Securosis

Menu

Research

Off Topic: Whoa- This Is Worse For The Record Industry Than Pirating Ever Could Be

Rich October 11, 2007 1 Comment

As my readers know, I’m not the biggest fan of consumer DRM. I hate being treated like a criminal when I’m not, and I don’t believe anyone has the right to control more of my systems than I do. Something about my security being compromised to provide better security for some corporate entity whose products I may or may not purchase just bugs me. A while back I posted how the Barenaked Ladies distribute their content without DRM. Not for free, but once you buy it you’re free to use it as you wish. I like that. Now, thanks to TechCrunch, we learn that Madonna is leaving the record labels and working with Live Nation to distribute content directly. Nine Inch Nails, Radiohead, and a few others are also jumping the record label ship. Yahoo! Music stated they won’t distribute music with DRM. With MySpace and other social networking sites for promotion, low-cost digital distribution of content either directly to consumers or through online stores, and general frustration and anger with record company pricing, practices, and treatment of artists, it’s hard to see how the companies will survive. It won’t be an immediate death- years if not decades, but now that some of the biggest names in the business are running into independence the writing is clearly on the wall. And the record companies can take their damn DRM with them. Now it’s time to get cracking on the MPAA… Share:

Share:
Read Post

On Trust

Rich October 11, 2007 3 Comments

I was reading a post over at Layer8 and it got me thinking about trust. Shrdlu attended a talk by Larry Ponemon where he took away this little tidbit: The trust given to an organization depends not only on how well it protects information, but also on how transparent it is. A long time ago I spent some time thinking about trust and digital relationships. I broke it down into three components: Intent, Capability, and Communications: Intent: How an organization (or person) intends to act within a relationship. This is their true intent, not necessarily what they communicate as their intent. For example, we collect credit card data solely to perform online transactions, and will protect it from unauthorized disclosure. Capability: Does an organization have the capability to meet its intent? For example, does it collect card numbers and only use them for transactions, but use security which could not stop a targeted attack? Communications: Does an organization effectively and accurately communicate its intentions and capabilities? If any of these factors fails, so does trust. Let’s look at some examples in the security world. Some vendors, I don’t even need to bother naming them, make outlandish claims about the security of their products that do not reflect reality. Then, when breaches occur, they spin the facts rather than admitting to an honest mistake. Result? No one trusts those vendors anymore. I remember our home town bank as a kid. We’d walk in and it was all marble and stone, with a huge walk-in vault surrounded by guards at the far end. Placing the vault where customers can see it doesn’t improve security, but it clearly communications of a capability to protect your money. These days, no one cares. Why? The world changed and with the FDIC and electronic banking we are far less concerned about a bad guy with a mask stealing our money. Heck, they could steal the entire bank, foundation and all, and we still wouldn’t be out a dime. Breach disclosure is another example of trust. If a company loses my personal information and clearly communicates how it was protected, how it was lost, and a reasonable plan for preventing a recurrence, I am not very likely to leave them. If, on the other hand, they attempt to cover it up, shift blame, or clearly lie about their intent or capability to protect my information, I am far more likely to switch to another provider. A privacy example? Years ago I cancelled my Amazon account after they changed their privacy policy and started sharing my data. The policy in effect when I signed up stated my information would be kept private. They then summarily changed it without my permission. They clearly either lied about, or changed, their intent, and lost me as a customer. It took me 5 years before I bought from them again. It’s very simple: trust is built on what you intend to do, your ability to do it, and your ability to communicate both. Share:

Share:
Read Post
dinosaur-sidebar

Research

view all

Sign Up for Our Newsletter

Totally Transparent Research is the embodiment of how we work at Securosis. It’s our core operating philosophy, our research policy, and a specific process. We initially developed it to help maintain objectivity while producing licensed research, but its benefits extend to all aspects of our business.

Going beyond Open Source Research, and a far cry from the traditional syndicated research model, we think it’s the best way to produce independent, objective, quality research.

Here’s how it works:

  • Content is developed ‘live’ on the blog. Primary research is generally released in pieces, as a series of posts, so we can digest and integrate feedback, making the end results much stronger than traditional “ivory tower” research.
  • Comments are enabled for posts. All comments are kept except for spam, personal insults of a clearly inflammatory nature, and completely off-topic content that distracts from the discussion. We welcome comments critical of the work, even if somewhat insulting to the authors. Really.
  • Anyone can comment, and no registration is required. Vendors or consultants with a relevant product or offering must properly identify themselves. While their comments won’t be deleted, the writer/moderator will “call out”, identify, and possibly ridicule vendors who fail to do so.
  • Vendors considering licensing the content are welcome to provide feedback, but it must be posted in the comments - just like everyone else. There is no back channel influence on the research findings or posts.
    Analysts must reply to comments and defend the research position, or agree to modify the content.
  • At the end of the post series, the analyst compiles the posts into a paper, presentation, or other delivery vehicle. Public comments/input factors into the research, where appropriate.
  • If the research is distributed as a paper, significant commenters/contributors are acknowledged in the opening of the report. If they did not post their real names, handles used for comments are listed. Commenters do not retain any rights to the report, but their contributions will be recognized.
  • All primary research will be released under a Creative Commons license. The current license is Non-Commercial, Attribution. The analyst, at their discretion, may add a Derivative Works or Share Alike condition.
  • Securosis primary research does not discuss specific vendors or specific products/offerings, unless used to provide context, contrast or to make a point (which is very very rare).
    Although quotes from published primary research (and published primary research only) may be used in press releases, said quotes may never mention a specific vendor, even if the vendor is mentioned in the source report. Securosis must approve any quote to appear in any vendor marketing collateral.
  • Final primary research will be posted on the blog with open comments.
  • Research will be updated periodically to reflect market realities, based on the discretion of the primary analyst. Updated research will be dated and given a version number.
    For research that cannot be developed using this model, such as complex principles or models that are unsuited for a series of blog posts, the content will be chunked up and posted at or before release of the paper to solicit public feedback, and provide an open venue for comments and criticisms.
  • In rare cases Securosis may write papers outside of the primary research agenda, but only if the end result can be non-biased and valuable to the user community to supplement industry-wide efforts or advances. A “Radically Transparent Research” process will be followed in developing these papers, where absolutely all materials are public at all stages of development, including communications (email, call notes).
    Only the free primary research released on our site can be licensed. We will not accept licensing fees on research we charge users to access.
  • All licensed research will be clearly labeled with the licensees. No licensed research will be released without indicating the sources of licensing fees. Again, there will be no back channel influence. We’re open and transparent about our revenue sources.

In essence, we develop all of our research out in the open, and not only seek public comments, but keep those comments indefinitely as a record of the research creation process. If you believe we are biased or not doing our homework, you can call us out on it and it will be there in the record. Our philosophy involves cracking open the research process, and using our readers to eliminate bias and enhance the quality of the work.

On the back end, here’s how we handle this approach with licensees:

  • Licensees may propose paper topics. The topic may be accepted if it is consistent with the Securosis research agenda and goals, but only if it can be covered without bias and will be valuable to the end user community.
  • Analysts produce research according to their own research agendas, and may offer licensing under the same objectivity requirements.
  • The potential licensee will be provided an outline of our research positions and the potential research product so they can determine if it is likely to meet their objectives.
  • Once the licensee agrees, development of the primary research content begins, following the Totally Transparent Research process as outlined above. At this point, there is no money exchanged.
  • Upon completion of the paper, the licensee will receive a release candidate to determine whether the final result still meets their needs.
  • If the content does not meet their needs, the licensee is not required to pay, and the research will be released without licensing or with alternate licensees.
  • Licensees may host and reuse the content for the length of the license (typically one year). This includes placing the content behind a registration process, posting on white paper networks, or translation into other languages. The research will always be hosted at Securosis for free without registration.

Here is the language we currently place in our research project agreements:

“Content will be created independently of LICENSEE with no obligations for payment. Once content is complete, LICENSEE will have a 3 day review period to determine if the content meets corporate objectives. If the content is unsuitable, LICENSEE will not be obligated for any payment and Securosis is free to distribute the whitepaper without branding or with alternate licensees, and will not complete any associated webcasts for the declining LICENSEE. Content licensing, webcasts and payment are contingent on the content being acceptable to LICENSEE. This maintains objectivity while limiting the risk to LICENSEE. Securosis maintains all rights to the content and to include Securosis branding in addition to any licensee branding.”

Even this process itself is open to criticism. If you have questions or comments, you can email us or comment on the blog.