Writing: coding and songwriting considered

Have begun to appreciate more some of my own products, where is just about time. Like have been grateful that open source gave me an opportunity to put up a software product--with few worries.

So with open source you have code which is freely seen, and with open source licenses people can download and use legally--if they follow those rules. (Of course may also download and use illegally by violating those rules.) And I've had an open source software product called Class Viewer which is over 15 years old now. And so far this year has downloads from over 90 countries according to web stats at SourceForge where it is hosted.

Is such a new thing. There was no way when I wrote this little app for help with software development and shared, could realize how exactly would have most effect for me as this signature thing which consistently brings global attention. Is an entirely new thing and perspective on power of sharing ideas, like an open source software project. So yeah, is one of those emergent things of the 21st century with the arrival of the web.

But put songwriting in the title of this post as, to me? Songs are open source writing too.

Routinely have found myself now checking song lyrics on the web, glad they're available. As can be a bit tricky. You think you heard one thing, but maybe was something different. OR has been a bit of time since heard a song, and want to quote a lyric correctly.

But those same songs are NOT free, of course. Just because you can get the lyrics, and am sure the music for some copyrighted song, does NOT mean you can start using it commercially yourself.

Now for a divergence. Here is a link to a song am considering might finish. Who knows if I ever will, and occurs to me putting up ideas for a song not even fully written? Could make it easy to STEAL but am not worried for some reason.

As we move further into the age of the web I do think some naive notions have collapsed. Like what if I had code for sale, where code was open? Think no one would pay? Like maybe you'd think no one would pay for a song...ok, you know better there.

What if some legitimate business entity considered using my code, which they could just copy off the web, without paying me? And I found out? Would they remain a legitimate business entity? Nope.

That would be theft. So yeah, there might be people stealing your code, but they're nasty people anyway, who if you knew were so capable, would you want to do business with them anyway, even if they had the money?

I would not.

Am willing to predict that in time, the business relationship and business trust are going to gain a LOT more value. And if you get caught stealing? In the age of the web? That can get known all over the world with a quickness. And you could find yourself having to do business in different circles.

We're not there yet though, but can imagine. And yeah, wouldn't want to do business with ANYONE capable of just stealing code from me, just because they could.

Just like wouldn't want to do business with anyone who would steal a song of mine, if could actually finish one which was a hit. Kind of like that example as of course is kind of outlandish.

But yeah, songwriting does involve some people who write for a paycheck. Am guessing now maybe more with jingles for commercials? But also the world of songwriting is also a much bigger landscape.

So why not same for lots of other kinds of writing? Maybe the future is there.

And you might have coders, who write for a paycheck, but others who own their code which is open and they sell use, or also I guess, coders also who still write some closed code for some buyer.

But yeah, as contemplate being able to be known all over the world with just ONE thing? (Have other global things too though will add.) Where mattered was open? Am so glad is mine, you know? Where yeah, do realize feel like songwriters might just understand.


James Harris

In data identification?

Had an idea yesterday about sites adding a user's identifying identification onto a photo that is sent back to that user, and began to wonder this morning if it's a new idea--which I doubt--and also to consider how it can be done with just about any data.

The reality when you use the web is that your computing device sends a request for data to some server somewhere. That server if it honors that request sends you the requested information back. It conceivably could add information identifying you into that information, if it had it, within the data it sends back to you!

Like with my original photo idea, your user ID if you were known to the site could be imprinted on the photo, either visibly, or near visible, or invisible as a watermark. That would only matter if you shared as it could let people trace back sharing to the source, if it were copyrighted material.

One cool thing is that there are no privacy issues, as it's the user's own identification being sent back to them. If data isn't being encrypted, then that probably isn't a problem as if they requested the data via an unencrypted stream then they already sent that exact same type data. So you're just reflecting back, removing privacy concerns. If they share later then they broke their own privacy, not you.

Of course one might argue that people could simply remove the data before sharing.

Yup, if they knew how!

If everybody did it differently, then it would be difficult for some app to be built that could remove every way it might be done, and for most users, sites could have a reasonable expectation that they could trace back illegal sharing rather accurately, with a narrow group of superusers at the fringe with whom there would be a constant war to figure out ways to imprint they couldn't find.

But that's just what I'm thinking this morning after an idea yesterday which occurred to me while I started thinking about the subject wondering how you might keep up with who is sharing your photos.

I have these kinds of ideas ALL the time. I don't necessarily take them too seriously, but will just toss them up, as kind of a brainstorming exercise.

If not new, ok. If is new, why? It's so simple!

Idea is free.

Hmmm...have decided to call it: in-Data Dynamic Identification. Or IDDI for short.


James Harris

Why not imprint ID on photos?

The issue of photos being shared without attribution is one where I think I can put up a free idea which makes a lot of sense to me: why not when a person views a photo automatically imprint ID information on it?

So like if I go to a website and view a photo, what it displays automatically includes say my user ID on that site or my IP address, which is MY info so no privacy issues!

If I choose to share that photo then I end up giving that information away on my own, so it could be an option for sites where they don't want people to share and tell them.

So it shouldn't be automatic like if you want people to share or don't care who is the source of a photo.

The info could be a watermark, or something that doesn't even have to be visible.

Just an idea I thought I'd throw out there.


James Harris

My idea for managed copy

With "managed copy" in the news lately it seems a good time to mention again my idea for allowing end users to make personal copies:

Digital Media: Copy protection

REALLY simple idea which involves having end user's own machine encrypt copies to itself, so that it can read its backup copies made of DVD's but other people cannot--without a key that can be passed by flash drive--and also it burns onto its copies identifying information.

My idea includes allowing users to use a flash drive to pass a key to their other systems or to friends for maximum flexibility, with the knowledge that the copy they pass tells who they are, and also cannot itself be copied.

To me that idea solves all the problems involved with protecting digital media from casual copying, though criminals may of course go that extra mile in trying to make copies for money, there would be an end to the very casual copying where usually law abiding citizens consider it to be like speeding on the highways and would do it as a matter of habit.

Today it is like everybody does it, there is no onus on it, and it is very easy.

With this idea, a friend could get angry with you if you pressed for a copy, since it would contain information about them and possibly leave them open for prosecution, so what kind of friend would you be in pressing for one?

Knowing that yeah, you can give your friend a copy but if that ever gets to the FBI, they have your digital signature all over the thing, which your friend cannot use without a flash drive for them to get the key anyway, and they cannot copy it again themselves, would take most casual copiers out of the equation, leaving only the die-hards.

I am an idea person so I know how hard it is to get attention for even great ideas, so rather than go through the pain and misery of trying to copyright that idea, and market it, I have given it away open source.

It is a free idea. It is free!!!

Does not mean anyone will use it though as hey, I know, no matter what most people think, mostly we have a dumb world. I know because I have had lots of ideas.

Easy solutions are routinely ignored if people do not like the source.

Brilliance is mostly a burden and a source of frustration today, as hey, people really do not like you for coming up with simple solutions, as it makes them feel stupid.


James Harris

More on copy protection

I made a post a little while back about a simple way to do copy protection that has minimal impact on end users, but that was a long post that might be confusing, so I thought I'd do a short post that talks about it succinctly, with another aspect to the idea that occurred to me.

The idea is, when a person makes a copy say of a bought DVD, their copy is encrypted with a code generated by their personal machine, so that their machine can read the copy, but no other person's machine can--unless given a key which can be passed by a flash drive.

Additionally I realized that on their home network their personal machine can automatically pass the key so that they can read their own copies on their own network without using a flash drive.

So what's the point of the idea then?

Well, their own machine is encrypting--not the manufacturer of the DVD--so the end user can make as many copies as they want for personal use, but no one else can use those copies, without the key, but even with the key, the copies are carrying a lot of information about the person who made the copies and I think that with a two step process you would end a lot of casual copying, and when people know they are putting their own stamp on copies, you probably would shut down even more.

I like the idea as with it, I could make as many personal copies I want without worrying about dumb copy protection blocking me from copying DVD's I purchased, and wouldn't get bugged by people asking me to make them copies when they'd know that they'd need a flash drive as well, and there would be this digital fingerprint saying I made the copy.

It's a no-brainer good idea, but hey, I'm just some guy on a blog and there are people letting millions of dollars go out the door because they don't listen to people like me, so here is where it might stay.

But it just goes to show you, those people aren't as smart as they think they are.

And oh yeah, the idea is free. It's open source as in I am not asking for money for it. I'm just tossing it out there to the world because I know the world better than you do.

This idea may just sit here on my sites indefinitely because at the end of the day, people like throwing money away versus thinking outside the box--for real--versus claiming they do.


James Harris

Digital media: Copy protection

For various reasons I was musing earlier today about how you might stop casual copying of DVD's between friends, or at least make it more difficult and I came up with a simple idea.

The idea would be to encrypt copies made from the end user's machine, while leaving the originally manufactured DVD--from here on out the OEM DVD--with minimal changes, where the end user could use a flash drive to give the code de-crypting their copy to their other entertainment devices.

The encryption would come from the serial number of their video card, the serial number of their connected monitor, and the total operating time the two are connected together, so the code would change continually with time, so no two copies would have the same code.

When playing an OEM DVD the system would behave like normal, but if a copy is made, the copy would be an encrypted one where the users own machine would automatically decrypt its own copies, but for anyone else to decrypt, a flash drive would need to be used carrying the decryption code.

The decryption would occur fully at the monitor, with possibly partial decryption at the video card, so one problem with this idea is it needs smarter monitors.

Using the flash drive to give the code would be a one-time operation on the user's own equipment meaning that they would only have to give the decryption code once, for their own copies, even though each encrypted disk would vary with its personal encryption based on the time stamp.

So end users could still give copies to friends--with a flash drive and the code--so what's the point?

The copies would be encrypted with the copying user's video card and monitor serial numbers along with a time and date stamp. And now it's a two step process: DVD and flash drive.

If an open standard were used industry wide between video card manufacturers, monitor manufacturers, and DVD manufacturers, there would be a closed loop blocking normal users from breaking the system--they'd have to go to bootleggers versus their friends.

They could still make personal copies, but would know that if those copies were given away, the information about who made the copy would be encrypted with them.

Manufacturers would stamp their own DVD's with a manufacturer's code, which of course could be copied by bootleggers, but it'd be a deliberate action with no denial about the purpose. DVD's not coded with a manufacturer's code wouldn't play on industry standard systems.

DVD copies could be copied again, with a continual coding stamp, or no more copies might be made from friend copies.

The idea here is open source in that I don't care who uses it for what purposes and it is completely open as I don't care about commercial uses. But hey, it's just something I thought up this morning while thinking about people casually handing out copies of DVD's.

It could be used with other digital media if it's a good idea. I have other ideas along this line that could be used to completely close the loop which involve the continually changing code found by the operating connection time between devices.

Are these ideas useful? I don't know. They seem simple enough, but there'd have to be a lot of coordination between manufacturers of the various devices, while end users wouldn't see any change if they didn't copy, and minimal changes if they did--once USB ports are standard on entertainment devices so using the flash card isn't a big deal.

And just knowing that you're putting your stamp on your copies could end quite a bit of casual copying and handing off to friends or just about anybody.

Sure there would be people who would just go for the OEM DVD's and make copies from those, but those are the dedicated people anyway.


James Harris