SinCity in less than 80 seconds
May 3, 2005 11:44 AM Subscribe
Illicit downloading is now tantamount to domestic terrorism. I wonder if "CleanPlay" will still censor my illegally downloaded DVDs.
Remember when Congress was something more than just a collection of highly-paid attorneys for big business?
Um, no?
posted by delmoi at 12:02 PM on May 3, 2005
Um, no?
posted by delmoi at 12:02 PM on May 3, 2005
No, I don't remember, sorry.
posted by AlexReynolds at 12:02 PM on May 3, 2005
posted by AlexReynolds at 12:02 PM on May 3, 2005
Remember when Congress was something more than just a collection of highly-paid attorneys for big business?
Sure do. I clearly recall from my days as a 7-11 clerk that it is a "High Quality Vodka Product" that comes in a plastic bottle and costs $2.00. Nowhere near the quality and class of Aristocrat ($3.50) or Country Club ($4.27).
posted by afroblanca at 12:08 PM on May 3, 2005
Sure do. I clearly recall from my days as a 7-11 clerk that it is a "High Quality Vodka Product" that comes in a plastic bottle and costs $2.00. Nowhere near the quality and class of Aristocrat ($3.50) or Country Club ($4.27).
posted by afroblanca at 12:08 PM on May 3, 2005
Remember when Congress was something more than just a collection of highly-paid attorneys for big business?
posted by eustacescrubb at 12:01 PM PST on May 3 [!]
Enter the Iron Triangle.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 12:09 PM on May 3, 2005
posted by eustacescrubb at 12:01 PM PST on May 3 [!]
Enter the Iron Triangle.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 12:09 PM on May 3, 2005
We are, as a nation, really, really fucked up when crap like this keeps happening. Whatever happened to making the punishment fit the crime?
Are you Bush supporters happy yet?
posted by fenriq at 12:11 PM on May 3, 2005
Are you Bush supporters happy yet?
posted by fenriq at 12:11 PM on May 3, 2005
Um, no?
posted by delmoi at 12:02 PM PST on May 3
No, I don't remember, sorry.
posted by AlexReynolds at 12:02 PM PST on May 3
Me neither. But I was hoping somebody around here was old enough to. Any 250 year-old MeFites?
posted by eustacescrubb at 12:14 PM on May 3, 2005
posted by delmoi at 12:02 PM PST on May 3
No, I don't remember, sorry.
posted by AlexReynolds at 12:02 PM PST on May 3
Me neither. But I was hoping somebody around here was old enough to. Any 250 year-old MeFites?
posted by eustacescrubb at 12:14 PM on May 3, 2005
Whatever happened to making the punishment fit the crime?
Um, when did that kind of thing happen? Maybe back when Congress wasn't a bunch of highly paid attorneys for big business?
posted by goatdog at 12:19 PM on May 3, 2005
Um, when did that kind of thing happen? Maybe back when Congress wasn't a bunch of highly paid attorneys for big business?
posted by goatdog at 12:19 PM on May 3, 2005
I don't understand how the ClearPlay device is any different than using clips from someone else's songs to create a new song, i.e. "sampling." Any legal experts care to chime in?
Or is it only different because Congress says so? I guess "intellectual property" law is mostly bullshit, huh?
posted by mrgrimm at 12:22 PM on May 3, 2005
Or is it only different because Congress says so? I guess "intellectual property" law is mostly bullshit, huh?
posted by mrgrimm at 12:22 PM on May 3, 2005
the act opens the way for companies like ClearPlay legally to sell their product... sitting like a benign leech on your DVD player, sucks out "objectionable" material of a violent or sexual nature
Frankly, that is a REALLY good thing. Why? Because it sets a precedent that (despite the DMCA) people can edit digital works to make them fir their own needs. This particular example might be stupid, but it directly conflicts with the DMCA model of protection that doesn't allow any sort of editing against the wishes of the producer of a digital work.
It is now a federal crime to use a video camera to record films in cinemas, punishable by up to three years in prison for the first offence
That is a long sentence. But how is that "tantamount to domestic terrorism?" Last time I checked Zacarais Moussaoui was facing the death penalty for his role in 9/11. Timothy McVeigh was executed for his role in Oklahoma City. The Unabomber was sentenced to life in prison.
I used to work at a small not-for-profit that fights for more balanced intellectual property rights. (Not a s/l, don't work there anymore). Trust me, I'm against the over-extension of copyright rights. But this is not "tantamount to domestic terorrism." The overheated rhetoric and hyperbole hurt the cause more than help it.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 12:25 PM on May 3, 2005
Frankly, that is a REALLY good thing. Why? Because it sets a precedent that (despite the DMCA) people can edit digital works to make them fir their own needs. This particular example might be stupid, but it directly conflicts with the DMCA model of protection that doesn't allow any sort of editing against the wishes of the producer of a digital work.
It is now a federal crime to use a video camera to record films in cinemas, punishable by up to three years in prison for the first offence
That is a long sentence. But how is that "tantamount to domestic terrorism?" Last time I checked Zacarais Moussaoui was facing the death penalty for his role in 9/11. Timothy McVeigh was executed for his role in Oklahoma City. The Unabomber was sentenced to life in prison.
I used to work at a small not-for-profit that fights for more balanced intellectual property rights. (Not a s/l, don't work there anymore). Trust me, I'm against the over-extension of copyright rights. But this is not "tantamount to domestic terorrism." The overheated rhetoric and hyperbole hurt the cause more than help it.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 12:25 PM on May 3, 2005
Frankly, that is a REALLY good thing. Why? Because it sets a precedent that (despite the DMCA) people can edit digital works to make them fir their own needs.
I'm not as confident as you are. Here's the actual legisation, btw. That "ClearPlay" part of the law (Title II) seems very specific about "skipping" "audio and video content" in "movies." No editing, only deletion.
`For purposes of paragraph (11), the term `making imperceptible' does not include the addition of audio or video content that is performed or displayed over or in place of existing content in a motion picture. etc
I admit I had to look up tantamount, but I don't see the connection with terrorism either. Except to sell papers.
posted by mrgrimm at 12:33 PM on May 3, 2005
I'm not as confident as you are. Here's the actual legisation, btw. That "ClearPlay" part of the law (Title II) seems very specific about "skipping" "audio and video content" in "movies." No editing, only deletion.
`For purposes of paragraph (11), the term `making imperceptible' does not include the addition of audio or video content that is performed or displayed over or in place of existing content in a motion picture. etc
I admit I had to look up tantamount, but I don't see the connection with terrorism either. Except to sell papers.
posted by mrgrimm at 12:33 PM on May 3, 2005
The higher penalties for piracy were put in to make the bill more palatable to the MPAA, who hated it.
So yes, it does change reduce "IP" in one way, and strengthen it in others. A tradeoff. One that happens to help corporations make more money.
I'm definetly in favor of allowing people to "patch" copyrighted works. Really, this thing isn't any diffrent then those "Game Gennie" devices that let you alter the rules of nintendo games back in the day. (but that was before the DMCA).
Higher penalties for leaking and camming don't really worry me either, since they don't place any new restrictions on people, just increases the penalties for things that are already illegal.
I think I should be able to make copies of movies I own in my home, but that dosn't mean I also think I should be able to camcord in a theater, or leak movies from inside a studio...
posted by delmoi at 12:41 PM on May 3, 2005
So yes, it does change reduce "IP" in one way, and strengthen it in others. A tradeoff. One that happens to help corporations make more money.
I'm definetly in favor of allowing people to "patch" copyrighted works. Really, this thing isn't any diffrent then those "Game Gennie" devices that let you alter the rules of nintendo games back in the day. (but that was before the DMCA).
Higher penalties for leaking and camming don't really worry me either, since they don't place any new restrictions on people, just increases the penalties for things that are already illegal.
I think I should be able to make copies of movies I own in my home, but that dosn't mean I also think I should be able to camcord in a theater, or leak movies from inside a studio...
posted by delmoi at 12:41 PM on May 3, 2005
I want the DeviantPlay, it excises all the non-naughty bits from movies. I want a constant stream of "Fuck!", "Asshole!" and tits and ass.
posted by substrate at 12:42 PM on May 3, 2005
posted by substrate at 12:42 PM on May 3, 2005
Companies in question: Family Flix, Clean Films, Clean Flicks, and Clear Play.
posted by rzklkng at 12:42 PM on May 3, 2005
posted by rzklkng at 12:42 PM on May 3, 2005
What bothers me is that they pretend to be acting in the public interest but they're really manipulating the law to create a market for their little censorship device.
I hate hypocrites.
posted by fenriq at 12:48 PM on May 3, 2005
I hate hypocrites.
posted by fenriq at 12:48 PM on May 3, 2005
This dovetails very nicely with the fact that FBI warnings against piracy now appear on cd artwork and the disc itself. It's all one big slippery slope . . .
posted by jeremias at 12:50 PM on May 3, 2005
posted by jeremias at 12:50 PM on May 3, 2005
What bothers me is that they pretend to be acting in the public interest but they're really manipulating the law to create a market for their little censorship device.
Wait, so helping members of the public who are interested in watching videos in a certain format isn't the public interest? I would never use such a device (except maybe on the director's cut of Requiem, yech), but it's definitely in the public interest to allow people to watch movies in the format they want. Yes, it creates a market for a device, but that's like saying that building roads isn't in the public interest because it creates a market for cars.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 12:53 PM on May 3, 2005
Wait, so helping members of the public who are interested in watching videos in a certain format isn't the public interest? I would never use such a device (except maybe on the director's cut of Requiem, yech), but it's definitely in the public interest to allow people to watch movies in the format they want. Yes, it creates a market for a device, but that's like saying that building roads isn't in the public interest because it creates a market for cars.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 12:53 PM on May 3, 2005
substrate, your movies would probably look like this sounds.
posted by The Dryyyyy Cracker at 12:57 PM on May 3, 2005
posted by The Dryyyyy Cracker at 12:57 PM on May 3, 2005
It has never been any different. The real value and metaphor this country was founded on is "trick the masses into doing whatever is most profitable for criminal big business".
For example, the Boston Tea Party, while disguised as a political protest (using such familiar patriotic branding as "The Sons of Liberty"), was motivated by pure business.
John Hancock was a smuggler (even though his ship was named "The Liberty") and so was able to undercut British tea prices. Britan passed an act with allowed them to sell tea without the usual tax in order to remain competitive, and so undercut Hancock's prices. They destroyed the property of others for their own personal gain and spun it as an act of Liberty and Freedom.
And so a country was founded in which we the common man enables and encourages untouchable criminals to pillage and plunder at our expense and we say *Thank You*. Is it for Freedom? Oh, well then do it again.
This is our legacy.
posted by germanyengland at 12:59 PM on May 3, 2005
For example, the Boston Tea Party, while disguised as a political protest (using such familiar patriotic branding as "The Sons of Liberty"), was motivated by pure business.
John Hancock was a smuggler (even though his ship was named "The Liberty") and so was able to undercut British tea prices. Britan passed an act with allowed them to sell tea without the usual tax in order to remain competitive, and so undercut Hancock's prices. They destroyed the property of others for their own personal gain and spun it as an act of Liberty and Freedom.
And so a country was founded in which we the common man enables and encourages untouchable criminals to pillage and plunder at our expense and we say *Thank You*. Is it for Freedom? Oh, well then do it again.
This is our legacy.
posted by germanyengland at 12:59 PM on May 3, 2005
Evidently you can sell any stupidity to Americans by inserting the words "family", "children", "patriot", or "usa" in the title of the bill.
posted by clevershark at 12:59 PM on May 3, 2005
posted by clevershark at 12:59 PM on May 3, 2005
Robot morality. Isn't this like Book 5 of the Foundation series?
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 1:00 PM on May 3, 2005
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 1:00 PM on May 3, 2005
"Are you Bush supporters happy yet?"
I'm so tired of this. It's not Bush's fault.
It's the people who own Bush's fault.
I dunno. I think they can pass all the legislation they want, they won't catch the tech or ways to share. You can blog music for download. Radio is so 20th century. Really the best way to hear music you might like is thru your friends who let you listen to their stuff or going to a club, and then hunting the track down from someone or somewhere.
How they're going to stop that I have no clue.
Clean Play - et.al. are for stooges who drape cloths over the breasts on the statue of justice because they have no sense of irony and believe they should be able to hear/see the message they want to recieve not the message the artist/creators want them to.
Although I'd love to watch a prono without any of the porno.
"Hi, did y ou order a pizza?"
*cheezy bass riff*
BLIP
"Wow, the guys at the pizza place will never believe..."
BLIP
"Am I going to see you later?"
posted by Smedleyman at 1:01 PM on May 3, 2005
I'm so tired of this. It's not Bush's fault.
It's the people who own Bush's fault.
I dunno. I think they can pass all the legislation they want, they won't catch the tech or ways to share. You can blog music for download. Radio is so 20th century. Really the best way to hear music you might like is thru your friends who let you listen to their stuff or going to a club, and then hunting the track down from someone or somewhere.
How they're going to stop that I have no clue.
Clean Play - et.al. are for stooges who drape cloths over the breasts on the statue of justice because they have no sense of irony and believe they should be able to hear/see the message they want to recieve not the message the artist/creators want them to.
Although I'd love to watch a prono without any of the porno.
"Hi, did y ou order a pizza?"
*cheezy bass riff*
BLIP
"Wow, the guys at the pizza place will never believe..."
BLIP
"Am I going to see you later?"
posted by Smedleyman at 1:01 PM on May 3, 2005
Mean Mr. Bucket writes " Robot morality. Isn't this like Book 5 of the Foundation series?"
The Foundation series is a lot more relevant to world history than you may think... its title, translated into Arabic, is the first recorded instance of usage of the phrase "al-Qaeda". Some argue that the sort of society sought by al-Qaeda is a sort of super-Caliphate which would exist in reaction to the modern Western world, not unlike the Foundation itself.
posted by clevershark at 1:06 PM on May 3, 2005 [1 favorite]
The Foundation series is a lot more relevant to world history than you may think... its title, translated into Arabic, is the first recorded instance of usage of the phrase "al-Qaeda". Some argue that the sort of society sought by al-Qaeda is a sort of super-Caliphate which would exist in reaction to the modern Western world, not unlike the Foundation itself.
posted by clevershark at 1:06 PM on May 3, 2005 [1 favorite]
believe they should be able to hear/see the message they want to recieve not the message the artist/creators want them to.
So you would object to the Bush/Blair video mashup since the cretaors of the video and song both objected to it?
Digital culture is often formed by taking the works of others and digitally remixing it. This is one form, however much you may disagree. Bush/Blair is another.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 1:06 PM on May 3, 2005
So you would object to the Bush/Blair video mashup since the cretaors of the video and song both objected to it?
Digital culture is often formed by taking the works of others and digitally remixing it. This is one form, however much you may disagree. Bush/Blair is another.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 1:06 PM on May 3, 2005
thedevildancedlightly writes " Digital culture is often formed by taking the works of others and digitally remixing it."
True. However, the resultant works are derivative, and form a separate work from the original. It's dishonest to then try and sell the derived work as being the original without the original producer's permission, and that's what this bill sanctions.
posted by clevershark at 1:18 PM on May 3, 2005
True. However, the resultant works are derivative, and form a separate work from the original. It's dishonest to then try and sell the derived work as being the original without the original producer's permission, and that's what this bill sanctions.
posted by clevershark at 1:18 PM on May 3, 2005
sell the derived work as being the original
But in this case people _know_ they're not getting the original. That's the entire point - they don't want the original.
I fully agree that if I sold something as "Ghostbusters" that was just my own take on the movie then you'd be right. But here they are sellng "Ghostbusters without the bad words", and clearly disclaiming that it's not the original.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 1:25 PM on May 3, 2005
But in this case people _know_ they're not getting the original. That's the entire point - they don't want the original.
I fully agree that if I sold something as "Ghostbusters" that was just my own take on the movie then you'd be right. But here they are sellng "Ghostbusters without the bad words", and clearly disclaiming that it's not the original.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 1:25 PM on May 3, 2005
You know, the only thing that surprises me about all this is that you guys are surprised by this. I mean, look around you! The punishment fits the politics. You only need to look at American drug laws to see that.
posted by afroblanca at 1:28 PM on May 3, 2005
posted by afroblanca at 1:28 PM on May 3, 2005
There are also likely to be some unintended consequences (some good, some bad). I could see this technology being used as well to insert commercials, or even merge product placements into movies that weren't there already.
On the other hand, you could make your own "Phantom Edit" or "Matrix Reloaded" remix filters.
posted by mach at 1:39 PM on May 3, 2005
On the other hand, you could make your own "Phantom Edit" or "Matrix Reloaded" remix filters.
posted by mach at 1:39 PM on May 3, 2005
clevershark writes, "Evidently you can sell any stupidity to Americans by inserting the words "family", "children", "patriot", or "usa" in the title of the bill.".
No, you can sell any stupidity to American lawmakers by giving them lots of money.
posted by knave at 1:39 PM on May 3, 2005
No, you can sell any stupidity to American lawmakers by giving them lots of money.
posted by knave at 1:39 PM on May 3, 2005
WTF? What that an ADVERTISEMENT or a NEWS STORY?!
The end had absolutely nothing to do with the beginning.
posted by jmccorm at 1:47 PM on May 3, 2005
The end had absolutely nothing to do with the beginning.
posted by jmccorm at 1:47 PM on May 3, 2005
Make downloading illegal, and we, the army of P2P, will descend on your homes, businesses, and places of worship armed with burned cds filled with the latest mp3s.
posted by iamck at 1:50 PM on May 3, 2005
posted by iamck at 1:50 PM on May 3, 2005
"Hatch noted in passing that there were, attached to his family bill, some piddling "intellectual property" provisions relating to "rampant piracy" from the internet."
How typical, couldn't get INDUCE passed so he snuck this junk in.
posted by squeak at 1:53 PM on May 3, 2005
How typical, couldn't get INDUCE passed so he snuck this junk in.
posted by squeak at 1:53 PM on May 3, 2005
I want a constant stream of "Fuck!", "Asshole!" and tits and ass.
Come to Miami and cruise slowly down Ocean Drive. The beach will provide the latter, and the locals will provide the former.
posted by mkhall at 2:28 PM on May 3, 2005
Come to Miami and cruise slowly down Ocean Drive. The beach will provide the latter, and the locals will provide the former.
posted by mkhall at 2:28 PM on May 3, 2005
What's it going to take to INDUCE somebody to kick Orin Hatch's ass?
posted by Enron Hubbard at 2:35 PM on May 3, 2005
posted by Enron Hubbard at 2:35 PM on May 3, 2005
You see, I find ads to be morally objectionable because they push and suggest people to buy goods...this influence can't but be evil because it promotes dilapidation and consumerism by the means of presenting many attractive products.
We see the text of the law says
making imperceptible, by or at the direction of a member of a private household, of limited portions of audio or video content of a motion picture
Motion picture ! That means everything constituted by moving pictures, which includes any movie of any kind ever distributed on any media....which includes realtime media (aka airwave)
the term `making imperceptible' does not include the addition of audio or video content that is performed or displayed over or in place of existing content in a motion picture
We'll just fast forward so fast 3 minutes commercial will turn in 2 seconds..hardly perceptible..this way I can protect my family from the commercial smut !!!!
if no fixed copy of the altered version of the motion picture is created by such computer program or other technology.
The PVR will not filter anything : just make the filter separate and able to do something else then just filtering ..then feed the PVR with the list, let the CPU do selective editing of the full stream "on the fly".
Bingo. I for once thank our WannaBe-BornAgain-Christian overlords ! :D Oh Rupert Murdoch will go so Muzzlhim on your ass !
posted by elpapacito at 2:40 PM on May 3, 2005
We see the text of the law says
making imperceptible, by or at the direction of a member of a private household, of limited portions of audio or video content of a motion picture
Motion picture ! That means everything constituted by moving pictures, which includes any movie of any kind ever distributed on any media....which includes realtime media (aka airwave)
the term `making imperceptible' does not include the addition of audio or video content that is performed or displayed over or in place of existing content in a motion picture
We'll just fast forward so fast 3 minutes commercial will turn in 2 seconds..hardly perceptible..this way I can protect my family from the commercial smut !!!!
if no fixed copy of the altered version of the motion picture is created by such computer program or other technology.
The PVR will not filter anything : just make the filter separate and able to do something else then just filtering ..then feed the PVR with the list, let the CPU do selective editing of the full stream "on the fly".
Bingo. I for once thank our WannaBe-BornAgain-Christian overlords ! :D Oh Rupert Murdoch will go so Muzzlhim on your ass !
posted by elpapacito at 2:40 PM on May 3, 2005
interesting. just today some virus destroyed all my mp3s and a few wavs., many of them my own personally recorded material. i wonder if this type of thing finally got backing.
posted by es_de_bah at 2:44 PM on May 3, 2005
posted by es_de_bah at 2:44 PM on May 3, 2005
es_de_bah: be glad you're still allowed to record your audio and your video on your harddisk in your home in your spare time without asking for somebody else permission or paying some hidden fine.
Oh wait you may already be paying an hidden fine for you ARE guilty without a sentence !
posted by elpapacito at 2:54 PM on May 3, 2005
Oh wait you may already be paying an hidden fine for you ARE guilty without a sentence !
posted by elpapacito at 2:54 PM on May 3, 2005
you may already be paying an hidden fine for you ARE guilty without a sentence !
It's a tax, not a fine. There are plenty of goods that are taxed before use (cigarettes, liquor, gasoline).
But anyway, in the US it's a 3% tax on CDs that are labeled as "music CDs". Solution? Buy "data" CDs. They're the exact same product in a different box.
In Canada it's between $0.21 and $0.71 per CD-R.[pdf] Last I checked that's about a hundred times higher than in the US.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 2:59 PM on May 3, 2005
It's a tax, not a fine. There are plenty of goods that are taxed before use (cigarettes, liquor, gasoline).
But anyway, in the US it's a 3% tax on CDs that are labeled as "music CDs". Solution? Buy "data" CDs. They're the exact same product in a different box.
In Canada it's between $0.21 and $0.71 per CD-R.[pdf] Last I checked that's about a hundred times higher than in the US.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 2:59 PM on May 3, 2005
"So you would object to the Bush/Blair video mashup since the cretaors [sic] of the video and song both objected to it?"
- nope. That'd be an incorrect extrapolation. I don't object to parody or even recreation of a work(s). I have disgust for people who want to for example watch SEVEN or SAVING PRIVATE RYAN without being offended or having their sensibilities shaken. I don't object to what CleanPlay does, it merely offends me. Unlike many folks, I don't think that merits it being banned. Since I don't have to watch it - much like the Bush/Blair video mashup.
"But here they are sellng "Ghostbusters without the bad words", and clearly disclaiming that it's not the original."
-Which is the problem. Parodying something or creating a riff on something is not a problem. Covering the statue of justice or say Michaelangelo's David, IS the problem. This is not to say that folks should be able to do what they will with the work in their homes, but clearly theirs is the inferior aesthetic.
"Digital culture is often formed by taking the works of others and digitally remixing it."
- Indeed. I think I'll take Led Zepplin's "Kashmir" say 'fuck' in the middle of it and re-sell it as my own work. Now that's culture. And I don't even have to quote Lyotard.
This problem isn't new. It's why we're not certain how much of Don Quixote is Miguel de Cervantes work or the dolts riffing all over it trying to pass their work off as his genius.
It's an affront to one's refined tastes to destroy a work in such a manner (editing out the 'boobs' and 'curse' words), yet to interfere with another's right to manipulate their (albeit digital) environment is equally offensive.
It's where we seem to get hung up. It certainly doesn't help for congress to go for the highest bidder.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:28 PM on May 3, 2005
- nope. That'd be an incorrect extrapolation. I don't object to parody or even recreation of a work(s). I have disgust for people who want to for example watch SEVEN or SAVING PRIVATE RYAN without being offended or having their sensibilities shaken. I don't object to what CleanPlay does, it merely offends me. Unlike many folks, I don't think that merits it being banned. Since I don't have to watch it - much like the Bush/Blair video mashup.
"But here they are sellng "Ghostbusters without the bad words", and clearly disclaiming that it's not the original."
-Which is the problem. Parodying something or creating a riff on something is not a problem. Covering the statue of justice or say Michaelangelo's David, IS the problem. This is not to say that folks should be able to do what they will with the work in their homes, but clearly theirs is the inferior aesthetic.
"Digital culture is often formed by taking the works of others and digitally remixing it."
- Indeed. I think I'll take Led Zepplin's "Kashmir" say 'fuck' in the middle of it and re-sell it as my own work. Now that's culture. And I don't even have to quote Lyotard.
This problem isn't new. It's why we're not certain how much of Don Quixote is Miguel de Cervantes work or the dolts riffing all over it trying to pass their work off as his genius.
It's an affront to one's refined tastes to destroy a work in such a manner (editing out the 'boobs' and 'curse' words), yet to interfere with another's right to manipulate their (albeit digital) environment is equally offensive.
It's where we seem to get hung up. It certainly doesn't help for congress to go for the highest bidder.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:28 PM on May 3, 2005
I thought the article brought up an interesting point about the I-Pod being able to hold 10,000 songs. Who could afford to fill it up?
So, maybe the RIAA should go after APPLE and get a law passed that limited the size of players to something like 20 songs.
posted by UseyurBrain at 3:53 PM on May 3, 2005
So, maybe the RIAA should go after APPLE and get a law passed that limited the size of players to something like 20 songs.
posted by UseyurBrain at 3:53 PM on May 3, 2005
I-Pod being able to hold 10,000 songs
There's always that nutcase who owns like 500 CDs (or 300 CDs and 200 LPs for unclear reasons)
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 3:57 PM on May 3, 2005
There's always that nutcase who owns like 500 CDs (or 300 CDs and 200 LPs for unclear reasons)
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 3:57 PM on May 3, 2005
Damn, 500 CDs ain't all that many. When my girlfriend and I moved in together and *gulp* merged our music collections...a gesture more significant to the two of us than an exchange of rings or what-have-you...we found we were unable to fit them into a CD rack that could hold 500. And I have friends who put our sad little music library to shame.
/ just sayin'
posted by The Dryyyyy Cracker at 4:16 PM on May 3, 2005
/ just sayin'
posted by The Dryyyyy Cracker at 4:16 PM on May 3, 2005
afroblanca: you forget 1492, the rotguttiest of rotgut vodka...
I get my tunes/videos for free quasi-legally.
posted by schyler523 at 4:32 PM on May 3, 2005
I get my tunes/videos for free quasi-legally.
posted by schyler523 at 4:32 PM on May 3, 2005
thedevil:
It's a tax, not a fine. There are plenty of goods that are taxed before use (cigarettes, liquor, gasoline).
Oh I guess that explains everything, including the reason of media taxation (including hard disks in some legislation).
One could costruct taxation on cigarette and liquor as a way to reduce the consumption (the more expensive, the less population can afford it) but ..what a curious chance..both are physiologically and psycologically addictive goods..what best then putting a tax on something that people is going to buy anyway ? That's good for State coffers and -IF- the money is redirected to healthcare it can help finance poor people welfare..even victims of passive smoke.
On gasoline the reasoning is almost the same, it's an addictive good in the sense that the way the economy works one can hardly do without it. Expecially consumers can hardly do without it...no wonders there's a tax on it. One may argue that the State should put no tax on the gasoline, but it's a looong discussion on what's going to finance State spending...part of that money is needed to finance the huuuge deficit generated by occasional foreign trips to get oil...unless it's rerouted in tax breaks, but that's another story.
But what about media ? What's the reasoning behind taxation on media ? In Italy the money is rerouted to SIAE the practical equivalent of RIAA and MPAA ..which is supposed to redistribute the proceedings to the poor companies soooo suffering from piracy..sooo much they can't find a way to quantify the loss.
So the wild assumption is made that, if you're buying media, you're probably guilty of piracy by association. Everybody knows media buyers are pirates ! We could put even more blame on pirates accusing them of forcing State to put a tax on media.
In Canada it's between $0.21 and $0.71 per CD-R.[pdf] Last I checked that's about a hundred times higher than in the US.
Because of course that makes it look less bad, while in Canada it's only worse. Plus I guess they'll soon figure out and close the data cd loophole...and watch out for hard disks and the like.
posted by elpapacito at 4:39 PM on May 3, 2005
It's a tax, not a fine. There are plenty of goods that are taxed before use (cigarettes, liquor, gasoline).
Oh I guess that explains everything, including the reason of media taxation (including hard disks in some legislation).
One could costruct taxation on cigarette and liquor as a way to reduce the consumption (the more expensive, the less population can afford it) but ..what a curious chance..both are physiologically and psycologically addictive goods..what best then putting a tax on something that people is going to buy anyway ? That's good for State coffers and -IF- the money is redirected to healthcare it can help finance poor people welfare..even victims of passive smoke.
On gasoline the reasoning is almost the same, it's an addictive good in the sense that the way the economy works one can hardly do without it. Expecially consumers can hardly do without it...no wonders there's a tax on it. One may argue that the State should put no tax on the gasoline, but it's a looong discussion on what's going to finance State spending...part of that money is needed to finance the huuuge deficit generated by occasional foreign trips to get oil...unless it's rerouted in tax breaks, but that's another story.
But what about media ? What's the reasoning behind taxation on media ? In Italy the money is rerouted to SIAE the practical equivalent of RIAA and MPAA ..which is supposed to redistribute the proceedings to the poor companies soooo suffering from piracy..sooo much they can't find a way to quantify the loss.
So the wild assumption is made that, if you're buying media, you're probably guilty of piracy by association. Everybody knows media buyers are pirates ! We could put even more blame on pirates accusing them of forcing State to put a tax on media.
In Canada it's between $0.21 and $0.71 per CD-R.[pdf] Last I checked that's about a hundred times higher than in the US.
Because of course that makes it look less bad, while in Canada it's only worse. Plus I guess they'll soon figure out and close the data cd loophole...and watch out for hard disks and the like.
posted by elpapacito at 4:39 PM on May 3, 2005
In Canada it is a levy not a tax (it's collected for the rights holder it's not collected for government purposes). We went an extra step (for awhile) and charged levies on mp3 players too which was kyboshed recently after a court battle.
What's the reasoning behind taxation on media ?
In Canada the original idea was the rights holder would be compensated and in return Canadians would have a legal right to download music, it was a trade off. I'm not sure what the reasoning is for the 20+ other countries that charge levies.
posted by squeak at 5:56 PM on May 3, 2005
What's the reasoning behind taxation on media ?
In Canada the original idea was the rights holder would be compensated and in return Canadians would have a legal right to download music, it was a trade off. I'm not sure what the reasoning is for the 20+ other countries that charge levies.
posted by squeak at 5:56 PM on May 3, 2005
kyboshed, from the Canadian KYBO, meaning Keep Your Bowels Open?
Sorry to derail, bu that is like the second time in my life I've heard the word used in a sentence. Good show.
posted by Popular Ethics at 6:20 PM on May 3, 2005
Sorry to derail, bu that is like the second time in my life I've heard the word used in a sentence. Good show.
posted by Popular Ethics at 6:20 PM on May 3, 2005
« Older Anhui Fujian Guangdong Hunan Jiangsu Shangdong... | "Kal-El, I am your godfather." Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by eustacescrubb at 12:01 PM on May 3, 2005