Darknet: Hollywood's War 238
| Darknet: Hollywood's War Against the Digital Generation | |
| author | J.D Lasica |
| pages | 301 |
| publisher | John Wiley and Sons |
| rating | 8 |
| reviewer | Droopus |
| ISBN | 0471683345 |
| summary | A well written treatise on DRM and Hollywoods war against digital media |
War ain't pretty, and this book delivers the goods as a primer on how digital technologies and "personal media" (podcasts, videoblogs, digital stories, Internet television, video games) are "throwing the old rules into disarray" and "shifting the balance of power begween big media and regular people." I would have liked to have seen more about Linux and open-source software, but the author is clearly aiming for a mainstream audience.
Darknet sounds at times like it could have been written by a team of Slashdotters, ripping to shreds the entertainment cartel's claims that the locks they're putting into our digital devices are for our own good, their claims that this is a fight about theft and piracy, and other distortions that the author exposes to devastating effect. (Larry Lessig, Ian Clarke, the president of Sony's Columbia TriStar studios, DVD inventor Warren Lieberfarb and a number of digital lawbreakers are just a few of the interesting characters parading through the book.)
While big thinkers like Lessig, Doc Searls and Howard Rheingold (who wrote the foreword) have constructed the intellectual scaffolding that alerted us to Hollywood's goals of fencing in the Internet and keeping the public domain from expanding, it is left to reporters like Lasica to uncover the depressing specifics of the copyright cartel's actions.
Fascinating stories abound, like the cross-industry meetings between Hollywood lawyers, gutless wonders from the consumer electronics industry, and reps from the tech sector discussing how to divide the world into region codes like the powers at Potsdam. (one studio went so far as to propose that GPS chips be placed in all computers with a DVD player so that Hollywood could enforce region coding from the sky. It's reported here for the first time.)
Or the story of what Hollywood was after in its litigation against Sonicblue's ReplayTV. According to former CTO Andy Wolfe, the studioswere intent on decreeing how long viewers could keep a program after it was recorded on a digital video recorder. They wanted to limit how many episodes of the same show viewers could record. They wanted to ban 30-sec skip buttons and to prevent fast forward from reaching a certain speed. They wanted to cap how much programming anyone could record -- a level that Wolfe's personal laptop already exceeds.
The tech industry comes in for some bruising too, as the author demonstrates how Microsoft, HP, and a raft of other tech companies are more than willing to sell out their customers (as long as all the other big boys in the club do it too) in return for allaying the fears of paranoid Hollywood studio chieftains whose nightmares consist of piracy, piracy, piracy. Lasica says it's too early to tell whether the "trusted computing" initiative is merely a Trojan horse foisted on PC manufacturers and chip makers by the silver tongue of Jack Valenti.
Anyone with an interest in how our digital freedoms are being whittled away, how the music, movie and television landscapes are about to change forever, or how a new, empowered generation of users (mostly young people) see media differently than the older crowd, would benefit from marking up their copy of Darknet (bring two yellow markers). As the author Media will change more in the next five years than it has in the past 50 years."
Lasica has been writing about citizens' media for years, and he recently founded the grassroots media site Ourmedia.org with the help of the Internet Archive. (Remember when Slashdot brought down the site on its first day?) Last weekend I heard him interviewed on NPR's On the Media, talking about why the RIAA and MPAA don't have a clue in hell about remix culture.
But don't believe me. Decide for yourselves. Check out Darknet.com, where the author has been blogging for a couple of years. (His blog readers provided the book's subtitle and they helped edit the book.) Lots of goodies on the site: a free mini-book, including new material and chapters from the book. (Especially noteworthy are The teenage filmmakers for a look at copyright law's absurdities and The Prince of Darknet for a fascinating glimpse inside the movie underground.) Also, you'll find a backgrounder on what the hell darknetshave to do with all this (I don't know, Darknet seems like a book publisher's idea of a sexy title) ... and something I've never seen from a mainstream journalist before: tons of links to sites like doom9.net, SmartRipper, Region-Free Guide, Total Recorder, Daemon Tools, isoheaven and more.
Some of this turf is no doubt familiar to Slashdotters. And, as I said, the book could have benefited from a deeper look at the history of open source software. But it's good to see these ideas getting some serious play -- finally -- in the mainstream media, and Hollywood getting some much-needed pushback.
You can purchase Darknet: Hollywood's War Against the Digital Generation from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
A Slashdot collaboration? (Score:4, Funny)
From the review:
Damn....that's harsh...
Seriously, though, it looks like a fascinating read (especially the part about GPS chips in laptops). However, with a price tag of $25.95 list ('B&N' price: $20.76...'member' price: $18.68...why so many prices?), I think I'll just grab the torrent. ^_^
Re:A Slashdot collaboration? (Score:2)
Re:A Slashdot collaboration? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:A Slashdot collaboration? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:A Slashdot collaboration? (Score:2)
Well, I'm sure they meant Slashdot posters, not Slashdot editors.
Re:A Slashdot collaboration? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:A Slashdot collaboration? (Score:2)
Re:A Slashdot collaboration? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:A Slashdot collaboration? (Score:3, Funny)
Glass roof? (Score:2, Insightful)
Fascinating for sure but more like science fiction or out
Re:Glass roof? (Score:5, Insightful)
And a Hollywood studio who only proposed the idea would know that how?
Re:Glass roof? (Score:2, Interesting)
See, Hollywood distributes there stuff over satellite. They would think, hmm, people need to have a dish on their property to receive that info.
Maybe a glimmer of a thought process would cross their minds and it would click that just maybe they'd need to have a clear view of the sky to use a GPS too?
But I wouldn't expect you to think of that...
Re:Glass roof? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not everybody knows this. It is quite believable that someone at the policy level might think a GPS is magical enough to work anywhere.
Re:Glass roof? (Score:2)
Only an elitist would assume everyone does.
Re:Glass roof? (Score:2, Insightful)
I mean we are talking about a group of people out of touch with technology and I can tell you for sure there are well employed people I know who are so clueless about gps they would never consider that you needed pretty good line of sight to the sky for
Re:Glass roof? (Score:2)
Re:Glass roof? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Glass roof? (Score:2, Troll)
Re:Glass roof? (Score:2)
Link please?
I would like to read about how they are going to construct a chip that rewrites the laws of physics and makes those L-band signals available inside buildings. The GPS signal bounces off most buildings like crazy rendering the position solution almost useless. It's not a matter of signal strength. It's a matter of the reflected signals messing up the pseudoranges so badly that your position solution is worthless. If I'm going to rely on a GPS chip in a cell phone to guide rescuers to me, I bet
Re:Glass roof? (Score:2)
Re:Glass roof? (Score:2)
http://www.globallocate.com/ [globallocate.com]
Re:Glass roof? (Score:3, Insightful)
So ? Simply provide an external antenna connector and require the user to connect it to a suitable antenna. If he doesn't, and the unit doesn't receive a clear signal, assume that the user is trying to obfuscate the signal and is therefore clearly a despicable, bloodthirsty, cutthroat pirate, g
Re:Glass roof? (Score:2)
Ouch (Score:5, Funny)
Darknet sounds at times like it could have been written by a team of Slashdotters.
That's a pretty mean thing to say.
Re:Ouch (Score:2)
Re:Ouch (Score:4, Insightful)
The book sounds like a facinating read but its nothing new to me. MPAA and RIAA trying to curtail technology at their behest to restrict our rights as consumers (do we have any rights left?) and technology companies bowling over. One thing I can feel more confidant of is that technology companies are starting to be a little more thoughtful of the ride that the MPAA and RIAA are taking them on and they don't like the destination. I think the Grokster case has started to make them think.
It is a pity that none of these parties has the public's interests in mind but rather how to best exploit them.
Newspeak (Score:2)
Consumers have the right and the duty to consume, northing more or less; unless you are in an economics class, the word you should use is "citizen."
Re:Ouch (Score:2)
Re:Ouch (Score:2)
That's a pretty mean thing to say.
And not very accurate either. If it was written by /.ers, where are the GNAA trolls, Natalie Portman Hot Grits, Beowulf clusters, etc, etc, etc?
Torrent? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, where is the torrent for the book download?
Seriously though - why isn't this book released under creative commons?
Re:Torrent? (Score:2)
Down and Out in the Magic Kindom (cc) (Score:2)
Because selling it gets the author some money.
And selling paper copies while distributing it online under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 [creativecommons.org] doesn't? Try telling that to Cory Doctorow [craphound.com], author of Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom. Some people will pay a premium for a professionally bound paper copy.
Re:Torrent? (Score:2)
Re:Torrent? (Score:4, Insightful)
What's wrong with that?
Re:Torrent? (Score:2)
Re:Torrent? (Score:2)
What Wiley said (Score:5, Interesting)
So we compromised. I'm releasing a mini-book online -- excerpts from the book, along with interview transcripts and new stuff, every Monday at Darknet.com.
Some day, book publishers will release all new works onto the Net in some fashion (perhaps with ebook DRM, perhaps not). But, alas, we ain't there yet.
- jd (the author)
Re:What Wiley said (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Torrent? (Score:2, Insightful)
- jd (i wrote the thing)
Who cares? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Who cares? (Score:3, Informative)
What this paper says is what is clearly MS-internal knowledge, that flawless DRM is impossible. They know that because whenever they try and copy-protect software, all it does is delay the inevitable and inconvenience the legit people. If you can't protect software (which is the only data which can integrate its own legitimacy checks), what hope do you have against passive content like music or video?
MS (and th
Heh (Score:3, Insightful)
At any rate, while the reviewer may or may not be accurately representing the book, his description of the original paper as "shoveled dirt onto the coffin of DRM as a business model" is nonsensical.
Re:Heh (Score:3, Insightful)
I wouldn't go that far. From the conclusion:
This means that a vendor will probably make more money by selling unprotected objects than protected objects. In short, if you are competing with the darknet, you must compete on the darknet's own terms: that is convenience and low cost rather than additional security.
"Shoveling dirt" may be a slight overstatement (it's obviously not dead yet)
Would iTunes make more money? (Score:3, Interesting)
Not only would iTunes make less money if the had more DRM, but Microsoft is also clearly committed to dragging their feet on DRM as well because they know it's bad for business and they always have known that which is why things are the way they are and this is why Apple is said to "get it".
But it's not just Apple and Microsoft either. Everybody knows DRM is lousy for business, even justices of the Supreme Court.
Court procedings are public documents with a GPL-alike character in that th
It's an all or nothing game now (Score:3, Interesting)
It's worth to point out that the large media and proprietary software interests have pretty much made this an all or nothing game. Either all information will need to be digitally controlled for all time, or it will need to be free to copy unrestricted for any purpose or reason.
Re:It's an all or nothing game now (Score:3, Insightful)
Which would put us right back where we started, which, all things considered, has worked pretty well. Then perhaps some semblance of sense could be brought back to the length and breadth of copyright terms, and wonder of wonders you'd have a situation where everybody benefits and no
Re:It's an all or nothing game now (Score:2)
Of course the truth is that owning a copyright (a right to coercively restrict how other people copy information at their disposal) is no more a right than owning a slave on the plantation (a right to restrict where and how and unde
Gate Keeper or Conspiracy Nut? (Score:2, Interesting)
1. The book sells
2. The book's topic is covered and/or promoted on more mainstream media outlets.
And then, if he's labeled either positively in a Woodward/Berstein way or "agenda" reporter way that discredits his point-of-view.
Propoganda? (Score:2)
Hollywood Always Fights, Then Accepts and Profits (Score:5, Insightful)
Keep in mind that Hollywood has largely tried to stifle technlogical innovation outside of their control: they complained about television, because it would keep people from the theatres. Then, they mastered that medium and made even more money because of it. Then, later, they complained about VCRs, because it would allow people to record films and not pay them for the privilege. Then, as with television, they mastered that medium and made even more money because of it. They resisted DVDs initially because it would be easy to make "perfect" copies from a DVD, and they put on an exceptionally weak encryption scheme to thwart that from happening. Of course, the 'DRM' was thwarted, people now copy DVDs, and guess what: Hollywood makes more money because of DVDs.
Now comes the internet. As usual, Hollywood is resisting this new technology and are saying what they usually say: it will cost them money. However, if history serves as a guide, they will eventually master this medium too and make money because of it.
There is piracy, there is little doubt about that. While it does prevent some sales of DVDs or movie tickets, in some cases it has gone the other way and has drawn interest into a film or a TV show. There is much speculation that the producers of Battlestar Galactica conducted a quiet stealtht marketing ploy by allowing their show to be distributed via BitTorrent and other P2P vectors -- and it worked. BG gained an audience, and surely some of it came from those who had downloaded earlier episodes. Now, the same is being said of the new Doctor Who. Surely, few Americans would see it if it were not for the illegal distributions. There is a lot of interest in this new show and it is surely because of P2P, because the show is not available in any form (legally) in the USA.
At the end of the day, all of Hollywood's fighting will turn to gradual acceptance. Whether or not it is on their terms is their and the market's choice. The internet is here to stay, and so is piracy. Instead of focussing on preventing piracy, perhaps Hollywood should add enough to the value propostition that piracy is an afterthought. Many would gladly pay to get electronic distributions of shows via the internet, and it is up to Hollywood to get out of their office chairs and to figure out how to profit from it. History says that they will, but it does not foretell WHEN they will.
Re:Hollywood Always Fights, Then Accepts and Profi (Score:2)
Re:Hollywood Always Fights, Then Accepts and Profi (Score:5, Insightful)
- Cable and satellite providers
- Cell phone companies in the U.S.
- The baby bells
It could easily be extended to movie studios, media giants, Clearchannel, GM and Ford, Boeing and Lockheed, etc.
The excellent documentary on Burt Rutan and SpaceshipOne, "Black Sky: The Race for Space", is playing on Discovery Science this week, a mnust see if you haven't. Towards the end of the second part the aero engineer made the point increasingly everyone is made to feel they can't do anything amazing unless they are part of a big corporation or government. They wanted to show 20 guys, with a little of Paul Allen's money, could do something only 3 giant governments have done previously, put a man in to space(and they broke the altitude record for an air launched vehicle dating to the X-15 in 1963). There are numerous barbs at NASA, Boeing and Lockheed and the role they've played in completely wrecking the U.S. as a space faring nation since the end of Apollo.
Anyway the gist of the proposed book would be that all of America's giant corporations keep touting free enterprise and free markets while they in fact want no such thing. They want free markets but only for them and they WANT any potential competitors snuffed out. They dont want any government regulation of them but they are delighted with regulation, or holes in the same, that allows them to destroy their competitors and to protect their dominant position. They increasingly have more politicians and lobbiests than inventors and engineers. They want to snuff out competition with patent law, regulation, government subsidies(loans, tax breaks, contracts), and predatory monopolistic practices, all the while ranting that there is to much government regulation and they are fans of free markets, though increasingly they write all those regulations. Increasingly there one and only innovative business plan is to move their work force to the cheapest possible labor market to cut costs, so they can continue to be rpofitable for a time though the increasingly don't invest in developing new and innovative products.
The conclusion of the story. In many mature industries the U.S. has ceased to be a free market economy. Free enterprise wasn't a victim of government regulation or Socialism. It was the victim of a few giant companies that came to dominate each market, and now use armies of lawyers and lobbies to destroy competition. American corporations in particular are starting to atrophy and can't compete on a global stage against companies who are really innovating and doing real R&D. John McCain recently pointed out how sad it is that innovative technology like hybrid vehicles is all happening in Japan and not Detroit(who are instead just licensing Japanese technology). Detroit in particular has a long history of innovating only when they are compelled to. American companies no longer compete through innovation, they only vie to protect their position with lawyers and lobbyists.
You can still have stellar new companies like Google but its typicaly only in very new markets with no entrenched players. The only counterpoint I can think of at the moment is in the airlines. The totally corrupt big three have been virtually destroyed by new competitors like Southwest who observed U.S. airlines were brutually inefficient and not providing the service people wanted, and created a new lean economic model and managed to succeed in spite of the entrenched position of the big three, and frequent government subsidies which keep them afloat.
Re:Hollywood Always Fights, Then Accepts and Profi (Score:2)
Now comes the internet. As usual, Hollywood is resisting this new technology and are saying what they usually say: it will cost them money. However, if history serves as a guide, they will eventually master this medium too and make money because of it.
What are you saying here? That Hollywood should control the Internet as they would
Re:Hollywood Always Fights, Then Accepts and Profi (Score:2, Interesting)
Well put. I think you're absolutely right. The record labels could make considerably greater profits if they were less obsessed about piracy and more open to inventive new business models, even if they are "leaky" as the iTunes model. Same for Hollywood, with its crippled Movielink and CinemaNow services.
Great way to promote this book would be... (Score:5, Interesting)
MPAA exec 1: Let's put GPS chips in all computers so were can track if they are playing their (well really ours ) DVDs. If they don't play it in the right region, be know the exact location and can order congress to bomb it.
RIAA exec 1: Well GPS isn't selling albums right now, they can't even break into the top 100...all because of piracy. The CD has 3 songs on it and at $18.00 with our "shifty" copy protection we should be making billions. Instead some kid holds down the shift key when he played it on his PC and now it's all over the internet. We only sold one copy because of this.
RIAA exec 2: I think he meant those tracking thingies, not the group.
RIAA exec 1: Have you even heard of GPS...they are the bomb, here, I just got their album torrent from suprnova.
MPAA exec 1: dumbasses
Closing: It wouldn't be so funny if it wasn't true
Remix culture isn't the big benefit (Score:4, Interesting)
I beg to differ with Lessig and the rest on the benefits of public domain. Let me suggest to you the biggest benefit is not some vague cultural gain when an item goes into public domain. The big benefit is MORE JOBS MAKING NEW STUFF.
How much public domain stuff is on television, radio, books? Almost none. It doesn't make sense to promote a public domain work because anyone could come along and release the same item, leeching off your marketing and undercutting you on price.
So public domain works are available to use, but not worth marketing because you can't get an exclusive on them.
Now consider the other extreme: infinite copyright & perfect DRM. Sony/BMG/Vivendi etc. simply sells music recorded centuries earlier by long dead musicians, endless re-releases from one generation to the next. For the next gazillion years. No work is done, computers send out the files, and take the money -> no jobs.
You have to let works expire into the public domain (free from DRM) to force companies to make new stuff because 'new stuff' = jobs.
Re:Remix culture isn't the big benefit (Score:3, Insightful)
I can buy plenty of "books" by one William Shakesphere, and nothing he wrote was ever protected by copyright in the US. My King James Bible is public domain too. Sure anyone can copy those books, but the effort of doing so makes it not worth while.
As for television, why do they care that I can copy it? They get their money from advertisements. It wouldn't be hard to show a film from 1919 on TV. (Well if they can find a copy - back in the days they burned the old films after the theater was done with
Re:Remix culture isn't the big benefit (Score:2)
Agreed. But what about (for example) Neal Stephenson's work in another 100 years or so? Will today's stuff ever enter the public domain? If the media cartels have anything to say about it, my guess would be "no". These corporations want to lock up our culture a
Berne Convention prohibits formalities (Score:2)
Quick solution; require IP to be registered annually - for a fee. If the IP is truly valuable ,(from a commercial standpoint), the fees will be paid. If not, the works revert to the PD.
I agree that a copyright that is not blanket-licensed in some fashion should be taxed like land, but how would that be compatible with international treaties that require governments to recognize foreign authors' copyrights without any formalities?
Re:Remix culture isn't the big benefit (Score:2)
Then, all P2P protocols will be henceforth known as "The Spirit of Xenu".
What's so great about jobs? (Score:2)
Destroying an asset (by asset, I mean copyright's government-created monopoly, not the copyrighted work itself) for the purpose of creating jobs, is a bad idea. If you were to generalize that thinking, then suddenly it becomes a great idea to nuke cities (or use your diabolical weather-control machine to conjure hurricanes) for the purpose
Re:What's so great about jobs? (Score:2)
I would believe this, except that I don't. By the same logic, BSD style open source software obviously doesn't exist since no one in their right mind would ever release code of marketable value to the public at no charge.
Here's a newsflash: almost all songwriters, performing musicians, playwrites, novelists, painters, photographers and software authors release at least a portion
Software != entertainment (Score:2)
By the same logic, <sarcasm>BSD style open source software obviously doesn't exist since no one in their right mind would ever release code of marketable value to the public at no charge.</sarcasm>
Your logic may hold in the field of infrastructural computer programs, which are often not appreciated by residential users, but where is the BSD style open source music? Where are the BSD style open source movies?
Re:What's so great about jobs? (Score:4, Interesting)
We don't just give creators a temporary monopoly, we (meaning taxpayers) pay the costs of enforcing a temporary monopoly, especially now that many copyright violations are criminalized.
This is one reason our greatly lengthened copyright law is a bad thing.
1. Works typically bring in most of their money in the first few years. The benefit to the author usually declines as the works age.
2. Costs to enforce go up with age, and often go up non-linearly. When you have to start researching what company sold what rights to whom, 40 and 50 and sometimes 80 years ago, and when a work has passed through, say, 5 or 6 now defunct company's hands, proving who has infringed on just what becomes very expensive.
Repeatedly scaling up costs to get repeatedly decreasing benefits is a stupid solution at best to just about any problem.
perfect DRM + limited copyright (Score:2)
I work for a DRM company, so I know how simple this would be to implement. I don't have any personal problems with using DRM for business system
Re:Remix culture isn't the big benefit (Score:2)
Haven't you heard the Madonna remix of American Pie? It's the fashizzle!!!
*smash*
Hey...who are you and what are you doing with that gun?
*BLAM* *ka-thud-thud*
~X~
A *real* call to action (Score:4, Interesting)
It's said that a handwritten letter gets more attention, as it clearly conveys the time and effort the sender put into it. Well, purchasing a book and sending it takes not only time, but money as well, and will get attention.
We have to make sure that Congress understands the truth of what's going on.
This no doubt will make many in Hollywood unhappy (Score:3, Interesting)
If they want a protected file format, let them create a digital format of their own. Let them try to sell it and watch the public refuse to adopt it. Will they? No. More likely insist on crippling current industry standards and equipment to suit their paranoia.
It's been said before but bears repeating. This isn't about reality. Logically they know every copied file is not a loss of money as most people would not have spent their money on it in the first place because most of what is being traded is craptastic fluff to distract them from their lives.
As long as they can keep repeating their lie long and loud enough however, they know the short attention span and lack of dedication to careful thought on the part of their audience will let it essentially become the truth and allow them the coveted mantle of victimhood.
The people who resisted the VCR for the surface reason that it would result in piracy and financial loss but in reality did so because they feared having to meet a new standard in product quality to avoid their materials being rejected at the theater and sent straight to video with lower immediate proceeds are not victims.
I must get around to buying this book for the amusement.
Is "Big Brother" dying or just being born? (Score:2, Interesting)
I think the end of the drama is written upon the wall. The digitally connected masses will soon remove the mass from media. Here's why:
1. The balance of power has already shifted to the masses in a sort of first mover advantage. The backlash coming from the entertainment industry is reflexive. It happens *after* networked mobs creatively, unexpected
Can you say Johnny Mnemonic? (Score:2)
Its __all__ been done before. (And people ask me why I read sci-fi...
The only way to transport information safely is to NOT broadcast it. Bit of a problem for a media company since it has to let you in on the 'secret' if it wants to see any money.
Re:nice (Score:2, Funny)
Actually some of us pay attention to both (Score:4, Informative)
I also see where DRM can be a backdoor for corporate and government thieves to sneak in and steal a huge portion of even more important civil rights.
Check out Richard Stallman's "The Right to Read":
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html [gnu.org]
Re:Actually some of us pay attention to both (Score:2)
Re:Actually some of us pay attention to both (Score:2, Insightful)
a) a war based on untrue premises (long standing claims of the existence of WMD's, which turned out to be untrue)
b) a war not based on the defense of our nation from an imminent threat
c) a war that is not approved by the UN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Ir
Re:Actually some of us pay attention to both (Score:2, Funny)
Re:nice (Score:3, Informative)
View it this way. If people can't fight for the "little things", what makes you think they can fight for the big things?
Tell me, if someone's getting robbed, is he supposed to stay quiet just because people are getting killed in Iraq?
And FYI, we DID have stories on Iraq [slashdot.org] here on Slashd
Re:nice (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:nice (Score:2)
The MPAA/RIAA is a group of people abusing the laws and the legislature to maintain an obsolete business model. Wheras Saddam is a Dorito eating, kindly old man who kind of / sort of murdered a few hundred thousand people. Obviously the MPAA/RIAA is evil, and Saddam is merely misunderstood.
After all... (Score:3, Insightful)
Presumably both issues deserve some attention.
Re:nice (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:nice (Score:2)
Re:nice (Score:4, Insightful)
Can you justify to me why we're *not* currently enmasse in Sudan stopping what is clearly a genocide in progress?
Afghanistan had at least legitmate reasons for being attacked, but Iraq? no there are no legitmate reasons for the war we are currently in there. Are those purple fingered Iraqi's better off? time will tell but most likely yes. That does not JUSTIFY the invasion of a sovereign(sp?) nation that wasn't attacking anyone else at the time.
Re:nice (Score:2)
> stopping what is clearly a genocide in progress?
Iraq was a confluence of 'doing the right thing' in the abstract and acting in our own naked self interest. I.e. post 9/11 Bush (For the record, rightly in my view. Not that it matters all that much as it was his call to make.) decided that as a matter of US policy we needed to topple the despots ruling the Middle East and Saddam was the obvious place to begin.
What is happening in the
Re:nice (Score:2)
You say we have to fix the Middle East. Why not Saudia Arabia? It's in the Middle East, and it is a corrupt kingdom. North Korea also can't be ignored. Oh, and Putin in Russia sure isn't an upstanding member of the democratic club. Hell, China isn't either (look at what they are doing to Tibet). Ok, how about Cuba?
Taking out those countries is
Re:nice (Score:2)
No. What he's saying is that we should be doing something in Sudan, but the UN's response proves that the UN is worse than useless and we might as well close it down.
You say we have to fix the Middle East. Why not Saudia Arabia?
The Saudis are completely corrupt and oppressive, but not as brutal as Saddam. So they'll have to wait their tur
Re:nice (Score:2)
> Because that's the UN's problem? And the UN is bad, so we don't have to
> do anything in Sudan?
No, I say we probably should be doing something even if we have to flout yet another attempt by the UN to prevent it. But the hard reality is after almost a decade of downsizing our military capability, Afganistan and Iraq are pretty much the limit of American power. Others, who by virtue of their refusal to assist in Iraq, DO ha
Speaking of Sudan...a bit OT (Score:2)
Sudan has also joined with Rwanda, Cuba, Libya and other fine examples of human dignity to form a UN Small Arms Conference in NYC in summer 2006 with the aim of getting civilian handguns banned....worldwide. US included.
So, in addition to the the US ignoring the genocide in Sudan, we're about to let them tell us we
Re:nice (Score:4, Informative)
Re:nice (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is that you can't look at Iraq in a nutshell, it affects just about every other issue we face.
As you said we have other problems to deal with and didn't need this one right now. But because of this overextension of ourselves, we aren't able to contain North Korea, we aren't able to contain Iran, we aren't able to do much of what we'd like globally because now everybody is against us.
Long term this is a bad thing, not removing Saddam, but doing it WITHOUT the
Re:nice (Score:2)
Stop being a consumer and there will be peace on Earth. Really people. Who cares if Hollywood owns the crap they spew onto DvD or you do? Just don't buy it. Don't buy it, don't pirate it.
It is like watching two children fighting over a turd.
One kid screams, "But I am the one that shit it! It is mine! You can only have it if you give me your candy!"
The other kid screams in response, "But you are not even playing wi
Re:nice (Score:2)
What if I want to be a producer? Will I have to play by the {MP,RI}AA rules? Believe me, the *AA would very much like to have a lock on the media production, too.
DRM is bad for everyone. The first battle the DRM supporters will fight is against the consumers. The producers know too much. If the DRM camel can get its nose into the consumers' end of the tent, it won't matter how tightly the producers have sealed their end.
Re:nice (Score:2)
Let me clarify the issue. Hollywood and the RIAA are shitting out entertainment products and selling them to you. When they sell these products they do so with stipulations as to how you can and can not use the products. Further, they are taking legal action to prevent people from using the products they own in ways that they have not sanctioned.
Now we come to the crux of the problem.
Re:"Hollywoods", dear editors? (Score:5, Funny)
There's also Bollywood (Score:2)
Just as there are several Internets [wikipedia.org] (Internet, Abilene/I2, and private internets under RFC 1918), there are six Hollywoods (Warner, Disney, Sony, Universal, Fox, and Paramount), not to mention Bollywood [wikipedia.org] (Mumbai motion picture industry).
Re:Mainstream. Hmmm... (Score:2)
"Expect it to become a best-seller."
Probably not. Best sellers are usually receive a marketing push by the media, which is controlled by...
Re:Support Fair Use! (Score:2, Informative)
The statue of David, for example, was comissioned by the Wool Guild.
Mozart made good sums for many of his works, but spent much of it living a foolish and extravagent lifestyle. He still did not die penniless as the romantic retards like to believe, but still had a court appointment and was receiving comissions from all over Europe.
Re:Support Fair Use! (Score:2)
You are missing the point though.
You're suggesting that Lessig et al are a bunch of "we want free stuff" whiners. This isn't about free stuff. Its about having stuff stolen from us.
In other words: No one is making the claim that information was historically 100% free. The claim that is being made is that our freedoms are *decreasing*
For example:
The copyright on a recorded work used to last only a couple decades before it reverted to
B as in B. S as in S. (Score:3, Insightful)
What an f'ed up definition of "fair use". Fair use is media backup or transfer once you have paid for the original media presentation of a work.
The war on corporate greed (RIAA etc) will not end until artists come to realize that it is wrong to gouge money out of people just for appreciating a creative work.
Artists have always either been commissioned for works, or charged for uncommisioned wo
Re:Support Fair Use! (Score:2, Informative)
OTOH, claiming that fair use allows unfettered access to creative works with the excuse that "True art comes from creative desire, not the profit motive" strikes me as equally fallacious.
But Big Al B is also incorrect when he writes, "Fair use is media backup or
Re:I'm not sure... wait... yes. (Score:2)