Tuesday, January 14, 2014

For better or worse: 10 things that will be gone in our lifetime?

I was sent one of those 10 things that will be gone in our lifetime list from a family member.  There are a variety of (plagarized) versions circulating around for decades, but I decided to comment on this specific list.  Who the original author is seems to be unknown.

I consider these to be wordsmithed, politically motivated lists. One common theme is that there is various types of creative works that will "disappear" because people aren't paying. The reality is that while these creative industries are changing, people still want to pay.  Failures have been largely the fault of the incumbent industries themselves.

If there is no more for-profit music, it will be because the currently unnecessary *recording* industry kills it for composers and performers. The recording industry have been fighting a battle for decades against modern technology which makes the *recording* industry redundant, and allows all the money for the continuously commercially viable *music* industry to flow directly to composers and performers.

In the recording industries battle against the music industry they have "partnered" up with specific hardware manufacturers to try to control the industry. I put "partnered" in quotations as it is those hardware manufacturers, in their separate battle against competition, that will remain in control of the technology and thus any industry that helps it along. When you hear the terms "copy control", "DRM", "TPMs" or other such acronyms what you are really hearing about is the takeover of some part of the content industry by hardware manufacturers with the help of some insane pawn in the content industry.


Intermingled in this are some more accurate portrayals of the changes, but it is hard not to notice the politics in the commentary

1. The Post office

Package delivery is on the rise because of online shopping, and thus if a "post office" dies it is because that specific company (Canada Post in the case of Canada) doesn't change with the times -- not because we use those types of services less.  Unlike the past when these were government granted monopolies, there is now competition in these markets: which should be understood as a good thing rather than bad.

Some services must be taken away from any one company (including the historical "Post Office"), such as location labelling.  Postal codes and street addressed must become government assigned and not alleged to be owned by anyone (including the government).  There should be authorized/validated sources for this geo-spacial information, but no crown or any other copyright.  It is a serious problem that Canada Post alleges to own, control or license postal code related databases.


2. The Check

Paper checks were never a good way to accurately and safely indicate a transfer of money from one banking account to another. The underlying transaction is the same whether we indicate the 2 accounts and amount with paper or more accurately in some other way. This piece of paper has also changed drastically over the years, so the change of not bothering with the paper is minor in comparison.

3. The Newspaper

There is now competition in the news industry, whether text, audio (radio) or video.  I consider this to also be a good thing.

The discussion about an alliance with Apple/Amazon/etc is part of the hardware industry taking over a content industry I mentioned.  We shouldn't feel sorry for the old newspapers which this "alliance" will wipe out, as that is their choice to wipe themselves out.

4. The Book

Physical paper books as a medium is very than music. Recorded music has always required some sort of player, so moving from one storage medium to another is an insignificant transition, with storing the music within the player being obvious.

Printed books only need your eyes and brain, and physical/portable/transferable/cheap paper as a medium has advantages over comparatively expensive digital readers. Until digital readers become so cheap that you don't worry about them getting wet at the beach, lost in the sand, or loaned/given away to other people, paper books will always be around.

It is possible they won't be as common given there are alternatives.

5. The Land Line Telephone

The commentary is outdated and/or very US centric, as most cell plans I've seen also have a "local" calling zone and some (like WIND, which I use) doesn't charge minutes any more.

The general theme I agree with: I consider the land-line at my residence to be my wife's phone, and I don't ever answer it. It would have been gone years ago except my wife wants it.

That said, I don't use my mobile device as a "phone" very often.

6. Music

Music is not going away, and the negative aspects discussed are entirely the fault of the recording industry and not so-called "illegal downloading".

It is the "Star System" promoted by the recording industry that is making it harder for newer artists -- the recording industry sees new music as an expense and competition to the existing recordings they hold copyright to.

7. TelevisionRevenues

Television Networks and BDU's (Broadcast Distribution Undertakings, like cable and satellite services) need to be thought of as services to get entertainment to audiences. Like the horse-shoe industry declining with the growing automobile industry, these outdated technologies eventually get replaced.

The important change is the business model which is transitioning from advertiser paid (where the customer is the advertiser and the product is the audience) to audience paid (where the customer is the audience and the product is the creative content). This transition proves many of the others like the claims about the music business false: people are and continuously demonstrate a willingness to pay for content, if only the outdated middle-men got out of the way and allowed people to pay.

I consider this a positive transition for both audiences and the creator industry.  Rather than the lowest-common-denominator garbage that advertisers prefer,  smart and more audience focused scripted programming will gain better funding with audience-pay models.  Broadcast television had so few good shows on, and there is orders of magnitude more good scripted shows on services like Netflix than was ever accessible through broadcast.  Some of my favourite new shows are Netflix originals.

There is no BDU in our household, and I get my video content online through Netflix, broadcaster websites like watch.space.ca , and through DVD/etc purchases.

We have a digital over-the-air antenna and tuner on one TV, but beyond watching broadcast for the few months after ditching cable it hasn't been used in over a year.  It sits there ready for some potential (but unlikely) eventuality where we may want to watch some local live broadcast.
 
I've watched statistics, and have been surprised at how slow this transition (often called "cutting the cord") is happening in Canada.  

There are many things slowing the transition down, including misguided creator unions (actors, performers, writers, etc) trying to add inappropriate regulations to non-broadcast delivery mechanisms.  Like their participation in the "copyright" debate when it comes to compulsory licenses and "technological measures", these unions lobby at the CRTC and elsewhere in ways which greatly harm the economic and other interests of creators (the folks they claim the work for).

8. The "Things" That You Own

For this one the author missed the transition entirely, and demonstrates a lack of sophistication. While people used to say that *posession* is 9/10ths of the law, this isn't the case.

Whether you physically posses a CD, DVD, laptop, tablet, phone, etc doesn't determine whether you *own* it, or what you are legally allowed to do with it.

Hardware manufacturers, using the content industry as pawns, has been transitioning hardware from a model where the owner is the person who possesses the hardware to where the manufacturer is the owner. The intent is that you will not own anything from the medium (CDs) or devices (computers, etc), even if they are physically in your home and held in your hand. It will be illegal for you to do anything with these things that you don't first get permission from the owners, which are the manufacturers.

Cloud services have little at all to do with this, and in fact the largest of the cloud companies (Google) is often (but not always) on the side of good in clarifying that what you have in your possession is your and what is elsewhere is not. Apple, Sony and Microsoft -- the worst three opponents to technology property rights -- have been lobbying for years to ensure that you don't own what is in your possession/home any more than you own anything in the cloud.

9. Joined Handwriting (Cursive Writing)

Agreed, although like other mechanisms to communicate that change over the centuries I don't consider this to be a large problem.   Most of us can't write or read hieroglyphs, logograms, or other such pictorial representations of concepts.  Joined handwriting is also a very geographically focused writing method, and it makes sense for such things to go out of style as part of globalization.

10. Privacy

Concepts of privacy are changing, and there are threats, but we don't all agree on what privacy means and who we wish to be private from.  I don't consider Google Street View (including the collection of broadcast WiFi information) to be invasive of privacy as I considered all of the things it collects to be public.

I have serious problems with so-called "lawful access" legislation which seeks to allow governments access to communications networks and devices.  Police forces and governments are made up of people, and the percentage risk of law-breakers or even terrorists being within the police or government will be similar to the outside.  It is simply naive to blindly trust police forces in the pursue of blindly mistrusting the general public, and we should always ask about ulterior motives and/or competance of policy makers promoting these types of policies.

I have serious problems about attacks on technology property rights, given the best way to protect our privacy and other rights is if private citizens can own and control the technology they use to communicate with each other.  It is not GPS or Street View that people should be concerned with, but Apple iOS, Amazon Kindle's and other such non-owner controlled devices and the laws which protect these rights-infringers from citizens.


Wednesday, October 16, 2013

Doctor Who fans must wait or be forced into an "infringe or be infringed" decision by BBC

The following is a comment I added to a Kasterborous editorial: iTunes, BBC? Really?

This is not a question of money for me — I have spent $thousands$ in recent years on my love of Doctor Who, and I’m more than willing to pay extra to get early access to these episodes before the DVD’s come out. Unfortunately BBC didn’t give me that option, so I will need to either wait for the DVD’s or get the episodes from an “unauthorized” source.

I am not a customer of Apple, nor will I ever be. I’ve spent more than a decade of my life as a political activist in support of IT property rights. As I discussed in a recent submission to the Canadian government on this issue http://c11.ca/brief , Apple is one of the worst infringers of IT property rights. They also actively lobby for legalizing and legally protecting infringements of IT property rights.

While Apple is a direct infringer, inducing people into infringing situations puts the BBC in the same league for those of us trying to protect these property rights as ISOHunt and PirateBay does for copyright infringement.

I agree it is great news that these stories were found, and great news that the BBC decided to make individual episodes available before they have completed the DVD sets. It is clearly bad news that they decided to make an exclusive distribution deal with such a highly controversial company.

I can understand people who may opt out of allowing their own property rights to be infringed, and instead infringe the copyright of others — DRM has never reduced copyright infringement, and in nearly every anecdote I have heard of has encouraged people to infringe copyright.

BTW: The “International” iPlayer is a similar failure by the BBC. Having this be Apple infringing devices only excludes those of us who use computers that are owner-secured rather than controllable by third parties. I am more than willing to pay a subscription fee to access iPlayer in Canada, but BBC hasn’t yet offered that to me at any price.

We live in a time where the importance of cyber-security will be increasing, and yet all these direct (by apple) and contributory (by BBC) infringements of IT property rights only decreases security by creating back-doors where non-owners control computers.

Sunday, June 16, 2013

Why is a license required for a Canadiana project built from public domain material?

I was asked in a comment why the CRKN announcement about the new collaboration with Canadiana.org mentioned Creative Commons licensing.


Short answer:

What is in the public domain stays in the public domain.  What Copyright restricts, this project will be releasing under a Creative Commons license.  It is copyright law which defines the line between the public domain and what must be licensed.

Longer answer:

I am a system administrator at Canadiana, and not someone involved in policy relating to licensing of the parts of this project that will be covered by Canadiana copyright.  When it is a Canadiana decision, it is our Board of Directors made up of librarians and archivists, and our executive director, who ultimately are responsible for such policies.

As someone who has spent more that a decade dedicated to Copyright related policy discussions (see Digital Copyright Canada), and been involved in the Free Software movement since the early 1990's, I have my own opinions -- but they are my own and not those of Canadiana.

A work that is in the public domain in Canada is something which has fallen out of Copyright. For most things that is life of the author plus 50 years.  We have researchers at Canadiana that work on determining the author of works we wish to scan and a database of the deaths of authors to help with the public domain determination.

Copyright term extension has unfortunately been threatened by the federal government many times.  This sometimes comes in the form of treaty negotiations such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Canada-Europe Free Trade Agreement (CETA), with our trade representatives never adequately pushing back on calls for term extension.  In some countries term extension has even re-regulated works that were already in the public domain.  This is a risk of any project like ours given we rely on the public domain to be allowed to make the scans in the first place.

In order to scan for this project Canadiana or LAC essentially take photographs of the books, papers, and other articles being preserved and made accessible.  Then the photograph is digitized (sometimes from film previously taken, and sometimes more directly as part of the book/paper scanning process).

It is unfortunately a matter of debate whether a photograph of something which is not restricted by copyright has its own separate copyright held by the photographer. This ties into the debate about sweat of the brow vs originality.  While there are some professional photographers and their unions who believe that all photographs should be restricted by copyright, regardless of subject matter or originality, I believe most Canadians (including many lawyers reading some of  the relevant caselaw, which helps) would disagree.

To avoid being dragged into this heated debate, and to protect against future changes to copyright law, a license provides clarity even for those who wish/believe the photograph has its own new copyright.

If the decision was mine (note: it's not -- talk to your Librarian :-) any license on the photographs and resulting scans would be CC0 which is a method to try to put a copyrighted work as closely to the public domain as domestic law allows.  This avoids the question of whether a public domain dedication is possible in Canada by providing a back-up license.

Scanning is only part of the process, and not the part that takes the most resources.  Researching metatata about the images so that there is something to search on creates a new database.  All this metadata is considered new works under Copyright, and thus a license is required.

There may in the future be crowdsourcing of metadata, and legal clarity will be required there as well. I'm personally a fan of joint-copyright assignments or copyright waivers (CC0 style) for projects like this to allow the non-profit (in our case charity) project to enhance licensing over time.

There are plans, if funding comes together, to transcribe some of the handwritten papers.  More than the photographs there is a presumption that the transcriptions would have their own copyright, so licensing is required.

Hope this helps... I wish copyright weren't expanding all the time, but as it does there is an increased need for licensing where previously copyright wasn't relevant.  The scope and term of copyright is expanding at the same time as exceptions (such as fair dealings) is largely being diminished globally.  There were some minor fair dealings gains in Bill C-11, but there were far more losses.  Canadian copyright law will also be manipulated by Bill C-56, the bill allegedly dealing with counterfeit materials where most of the controversy is in the unrelated copyright aspects.


Note: Being part of the Free Software movement I prefer the subset of Creative Commons licenses which are similar to those we use.  I have never liked the vagueness of the so-called "Non Commercial" (NC) clauses, and thus them and have a preference for CC0, CC-BY and CC-SA.  With the definition I use for "open access" this is what is required, and don't consider works licensed with a ND (no-derivatives) or NC to be "open access".  But, as with many things, different people use different definitions.

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

Good news Canadiana & LAC project spun into bad news?

For the past few years I've worked at a charity called Canadiana where we research, digitize, add metadata to and provide access to Canadian works in the public domain (IE: *finally* out of our excessively long Copyright term in Canada) for researchers.  While most of our funding comes from educational institutions, we have also had individual members and donors who help fund our work.  While it would be great if this work were paid for by the government and all this information made searchable and accessible immediately free to all Canadians, this hasn't happened so a charity is the next best option.

It's a great place to work.  While I am a technical person, many of my co-workers are librarians and our board of directors are also largely librarians.  I joke with people about how "scary" my employer is, and feel guilty when fellow techies tell me horror stories about some of their corporate employers.

Imagine my surprise when the media claimed I was working for some "private high-tech consortium" involved in a "hush-hush deal" with Library and Archives Canada to try to put Canadian heritage behind a paywall.   I've spent more than half my life fighting against schemes like that, joining the Free Software movement in the early 1990's and spending the last decade+ fighting Copyright maximalists who want to not only lock up our culture but infringe our IT property rights in the process.  I know all about secret back-room deals to lock up culture, and they go with acronyms such as ACTA, SOPA, TPP, and so-on.   As someone who has spent so much time opposing such ideas, I obviously wouldn't work for some "private high-tech consortium" involved in such a scheme.

I'm not sure how or why someone spun a good-news story into its opposite, but what I know of the new project with LAC is very different than how some have mistakenly reported it.

Everything we are doing is in addition to existing methods of access.  The collection will remain accessible from the LAC as it always has.  There is no pay-wall for this project's digital content, and as the collections are digitized they will be freely accessible on Canadiana's website -- making them far more accessible than travelling to the LAC offices as people have to do today.  This is in addition to the fact that our complete collection is available through most educational institution and public libraries, with these libraries providing us funding to make all our collections accessible to their patrons.  If you haven't seen our collections already, please ask your librarian about it and take a look!

Much of the work we do is involved with metadata, or data about the pages we scan and put online.  It is this metadata which allows the information to be searchable.  Given the amount of work, this is where the bulk of the expenses are.   While public funding would be great (!!), the reality is that this type of work ends up needing to be funded through other means including having individual and institutional members fund this metadata. The more charitable donations and memberships we get, the better the metadata and access.   This stuff doesn't come cheap, but given we are a charity the goal isn't to make some profit but to make the information as accessible to as many Canadians as we possibly can.

I wish reporters had done a bit more research into what Canadiana was before accepting someone's spin of the new project we will be doing with LAC.  I suspect their goal might be to trip up the government of the day, but the people who will pay the costs of misunderstandings are Canadians who will end up with less access to our heritage if these types of projects fall through.

If reporters want to talk about locking up our heritage with secret deals they should look into things like ACTA, as well as asking their own employers and unions (PWAC/TWUC, etc) their views on things such as copyright term extension which is where the real threats are coming from.

Update: A colleague has posted something official to our website.

Monday, June 10, 2013

One Hurt Doctor theory isn't going to happen.

Since we have been told that John Hurt would be playing an incarnation of The Doctor in the 50'th Anniversary Special in November, there has been speculation as to which number he would be.

There is the idea that he is the doctor previous to William Hartnell, meaning that William was not the first incarnation -- just the first one called "The Doctor".

There is the idea that Hurt plays the incarnation who fought the Time War, situating him between Paul McGann and Christopher Eccleston.  This still means Matt Smith is the 11'th "Doctor", but as with the first theory he isn't the 11'th incarnation of that Gallifreyan.

There was the idea that Hurt is playing The Valeyard, an incarnation of The Doctor somewhere between the twelfth and so-called "final" regeneration.  Earlier this month we learned that this option isn't happening as Big Finish announced Trial of the Valeyard as a new audio play.  We know that Big Finish is in constant communication with Cardif to ensure that stories don't overlap, so it's impossible that Hurt is playing the Valeyard in November with Big Finish releasing a Valeyard story in December.


I am also wondering how interesting Hurt playing an as-yet-unknown future incarnation would be for fans.  There needs to be some link to what we already know..

I don't buy into the idea that there can only be 13 doctors (12 regenerations) given so much has changed since then.  We already saw The Master offered additional regenerations (The 5 Doctors), so we know this was under the control of the Time Lords who no longer exist to enforce that limitation.

One future incarnation theory that would be interesting is an incarnation who steals a body the way that The Master did in Keeper of Traken (He stole Nyssa's father's body, having run out of regenerations).  A theft of a body in order to gain additional regenerations would be something that would "solve" the silly 12 re-generations problem and would also be something done NOT in the "name of the Doctor".

Thoughts?

Saturday, April 6, 2013

Social media a better Doctor Who monster than WIFI

I'm a big fan of science fiction, and my favorite is Doctor Who.  One thing I do find annoying is when science fiction is too light on the science part, and perpetuates the general lack of scientific knowledge of our "modern" society.  Like constantly spelling quality with a "K", science fiction lacking in credible science makes us less intelligent while good science fiction can help us better understand ourselves, science, and how we interact with technology.

While we don't know how to travel in time or as quickly in space, it is not that aspect of science fiction like Doctor Who that bothers me.  I am bothered when science fiction takes a real-world technology and makes it into something it can't be, or stories which aren't internally consistent with how science would work in the fictional world created.

Two recent Doctor Who episodes are examples of good and bad science: The Bells of Saint John is the most recent television episode(11'th Doctor), and Babblesphere is the most recent audio drama from the Destiny of the Doctor joint range from Big Finish and AudioGo.

Spoilers, Sweetie


In The Bells of Saint John the monster was WIFI, controlled by The Great Intelligence. Someone would be trying to connect to the Internet and find hotspot names like "┓┏ 凵 =╱⊿┌┬┐".  After connecting your computer would be broken into and the operators able to spy on you through your webcam and other such features of newer computers and mobile devices.   This part is plausible  relying on the lack of security on many of these devices (partly due to bad government policy that makes security our devices harder and less legal, but we can get into that later).

Then magically a robot with a spoon head shows up that reminded me of the Nodes from Silence in the Library, which then download someones brain.  The Doctor refers to this spoonhead node as a walking WIFI base station, trying to make some direct connection between the WIFI link which hacks the computer and the spoonhead nodes which are hacking people's brains.  The script can say there is some connection between WIFI and this robot that was teleported in, but that doesn't makes the science plausible or consistent.  WIFI is a real-world technology with real-world limits which shouldn't be just waived away by the writer (Steven Moffat, same as for the Library -- funny how some of the tech seemed familiar even if far better written in the Library).

The more science fiction makes things like WIFI out to be magic, the less the general public will understand and be able to differentiate between real-world threats and imagined ones.  This not only encourages people to see boogeymen where they don't exist, but also to not recognize the real problems that do exist (like the government policies making network and other computer security harder and less legal).

Babblesphere is set in a future human settlement where social media technology goes bad.  Initially we have helmets people would put on in order to interact with a virtual reality environment, which was eventually replaced with a chip people would embed and never be disconnected.  A computer AI program was written to moderate social media forums, and this AI program in typical "I, Robot" fashion takes over and stops anything that gets in the way of what it believes to be its job.  For example, rather than just ejecting boring participants from the forums it would use the implant to murder them by electrocuting their brain.   Chip implants are made mandatory by the AI program, but people don't realize the AI has taken over and thinks that this is the government of the colony creating the laws.

This is all plausible futuristic technology as well as plausible (if frightening and infuriating) inappropriate reactions to the technology by humans.  Nearly all the colonists have voluntarily had the implants, never questioning whether there could be any risks or like current society asking who controls the implants (who is writing the software that ultimately will control their lives).  This is like current politicians increasingly passing laws which allow non-transparent software to unaccountably control more and more of our lives: eventually putting politicians out of work as the most important policies will be authored as software and not laws.  While it is insane to allow third parties like device manufacturers to be in control of our private communications devices like cell phones (IE: like anti-circumvention clauses in "copyright" laws), it is beyond insane (time to lock up the politicians insane) to allow unaccountable and non-transparent software to be embedded in medical technology.

It is only an extreme minority of the colonists that needed the implants to be mandatory, with the majority of the colonists treating those who didn't as terrorists for wanting to have "private thoughts".  "If you have nothing bad to hide, why have secrets" is a sentiment shared by far too many in our society, and why the colonists outlawed private thoughts.  You can read this type of dangerous thinking in Hansard quite often ("Lawful access" anyone?), and is something we as a society have to become more aware of and more vigilant against.  Not surprising the same people who think that citizens don't deserve any privacy are the first to believe that those in "authority" (government officials, police, military, etc) should have more privacy and less accountability/transparency. Common sense dictates that there are at least the same percentage of "bad actors" within these authorities as there are in the general public.  Add to that the fact that power corrupts and we clearly need to have greater scrutiny of authorities than the general public.


While The Bells of Saint John is great and exciting drama, it is in my mind poor science fiction while Babblesphere is all thumbs up for both the science and the fiction.  While Bells makes us mildly curious about who Clara will turn out to be, Babblesphere entertains as well as encourages its listeners to think about real-world issues with our human interactions with science and tech.

Monday, March 11, 2013

AudioGO and Big Finish even easier for audio-books than eMusic

Back in May 2008 I offered my thoughts on three services that offered Cory Doctorow's Little Brother as an audio book. Audible didn't work at all, Zipidee worked but was less than ideal, and eMusic was the best of the three.

As part of the 50'th anniversary celebrations of Doctor Who I have decided to go where I've never been before, and check out some of the Doctor Who audio-books. AudioGO offers Doctor Who, Torchwood and Sarah Jane Adventures that are based on TV Soundtracks, readings of novelizations, as well as original stories. Big Finish offers many original science fiction audio dramas for Doctor Who, Stargate and Sherlock Holmes.

It goes without saying that like eMusic both offer unencrypted (AKA: DRM-free) audio in vendor-neutral audio formats, which in this case included MP3. I discussed my unwillingness to access or pay for DRM-infected audio-books in the 2008 article. I suspect given these services have a focus on science fiction that they recognize that discouraging purchases from more science and technology literate customers would be strongly against their best interests.

Big Finish solves the problem of offering multiple files as part of a single title by offering ZIP files for download. After purchasing they offer a "Download MP3" and "Download Audiobook" option for each title, allowing you to download the title again if necessary. The MP3 option offers a ZIP file with a series of MP3 files (multiple tracks for a given title), a JPEG cover image, and a PDF of the current issue of Big Finish' Vortex magazine. The Audiobook option replaces the series of MP3 files within the ZIP file with a single m4b file (Note: for listening on my Android phone I rename the file to .m4a to use the built-in audio app rather than downloading a dedicated Audiobook app).

AudioGO offers "Download with Manager", "Download in Browser" and a "Listen online" for purchased titles.

The download manager is a Java application which requires that Java be installed on the desktop, but runs well on the OpenJDK that ships standard with Ubuntu Linux. It is much simpler, cleaner and interoperable than the platform-specific binary that eMusic uses for a download manager. I hope that eMusic will consider upgrading to a Java application for this purpose.

The "Download in Browser" attempts to use JavaScript to handle multiple downloads. While this and downloading each file separately works, it didn't work as well as the Java download manager. This option will be great for those who don't have (or don't want to have for many legitimate security reasons) a Java interpreter on their computers.

The "Listen online" makes use of HTML5 (with Flash for legacy browsers) for an audio player that lists each track/chapter to allow you to jump to a specific track.

Overall the experience with these two services have been great so far. I only finished my watching of the DVD's of the classic series a week ago, so will now be spending time checking out more of the audio adventures. Check out my Doctor Who and Me page for a list of what I've purchased/watched/etc. Always looking for Who recommendations if you have them.