Do you have what it takes to stay and watch the credits when a movie ends?

There are two kinds of people in the world. 1) Those who leave the movie theatre when the credits start to roll and 2) those who stick around to actually read the credits. Obviously, I’m part of the latter group.

It all started for me circa 1985 when the 1982 comedy The Toy constantly aired during a free trial period of HBO. I loved that movie, without good reason. All I remember about it now is that at the end a kid shoots a guy in the forehead with a suction-cup dart gun. And that’s the end of the movie.

Then the credits roll. At the very end, the last thing to rise up on the screen was the symbol for The Motion Picture Association of America. At that point, I would scream with excitement, “Ball, ball, ball, ball!…”

I think the reason I was so ecstatic was because it reminded me of one of the enemies from an Atari game I played all the time. And that taught me to stay tuned to watch the credits at the end of movies. To see The Ball. At some point, my motivation stopped being to see The Ball and instead to find out actors’ names and the location of filming.

It’s always interesting to see when a movie is filmed somewhere other than Los Angeles or New York.

Plus, there’s always a possibility of a hidden scene after the credits- most perfectly executed in Napoleon Dynamite.

[The First Part of this series was <<A: Open Source. The second installment of the Stop Usage Based Billing alphabet series was <<B: Packets and the Internet. The third installment was <a href="<<C: Deep Packet Inspection, and the final installment will be E: Open Source Deep Packet Inspection]

What is BitTorrent Anyway??

“BitTorrent is a peer-to-peer file sharing protocol used for distributing large amounts of data. BitTorrent is one of the most common protocols for transferring large files, and it has been estimated that it accounts for approximately 27-55% of all Internet traffic (depending on geographical location) as of February 2009.”

– Wikipedia on BitTorrent

BitTorrent is an extremely fast and efficient means of uploading and downloading. BitTorrent is an excellent way to distribute large materials to many people via the internet.

Radical Ideas

Like so many of the radical new ways to do things that technology and the internet have made possible, BitTorrent can only work through co-operation. BitTorrent requires a network of “peers”, or other people’s computers who are willing to share the file. This is referred to as “peer to peer” or “p2p.

If I have a large file I want to transfer, the first step is to “seed” the file, transferring portions of the file to multiple members of the p2p network.

Diagram 1: Seeding

It only takes a small fraction of the file to be passed along before the process speeds up enormously.

Diagram 2: Seeding and Sharing

Once I have a small portion, i pass it along at the same time as I’m receiving new bits of the same file, either from the original seed source of another peer.

Diagram 3: Upload + Download = Speed

With many participants (peers) uploading and downloading at the same time, large files can be distributed very quickly indeed.

Diagram 4: Finish Fast

Bell Canada “Throttles” BitTorrent

Bell Canada

When Bell Canada was first caught “throttling” internet traffic to the Independent ISP customers, Bell Canada’s justification to the CRTC was that the internet was too crowded, and that it was necessary to “manage” the traffic. Bell claimed that they needed to employ Deep Packet Inspection to identify BitTorrent Traffic so that they can “throttle” it.

Mandate:
“The CRTC’s mandate is to ensure that both the broadcasting and telecommunications systems serve the Canadian public. ”

—CRTC Role, CRTC Website

Amazingly, the CRTC had nothing to say about Bell Canada’s plans to discriminate against particular Canadian internet users.

The CRTC has accepted Bell’s unsubstantiated contention that this discrimination was necessary, and in approving it they have allowed Bell Canada to think that this discrimination is acceptable. In no way does this serve the Canadian public.

You might almost think that the CRTC mandate was to suppress Canadian creativity and the creation of Canadian movies and music. The availability of the technologies that exist to make it easy to create our own movies and music should be welcomed as an opportunity to add to and help grow our Canadian Culture.

Why single out BitTorrent traffic for throttling if it is an efficient use of the available bandwidth?

One of Bell Canada’s arguments for implementation of Usage Based Billing is that Canadian internet bandwidth is in short supply, making it necessary for them to “manage” bandwidth by penalizing heavy users.

So how could anything as efficient as BitTorrent possibly be seen as a bad thing if the Internet is so crowded?

It doesn’t make sense to discriminate against BitTorrent use. There is nothing inherently bad about BitTorrent use or BitTorrent internet traffic. But Bell Canada’s contention is that BitTorrent is bad because people use it to download movies and music.

Which begs the question: how does that make BitTorrent bad?

The Copyright Red Herring

The “Copyright Lobby”, which consists of large media producers and distributors (like Disney), and corporations and organizations (like MPAA), who distribute commercial movies and music, want us to believe that this is a bad thing.

This corporate special interest group has spent a great deal of time, energy and cash trying to promote the “pravda” that any digital copying of copyright works is bad. Making no distinction between commercial bootleggers who distribute illegal copies for profit and legal purchasers who seek to make a back-up copy or digital format shift for personal use, the Copyright Lobby has been pressuring governments the world over to criminalize personal use copying.

The problem for ordinary citizens is that these corporate interests have vast quantities of money to spend and a great deal of media power. This makes it incredibly difficult for governments to stand up to their onslaught. In some parts of the world this persistent advocacy has paid off for the Copyright Lobby, as lawmakers knuckle under and legislate to the detriment of their own citizens by making it illegal even to copy or download movies or music for personal use.

Here in Canada the Copyright Lobby is seeking to influence our lawmakers to criminalize personal use copying. They are trying to make Canadians think that people who make copies for personal use are performing criminal acts, and should be penalized the same as a a bootlegger who films the latest theatrical release off a theatre screen and proceeds to sell hundreds of thousands of bootleg DVDs.

Once again, Channel Four’s hilarious I.T. Crowd puts this question in perspective with this send-up of a video piracy commercial I found on YouTube.

Strong and free?

Canadian Law says

RIGHT NOW, in Canada, personal use copying is simply not illegal.

RIGHT NOW, in Canada, use of the BitTorrent file transfer protocol is also perfectly legal.

RIGHT NOW, in Canada, peer to peer (p2p) file sharing is legal; Canadians break no laws simply by joining in a p2p network.

The Copyright Lobby’s smear tactics have gone a long way toward making the world believe that BitTorrent is inherently bad.

Bell Canada has convinced the CRTC that it is acceptable to “throttle” BitTorrent, because of BitTorrent’s reputed connection with possible copyright infringement. So although BitTorrent is perfectly legal, Canadian internet users are paying the price for the success of this Copyright Lobby propaganda.

Myth: All BitTorrent/p2p internet traffic consists of copyright movies and music

The Corporate world doesn’t understand radical ideas like Open Source software and p2p file sharing because these concepts are so different from anything appearing in the old business models. Even more incomprehensible to the outdated business models is the fact that it may or may not generate a direct monetary profit.

The classic example of corporate myopia is:

“I think there is a world market for maybe five computers. ”

—attributed to Thomas J. Watson, president of International Business Machines, circa 1943

For many years IBM has taken the rap for this quote whether or not Mr. Watson really did say it. (Most likely not.) Maybe proving it wrong is part of why IBM is such a going concern in the 21st Century. Having weathered the storms of fortune today’s IBM is a world leader by continuing to innovate and adapt alongside evolving attitudes and technologies. IBM has been steadily increasing their participation and involvement with Open Source software in this new century.

The reality is that IBM not only understands the importance of open source, the corporation has actively supported and promoted adoption of Linux and Open Office in the corporate world. And naturally BitTorrent is a part of the equation because it is such an efficient means to distribute large files (like for instance, Canonical’s Ubuntu.)

“Think.”

—Thomas J. Watson, president of International Business Machines

Seems IBM actually does heed their most enduring slogan (which definitely was coined by Mr. Watson). Sadly, this type of foresight is uncommon. Because BitTorrent is such a radical idea, most entrenched corporations simply aren’t capable of understanding it.

There are other uses for BitTorrent that are not only legal, but even perfectly acceptable in polite society.

Probably my favorite use of BitTorrent is the amazing Project Gutenberg. This organization has been digitizing books in the public domain and distributing them freely… via BitTorrent, since this is such an efficient method of digital distribution. After all, BitTorrent is used for transferring very large files like music and movies because it is very efficient.

BitTorrent file sharing is not all movies and music. Like IBM, many people actually use p2p to help distribute open source software like OpenOffice via p2p. There is a growing body of open source software available, for instance my favorite web browser is Mozilla’s Firefox.

In fact, there the awesome SourceForge website which provides a place to find all manner of open source software, or where you can release your own.

When a new distribution of Ubuntu is released, people around the world gather together and have Ubuntu Release Parties making more good use of BitTorrent

And of course the Pirate Party of Canada has established Captain: the Canadian Pirate Tracker, their own BitTorrent site where Recording Artists and Filmmakers (and I imagine novelists, and software creators as well would be welcome to utilize this) to freely distribute their work.

Every bit of music and every movie transferred is not a copyright infringement. If I get to the point where my home made movies may prove marketable, I would certainly be looking at BitTorrent Distribution. In fact it would probably be easier to distribute home movies to family via BitTorrent than it would be to try to burn DVDs. (DRM makes the two commercial movie making software packages I’ve purchased almost unusable. Of course it doesn’t slow down the bootleggers.) If YouTube is an indicator, I’m not the only person who wants to transfer music and movies freely … not as copyright infringements. I have paid levies to the music industry for home movies I have made and burrned to CD for distribution to friends and family. If I choose to transfer them via BitTorrent now I can avoid the levy but instead suffer the added expense of Bell Canada’s deliberate throttling inflation?

Another really good legal use of BitTorrents are the actual commercial websites where people can go to to purchase downloads of music. So far no one seems to have found anything wrong with this practice.

But that’s not all. Canada’s own CBC Television Network tried their own experiment by releasing an episode of their program Canada’s Next Great Prime Minister via BitTorrent. Unfortunately the BitTorrent didn’t work so well because of Bell Canada’s CRTC approved BitTorrent “throttling”.

Geist tweets about the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation

Which is not to say it wasn’t a good idea. Not too long ago Michael Geist tweeted about the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation’s foray into BitTorrent use. All accounts indicate that their experiment was very successful indeed, which is having a big impact in the way they do business.

Ink Poster

The sad tale of a pirated Independent film can be found in this TorrentFreak article Indie Movie Explodes on BitTorrent, Makers Bless Piracy.

I guess it isn’t such a sad story after all.  

Thanks to piracy this Indie film called INK was has been achieving a distribution level that the filmmakers had never dreamed of.  They are of course extraordinarily pleased.

I think what is being called piracy here is BitTorrent p2p personal use sharing. Friends sharing with friends is one of the most effective ways to achieve recognition. They used to call it a “grass roots” movement. This is one of the major issues for the large movie studios. This is the place where they complain of being ripped off. What they don’t seem to realize is that this is a good thing. Exposure garners fans, makes a “name”. Fans buy stuff.

BitTorrent Traffic is not the only thing Bell Canada is Throttling

Rumour has it that there are people who actually work from home.

Time was the government encouraged the idea of people working from home. There are all sorts of advantages to society, like reduced congestion on actual highways, less wear and tear on our roads, a decrease in commuting based pollutants in our environment, a reduction of human depletion of fossil fuels.

But if you work from home, you are probably going to have to transfer files back and forth between your home and workplace. Chances are good that you are going to encrypt this type of traffic for security reasons. Although Bell Canada says they are only “throttling” BitTorrent traffic, in fact there have been instances of Bell throttling encrypted internet traffic on the assumption that if it’s encrypted, it must be BitTorrent traffic.

Bell places the onus on the customer to prove their “innocence” before they will consider stopping throttling.

Since the CRTC gave Bell Canada permission to use Deep Packet Inspection to inspect our packets, the only way to ensure that our private information remains private is through encryption. And in Canada any encrypted internet traffic will most likely to be throttled.

Canadian Copyright Consultation

The Canadian Government is looking at updating Canadian copyright law. They held a copyright consultation process this year, traveling around Canada soliciting opinions of stakeholders. Even better, they set up a website where they accepted submissions from any Canadian who wished to contribute. This website was flooded with thousands of submissions. Some are simply a few lines, some are extensive essays covering all sorts of topics, but all I’ve read are heartfelt. Because of the overwhelming response it took a long time to get all the submissions posted. (My own submission finally made online.)

This process led a lot of Canadians, including me, to believe that the copycon process might actually mean that our elected representatives were listening to us.

Unfortunately there is currently a lot of pressure on our government to make copying movies, software and music for personal use illegal. The secret ACTA meetings have caused a feeling of dread to settle over most Canadians. There has been deprecating talk about weak Canadian copyright law.

Except it isn’t true.

If anything, Canadian copyright law is probably more robust than is good for us.

The essential problem that the copyright lobby is attempting to overcome the problem of suing their own customers for what they imagine are infringements. They have noticed that fighting personal use copying garners bad publicity. This problem can be neatly solved by passing the responsibility for finding and prosecuting copyright infringement to governments. And of course the only was to get government to take ob the responsibility is to convince them that the copyright infringement is a criminal offense.

Regardless, currently copyright law is imprecise as regards personal use copying. So we’ll just have to wait for an actual law to be passed before it becomes illegal. (This pressure is actually largely from foreign owned interests– like Disney. It will be interesting to see if our government caves to this outside pressure.)

mixed messages

The government mandated levy we pay every time we purchase a blank CD is a tacit governmental admission that it is legal to burn CDs of our own music.

In the pre-Tivo era, Canadian cable networks actively encouraged Canadians to videotape the movies that they showed so we could watch them when it was convenient. They called it “time shifting” in their massive advertising campaigns. But no media giants took our cable companies to court back then. For the same reason artists will lend or give away their work for free when they’re starting out (because they need to build and audience– exactly like the INK producers mentioned above), back then even Disney didn’t have a channel in Canada. So Disney didn’t kick up a fuss even though they had to have known this was happening. They let it go because it was in their best interests to allow time shifting (i.e personal use copying). Disney knew this was in their best interests because it would help the Canadian cable companies build their market.

Of course now Disney doesn’t want us to record their movies for personal use. Disney would be happy if our government decided personal use copying was illegal. They would be happier still if our government spent time and energy searching out and charging people who download Disney movies.

Disney would be happy they no longer had to expend time and energy chasing down copyright infringements. They would be ecstatic if our Mounties were to do it for them. Gratis.

But this precedent indicates copying movies for personal use is also legal in Canada

So even though p2p networks or copying movies and music are not actually illegal in Canada, our friends the CRTC gave Bell Canada permission to “throttle” anyone using BitTorrent transfers. Because the assumption is that even if you’re not technically performing criminal acts, per se, anyone who uses BitTorrent can’t be very nice.

The CRTC, the government body that is supposed to safeguard Canadian telecommunication consumers, gave Bell Canada legal permission to mess with BitTorrent traffic. Its discriminatory for one thing. If there are copyright infringements happening, there are laws to handle them. It isn’t any of Bell Canada’s business. Or the CRTC’s.

[More on copyright in my other blog-- in the wind: Personal Use Copying vs. Bootlegging]

Dudley Do-Right?

Eirik Solheim's metaphorical image of the internet is the best I've seen: The internet is a series of tubes

Even if it were true that Canadian consumers were downloading music or movies, and even if it had been made illegal under Canadian Law, it should not make a whit of difference.

Because Internet Service Providers or Internet Carriers are NOT branches of Canadian law enforcement. They have not been deputized to enforce the law by the RCMP. If Bell Canada was in fact a Law Enforcement entity they would not be allowed to peek in any citizen’s packets without first acquiring a search warrant. Corporations don’t exist to uphold laws, they exist to make money.

The internet has been called dumb pipes, or a series of tubes, or a highway. It doesn’t really matter what you call it, what is most important is access for all.  
The people who control the pipes should not be allowed to discriminate against particular users for ANY reason. Net Neutrality is so important: the internet should be accessible to all.

revolutionary ideas

In the United Kingdom The Times Online Do music artists fare better in a world with illegal file-sharing? article looked at the benefits of personal use copying applied as peer to peer file sharing with some dramatic results.

Canada’s own ThisMagazine presented this thought provoking article Pay indie artists and break the music monopoly — Legalize Music Piracy which advocates making the law serve the artists and consumers rather than just the corporations.

Further rumblings about changing the way we look at this issue were reported recently by the The Globe and Mail blogs article NDP, Billy Bragg make case for free music

STOP Usage Based Billing

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) has announced the first change in the system used to rate movies since ‘X’ became ‘NC-17’.

Effective with movies released after the first of next year, the rating system will be based on the Intelligence Quotient (IQ). The ratings board will determine the IQ level required to actually enjoy a particular movie.

The new ratings classifications will be

• Superior
• Above Average
• Average
• Below Average
• Borderline
• Defective

Spokesperson Sapentia Caput gave some examples of how the new ratings system would be applied to current movies.

“Julie & Julia would be rated Above Average, Ninja Assassin would be Below Average, while Land of the Lost, Year One, and Bruno would be classified as Defective.”

Ms. Caput further explained that the MPAA is considering splitting the Defective classification into Moron, Imbecile and Idiot due to the number of movies in the Defective class. “This breakdown would help consumers choose between Land of the Lost with a Moron rating and Bruno, which is aimed at the Idiot category.”

Copyright 2009 – Upuzi Dot Com

In the news . . .

Wired writer tries to find out if it’s possible to disappear in the digital world.

England’s proposed new copyright laws are extremely controversial.

Insurance company takes away Canadian woman’s long-term sick leave benefit after Facebook photos indicate she wasn’t suffering from depression.

Sony e-Reader attempts to compete with Amazon’s Kindle and Barnes & Noble’s Nook, but appears to be unavailable for holiday season. 

The MPAA aggressively pushes protective legislation.

City of Los Angeles wants $3 million repayment for Michael Jackson memorial.

Barnes & Noble blocks hostile takeover by billionaire Ron Burkle.

During latest off-shore pirate scuffle, soldiers resort to bullets after Long Range Acoustic Device proves ineffective.

TLC seeks Jon Gosselin’s secret, hand-written contract with personal assistant in breach of contract case.

Olympic gold medalist Rashid Ramzi of Bahrain stripped of 1,500 meter title for PED disqualification. Meanwhile, Time.com highlights the top sporting cheats of all time.

FDA approves Pfizer’s updated pneumococcal disease vaccine for children.

The Large Hadron Collider is back online.

American Airlines fires web designer for responding courteously to online complaint.

Sixty-nine-year-old online predator in Wales busted by wife, who posed as minor from computer in next room.

Since 1996, the United States Congress has been attempting and passing laws involving the Internet. The big push is now for “Net Neutrality laws,” may have just gotten a boost thanks to Britain.

Many people believe that the new Internet Law that just passed is bad, very bad. The Digital Economy Bill consists of penalties for people who seem to upset the entertainment industries. They have a “Three Strikes” rule that would allow your entire family to be severed from the internet, if anyone has been accused of copyright infringement…with or WITHOUT proof, evidence, or even trial.

Those people accused of copyright infringement can expect a fine of $82,383.30. It even goes to say that ISP’s are required to monitor and report their customers activities, if they refuse they can expect a fine of $411,916.00.

They even went as far as to state that a single individual would be responsible for making up as many new penalties and enforcement systems that they desire. Peter Mandelson the unelected “Business Secretary,” said that he plans to appoint private “militias,” that are financed by rightholders groups. These militia’s would be capable to spy on your internet use, block websites, remove files, and even kick you off the Internet. The Internet Czar will be able to invent any penalty, even including jail time for any incident that they decided your guilty.

The law doesn’t go to stimulate the digital economy in anyway what so ever. It doesn’t allow/mandate nationwide WiFi or even any fair practices for ISP companys.

The Open Rights Group (a lobbyist organization) released a statement about the new law that just passed and it reads:

“This plan won’t stop copyright infringement and with a simple accusation could see you and your family disconnected from the internet – unable to engage in everyday activities like shopping and socializing,” it said.

Damn You Britain…Damn Yous!

Not the Average Ninja

Most initiatives like this arise from a Howard Beale moment. Appropriately enough for an online venture, ours occurred on Twitter.

A “follow” of our Copycense feed (see @copycense) posted a story on our mutual timelines about the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) shutting down a municipality’s free wireless network based upon an allegation of illegal downloading and distribution of movies. In reading the story, however, several things struck us as odd. First and foremost, we were reasonably confident that there is nothing in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) that seems to sanction disabling of an entire Internet service in the case of alleged or actual illegal downloading, no matter who the purported copyright owner may be. Does the DMCA provide Internet service providers (ISPs) with protection against lawsuits under certain conditions? Yes. But forcing an entire network out of commission? That seemed a stretch.

Another “follow” provided a competing (and seemingly more reliable) story that reported the municipality disabled the network on its own, and the MPAA did not request that the municipality shut down the network. This second story and further research made two things apparent: (a) copyright law had affected the everyday activities of citizens, a municipality, and a newspaper; and (b) the municipality and the newspaper had absolutely no clue about copyright, since the town disabled the network when it didn’t need to, and the newspaper’s reporter totally botched key aspects of the story.

(And don’t blame the reporter from the relatively small newspaper for not knowing any better. I’ve seen reporters from The New York Times routinely report incorrectly on copyright stories as well.)

The bottom line is this: never has copyright law affected so many Americans, yet so few Americans know anything about it. There are several people who routinely and freely discuss copyright law online, including William Patry, Michael Geist, and Ben Sheffner. The information provided through these outlets, however, is for advanced and experienced audiences: lawyers, policy makers, and law professors. There really is no introductory material — online or in text — that allows the average person without legal training to access some basic, unbiased, educational information about the U.S. copyright system.

This publication seeks to fill that void. Core Copyright seeks to make copyright, information policy and related issues clear and understandable to the average citizen creator, be it a 7-year-old making a collage, or a 70-year-old creating needlepoint — all while maintaining high standards of scholarly and journalistic rigor. Core Copyright is a complement to Copycense, our sister publication. Copycense will continue to provide scholarly and editorial at intermediate and advanced levels for lawyers, law students, policy makers, lobbyists, and law professors. In contrast, Core Copyright is for citizens who just want to know more about this thing called copyright.

In other words, to paraphrase Public Enemy’s Chuck D, Copycense serves the bourgeoisie, while Core Copyright appeals to the boulevard.

Copyright once was something that only concerned specialists, entertainment corporations, lobbyists and legislators. Now — with the lower barriers of creative production and distribution wrought by computer power, software packages, and the World Wide Web — copyright arguably is as much a citizen’s issue as a corporate issue. Citizens are copyright stakeholders now, as much as corporate copyright owners have been. Our goal is to help citizens understand and appreciate copyright better than they do now. We look forward to exchanging useful dialogue and learning about copyright, information policy and related matters so that all may “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts” and “secur[e] for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”

Directamente desde Menéame:

“La MPAA (MotionPictureAssociation ofAmerica) consiguió apagar todo el servicio WiFi de una ciudad después de que un usuario (supestamente) usara la conexión para bajarse una película en Coshocton, Estados Unidos. Este tipo de actuaciones (el castigo colectivo) están prohibidos según los convenios de Ginebra (Fuente). “

Digo yo que si sólo fue una descarga, sería fácil identificar al “supuesto infractor” y banear la MAC correspondiente. Claro que es más fácil actuar sin pensar y castigar “preventivamente”.

Les vendredi 4 et samedi 5 décembre 2010, à la Maison des Pratiques Artistiques Amateurs de Paris (MPAA), se tiendra une rencontre entre les milieux hospitalier et culturel.

Organisées par la MPAA et l’association Culture & Hôpital, ces deux journées proposeront diverses activités : tables rondes (Le partage du sensible, Les pratiques amateurs à l’Hôpital et Jeunes talents amateurs à l’hôpital – Des voix, des voies à entendre), concerts amateurs et professionnels, différents « temps artistiques » de théâtre, musique, ainsi que la présentation de travaux réalisés dans les hôpitaux.

Ouvertes à tous, ces deux journées nous sensibilisent à l’importance et la richesse du dialogue entre pratiques artistiques et personnes hospitalisées.

Pour accéder au programme détaillé des deux journées, rendez-vous sur www.culturehopital.org

Infos pratiques :

Vendredi 4 décembre à partir de 19h30 et Samedi 5 décembre, de 10h à 20h30

A l’auditorium Saint-Germain – 4 rue Félibien, 75006 Paris

Informations complémentaires :

• Culture & Hôpital est une association créée en 2003, dont la mission est la création et le développement des réseaux Culture Ville Santé au niveau national. Site internet : www.culturehopital.org

• MPAA est un établissement culturel de la ville de Paris agit pour développer et valoriser les pratiques artistiques (danse, théâtre, musique) en amateurs. Site internet : www.mpaa.fr

Christelle Quinton

Just when you think that the self-appointed copyright Gestapo can’t sink any lower they kick the old limbo stick down another notch. Now before you jump to the conclusion that I’m one of those “content wants to be free” activists, rest assured that I am not. All of my career has been spent as a code monkey writing software for somebody else (as a “work made for hire” in copyright lingo). And trust me, I’m all about getting paid. Which doesn’t happen if my employer goes broke because their products were pirated. I’m also a musician who composes and records original material. Now my attitude towards copyright protection is quite a bit different with my music because, as Cory Doctorow says in the forward material to his latest book Makers [you can download the e-book  here for free] my problem isn’t piracy, it’s obscurity. But what about that piracy notion? I just said that I won’t get paid if my employer goes broke because their products were pirated. Well guess what? That has never happened. Not to me. Not to anyone. In short, I’m not opposed to copyright or copyright enforcement.

What I am opposed to, and baffled by, is a business model that comes down to “we aren’t selling as much of our stuff as we want, so we will go after people who are pirating it.” The most recent episode in this ridiculous jihad against customers is reported by Cory Doctorow in boingboing.

The MPAA has successfully shut down an entire town’s municipal WiFi because a single user was found to be downloading a copyrighted movie. Rather than being embarrassed by this gross example of collective punishment (a practice outlawed in the Geneva conventions) against Coshocton, OH, the MPAA’s spokeslizard took the opportunity to cry poor (even though the studios are bringing in record box-office and aftermarket receipts).

That’s right, the entire public WiFi net of Coshocton, OH. The same net that is used by Coshocton County Sheriff’s deputies to complete a traffic or incident report without leaving their vehicle. The same net that out-of-town business people can park and use their laptops to make connections. The very same net that during festival times, vendors use to check the status of credit cards being used to make purchases. And the same net that has a single address used by many people, so it’s difficult to tell who made the illegal download (although the county plans to investigate the matter).

Great job MPAA! Way to look out for your own financial interests in blatant disregard for the interests of everyone else. So what exactly have the MPAA clowns (I love Cory’s reference to the MPAA’s spokeslizard) accomplished here. Several things come to mind:

1. Users of Coshocton public WiFi will likely never download another pirated movie again… without going through TOR.
2. Users of Coshocton public WiFi will likely never purchase any movie ever again.

As I said before, I’m not a fan of pirating movies. Quite frankly there is so much stuff legitimately available for free or incredibly cheap that I can’t begin to consume everything I might be interested in. But in addition, I can’t for the life of me see how alienating your customers because somebody downloaded a movie and allegedly deprived you of $10 or less (assuming of course that the perp would have actually paid for it anyway) makes any sense at all. What I can say is that cheesy stunts like this almost make me want to fire up bit torrent and snag some episodes of Desperate Housewives. Just on principle. That and I’ve never seen Desperate Housewives. But I can get it from Netflix way easier. And I don’t have to use TOR. But believe me, I’m not going to purchase any movie or TV show. Not now. Not ever.

The citizens of Coshocton, Ohio are without their free Internet after a single download prompted the Motion Picture Association of America to shut down the town’s municipal Wi-Fi network.

This is by no means the first time the MPAA has stepped on the little guy in their crusade to eradicate piracy, but it is a particularly egregious instance of it. The free Wi-Fi network in Coshocton, Ohio supported anywhere from "a dozen people a day to 100 during busy times," all of whom are left without Internet after the shut down. As nations like Finland move to make broadband access a legal right, it is unfortunately clear that some powerful people in our country still consider it a privilege and not a necessity.

Let this be a lesson to those who not only enjoy but depend on free Wi-Fi networks. Enjoy it while it lasts, because if Dennis the Menace down the block can’t wait for Transformers 3 to come out on DVD, you might be out a connection. [Via BoingBoing]

I was under the impression that municipal Wi-Fi was a dead idea that municipalities had abandoned a couple of years ago.  Apparently, Coshocton, Ohio didn’t get the memo, because it’s municipal Wi-Fi network has been shut down by the MPAA.

Well, that’s what Gizmodo’s saying, based on a BoingBoing report.  Apparently, the town’s entire network was shut down due to a single user downloading something that was copyrighted.

But really?  How did this happen?  The way things are written, it sounds like the MPAA discovered the illegality and pulled the plug on the network.  Can things actually go that way?  Hmmm… even as powerful as private entities are, surely they don’t have the power to summarily wipe out a public service.  Right?  More digging is necessary!

BoingBoing got the tip from the Coshocton Tribune, which carries a headline: “Illegal Movie Download Forces Shutdown of Free Wi-Fi.”  Apparently what happened is that the ISP (OneCommunity) was notified by Sony Pictures Entertainment that a movie was illegally downloaded over the network.  In turn, the ISP notified the county’s IT Department.  And I guess the IT Department yanked the plug?  It isn’t clear from the article; after explaining the chain of events, it goes into how piracy is bad.  So don’t pirate things, kids, okay?!?!?!

I’m not entirely sure why the decision to pull the plug was made.  ISPs were given safe harbor protections under the DMCA to protect them from the infringing activities of their customers.  (See 17 U.S.C. § 512; see also this Chilling Effects FAQ.)  The requirements for staying in the safe harbor are many, but suffice to say, if the ISP keeps its hands off stuff, then it’s pretty much in the clear. And that means that the town overreacted by pulling the plug, and–based on the scant information I’ve seen on this–I’d say it’s as much to blame as the MPAA is in this situation.

Oh well, I guess that’s why we’re not allowed to have nice things.

With recent numbers in that show a correlation between P2P users purchasing more music & content than people who don’t use P2P. The MPAA in its effort to control how people can view content is still continuing to lobby for the FCC to block analog HD outputs from television sets in an effort to prevent piracy. But is that the real goal? Frankly, there should be no reason that Hollywood should have remote control of how content can be displayed on my television set through what input and what device. SOC would essentially give content producers control over what outputs are available for use during a Video-on-Demand session. The problem with this is Hollywood isn’t in the business of making television sets, they are in the business of producing content.

Historically, every time a new technology has come out, the industry screams bloody murder, quite literally:

“I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.”

-Jack Valenti on a 1982 House hearing on Home Recording of Copyrighted Works

The VCR brought about countless of dollars in revenue for Hollywood and the MPAA members, so why should anybody give up their right to choose how to view content now?
The biggest fear of the major media industries I suspect is the perceived value of product going down immensely. If a complete move to digital distribution happens, which I suspect it will happen in the future, Hollywood is fearful of not being able to control the price, let alone how consumers watch content. Their costs for distribution will have plummeted as a result of digital distribution, but consumers will also expect the savings to be passed on to them.

In reality these efforts are not to hamper piracy, but to increase their control over how their content can be viewed. It is reminiscent of the days of the early movie industry that had studios controlling everything from the studio lots to exhibition venues: theaters. If this is any indication of what the MPAA members are attempting to do, it will not happen.

Amid a series of heart-felt cheery tales of rape, pillage, slavery, gay-hating, and godly vengeance, the Bible specifically stipulates that it is the right of every good Christian to pirate music and movies from the Internet, in its own non-specific interpretive fashion.

Jesus feeds the multitudes.

On two occasions in the Bible, the Lord Jesus Christ feeds crowds of thousands from only a few loaves of bread and a few fish. Though he is encouraged by his disciples to turn the crowds away, Jesus demands that they be fed. However, the disciples and Jesus all knew that they could not afford enough bread and fish to feed crowds in the thousands. It was in this dilemma that Jesus developed the first Peer2Peer network. He sent his disciples to buy what bread and fish they could. As the story goes, Jesus “then [...] took the seven loaves and the fish, and when he had given thanks, he broke them and gave them to the disciples, and they in turn to the people. They all ate and were satisfied.” Jesus purchased the original food and then used his miraculous power to share it with the entire crowd. He did not steal bread or fish from the shopkeeper but simply copied his own and distributed it to the hungry. Had he not done this, no one in the crowd would have eaten, and surely they all would not have had the money to purchase their own food. Had the RIAA existed in biblical times, they would have crucified Christ right then and there, or at least slapped him with millions in fines.

What Jesus did in feeding the multitudes amounts to an early form of file sharing. He purchased original content, duplicated it, and shared it with a crowd of thousands. He did not steal, but used his powers to make copies, just as Internet pirates use their Gates-given powers to copy their files and distribute them over the Internet. Just look at this comparative flow chart:

Click for higher resolution.

It is clear from the comparison of these two events that not only did Jesus commit the Biblical equivalent of file-sharing aka Internet piracy, but also that he would encourage such behavior so that all the world can be happy. In fact, I believe Jesus would offer that it is our moral obligation to download content from the Internet. However, for now, I am a sinner, because Satan’s armies in the RIAA and the MPAA won’t allow me to legally fulfill my Christian obligation.

"FUCK THE RIAA ARGHH"

The ACTA treaty is being negotiated in secret. It stands for “Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement” but that’s just a cover name: it’s really about clamping down on internet freedom.

It’s said that the USA has the best government money can buy, and that’s true; the US government has been well and truely bought and paid for by corporate vested interests such as the RIAA and MPAA. The ACTA treaty is being pushed by US trade negotiators largely at their behest. This, incidently is why ACTA has carried on just the same under the Bush administration and the Obama one — the frontman may be different, but it’s the same corporate interests inside.

Anyway, recently a document leaked from within the EU stating of the USA’s negotiating position on ACTA. (I’ve copied it here). It’s quite a reavealing read, for example:

USTR [The US negotiators] indicated that these internal discussions were sensitive due to different points of view regarding the internet chapter both within the Administration, with Congress and among stakeholders (content providers on one side, supporters of internet “freedom” on the other).

They know what they are doing would cause a shitstorm if it got out, which is why they want to keep it secret. Oh and don’t you love the way they put freedom in scare-quotes?

But this is the section that really lets the cat out of the bag (my emphases):

On the limitations from 3rd party liability: to benefit from safe-harbours, ISPs need to put in place policies to deter unauthorised storage and transmission of IP infringing content (ex: clauses in customers’ contracts allowing, inter alia, a graduated response). From what we understood, the US will not propose that authorities need to create such systems. Instead they require some self-regulation by ISPs.

Unpicking that:

• graduated response: this is the content industries’ name for 3-strikes, their plan to disconnect alleged filesharers from the internet without due process of law
• clauses in customers’ contracts: the purpose of doing it through an ISP’s contrect with thewir customers is so that the internet user has no recourse to law or a fair hearing
• to benefit from safe-harbours: this means if ISPs don’t comply with what the content industries want, they’ll be bankrupted with crippling lawsuits

An excellent example of regulatory capture came up just recently. If you’re not aware, there are ongoing negotiations in Korea over an international copyright treaty known as ACTA (The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement). ACTA is allegedly an international treaty about preventing counterfeit products, and the Obama administration has defended the treaty’s terms as State Secrets. This treaty will be binding on member states that sign it, serving as a kind of meta-legislation. Thus, while United States consumers and likely Congressmen as well, may not know anything about this treaty, they will be bound to its terms.

Here is the shameful part. While American consumers are claimed to have no right to comment or even view the proposed terms, Techdirt claims that U.S. negotiators “have met with entertainment industry representatives multiple times, and there are indications that those representatives have contributed language and ideas to the treaty.” The language of the treaty itself, which has been recently leaked, appears to confirm these suspicions. EFF notes that the treaty allows for ISP’s to take safe harbor from copyright infringement ONLY IF they enact vicious “three strikes” policies that would kick people off of the internet if they violated copyright.

This is troubling for a number of reasons. First, the ACTA treaty represents an intention to bypass the American voter and the American legislature itself in order to force a legal obligation upon citizens. That the current administration is blocking debate on this treaty by claiming it is a state secret is shameful. The hallmark of American lawmaking has always been the freedom to openly debate the merits of the law. The First Amendment itself protects Americans from government restriction of speech. Branding the treaty as a state secret, the administration has hobbled debate on an important issue of American freedoms and enforced a vacuum of knowledge.

The second troubling aspect of ACTA is that it imposes an inexplicably harsh punishment for violation of copyright laws. As we know, the internet is ever-evolving, and always taking a greater role in the lives of people across the word. The internet functions as bank, as telephone, as stationery, as soap-box, and retailer of the world. Thus, its role as a necessity of modern life is unquestionable. Also, copyright violations are usually decided by civil, not criminal lawsuits. Currently, the outright ban of internet access is debated even in criminal cases, which require a much stronger burden of proof. Such bans, even when they are approved, are reserved for the most heinous of criminals, such as child molesters.

Under the ACTA treaty, the Electronic Frontier foundation notes that “ISPs would be required to automatically terminate a customer upon a rightsholders’ repeat allegation of copyright infringement at a particular IP address.” If we recall, the courts are split as to whether internet access should even be banned for heinous criminals. Even when courts conclude that internet access should be banned for an individual, they require that the person be convicted of a crime with evidence that establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. By contrast, ACTA endorses banning internet access when you are merely alleged to infringe a copyright. No proof, whatsoever, is required.

Time to call your congressman.

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the advocacy group Public Knowledge sent tit-for-tat letters to the FCC yesterday over the issue of Selectable Output Control (SOC). The MPAA has petitioned for waiver on the FCC’s ban of SOC, which would allow analog outputs from consumer electronics devices to be disabled, and, by extension, would prevent people from watching certain content unless they had special digital inputs on their TV sets.

The MPAA says that enabling Selectable Output Control would help stem piracy and would allow studios to release movies on VOD sooner after they appear in theaters.

Public Knowledge doesn’t buy that argument and sees the issue as a matter of control over what kind of TV you can use. It sent a letter to FCC Genachowski asking the Commission to deny the MPAA the waiver. Public Knowledge wrote:

[O]ver the past year, the MPAA has failed to provide a reason as to why the limited interests of its six member movie studios should be allowed to outweigh the interests of those consumers that will be forced to replace over 20 million television sets and countless other devices in order to view content that their current equipment is capable of displaying.

In its response, the MPAA sent its own letter (PDF) to the FCC and wrote:

[G]rant of the waiver would for the first time allow millions of consumers to view high- value, high-definition theatrical films during an early release window that is not available today. MPAA has explained that release of this high-value content as part of an earlier window, especially with respect to movies released for home viewing close to or even during their initial theatrical run, necessarily requires the highest level of protection possible through use of SOC.

I am no lawyer, but this has been bugging me for a bit. So, super long post day!

I don’t care what you think about the MPAA, RIAA, Microsoft, Apple or whoever else. This is the same deal as downloading music, movies or software without paying for it. Copyrights, somebody owns them. Music, Movies, Photos, Software are all property of someone. Time and money was spent to create these things and the owner/creator deserves to be paid for their work. Plan and simple: If you do not want to pay for, you’re not allowed to use it. But copyrights are not the problem, I believe it is business models and patents that are the problem, depending on your industry.

It works this way: I retain the rights of ownership over something I create. My field is photography. The problem lies with if I want a photo to be seen, I have to post it somewhere on the internet. I am also risking unauthorized use of the photo. If I don’t want that risk, I shouldn’t post it, but it won’t be seen. If you use a photo I post, say on Flickr, in an advertisement and make money off it, you’re stealing my property for profit. You can certainly buy the photo from me straight up, and I’ll transfer ownership – that can cost a lot of money. You can also certainly license use of the photo for a specific purpose – that won’t cost as much money. If you want to use a photo for some other purpose, you need a new license.

A license is exactly like a driver’s license. It isn’t a right to drive on the road, its allowed under certain terms – no reckless driving, no DUI, drive on the right, etc. If you break the laws, you are risking losing your license. With out a license, you can drive, but its breaking the laws and can find a more sever punishment.

It works that way with music, movies, photos, and software. This is where I will express my opinion. In the case of music and movies, the cartel – yes, I think they are a cartel – has a business model that was effective and functional maybe 10-20 years ago. Technology has changed and created new avenues of distribution. The business model needs to change too. There is nothing wrong with protecting your property. I think there is everything wrong ethically about fighting change, expecting a business model to last forever, and punishing your customers for adapting to new technology. I’m looking at you RIAA and MPAA. The questions are; Why do I have to wait 8 days to watch the episode of House I missed, because I have things to do Monday Nights at 8? Why do I have to purchase the HBO channel simply to watch one tv series? Why is it impossible to watch a 30s clip of Damon stealing both 2nd and 3rd? I did finally find the Damon video, after MLB had it pulled everywhere else off the internet except their own page, but even still it wasn’t what I was looking for. It was another video elsewhere on their site, way too hard to find. I understand advertising, and pay-per-view/premium channels, but I am watching advertisements on Hulu too! I am willing to watch a couple more, so both Hulu and the network receive some money for me watching. No one has asked me yet. With HBO, why not embrace iTunes or Amazon so I can buy that one show I really want to watch. Frankly, I’m not interested in any other show, so the whole channel isn’t worth the money.

The Apple v Psystar thing is a whole different story. Apple isn’t dictating to hackers – in the proper context of enthusiasts who use their own time to mess with things – what they can and cannot do with their software. Though you are breaking the terms by installing OS X on whatever you want, you’re also most likely not making profit through selling unauthorized creations. This is what the case is all about, Psystar selling unauthorized clones of Apple products. Do not throw in the argument about Apple going after the little guy, because they are not. You know why? Because magically, recent builds of OS X have included support for random, non-Apple hardware, like touchpads, wireless cards, and even processors.  Yes, Apple did allow other companies to sell authorized products that ran Apple OS, but that was in the past, was a mistake, almost killed the company, and Apple learned their lesson. They have developed a stable product under a semi-controlled environment where Apple knows the hardware. In allowing anyone to use any hardware they want to install OS X, requires apple to support any hardware, and thus reduce the stability of their product. Apple also doesn’t want to repeat the mistake of years ago. Let me use part of a discussion on Slashdot about Apple V Psystar. A user responded to something I said:

You are not buying the operating system, you are buying a license to use the operating system as laid out by a contract you sign during installation.

I am buying an authorized copy of the operating sytem. No different than a book or CD. Once I’ve bought that authorized copy. That authorized copy is mine to make USE of as I see fit. Provided I don’t make and distribute additional copies.

Or at least it SHOULD be, and i will defy anyone who attempts to prevent me.

And the copies from installation disk to hard drive to ram to l2 cache to l1 cache, to swap file, that are made in the course of USING it? Those are specifically allowed by copyright law AND common sense. And while apple can argue and perhaps even prevail in a court of law, I don’t consider it wrong, I will continue doing it, and I will work to fix that law.

This person might be a person who would drive with out a license because they feel entitled to use the roads. Analogizing computers to anything else is terrible, but its somewhat of a connection for those who don’t understand. What he thinks is that by buying a copy off the shelf, he is in fact buying a direct copy for him to do as he pleases. It doesn’t work this way. The only way for Apple to be able to develop terms of contract is through an End User License Agreement. There is where they state:

1. General. The Apple software (including Boot ROM code), any third party software, documentation, interfaces, content, fonts and any data accompanying this License whether preinstalled on Apple-branded hardware, on disk, in read only memory, on any other media or in any other form (collectively the “Apple Software”) are licensed, not sold, to you by Apple Inc. (“Apple”) for use only under the terms of this License. Apple and/or Apple’s licensors retain ownership of the Apple Software itself and reserve all rights not expressly granted to you. The terms of this License will govern any software upgrades provided by Apple that replace and/or supplement the original Apple Software product, unless such upgrade is accompanied by a separate license in which case the terms of that license will govern.

It is a contract. You sign contracts quite often, especially for services like TV or Cellphone, pretty much any business transaction. Apparently in some countries, like Germany, the EULA is unenforceable. But it doesn’t make sense to me how a company can’t develop a contract for the customer to agree or disagree. Especially with an owner granting license. Back to my case; A company hires me to photograph their products. I personally like to retain ownership of my work, so I find out the purpose of the photos, Advertising. Cool, so I write up a contract stating I will offer a license of x photos for x price to be used solely for advertising for x period of time. If the company wishes to use the photographs in another way, I want them to come back and request a license for a different use. They have the option to change the contract saying they want ownership of the photos to be used as they please. Im ok with that, but it comes at a higher cost than licensing. I hope that makes sense.

I said earlier that patents are the problem, as I have already discussed business models. I think patents are hurting the computer industry. I don’t have any explicit examples yet of why, but you can find them elsewhere. Companies hoard patents, then get sue crazy over other companies who seem to be infringing on a patent. Companies who don’t have strong products are looking either for money or shared patent portfolios. I think it stifles innovation, because some companies sit on patents without developing anything about it. The tech industry is about 30 years old, I see a problem when Patents cover 2/3 of that time. For how fast the industry has changed over the previous 3 decades, patents are seemingly to get in the way.

I’ll see if I can come up with some examples of patent issues being a core problem.

The MPAA Sucks

Straight from Tech Dirt: “31 years ago, in 1978, the television program 60 Minutes put on an episode about the awful threat of “video piracy” to the movie industry. Featuring the MPAA’s Jack Valenti, the episode focused on how the VCR was going to destroy the movie business because anyone could copy and watch a movie in the privacy of their own home. Of course, in retrospect, that episode is hilariously wrong. You would think that, given how wrong they got it thirty years ago on this particular subject, 60 Minutes would be a bit more careful taking on the same subject again.

No such luck.

CBS’s 60 Minutes has made itself out to be more of a laughingstock than usual when it comes to “investigative reporting,” putting on an episode about “video piracy” that is basically 100% MPAA propaganda, without any fact checking or any attempt to challenge the (all MPAA connected) speakers, or to include anyone (anyone!) who would present a counterpoint. The episode is funny in that it contradicts itself at times (with no one noticing it) and gets important (and easily checked) facts wrong. And, of course, it basically mimics that old episode that history has shown to have been totally (laughably) false.

The report opens with the claim that counterfeit movies is where organized crime is making its money these days. Fascinating. Except they don’t show any proof whatsoever that organized crime has anything to do with movie piracy at all. They just claim it, talk about Mexican gangs, and then assume it must be true. But, of course, most of the report actually focuses on the internet and file sharing of movies — which completely goes against the claim that organized crime is “making its money” off of video piracy. After all, reports have shown that online file sharing has actually been putting DVD counterfeiters out of business. You would think that the “journalists” at 60 Minutes might have noticed this contradiction.

A big chunk of the episode is taken up by director Steven Soderbergh, who has come out in the past touting the MPAA’s line before, so it’s no surprise that he does so again. He claims that “piracy is costing Hollywood $6 billion a year at the box office.” Does he mention that Hollywood has been making more and more and more at the box office every year the past few years? Oops. No. Did the reporters at 60 Minutes look into this fact and bring it up? Of course not. The entire story appears to be an MPAA press release, so you don’t want to cloud it with pesky facts that prove they don’t know what they’re talking about.

Next up, Soderbergh claims that fewer movies are getting made thanks to movie piracy. Uh huh. Another checkable fact. Another one wrong. It was recently summarized, according to the movie industry’s own numbers:

2004 Total Movies Released: 567 Total Combined Gross: $9,327,315,935
2005 Total Movies Released: 594 Total Combined Gross: $8,825,324,278
2006 Total Movies Released: 808 Total Combined Gross: $9,225,689,414
2007 Total Movies Released: 1022 Total Combined Gross: $9,665,661,126
2008 Total Movies Released: 1037 Total Combined Gross: $9,705,677,862
2009 Total Movies Released: 1177 Total Combined Gross: $7,596,626,766
(2009 figures incomplete, total movies scheduled to be released, gross to date)

So, actually, more than double the number of movies are being made today than just five years ago. Hmm. That’s the sort of thing that a real journalist at a show like 60 Minutes might bring up to a biased director like Steven Soderberg, right? Nope.

The article mentions how to go to the movies these days, some people have to go through “airport-like security. Their bags are searched for cameras and they have to check their cell phones.” Does it point out that this might be a pretty serious reason why people might not want to go to the movies? A reason why people might actually give less money to the industry? Nope. Why bother with details like that?

And then, 60 Minutes brings on our favorite industry spokesperson: Rick Cotton, NBC Universal’s general counsel, the guy who warned that movie piracy put corn farmers at risk because people watching pirated movies eat less popcorn (never mind the fact that the corn industry is thriving, that people watching pirated movies still eat popcorn, and “popcorn” represents an infinitesimal part of the market…). Cotton was also the guy who thought it was a good idea to push people who wanted to watch the Olympics to pirate it rather than watch the crappy official online channel. Cotton is asked how many movies are released in the US:

“Ballpark, 400 to 500 movies are released in the United States.”

Except, as we noted above, he’s off by about 600 or 700 movies. Again, this is the sort of “fact” that a reporter, such as those employed by CBS and working on a television program like 60 Minutes might be expected to check, right? I would guess that most viewers of 60 Minutes expect the show’s reporters and legions of other employees to do such basic fact checking. So, given that 1177 movies are going to be released in 2009, doesn’t it make sense to, say, push back on Cotton’s bogus number? Apparently not.

Random aside: I wonder how much money CBS makes from the big studios buying movie ads? That can’t be important here, can it?

Most of the rest of the program is Soderbergh making a bunch of totally unsubstantiated statements, such as saying that no one would make The Matrix today. Why? No explanation. It’s just that Sodergbergh says.

And, of course, beyond failing to fact check the most basic facts, no one at 60 Minutes thought to talk to anyone outside of the studio system to see if it made sense. It didn’t talk to any one of the growing number of people who are making movies and embracing file sharing to help get those movies seen. It didn’t talk to moviemakers who are embracing new business models. It didn’t talk to copyright experts and consumer advocates who have shown how ridiculous the MPAA’s claims are. In other words, it presented an MPAA press release as if it were news. Thirty years after it did the same exact thing and got the entire story wrong. It didn’t even go back and note that earlier episode. It just repeated it with modern stand-ins.”

Media Democracy Coalition’s Hannah Miller rallies against blocked political speech

Supreme Court likely to allow more corporate money in politics

Administration uses ‘State Secrets’ clause to block warrantless wiretap cases

Court rules victim of extraordinary rendition can’t sue from Raw Story

Pirate Cat Radio fined $10,000: East-Bay Express and SF Weekly

Is global warming a corporate fraud? from Project Censored

Real reason climate bill is going to suck from Grist

Palestinians criticize US u-turn on settlements

Detroit Free Press takes editorial cues from advertisers

Congress should not reject the Goldstone Report from Common Dreams

Where are the anti-war demonstrators? from Common Dreams

What Obama is up against from Truthout

MPAA piracy facts unchecked on 60 Minutes

MPAA press release urges FCC to protect content

Bit Torrent’s new peer-to-peer software throttles itself

Nielsen says DTV switch was successful

Paramount says National Broadband Plan should stop Star Trek pirates

Jerry Brown’s spokesman resigns after taping calls

AP admits Cheney equivocated to the FBI

We need a Son of Sam law for coporations from True/Slant

Comcast close to gaining NBC Universal

Brazil encourages competing hackers to crack e-voting terminals

Sen. Cantwell not sure why Geithner still has a job

Service providers in UK ’should have legal obligation on rural broadband’

Three’s company by Ross Douthat

مساله سانسور یکی از مسائلیه که در هر جامعه ای رخ میده. این سانسور لزوما منع کننده و آسیب رسان نیست. چه بسا گاهی اوقات منجر به رشد بهتر و زندگی سالمتر میشه. متاسفانه وضعیت سانسور در ایران اصلا قابل بحث نیست و همه ی ما به نوعی با انواع اقسام محدودیت ها و سانسورهای آسیب رسان برخورد داشتیم. سانسورِ درمانگر این چیزی نیست که ما الان شاهد اجراش هستیم. الان شاهد اجرای غیرمنطقی، ضربه زن و کاملا خودکامانه ای از سانسور هستیم.
مقصودم از این مقدمه اینه که در فیلمهای هالیوودی هم درجه بندی سنی هست. این نیست که فک کنید کیلویی کمپانیها فیلم میسازند و میندازند روی اکران. سازمانی هست به نام MPAA اول کلمات Motion Picture Assosication of America، که مسئول نظارت بر همین موضوع را داره. پنج نوع درجه سنی مختلف تشخیص دادند برای فیلمها. که البته به نظرم به نسبت فرهنگ ایرانیها تا ده نوع درجه سنی هم جا دارد که باشه.

خب عکسها خودشون گویای مطالب هستند. از بالا به پایین شدت صحنه های حاوی مشتقات صکثی، مصرف موادمخدر، خشونت و … بیشتر میشند.

درجه سنی در فیلم، یکی از موارد مهمیه که باید بهش توجه کرد. البته مخاطبان این وبلاگ همه بالای هیجده سالند و این حرفها به نظرشون مسخره بیاد شاید. ولی کدامیک از ماها که موقعیت دیدن فیلم آنچنانی را داشتیم، ولی ندیدیم؟ این به علت عدم آموزش صحیح نوجوانان برای دیدن فیلمهایی که قانونا مجاز به دیدنش نیستند، هست. و بدون شک تاثیرات مخربی بر روحیه و افکار نوجوان میگذاره، چون بلخره کلی روانشناس و جامعه شناس دور هم جمع شدند و این رده سنی ها را با توجه به میزان و شدت رشد کودکان و نوجوانانشون در فرهنگ حاکم کشورشون، تعیین کردند.

نکته مهم در این رده بندی ها توجه مخاطب سن بالای 17 ساله. مثلا خیلی از کمپانی ها به عمد سعی میکنند از MPAA رتبه ی PG نگیرند. چرا؟ چون درست است مخاطبان PG ی وجود دارند و خوب هم به سنیما میاید. ولی آمار نشون میده فیلمهای اسلوب دار و کار درست به استثنای انیمشن ها در رده سنی PG آنچنان شانس فروش بالایی ندارند. این قضیه به شکلی بسیار شدیدتر برای رده NC-17 حاکمه. که اون هم برمیگرده به کم مایه بودن این فیلمها که در یه روزنوشتهام به اختصار اشاره ای کردم. اما در جبهه ی مقابل، اکثر فیلمهای قوی، شاهکار و پولساز از رده ی R هستند. حتی فیلمهایی بودند که با افزودن درجه ای خلوص ماچ و بوسه خودشون را تو این رده چپوندند. علت محبوبیت این رده سنی برمیگرده به دسته ی عظیم تماشاگری که برای دیدن این دسته فیلمهای مناسب هستند. و هر جا که تماشاگر بیشتر باشد، همانجا پول هست. آنجا که پول باشد، فیلم خوب هست. و آنجا که فیلم خوب باشد، ژانرهای متفاوتی تولید میشه و رونق سینما اونجا میگرده و تولیدات آنچنانی میشه.

برای کسب اطلاعات بیشتر به این صفحه مراجعه کنید. و ضمنا، در اکثر پرفایلهای IMDb این درجه وجود داره.

مشترک فید وبلاگ شوید…