Access to the Art

[N4H]

Apparently they really like their South Korean soap operas in despotic North Korea.

People risk death or imprisonment smuggling them across the border. Northern fans huddle in their huts late at night, with the lights out intent on secretly viewing their South Korean soaps. Government enforcers turn the electricity off in villages, then kick down doors to catch North Korean Soap fans with tapes trapped in their VCRs. Offenders are imprisoned in re-education centres.

I saw all this on CNN. On the same station I saw a newscast telling how the FBI under the direction of private corporate police agencies we're kicking down doors in some university in Arizona to catch downloaders of copyright material.

Now CNN is a respected western news agency, and I know they'd never lie to me - I know this because they tell me so ;) - but I don't get how two governments are engaged in what is essentially the same activity, yet in the case of the North Koreans I'm led to believe it is the mad, unjust, totalitarian abuse of despots, but when the same kind of thing happens in the west it's the heroic protection of the right of law. Explain that to me.

Like I say I don't get it. What am I missing? If the North Koreans should be allowed access to their soaps, why can't I download the pilot to Global Frequency?

I guess you could say the North Koreans don't have legal access to the art, but I can't get the pilot to Global Frequency without downloading it against the wishes of the copyright holder.

Then there's the question of monetary accesss. What if I can't afford access to the art, due to massive price gouging by the monopolies that have extorted copyrights from the artists. It takes about 50 cents for them to make a DVD, but it's 30 to 50 dollars for me to buy it. A 13 episode season of Wonderfalls costs me the same 50 dollars a full 22 episode season of Charmed does. In the case of Tru Calling they televised all but the last episode. To see it commercially on DVD you have to buy the whole season. That's unjust. If I refuse to pay these inflated prices, and download instead, am I a Pirate, or a consumer advocate?

I'm a Genre fan. I want access to Greg the Bunny, Tru Calling, Wonderfalls, The Inside, Firefly and on and on in the list of unjustly cancelled series. I need to see them all to reference each other so I can understand the Genre genre. I can't afford all cancelled Genre series on DVD. Who can? The creators of the work would prefer their work to be seen, I'm sure. They want me to see them. The problem is, they don't own their work. The rights to their creations have been extorted and, or, manipulated away through new ever-appearing laws flim-flammed into existence by government lobbyist tricksters hired to act for organizations of corporate despots. Studios deny me access to the art either through over-pricing, or simply refusing to allow the works to be seen (eg. Global Freguency, The last episodes of The Inside, and last episode of Tru Calling).

I'm in the same position as the North Korean soap fan. I don't have access to the art.

[goldenboy]

Ooh, that was a good rant. I empathize, yet at the same time it's fun to try to analyze your critique a little (even though I don't know what I'm talkin about, lol).

Anything that might undermine Kim Jong Ill is aces with me. The Beatles and Western soaps played their part in weakening the USSR, so...

I was just listening to a musician on NPR this morning, talking about "art should be free, creative ideas belong to everyone". And it's true, modern copyright laws, as applied to digital material seem out of control, very extreme. You have to be able to borrow, rework existing concepts, as an artist, creative type, just to maintain an innovative culture. That has never not been the case. But without patents and copyrights, I don't know...the West wouldn't be the West without contracts, property rights.

I don't think corporations and corporate law can keep up with the speed of technology, is the thing. They try, and they overreact, overcompensate. The big record companies totally blew it, with their reactionary...reactions. Cassette tapes didn't destroy the record industry. VCRs didn't destroy movie theaters (no final word on what DVDs will do).

I want all those cool cancelled shows too. But, truly, we've never had it better. We're now actually able to purchase episodes of cancelled TV shows that never even aired. We've never had access to more sources of entertainment, movies, TV shows, etc. We're spoiled. Through the Internet, we have knowledge of shows in development, all these tantalizing possiblilities that may or may not even materialize. Ignorance is bliss, ya know?

I guess, in theory, as the technology available to writers, directors, actors improves, they won't have to rely on the funds of corporations, giant studios to make good-looking productions? I dunno. I guess the trickiest thing is publicity, and a large, captive audience. It's a time of weird extremes...huge, scary amounts of corporate consolidation, and the decentralizing anarchy of the Web...

[goldenboy]

Oh, and this is kinda related. N4H, I remember you mentioning something about restrictions on network production and distribution of its own product? Like, those restrictions went away? Maybe you know all this, but...

...I found out it's the elimination of Fin-Syn Rules. They were originally intended to protect Hollywood, other distributors from The Big Three American networks. Now, their elimination (some think) may perversely hinder diversity in programming, giving much more control to the Nets/Studios like FOX...

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/financialint/financialint.htm

[N4H]

Thanks for finding that Goldenboy. Hey you're good at that. Can you find a couple more?

I kind of remember hearing about something in the last few years they were calling the Mickey Mouse law, or something like that. It had to do with how copyrights used to go into the public domain after 50 years, but with Disney turning 50, their lobbyists snuck around in the backrooms of Washington, and quietly got a law passed allowing copyright holders to hang on to the copyright for another 50 years, or something like that.

The other one I think I might remember is this law the music industry tried to sneak into law when no-one was looking that allowed them to automatically acquire any copyright to any song they published, by calling it a work for hire or something like that. I think maybe Don Henley, Sheryl Crow, and others got together, and put the kibosh on that one though.

[goldenboy]

OK, took the easy route—Wiki. Damn Sonny Bono! (RIP) I remember both of those being in the news, N4H.


The Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998—alternatively known as the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act or the Mickey Mouse Protection Act—extended copyright terms in the United States by 20 years. Before the act, copyright would last for the life of the author plus 50 years, or 75 years for a work of corporate authorship; the act extended these terms to life of the author plus 70 years and 95 years respectively. The act also affected copyright terms for copyrighted works published prior to January 1, 1978, increasing their term of protection by 20 years as well. This effectively 'froze' the advancement date of the public domain in the United States for works covered by the older fixed term copyright rules. Under this act, no additional works made in 1923 or afterwards that were still copyrighted in 1998 will enter the public domain until 2019. Unlike copyright extension legislation in the European Union, the Sonny Bono Act did not revive copyrights that had already expired. The act did extend the terms of protection set for works that were already copyrighted, and is retroactive in that sense. However, works created before January 1, 1978 but not published or registered for copyright until recently are addressed in a special section, and may remain protected until 2047. Sec. 303. The act became Public Law 105-298 on October 27, 1998.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Extension_Act

[goldenboy]

Music downloading creates listener apathy

Internet downloading and MP3 players are creating a generation of people who do not seriously appreciate songs or musical performances, British researchers said.

"The accessibility of music has meant that it is taken for granted and does not require a deep emotional commitment once associated with music appreciation," said music psychologist Adrian North on Tuesday.

North led a team from the University of Leicester, central England, that monitored 346 people over two weeks to evaluate how they related to music.

They concluded that because of greater accessibility through mass media, music was nowadays seen more as a commodity that is produced, distributed and consumed like any other.

It could also account for the popularity of television talent competitions, particularly in Britain, which allow viewers from the "iPod generation" a rare chance to engage and appreciate music and live performances, they suggested.

"In the 19th century, music was seen as a highly valued treasure with fundamental and near-mystical powers of human communication," said North.

"The pace of technological change has accelerated further over the last 20 years or so and these fundamental changes in the nature of musical experience and value have arguably become even more pronounced.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/10/060110164416.p4z0rnx6.html

This stuff is so interesting to me, cos other than the Web, I'm such a Luddite. I don't have a cell, cable TV, ipod. Don't download anything. There's this giant, tech-driven social/cultural experiment going on, constantly, around the world...

So do you guys think you're musically apathetic? lol

[prydain]

What the hell are they talking about? Music downloading has made me appreciate music more, lately. I enjoy music in general a lot more than I ever have and I'm now much more into all different types of music.

Eh, that research is B.S.

[goldenboy]

It does seem odd. I don't know. I sense that kids get into different kinds of music these days, and it's really varied. I just wonder if people still go out to see bands a lot—see lots of live music being played. That's how people can really get psyched up, obsessed about a band, music in general...

[N4H]

I agree with Prydain. What a BS study. Most likely it was funded by the British equivalent of the RIAA. How do you put a number on subjective feelings about art? How bogus.

What the Hell is a "music psychologist" anyway? Are those guys for real?

[goldenboy]

What the Hell is a "music psychologist" anyway? Are those guys for real?

Actually, now that you mention it, that sounds slightly less credible than a "pet psychologist", lol.

[goldenboy]

More entertainment tech developments...

'Bubble' hits theaters, TV, DVD on same day

By Gary Gentile, Associated Press

LOS ANGELES — If you live in New Jersey, Virginia or Nevada and want to see the new Steven Soderbergh film Bubble in a theater, pack your bags. It won't be showing in those or more than a dozen other states.

Steven Soderbergh directed "Bubble," which will release on DVD and cable the day it hits theaters.

The country's largest theater chains are snubbing the film because they object to it being sold on DVD and shown on cable TV the same day it debuts in a handful of theaters owned by the same company that produced the movie.

"Bubble" isn't the first film to be released this way. But the combination of a high-profile director and the backing of maverick billionaires Todd Wagner and Mark Cuban have studios and theater owners paying close attention this time.

"It's the biggest threat to the viability of the cinema industry today," John Fithian, president of the National Association of Theater Owners, said of the so-called "day and date" release strategy.

The move comes as new technology is giving consumers faster access to music, movies, TV shows and other content via multiple devices, including laptop computers, portable video screens, even cellphones. Theater owners have faced challenges from technology before, most notably television and the VCR. But this is the first time major studios have contemplated releasing films in competing formats at the same time.

The low-budget Bubble, a murder mystery set in a doll factory, opens Jan. 27 and is the first of six films to be produced under a partnership between Soderbergh and 2929 Entertainment. Founded by Wagner and Cuban, the company owns Magnolia Pictures, which will distribute "Bubble" in partnership with Landmark Theaters and HDNet Movies, the cable TV channel that will air it.

All six films produced by the partnership will be released simultaneously on DVD, television and in theaters. Bubble will appear on DVD a few days after its theater and cable release.

Currently, studios carefully control the release of major motion pictures to maximize profits. Films are first released in theaters, then on pay per view, home video, pay cable networks such as HBO, and finally on broadcast TV.

But the time between those windows has been shrinking. In 1994, the average time between a movie's opening in theaters and its debut on home video was about six months. In 2004, that span fell to four months, with some studios releasing films on DVD even sooner.

A typical film now earns about half of its revenue from home video and only about 25% from theaters. The remainder comes from selling the film to cable and broadcast TV and other sources....

http://usatoday.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=USATODAY.com+-+%27Bubble%27+hits+theaters%2C+TV%2C+DVD+on+same+d ay&expire=&urlID=16911086&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Ftech%2Fnews%2F 2006-01-18-bubble-theater-threat_x.htm&partnerID=1665

[goldenboy]

Proposed rule changes would tangle the Web

Congress wants to change the Internet.

This is news to most people because the major news media have not actively pursued the story. Yet both the House and Senate commerce committees are promoting new rules governing the manner by which most Americans receive the Web. Congressional passage of new rules is widely anticipated, as is President Bush's signature. Once this happens, the Internet will change before your eyes.

The proposed House legislation, the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act (COPE), offers no protections for "network neutrality."

Currently, your Internet provider does not voluntarily censor the Web as it enters your home. This levels the playing field between the tiniest blog and the most popular Web site.

Yet the big telecom companies want to alter this dynamic. AT&T and Verizon have publicly discussed their plans to divide the information superhighway into separate fast and slow lanes. Web sites and services willing to pay a toll will be channeled through the fast lane, while all others will be bottled up in the slower lanes. COPE, and similar telecom legislation offered in the Senate, does nothing to protect the consumer from this transformation of the Internet.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.internet09may09,0,4559120.story

AMY GOODMAN: So, I mean, right now, the user pays per month for use of the internet, and that’s how these companies get their money. So they’d be both charging the user and the content provider, the one who makes the website?

ROBERT McCHESNEY: And there’s no technological justification for this. There’s no economic justification. It’s pure corrupt crony capitalism. They’re basically using their political leverage to change this so they get a huge new revenue stream, and it gives them an inordinate amount of power over the internet. I mean, I think what people have to remember is that I think what’s excited us all about the internet was the idea that anyone could start a website at a fairly nominal fee and be competing equally then with General Motors, with General Electric, with Rupert Murdoch. We all had a shot at it. Democracy Now! had a shot right next to FOX News.

What this will do is change that, because that genius was built on policy, not technology. It was a common carrier requirement of the Telecom Act, which required the phone companies to give all websites equal access. They want to get rid of that, because they see enormous amounts of money if they can decide which website gets the inside lane and which website is on the dirt path.

http://www.freepress.net/news/15382

[N4H]

Spooky stuff. Whataya wanna bet the cable companies would still want their 30 bucks a month for the slower connection?

There's a problem when big business controls the gateway between what you can and can't see, or hear.

[goldenboy]

Always, in the back of my head I'm thinking 'the day is coming'. The day when the Internet will be seriously regulated, destroyed...

...I guess technically this might even be considered de-regulation of a sort, not sure. But the Telecom Act of '96 was an attempt at deregulation as well, and it led to all kinds of unintended consequences, lots of corporate consolidation.

[N4H]

There's also something coming soon called TCPA (trusted computer platform alliance). There are conflicting stories on what the full brunt of it will mean, but seeing as it's me talking you can have my translation. It's going to allow companies to tell you what you can and can't have on your machine, and how you can or can't use it. They say it won't spy on you, but it could if it wanted to. Big corps like Microsoft would never lie to you though, would they? They didn't already build spyware into stuff like Windows media player, or force you to put a piece of spyware on your machine if you want updates did they? Well...actually...yes. They did.

The transition will be gradual, but expect to start seeing Big Brother machines, otherwise known as TCPA shortly after the next version of Windows. If you bought a computer recently, especially if it uses stuff like Phoenix chips it already has some TCPA capability built into the hardware.

[goldenboy]

Huh. Apparently there are competing bills pending.

Internet freedom advocates in Congress introduced legislation that would protect Net Neutrality under the law. In the House, Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) offered the standalone "Network Neutrality Act of 2006," saying on the House floor, "This legislation is designed to save the Internet and thwart those who seek to fundamentally and detrimentally alter the Internet as we know it."

In the Senate, Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) are expected to drop a bipartisan bill tomorrow with meaningful protections for Network Neutrality. Both senators sit on the powerful Senate Commerce Committee, which is currently drafting major new telecommunications legislation. Their bill joins one offered by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), "The Internet Non-Discrimination Act" (S. 2360), which was introduced earlier this year.

Adding to that momentum, the SavetheInternet.com Coalition announced that in less than a week, its petition signatures to preserve Net Neutrality jumped from 250,000 to 500,000. The number of organizations participating in the coalition jumped from 50 to 400.

"The fight for Internet freedom is gaining big momentum," said Timothy Karr, campaign director of Free Press, a national, nonpartisan media reform and Internet policy group. "Every day, companies like AT&T and Comcast lose ground in their fight to end the free and open Internet that has revolutionized democratic participation and economic innovation."...

...The SavetheInternet.com coalition includes: Gun Owners of America, MoveOn.org, Craig Newmark of Craigslist, Glenn Reynolds (aka libertarian blogger Instapundit), Parents Television Council, American Library Association, United Church of Christ, Center for Digital Democracy, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, Public Knowledge, and other major public interest groups. The coalition is spearheaded by Free Press.

"Without statutory network neutrality, there is nothing to prevent big telecom companies from injecting political bias into the very skeleton of modern communications," said Craig Fields, director of Internet operations for Gun Owners of America. "Whenever you see people on the left and right joining together about something Congress is getting ready to do, it's been my experience that what Congress is getting ready to do is basically un-American."

http://www.savetheinternet.com/=press4

[N4H]

Take something like radio payola. If an artist wants play, he has to pay. It becomes an arrangement between the music industry, and large radio consortiums. The end result is Industry controls the gateway, and therefore who the public gets to hear. Ashlee Simpson gets heard, the ground-breaking Independent guy doesn't. The internet was starting to change this. People were starting to hear new sounds and ideas.

If the ISPs get their way, it will once more put industry in control of the gateway. Once more they will decide what can, and can't be heard. And we once more will lose access to the art.