If you just listened to the popular press pushing stereotypes, you might think that kids these days can't think in complete sentences, let alone read anything longer than 140 characters (oops, this post is too long!). And, of course, there are a few luddites out there who keep insisting that the internet means that the kids today don't read long form works any more. Of course, we've been pointing out for years that this is a complete fabrication. Back in 2007, we wrote about how kids were reading more books than ever before. Two years later, we noted that there was a notable increase in reading long-form fiction books. Certainly, we've seen a massive increase in the number of books being published (even discounting "non-traditional" or self-published books, in the last decade there's been an increase in books published per year of almost 50% from about 200,000 to 300,000).

And, now there's even more evidence that the supposed death of reading by kids is a complete myth. Aaron DeOliveira alerts us to this story that shows that so-called "millennials" spend more money on books than any other demographic group. In fact, that group -- those born between 1979 and 1989 -- now buy 30% of all books sold. As the report notes, this even beats out baby boomers, despite the fact that the boomers have a lot more disposable income.

Either way, can we dispense with the twin myths that (a) the internet generation doesn't pay for content and (b) that they don't read long form books?

It's hard to really know how many cheaters are actually caught taking shortcuts. Generally, people assume that the ones who get caught are representative of all cheaters -- but maybe the smart cheaters are never caught... and really do prosper. Here are just a few known cheaters... and not all of them have faced up to any consequences.

• South African Olympian Cameron van der Burgh set a world record in the men's 100-meter breaststroke (and won a gold medal), but later he admitted to using more dolphin kicks than are officially allowed. He's not the only one doing it, but that doesn't make it right (just like peeing in the pool). [url]
• In the UK, Charles Ingram cheated "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?" with a simple system of having his wife cough at the correct answers. Ingram and his accomplices were found guilty of cheating by a jury, but maybe if they'd used a slightly less obvious audible system... [url]
• The 2012 National Scrabble Championship was marred by a boy caught palming blank tiles. Cheating at Scrabble is considered such a rare event that a fake wunderkind caught red handed made national news. [url]
• Surprise: students enrolled in online classes with Coursera have been found cheating with dozens of cases of alleged plagiarism. Students don't (currently) earn any real credits from these classes, but that will likely change someday. So when more online classes actually have value, there will be far more than a few dozen cheaters. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post.

It's that time of the year again when SXSW does its annual "panelpicker" effort. I'm on one of the proposed panels, put together by Engine Advocacy, discussing the new era of tech advocacy by looking at the political landscape after the 2012 elections and how startups, entrepreneurs, open innovation advocates and the tech community can better engage in the political process to avoid disasters being pushed by legacy incumbents. The panel will include myself, Mike McGeary from Engine, Elizabeth Stark from both Stanford and StartX and Mark Colwell from Senator Jerry Moran's office. If you're reading this, you know who I am, and those other three were all important players in helping to stop SOPA earlier this year. Feel free to vote and hopefully our panel will get picked.

There are, as always, plenty of other great panels to check out as well. I haven't had a chance to go through them all, but here are a few others that would be great, if you're looking for ones to vote for:

• A panel on copyright and disruptive technologies involving three true experts on the subject: Andrew Bridges, Margot Kaminski and Wendy Seltzer.
• A discussion between two of the key Congressional staffers who (from opposite ends of the political spectrum) helped team up to defeat SOPA: Jayme White from Senator Wyden's office and Laurent Crenshaw from Rep. Issa's office, talking about Congress and the internet, and how to prevent future SOPAs from happening.
• A discussion asking if the internet has become America's "third party" starring some more of the key folks who led the fight against SOPA (including both Colwell and Crenshaw already mentioned, but also Maura Corbett and Marvin Ammori).
• Rob Pegoraro talking about why the media doesn't understand tech policy issues very well.
• A panel on the future of internet rights.
• This one, the title says it all: It's Reddit's World. We Just Live In It.
• Gary Shapiro on "ninja innovation"
• In Defense of Mashups looks interesting in that, among others, it would have Eric from Padmapper on the panel, and he's currently being sued by Craigslist for "mashing up" Craigslist with maps to make Craigslist more useful.
• I learned a while back that when the Bomb Squad/Public Enemy's Hank Shocklee speaks, you should listen, so vote for his panel (also with Julie Samuels at EFF, Michael Petricone at CEA and Paul Geller from Grooveshark) on making free content work for fans and for artists.
• Similarly, former rockstar, now brilliant business strategist Dave Allen is always worth following, especially when he'll be on a panel with Brian Zisk talking about music tech startups.
• Soundcloud and Wattpad together, talking about the rise of collaborative content creation? Count me in.
• Nick Grossman has some very cool ideas about connected innovation, and he wants to talk about a bunch of them at SXSW.
• Here's an interesting one on learning from China in terms of how imitation can help you innovate too.

There are lots, lots more, but these were a few that caught my eye.

Last week, we relaunched our Techdirt Insider Shop with a number of new and different offerings, including (for the first time) the ability to do a "pay what you want" option to get some downloads, starting off with downloads of my book, Approaching Infinity, as well as the research report we came out with earlier this year, The Sky is Rising. We often hear from critics that if people can get something for free, they will, but here's a clear cut case of where that's not true (though we've seen it in many other cases as well.) It's only the early going with our store, but already, we've seen that two thirds of people who got the books decided to pay for it, with the average price being just under $5. Over 20% of orders were for $10 or more. We'll be curious to see what happens over time and if it changes. But, once again, it seems to suggest that, even if you're giving content away for free, if people want to support you, they will.

I recently listened to two very (very) different podcasts, but which really highlighted something kind of amazing: it's so much easier to make a movie today. We're talking a completely different world. Of course, most of us knew that already, and it's why we see things like many more movies being made today than ever before in the past. But between these two podcasts, what's driven home is how much the old system relied on gatekeepers, and how little the new system needs such gatekeepers.

The first podcast was a recent episode of Kevin Smith & Scott Mosier's Smodcast, in which Smith digs (deep) into his archives to find a ton of old voicemail recordings that give you a taste of the process of making his original film, Clerks and actually getting it picked up and shown in theaters (it comes after the discussion of the war against sharks at the beginning, which is entertaining too...). At first I just thought it was kind of awesome to get that kind of behind-the-scenes look (or, listen) to all the people that had to "appreciate" Clerks before it was picked up by Miramax and became that indie film classic it shall forever remain. It's amazing to listen to all of those voicemails and go back 20 years and learn about what happened. But there are all sorts of people who have to get involved and become boosters of the film. Smith and Mosier were lucky that one influential guy caught the movie at their original showing in NY, and then he helped get a writeup by an influential reporter, who helped get others interested in the film, but each step of the way, a champion had to say "hey, you should send a tape to so-and-so."

But then I thought about just how different the world is today. While people can go through gatekeepers, we see an entire new generation of filmmakers (and other content creators) who don't need to hope that someone influential catches the flick in its only theater showing. They don't have to find "the" guy who sold indie films to studios. They don't have to find "the" reporter who writes about indie films. Yes, some of those things can help, but they can now use sites like YouTube and Vimeo to post the work (or snippets of it) online for free. They can use social media to build a following. They can use Kickstarter and TopSpin and other tools to make money. It's an entirely different world.

And that point was driven home when I listened to the very next podcast in my playlist, from Alec Baldwin's Here's the Thing podcast, in which he interviews two documentary filmmakers who basically made (controversial) films on effectively no budget at all. While the types of movies are quite different from Clerks, listening to the two podcasts, one after the other, you realize that the documentary filmmakers probably wouldn't even have attempted to make those films two decades ago.

It's an amazing new world for creative arts, with tremendous new opportunity. Those who are complaining that things are worse these days seem to be living in an alternate reality. If things are "worse," it's only because there may be more competition for attention -- which is a real challenge. But there's so much more opportunity and so many fewer gatekeepers needed, that it's difficult not to be excited for the kinds of creativity we're seeing today and will inevitably see in the future.

We just wrote about yet another (in a long line) of manufactured terrorist plots, in which the FBI creates its own terrorist plot to arrest anyone who can be coaxed into going along for the ride, even if they had no interest or ability to push the plot forward on their own. In that case, it was even more ridiculous, because they couldn't even find anyone willing to go along with the plot -- and the main "suspect" actually alerted the FBI to the informant who was trying to coax him into taking part in a plot (which didn't stop him from being arrested, even if the case was eventually dropped).

Of course, the FBI is not alone in its incredibly ham-fisted anti-terrorism efforts in which the focus seems to be much more about someone's religious leanings, rather than any actual interest in creating terror. The NY Police Department got plenty of attention for deciding to build their own local versions of the FBI and CIA to try to catch terrorists. That link describes the NYPD as a sort of new "elite" intelligence agency, hiring people out of other intelligence agencies and then placing agents around the globe to try to beat the FBI and CIA at their own game.

Back at home, apparently this included following on the FBI's tactic of assuming that "brown skin = terrorist." As such, they've spent the past few years spying on "Muslim neighbrhoods" throughout New York (with help from the CIA), sending undercover agents and informants into Muslim groups and organizations:

The Demographics Unit is at the heart of a police spying program, built with help from the CIA, which assembled databases on where Muslims lived, shopped, worked and prayed. Police infiltrated Muslim student groups, put informants in mosques, monitored sermons and catalogued every Muslim in New York who adopted new, Americanized surnames.

Police hoped the Demographics Unit would serve as an early warning system for terrorism. And if police ever got a tip about, say, an Afghan terrorist in the city, they'd know where he was likely to rent a room, buy groceries and watch sports.

How useful has it been? Apparently not at all. Not a single lead has come out of the program. Not one.

I know this is a crazy thought, but perhaps violating the privacy of tons of people just because of the color of their skin or their religion, isn't the best (or even "a") way to stop terrorists.

Jameson Ahern points us to a fantastic discussion by Josh Lehman, explaining why it's silly to argue that people are irrational for spending $4 or more on a cup of coffee*, but not $0.99 on digital content or apps. As with nearly all cases of seemingly "irrational" behavior in economics, the truth is that you just need to better understand the marginal benefit that people are getting and the true marginal costs, which often go way beyond the dollar amount. Lehman points out a few key examples, with the focus on trust & certainty, as well as the difference in the competitive market.

For the first point, he notes that you know exactly what you're getting with a Starbucks cup of coffee and how much you'll enjoy it:

I know I’ll like my cup of coffee. It will fully meet my expectations. For the $4 I spend I don’t expect it to change my life. I don’t expect it to even last beyond its last drop (and a trip to the bathroom later). It’s an experience I can fully trust will be pretty much the same each time. There’s no gamble here. Ask me if I’d like to drop $4 on a cup of your new “Instant Refresher Juice 1.0″ and there’s a very good chance I’ll pass. Or, maybe I’ll ask for a free sample to see if your $4 Instant Refresher Juice 1.0 is as good as Starbucks Coffee. In short, I know what I’m getting for $4 and I’m getting that same experience every time I hit the drive thru.

What he's really pointing out here is that there's a much bigger cost to your content than just the $0.99 it's being offered for. It's the risk of not getting any actual value out of it. And since people are, quite naturally, loss averse, they're much more hesitant to spend under such circumstances. This is completely rational behavior.

He also points out the general nature of the market, and whether or not there are reasonable "free" alternatives:

When you walk up to the counter of your local coffee shop you are not asked, “would you like a cup of our free coffee, or would you like to select from our paid options?”. If Starbucks gave out free coffee every day there would be mile-long lines at the drive thru. If the free coffee was anywhere close to as good as their paid stuff people would abandon the paid en masse. Some would pay maybe because they felt bad, as a freeloader. Others would pay because they preferred the options available to them in the paid column vs. the free. Now imagine the free selection at starbucks was nearly as large, or larger, than the paid selection: Welcome to the App Store.

In other words, as we've explained for years, the nature of the wider market really matters. In competitive markets, price gets driven down towards marginal cost. There are ways to prevent that -- and one is to build up brand value through things like trust and certainty (see the point above). So while there are cheaper alternatives, or even in many cases "free" alternatives at people's workplaces (contrary to Lehman's suggestion that there are no such alternatives), people still flock to the one they know and trust. But if there are lots and lots and lots of free alternatives, then you have to work much harder to justify the price. In some cases, for some people, you can. But the market situation between coffee and apps is not very close at all.

Lehman makes some other points as well, but the key one is that these are totally different markets with different factors playing on pricing. Comparing them in absolute dollar terms misses the full costs and full benefits associated with the purchase.

* Moreover, despite the "$4 coffee" being an oft-repeated trope about Starbucks, it's not really true. The biggest cup of coffee at Starbucks costs a little over $2. The drinks that are pricier than that are generally about nine-tenths milk, and milk is much more expensive than coffee. Indeed, the drinks that so many people think are a "ripoff" are not where Starbucks makes the majority of its money—they tend to be much lower-margin items than the plain coffee, because milk and whipped cream and fancy syrups are all high-cost and expensive to store. Is Starbucks still "expensive"? Maybe so -- but anyone who opens that discussion by talking about the "$4 cup of coffee" demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how the business functions (and even of what's on the menu).

A filmmaker is trying to make a film about basketball great Wilt Chamberlain's college years at Kansas. However, his estate appears to be threatening the filmmaker if he goes ahead, claiming such things as publicity rights over Chamberlain's image (thanks to Nancy for sending this over).

“Please be advised that on December 21, 2001, the court approved that the Chamberlain Family are entitled to ‘all of the rights, titles and interests into the intellectual property and rights of publicity associated with the international sports celebrity in the name and likeness of Wilton Norman Chamberlain.’

“Kevin, therefore, I request on behalf of my family, and as outlined in our above-mentioned letters, that you do not violate these rights by pursuing the name and likeness of Wilt since you do not have permission from our family.”

We've discussed many times just how frequently publicity rights are being abused to stop basic speech, and this appears like another such case. While publicity rights depend on the specifics of state laws, it is generally not considered a violation in any way to make a film about a public figure. That's why something like The Social Network was allowed, despite Mark Zuckerberg's obviously distaste for a movie highlighting the various legal claims against him and Facebook.

Publicity rights are supposed to be about preventing someone's image from being used to endorse a product -- such as putting their image on a cereal box. According to this document (pdf), Kansas doesn't have a publicity rights law (or didn't back in 2010). So, perhaps they're claiming that some other state's laws might apply. The family appears to live in Las Vegas, and Nevada does have a publicity rights law, which extends 50 years after death -- so perhaps that's what they're relying on. Many other states don't recognize such rights after death.

Either way, this seems silly and not at all a publicity rights issue. No one is going to assume that this movie is necessarily endorsed by Chamberlain or his family, just as they don't naturally assume any sort of biopic was obviously endorsed by those the film is about (or their families). Instead, this just seems like a clear case of someone trying to use the law to censor a filmmaker. Shameful.

As the FBI continues its perfect streak of successfully thwarting every terrorist plan it has conceived and put in motion itself (a few of which have been covered here), details of an unintentionally hilarious (and particularly horrendous) "terrorist plot" conjured up back in 2006 have emerged, thanks to an NPR expose and a lawsuit filed against the FBI by some of the unwilling participants.

Dubbed "Operation Flex" in deference to its main participant, this 2006 FBI project attempted to uncover a terrorist cell in a group of Orange County Muslims, even if it had to invent that cell itself. The FBI's man on the inside was Craig Montielh, who likely cut an incongruous figure at the mosque at 6'2", 260 lbs... and white. A bodybuilder with a sketchy past, Montielh was instructed to make contact with the supposed jihadists during his frequent visits to an Irvine gym where many of the Muslim men worked out.

To Montielh's credit, he sunk himself into the role. His FBI contacts suspected his new friends might be a terrorist cell because, well, they were four, unmarried Egyptian men living under one roof. But his enthusiasm for the job was constantly thwarted by his "targets," who preferred playing FIFA Soccer on the Xbox to discussing terrorist plots.

At first, they treated Montielh (who was going by the name "Farouk") as one of them, a new acolyte in need of guidance. But as time went on and Montielh became desperate to show results, his desire to turn idle revolutionary chat into action began to worry his companions. Montielh's first move was to amp up his personal relationship with Allah.

Months passed. People noticed that Craig was acting more devout. He began reciting prayers aloud, dressing in traditional robes, and showing up so early for 5:00 AM prayers that he'd get there before the person who unlocked the mosque every morning. They also noticed something else.

Yassir Abdel Rahim - Slowly and surely enough, during some times when we were having coffee, came the question of jihad.

Craig talked to his Arabic teacher, Mohammad Elsisy, about his new obsession too.

Mohammad Elsisy - He invited me once to lunch, yes. And he focused the topic in the lunch about jihad. And I keep turning his attention into the essence of Islam. And he keeps, again, bringing it back to jihad. And he kept asking about jihad over and over and over. And I told him, Farouk, get over it, get over it, get over it.

With Montielh trying and failing repeatedly to get these California Muslims to warm up to his own personal jihad, the FBI decided it was time for phase two. Montielh was told to start talking up an actual terrorist plot to blow up buildings in Southern California. After Montielh aggressively broached the subject to his friends during a car ride, they decided to do what anyone would have done in that situation:

After they parted ways with Craig, Mohammad and Niazi talked about what had just happened. They decided they had to do something, so they did what all Americans are supposed to do in this situation, what law enforcement officials tell us we should do when someone says he has access to weapons and wants to use them. They reported Craig to the FBI as a potential terrorist.

Mohammed and Niazi had Hussam Ayloush, the director of the Council on American Islamic Relations, make the call for them. He spoke to Steve Tidwell, the head of the FBI's California branch. Tidwell didn't even ask for a name or last known address of this white Muslim terrorist and assured Hussam that the FBI would take it from here. And the FBI did, launching what, for all intents and purposes, looked like an actual terrorist investigation.

But instead of wholeheartedly pursuing its own man, the FBI agents were more interested in repeatedly questioning everyone Montielh had talked to. They honed in on Niazi, whose sister was married to Amin al-Haq, designated as a terrorist by the US government. The FBI agents used this as leverage in an attempt to get Niazi to become a paid informant and go to work for them in Afghanistan. When he refused, the FBI had him arrested for "immigration fraud and making false statements."

But what's interesting about Niazi's arrest is what he wasn't charged with. He wasn't charged with associating with terrorists himself. He wasn't charged with plotting an attack. And he wasn't charged for anything he'd ever said to Craig over the course of months of recorded conversations.

At Niazi's trial, Agent Thomas Ropel repeatedly told the prosecutor that Niazi had instigated the conversations related to the so-called "terrorist plot." This isn't the way Montielh (or his tapes) remembers it:

Sam Black - Did Niazi ever instigate this kind of conversation with you?

Craig Montielh - No. No, I did. Every time.

Despite not being charged with anything more serious than immigration fraud and "making false statements," Niazi was placed under house arrest for more than a year. He represents all of the arrests or indictments made as a result of Operation Flex. And even this didn't stick. The US government filed a motion to dismiss all charges against Niazi.

Another home-built terrorist operation and not even a single conviction to show for it. In fact, the FBI is arguably worse off now than if it had never begun the investigation. The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has brought a lawsuit against FBI over Operation Flex, claiming the investigation violated their First Amendment rights by targeting them for their religious beliefs, as well as subjecting them to searches and monitoring without a warrant. The botched operation has also done damage to the Muslim community in California:

Operation Flex didn't just make people suspicious of law enforcement. It made them suspicious of each other. So many people I talked to say they stay away from new converts now. They have a hard time believing people are who they say they are. Here's Ayman, the Egyptian guy who first befriended Craig.

Ayman - Really, what they did is they made everybody in the mosque not trust everybody. Nobody would talk about it, but nobody-- you would see some weird looks, you know what I mean? People are looking at each other weird. I don't know. Maybe I was sensitive, but I can tell that the way they looked at me was just different.

In addition to making themselves look like a bunch of government agents creating their own busywork to stay employed, the FBI has taken yet another serious hit to its credibility. Early on in the transcript, it's noted that Stephen Tidwell (head of the FBI in Los Angeles) made an earlier approach via a town meeting at the Islamic Center of Irvine. He assured everyone attending that the FBI was not monitoring the mosque and that they would be informed if anyone from the FBI was planning to visit. That was June 5, 2006. Operation Flex began roughly two months later.

Then there's this troubling statistic, courtesy of investigative journalist Trevor Aaronson, who's studied hundreds of terrorism convictions:

Of about 500 terrorism cases since 9/11, about 50 defendants have been involved in cases where the informant came up with the idea and provided all of the means.

Finally, the worst, but least surprising, news of all: in an update to the story, NPR points out that US District Judge Cormac Carney has dismissed the lawsuit brought by CAIR, stating that allowing the the suit to proceed would "significantly compromise national security."

Carney's self-serving statement casts him (and a large part of the government's various secretive services) as an ancient Greek hero:

In struggling with this conflict, the Court is reminded of the classic dilemma of Odysseus, who faced the challenge of navigating his ship through a dangerous passage, flanked by a voracious six-headed monster, on the one side, and a deadly whirlpool, on the other. Odysseus opted to pass by the monster and risk a few of his individual sailors, rather than hazard the loss of his entire ship to the sucking whirlpool. Similarly, the proper application of the state secrets privilege may unfortunately mean the sacrifice of individual liberties for the sake of national security.

I know the Greeks laid the foundation for modern democracy, but perhaps we shouldn't base our decisions on their epic tragedies.

It's really amazing the lengths to which some copyright maximalists will go to push their agenda. Take, for example, the CEO of News Ltd., (the Australian wing of Murdoch's News Corp.), Kim Williams. In a keynote speech to the Australian International Movie Convention, he gave one those typical barn burner speeches about how the entertainment and media industry are collapsing due to infringement and that we need greater enforcement and new laws. Typical stuff. Of course, it's almost entirely wrong. He seems to totally ignore the fact that there is an incredible renaissance in content production, with more and more of it happening every day. The idea that what's happening has decreased the incentives to create is just not seen in the facts.

But, it gets even more ridiculous. To prove his point, he cites two great artists, whom, apparently in his mind, wouldn't have created their great works absent copyright: William Shakespeare and Charles Dickens:

Illustrating his point, Mr Williams speculated what today's artistic landscape would look like had Dickens and Shakespeare had to contend with digital piracy in the same epidemic proportions it now exists.

“Imagine the great works that are not being produced because the digital bandits are creating virtual pirate Globe Theatres and virtual literary magazines and making off with possibly 65 per cent of the profits,” Mr Williams said. Herald Sun Digital Pass

“If you think I’m exaggerating, think again, because the copyright bandits of the paper age of Shakespeare and Dickens had nothing on the copyright kleptomaniacs of the digital age.”

Well, first of all, there were no "copyright bandits" in Shakespeare's age, because there was no copyright law. And yet -- shocker of shockers -- Shakespeare's plays were still written. In fact, there's a reasonable argument that if there had been copyright in Shakespeare's day, many of his works wouldn't have been written, since he copied liberally from many sources. Certainly, he took many of those other works and improved upon them, but that sort of thing violates copyright law today.

Dickens' case is a bit more complicated. He, at least, lived in an era where copyright did exist (1 for 2, Williams), and spent his early years as the 19th century equivalent of a copyright maximalist. While his works were under copyright in the UK, the US did not recognize foreign copyrights, and thus -- everyone assumes -- his works were regularly printed and sold without his permission and with no royalties to Dickens. In fact, when he first toured the US in the 1840's, he pissed off tons of adoring fans who came to see him speak... only to have him berate them for "pirating" his works.

Except... that's not the whole story. You see, it turned out that American publishers realized that there was a benefit to being the first to print a foreign author, because those who got to market first tended to dominate the market. Thus, while there was no copyright, other voluntary agreements were hatched. For example, multiple publishing houses worked out deals to be "authorized" printers of Dickens' work in the US and paid Dickens money anyway, in order to get the earliest copies of his works. Adrian Johns' research highlights how Philadelphia publishing magnate Henry Carey paid Dickens to get early access to his works, knowing that being first would help get the most sales. Dickens also found that other publishers were willing to work out royalty agreements. Ticknor & Fields, Harper and Brothers and TP Peterson and Brothers, were all publishers who paid royalties to Dickens for the works they published (according to The Man Charles Dickens by Edward Wagenknecht). That book notes that Dickens "was grateful... for their generosity 'above and beyond the law.'" Dickens also worked out additional deals with American publishers to get paid, and his second trip to the US was sponsored by a Boston-based publishing firm, Fields, Osgood & Co., who was then recognized as his "authorized American publisher" for his next work, despite no copyrights being valid for such works in the US.

While he still campaigned for strong copyright laws, multiple reports note that he found throngs of adoring fans in the US, all of whom only knew of his existence due to his books which they were able to read, despite a lack of copyright. In fact, he discovered that not only were fans showing up in large crowds to see him, they were willing to give him money, despite the lack of official copyright on his works.

End result? "He received so warm a welcome and so much faster money than he had ever earned as a writer that he returned home thinking much more positively about America and the Americans."

Right. So, perhaps Shakespeare and Dickens aren't the best examples for Williams to trot out for why he needs stricter copyright law. In fact, they seem to prove the exact opposite. Even in the near total absence of copyright law, both authors created truly long-lasting, culturally significant works, and earned quite a nice living doing so. In both cases, it was the freedom to have their works shared that helped to make them so culturally relevant, and in neither cases did they fail to earn a living, despite the situation (in fact, quite the contrary).

The best way to get people hooked on a TV series is to add a bit of suspense and a well-done storyline leading up to either a cliffhanger or a shocking resolution. Like movies and games, it's not much fun to plunge yourself into something whose ending has already been detailed by careless forum members, siblings or those jackasses/heroes (P.O.V.-dependent) doing a spoiler-heavy driveby.

Of all the entities you'd expect might possibly prematurely inform you of Goose's death/The Crying Game's penis/Snape kicking the oxygen habit, the last one on that list has got to be the unskippable ad playing on your newly purchased DVD:

I bought Dexter season 6 on Blu-ray because I'm the sort of dork who feels bad about piracy and still buys all my media.
Every time I put in a disk (not first watch, mind you, every... time... ) there is a 3 minute ad for Showtime that I can't skip and can't fast forward.

THEY SPOIL THE LAST 30 SECONDS OF THE FINAL EPISODE OF THE FREAKING SHOW IN THAT AD.
Guess that's what I get for giving them my stupid money instead of stealing... 0_o

***SPOILER ALERT***

Keep this up, Showtime (and assorted movie/game trailers), and you're going to find a whole lot more people shopping with these little things. Why?

BECAUSE PIRATES FIX* THAT BROKEN SHIT THAT YOU LITTER EVERY DVD WITH.

*Other services provided: removal of DRM, removal of region-specific coding, removal of price tag(s).

Do I really need to be reminded multiple times that every frickin' g-man in the US of A will be hounding my piratey footsteps the moment I burn off a copy of this disc? Do I really need to be reminded that, yes, this studio/channel produces a great number of other entertainments and would I mind terribly just taking a look at the extended, unskippable ad?

Nobody wants "unskippable" anything on media they've purchased. Gamers don't want unskippable cut scenes. Movie/TV fans don't want unskippable FBI/ICE/MPAA warnings and studio promos. Music fans don't have to deal with this. You don't fire up a CD and have to listen to Small Print Guy telling you that reproducing this track without the express consent, etc. etc. etc. Why does everyone else have to put up with it?

Try looking at it from your customers' point of view. They just want to watch the thing they actually paid for. In a day when infringement is blamed for shutting down the entire global economy, do you really think it's a good idea to a.) make paying customers sit through enough scary legal logos to fill an entire T-shirt, and b.) make paying customers regret their purchase even before the MANDATORY pre-menu promo is over?

If you answered "yes" to either of these questions, expect to find fewer and fewer people willing to give you their "stupid money" in exchange for your even stupider product.

A few years ago, RapidShare and Megaupload were often mentioned in the same breath as the two "evils" of the internet, according to the MPAA. However, a few interesting things happened. First, Rapidshare won a series of lawsuits both in Europe and the US, that found its service to be legit. The company also went on something of a big time charm offensive, hiring a DC lobbyist to improve its image with politicians, as well as being much more proactive with the press. Finally, in the last few months, it's made even more efforts to stop its service from being used for infringing purposes.

The latest thing, though, seems particularly silly. At a conference, the company's Chief Legal Officer, Daniel Raimer, appears to be throwing links sites under the bus by claiming that they're the real problem, and storage sites shouldn't be lumped in with linking sites.

The thing is, both kinds of sites have both legal and illegal purposes, and it's silly and counterproductive for one kind to blame the other kind. Storage sites have perfectly reasonable uses, and RapidShare has been bending over backwards to be a good player in that space. But a user-generated site that includes links to content also can have perfectly legitimate and legal uses, and it seems particularly silly to assume otherwise. From a legal standpoint, both kinds of sites should have reasonable protections against infringement (though that doesn't always appear to be true once things get to court). But, even then, storage sites probably even have less of a reasonable claim under copyright law, because actual copies (reproduction rights) and distribution could potentially be attributed to them (though, clearly, they have reasonable claims of safe harbors). With links sites, they neither store nor transmit the content, and it's difficult to see how they infringe on any of the key rights associated with copyright, even outside of the basic safe harbors.

I know that for many universities, where they end up in the various "rankings" lists can make a big difference in terms of the type of students they attract, the money they can bring in and the professors they can get. So it's almost surprising to me to find out that Emory University's admission that it effectively fudged the numbers it sent to US News & World Report (the pre-eminent listmaker of university rankings) was really the first of its kind. The article does note a few other questionable uses of data by some universities -- such as Baylor paying already admitted students to retake the SATs, hoping they'll score higher and boost the rankings -- but Emory went a bit further. It didn't quite make up the numbers, but chose to send in the data for all the students they admitted, rather than the students who enrolled. And, of course, many students with higher GPAs and SAT scores may have been admitted to Emory, but chose to go elsewhere.

Of course, what struck me as extra interesting about this, is that we always hear about universities disciplining students based on an "ethics" code or something like that. So I figured Emory probably had something like that as well... and it did. There's the Emory University Undergraduate Code of Conduct, which includes lines like:

Emory University expects that all students act honorably, demonstrating a keen sense of ethical conduct. The University expects that its students behave respectfully, providing particular consideration for other people and for property. As members of a community, Emory University expects that students act responsibly, being accountable for the safety and wellbeing of themselves and others. University students are expected to be trustworthy, demonstrating honest character upon which others may rely with confidence.

That same policy also forbids "intentional misrepresentation," including "providing false or misleading information to a University official" or "filing a false or misleading report."

I also found that the school has a Code of Business Ethics and Conduct for employees, which includes this tidbit:

Emory University has adopted an overarching Statement of Guiding Ethical Principles that applies to Emory employees and all other members of the Emory Community. Emory employees should strive to adhere to these principles in carrying out their job responsibilities, and in particular any responsibilities they have in connection with Federal Research/Contract Activities.

That pointed me to the Statement of Guiding Ethical Principles (pdf) which, among many other things has lines like the following:

Members of Emory are expected to strive for the highest degree of integrity.

All of this has me wondering about these kinds of "ethics" policies and "honor codes" and the like. So many universities have them, but I'm curious if they actually do any good at all. Most of them say things that are basically common sense, and I have trouble believing anyone actually considers "oh, but the ethics policy!" before violating them. So what is the purpose of such policies? It seems that ethics aren't the kind of thing that you write down in a policy, but that you demonstrate by how you act and what you do.

Olympic swimmer Ryan Lochte has decided that a word like "Jeah" is better off attached to "swim goggles, sunglasses, workout videos, gift cards, jewelry, mugs, etc." rather than being allowed to peacefully live out its brief existence as something that will never, ever make us forget the actual comic genius that was Sean Penn's portrayal of Jeff Spicoli in Fast Times at Ridgemont High. 

Here's video almost explaining what "Jeah" means.
 

je•ah (Adjective)

1. Everything or almost everything
2. Happy
3. (To have a) good swim
4. Good
5. Good

[Possibly quite definitely derived from exclamation ("Chea!") popularized by recording artist Jay Wayne Jenkins ("Young Jeezy").] 

Linsanity. Fear the Brow. Clown question, bro. Fierce five. Jeah. All coming soon to an article of clothing hopefully nowhere near you.

Here's the trademark application in all its four-letter glory.