Sometimes, you just don't have time to read a lengthy annotation (The Excessively Annotated RIAA Letter on the INDUCE Act (IICA)). In such cases, an abriged version is much better. Brad Hill of the Digital Music Weblog has done us all a favor and condensed the RIAA's letter to the Senate. Read the original letter: Letter to Senators from Mitch Bainwol, Re: INDUCE Act.
Read on for Brad Hills' abriged version:
Dear Senator,
Please pass S. 2560, and quickly. Our sales have slipped painfully. I wish I could draw a tight, scientific connection between sagging CD product and P2P file-sharing, but I cannot. So, in this letter I'll cite "common sense" a lot. I'll also state speculation as fact, like this: "It is the relatively new online piracy that has had a truly devastating impact in a short amount of time." Doesn't that go down easily? Most journalists, who are trained to ask questions and stuff, publish unfounded statements as fast as I can utter them, so I'm counting on you for the same level of gullibility.
It's common sense that we can't compete with free. Please don't remember I said that later tonight, when you're watching a premium
cable channel. And if you happen to be drinking bottled water right now, just forget that I brought it up.
P2P is rampant. Later I'll throw around some study results funded by invested industry groups, to prove that I've done some homework, but the important point is that most of your constituents probably love file-sharing. But they are not the villains! Even though we'll sue them if we can, one by one. Damn, this isn't coming out right...listen, trust me, everyone will be happier if we can wipe file-sharing off the face of the earth. Would you do this for us? We hate P2P companies, whether they hurt us or help us. Thinking is hard! And reinventing takes too much work! Don't make us do it, Senator, I beg you.
You might have heard a bunch of bull about how S. 2560 is worded too broadly, and some hoopla about stifled innovation, and a lot of
yadda-yadda about technology companies being sued. Please. I don't need to tell *you* who's paying dues and who isn't! None of our
friends will get burned by this, and if they do, well hell, isn't "technology" the real problem anyway?
In closing, Senator, I'd like to recycle the tired and thoroughly debunked concept that file-sharing is identical to shoplifting. By so doing, I have utterly discredited myself, and rendered this communication a waste of your time. If you'd like to talk, I'll be in
the bathroom sobbing.
Cheers,
Mitchy
Brother Dana writes a post that uses Steve Jackson Games' Ogre as a metaphor for the difficulties that Microsoft has in dealing with viruses and bugs (Moore's Lore: Ogre). For those who aren't wargamers, Ogre is an extremely cool game that pits one giant cybernetic super tank (the titular Ogre, with tactical nukes) against hordes of regular army units (except they have tactical nukes too). Think Godzilla vs. the Japanese Army (except, because the game is exceedingly well-balanced, the Japanese Army actually stands a chance). Dana says,
In the real world, of course, the Ogre can't win.Yes, but what of the Ogrethulu scenario? Ogrethulu is a variant of Ogre that mixes it up with H.P. Lovecraft's Cthulu Mythos. For an image of an Ogrethulu, click here and scroll about 2/3 down. Also note that Lovecraft's works are now in the public domain.With every turn of time, the other side gains more allies. The Ogre remains the Ogre. Even if the Ogre grows, he's not going to out-grow his opponents. The bigger he gets, in fact, the more opponents he draws.
In any case, in Ogrethulu, the Ogre can regenerate its damage by eating the other units. If you're not careful, an attack by smaller units might only make the Ogrethulu more powerful.
What does this have to do with Dana's metaphor? Well, there might be a point in there or there might not. I'm not really sure. I just think Ogrethulu is a way cool metaphor for Microsoft. Also, I've been playing Steve Jackson's games since he worked for Metagaming. Bonus: SJ Games' most excellent GURPS is getting a brand new, tweaked and revised edition this August.
One hundred years ago today, the Oil City Public Library opened thanks to a $50,000 donation from Andrew Carnegie (Building of library was controversial issue back in 1904). Yet, as the title of the article indicates, building the library was not universally applauded. Reading the article, which includes many quotes from the debates of the era, shows many parallels with the arguments surrounding many of the copyright, library filtering and open access debates of today:
“The placing of a large collection of books within the reach of school children, without money and without price, will place all children on an equality. The child who has access to many books at home will not have so great an advantage as now over the child who cannot afford to own costly books of reference.”via LISNews“…If Oil City should have an institution of that kind, it would prove the ruination of hundreds of young persons, who would waste their time and corrupt their minds by reading cheap sensational novels.”
“People who claim that the reading of (dime) books…will injure the young should investigate carefully what these young ones are reading now.”
“The argument that reading works of fiction is injurious to the minds of working men is often advanced by men who themselves enjoy perusing such books.”
“The final (election) tally: 466 against the library, 982 for the library.”
Reuters is reporting that the FCC is going to fine Viacom $550,000 for Janet's nipple flash on the SuperBowl (Jackson Breast Flash May Get $550,000 Fine-Source). Jeff Jarvis notes that this would mean Janet completely topless would rate a million (The Daily Stern: The million-buck boobs). Ba-dump-bump. But, seriously folks, the decision isn't final and the Commissioners still have to vote on it. What intrigues me, however, is that the fine lawyers at the FCC apparently have argued that the 20 stations owned by Viacom should pay the maximum fine allowable, but the stations that aired the incident but were not owned by Viacom pay nothing. I have a feeling that at least one of the commissioners will complain about that, but let's think about possible reasons for that distinction:
From News You Can Bruise regarding the INDUCE Act (And Another Thing):
Also, all laws should be written in my Leibnitzian Python wonder-language that contains no ambiguity.
Dear me, but isn't that Steven E. Landsburg a witty fellow? Why, he used such brilliant economic logic in his Slate column to "prove" that we should consider the death penalty for the writers of computer viruses and worms (Feed the Worms Who Write Worms to the Worms). How exceedingly clever.
Here's a question though: why didn't he write about considering execution for corporate malfeasors? Perhaps his idea doesn't seem so clever as applied to people he may socialize with.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of virus-writers, but how odd that Landsburg chooses to extend the death penalty to their non-violent crimes and not the criminal acts of those more associated with his profession.
You know, Landsburg claims that:
Governments exist largely to supply protections that, for one reason or another, we can't purchase in the marketplace. Those governments perform best when they supply the protections we value most. We can measure their performance only if we are willing to calculate costs and benefits and to respect what our calculations tell us, even when it's counterintuitive. Any policymaker who won't do this kind of arithmetic is fundamentally unserious about policy.
I would be more impressed with Landsburg's claimed need for impartial cost-benefit analysis if the analysis hit a little closer to home for him.
Howard Stern has been the FCC's indecency whipping boy for some time. After the latest series of fines, however, he asked his listeners to complain to the FCC about an episode of Oprah's talk show that included rather graphic descriptions of sex acts. The Smoking Gun has received copies of more than 1600 complaints about that episode thanks to a FOIA request (FCC Swamped With Oprah Indecency Complaints). It is impossible to know which complaints are real, but many of them are downright hilarious:
I had just returned with my 3-year-old twins from Bible day camp when I turned on the show ... Tell me, Mr. Powell and Mr. Copps: How would you explain the concept of a "tossed salad" to your kids?
The Oprah show ... was so offensive that my child's head literally exploded. Please ban free speech so this never happens again.
I just wanted to say how much I appreciate all your hard work trying to take down such evils as Howard Stern.... next, please, oh please, go after that Mother of Harlots, Oprah....I will send a list of books next that I think you should look into.
I am writing to you as a very concerned elementary school teacher ... While watching this program, all I could think about were my 3rd grade students home from school, viewing these vulgar conversations about sex: at 4:30 p.m.! .... In teaching government to my students, I'm finding it very difficult to be honest. How do I teach the notion of "Freedom of Speech"???
Recently on the Oprah Winfrey Talk show ... acts of sexual nature were described in detail without the presence of a medical doctor ... Thank you for your time, ... Registered Republican
Proving that it is as serious about dominating the music download business as much as it has dominated the retail sphere, Wal-Mart (aka "the world's largest retailer") announced yesterday intentions to purchase Universal Music Group from troubled media conglomerate Vivendi Universal. The purchase will give Wal-Mart immediate control of nearly 30% of the US music market including such popular artists as Eminem, No Doubt and Sheryl Crow as well as a historic catalog that includes artists such as Abba and Louis Armstrong. Read the press release: Wal-Mart to Purchase Universal Music Group.
Wal-Mart to Offer Subscription-Based Download Service?
Wal-Mart refused to discuss whether the purchase will lead to any changes in its music download service, but knowledgeable insiders confirm that Wal-Mart will certainly decrease the price of both CDs and individual downloads for their artists, putting further pressure on alternate music download services such as Apple's iTunes and Napster 2.0. Additionally, analysts believe that Wal-Mart is considering experimentation with a subscription-based download service that would provide rationed download access to the entire Universal catalog for a flat fee of approximately $5/month.
It is April 1, sorry.
Lucas Gonze observed something I thought an exemplar of modern life (March 31, 2004):
I was walking the dog and I heard a cellphone over my head. It turned out to be a bird.
Jack Balkin offers up the following paradox regarding the Newdow case, otherwise known as the "under God" Pledge of Allegiance case (Hoisted By His Own Petard?). Argues Jack, "If Newdow wins his case, it will prove that atheism is wrong, because it's going to take a miracle."
To which I, being a reader of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, respond:
A miracle would be proof of God's existence. If people have proof of God, their belief would be fact-based instead of faith-based, and the loss of faith would cause God to cease to exist. Thus, atheism would be triumphant after all.
USA Today reports on a rather bizarre market niche: companies that are charging people to display artwork on their HDTV sets (Start-ups turn flat-panel TVs into works of art):
An expensive new digital television is big, beautiful, flat and can hang on the wall. Some might even consider the set a piece of art.
So why not display Picasso, Renoir, Monet and other masters on the screen itself?
Three companies have recently formed to help consumers do just that.
The article notes that HDTV sets are rather expensive, from $500 for the smallest models to over $17,000 for nerdvana sets. On top of this initial expense, the three companies discussed in the article expect consumers to pay a nice additional chunk of change to display licensed artwork on the sets.
Techdirt wonders if people can't come up with simpler, cheaper (presumably free) solutions (That Flat Screen TV Needs A Screensaver).
I wonder if there isn't a solution where companies pay me to have an HDTV. Why couldn't advertisers pay people to play commercials on their HDTV sets and subsidize the cost of the plasma set in return? Instead of a Matisse, why not a McDonald's?
I don't post much about the ongoing SCO v. Linux lawsuits, though heaven knows there is much to discuss in the case. For incredible, indepth, precedent-setting blog coverage of these lawsuits, see the justly famous Groklaw.
Most recently, SCO has begun suing not only distributors of Linux, but users as well. In the first case brought against an end-user, SCO has sued Autozone for using Linux and thus violating SCO's copyrights (It's Autozone). All well and good, but there is something unusual about the case.
Netcraft is not involved directly in the case, it is an English company that conducts research and analysis on the internet. According to their about page, since 1995 they have been,
a respected authority on the market share of web servers, operating systems, hosting providers, ISPs, encrypted transactions, electronic commerce, scripting languages and content technologies on the internet.
Thus, it is no surprise that they would check up on what systems the court involved is running. They report that some of the computer systems for the court in charge of the SCO v. Autozone lawsuit run on Linux (Court that will hear SCO v AutoZone lawsuit itself runs Linux). Indeed,
Plaintiffs filing lawsuits must enter copies of their legal documents in Adobe PDF format in the court's Linux-based Case Management/Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) system, which will provide electronic updates of case information for the litigants and their lawyers.
This, I think, is a first. I have no idea if there is a precedent for this sort of thing. Here you have a court that is engaged in precisely the same conduct the plaintiff complains of. If a judge did this it would not only be an appearance of a conflict of interest, it would be a conflict of interest and clear case for recusal. What do you do when the court administration is involved? Can an entire court recuse itself? Is there any rule or precedent for this?
In related news, SCO public relations people continue their so-far successful campaign to get the world to hate them by comparing themselves to the RIAA ('We're just like the RIAA,' says SCO).
I've been following but not posting on the SCO v. World copyright battle over Linux. However, this post from Groklaw is definitely worth passing on (The Grinch Who Stole Linux).
By the way, parody or satire?
What is more frightening on Halloween than an attack on the reliability of our voting system? This is the question cartoonist Tom Tomorrow asks in an episode from his comic strip This Modern World (This Modern World: Something Truly Terrifying). See, my E-Voting Archives for more info on how truly scary this is.
via Copyfight
UPDATE 1200 PT
Siva Vaidhyanathan reprints an article from the The Chronicle of Higher Education on the additional notice-and-takedown letters Diebold has been sending to universities whose students are standing up against Diebold's bullying (3 More Colleges Receive Cease-and-Desist Letters From Maker of Voting Machines). Of course, the article is already seriously out of date. See, the Why War? website for an update list, but at least three more universities (in addition to the one's in the article) have received notice-and-takedown letters as well (Targeting Diebold with Electronic Civil Disobedience). Of course, this won't get Diebold very far ... mirrors are appearing much faster than letters being sent.
On a personal note, a friend of mine was the intended target of one of the notice-and-takedown letters. More later when he has decided how he intends to respond.
Perhaps some of the most famous copyrights this time of year are the copyrights for the designs of the classic Universal Studios Monsters (Frankenstein’s Monster, Bride of Frankenstein, The Wolf Man, Dracula, The Mummy, Phantom of the Opera and the Creature of the Black Lagoon), which were created by Jack Pierce. Sometimes, of course, copyright doesn't lead to lawsuits, but inspires alternate creation, such as the more "realistic" design of Frankenstein's Monster in the Hammer Films classic The Curse of Frankenstein.
However, such outcomes aren't always the case. Even something as simple as the everyman "Michael Myers Mask" used in the original "Halloween" movie has had its share of controversy.
In Don Post Studios, Inc. v. Cinema Secrets, Inc. [PDF], which was decided in 2000, a strange sort of independent creation case took place. Don Post Studios, who had designed the mask used in the 1978 movie (for a payment of $150), was marketing a similar mask to the public under their own auspices. Cinema Secrets, a major supplier of Halloween masks and such, had licensed the mask design from the makers of the movie, and was marketing their version to the public. Don Post sued for copyright infringment (among other things), claiming that Cinema Secrets had copied the Don Post mask. Cinema Secrets won the copyright issues on a claim of independent creation (among other things): Cinema Studios' mask was based on the movie, not the Don Post mask. The winning claim brings a whole new meaning to the term "independent creation."
Interesting fact: the infamous mask used in the movie was a modified version of a "Captain Kirk" mask based on a foam master of William Shatner's head. Scary, indeed.
SpookMaster is one of the leading websites for those interested in advanced jack-o-lantern patterns. The website is a commercial enterprise, and though they have some free designs, they make money by selling the pumpking carving patterns. They have somewhat traditional designs such as "Frankie" and "The Bewitching Hour," as well as more contemporary designs, such as "Arnold Schwarzenegger." You might think that it would be relatively easy to copy the patterns which are shown on the site, and thus avoid paying for the patterns, but you would be wrong. Be sure to pay attention to the copyright notice:
If you try to copy an example pumpkin from the website you get the message These sample patterns look just like the real thing but they are NOT CARVEABLE. The sample patterns have been designed to look exactly like the carved patterns but with a few minor (unnoticeable) changes that make them impossible to carve. We don't do this to be mean, we do it to protect our business. [emphasis in original]
For added fun, try to copy and paste from their website and see what happens.
Readers may also be interested in the copyright notice on this Jack-o-Lantern Bookmark Crochet Pattern:
