when people are working in the companies and without private time to do their own project. I think it is a brilliant idea to offer our users this function. It may be too fancy, but I believe it will catch some geeks

首先要恭喜各位伙伴, 我們的車庫實驗室成立了, 此實驗室成立的宗旨是要凝聚一些有創意發想的伙伴, 在這實驗室下可以共同執行計畫, 有一天都能夠將這些夢想實現

CONGLUATION ! Partners. "The garage Lab" was founded today. Hooray! This lab provides an environment or lets say a "Virtual Laboratory" for all you guys who are desperated to achieve your dreams but without partnership, funds or any condition you cannot get. we hope you can get what you lack of from different individual and complete varies goals.

邁出第一步

我們的實驗室終於成立了。
請各位多多使用這個部落格,來執行 PROJECT。