Time to upgrade to the latest MovableType. Now supports the iPhone (which should make things more interesting). Hope all goes well.

Can I resell my MP3's> - the post-sale life of digital goods

Can you own an idea? In the era of digital content, this is a question that seems to be occluded by questions of copyright and ownership, but resides fundamentally at the heart of the issue. Although it is understood that the creator holds copyright with regards to the content created, the question of ownership is much murkier when content is duplicated for mass consumption. Who owns those duplicates? What rights are extended to the purchasers when content comes into their possession? Do they have resale rights? At what point does the original content creator relinquish their rights to the purchaser, if ever?

These questions highlight the difficulty of assigning ownership and possession to the intangible. Tangibility or the lack thereof is digital media's Achilles heel. The problem is that by its nature a tangible product or commodity is obviously limited in how many copies can be made of it. This is not true for digital goods. The simple act of transmission implies that it is being duplicated. A physical commodity does not have this characteristic. It can be resold, borrowed, but it is not duplicated in the process. In essence, tangibility is a counter agent to duplicability.

If we look at the definition of the word counterfeit:

... is an imitation that is made usually with the intent to deceptively represent its content or origins.

It is rooted in the physical nature of a commodity. Can the term "counterfeit" be applied to digital media when a copy is as perfect as the original? Does it deceptively represent its content? I think not.

There are those that will argue that media can be counterfeited. CDs, DVDs, books, can all be duplicated. This is true, but what is actually being counterfeited - the medium which delivers the content or the content itself? Ultimately, physical artifacts serve as simple distribution mechanisms. They only serve as repositories for the ideas/content they transport. This leads to a more accurate definition of media - as an amalgamation of physical distribution mechanism and content.

Most of our consumer rights focus on this the tangible asset as the focus of copyright. Once you remove the distribution mechanism out of the equation however and are left with dissociated content, what you actually own is an idea - a cultural meme without physical constraints. Can something this ephemeral ever be constrained to individual ownership?

OS X 10.6 has been out for quite a while now and in true form, I was quick to upgrade my systems to the latest version in the hopes that it would finally support the full 4GB of memory on my Merom Core2Duo based MacBook Pro. Alas, unless Apple feels particularly beneficent and releases an EFI update which circumvents this limitation, I'm stuck with a 32-bit EFI which also does not address my memory issue. I was aware of this when I purchased the machine almost 3 years ago, but unlike PCs which support firmware updates to work around issues like this, it seems that Apple's strategy of planned obsolescence will have finally caught me in it's clutches. To bad; this issue seems completely contrary to Apple's environmental initiatives if it essentially cripples older machines and relegates them to the scrap heap simply because it refuses to support older architectures. Instead of simply making greener computers, shouldn't they also consider the impact of existing systems they've sold and at the very least keep them out of the landfill for as long as humanly possible? This too can be considered environmental.

Another case in point; the iMac I bought around the same time as my Macbook Pro began to exhibit extreme instability due to the faulty cooling design of the GPU in the enclosure. I only found out about this when I attempted to replace the GPU itself. While I can appreciate the design chops that it takes to design increasingly thinner computers, what about actual engineering chops to ensure that the thermal envelope of the enclosure does not lead to premature component death? At the heart of the problem was a single measly cooling fan responsible for the passively relocated heat generated from the CPU and GPU. Active cooling should have been applied separately to the CPU and GPU to ensure adequate cooling. At the very least, the GPU heat sink should have been placed before the CPU heat sink in terms of fan proximity; after all, the CPU is not always busy, but the system cannot function without a working video card. At first, I thought that this problem could have been attributed to faulty capacitors in the NVidia 7300 GT GPU; an issue that has already been addressed in the Mac Pro versions of these cards. But a quick look in the Apple forums revealed that this is a problem endemic in ALL Merom based iMacs (the 20"/24" white plastic varieties manufactured around 2006/2007).

After spending 4 hours disassembling the iMac, I came to the realization : these machines are DESIGNED FOR OBSOLESCENCE. From the obscure torx screws, to the insanely difficult access to components, I got the message loud and clear. These machines do not have field replaceable components. Without this fundamental capability to recycle existing functioning components, what I was left with was a two and a half year old computer that I'd paid a huge premium for that was designed to be rendered unusable by simple hardware failure that is easily remedied in your run-of-the-mill PC.

Luckily, my local Mac dealer was willing to get me a replacement GPU and with a little elbow grease, I was able revived my machine. Consider what would have happened if someone else without a technical background was affected. The cost of the replacement card was +$200. Once labour and taxes have been factored in, it would have cost $600 to fix the iMac with a video card that is laughable by today's performance standards. Whether you are discouraged by Apple through the inability to repair your machine with FRUs or the exorbitant cost of an out of warranty repair which makes buying a new machine a "feasible" alternative, the result is the same : electronic waste with a huge environmental impact. My only recommendation going forward for all Apple purchasers is to buy the extended warranty. It is cheaper than a single out of warranty repair, but still seems like an unnecessary cost considering the price premium we initially pay which should equate to "a more reliable" machine.

With any luck, the iMac issue will be addressed in a class action suit or a public acknowledgment and an out of warranty replacement/reimbursement. At the time this article was written, Apple still has not acknowledged any culpability with regards to this issue. If you too are facing this issue, add your voice here at PetitionSpot.

Shame on you Apple; the greenwashing of environmental issues is a blight on your record. If this is the cost of your current popularity, I smell a worm.