•
Earlier in the week there were a few news stories around that caught my eye, but I was hesitant to post them. ‘Why?’ you ask, well it was April 1st and I tend to take any news that comes out on April 1st with a grain of salt. Since there hasn’t been any retraction of these stories they get the full posting treatment.
The Recording Industry Association of America just received some bad news. A New York Federal Judge has made a ruling that is going to greatly effect most of their lawsuits against file sharers. According to Judge Kenneth Karas making a copyrighted file available for download does not necessarily violate the law. Instead it now needs to be proven that the file was actually downloaded or intended to be downloaded.
This is kind off a complex issue and this ruling will actually influence a lot of future download cases (NY courts are apparently known for how well they handle copyright issues). Essentially what this case ruling means (or can mean) is that the RIAA needs to show that some one had the intention of sharing copyrighted materials just having copyrighted materials available for download is not illegal. It is a complicated issue, I am sure complicated more with P2P file sharing programs. CNET has some decent coverage on the issue with explanations better then I can provide here.
This doesn’t really mean that anyone is going to get off scott-free in any of the pending lawsuits, but it does mean the RIAA is going to have to do a bit more legwork to prove that individuals were working to intentionally share copyrighted files.
•
According to everyone’s favorite semi-authoritative,mostly accurate source, Wikipedia:
In 2006, [Deepak] Chopra launched Virgin Comics LLC alongside his son, Gotham Chopra, and Richard Branson, famed entrepreneur and thrill-seeker. The aim of the company is to promote and examine South Asian themes and culture through the use of the traditional comic book medium. [9]
Well, since 2006 it looks like they have decided to broden their horizons a bit. According to the Virgin Comic website the goal of Virgin Comics is two fold:
1. The creation of original stories and character properties that tap into the vast libraries of mythology and re-invent the rich indigenous narratives of Asia in a unique, compelling and, and entertaining way.
2. Collaborating with creative talent from around the world - from filmmakers, to writers, to musicians, and other artists - to craft original stories and character properties initially in the form of comics and graphic novels subsequently to be developed into films, television, animation, gaming, wireless content, online, merchandise and more.
While I am not writing to criticize Virgin Comics Read more »
•
Each year some Nazi-like parents in the middle of the country feel that some fantastic book is offensive and should be banned from libraries. Pretty much it depends on the community to decide whether to follow through on this parents request and ban the book or to allow freedom of speech to prevail and make all books available to the masses.
Unfortunately there are a number of books that have been banned from public schools and libraries across the country. Last year the book at the top of the list for banning was “And Tango Makes Three” by Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell about a pair of male penguins that raise a baby penguin.
Why do I bring this up now you ask (and I’m glad you did)? Well, this upcoming week, starting tomorrow (sept. 29th) and going through October 6th, is Banned Book Week, sponsored by the American Library Association. The motto for the week is “Free People Read Freely.” Accoridng to the website:
Banned Books Week: Celebrating the Freedom to Read is observed during the last week of September each year. Observed since 1982, this annual ALA event reminds Americans not to take this precious democratic freedom for granted. This year, 2007, marks BBW’s 26th anniversary (September 29 through October 6).
BBW celebrates the freedom to choose or the freedom to express one’s opinion even if that opinion might be considered unorthodox or unpopular and stresses the importance of ensuring the availability of those unorthodox or unpopular viewpoints to all who wish to read them. After all, intellectual freedom can exist only where these two essential conditions are met.
To take part in banned book week all you need to do is pick up a banned or challenged book and read away. Do it in public, don’t be afraid to let people see you reading it, after all, that is the point, isn’t it?
Oh, also related, USA Today reports that the Federal government, after receiving enough pressure has decided to put banned religious books back into prison libraries.
For a list of banned books you can check out the ALA website, the site Banned Books, or just do a quick Google search for them. Or if you are too lazy for any of that you can just pick up Fahrenheit 451 or To Kill a Mocking Bird.or all the Harry Potter books, so, you’ve got some options.
In choosing a picture for this post there were so many good different images to choose from I decided to put a link to the Google Image Search here.
•
Last week I broke down and decided to pay $15 for access to TimesSelect. Today, the New York Times eliminated the program and made the newspapers columnists and archive free!
They had FINALLY worn me down. I’m the last one to splurge on a new item. I’ve got a television set from 1984 (the most amazing Hitachi. I doubt it will ever die and the picture is great). When I buy something, the trend has passed, the item is trustworthy, it’s future viability certain. So, shockingly, I was the customer the Times always wanted. The last curmudgeon to fall down.
TimesSelect was always an awful idea. I gave in because I needed an article from the archives and I could expense the cost.
I guess they blew it, because if I signed up who knows how many thrifty folks like myself were about to emerge from the scenery.
This makes me a two-time loser. Two weeks after I bought the second generation ipod, Apple produced one with a color screen! Do you have any idea how horrible that was? And they offered a lousy discount store credit to take back the new “old” player. Now TimesSelect. I hope that, at least this time, I get my money back.
•
I must agree with the initial thesis my colleague Adam, who writes that Google Was Evil, Is Evil, and Will Be Evil. I urge him to stick to his guns, despite a polite reply to Philipp Lenssen of Google Blogoscoped, who has challenged the (clearly prevalent) viewpoint that Google has shed its (apparently gilded) “good guy” reputation. Lenssen’s response seems an appeal more to emotion than to reason.
Google has great tools, and yes they started out with no advertising, but Google — a public company in its current incarnation — exists primarily to provide shareholder value via the exploitation of its useful services to drive revenue.
It is not a “good†company if it derives revenue from its services in such a manner that its clients and audience consider it more classy. Eschewing pop-up ads, content-covering ads, or other obnoxious forms of corporate promotion don’t make Google “good,†but merely savvy, as they are clearly focused on the long-term.
But there are ethical limits to a long-term focus. Google appeasers sound like any of a number of ends-justify-the-means historical apologists.
Are Google supporters so callow as to argue that censoring search terms is somehow benign? What if the NYTimes, as a condition of maintaining its print and web presence in China, voluntarily agreed to remove from its coverage and its content any mention of injustice at the hands of the Chinese regime? I certainly hope Times readers would see this is a total abrogation of a newspaper’s mission of informing the public, a mission all the more critical when that information is contrary to the wishes of a ruling elite.
How then is it any less critical for Google to allow all speech to reach those who would use the search portal as a means to access truth? Google has a responsibility just as great as any one newspaper, and in its aggregation of many news sources, as great as all newspapers combined, to allow information to flow freely.
The argument, by Google apologists, appears to be that the Chinese people will benefit so greatly from a legally-obtainable ability to search via Google, even with restrictions in place, that Google should clearly violate its own stated goal to not do evil. This is absurd, and presumes rather haughtily that Google is somehow an essential service and not merely another search offering.
Chinese dissidents will still be able to search for officially restricted information via proxy servers whether or not Google chooses to remain chummy with the Chinese authorities. Competitors like Yahoo and Baidu already provide basic search services. Google isn’t providing potable water, and no matter how much they’d like to think that they are filling some indispensable need they do not offer life-sustaining services, so there is no wisp of an argument for a “greater-good†plea.
What a deal with the Chinese government does allow is for Google to continue its profitable ventures in that country free of official condemnation.
Google, get over yourself. You are marginally more effective than your competitors at search and vastly smarter when it comes to data aggregation and advertising. Your stockholders should feel proud of your determination to increase profits by officially opening your platform to a Chinese audience. Your adherents, such as they are, should stop deluding themselves that your corporate mindset represents any but the most cynical.
