Home
The Autumnal City [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Tarmle

[ website | The Ruins of Morning ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

UK Government Under the Control of Hollywood [Feb. 22nd, 2008|10:18 pm]
[Tags|, , , , , , , , ]

You may have noticed that the UK government is, with the kind assistance of Andrew Burnham MP of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, is bowing to Hollywood and the record labels' various enforcement groups, essentially handing them the power to control the uses that UK citizens may make of their internet connections. ISPs have been given until April 2009 to comply with new regulations that will force them to inspect all data transferred through their systems and magically deduce whether or not it involves the sharing of copyrighted material. In the event that sharing is suspected (nothing more is required) the ISP subscriber will receive a strike against them, if they receive three strikes their internet service will be terminated.

No allowances have been made for the technological requirements for deep packet inspection of all traffic that passes through a service providers system. It may safely be presumed that the customers will end up paying extra to have their private data transmissions intercepted and analysed. I have yet to find any comment form Burnham on the morality of cutting off an innocent user when someone else who makes use of the same connection is suspected of sharing - if one family member breaks the rules then everyone in that household loses access this increasingly essential communications service. Nor have I seen any indication from those involved that they have any understanding of the encryption arms race they are about to enter and immediately lose - that will be an awful lot of money spent and trouble caused for a system that will be worked around before it is even put in place. Naturally there is no hint of how the ISP's are to identify copyrighted works from any other shared files. And what are the procedures for proving one's innocence? How does someone with a strike based on a suspicion show that they are not guilty of sharing (baring in mind the technical hurdles already involved in proving positive proof of sharing).

The most sensible response I have heard comes from a Slashdot commenter:

"if all ISPs in the UK staged a strike by cutting Internet access everywhere for two or three days and claim that would be the only possible way to ensure their customers aren't pirating anything, I am sure that the outrage would force another look at the law. And if they did this 2 different times, like once on Thursday Friday and Saturday, it could cause direct deposit information and payroll services to be interrupted. If they did this on again a week later on lets say Monday and Tuesday, there would be so much upset and confusion that those who think they wasn't effected will be."


Personally I will be happy to lose access for a few days if it will do anything to prevent this travesty from going any further. Frankly, the harm done to individual users will not even register compared to the harm done to UK financial sector, not least the content industry. They must learn that the environment has changed and all the legislation in the world cannot change it back. Technology has moved forward and they have failed to follow. Their demise is inevitable, and is only hastened by making enemies of us all.
linkpost comment

Glitch [Dec. 5th, 2007|10:49 pm]
[Tags|, , , , , , , , , , , , ]

Listen, Glick, the movie industry is already doing the one thing that guarantees I will never illegally download their 'products', namely they are now making such deficient, low-brow, half-assed, worthless, over-hyped, over-funded, overwritten, sub intellectual, inadequate, substandard, ridiculous, inferior, scoff-worthy, malodorous, cringe-making, mismanaged, shoddy, insufferable, incompetent and defective low-com-dom crap, that I would never ever even consider wasting one single byte of my precious bandwidth on any of it. I would be perfectly happy to see every last bit of your meritless trash forever erased from the internet were it not for the fact that you are trying to do it by introducing a radically disproportionate mechanism: ending Network Neutrality!

Don't cover your ears Glickster, you need to hear this: Shrek 3 is not important enough to bring an end to our freedom. The only reason the movie industry can say it's losing money now is because they spent way too much on producing something that nobody actually needs and nobody really wants. The Western World will not crumble because they can't turn a profit, but it might if we lose the integrity and security of the single most important communications tool in history.

One way or another the IP delusional industries are one the way out. It's only a matter of time before the average consumer figures out that their 'entertainment' just isn't worth it any more, that the busker on the street outside the cinema is a hell of lot more creative, interesting and memorable than the claptrap movie they just walked out of. How long do you think they'll watch their technology subverted, their personal data ransacked, their legally purchased media disintegrating, and their communications tapped and blocked before they think: "But I didn't even like the Bourne Appendectomy!"

Anyone invested in the movie or recording industries with even an iota of common sense should be selling up now, while their stock is still worth the ferromagnetic material it's stored on. You know it can't go on like this. It just isn't reasonable in consider this a survivable scenario for anyone involved. I mean it. Get out now. This is going to end badly, and you know it.

Glicky, you are not adding to our culture in any positive way beyond uniting the rest of us against you. You are not curing any horrible diseases. You are not on a crusade of righteousness. You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You are not welcome here.
link2 comments|post comment

The Blanket License: A Modest Proposal [Oct. 25th, 2007|05:11 pm]
[Tags|, , , , , , , ]

According to a report from ArsTechnica the fabled Blanket License has once again reared its head, this time in Denmark:

Andy Oram over at O'Reilly Radar noted the recent moves in Denmark to create a system where every ISP user might pay a monthly fee in order to access unlimited P2P music legally.

The proposal has drawn positive feedback from an unlikely source—the local "Piratgruppen."

"It's good that they admit that they cannot solve the problem of falling CD sales by suing their own fans," said Sebastian Gjerding from the Piratgruppen. "It looks like they have understood that they should offer something that is competitive compared to other, free music sources. It is an entirely new admission that hasn't spread internationally yet. IFPI Denmark is on the forefront in this matter. But it is annoying that no action has been taken so far to save many teenagers million-krone fines."

ArsTechnica.com


The article notes some obstacles to the proposal. For instance, will this cover just 'local' bands or include international sources? The former would simply prove unenforceable - they'd have less luck detecting where they were downloading from than they currently have detecting if they have downloaded anything at all - while the latter would be a logistical zombie movie complete with everyone dying at the end! Another question is whether this will be a voluntary payment or amount to a tax on all users regardless of whether they ever download music or not?

Despite these sorts of issues, I consider the Blanket License to be the most equitable and, more importantly, most moral alternative to the current media distribution model. Fundamentally it is a concept that makes the most of current technology and encourages further development, while at the same time protecting our right to make use of our own hardware and data.

The problems mentioned in the article are trivial. Yes, the BL should cover artists worldwide but it should be stipulated that they make the claim to receive anything. Yes, the BL should be a mandatory payment, including for businesses - they don't want to make use of it, that's up to them, but since it's there why not let their employees share media on their network without a legal care in the world?

My main problem with the Danish plan is its hopelessly narrow vision, covering only music and only one country. It is comically ineffectual.

Here's the real plan:

The Blanket License should cover all media, it should, in fact, cover anything that can be encoded, uploaded, downloaded or otherwise redistributed, music, movies, TV shows, books, newspapers, 3d printer files, essentially any media that can be rendered as data. It should be run as an opt-in for content creators alone and strictly prohibit music cartels, charities and other non-root content providers. It should also provide a means for those artists who build on the work of others to indicate and reward their contributors.

But there is one element that is by far the most important: the Blanket License must be directly democratic. By this I mean that the distribution of the revenue derived from the BL should be based on what the users are listening to, watching and using, not on some even division or some educated guess informed by random polling. We should literally be voting for our choices and the results of these votes used to calculate the creators' share.s Of course one vote a week is hardly going to be a fair measure, instead we would need at least a hundred votes a week which we could distribute as we see fit (say a maximum of five votes per voter for any one creator). This voting could allow for a mix of voluntary voting (specific choices regardless of what a user has actually downloaded) and user-controlled automated voting (a system that allows vote assignments based on the usage statistics from a media player). No one would be forced to vote, but it would be in their interests to encourage their favourite bands, actors photographers, writers and so on, and automatic voting could allow users to contribute without any real effort.

There will still be a place for record labels as marketing brokers, contracting artists for flat fees or a percentage of their earnings in return for their expertise in development and marketing their creations.

This real Blanket License would be no small undertaking, requiring the development of an international infrastructure and region-by-region legislation to remove the existing legal hurdles faced by users. But the result would be a totally egalitarian forum, the likes of which has not been seen since some mug took a handful of loose change and sang to a wax cylinder. All that would be required for an artist to make money would be to make music and find people who like it enough to vote for it, no contracts, no physical distribution, and most significantly, no risk.


It's ambitious, and naturally it glosses over some real problems. Technically, there are issues with the security involved in electronic voting, ensuring that the votes are genuine rather than the result of malicious software running on client systems, and preventing any third party from accessing usage data and putting user privacy at risk (a premise I call Regime Proofing - designing the system so that should it fall under someone else's control there will not be enough information recorded to identify individual users, though there should still be enough to identify tampering and vandalism [a paradox, I know]). And naturally the entire system would need to be totally transparent if it is to be trusted by artists and consumers.

The environment that this Blanket License could create is an exciting one. It would encourage a far greater range of cultural experience for users, exposing them to a vast library of content without restriction and without the increasingly hegemonic filtering of the incumbent distribution businesses. Since each user has already paid for all their downloading there can be none of this quibbling over the rights involved in time- and format-shifting. Download once and the data is yours to do with as you please., you will be free to invent new ways of accessing your culture that have yet to be even dreamed of, and without fear of the shadow of monetisation.

Radiohead's independent venture into alternative digital distribution model was laudable, a worthy experiment, but one dependant on the duality of our current attitude to online media, both legal and illicit. What they received for their effort was charity: not a long term solution, but a round of applause for a worthy effort. In the end we cannot expect to support artists through benevolence alone. How many 'micro-patrons' can we expect to find and persuade to keep giving? Radiohead simply walked out into a new and forbidding wilderness, if anyone is going to follow, we're going to need to build them some roads.

I've previously discussed the impact of unlimited digital distribution on the existing content industry, namely the rapid and near total destruction of physical production interests. Other commentators have suggested that such a vision is unnecessarily apocalyptic, that, for instance, paper books will never disappear, and to an extent I agree. But consider a world in which you can access any book, at any time, for free; can we really expect already struggling publishers to survive that? There will always be a market for dead tree, just as there is still a market for vinyl, but there will also be a reckoning in the market that will see it reduced to little more than a niche. Now consider this situation extended to cover not only book sellers, but music stores, tv stations, cinemas and all the services that depend on them. A whole set of industries is at stake, countless jobs, and a huge chunk of the Western economy.

The Blanket License promises an almost unimaginable upheaval in the 'business of culture', a vision that the entrenched business interests will likely do anything to escape. But consider also that the openness it could bring will foster new technologies and new businesses to exploit those technologies and even new ways of doing business - the economic environment might then be changed rather than destroyed.

I am convinced that, if we are to avoid handing over control of our lives to big business, then this is the way it must be. It is the Blanket License or (without exaggeration) cultural totalitarianism.
link4 comments|post comment

Linking a Crime - It are a FACT [Oct. 19th, 2007|10:42 pm]
[Tags|, , , , ]

The Guardian is gleefully frothing over the arrest of a web site owner for allowing visitors to download infringing content [they even trot out that old Lost Sales gag, I expect then to start discussing internet tubes any moment now]. But as with almost all of these cases things are not so clearly defined:

"One of the world's most-used pirate film websites has been closed after providing links to illegal versions of major Hollywood hits and TV shows.

The first closure of a major UK-based pirate site was also accompanied by raids and an arrest, the anti-piracy group Federation Against Copyright Theft (Fact) said today.

A 26-year-old man from Cheltenham was arrested on Thursday in connection with offences relating to the facilitation of copyright infringement on the internet, Fact said.

Fact claims that tv-links.co.uk was providing links to illegal film content that had been camcorder recorded from cinemas and then uploaded to the internet. The site also provided links to TV shows that were being illegally distributed."

- guardian.co.uk


Yes, you read that correctly, the site was "providing links" to "illegal film content". This site itself contained nothing illegal, there was no copyrighted content available there, it was not possible to upload or download such content to its server. If there's nothing illegal then there is no crime, if there is no crime then the "26-year-old man from Cheltenham" is innocent. I hope 26yomfC has a a decent, IT-savvy lawyer because this could not only put him in enough cash to keep him comfy for a long time but also protect www.tv-links.co.uk from any future prosecutions.

The issue here is the difference between performing an illegal act and describing one. The TV Links site merely described the locations and methods of acquisition for infringing content, it did not actually perform the infringement. By that same token, any author of a novel that describes a murder should be arrested for murder. Anyone who shows a policeman the location of a stolen car should be arrested for stealing it [yeah, I know, 'car analogy'].

Let's run with that last one: if anything this site was a useful tool for IP delusionals, showing them exactly where to find the actual infringing sites and torrents, happily revealed to them by the very people that so plague them. As a resource you would think it far more valuable than a single highly questionable arrest.

Once again these people have succeeded in pissing me off. Remember to use the Bad Guy Sticker greasemonkey tool while browsing Amazon to help you avoid purchasing products from members of FACT. Give these idiots your money and it will be used to harm your rights, prevent you from using your own tools and content, and to restrict your access to your own culture.
link4 comments|post comment

Forever Less One Day [Apr. 27th, 2007|03:02 pm]
[Tags|, , , , ]

"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 (1921 - 2007), President of the MPAA, in his testimony to the House of Representatives, 1982.


Lest we forget.
link2 comments|post comment

Rebranding [Apr. 17th, 2007|04:10 pm]
[Tags|, , , , , , ]

Piratechnic Brand Logo
link3 comments|post comment

DRM Designed to Restrict Freedom, Sky is Blue [Jan. 18th, 2007|03:54 pm]
[Tags|, , ]

DRM is about persuading customers to part with more money, so says the movie industry:

Hollywood, I was told, still doesn't trust Steve Jobs with its crown jewels. Yes, everyone loves that ratings for shows like NBC's (GE) The Office and ABC's Lost seem to be up thanks to the promotional exposure of being available via iPod download. But while just about every TV network quickly followed Disney's 2005 decision to give its TV shows to Apple, few have yet to join the Mouse with movies. When you have a piece of content than can cost upward of $100 million to produce, you don't give it up without a lot of soul-searching and number-crunching.

What does Hollywood want from Steve Jobs? For starters, more protection for their films. "His user rules just scare the heck out of us," one studio executive told me. Indeed, under Apple's video iPod digital-rights-management scheme, folks can share their flicks with as many as three other iPod users.

'Why Hollywood Snubbed Jobs at Macworld' - Ronald Grover, BusinessWeek.com (via arstechnica.com).


They're not scared of pirates, I doubt they're even scared of file sharers, hell, they're not scared at all. No, that's not fear in their eyes, it's greed. They see customers enjoying their products in ways they had not even imagined twenty years ago and they can't stand the thought that this use does not translate into more money for them. The way they have chosen to get at these heretofore unimagined profits is through DRM; they want you to pay to see a movie on one device, then pay again to see it on another, and then want your friends to pay too.

Sure, we already knew they were thinking that, everybody knew, the whole thing about p2p and piracy was pure spin! Still, it's satisfying to hear them admit their oh-so-obvious deceit, even if it is through some unnamed "studio executive".

However, we can't expect to see this admission becoming a policy shift, not on any reasonable time-scale. It's entirely possible that this sort of "honesty" will become commonplace as customers take up new technologies and the integrated DRM payloads are unwittingly set in place. Once those users' rights have been hijacked, unaware that they had them to begin with, most won't even notice when those rights miraculously turn up on iTunes, et al, swinging a hefty new price tag. At that point they will be too busy enjoying all the wonderful "new" things they can do with their media to notice such confessions of dishonesty.
linkpost comment

MPAA Destroys Privacy, Protects Fraud [Dec. 1st, 2006|05:32 pm]
[Tags|, ]

The movie industry has successfully lobbied the American state senate for the right to falsify information in the pursuit of copyright infringement investigations:

The bill, SB1666, was written by state Sen. Debra Bowen, and would have barred investigators from making "false, fictitious or fraudulent" statements or representations to obtain private information about an individual, including telephone calling records, Social Security numbers and financial information. Victims would have had the right to sue for damages.

The bill won approval in three committees and sailed through the state Senate with a 30-0 vote. Then, according to Lenny Goldberg, a lobbyist for the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, the measure encountered unexpected, last-minute resistance from the Motion Picture Association of America.

"The MPAA has a tremendous amount of clout and they told legislators, 'We need to pose as someone other than who we are to stop illegal downloading,'" Goldberg said. - Wired (via /.)


In theory such tactics may only be employed by licenced investigators. But ask yourself: who licensed them? Who decided they are worthy to wield the power to dissect your life this way? Did you personally authorise their credentials? I don't know who these people are, you don't know, the people handing them wads of printout containing your personal information think they are you. How is this reasonable?

What is most disturbing about this incident is the realisation that any government of a supposedly enlightened and developed nation is happy to see the entertainment industry shape such significant and far-reaching laws. That bill would not only have affected the movie business but anyone who wants to acquire personal information about a private citizen through fraudulent representation: bank robbers, stalkers, child molesters...

Well done MPAA! Once again you have stopped at literally nothing to protect your thoroughly busted-up data reproduction business model.
linkpost comment

Bad Guy Sticker [Sep. 15th, 2006|01:52 am]
[Tags|, , , , , , , ]

There's been quite a bit of interesting copyfight news over on BoingBoing recently. Last week I was reading about Clayton Counts who released a mash-up of the classic Beatles' album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club band. And now this week, not only are EMI, the license holders of the album, trying to sue Clayton despite the fact that he has no money and made none from the mash-up, but they're also trying to sue everybody who heard his work too.

This displeases me.

I've cobbled together a new Greasemonkey script called 'Bad Guy Sticker' for use with the Amazon web site (and hopefully others with a bit of work).


When visiting a product page at Amazon this script will detect the 'label', 'studio' or 'publisher' field from the product's data and test it against a list of MPAA, RIAA, BPI and FACT members. If it finds a match, even a partial one, it will display a warning 'sticker' to let you know that money spent on this item will be used by the Bad Guys to harm your rights.

Example of Bad Guy Sticker for 20th Century Fox

When you give these idiots money they use it sue people based on nothing but a screen-cap of a p2p IP list, to sue artists who are simply and naturally building on existing culture, to lobby for the extension of copyrights so they can tighten their hold on your culture, to take away your right to control your own property by persuading hardware manufacturers to sell you broken machines, to limit the development of new technologies because it threatens their outmoded business models, to force other countries to submit to their so-called Intellectual Property laws regardless of their own positions, and to find new ways to prevent you from participating in your own culture.

You may think it unlikely that something as simple as not buying certain products could have any impact on this lamentable situation. But regardless of the outcome the question you really need to ask yourself is, can you, in good conscience, continue to fund these activities? Even for those who will continue to buy these products it is important to understand the consequences of doing so.

While using the Bad Guy Sticker you may begin to wonder if there is anything left to buy without losing sleep. Trust me, this sensation passes swiftly. The fact is that the vast majority of the stuff sold by these companies is utter shite and you really won't miss it when it's gone. There is plenty of entertainment available out there from independent and totally benign companies, and there is a whole world of free culture available online. You really don't need to be encouraging content slavery to enjoy yourself.

[ The script can be re-installed from the link above to update the member lists. Any suggestions on additions for the lists to improve matching are welcome, as are any suggestions on optimising and increasing the functionality of the script. I am releasing Bad Guy Sticker to the Public Domain - this is to make it clear that anyone who wishes may produce their own version using this code, for instance you might want to build lists tailored for your region and other online stores. ]
link3 comments|post comment

A Brief History of DRM Hacking [Jul. 19th, 2006|04:12 pm]
[Tags|, , , , , ]

"Like a creeping fog, DRM smothers more and more media in its clammy embrace, but the sun still shines down on isolated patches of the landscape. This isn't always due to the decisions of corporate executives; often it's the work of hackers who devote considerable skill to cracking the digital locks that guard everything from DVDs to e-books. Their reasons are complicated and range from the philosophical to the criminal, but their goals are the same: no more DRM."


This fascinating article from Ars Technica is a necessary read for everyone. Not only does it describing why DRM has always failed to prevent piracy but also why, despite their shortcomings, these tools of questionable intent and limited effectiveness will continue to be developed and used to protect music and movie industry profit margins.
linkpost comment

Movielink: Outsourcing DVD Production to Customers [Jul. 18th, 2006|11:27 pm]
[Tags|, , , , ]

Movielink.com, that paragon of modern media distribution, has introduced a new feature to their movie download service: burn your own DVDs.

[ I need to point out, from the start, that the Movielink site only accepts visitors in the US and is heavily dependant on IE. The required JScript does not seem to function through the proxies I've tried. As a result all the information I have on their service is second hand. I'm not trying to mislead anyone but if Movielink don't want to offer me accurate information about their products and services then I'm not going to lose sleep over any misinformation repeated here. ]

Their embarrassingly ill-conceived business model is based on having punters pay something close to the price of a new DVD just so they can spend X hours downloading a heavily DRMed, purportedly low quality movie or TV show. What they end up with are files that will only play in Windows Media or RealMedia Players running under later editions of Windows. Since the DRM prevents the material being transported to other devices or translated into a more useful format, this means that customers will also need a PC with TV Out, preferably within reach of a decent TV, to make real use of it. Is it any wonder that the service's backers are trying to ditch this dead weight already?

BusinessWeek has reported that five of the studios that bankrolled Movielink, including Paramount Pictures, Sony and Universal Studios, have begun looking for a buyer of the video-on-demand service.

"The studios aren't going to abandon (Movielink and CinemaNow) completely," said Josh Martin, a digital-media analyst. "But they realize those sites have limited appeal to say the least."


"Limited appeal", I suppose that's a diplomatic way of putting it. Well, now they think they can take the edge off this foul-tasting meal they've served up by giving customers the chance to create their own DVDs that can be used in a 'regular' DVD player. This is not signalling the end of their DRM, far from it. Movielink has cut a deal with the makers of the Roxio burning software to produce a system for creating DVDs that will carry the standard copy-protection and (one assumes) region-coding measures found on commercial discs. So, you pay the price of a new DVD, spend hours downloading content of questionable quality, and then have to set about turning it into a rapidly depreciating physical product yourself? And then you wonder if the local DVD retailer is really all that far away.

When you by a DVD (and god knows why you'd want to these days) there is a vast and complex industry behind that purchase, factories and machines and people and suppliers, the budget for which offers at least some excuse for the price. But downloading from a website is one of the least industrial method of distribution imaginable (second only to p2p), requiring minimal personal and resources, and probably costing more for bandwidth than anything else. By all rights this should be the cheapest way to get movies legally, especially considering the poor quality of the end result. Are we really surprised that movie studios see these savings in production and distribution as a potential increase profit margin rather than a potentially cheaper product?

If you 'steal' a copyrighted movie through p2p you actually get a better product than if you had purchased it legally, a movie that you can translate into any format, play on any platform and make further use of in any number of imaginative ways using a whole range of tools. This is only true of copy-protected products - a car doesn't become faster and more fuel efficient if you steal it, nor does a TV develop higher resolution and a clearer picture. The bottom line remains the same: the only thing that is going to tempt p2p users away from their free movies is legal movies of at least the same quality.

Right now, being 'stolen' is probably the last thing on Earth that can save the awful shit that passes for movies these days.

I think I'd be more impressed if Movielink offered a free movie script and sock puppets.
link2 comments|post comment

Telefonica - The Silent Network [Jun. 29th, 2006|05:28 pm]
[Tags|, , , , , ]

A little flurry of mod-envy on /. is the herald of more IPD news from Spain (tmcnet.com).

It seems that Spanish lawmakers are going to ban "unauthorized peer-to-peer file-sharing" as they introduce the blank media levy. Whoop-de-doo, welcome to the world, you may cry. But there is a twist.

The arguments on /. have to do with the spin placed on the article by the poster suggesting that all P2P use is about to be banned. Remember those statistics from yesterday? - 90% of network traffic in Spain is Internet use and 80% of that is P2P, and any guess on the level of P2P traffic that is "unauthorised" is going to involve a percentage higher than 95. By that estimation the Spanish Telcos are about to find their networks suddenly and deathly quiet! However, Slashdotters have been pointing out that it is only "unauthorised" use that is banned and not P2P use in general.

The thing is, a complete ban on P2P networks is not so easily dismissed, as the article goes on to say "the government is going after Internet service providers; it's a criminal offense[sic] for ISPs to facilitate unauthorized downloading." I'm going to be generous here and suggest that the reporter made an unintentional generalisation - after all, the only way for an ISP to prevent all unauthorised downloading is to block all traffic which would put them out of business. So let's say that it's facilitating unauthorised downloading through P2P that will become a criminal offence. But how can an ISP discriminate between authorised and unauthorised P2P traffic? The answer is that they can't not with any reliability and not without a vulnerability to exploitation, so the only option is to block all P2P traffic.

It's a fair guess that Spain could turn out to have the most draconian anti-file-sharing, pro-IP measures of any country to date. I have to admit, it's kind of exciting to watch the IP industry whipped governments of the world froth and flail over this, especially when their efforts are so ridiculously out of touch and so hopelessly late. It's like watching an enemy army form up exactly as predicted.

The only thing this legislation will do is force file-sharers into darknets, and what will the ISPs do then, ban encrypted traffic? The Spanish government has taken a fateful step into an arms race they can't possibly win. And it's a step that might prove the tipping point for a global shift in file-sharing technology, one that would make policing the Net for supposed IP crime a truly Sisyphean task - a punishment they truly deserve.
link7 comments|post comment

Universal Licence [Jun. 29th, 2006|02:05 am]
[Tags|, , , , , , ]

This is a fascinating (if short) editorial based on this article (both at the very badly designed typicallyspanish.com via /.) about proposed changes to Spain's legal recognition of Intellectual Property Delusions. The proposed law will demand a mandatory levy on blank media as in Canada and Finland - strangely including memory sticks, mobile phones and scanners but excluding hard drives - with the resulting revenue distributed to copyright holders. How this revenue will be distributed in this instance remains unclear.

There are arguments that this is an indiscriminate tactic to regain the supposed lost revenue of the content industries, when there are many uses of the taxed products that do not infringe copyright. For instance, this law would mean that people backing up their own data to DVD-R are paying copyright holders for nothing.

But, there is another way to look at this: if you have already paid the copyright holder then surely you have the right to use the copyright holder's work. This tax can be seen as a universal licence to copy and to distribute copyrighted content. This might be considered analogous to the proposed (and subsequently shot down), broadband tax in France that would have made it legal to share copyrighted material over P2P networks. The Spanish levy is a socialistic response to the problem of IP in a capitalistic environment where such property can be reproduced infinitely and distributed globally at virtually no cost and very little effort.

The most interesting thing in the editorial are the quoted statistics on Internet use in Spain. Telefonica, which is not only the largest corporation in Spain but the also the largest telephony company in the world, has estimated that 90% of the traffic on its network is Internet use, and that 80% of that Internet traffic is P2P. There's a claim that the average Spaniard now buys only one CD a year (and who can blame them if that one turns out to be Shakira?) and that DVD sales have dropped by almost 30% between 2004 and 2005 (though for the life of me I'm not sure what they are supposed to have bought in that period). It may seem, from first appearances, that the Spanish government is reacting to this new reality by offering a way for both the content industry and the consumer to get what they want without a litigation war.

However, as mentioned in the article neither broadband connections nor HDs are to be covered by this tax - very strange, I think you'll agree, seeing as HDs have far more storage capacity and DSL lines are far better for distribution than any of the other media mentioned... unless transmitting copyrighted material over a DSL line and storing it on a HD will continue to be treated as infringement. I have to wonder what this will mean for HD based media players?

Under these circumstances this new levy is essentially just fleecing consumers while knocking a few more nails into physical media's coffin by making it more expensive and less attractive. At the same time it continues to allow the content industries to victimise their own customers and keep their broken business model afloat for a few more years.

Ultimately this is nothing to get excited about, it's Germolene on a spinal injury. Taxing physical products can only push consumers away and encourage the concept of data divorced from any particular medium, and that can only encourage the use of P2P. It promises a market where the CDs and DVDs are merely the means of transporting purchased data from the point of sale to the customers networked media player, and from there it's only a small step to online-only distribution.

I very much doubt that the companies behind the new (and already far too expensive) Blu-Ray and HD-DVD media will be happy with this proposal. Out of the cradle, into the grave, as it were.
linkpost comment

Zombie Authors and Glass Coffins [Jun. 9th, 2006|02:35 am]
[Tags|, , , , ]

From Freedom fighter with a guilty conscience - The Guardian Unlimited:

Lessig would like to see copyright reduced to 14 years, renewable to 28, as laid down by the 1710 Statute of Anne, the basis of all subsequent legislation in the UK and many countries. He also wants the emphasis on copying as the trigger for copyright to be removed. "In a digital age, copying is as natural as breathing" - every web page you view is technically a copy - "and the idea that the law should be invoked every time there's a trigger of copying is totally inefficient." He suggests a different approach: "[If] you're distributing something publicly for commercial purposes then that's the appropriate thing to be taxing with the copyright act."

More realistically, Lessig is trying to limit the damage that copyright extensions cause to culture by requiring people to register for them, rather than receiving them automatically. "The vast majority would never request the extension, and so most stuff would pass into the public domain and the cost of perpetually extending copyrights would disappear."


You see, this is the Lawrence Lessig we know and love, rather than that Lawrence "If they have to pump poison gas into our homes while we sleep at least lets make it fragrant" Lessig cruising about a while back.

The issue of copyright extensions is becoming less funny every year. We cannot afford to continue offseting the development of our culture indefinitely. The last century proved to be a cornucopia of creativity, spawning countless new ideas, new movements, new ways of experiencing the world. It is disturbing to think that much of this material, the foundations upon which we are now trying to build the future of human society will remain unreachable, bound by "commercial interests", until long after our deaths. How, exactly, does this benefit the long-dead artists who created the material, how does this encourage learning or the continued development of the arts and sciences, how does this support anything other than the corporations?

A copyright reset, one that requires deliberate registration and means only the creator of a work can request a single limited renewal, is the only viable option. Lessig's suggested 14-28 year copyright would give the world immediate access to much of the material created in the 80s and early 90s, and complete access to everything created before that.

There is a desperate need to rid ourselves of the legal brainwashing of copyright law, something that has everyone second-guessing every trivial use of creations and concepts so horribly mislabled as "intellectual property", that even now is driving big business to unbelievable levels of interference in our lives. We need to reach a situation in which the uses an individual makes of a work is protected, where the tools and data controlled by private citizens are untouchable, regardless of copyright. This is the way to foster creativity and advance the sciences - by giving us access to them rather than locking them away in the glass coffins of Intellectual Property.

Time to change.
link8 comments|post comment

The Fallacy of Lost Sales [May. 4th, 2006|05:25 pm]
[Tags|, , , , ]

The MPAA has released a study by LEK Consulting that almost doubles the estimated annual loses due to piracy, the figure reaching $6.1 billion globally:

"The previous estimates didn't include the impact of free Internet downloading, which is incorporated in the LEK report. Another surprise involves the fast expansion of online piracy by consumers compared to the losses stemming from professional bootleggers who sell DVDs. Last year, according to a person familiar with the matter, copies of movies downloaded or received from people who had downloaded them cost the studios $447 million in the U.S., whereas copies stemming from professional bootleggers cost the studios $335 million. An additional $529 million in losses came from consumers making copies of legitimate films they bought on DVD or VHS." - Wall Street Journal Online (via /.)


This is bunk. And ill-advised bunk at that. On the one hand these figures will be used to justify the introduction of restrictive and offensive legislation that will retard our technology and threaten our privacy and our freedom. On the other hand, this makes the MPAA look like a worthless organisation of dullards who, having set out to make people spend more money on movies, only succeeded in making them spend less.

It's bunk because there is no reasonable way to accurately estimate lost sales where file-sharing is concerned, it just isn't possible. It cannot be proven that someone who downloaded a movie via p2p, for example, would have otherwise purchased a legitimate copy or gone to a legitimate screening, at least no more than it can be proven that they would not have. It's like suggesting that people who use libraries would otherwise have spent hundreds, maybe even thousands of euros buying the books they borrowed. Lets take the imaginary case of a 15 year old kid who has downloaded $400 worth of new movies and music: would that kid's parents really have coughed up the $400 had he not been getting the data illegally? Do they honestly think that, were file-sharing to suddenly disappear, Americans would jump up and spend an extra $447 million on movies every year?

I love movies, my favourites include Blade Runner, Fight Club, Seven Samurai, Dersu Uzala, For A Few Dollars More, Runaway Train, etc. Want to know how much I personally spent on movies in the last year? About €70, mostly on cinema tickets for movies that weren't worth it. I can't remember the last time I rented a DVD, though I've watched one or two that friends or family rented. I bought two DVDs at a total price of about €20 - one of those was a Christmas gift and both had been on the shelves for more than a year. Why so little money? Why so few DVDs? Because the movies made today are shit! I consider most of the money I've spent on them to be wasted. And I have never illegally downloaded a movie, I've never even tried, not because I fear legal repercussion but because, frankly, I don't want the movies that are available, not even for free!

As far as I'm concerned making it illegal to download that material is about as useful as making it illegal to eat broken glass.

If the MPAA want to know why people are spending less on movies they need to stop chasing these 'lost sale' phantoms and start taking a hard look at the crap their members are peddling. Just because they thought it was worth their money doesn't mean we think it's worth ours.
link3 comments|post comment

You take my freedom, I take your power [Apr. 24th, 2006|07:30 pm]
[Tags|, , , , , , , , ]

This is insane.

Wiretapping for suspected IP theft? Ten years in jail for just trying to infringe copyright? On-the-spot knee-capping for humming a copyrighted tune in public?

A while back I signed a pledge never to purchase a DRM bearing CD, and I've stuck with it. But I'm starting to wonder if this goes far enough.

I'm considering drafting a new pledge for myself, a pledge never to pay for music or movies again. I'm not suggesting piracy as an alternative, in fact I would pledge not to infringe copyrights or break any related IP law, no matter how draconian. What I am suggesting is a stance that would make these laws irrelevant to me. I would pledge to only accept music and movies that are given to me legitimately and for free. If it is not free then I do not want it!

We have been paying our taxes and we have been buying our music and movies and what did we get? The IP industries are using the money we give them to deploy technology to corrupt our computers and restrict our freedom. The government is using the money we give them to turn those restrictions into law. Granted this is yet more US madness at the moment, but the DMCA made it into Europe just fine, so these extended delusions of intellectual property will likely do the same. And I doubt they care where the funds comes from, some portion of the money I've paid for CDs and DVDs here in Ireland has no doubt assisted in the legal and political machinations of these companies abroad.

Like everyone else I have helped grant power to the content industries, I have bought their 'products' and given them my money and my attention. But I don't like what they've done with that power, now I think I want to take it back, no matter how insignificant it is to the whole.

I cannot in good conscience continue to support any industry that uses my contributions to influence government policy, retard the progress of our culture and pursue the restriction of our civil rights, all in the service of an outmoded business model. I can't keep funding them just so they can break our machines and make it illegal to fix them. I will not help them to do harm, so I cannot help them at all.

It may seem like a drastic step, locking myself out of the majority of new movies and music, but right now I feel as though it might be easy. In the last year I have found very little to engage me in the mainstream, it all seems so bland and uninspired, empty husks of movie remakes and worthless committee-derived sequels, charts full of music that I could swear I was listening to ten years ago. Why would I pay to get into a theatre with lousy AC, overpriced food and patrons who actually answer their mobile phones when they ring, put up with a half hour of adverts and legal notices, all to watch a movie that inevitably disappoints? Why would I buy a wretchedly overpriced CD that might infect my computer with zombiware, might threaten my security and privacy, all for an album of 'new' music that sounds just like the music I already have in my collection from a decade ago? From where I'm standing I see nothing but insipid and tedious repetition in the future of these industries, a profound post-modern malaise. They can keep it.

More and more I have found the things that have touched me, made me laugh or fume or hope, things that have changed the way I think, have come from beyond the IP ideal. They did not need the certainty of success nor any reward from me beyond simple recognition of their achievement. The things I have rushed to tell people about have not required them to hand over money or rights or freedom to experience it themselves. There is a world of culture to enjoy without giving more power to despotic pigopolists.

Still, it's not a decision to take lightly. Somewhere down the line I might regret a pledge like this, some glorious phoenix of a movie may rise from the ashes of Hollywood, or we may witness the birth of a whole new genre of popular music. But I doubt it.

I'm not sure yet, I'm thinking on it.

Any suggestions are welcome.
link4 comments|post comment

Burnoff: Part 2 - The Good Guys Win [Feb. 21st, 2006|03:29 pm]
[Tags|, , , , , , , ]

No one has to pay for numbers anymore. No one is threatened for merely experiencing the development of their own culture. No one is sued for participating in its creation or propagation. The old media business models are gone, burned away by their total inability to adapt to the reality of new technology. In the end they simply failed to comprehend that any product which can be reproduced endlessly by anyone at virtually no cost has, in any reasonable estimation, a market value of zero. Trying to break the technology that threatened them was the final desperate tactic - it hadn't stopped the Industrial Revolution and it didn't stop this one.

Copyright is your right to copy... anything. You are permitted to duplicate, to alter, to republish any piece of information, any text, sound, image or source code, even any object, anything that does not impinge on the privacy of another individual. It even protects your right to make money out of such duplication, if you can. In non-profit situations it also supersedes the now very limited and expensive application of patents. About the only right retained by an artist after they have released a work is their moral right to attribution. So don't get carried away, fraud, forgery and counterfeiting are still crimes.

Like all the technology in your home, your computer and everything on it is your own, down to the last resistor, the last byte. Ironically it still runs Windows. The old proprietary OS has been rebuilt into dozens of open source flavours - there was no point throwing out codes and standards with years of work behind them and such a vast catalogue of useful applications already developed. Even more unexpected is that Trusted Computing has become universal. The technology that would have allowed big business to monitor your activity, to reach into your home and control your computer and your data, is now used to stop just that kind of interference. Encrypted drives, curtained memory and protected media paths prevent malware snooping on your personal files or siphoning away your home movies. Ubiquitous VoIP, secured by privacy amplified encryption, means the national security agencies of the world have to actually investigate threats instead of sitting around waiting for potential suspects to blurt incriminating evidence over illegal wiretaps.

Your culture is faster and more fluid than it has ever been, or ever could have been had the rules not changed, you'll only ever experience a tiny fraction of it in your lifetime. The new movie you glimpsed playing on the back of someone's animated t-shirt at the bus stop last week has already spawned a handful of mash-ups and parodies, by next month the spreading ripples of its influence will be unrecognisable. Even then, if the feeds do not provide what you're looking for, there are the vast peer-distributed media libraries from which you can retrieve almost anything that has ever been digitised, any talk show or radio play, video game or comic, newspaper article or published photograph.

Time and space shifting of media is the norm rather than the hard won exception. You rarely notice the exact source of the information and entertainment you receive, it may have come through the traditional broadcast television channels, via the manifold multimedia blogs piped through your fibre optic Internet connection or picked up virally from wireless peers by your personal server while walking down the street. You rely on your intelligent agent to filter this never-ending flow of information, an application that reduces and organises the mass of live data to a few dynamic feeds, constantly adjusted to match your profile, habits and even your mood. But still, there is so much material even this system has to co-operate with others on local networks to process it all.

With free and instant access to every book ever written there is little use for bookshops, the few that are left sell limited ranges of bound paper works as charming novelties. Often those buying them are just doing so to get their favourite author's signature. For those who miss the feel of a real book but want access to more than the few pulp prints in the shops there are 'magic books' with simulated bindings, touch sensitive e-Ink pages and voice interaction to let them summon an approximation of any volume ever written. The primary functions of public libraries today are the maintenance of municipal servers in the back rooms, used to ensure that less frequented material is never lost from the peer networks, and public access to the Internet for those who might find themselves without a mobile device. The stacks are now roped-off museum exhibits.

You just don't see physical media anymore. Awkward, low-end portable storage like CDs and DVDs are rarely useful, not with ever-increasing bandwidth availability, and not without the requirement to divide culture up into tradable units, the need to trick consumers with physical objects in exchange for their money and their rights. Blu-ray and HD-DVD, their technology moulded to constrict the hold on consumers, never had a chance, too rapidly overtaken by faster, more versatile and more open live storage devices.

The cinema chains have been decimated. Those that persist cater to customers who seek an authentic movie theatre experience. You'll often find movie sponsors subsidising tickets, food and drink sales in return for screenings of 'official' versions of films, desperate to have their product placements seen by audiences in a controlled environment. You often find yourself return to really good movie again and again, drawn by dynamic content generation and commissioned extensions. There's no point banning cameras and threatening legal action, the movie doesn't need to be protected, quite the opposite, and almost everyone there has already seen it. When you walk into a cinema you probably have versions of all the latest films stored in your inside pocket, if you don't you can download them from the cinema's own server as you're watching, or access countless other titles through the powerful ad-hoc networks that settle invisibly over any significant gathering of people.

Outside of the cinemas there is little notion of viewing anything in any particular place, time or order, no way for anyone to dictate or even guess how you listen to your music or watch your news. Instead of a contest advertising has become a war. Average consumers are given the tools to strip away the old style commercial breaks and sponsor messages, tools that would have been illegal had DRM been allowed to develop unchecked.

Increasingly companies rely on getting information about their products integrated into the media, making them inseparable. You won't find a new album online that doesn't contain at least two tracks named after brands of sneakers or snack foods. The rewards for a rapper willing to name a financial services company somewhere in their lyrics are awe-inspiring - a once-off commercial concession like that can fund a popular artist for long time. Your favourite comedy sketch vlog regularly uses humour based on commercial products and services - a few years ago such a thing might have appalled you, yet you still see collections of old TV ads in the media libraries prominently tagged as humour. The Grand Theft Auto MMOG doesn't charge it's players for software or access, instead it sells in-game billboard space for fifty times the price of billboards in the real world, and the virtual cars the players are boosting will often be the latest models, performance and polygon counts boosted by higher paying sponsors, of course. Armed with suitable Creative Commons Contracts, protecting them from restrictive and exploitative deals, artists have little to fear from their sponsors.

The old copyright system did nothing to protect the right of artists and everything to protect the profit margins of the content industries. It might have been argued that without laws to protect artists, and companies to represent their interests, anyone could co-opt their work to use for advertising without rewarding them. But every company that considers such a tactic today must consider a simply question, is it worth more to make an enemy of an artist than to make a friend of one? Ultimately it must be conceded that artists of all forms are the mind and the voice of the world. Unfettered by exploitation and constant resistance, they hold the attention of all humanity. Disrespecting them is never going to be a good idea.

Some further reading:
Creative Commons
The Mozilla Project
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Boing Boing
Wikipedia
BitTorrent

GreaseMonkey Firefox Extension - Web content under user control [wikipedia.com].
AdBlock Firefox Extension - Web content filtering [wikipedia.com]
FeedTree - p2p feed dissemination.
MythTV - homebrew Personal Video Recorder project.

Mechanical Royalties - from a simple and revealing description of what artists' "rights" are worth today [howstuffworks.com]
Empowering Copyright Owners to Fight Illegal File-Swapping - a view from the "other side", for the sake of balance [ascap.com]
Trusted Computing - a relatively balanced view (at the time of writing) of TC technology [wikipedia.org]

Previously on this blog:
Burnoff: Part 1 - The Bad Guys Win - with additional relevant links.
Legal P2P in France?
Music Industry Logic Applied to Cutting Grass
Copyright Logic Applied to Digging Holes
An e-Paper Manifesto
Remember when music used to come on coasters?
Overpriced, Dusty Chunks of Pulverised Rainforest: An Endangered Species
link17 comments|post comment

Burnoff: Part 1 - The Bad Guys Win [Jan. 24th, 2006|01:56 pm]
[Tags|, , , , , , ]

Going to the movies is not what it used to be. Security at the studio-owned theatres is heavy, it's not a trip to be taken lightly. But if you want to see the film everyone is talking about without waiting a year for the home release, you have little choice. When you enter the lobby the first thing you see are long ranks of tiny, thumbprint activated lockers. This is where you must leave all of your electronics, your personal server and peripherals, even your watch, and you had better not be wearing smart spectacles or contacts. As you enter the security zone you're scanned for anything you may have forgotten. Cochlea and optical implants must be capable of responding with a coded RF identification signal to indicate their systems are secure and cannot record. People with older models, or models implanted abroad where such interrogation is illegal, are turned away. Perhaps they would like to see one of the older releases? Once through the scanner you must submit to a biometric ID test - this is where the known bloggers, hackers and spoilers are ejected. Finally there is the non-disclosure agreement to be signed - these days most moviegoers choose to sign via the MPAAs annual subscription, just trying to take some of the hassle out of visiting the cinema. Finally you get to see the film. In the auditorium the audience is constantly scanned by an AI looking for suspicious activity, so don't rummage in your pockets for too long. It's strange that all this effort to protect the movie industry has done so little to improve the movies.

You don't really own your home computer, or even the data you keep on it. Oh, you paid for it, just like you paid for the fibre-optic Internet connection that it can't function without, but now it squats under your TV using your electricity and does more work for the content industry than for you. The nightly security patches it downloads for itself don't secure your computer against attackers, they secure the system and software against you. TV-on-demand seemed like a dream come true when you first opted in and upgraded all your hardware, but the slowly encroaching charges are becoming a disincentive to turn on at all. Sometimes the last episode of a series makes up 50% of the cost of the whole season.

The Internet is not what it used to be. It's expanded, naturally, the technology giving everyone mobile PCs with vast ad-hoc networking capabilities, it's faster, more efficient, and more available, but it's also more restrictive. Since the ISPs were made responsible for the content they deliver their filtering has become neurotic. Anti-terror, piracy, plagiarism and libel filters search every request and response for signs of illegal activity, always erring on the side of caution. Wikipedia's index has been decimated. Popular blogs like Boing Boing now have more lawyers involved than contributors (the one's that have survived that is). Even if you managed to get something illegal through the filters your operating system's regularly updated self-check mechanisms would eventually root it out, or report you to the authorities, usually both.

These days it seems like every time you turn on one of your gadgets you have to fight with its DRM to get it to do what you want. The home movie of your daughter opening her birthday presents is ruined by a patch of grey fog that shifts with every movement of the camera, tracking sluggishly to keep the TV screen in the background obscured. From the codes embedded in TV's update pattern your camera had decided the show was not licensed for this form of reproduction and blocked it. You wish you had thought to turn it off at the time, but squinting into the camera's tiny screen it hadn't looked so bad.

Even once recorded, your own media is not safe. Everything is stored on your home PC, trapped in the solid-state drive's proprietary filing system. Once there, the only reasonable way to transfer it is to another trusted drive from the same vendor - the DRM won't recognise any other brand of mass storage device. In the meantime the PC constantly searches your files looking for illegal material. A recent security patch has destroyed the last video of your father. According to the email report you received that same morning the latest video and photographic scanning protocols had decided something seen in the footage resembled a new government building, the appearance of which is now classified. You know for sure that there is no such building in the footage, it was all filmed in the old man's living room. But there's no way for you to prove that with the offending shots turned to grey fog.

You just don't see physical media anymore. Too easily duplicated, their security too easily cracked, they've been dropped in favour of heavily encrypted and vendor-locked streaming media. You don't 'own' copies of any music or movies these days, instead your monthly subscriptions grant you only the right to temporarily buffer a few seconds of the distributor's authorised files while you watch or listen. Ultimately, that was the reason ad-hoc networking protocols and mobile PC technologies were pushed so hard, not because the customers wanted them but because the music and movie industries needed them to replace the vulnerable duplication method normally needed for such mobile media.

Physical bookshops are a novelty now; they only sell works that are in the public domain, and only to a few die-hard paper enthusiasts. Their prices rise steadily as demand drops and the printing and binding industry falters. Tightened regulation has made it illegal to sell second hand books that are still under copyright - the bookshops will sometimes give the customer a few cents for old books, part of a commission they receive for sending them off to be destroyed by the publishers. Public libraries have almost disappeared - unable to adapt to an environment where more and more books were only available in locked digital formats, they were forced to close all but the largest repositories - and even those are rapidly becoming obsolete. The last book you tried to download to you eReader turned out to be incompatible. The latest novels are now being streamed as well, one page at a time, and you'll have to buy a new reader that supports wireless quantum encryption. It seems odd that you're old enough to remember when photocopiers were still legal.

The only way writers can get their novels read, or musicians have their music heard, is by signing with a content provider who will claim the work as their own and charge people for access. It's nearly impossible for artists to make money anymore. The celebrities you read about, the millionaires who's contribution to the industry was actually rewarded, are a microscopic minority. But wasn't it always that way? There is nothing to stop an author from reading a work aloud in public, or a band from performing to a live audience, but few beyond that space will hear it. Hardly anyone has access to the technology that would let them record what they're hearing, at least not in any permanent form, and even fewer have the means to share it once they have. And god forbid the artists accidentally use a sentence or lyric already claimed by one of the corporations...

Somewhere out there, hackers and open-source software programmers are still working, beleaguered by diminishing supplies of usable hardware, ever tighter controls on imports and the furious unflinching eye of the authorities. They are constantly interrogated, their work searched for copyright and patent infringements, for any new technologies the content providers and national security services can't control. They can write competitive applications, they can make the systems work faster, more efficiently, if they weren't so fearful, they could make it free. What they can't do is tell anyone that needs to know.


Some browsing material for your (dis)pleasure, in no particular order:
Cinemas as police-states [BoingBoing.net]
UK cinema copyright warnings: a call to action [BoingBoing.net]
Trusted Computing: Promise and Risk [EFF.org - Electronic Frontier Foundation]
Your General-Purpose PC --> Hollywood-Approved Entertainment Appliance [EFF.org]
Protected Media Path, Component Revocation, Windows Driver Lockdown [EFF.org]
Analog Hole Bill Introduced [EFF.org]
New Senate Broadcast Flag Bill Would Freeze Fair Use [arstechnica.com]
Big Content would like to outlaw things no one has even thought of yet [arstechnica.com]
The Dangers of Device Authentication [EFF.org]
Battle for the digital bookshelf gains momentum [NewScientist.com]
Quantum cryptography network gets wireless link [NewScientist.com]
MP3 creators to add copy protection [NewScientist.com]
Movie & Music Industry Proposals ISP Self-Regulation [ConstitutionalCode.blogspot.com]
MPAA want control of both technology and customers. [Corante.com - broken layout]
The 15 enemies of the Internet and other countries to watch [rsf.org]
France about to get worst copyright law in Europe? [BoingBoing.net]
French Government Lobbied to Ban Free Software [FSFFrance.org]
eucd.info - Site created to face the threat from the French copyright overhaul.
What If Copyright Law Were Strongly Enforced in the Blogosphere? [ConcurringOpinions.com]
Study: how Canadian copyright law is bought by entertainment co's [BoingBoing.net]
Vatican 'cashes in' by putting price on the Pope's copyright [TimesOnline.co.uk]
Shirky: stupid (c) laws block me from publishing own work online [BoingBoing.net]
The Copyrighting of Public Space [NewUrbanist.blogspot.com]
Jamming device aims at camera phones [news.com.com]
Yet another account of a paranoia-tinged screening [Defamer.com]
No taking pix of San Fran building from the sidewalk? [BoingBoing.net]
A-Hole bill would make a secret technology into the law of the land [BoingBoing.net]

Previously in this blog:
An e-Paper Manifesto
Remember when music used to come on coasters?
Overpriced, Dusty Chunks of Pulverised Rainforest: An Endangered Species
Random Music Generators Save the Earth
How to Save Music
Digital Analogy Management
link55 comments|post comment

Body Worlds of the Snatcher War Invasion [Aug. 2nd, 2005|11:52 pm]
[Tags|]

There is a third remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers in the works (they says it's not but we all know it is - mainly because no one in Hollywood has had an original idea in the last three decades). After all my complaining about Spielberg's deplorably disposable version of War of the Worlds maybe it will get another chance sooner than I thought.

We can only hope.
linkpost comment

Review: Steven Speilberg's War of the Eastern Seaboard [Jul. 1st, 2005|02:30 am]
[Tags|, ]

The good news: this is everything you would expect of a summer blockbuster. The bad news: that's all it is. It's not a classic, no risks were taken, not one, it is forgettable, and come Christmas you're going to be thinking twice about buying the DVD. The real crime here, as I've harked on about before, is that with Spielberg's clout this movie should have been able to at least distort the mould a little. This could have been the definitive H.G. Wells movie, a culture shaping event, something world changing. Instead SS threw it away on a big budget, disposable shoo-in. Everyone will see it, and everyone will forget it as soon as the next big thing shows up.

Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed this movie, as predicted. In fact I may like action-filled SF thrillers more than is natural. But I also like to see some real effort once in a while, and I don’t mean better SFX or more awesome scope, I mean the kind of effort a director puts in to make something that might not work, energy expended in fighting the safe Hollywood paradigms to produce something groundbreaking. When I call this movie effortless, I mean nothing good.

You will enjoy this film. You'll stare wide-eyed at the terrifying machines, watch horrified as they turn people to dust with their Directed Energy Weapons of Dubious PhysicsTM. However you'll also puzzle at the reason the aliens came down to the surface at all – with all that time and energy on their hands why didn’t they just vaporise us with a few carefully directed comets snagged at the edge of the solar system? Why did they have all that machinery to collect and process humans when they could have derived the same energy/materials from processing much less troublesome plants, animals and topsoil? If they have all those resources available just to occupy one measly little ball of dirt why didn’t they use them to either build space habitats or alter themselves to suit a less resistant and more extant environment somewhere else? You'll be asking yourself how exactly an 'intelligent' species evolves without common sense?

This is the problem when 'updating' the WotW concept as SS has. It just doesn't work today. The only right way to have made this movie was as a pre-WWI period piece where none of the characters would even have been able to frame those questions – their confusion would have been our suspension of disbelief. And the only person who could have financed a 'dangerous' project like that with any real chance of success was SS. And now thechance is gone and won't be back for a very long time, perhaps not even in our lifetime.

Nice try, Stevie, but you blew it.
linkpost comment

navigation
[ viewing | most recent entries ]
[ go | earlier ]