Long-term Away Messages

Recently, I’ve started using Instant Messaging software again after a long hiatus. I stopped using it (for a variety of reasons) shortly after I left college (back in 2001). Now that I’m back “on IM,” there’s some things I’ve noticed – some of which I used to do myself, but that now just annoy me.

The main one is this: leaving your IM client on all the time – as in 24 hours a day, 7 days a week – but for most of the time, your status is “away.”

I was guilty of doing this back in my college days – leaving IM running all night (usually with some away/status message that I thought was very clever), and then again all day during my classes (again, with some not-really clever status message). Now, granted, being a CS (that’s computer science for the rest of you) major, I did spend a fair amount of time in front of my computer – but even still, something like 75+% of my time was spent “away.”

I never thought of it at the time, but really, in a world where sending an email is free, why in the world would you leave your IM client logged in all the time like that? If you’re not around, why get people’s hopes up by having your client logged in and broadcasting your status to the world? Isn’t it enough to say that if you’re not signed in, that you’re not at your computer? I mean, really, what’s the point of putting up a message saying “I’m not here,” when just … not being there … would send the same sort of message? You might as well put a sign on your empty seat at your desk that says “I’m not sitting here right now.”

Again, I have to say – I was guilty of doing exactly this for many years during college. But now, I just don’t see the point. If you’re going to be away from your computer for a little while (such as for lunch, or just the classic “BRB” – be right back), fine, put up a message. But if you are going to be away from your computer for a long time – for example, you’re going to work and you won’t be back for several hours, or you are going to bed for the night – then just sign off!

Or, at least, that’s my opinion. And with that in mind, I’m signing off. Goodbye!

Applying Old Laws to New Technology

You’ve probably heard of the RIAA and the MPAA (the Recording Industry Association of America and the Motion Picture Association of America, respectively) before. They’ve been in the news a lot lately – suing old people who don’t have a computer for sharing mp3 files on the Internet and so forth.

A recent Slashdot story tells the tale of just how twisted this story has become.

The basic problem here is one of scale.

Before the Internet and P2P, the average person simply did not have the means to undertake large-scale copyright violation. Sure, you could copy a tape, or even a VHS casette, but you still had to:

  1. Pay for the tapes
  2. Pay to distribute them (postage, gas for driving to your friends house, etc.)
  3. Take the time to make each copy individually

So by and large, individual copyright violations remained decidedly small scale. The effects of such violations were not statistically significant1 to the copyright holders (as far as their profit was concerned), so they were not pursued.

Fast-forward to the current day. Now we have the Internet, P2P software, and music is now digital. This is a huge difference – the cost of making copies is now basically $0 (it’s all just bits & bytes), and the cost of distributing it is basically $0 as well (or, rather, the cost started low and is approaching zero, as bandwidth gets cheaper and cheaper).

Now the average person has the means to distribute copyrighted material to a huge audience. Suddenly, this sort of copyright violation is most definitely statistically significant to the copyright holder. (Or, at least they would have you think so – I still maintain that while significant, it is still very, very small.)

And therein lies the problem. Copyright law (as currently written, and, more importantly, as traditionally enforced) does not scale well. It worked fine when there were only a (relatively) few major copyright violators. It doesn’t work well when everyone & their brother can share an entire music store’s worth of copyrighted materials (music, movies, etc.) to the entire world from their bedroom while they sleep!

So what to do?

One way to deal with this is the draconian, heavy-handed legal way. Strictly speaking, any copyright violation is illegal – no matter how large or small. You could crack down on all of it – sue everyone into oblivion. Pass laws to make the possession of devices used to violate copyright illegal. (This has already been done, by the way. Look up the DMCA.) No excuses!

Of course, it’s easy to see that if you did this, we’d end up back in the stone ages, since all sorts of modern technology can be used to violate copyright – this is nothing new. And the courts have already ruled on this, to a certain extent – back when VHS was new, there were lawsuits about it being used to copy movies at home. The courts ruled that this was covered under “fair use,” and that just because a device might be used to violate copyright does not mean that the device itself should be illegal (especially if the devices’ primary purpose is not copyright violation – devices that are specifically engineered to violate copyright fall into a more uncertain gray area, legally speaking).

Unfortunately, this is the method that the RIAA and MPAA have decided to use in enforcing their “rights.” They want to maintain the “status-quo.” They don’t care what new technology comes out – they want the ability of people to copy their stuff (i.e. music and movies) to remain just as difficult as it was before computers & the Internet. As a direct result of this line of thinking, we have things like DRM and rootkits that hijack our computers (without permission) on our music CDs.

The other way to handle this – the way that should be used (in my opinion), is to make an economic incentive for people not to indulge in wide-scale copyright infringement. After all, that’s what kept it under control in the first place!

To a small extent, this is already underway – though not spearheaded by the RIAA or MPAA, by any means. I’m talking, of course, about things like iTunes. Basically, if you make the music cheap enough, and trust to the general “goodness” in people, they will opt to buy music, rather than steal it. Especially if the purchased music includes “perks,” such as higher quality file formats, or maybe on-line access to additional content (movies, websites, interviews, stuff like that – like what you’d find on a DVD’s “extras” section).

At the same time, you have to remove the barriers to “fair use.” Don’t encode these purchased files so that they can only be played on one computer. People expect to be able to play “their” music on whatever device they choose – and they don’t like it when they can’t. And if they can’t, they’ll go get their music somewhere else – that is to say, from copyright violators on the Internet.

The trick, of course, is balance – something that corporate America is notoriously bad at. But if that balance can be struck, I truly do believe that copyright violations (in the form of normal-person file sharing, anyway) will go way down. It’s not “the status-quo,” and it’s certainly not “the way things used to be,” but hey, markets evolve, and companies (and laws) must evolve with them or perish.

1 In commonly heard arguments, you’ll hear people throw around qualifiers such as “large,” “measurable,” or “increasingly significant” in relation to how much of an effect file sharing (as a form of copyright violation) is having on their industries. This is just a trick of rhetoric – these qualifiers have no measurable or defined quantity. Just one person sharing a Britney Spears track with one other person is technically “measurable,” after all. I’ve used the more accurate statistically significant because statistics is math and can be quantified. I could even come up with the formula necessary to determine it, if I wasn’t lazy.

Where’d WordPress Learn to Count?

I direct your attention to a recent post of mine. A look at it from the main page shows “Comments (3)”, but when you actually look at the comments, there are only 2.

Looking at the WordPress admin panel shows the same thing. It thinks there are 3 comments, but there are only 2. What’s going on?

wordpress comments bug

I’ve looked into the issue a little bit, and found a few things:

  • Some people have this problem because they manually delete comments. (I don’t; I use Akismet and the built-in WordPress tools to moderate comments.)
  • Some people reported the problem, but they are all hosted on the WordPress.com site (I obviously am not; I’m self-hosted here at starkeith.net.)
  • I’ve read claims that the bug is fixed. I’m running the most recent version of WordPress – so why is it still happening?

Anyone care to comment on this one? I’m stumped!

Time flows like a river… and history repeats

It occurred to me recently that Facebook, MySpace, Friendster, and all those sorts of sites are just like GeoCities and Tripod were back in the early days of the web – in other words, filled with awful, horrible, ugly web pages that nobody wants to look at.

It occurred to me recently that Facebook, MySpace, Friendster, and all those sorts of sites are just like GeoCities and Tripod were back in the early days of the web – in other words, filled with awful, horrible, ugly web pages that nobody wants to look at.

Ah, progress.

An unusual form of comment spam

My article from the other day attracted a lot of “trackback” spam. Weird.

My post yesterday about older games seems to have attracted some attention – but in this case, of the negative kind. This morning I logged on to find a bunch of new comments – except they all looked somehow… odd. Turns out they were all from throw-away blogs (fake blogs set up to increase search engine rankings) that had done a “trackback” to my article. Some of them quoted just a bit of it (to make it relevant in Google’s eyes, I suppose) and one even went so far as to try and look like a legitimate link – except they used the wrong name! (They said “I’d have to agree with this post by Kevin B.”)

Very strange – and this is the first time I’ve seen stuff like this show up in the comments. Has anyone else ever seen such comment spam? Is this a new phenominon, or is it just old stuff that I have been lucky enough to avoid thus far?