According to Xinhuanet, the Chinese government has banned a computer game for "distorting history and damaging China's sovereignty and territorial integrity" (Swedish computer game banned for harming China's sovereignty):
Moreover, "Manchuria", "West Xinjiang", and "Tibet" appeared as independent sovereign countries in the maps of the game. In addition, it even included China's Taiwan province as the territory of Japan at the beginning of the game.
via Techdirt
There is an interesting article in the Java Developer's Journal on what the killer app for JXTA might be ("Make Every PC a Server" - Is That JXTA's Killer App?). I'm not interested in the specific technology so much (JXTA is pretty cool, though) as I am interested in the proposed killer app - every PC a server. One of the problems with the current architecture of the internet, I believe, is that it relies too much on the client/server distinction. In our collaborative, creative future, we are interested in both publishing and consuming. It only makes sense that our home PCs will not only fetch content and resources but serve the same, some of which might not even be ours, but will be authorized for distribution. The server in the closet is not simply about sharing resources within the home network, but outside of it as well.
What this means simply is that, unlike client/server, JXTA is client/server and server/client or even server-to-server or client-to-client. The information, storage, processing, and communications can start at either end. In the world of applications this also means that I don't have to work in a world of centralized resources where there are multiple issues. The worst problem of course is just the impedance mismatch between the world of application and the world of Web applications.
via Unmediated
A new edition of the Collected Poems of Philip Larkin, one of Britain's most celebrated modern poets, is issued and Slate discusses the controversial new book; controversial, that is, for the editorial decisions made (The Poet of Dirty Words). Rather than start with the editorial controversy, however, we live in an America where the review must start with a note that one of the English language's most famous modern poems and much of the work of a great modern poet cannot be recited during the day on radio or television thanks to the FCC.
They fuck you up, your mum and dad,
They may not mean to but they do
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra just for you.But they were fucked up in their turn
By fools in old style hats and coats
Who half the time were soppy-stern
And half at one another's throats.Man hands on misery to man.
It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can
And don't have any kids yourself.
Engadget has some advice for TiVo (Advice to TiVo: get your software onto PCs):
So here’s some free advice for TiVo: create a version of your software that works on a regular PC and then either license it to manufacturers so they can put it on their PCs instead of Microsoft’s Media Center operating system or sell it directly to consumers so they can install it themselves (or do both).
That would be thinking outside the box and creating consumer value. So, I don't really expect a major company funded by the broadcasters to actually try it. Instead, TiVo will probably follow the blindered future noted by MediaPost (Life After TiVo, Experts Debate The Next Generation Of Broadband Enabled DVRs):
The benefit of the broadband connection [to the DVR] is that it can enable real-time lead generation, couch commerce, instant polling (without a cell phone), long- and short-form branded content, and any manner of viral Web promotions.
Slate publishes an article on one of the most interesting aspects of Apple's iTunes and goes for the easy celebrity story instead of something really interesting (Beyoncé, Your Mix Tape Sucks).
One of the most innovative, creative and significant aspects of the transition to digital downloadable music that the music industry seems to have ignored is the critical importance of the playlist. Playlists are key to organizing, listening to and discovering new music in the digital age. They are a tool that many people can use much more efficiently to publicize their music interests, turn people on to new music and assist in providing a musical education, among other things. Apple has begun to design tools that recognize the importance of playlists. They aren't nearly as cool as Webjay, but they are trying.
So does Slate write about any of these fascinating aspects of the playlist community? Nah, they go for the easy celebrity piece and rag on the mostly weak and uninteresting celebrity playlists Apple uses as a marketing tool. Mainstream journalism is sooo impressive.
Earlier today Slashdot linked to an article about whether distributed rendering for CGI movies, such as the hilarious Shrek 2, makes any sense (Rendering Shrek@Home?). The article that sparked the /. discussion was on Download Aborted!: Can I Help to Render Shrek 3?.
For a number of technical reasons, this is probably not a very viable idea (see the comments on /. and the original piece for the reasons why). However, on BoingBoing, Cory Doctorow has transformed the original concept into a much better one: SHREK@HOME: blue-sky proposal for the future of film production:
Ultimately, the largest expense in an Internet marketplace where anything is available always anywhere is marketing: the more choice, the more expensive influencing choice becomes.
So a social SHREK@HOME could engage its audience not just for their cycles, but for their evangelism. We see glimmers of that in some machinima projects, like Red v Blue or in Flash-shorts like Homestar Runner, a clubbish sense of ownership by its fans that turn them into relentless marketers of the net-art. [emphasis in original]
As they say, read the whole thing.
Dear me, but isn't that Steven E. Landsburg a witty fellow? Why, he used such brilliant economic logic in his Slate column to "prove" that we should consider the death penalty for the writers of computer viruses and worms (Feed the Worms Who Write Worms to the Worms). How exceedingly clever.
Here's a question though: why didn't he write about considering execution for corporate malfeasors? Perhaps his idea doesn't seem so clever as applied to people he may socialize with.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of virus-writers, but how odd that Landsburg chooses to extend the death penalty to their non-violent crimes and not the criminal acts of those more associated with his profession.
You know, Landsburg claims that:
Governments exist largely to supply protections that, for one reason or another, we can't purchase in the marketplace. Those governments perform best when they supply the protections we value most. We can measure their performance only if we are willing to calculate costs and benefits and to respect what our calculations tell us, even when it's counterintuitive. Any policymaker who won't do this kind of arithmetic is fundamentally unserious about policy.
I would be more impressed with Landsburg's claimed need for impartial cost-benefit analysis if the analysis hit a little closer to home for him.
Asia Media reports that the Chinese government will be subsidizing digital cable set top boxes (CHINA: Subsidies to boost digital TV in mainland). There are a number of reasons to do this, which the article notes, but one that goes unremarked: the increased ability of the government to control the home media center. In the US it is the content/cable/software companies that seek to control, in China it will be the government in addition to those.
via UPREZ
The Rochester Democrat & Chronicle reports that the University of Rochester's college radio station, WRUR, will be suspending all live broadcasts this summer due to the FCC's indecency crackdown (No more live-local content for WRUR):
”The primary focus is the summer, when we don’t have a lot of people here” to monitor and supervise the radio station, said Dean of the College William Scott Green. “It’s basically a response to the heightened sensitivities and the broadcast climates. This is a way to make sure … we’re careful.”
No more call-in local discussion shows, I guess. No more live coverage of political rallys. More pre-recorded DJs ... just what broadcast radio needs.
Thanks, Matt!
UPDATE The Lansing City Pulse has a similar article (Local broadcasters treading lightly during FCC crackdown:
At MSU student radio station WDBM (88.9 FM), it has always been appropriate to play music that might be controversial during “safe harbor hours” between midnight and 6.
That recently changed.
“Safe harbor hours are no longer considered safe,” student station manager Ed Glazer says when asked how The Impact, as the station is known, has been affected by a recent crackdown on broadcast indecency by the Federal Communications Commission.
Lucas Gonze has an interesting post on broadcatching with video playlists (On the topic of broadcatching). He points to the Webjay video playlists of Brett Singer: Playlists by webjaybs. According to Lucas:
Since I don't have a television in Montreal, I watched the news last night via his [Brett's] compilation of BBC and NY1 clips. It was embryonic and crude, but also mind blowing.
According to a Reuters wirestory that was widely published, including on C|Net News, Sony will be incorporating its new "Cell" processor in both the next generation PlayStation and what they call a "network television" (Sony says 'Cell'-based TV ready by 2006).
The article lacks any detail about what, exactly, a "network television" is, but the image the words invoke is fascinating. I would imagine that one could rather easily broadcatch with a network television, for one.
This news item from Broadcasting & Cable is nearly a week old, but it shows that the FCC wants to extend its control over free speech beyond sex (FCC Will Look at Violence). Interestingly, the study will focus on "the impact of TV violence on children." Note, the study won't be about the impact of broadcast TV violence, but TV violence alone, which leaves a lot of leeway for taking a look at a bunch of things like cable and etc.
via Lost Remote
Andrew Grumet: "The XML button is the anti broadcast flag."
Caveat: I think that using the XML button for too many things can lead to confusion, but I definitely agree with the sentiment.
Today, the FCC issued a request for comments regarding a la carte cable programming pricing (Comment Requested on a la Carte and Themed Tier Programming and Pricing Options for Programming Distribution on Cable Television and Direct Broadcast Satellite Systems [PDF]). This is an issue that has gotten much press recently, mostly due to consumer group pressure as well as conservatives who don't like the idea that some of their money might be supporting indecent cable programming.
Most of the articles that address this issue, however, deal solely with the question of whether consumers should have to pay for something they have no interest in. In contrast, a passle of economists argue persuasively that, in fact, cable bundling can be a good thing in aggregate. See, among others, Marginal Revolution: Why can't you choose your cable channels?. The basic idea is that "when demands are scattered [hard to tell who likes sports and who like cartoons] and the marginal cost of additional service is low," bundling makes sense.
However, this doesn't address the bundling that concerns me - the bundling of programming from content producer (think Disney) to cable company. If a cable company wants Disney's ESPN, they're going to have to take some of Disney's less popular channels as well. Read on...
Continue reading "FCC Requests Comments on a la Carte Cable Subscriptions"Fascinating story in WIRED about the addition of virtual addictive drugs in virtual worlds (Virtual Dopers Crave High Scores):
"In every game, having some danger and having the sense that there's some danger is exciting," said [Andy] Tepper [lead designer for A Tale in the Desert]. "So if you can make it so the danger to you is you, that's nirvana."
More than that, Tepper said, the game's other players love talking about it when someone falls victim to Speed of the Serpent. "It's not good for business to kill your customers, but overall it makes it a much, much more interesting world."Spoken like a true tobacco executive. Seriously, though, this is immensely interesting.
Jeff Jarvis reports two fairly depressing news items today about major cultural forces supporting increased regulation of free speech (The Daily Stern: 24 May 2004).
Multichannel News has truly disturbing information about Disney - they are supporting the application of indecency regulation to cable (Disney’s In Indecency Mix). Along with Jeff (and FCC Chairman Michael Powell before the pod people got him), I agree that it is a constitutional travesty that broadcast has fewer First Amendment protections than other media. Still, the loophole that allows regulation of broadcast wouldn't seem to apply to cable and satellite, but who knows?
As a copyfighter I sometimes joke about how Disney is evil. This time it isn't a joke. The Disney corporation is acting evilly in supporting further government regulation of media indecency.
The other cultural force supporting media regulation is the Pope, according to this report in the Scotsman (Pope Calls for Regulation of Media):
“It’s a task that likewise involves public institutions, called upon to enact regulatory procedures aimed at ensuring that the means of social communication are always respectful of the truth and of the common good,” the pontiff said.
John Fund, in his weekly Opinion Journal column, has a fairly balanced piece on the broadcast indecency debate (Don't Touch That Dial?). I'm not sure if it is intentional, but many of the arguments in favor of indecency regulation are fairly absurd. For example, he quotes conservative film critic Michael Medved:
Michael Medved, a nationally syndicated host based in Seattle, responded that his fellow conference goers were "crying wolf" and pointed out that "there isn't a person in this room who doesn't favor some standard for broadcasting, whether it be against kiddy porn or animal snuff films."
Fund does call for some restraint by broadcasters:
The parishioners of New York's St. Patrick's Cathedral, whose church was used as a staging ground for a live sex act broadcast on radio, shouldn't have been subjected to that frontal assault on their values.
Posted in accordance with US Food, Drug and Memetics Administration Labeling Requirements
Warning: This blog posting may be dangerously persuasive to pregnant women, those with weak backs and/or heart conditions.
Ok, so the science here isn't particularly compelling, but the Deseret News reports that an anti-pornography group is seeking scientific proof of pornography addiction through magnetic resonance imaging (Group trying to snuff out porn). The group, the Lighted Candle Society, has a poorly titled press release: Major Anti-Pornography Program Scheduled for 12 May in Salt Lake City.
It isn't entirely clear what the MRI brain scans will prove, exactly, but the purpose is clear. Should the researchers prove that pornography is addictive, the Lighted Candle Society will then take that proof into court to sue the pornography industry into submission much as smokers (or their beneficiaries) brought a litigation campaign against Big Tobacco.
Frankly, I don't think that MRI scans can prove what the LCS intends to prove. But what if similar scans could? Is it entirely outside the realm of possibility that science might someday allow us to gauge, at least to a limited extent, the physical response engendered by particular memes? What impact would this have on First Amendment law? Would it be permissible, despite the First Amendment, to censor particular memes that were shown to have scientifically proven adverse effects, much as we outlaw particular drugs? What levels of proof of harm would be needed? I suspect we may eventually have to answer these questions.
Of course, the LCS should be careful what it asks for ... religion itself seems to be a particularly pernicious meme.
Last Friday, the FCC affirmed a fine against a broadcaster for violating the FCC's indecency regulations. Read the press release: Commission Affirms Forgeitture Against Entercom for Violations of Indecency Rule [PDF]. Read the decision: In the Matter of Entercom Seattle License, LLC, Licensee of Station KNDD(FM), Seattle, Washington [PDF].
The interesting thing about this decision is that it stands for the proposition that mentioning "sexual organs" can get you in trouble, even if the discussion regards non-sexual matters - "the Bureau specifically ruled that the indecency definition encompasses references to sexual organs, separate and apart from sexual activities, where those references are patently offensive." In this case, the verboten language included "material concerning whether and how a penis could be used to lift or pull objects."
The decision also emphasizes the FCC's claimed ability to view a work not as a whole, but as isolated elements:
Although Entercom argues that the complained-of material includes “numerous traffic reports, celebrity new items, concert updates and other news related breaks[…that] ultimately diluted the segments’ overall focus on the pulling capacity of the penis,” the fact that the broadcasts repeatedly returned to the topic demonstrates a persistent focus on the male sexual organ and removes any doubt that this material was patently offensive. [footnote omitted]
Of course, this decision isn't enough for some of the Commissioners...
Continue reading "Yet Another FCC Decision Regarding the Pulling Capacity of the Penis"James Nguyen, a partner at Foley & Lardner's Los Angeles office, has an article on the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA in this month's LA County Bar Assoc.'s Los Angeles Lawyer: Code Breaking. The article is a pretty good, if brief, summary of the anti-circumvention provisions of the law to this point. However, there is one paragraph that is fairly misleading in its description of sections 1201(a) (access controls) and 1201(b) (copy controls):
For example, in applying Section 1201 to circumstances involving a circumvention device that breaks DVD encryption codes and permits copying of DVDs, a company that manufactures and sells the device would violate the trafficking provisions of Section 1201(b) (and possibly also Section 1201(a)(2), depending on what the device does). However, if a consumer uses that device to copy a DVD, that conduct is lawful if: 1) the consumer lawfully gained access to the DVD (such as by purchasing it at a retail store), and 2) the consumer pleads and proves a traditional infringement defense (such as a defense of fair use based on making one copy for personal use).
This means that even if one has lawfully acquired a DVD, such as by purchase at your local Wal-Mart, circumventing CSS in order to view the DVD on an unauthorized player puts one in violation of 1201(a)(1). Unfortunately, there is no defense of fair use to 1201(a)(1). Although all you did was view your lawfully acquired DVD, you are still subject to civil liability.
Nguyen's description of how the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA operate with regard to DVDs sounds almost reasonable, but is misleading. Remember, playing a DVD on an unauthorized player is illegal. A point I wish had been made more forcefully at the DMCRA hearings.
via Bag and Baggage
Last Friday, the Duluth News Tribune ran an AP wirestory about a man cited for carrying an "F U G W" sign when President Bush's motorcade passed through his town (Man fights citation for carrying anti-Bush sign). Professor Eugene Volokh rightly dissects the illegality of the police citation and their excuse for it (Public profanity (or apparent profanity)). Volokh believes that the police have not been properly trained in the law, "If the department taught the officers that the law bans public profanity on signs, then it taught them wrong. Thirty years after Cohen, there's no excuse for police departments to have their officers arrest people for carrying allegedly profane signs in public."
Volokh is right, but one might be a little easier on the police. After all, the quite public crackdown on radio and television indecency might be just a little confusing. I can see your average police officer befuddled by the fact that it is legal to hold profane signs in public where children might see them, but heaven forbid you should use profanity on television. Perhaps the police were trying to keep the sign from being accidentally broadcast on television.
Thanks to the folks at the Entertainment Software Association, I'll be attending the E3 Expo this coming Wednesday - Friday. I plan to write some reports on the expo focusing on issues of interest to this blog. If any readers plan to attend as well, drop me a note.
The main justification for the broadcast flag is that without some form of protection broadcasters won't provide high value content on HDTV. See, In the Matter of: Digital Broadcast Content Protection [PDF]:
Content owners and broadcasters uniformly assert that DTV broadcast content must be protected and that, in the absence of some protection mechanism, high value content will be withheld from broadcast television and migrate to pay services.
Okay, let's skip for the moment the fact that this assertion doesn't make a lot of business sense for the broadcasters, that the broadcast flag won't stop HDTV distribution on the internet anyway, that the content producers haven't withheld content from other distribution channels (DVDs) that allow for massive internet redistribution, there is no definition of what is "high value content" (Average Joe Millionaire's Apprentice Big Brother Marries an Extreme Makeover Survivor on Temptation Island?), that the broadcasters make no promises to provide such content even if there is a broadcast flag, and simply note that the FCC has rather gullibly accepted this assertion. If the broadcasters said it, it must be true.
Now, some CBS News stations are claiming that they will stop covering live news outside the so-called safe harbor for indecency Some CBS Affils Could Drop Live News:
CBS affiliates are telling the Federal Communications Commission that unless it changes its ruling about profanities on-air, many will have to stop doing news outside of the 10 p.m.-6 a.m. safe harbor for indecent speech.
If you don't want it on TV, write the work "FUCK" on your head, see, and that won't get on TV, right?
- Abbie Hoffman, Yippie Workshop Speech, 1968
The LA Times (annoying reg. req.), among others, reports that CBS News stations are claiming that they may have to eliminate live local news coverage if the FCC doesn't relax its jihad against indecent and profane broadcasts (Profanity Rules Bother News Shows):
The CBS affiliates said in their filing with the FCC on Tuesday that if Congress passed a law to revoke the licenses of repeat offenders of indecency rules, as some lawmakers have proposed, stations might be unwilling to take the risk of airing any live news between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., when the FCC says children are likely to be watching.
The original concept of the "heckler's veto" is that if a heckler threatened violence against a speaker or in general it would be legal for the government to prevent the speech in order to prevent the threatened violence. A heckler, therefore, would be able to control what can or cannot be said by selectively threatening violence. In other words, a heckler would have an effective veto over otherwise free speech. Luckily, legislative schemes that permit a "heckler's veto" are unconstitutional. Read on...
Continue reading "How to Heckle Veto the News"Reuters is carrying a wirestory in which FCC Chairman Michael Powell claims that the FCC's indecency regulations are not censorship (Oxygen Cable TV Boss Decries FCC's 'Censorship'):
"I don't think we should use the word indecency; we should call it what it is: censorship," [Oxygen Media Inc. CEO and founder Geraldine] Laybourne said Tuesday during one of the show's panel discussions....
"I don't agree with that," Powell told reporters after his dialogue. "For 70 years, the country has had limits on broadcast television. To me censorship is prior restraint, and I don't think anybody has been involved in that limitation on content."
But Powell can't be making sense, can he? For example, Jeff Jarvis agrees with Laybourne as would most people when confronted with Powell's dissembling distinction (The Daily Stern: May 05, 2004). Read on for my answer ...
Continue reading "When is Indecency Regulation "Censorship"?"Howard Stern has been the FCC's indecency whipping boy for some time. After the latest series of fines, however, he asked his listeners to complain to the FCC about an episode of Oprah's talk show that included rather graphic descriptions of sex acts. The Smoking Gun has received copies of more than 1600 complaints about that episode thanks to a FOIA request (FCC Swamped With Oprah Indecency Complaints). It is impossible to know which complaints are real, but many of them are downright hilarious:
I had just returned with my 3-year-old twins from Bible day camp when I turned on the show ... Tell me, Mr. Powell and Mr. Copps: How would you explain the concept of a "tossed salad" to your kids?
The Oprah show ... was so offensive that my child's head literally exploded. Please ban free speech so this never happens again.
I just wanted to say how much I appreciate all your hard work trying to take down such evils as Howard Stern.... next, please, oh please, go after that Mother of Harlots, Oprah....I will send a list of books next that I think you should look into.
I am writing to you as a very concerned elementary school teacher ... While watching this program, all I could think about were my 3rd grade students home from school, viewing these vulgar conversations about sex: at 4:30 p.m.! .... In teaching government to my students, I'm finding it very difficult to be honest. How do I teach the notion of "Freedom of Speech"???
Recently on the Oprah Winfrey Talk show ... acts of sexual nature were described in detail without the presence of a medical doctor ... Thank you for your time, ... Registered Republican
Veteran tech journalist JD Lasica has nearly completed writing a new book on the personal media revolution entitled, Darknet: Remixing the Future of Movies, Music and Television. Taking the lessons he learned in writing the book to heart, he is using the new media revolution to help him with the book itself. Like another author/pioneer, Dan Gillmor, JD is giving the public an opportunity to assist him in writing the book by making it available for public editing. JD has helpfully provided both a blog, Darknet Blog, and a wiki, Darknet Wiki.
