You Can Go Back To Stealing Music Now

Looks like the RIAA has finally realized that treating customers like criminals isn’t the best strategy in the world. According to the Wall Street Journal (via Slashdot) they are ending their campaign of suing individual file sharers to focus on working with ISPs to reduce illegal sharing. As much as I like to rip the heck out of the RIAA and MPAA for their draconian views on copyright and enforcement, it really is stealing if you snag something off a file sharing network. Like most people in college I was into the Napster thing for a bit, but quickly realized it was wrong, and I stopped using it. Heck, a friend’s dad who was an FBI agent had her download music for him; that’s how new the concept was and how much it snapped our usual social mores. But I will admit, here and now, to downloading digital content I already legally access when DRM restrictions interfere with my use of that content. It’s not something I do very often, but I have no qualms about heading to the Pirate Bay and grabbing an episode of a TV show my TiVo won’t let me transfer to my phone (mostly the hi def stuff), I’ll even rent movies, rip them, watch them once on my iPhone, then delete them. If the media companies interfere with my existing rights, I’m more than happy to circumvent them. I still pay for all my music, movies, and television, and in exchange I use all my technical skills to maintain my rights. Share:

Read Post

Friday Summary: The 2008 Finale- 12-19-2008

This will be our last Friday Summary for 2008. This afternoon Adrian and I are off to The Office for our Securosis Annual Staff Festivus Party (sorry Chris, but we can drunk dial you if that makes you feel included). 2008 has been an incredibly wild ride. When it started I was just a solo consultant that wasn’t even calling myself an analyst anymore, and wasn’t certain where I wanted to take things. In January I ran a half marathon on a bad knee that mysteriously felt better after the race, but in February I went in for shoulder surgery that I’m still struggling to recover from. Over the summer, Adrian joined Securosis and we moved firmly back into the analyst column. As the year closes we’ve published a ton of free content, multiple vendor-neutral whitepapers, spoken at everything from RSA, to SOURCE Boston, to DefCon, and a few TechTarget and MISTI events (including a show in Moscow), given over a dozen webcasts, and, to be honest, had a heck of a lot of fun in the process. We’ve written articles for everyone from Macworld to Dark Reading, been interviewed by… well, pretty much everyone else, and enjoyed more than a few frothy beverages with our industry friends. For two skinny guys (and a part-time editor/UNIX guru, also skinny) running a small company we really couldn’t have asked for more. We’ve decided to give back, and we’ll announce more on that next week. And 2009 is looking even crazier. In February we’ll be adding a new staff member, the exact date, gender, length, and weight are still undetermined (if he or she is over 8 lbs, my wife might kill me). We’re also completely redesigning our website as we continue to expand things a bit. This site started as just my personal blog, and as we keep pumping out content it isn’t nearly as well suited as it was at the beginning. The blog won’t change, but we’re going to make content more accessible and start loading up new kinds of materials- like videos of our conference presentations. We’re also really going to push forward with the ideas of totally transparent and open research. We’re not idiots, and we don’t intend on competing with Gartner, Forrester, and the other large firms, but we still love what we do and think there’s plenty of room for us little guys (and our combined weight is pretty low, not that that’s relevant). We have more flexibility than they do, and you can expect no bullshit research that’s focused on in-depth, practical advice to help you with specific projects. We already have two programs planned- Pragmatic PCI, and Pragmatic Database Security (we’ll have to charge for those, since we have to keep the dogs, cats, and other little ones fed). Finally, we have some new media, social media, and community stuff in the works. Okay- I realize that all sounded like marketing junk, but I think we’re allowed to be excited about what we’ve done, and what we have planned, from time to time. We are incredibly thankful for the opportunities and support you’ve all given us. And as a preview, here’s the official premier of our new logo (it will look better on the new site template): Have a wonderful holiday season. We’ll be reducing our posting volume a bit over the holidays, but stay tuned for the end of our web application series and a few other treats. Here is the week’s security summary: Webcasts, Podcasts, Outside Writing, and Conferences: The Network Security Podcast is a little shorter this week as we finish off the year. As an aside, Martin and I would like to apologize for our recent audio difficulties. We narrowed it down to a bad sound card on Martin’s side, and are changing our recording process for higher quality (we’ll be moving to double-ended recording). Via NetworkWorld, I gave a webcast for Oracle on Database Security for Security Professionals. It targets security pros who may be new to databases, and the replay is available here. I talked with Forbes about antivirus scanners. I debunked some FUD by Bit9 on automatic software updates in enterprises for LinuxInsider. IT departments can turn them off, so I don’t see what the problem is. Adrian talked database security with eWeek. Adrian on log management for Someone named Adrian Lane is into otters. It’s the UK, so probably a different guy, but we’ll take all the press we can get. Favorite Securosis Posts: Rich: Part 6 of our Building a Web Application Security Program. We really want to get this series (and the eventual paper) right, so any feedback, comments, and (especially) criticisms are very much appreciated. Adrian: While my practical experience has come to the same set of conclusions, finding meaning is groups of anonymous statistical patterns to justify database security is a black art I don’t care to dabble in. < p>Favorite Outside Posts: {Adrian editorial}- I have been following the series of posts between Alan Shimmel and Andy the IT Guy (links below). They are touching on the very heart of the sales process and common friction between the IT gatekeeper and the salesman. But I thought they both danced around the key point. The sales guy is doing his job by pushing as hard as he can to get the deal done without pissing everyone off to the point the organization gets fed up and will no longer work with you. A good sales guy knows there is always a deal if they can overcome objections (price, support, consultative assistance, etc) because they would not be talking if the need was not there. However buyers buy from people they know, like, and trust, and trampling the gatekeeper is a good way to make enemies. Alan’s comment “Try putting yourself in the other’s shoes to better understand what is involved. Common courtesy and respect would be a good place to start” cuts both ways. Seems to me the sales guy

Read Post

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.