China's State-Run TV Uses Daily Show Clip To Demonize US, Viewers Point Out The Irony

Culture

from the isn't-it-ironic dept

By now we should all be aware that in many arenas the United States and China are engaged in a giant political pissing match. Everyone by now is also aware of how afraid the Chinese government is of their citizens getting their hands on any information or news that the government hasn’t scrubbed more clean than someone with OCD after exiting a sewer. Between porn, those terrifying monks in Tibet, and the infamous Great Firewall, it’s all on lock down in what will ultimately be a failed attempt to stifle political criticism from the masses. I say it will ultimately fail because even when China’s government does release something that has been scrubbed, it has the potential to become a flashpoint for blowback.

And that’s exactly what happened recently when state-run media used a Daily Show clip in which Jon Stewart bashes the US government to play “poke the American bear.”

CCTV recently used a Jon Stewart clip to lay into the U.S. over the Guantanamo Bay political stalemate. As SCMP [South China Morning Post] points out, state television’s attempt to poke fun at the U.S. with Stewart backfired online in China, with people saying that CCTV was being hypocritical and missing the irony.

That irony, of course, is that the Chinese state-run media, whose stated role is to serve the Communist party’s interests, attempted to demonize America with a clip that brilliantly showed that our media is free to critique our own government. This is something that wouldn’t have been permitted in China, a fact not lost on the online community there.

“There are so many problems happening domestically that you choose not to broadcast every day, but instead choose to smell the farts of other countries,” one Chinese commenter wrote in video’s comment section.

“This is our country’s mainstream media… They just want to divert our attention to problems [of other countries] away from poisonous ginger, tainted milk, gutter oil and undrinkable tap water,” quipped another.

Now, there are many reasons why oppressive censorship of information just isn’t going to work any longer, and perhaps it never really did, but this example of scrubbed information having the exact opposite effect on China’s people is a wonderful reason for hope. It’s been said that on a long enough time table, everybody’s chances for survival goes to zero. I’d make the same argument for oppressive regimes. Eventually, the Chinese people will get tired of being treated like babies, and it looks like censorship fails even when you do it “right.”

Filed Under: china, daily show, free expression, free speech, irony

Alice In Chains: We Hate The Internet, Twitter & Dancing

Culture

from the well,-okay-then dept

Too often, it seems like arguments over the role of the internet in the music industry get boiled down to what I’d guess is a false dichotomy. Either you embrace the hell out of the digital revolution, like Amanda Palmer, or you angrily screed against all things interwebz, like AC/DC. As evidenced both by the fact that AC/DC walked their hard-line back a few steps later on, while other bands still find value in labels that embrace digital models, I’d bet that the stance of most artists and bands is far more nuanced than you’d expect, and takes on the characteristics more of an evolution than any static opinion. This isn’t to say that ignorance shouldn’t be called out, of course, but we should also understand that opinions can be changed and none of these artists are scary boogeymen to be universally derided.

Still, it’s extremely disappointing when an artist or band you love comes out on the attack. The more vicious the attack, the more disappointing it is. Needless to say, when the resurrected Alice In Chains saw an interview with Classic Rock as an opportunity to tell everyone how much they hate Twitter, the internet, the modern music industry and dance routines, I was supremely disappointed.

In an interview in the upcoming new issue of Classic Rock, the band reveal there’s a lot of stuff they don’t like about the biz. Like the internet. And downloading. And Twitter. And whole lot more besides…

“I don’t like a whole lot of it, no,” says mainman Jerry Cantrell. “I think the thing that’s most disappointing to me is that now, what you do is worth less than nothing. It’s been reduced to a game show. And somehow, something you’ve worked on and poured your soul into, and invested your money in, somehow it’s no longer deemed valuable. That’s fucked up, to me. I can’t go to the gas station and take the gas for free – I’d go to jail. But somehow it’s okay to take my thing for free.”

Er, okay then. Except nobody with a serious opinion on the matter is advocating that infringement (nor, um, stealing gas?) is “okay.” That’s just not happening. The argument is an economical one, in which there is indeed value and worth in digital music, but the proper price for those goods might best be made zero or approaching zero. This is not some conspiratorial plan to siphon money away from bands. Rather, it’s a look at how they can actually make more money in arenas where higher prices make sense due to scarcity. I fear that terms like “worth less than nothing” belie a fundamental misunderstanding of the economic forces at work here. Bassist Mike Inez goes on to wonder where the next generation of artists is going to come from, while the answer is: from more places and in greater quantities than ever before.

Were that the band’s only misguided stance, we could write it off as an honest misunderstanding. There appears, however, to be a great deal of anger from Alice In Chains on many things modern.

“And now it’s okay for music to be this little file that doesn’t even sound good,” Cantrell adds. “And it’s okay for people to go on stage and fucking fake the songs. They don’t want the real thing, they don’t want the bad notes, they don’t want somebody who can go up there and sing their own songs, they just want somebody that can do the fucking flashy dance moves.”

And:

“There used to be a mystique about rock bands,” chips in drummer Sean Kinney, “but now it’s like, ‘Follow me on Twitter!’ I don’t wanna know what fuckin’ sandwich you ate at the airport, man. Because we’re just people. Our job isn’t all that more interesting than anybody else.”

I keep up with a great number of follows on Twitter, which is probably why I have yet to hear about anyone eating a sandwich in an airport. I also wonder, regarding the hateful prevalence of dancing in music, if the band is familiar with the past four decades of musical acts.

Regardless, I’m hoping the band is more nuanced and has a more evolutionary thought-process about these things than how they’re coming off in the interview. I should probably disclose that they have long been a favorite of mine. I just like the internet a bit more.

Filed Under: alice in chains, jerry cantrell, mike inez

Leading Italian Film Producer Calls For $16 Billion Lawsuit Against Italian State For Alleged Inaction Against Piracy

Culture

from the good-luck-with-that dept

Last year we wrote about EMI suing the Irish government for having the temerity not to pass a SOPA-Like censorship law. That truly extraordinary sense of entitlement seemed to be a one-off, but The Hollywood Reporter now brings us another (via @LifeinSicily):

The justification for that rather significant sum is the following:

There was no explanation of where that €2.5 billion figure came from. According to estimates quoted in Techdirt’s “The Sky is Rising 2“, gross box office sales for the Italian film industry were €700 million in 2011, so it seems highly unlikely that it is “losing” €2.5 billion each year. It may be significant that De Laurentiis is part of a dynasty of famous Italian film producers who can be justifiably proud of helping to create some of the greatest masterpieces of 20th-century Italian cinema. Perhaps he is still hankering for those good old days when people flocked to see the latest productions from his father and uncle.

But that was then, this is now: the Internet is having a massively disruptive effect on the film industry, just as it is on many others. That doesn’t give film producers any entitlement to handouts from the Italian state for sales they claim they might have made. And notice, too, that De Laurentiis is calling for compensation for allegedly lost sales, not lost profits, which might have been minimal.

It’s sad that so many in the copyright world apply their creativity to thinking up reasons why they should be protected by governments from the massive changes underway throughout the world, rather than applying that creativity to coming up with new ways of making money. They could do worse than listen to Riccardo Tozzi, president of Italy’s audiovisual association, who was the co-host with De Laurentiis of the film industry symposium where the latter made his call for legal action:

Sounds easier than suing the Italian government….

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: anti-piracy, aurelio de laurentiis, copyright, italy, lawsuits, piracy

Authors Guild Shuts Itself Off From Public Criticism, As People Realize It Represents Publishers, Not Authors

Culture

from the front-group dept

We’ve written numerous times about Scott Turow during his time as head of the Author’s Guild, and the amazing thing to me is that despite the fact he’s been getting blistering criticism from a variety of people — including tons of authors — he never, ever seems to even acknowledge the points of his critics, but continues to just say the same debunked crap over and over again. Last week, for example, we did a point-by-point debunking of his error-laden, factually inaccurate and totally misleading op-ed in which he argued that pretty much everything on the internet was harming authors. I was gratified to see our debunking picked up widely — with many of the tweets in support of our response coming from authors (including a few best selling authors). It made me wonder what sort of organization Turow is running.

Best selling author Barry Eisler penned an interesting response to Turow on JA Konrath’s blog, in which he pointed out that Turow’s position has consistently been in favor of “Legacy Publishing,” (i.e., the big five publishers in NY) rather than authors. A similar reply from author David Gaughran pointed out that Turow seems to be so focused on propping up the legacy publishers that he directly called for an antitrust investigation into price-fixing by those publishers to be dropped, regardless of the facts of the case. Yes, even though such price fixing would harm authors, Turow immediately sided with the publishers. Incredible.

But, perhaps more telling is how the Authors Guild has now completely shut itself off from the outside world. Gaughrin also notes that right before Turow’s NYT op-ed, he had also published a silly blog post about Amazon buying Goodreads, and got torn apart in the comments for the post. But if you look at the Author’s Guild blog post about the NYT’s oped, you’ll see there are no comments and that “comments for this thread are now closed.” Eisler notes that it was not always this way. In fact, he had submitted a comment to the blog post, apparently with a link to my piece, saying:

“That Scott Turow refuses to respond to this demolition of his facts, his knowledge of the law, and even his baseline logic tells you all you need to know about his integrity. And about the true function of the “Authors Guild” of which he is president.”

Eisler received notification that his comment was “awaiting moderation,” but obviously that comment never ran, and instead, the Authors Guild shut down comments entirely. It appears that not only are they unwilling to respond to the large number of authors who are complaining about how ridiculous Turow’s position is, they also want to stick their hands over their eyes and ears to pretend it’s not even happening. That’s not leadership. That’s cowardice.

In the meantime, even the libraries are punching back. The American Library Association responded to Turow, “taking issue” with his op-ed and pointing out how Turow is wrong about libraries and about the law.

The failure to respond speaks volumes. And it says that the Authors Guild does not represent authors at all, but rather the legacy publishers, and a very small number of authors who succeeded under the old system. Turow’s actions have done massive damage to the perception and credibility of the Authors Guild. And the Guild’s decision to stop hearing from critics, especially authors, is quite telling about how it views the world. It’s amazing any modern author thinks it’s worthwhile to be a member of such an organization.

Filed Under: authors, copyright, culture, publishers, response, scott turow
Companies: authors guild

Argentine Judge Says Community Rights To Access Works Can Outweigh Creator's Moral Rights

Culture

from the now-that-would-be-interesting dept

Even though they don’t figure much in the US legal landscape, moral (non-economic) rights such as the right of attribution are an important aspect of copyright law in many other countries. Intellectual Property Watch has a fascinating account of a case from Argentina, where a judge decided that an individual’s moral rights could be overridden by the rights of the community.

The tale is rather complicated, so you’ll need to read the original article to follow all the twists and turns, but it concerns the works of Roberto Fontanarrosa, a cartoonist and writer who died in 2007. His widow signed a contract with a publishing house to bring out a posthumous collection of his unpublished short stories, but Fontanarrosa’s son by a previous marriage objected on the grounds that his father’s moral rights were being harmed:

The judge was therefore asked to decide whether the publication should go ahead or not.

As the Intellectual Property Watch post notes, this is perhaps the first time that an Argentine court has limited the exercise of moral rights of an author by taking into account the interest of the community in gaining access to unpublished works. Moreover, the judge arrived at that remarkable decision that in some circumstances moral rights could be “abusive”, not by reference to Argentina’s Copyright Act, as might be expected, but to international treaties:

That judgement is not yet definitive, since the Argentinian Appellate Court now needs to consider the case. But it would set a remarkable precedent for considering the impact of copyright in a wider social contract, and weighing the rights of the creator against those of the community:

Now there’s a thought.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: access, argentina, copyright, culture, moral rights, roberto fontanarrosa

When Is An Image 'Manipulated Enough' To Become An Original Creation?

Culture

from the tricky dept

Images manipulated using programs like Photoshop or the GIMP are a familiar sight online. Indeed, the ease with which images can be modified has led to an amazing flowering of this new branch of the visual arts. But like much in the digital world, this brings with it problems. Here, for example, is the interesting case of a competition on the MINI Space site, which is run by BMW as an oblique form of marketing for its Mini car. An article on the PetaPixel photography blog explains what happened when the site invited submissions on the theme of “check-mate” (pointed out to us by @copyrightgirl). Here’s “PapiloChessBoard“, the photomanipulated image that gained the winner a MacBook Pro laptop:

Pretty impressive. But it later transpired that it was based on the following image by the photographer Kevin Collins:

As PetaPixel explains:

Initially, the MINI Space site seemed untroubled by this fact:

But it seems now to have changed its mind, as an update on the competition page explains:

Since the original photo’s attribution was not included, there’s no doubt that the modified image breaches the CC licensing terms, even though they were hardly onerous. But leaving that aside for the moment, this episode does raise the interesting question of when a modified image is “manipulated enough” by software to become a new creation in its own right. Of course, that’s not a new question, but the ease with which photomanipulation can now be carried out to create complex re-workings of existing images means that it’s one that is likely to be posed increasingly frequently.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: copyright, image manipulation

New Book On The History Of Music, Copyright And Piracy Shows How Copyright Tends To Hold Back Music

Culture

from the but-of-course dept

Reason is running a very interesting review of a new book by Alex Sayf Cummings, called Democracy of Sound: Music Piracy and the Remaking of American Copyright in the Twentieth Century. It reiterates many of the points that we’ve made before about music and copyright, but with a strong historical basis, highlighting how these issues are not new. In fact, it reiterates how Congress was quite concerned that putting copyright on recordings was a very dangerous mistake:

The fact that music is widely seen as “intellectual property” is itself a product of that struggle. For a long time, the U.S. worked to separate intellect and property. In the early 1900s when copyright issues around sound recording were first being negotiated, the law “protected the tangible expression of an idea and not the idea itself,” Cummings writes. Lawmakers struggled to figure out where sound recordings fit into that framework. Was the recording a tangible expression of a new idea? Or was it simply a copy of an idea? Congress initially leaned towards the second interpretation—and, as a result, sound recordings could not be copyrighted. For decades, pirates had to be prosecuted under common law or statutory bans on unfair competition. It was only in the 1970s that copyright was extended to sound recordings.

As the book notes, lawmakers were quite worried that extending copyright to sound recordings would stifle creativity — and, as the book shows, their fears were not out of line:

Unrestricted property rights in music, they feared, could create monopolies, harm consumers, and throttle innovation and competition This was the rationale, in part, for giving songwriters only limited rights over the use of their songs. Under the law, licensing was compulsory: Songwriters received a fee from recordings, but could not refuse the use of their work. You can thank this system for America’s long history of cover versions. Indeed, in the years before it was common to play records on the radio, these remakes were central to the record labels’ business model: Re-recordings of hit songs by different artists were a major source of income. A whole subset of artistic production and commerce, in other words, was enabled not by the expansion but by the limitation of intellectual property rights.

This apparent contradiction surfaces again and again throughout Cummings’ book. Property rights in music are supposed to promote creativity, but often they seem to either be irrelevant, or else actively retard it.

You can read the full review over at Reason, but the full book sounds like a must read in the collection of books that highlight how damaging copyright has been to creativity over the years.

Filed Under: alex sayf cummings, copyright, democracy of sound, innovation, music

Amazon Refuses To Publish First Cornish-Language Ebook

Culture

from the there's-a-word-for-that dept

As we’ve noted before, Amazon is beginning to wield considerable power over the entire publishing chain. The past teaches us that as successful companies gain near-monopoly powers, their arbitrary decisions become more problematic. Here’s an unusual example of that, pointed out to us by @IndigenousTweet via @MLBrook:

Fair enough, you might think — if Cornish uses some weird alphabet not supported by Amazon, there’s not much to be done. Except that’s not the case:

That is, no special characters are needed, as the Cornish Wikipedia’s page on the language demonstrates, so there is no technical reason for Amazon not to publish the book. Clearly, this is just an arbitrary decision on the company’s part, one that it is essentially impossible to appeal against.

As the press release from the publishers quoted above notes, Diglot Books were able to use iTunes to offer their ebook instead. Some might say this is a case of out of the frying pan into the fire, since in the past Apple too has shown itself inflexible in terms of what it will and won’t accept. Had Apple refused to carry the title for whatever reason, it’s arguable that the Cornish language, still struggling to re-establish itself after dying out a couple of hundred years ago, would have suffered as a result of this lack of access to the main ebook distributors.

Promoting Cornish may not be high on everyone’s list of priorities, but Amazon’s refusal to publish the first ebook in the language provides another worrying example of how it is failing to use its increasing global power responsibly.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: books, cornish, ebooks, globalization, language
Companies: amazon