So What’s the Deal Here?
Some numbers might prove that piracy hasn’t been as bad for the Recording Industry as the RIAA would have you think. While it’s not up to me to dispute the legality of pirating music or other copyrighted materials, I feel obligated to take a look at some numbers just to be sure that the initial outbreak of music piracy early in this millennium wasn’t such a bad thing in the long run. While over the past half-decade or so music sales in the U.S. have raised and declined, the change over the years has been relatively insignificant. Also many sound theories revolve around exposure, things like file sharing have exposed masses to music they may not have otherwise have heard and in the hay-day of Napster the RIAA’s sales went up, rather than down. It should also be noted that the recording industry is not only selling on a physical medium any longer, due, in part, to piracy methods, but in a digital medium in which music is sold in far greater amounts than previously feasible. Despite this trend of exposure and increase in digital sales, the likes of the RIAA and other intellectual property owners, claiming a loss as a result of piracy fail to report how they figured out how much they’ve actually lost.

“A Self-Serving Hyperbole”
While the RIAA claims great losses for the piracy of music over the internet, it has been established that piracy has a decidedly small accountable effect on sales despite the constant stream of claims that it has a major effect on record sales, in fact the evidence points to the contrary. In 2004, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) –which represents 1,450 Recording Companies in 75 countries–reported that the trade revenues for the recording industry worldwide to be only $400 Million.  This nearly tripled in 2005 to $1.1 Billion. This is due, in part, to digital sales, which it admits in its 2006 Piracy Report that P2P applications such as Kazaa opened up possibilities in the digital market for the industry. Moreover, the claims of piracy’s effect on sales of intellectual property–videos, music, and computer applications, et cetera et cetera– worldwide have been found to be highly inflated. A report recently issued by the Australian Institute of Criminology states that recent piracy statistics are “Self-Serving” and “Unverified” –though this involves a company or companies in Australia piracy losses in the U.S. are similarly difficult to verify.

My Take, and a Few Notes
I’ve long felt that the effect of piracy on the music industry is not nearly as great as the likes of the RIAA make it, while it certainly has an effect–figures range from between 0% to 15% depending on who commissions the examination of the effect of piracy on the recording industry–I don’t think it should be believed that its significant in any way. Furthermore, the exposure that P2P provided to music enthusiasts worldwide had a phenomenal effect on the Recording Industry’s revenues in 1999 and 2000 (Napster’s Hay-day), but there was a noted decline after Napster was shutdown, though a connection between the loss of Napster and the loss of revenues was never made. Instead it was generally blamed on piracy, instead of natural trends or the loss of exposure–even if the exposure was illegal. While this isn’t to say that piracy didn’t play a part in the next few years in dropping revenues, or that Napster was entirely to thank for the spike in revenues in 1999 and 2000.

In closing on an unrelated note, I regret to say that this will be my final K&C column. It has been a real treat, and following Kram has been a real challenge.  

Apple has made some pretty ambitious, not to mention arrogant, statements in the last year. Particularly in their “Political Ad” style of advertisement, statements that–at the very least–imply that Macintosh has built a completely flawless operating system exempt from viral attack. This is *not* so.  While it is true that the amount of exploits are comparatively few in number, many security experts believe that maliciously exploiting something with fewer than five per cent market share is not worthwhile.  But, thanks in part to their advertisement, the Apple OSX operating system is becoming increasingly popular, and with this popularity comes coders with malicious intent. The introduction of six new threats in the first half of 2006 were, as it happens, not *that* new; past experiences with more popular operating systems show that those holes were probably already there just waiting to be exploited by a malicious coder, as is the case with most security holes on any operating system.

A Fine Line Between Boldness and Arrogance
There was a recent batch of Apple’s hit media player–specifically the iPod video–shipped with a Windows-Based Trojan.  These “tainted pods” have been flagged on Apple’s website.

“The iPod nano, iPod shuffle and Mac OS X are not affected, and all Video iPods now shipping are virus free. As you might imagine, we are upset at Windows for not being more hardy against such viruses, and even more upset with ourselves for not catching it.”

Those few words speak volumes for themselves, but to the bottom of these Bad Apples: According to a statement by the company, only about 1% of the Video iPods produced since September 12th were tainted. It claims that only it received only 25 reports of the Windows-based Trojan virus on iPod video devices.  Apple blamed the failure to catch this virus before it propagated to the public on the company it contracted to manufacture the devices.  They pushed that the Trojan — called “RavMonE.exe” — was well-known to malware and anti-viral applications. Moreover, running such applications in addition to updating to the latest version of iTunes would protect concerned consumers. Although Apple expresses its remorse, it warns all consumers to scan new or suspect removable memory devices for this Trojan, but Apple’s its condemnation of the Operating System used by a large portion of its consumers isn’t sitting well. Furthermore, merely blaming a manufacturer isn’t enough for some, and as the manufacturer was contracted by Apple, Apple is still being considered to be ultimately at fault.     

My Take
I’m not particularly surprised by Apple’s otherwise surprising lack of tact in a rather sensitive matter, especially when producing a hardware product en masse like the iPod video quality control on every device is nearly impossible especially when the manufacture and quality control is exported outside the mother company’s control. It is my sincere hope that this will snap consumers out of their perceived notion that Apple, or any other company, can (of course) do no wrong, as most such eye-opening incidents prove to the world.

YouTube
YouTube was founded by Steven Chen, Chad Hurley, and Jawed Karim, all of whom were employees of PayPal in February 2005. The YouTube domain went active on February 15th 2005, and months later–in May of ’05–YouTube made its official debut to the public. The idea was to provide a social networking-like website where people could share their amateur videos with one another, it took off almost immediately. The following year, after growing exponentially–almost entirely by word of mout–in February of ’06, NBC Universal discovered some of its copyrighted material on the popular video hosting site. They took action and soon YouTube’s policy on copyrighted material changed, in addition, they instituted a ten minute fifty-eight second time limit for all videos submitted by anyone not apart of their so-called “Director’s Program”.  The “Director’s Program” allows amateur filmmakers to upload their original content at length. Although this generally didn’t stop users who wanted to post copyrighted content, YouTube took the view that it had taken steps to prevent and discourage it –videos reported as copyrighted material by the copyright holders would be deleted, but only if reported. YouTube, through its short lived independence, had a number of competitors–none of which have thus far done nearly as well, including the likes of Google Video and the new beta by Microsoft, the so-called “Soapbox“. 

Why Google? Why?
On Monday, October 9th, 2006, Google announced that it would be acquiring YouTube for $1.65 Billion in stock; roughly $82.50 for each one of its 20 million unique visitors a month. This marks the largest acquisition in Google’s eight-year history by a long shot.  Last year Google spent a mere $130 million on fifteen small companies. The acquisition came with this statement by Google’s Chief Executive Officer Eric Schmidt, “The YouTube team has built an exciting and powerful media platform that complements Google’s mission to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.”  The implications of that statement speak volumes about what part YouTube will play in Google’s “Empire”. This, like many acquisitions of supposedly valuable internet-based companies, seems to upset users en mass. It has been immediately concluded by many critics of Google that the acquisition will “kill” YouTube.  This appears to be nothing more cynical speculation at this point. Google promises that the original sixty-seven employees of YouTube will retain their jobs, and furthermore, YouTube will retain its brand and current headquarters in San Bruno, CA. The deal is expected to be fully closed by the end of the year. All the while, Google is expected to maintain its current–far less popular–video service: “Google Video”.
 
Short and Sweet–Here’s What I Think
What I think generally reflects the evidence I have available to me.  Google bought the company to replace its flop “Google Video” eventually. I do not think this acquisition will result in a major change in the way that the site is presented, however, it will most likely be the opinion of critics that the changes taking place indicate that YouTube sold out entirely, or that the site is no longer “hip”. I have long suspected that the site would be a mere “fad” in a menagerie of internet movements.  I have yet to be proven right, and frankly, I’m not holding my breath. Although its popularity may wane, I am in the belief that the current presentation and policy regarding copyrighted material will remain the same, if not very similar. Furthermore, I believe the acquisition will be beneficial to both parties, and the founders of YouTube have expressed jubilation at the acquisition. I have no doubt that the bandwidth for YouTube is prodigious, and up until the acquisition YouTube, didn’t have any particularly good way to fund bandwidth beyond the odd commercial movie-plug featured on the site’s homepage. 

The “Rundown”
Quite recently Apple has forced a third-party ‘podcast’ aggregator to change its name with a Cease and Desist letter. The target of this letter was the cross-platform aggregator known as “iPodder” claiming its name was infringement upon Apple’s trademark on “iPodcast”. iPodder is now going under the name “Juice” — the origins of which lend itself to the lemon logo. Juice, however, is not alone in being recipients of Cease and Desist letters from Apple. Recently, a company known as “Podcast Ready” reportedly filed for a trademark, and Apple replied swiftly with a C&D letter. These circumstances have kicked up a lot of dust on the net, and some are attempting to enact change, others feel that Apple is merely trying to legitimately protect its trademarks.

Origins
Podcasts were originally and are technically still “Audio Blogs” — their original name; the idea originally began cropping up late in 2000. The concept was that this form of audio on the internet would be enclosed in an RSS feed. Instead of streaming it or requiring listeners to go out and download each new installment, so-called audioblogs would be self-updating through RSS aggregators. To make a painfully long story shorter, as RSS moved along and became a more integral element of blogging in general and the blogging movement progressed the idea became increasingly popular. Among the first pivotal movements towards the iPod came at the first ever “Bloggercon” in 2003; by this time the iPod was out in the marketplace and flourishing, and some of its early adopters began to script ways to divert these audioblogs into iTunes to be transferred onto an iPod. Adam Curry, one of the early adopters in adding Audioblog capabilities to his RSS aggregators, offered people his so called ‘RSStoiPod’ script; Curry encouraged developers to expand upon this concept, and they did in earnest. One current incarnation of the ‘RSStoiPod’ script is ‘Juice’, mentioned earlier. Audioblogging did not enter under the name ‘podcasting’ until early 2004 when the name was mentioned in an article by Ben Hammersley in The Guardian on February 12, 2004. It was eventually picked up by many, as it fit the description of how the content was ‘automatically’ downloaded and easily transferable to portable media players. It wasn’t until June of 2005 that the function was added into iTunes –five years after audioblogging was originally conceived of, and two years after the concept of putting an audioblog on an iPod became popular.        

What now?
In the podcasting community many have suggested that podcasts have become hindered by the likes of Apple’s iTunes, and indeed the name “podcast” which implies that you need an iPod to appreciate this innovative medium. In addition to promoting the use of third party aggregators like Juice and Podcast Ready, some have suggested that a new logically fitting name be adopted for podcasting. The biggest movement has been set forth by This Week in Tech’s Leo Laporte — “Podcaster of the Year” — suggesting that the name be changed to “Netcast” to benefit the community at large. He has already begun calling the ‘TWiT Network‘s podcasts, ‘Netcasts’. While he is quick to admit that iTunes and Apple was indeed the best thing for emerging Podcast community, he aims to widen the horizon of the community and to reach a broader audience by introducing a more fitting name.

My Take
I have long had a distaste for the word “podcasting” to describe this medium, it’s difficult to explain the concept to someone who may have heard it mentioned in passing and quickly assume one needs an iPod to experience it; I find it much easier just to call it what it is instead of a hokey name cooked up years ago. I think Laporte’s attempts at renaming Podcasting something different — in the end — will be accepted. I am optimistic that, in many ways, the horizon of podcasting is bright under ‘Netcasting’ or any other name that doesn’t imply the use of an iPod — even if a number of podcasters refuse to call their medium a ‘Netcast’.      

An introduction to Destruction
There’s this immense gray area in the realm of Hi-Definition Picture Technology–it’s a new technology, relatively speaking, yet it’s already seen a huge rise in popularity and use in the last few years. And along comes HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, only which DVD Reader/Writer format to use for Hi-Definition DVDs is in question. It’s too early to take a step in either direction, for most, and with talks of lawsuits arising from even attempting to make a multi-format compatible player, it’s even more difficult to choose which side of the fence one wants to be on when the gates close.

The Blu-Ray Blues
As I begin to break down both formats, HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, it becomes clearer as to who may win, but both formats have their upsides and downsides. Blu-Ray and HD-DVDs are pretty much the same technology, using the same type of laser: a violet blue laser set at a 405 nanometer wavelength. The amount of data the Blu-Ray format can store, layer for layer, is greater, but whether or not the dual-layer Blu-Rays can be effectively produced remains to be seen. In addition, the Blu-Ray’s physical durability, while in comparison, the HD-DVD media is considered to be less resiliant without the recently implemented proprietary polymers used to protect the surface and data-backing of the disc.  The main reason Blu-Ray is less resilient to physical damage (scratches, dust, etc) is because the data is written much closer to the surface of the disc, which required a proprietary layer of protection to be developed, while with HD-DVD, which is set lower on the media, and therefore didn’t require the extra protection. Although this is a moot point considering all studios backing the Blu-Ray format aren’t likely to opt out of the option to implement it, the possibility that some studios will is still present despite its unlikelihood. Physical maladies aside, the Blu-Ray holds an astounding 25 Gigabytes per layer, and with the possibility of dual-sided dual-layer Blu-Ray DVDs in the future, the overall capacity could possibly swell to an astounding 100 Gigabytes, whereas the HD-DVD is half that; though it should be noted that the Blu-Ray’s current capacity is stuck at 50 Gigs due to the problems with the production of Dual-Layer Blu-Ray Discs. In terms of maximum video run-time, Blu-Ray media holds around 9 hours of Hi-Definition video and 23 Hours of Standard Definition–twice this much is boasted on larger capacity discs.  The standard HD-DVD discs have a capacity of 5.5 hours of Hi-Definition video on 20GB discs and 8.4 hours on 32GB discs. Both formats implement MPEG-2, H.264/AVC and VC-1 Video Encoding formats as well as sound support up to Dolby 7.1 as well as 24-bit/192kHz two channel audio.

Avast Ye Pirates
Since the encryption on standard DVDs were cracked long ago, implementing a new encryption system would essentially ‘break’ the DVD format, so it has been left as-is. However, it seems the creators of HD-DVD and Blu-Ray (and all-star array of companies and studios) won’t repeat the same mistake expecting different results. Instead, they acknowledge that encryption is generally cracked by pirates at an astounding rate.  HD-DVD and Blu-Ray have different solutions, but each separate solution helps to widen the gap between the formats in this ‘war’. The Blu-Ray format uses an experimental encryption they’re calling BD+ which allows for compromised keys, should they be cracked, to be updated in subsequent disc production, which prevents their cryptography from being forever ‘broken’. It also uses a secondary “Mandatory Managed Copy” system which allows users to copy content a limited number of times by requiring the user to register for the keys to access the capability to copy the content. Blu-Ray uses a form of Digital Watermarking called “ROM-Mark”, which requires a specific piece of hardware to be inserted on a disc, and all compatible devices will check for this mark or the disc will not play. HD-DVD and Blu-Ray use AACS (Advanced Access Content System), which allows one or more AES Keys to be used to encrypt the disc to discourage and attempt to stop piracy. There are other rumored technologies that may be implemented, but they are little more than that at the moment. 

The hardware And All The Rest
A major difference between the HD formats and your run-of-the-mill DVD is the system it uses for subtitles, menus and other interactive features on the disc that require a separate MPEG Video Sequence, which when you think about it is really quite primitive when weighed against what’s available to do those jobs. HD-DVD uses what’s called the “iHD Interactive Format” which is essentially implementation of web-based languages for interactive content and presentation (using XML, CSS, SMIL and EMCA Scripts, each for their own task); it allows for menu overlays without stopping the media, bookmarking, picture-in-picture, and even network access to allow for downloads of new features and HD Trailers. On the other side of the scales is Blu-Ray with a unique Version of Java known as “BD-J” which promises much of what iHD Interactive Format does. HD-DVD players currently support resolutions up to 1080i, whereas Blu-ray is currently fully capable up to 1080p although all HD-DVDs are currently encoded for 1080p, but no players currently support the 1080p output.

The Marketplace
Currently the HD-DVD format has sold more units than Blu-Ray, yet Blu-Ray maintains revenues higher than HD-DVD hardware sales. Blu-Ray also brings an astounding one hundred seventy companies (including film studios) to the table in terms of support; the board of directors consists, almost exclusively, of multi-billion dollar companies including, but not limited to, Apple, Dell, Walt Disney Pictures, Sony and Panasonic. HD-DVD is currently supported by over twenty companies and studios and is backed by the likes of Intel, Hewlett Packard, Intel and Microsoft in addition to being exclusively backed by Universal Studios. And in the works is a rumored 150 Million Dollar ad campaign. Blu-Ray drives will ship on the highly anticipated gaming console by Sony, the PlayStation 3, as standard hardware. HD-DVD hardware is rumored to be produced for the XBox 360 as an external ad-on.

Possible Implications / My personal Opinion
It’s a format war, we’ve seen them before and format wars are occurring in increasing frequency; I don’t think they are a good thing for anyone–least of which the consumer. With no multi-format hardware in sight, it seems that at some point it’s going to come down to one format or the other, and Blu-Ray seems to be in the best position to finish first. The Blu-Ray is shipping on the PS3, and despite what I think about the PS3′s huge price-tag, it’s considerably less than some standalone Blu-Ray hardware and therefore is in a better position to become widespread. Tack onto that what the Blu-Ray All-star team brings to the table, plus dozens upon dozens of smaller companies. HD-DVD can’t survive on Intel, Microsoft and Universal alone, despite their efforts. In conclusion, I believe it’s too difficult to decide on which side of the fence I want to sit in on–I want to see all the cards on the table before I even buy some chips.

Building a PC, especially your first PC, can be a long and tedious process that is potentially very expensive. In fact, it is almost always expensive. Before you put the screw driver into that first screw and open the case, you must consider many things including both price range and what your ultimate purpose for it will be. What you have planned with your PC often determines the price range that it will fall into.

While many people are into extreme gaming and graphics, many people just want the basic functionality that a base model computer offers. No matter where your computer ambitions may lie, here are a few examples of how PC usage style relates to the ultimate price.

You want to consider what your price range is first. If you want an extreme gaming PC, it doesn’t mean your wallet can handle it. The amount of money that you have budgeted is of primary importance. Some typical ranges may include:

• 150-250 dollars, Minimal; People who are looking to build a PC in this price range typically don’t have high aspirations for their new system or they already have many of the required parts, such as the peripherals and monitor.


• 251-400 dollars, Moderate; People who are looking to build a PC in this price range typically have higher, or even very reasonable aspirations for a great PC. If you have some peripherals, you could build a very high quality system within this range. If, however, you have few of the requisite devices, you could build a functional PC, but it would be of relative low quality.


• 401-600 dollars, High; People who are looking to build a PC in this price range typically have very high aspirations for their new PC. You could build a very good system, having few or no requisite devices.


• 601-800 dollars, Great; People who are looking to build a PC in this price range typically have very high aspirations for a PC and can buy all of the requisite devices. You’d have a great computer when you were done.


• 801-1100 + dollars, Ideal; People who are looking to build a PC in this price range typically have ‘sky’s the limit’s’ aspirations for their PC. One could buy high-end system parts and peripherals. This would be everyone’s ideal computer, but again not everybody can afford this range.

The Price Range of your PC is dictated by how much money you have budgeted for your new system and the use you want to get out of it. Here are a few examples of the types of things that computer users are looking for. Chances are, by now, you know what you want to use it for. However, take a look at these examples. It might help you fine tune your goals.