Slashback: Google, China, Network Neutrality

Slashback tonight brings some corrections, clarifications, and updates to previous Slashdot stories, including Google's reasoning behind rejecting the DoJ motion, more fodder for the Chinese censorship fire, one of last weeks "first computers" brought to life, the New York Times backs network neutrality, hard drive death dance tracks, Serenity enters the black, and the USPTO issues a final rejection in RIM patent case -- Read on for details.

Google's reasoning behind rejecting the DoJ motion. xandroid writes "Google's blog has an explanation of their response to the DoJ motion." They have also provided a link to the entire 25 page response [PDF] sent to the DoJ.

Chinese censorship continues to be a hot topic. Mercury News is running an interesting article about the recent scolding top tech companies received from Washington with regards to assisting in censoring the internet in China. However, the Washington Post also has an interesting article regarding a senior editor at the China Youth Daily who posted a 'blistering letter on the newspaper's computer system attacking the Communist Party's propaganda czars and a plan by the editor in chief to dock reporters' pay if their stories upset party officials.' And finally, Wikipedia remains blocked in China despite the continued efforts of fans to correct the problem.

1960's Digicomp toy computer back in production. Larry Groebe writes "With all the talk last week about "first computers" on Slashdot and around the net, I was surprised to see only one mention of the Digicomp. A group of us keep the memories alive on Yahoo's 'Friends of Digicomp' group, and one enterprising member has managed to reconstruct the computer and is now selling them again for the first time in three decades. Its' a nostalgia trip for some of us; an eye opener for people who never experienced it; and still carries more than a bit of educational value. After all, even in these days of MAKE magazine, how many other true build-it-from-scratch computer kits are there?"

New York Times backs network neutrality. joshdick writes "In a recent editorial, The New York Times voices strong support for legislation requiring network neutrality. From the article: 'Some I.S.P.'s are phone and cable companies that make large campaign contributions, and are used to getting their way in Washington. But Americans feel strongly about an open and free Internet. Net neutrality is an issue where the public interest can and should trump the special interests.'"

Hard drive death dance tracks. daithedragon writes "A while back Gizmodo awarded the prizes in a competition to make a dance tracks out of the recorded noises of hard drives dying."

Serenity enters the black. stuart1310 writes "According to sliceofscifi.com the DVD sales of Joss Whedon's Serenity have recently climbed out of the red and started making profit for Universal. Beware, these numbers are estimates and even if accurate we've still a sight to go before seeing Serenity on TV or in the theaters again. Here is to hoping we do."

USPTO issue final rejection in RIM patent case. tsalaroth writes "ABC News is reporting that the USPTO has officially rejected at least one of the patents in the Blackberry infringement case. From the article: 'The U.S. patent office on Wednesday issued its first of several anticipated final rejections of patents held by NTP Inc. related to Research in Motion's BlackBerry device, two days before a judge will hear arguments on an injunction on the wireless e-mail service.'"

Comments

Aren't spaceships always in the black?

[ScaryFroMan]

Subject aside, when was the last time that a slashback didn't mention Firefly/Serenity?

Re:Aren't spaceships always in the black?

[meBigGuy]

ScaryFroMan asks:

Subject aside, when was the last time that a slashback didn't mention Firefly/Serenity?

Don't you know about the search feature? It's at the bottom of the page. Do we always have to do your work for you? You could probably Google it too. Why would you even want to know such a thing?

Re:Aren't spaceships always in the black?

[dclydew]

I consider myself a sci-fi geek. I've watched sci-fi ever since I can remember. So I was intrigued when Serenity came out. I hadn't got to see Firefly and wanted to check out what the fuss was all about.

I was disappointed in the extreme. I would have considered it good sci-fi for the SciFi Channel... anything is better than Frankenfish, Manticore etc... but really, it didn't seem to me like very good Sci-Fi (at least the movie, I haven't seen the series). The dialogue was ok, the special effects were definately TV quality and the overall story just felt poorly put together.

Alas.

NTP Patent invalidated?

[donutz]

'The U.S. patent office on Wednesday issued its first of several anticipated final rejections of patents held by NTP Inc. related to Research in Motion's BlackBerry device, two days before a judge will hear arguments on an injunction on the wireless e-mail service.'

So is there a good legal reason why a judge would enforce an injunction against RIM if one of the patents has been rejected, and it looks like the others will be too?

Re:NTP Patent invalidated?

[Rich Road]

While you would expect final rejections of these patents/applications to end NTP's case against RIM, a final rejection is anything but final. NTP can (and based upon the stakes, probably will) appeal the decision to the board of patent appeals, and possibly to the federal courts. Only when NTP has exhausted all of their options will the entire NTP v. RIM saga end.

Re:NTP Patent invalidated?

[Karl Cocknozzle]

So is there a good legal reason why a judge would enforce an injunction against RIM if one of the patents has been rejected, and it looks like the others will be too?

I can't imagine any lawyer worth his fees not making strained, vociferous arguments for an indefinite continuance (until the Patent Office releases its final reports on these patents) to rule on the motion for the injunction.

If the patents are all invalidated, (and there are indications that very well could happen) what needs to happen is for RIM to sue the owners and directors of NTP into corporate and personal bankruptcy. The reality is that this frivolous litigation has cost RIM plenty of money in both potential business and copious resources dedicated to upgrading RIM's infrastructure and software to sidestep the patents.

The reality is that there are businesses that were formed for the sole purpose of using lawyers to extort money from other businesses with stealth-patent portfolios. These leeches need to be discouraged, and a couple financial death penalties directed at the instigators of this scheme would go a long way towards scaring companies out of the frivolous patent lawsuit game. An outcome like that for the NTP-gang would make the patent sheistering into a risky proposition instead of easy-money for the well-heeled elite who can afford to buy up patents on the sly, only to spring them on successful entreprenuers later.

This will buy us time until we can finally get the Congress to enact reasonable patent reform. Or hell freezes over, whichever comes first.

Re:NTP Patent invalidated?

[Zro Point Two]

IANAL...but as I understand it, the lawsuit in the courts is based on "Did RIM infringe on these patents?" not "are these patents valid". Based on that, as much as I hope he doesn't, I can understand it if the judge rules that RIM did infringe on the patents.

When the lawsuit started, the patents were valid. So the judge has to decide if the technology used by RIM is similar enough to those patents to rule that RIM did infringe on them. Unless the patent office and/or the judge say that the invalidations of the patents are retroactive and therefore were not valid at the time the lawsuit started...and in that instance, NTP would then have to pay back the royalties and fees that Good, Nokia, etc. have paid them..cause you can't license something that doesn't exist.

Again, IANAL, so please feel free to correct me, but consider it as two seperate issues at hand before flaming me and see if your choice to flame me is still a valid choice or not.

Re:NTP Patent invalidated?

[Citizen of Earth]

This will buy us time until we can finally get the Congress to enact reasonable patent reform. Or hell freezes over, whichever comes first.

RIM also needs to sue the government for billions of dollars for its part in passing these fraudulent patents. The threat of enormous liability is the only thing that will instigate patent reform. Perhaps a class-action lawsuit could be brought against the government for trillions of dollars.

Re:NTP Patent invalidated?

[John Hasler]

> So the judge has to decide if the technology used by RIM is similar
> enough to those patents to rule that RIM did infringe on them.

At this point "all" that is at issue is a preliminary injunction barring RIM from continuing the allegedly infringing activity until the trial is over and a final decision is issued. This requires that the judge determine if NTP is "likely to prevail" and if NTP is likely to suffer "irreparable harm" if the activity continues.

I think that the present situation -- with the patents being reviewed by the PTO at the same time that a preliminary injunction motion is being briefed -- may be without precedent. The judge could dismiss the motion without prejudice and instruct NTP to refile it after the PTO finishes its review, but I won't attempt to guess what he will do. Right now, I think, he is trying to put pressure on the parties to settle.

Re:NTP Patent invalidated?

[Karl Cocknozzle]

RIM also needs to sue the government for billions of dollars for its part in passing these fraudulent patents.

Unfortunately, suing the Federal government is prohibited by the Constitution, although I suppose you could sue the government official in charge of the patent office personally...

Re:NTP Patent invalidated?

[Internet Ronin]

Yes. As James Spencer has said, repeatedly, he, quite frankly my dear, doesn't give a damn.

The USPTO is just another element of our lovely government. RIM pushes lobbyists, lobbyists push USPTO, USPTO does a review, USPTO invalidates patents. Done, right? Wrong.

NTP has successfully (as in the Judges buys it) argued that they have every right to an appeals process, which they are, and they claim it could take several years before the dust settles (doesn't really matter since the patents expire in 2012 anyways).

Quotes from Judge Spencer:
"I don't tell the [USPTO] how to do their job, they don't tell me how to do mine"
"I've spent enough of my life on RIM and NTP."

I've been saying it on /. for ages, but no one listens. RIM's screwed, they're going to pay a ton of money or implement their 'workaround' (which will shake investor confidence), and NTP wins. RIM did a horrible job of litigating the case, made numerous tactical and rhetorical blunders, including but not limited to a legally mandated internal investigation (for infringement) that resulted in testimony so conflicting the Judge actually stated he believes RIM is lying about conducting aforementioned investigation.

Several of their legal tactics are simply WRONG. They attempted to argue that it was the Intel processor that contained the RF device, not the Blackberry, therefore RIM wasn't liable. It is common practice in both legal precedent *AND* U.S.C. governing patent law that using a device that infringes in your 'whole widget' (as it were) still infringes. They also attempted to pursuade the Judge that because the servers are in Canada, that they weren't liable for US patent charges. This is also absolutely ridiculous. It clearly states in the U.S.C. that any business being conducted (i.e. sending and recieving e-mails) in the US falls under U.S.C. Patent jursidiction. Any patent lawyer should know this stuff.

Not to mention the fact that they've submitted the same motion to stay pending USPTO review no less than FOUR times. Spencer took it personally. He's actually said he does don't understand why RIM continues to submit the same motion over and over, but he's happy to deny it over and over.

I wish people would listen to me. I've followed this case. I've followed it very well. RIM will pay. NTP will likely make a ton of money. If NTP doesn't make money, then it means RIM will lose investor confidence, because frankly 'workarounds' make everyone edgy.

TRUST ME.
~a

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

i thought that was apple? trolls are confusing..

Google's next request for searchs response

[OYAHHH]

I'm,

Just wondering what Google is going to do when the Chinese authorities ask for the same search information for which the US has asked.

Will they roll over and provide it, or will they actually resist?

Re:Google's next request for searchs response

[panaceaa]

Will they roll over and provide it, or will they actually resist?

Google's responses so far in the congressional hearings about their China business indicate they obey all laws within the countries they operate, including China. So if Chinese officials can legally ask for search information for Chinese citizens, Google's current stance is that they will provide it.

Google is in a bind right now because China will be one of the world's largest markets for information technology in 20-30 years. If they do not participate in the Chinese market now, local companies like Baidu will take the bulk of search engine marketshare. And it's much easier to gain marketshare in an early market than a late market (e.g. Coke versus Virgin Cola). However, obeying China's current laws is becoming a public relations nightmare for Google (and Microsoft, Yahoo) and it is tarnishing Google's "do no evil" image.

China is too large of a market for Google to pass up, though, and therefore I believe it will continue to obey all Chinese laws including providing search information in order to have a presence in China's growing economy.

Re:Google's next request for searchs response

[joggle]

Google claims they aren't storing any personal info though on the censored google.cn site. So while they would have to turn over anonymous search info (assuming they are storing it), they couldn't give personal information since there isn't any to give.

From google's blog:

Privacy and Security. Google is committed to protecting consumer privacy and confidentiality. Prior to the launch of Google.cn, Google conducted intensive reviews of each of our services to assess the implications of offering it directly in China. We are always conscious of the fact that data may be subject to the jurisdiction of the country where it is physically stored. With that in mind, we concluded that, at least initially, only a handful of search engine services would be hosted in China.

We will not store data somewhere unless we are confident that we can meet our expectations for the privacy and security of users' sensitive information. As a practical matter, meeting this user interest means that we have no plans to host Gmail, Blogger, and a range of other such services in China.

Re:Google's next request for searchs response

[Mistshadow2k4]

You're missing the point. It is legal in China for the Chinese government to demand such records. The legal basis for the US government to do so is dodgy, if not downright illegal. And no, I'm not a Google fangirl - if you read some of my posts you'll see that I don't like them for obeying the government that masacred so many non-violent protesters. I'm actually boycotting them myself.

Re:Google's next request for searchs response

[StikyPad]

Personally, I think Google/Yahoo/MSN are being scapegoated in this China deal. Disobeying Chinese law is simply not an option, and abstaining from the Chinese market benefits no one. Getting their collective feet in the door is the first step toward effecting change anyway. If they're successful, it gives them bargaining power. Maybe not much, but certainly more than they have as outsiders.

Obeying the laws of the host country is simply the price of doing business. We expect visitors to the US to obey our laws when they're in our country, despite the fact that some of our laws (DMCA, PATRIOT Act, substance prohibitions) impose on the rights foreign travellers might enjoy in their home countries. There's no reason to expect otherwise when the situation is reversed. We can't have it both ways.

Re:Google's next request for searchs response

[VendettaMF]

And when the CCP demands (and they will) that Google turn over all data hosted outside China regarding the activities of Chinese civilians, with the threat of the takedown (at least as far as access from China goes) of all Google activities censored or not?

My opinions begin to swing towards the side that hold that Google talking to CCP reps in the first place was a bad plan, that they should have just kept their heads high and walked on disregarding whether they got blocked or not.

Re:Google's next request for searchs response

[Cycnus]

I think it's time to get off the moral high-ground and look at reality.
I certainly do not agree with any company being forced to comply to the censorship requirement of a country but the way I see it, I'd rather have google in China than a 100% owned Chinese company offering the same services.
The choice is simple:

• Googles teaches morality to the Chinese government and ensures never to enter the Chinese market, making its engine and its information not available to the people of China.
• Googles complies with local requirements to the letter and is thus able to offer content to the people of China.

The first choice is of no benefit to anyone. The second at least has the merit to get information that cannot be 100% controlled by the Chinese government.
To ban something, it must have been accessible at some point, meaning that at least some people may have had access to it before it was noticed by the censors.
It's always going to be a game of cat and mouse: the dissidents will always be able to outsmart the censors by being creative: using common names to replace forbidden ones, query base on phonetics rather than exact characters, queries in foreign languages, cleverer queries to circumvent forbidden words (like "what happened in Beijing in 1989").
All may have varying degrees of success, but there are ways to circumvent some of the censorship.
Google also includes a notice at the bottom of its result pages that the content is filtered according to local laws. That is in itself a a smack in the face of the censors because it notifies users that more information actually exists.
This is the kind of subversive behaviour that local service provider would never do.

The situation is less than ideal, but it's not in the interest of the people of China not to have access to google, even to a censored google.
There are plenty of local players who would be glad if American companies never set foot in China, and the US is naive to believe that China really needs US IT that bad that they can't do it themselves.
The Chinese are very proud people and they may lack sophistication in some technological area but they learn very fast and already produce a vast portion of the electronics we all use.
Believe me, they will try everything. I have been living in Hong Kong for the past 10 years and have dealt with Chinese companies enough to know that it's easy to be condescending about their competences, but it is always dangerous to do so and doubt their determination.

In the end, being there and being able to stay there is what will count as it increases people's exposure to the outside and dramatically changes their way of life. Not being there because we don't like their government is only going to reduce people's exposure to outside influence and ensure that China keep total control over itself.
It's a moral dilemma but I don't think it's an either/or solution. There is a hard compromise to do that certainly cannot content everyone but that may still be better for everyone than doing nothing at all.

Re:Google's next request for searchs response

[magores]

Reading parent was refreshing. Finally a comment about China from someone that actually lives in China. (Hong Kong isn't quite "mainland", but close enough.)

It's easy to take the moral high ground when you have no connection to the topic geographically/culturally/financially/linguistical ly.

Morals are great. Everyone should have them. BUT, morals need to be applied in real life. Sometimes you have to choose your battles. Sometimes it's better to change things from the inside, rather than beat on the door from the outside. Ever think that this is what Google et al. are trying to do? Get the foot in the door, so to speak. (Is that enough cliches for one paragraph?)

People are bashing Google for dealing with the Chinese government's policies. What about Budweiser, Corona, Herbal Essences shampoo, Cadillac, Volkswagon, BMW, Mercedes, and Tide laundry detergent? All of these products are available in China. The companies are dealing with the government (and likely bending their morals) to some extent or another. Why not bash these companies as well?

For what it's worth... I am an American that lives in Beijing. I am not an "apologist" for China or for Google, but I do think people should try to put themselves in the position of the person/organization before they proceed to criticize.

Criticize China for its internet cops, but only if you are willing to criticize the Patriot Act at the same time.

---
Sigh... I realize I'm probably just whispering at the wind, but I thought I would try anyway.

Re:Google's next request for searchs response

[JourneymanMereel]

Being that I don't work for or have any association with Google, this is obviously just a guess. I don't think Google would turn over any data at that point. By the time that happens, Google will probably be pretty well entrenched in China. They'll claim, and rightfully so, that the Chinese governemnt has no juristiction of the servers that are not in China. The US will back them up. China will then be in the situation you allude to: either block Google, or drop the issue. If Google is well entrenched by that point, the average Chinaman will not be happy when they get the message that the Chinese government has taken away their Google. I mean, how would we feel if the US government said "No more Google, they wouldn't give us their search results."

Now I'm not foolish enough to think that blocking Google will cause a revolution, but I do think it would cause some social unrest. And as social unrest increases, a revolution does get closer.

Re:Google's next request for searchs response

[bogado]

Wow, a rational response to this google in china subject? It can't be true. I agree 100% with you, and already tried to talk about it, but people don't understand. :P Too bad I don't have any mod points, I would use them. :-D

Re:Google's next request for searchs response

[VendettaMF]

They'll claim, and rightfully so, that the Chinese governemnt has no juristiction of the servers that are not in China.

Under US law maybe, but under Chinese law I believe (but, lacking the ability to read Chinese, cannot swear to it) the Chinese Government has the right to access any and all data regarding Chinese citizens (no matter where they or the data is at any given time).

While one see some frightful apathy under US and EU countries, people there are political attack hounds in comparison with the average Chinese person. Denial of power/water to a city might stir up social discontent, but not much else would. Actually given that due to state based carelessness (and a bungled cover up) a major city and multiple smaller towns went without any mains water for an extended period of time without significant protest I begin to wonder if even that would do it.

The thing is...

People resident in China have hundreds of small freedoms that folks in the US and EU don't, mostly due to a complete lack of anything along the lines of public liability. This goes some way to alleviating pressure that would otherwise be created by the big gaps where there's missing freedoms.

(NB: I have only experienced big city life in China. I know almost nothing of country life, but am told by multiple (verbal (and vocal)) sources that things are different out there. Different like indentured servitude and forced labour.)

Re:Google's next request for searchs response

[dalroth5]

Please note that the following is not intended as a flame but an attempt to use this opportunity to explain something which I know puzzles many Americans: why (almost) everybody despises your nation. Sorry, but they (we) do, and here's why.

You say:

"Google is in a bind right now because China will be one of the world's largest markets for information technology in 20-30 years. If they do not participate in the Chinese market now, local companies like Baidu will take the bulk of search engine marketshare." and "China is too large of a market for Google to pass up, "

Sooo..._if_ I understand you aright, you're saying that Google recognises that the Chinese government is acting immorally in blocking their citizens' access to certain things, but that Google will go along with said Chinese government because otherwise Baidu (or somebody) will get that market; and clearly your saying of this is a defence of Google.

Y'see, this sort of thing is one big reason why we out here (the Rest Of The World[tm]) no longer believe in America: you guys blather on (endlessly) about liberty, equality, Doing The Right Thing and so on, but the minute that you might lose some _money_ by actually making a stand against some totalitarian regime, you roll over and give in.

In My Humble But Outspoken Opinion:
1. Google don't need the money;
2. Google _claim_ to Do No Evil, and yet
3. Google, like all big business, cares more about money than about doing the right thing (or, indeed, about _anything_ else).
4. In order to distract our attention from the self-evident hypocrisy involved in 2 and 3 above, Google throws money at the poor. (I'll waffle about US aid programmes another time.)

From the foregoing, we out here tend to conclude that Americans are just a bunch of loudmouthed, self-congratulating and self-puffing posers who never, ever put their money where their mouths are. What can be done about this misunderstanding?

Sometimes--and the Google/China disagreement was a golden opportunity--a US organisation with some financial clout might consider actually _doing_ the right thing _even_though_it_will_lose_(BIG)_money_. If somebody out there in US land did that, then those of us out here who know a few real, live, decent Americans could hold it up to our non-American friends and say, "There! Now look! XXX is voluntarily throwing away a HUGE amount of cash because of something they believe is _more_important_ than money! See? Not all Americans are money-grubbing arselickers!"

Lastly, if I misunderstand panaceaa, then I hope s/he will accept my apologies, but I still think it was worth trying to get this across. Thanks for your time folks.

Take Me Out Into the Black

[Aidski]

"Tell them I ain't comin back"

So I'm a Firefly nerd, sue me.

Re:Take Me Out Into the Black

[wall0159]

I'd never seen Firefly (it was never on TV in Oz), but went to see Serenity with a group of friends who liked it. I started watching Firefly later (ahh, the wonders of Bittorrent!), and one thing stood out immetiately..

The acting was sooo bad compared to the movie (particularly in the early episodes)!! It was obvious that as the series progressed, the acting improved heaps, and that was really interesting to watch. I also thought that the standard of the plot/storytelling in the movie was far better - again this was something that improved through the series.

A very cool, original idea for a sci-fi series. It just goes to show how supporting independent movies/music fosters artistic growth and the pushing of new boundaries.

Way to go Firefly/Serenity team! :-)

Re:Take Me Out Into the Black

[man_of_mr_e]

What you're talking about is not better acting, but more familiarity with the characters as the series progressed.

Your first exposure was to a well oiled movie in which the actors had had several years to become familiar with the subject matter and characters. They where comfortable, as was Joss. Then, you go back and look at the first episodes... it wasn't better acting per se, but more character to draw from.

Re:Take Me Out Into the Black

[wall0159]

I agree with you, but I still think that it was partly an acting improvement.

I remember cringing at the delivery of a few lines of the priest (can't remember his name!) in particular, in early episodes. It sounded like he was reading them from a screen!

But yeah, character familiarity definitely helped! ;-)

Sniff....I had a DigiComp....Sniff...

[GeneralEmergency]

Seeing that picture brought back alot of memories and the realization that the one decent thing my "Absentee Dad" ever did for me was to buy that thing and send it to me.

I had mine for years but finally tossed it out because of missing parts. Now I can buy a new one.

Sniff.

Google's reasoning

[MilenCent]

I found Google's response somewhat acceptable. It is true that they do notify the user that pages have been removed, which for some Chinese search users may be their first indication that the Chinese government mandates censorship (although I don't know the exact phrasing of the notification). I'm not *completely* satisfied with their move, but it is true that Google has a Chinese language version of their primary search site that they don't censor.

And need I remind you guys, Google does censor U.S. searches, although I'm sure they aren't happy about it....

Re:Google's reasoning

[rdoger6424]

Clambake's on there

Re:Google's reasoning

[Bryansix]

You are correct, it is. I just checked it myself. Do you think anyone will see this though?

Re:Google's reasoning

[Chris6502]

And need I remind you guys, Google does censor U.S. searches, although I'm sure they aren't happy about it....

Maybe they do, maybe they don't but the specific censorship you claim is occuring simply ain't true.

Your link is to a page of article complaining of googles supposed cenorship of anti scientology sites. The first such articles complains of the censorship of operation clambake but googling on "clambake": first result: "Operation Clambake - The Inner Secrets of Scientology" with a URL pointing directly at www.xenu.net which your link also claims is censored.

Afraid I'd need to see more compelling evidence than this.

Re:Google's reasoning

[Guy Harris]

The first such articles complains of the censorship of operation clambake but googling on "clambake": first result: "Operation Clambake - The Inner Secrets of Scientology"

Heck, Googling on "scientology" turns up Operation Clambake as the second result.

Re:Google's reasoning

[ixl]

Operation clambake was delisted, but Xenu.net's homepage has since been relisted. Check here for more details.

Re:Google's reasoning

[MilenCent]

Alright then, Mr. Hasn't Read Slashdot Long Enough, here.

The Slashdot story had a set of search terms that would trigger the filter message:
site:xenu.net scientology

Trying it now reveals that it still works.

Re:Google's reasoning

[VendettaMF]

Just FYI, it's no secret here in China that net access is censored. The government makes no attempt to hide it. Rather they seem to go to some lengths to ensure everyone knows that net use is both censored and monitored.

I personally suspect that this is because they don't have the manpower to actually monitor every users activities and so hope to disuade folks from pushing the boundaries.

Re:Google's reasoning

[MilenCent]

Ah, this is new information to me, thanks.

What is the attitude of the average Chinese citizen towards that censorship?

Re:Google's reasoning

[VendettaMF]

It's quite divided.

The majority of those I can speak with (keep in mind this limits my data to those who can speak some English) don't care. As long as they can use QQ (horrenduously over cuteified IM system) to talk to their school and university acquaintances they don't really care too much for the rest of the world.

The minority are less cheerfull, but do not generally say that this censorship is wrong, or even harmfull. Rather they are irritated by their contemporaries who don't see that there is a world outside of China. I do get the impression that a restoration of access to wikipedia would placate the vast majority of this minority.

In my time here (coming up on 9 months now) I've met only one individual who is vocally anti-government-censorship (and other actions), and given that he's regaled me with an eyewitness account of a certain event in Beijing one day in 1989... well, he's pretty exceptional.

I'm not going to claim that everyone here is happy with everything (or even most of what) their govt does, or even that they are all quiet about it, but I'm given to understand by those who've been here longer that ever since policy was changed to allow criticism of government actions (though not of government policy or structure) the actual criticism and complaining has decreased significantly.

Network Neutrality won't work

[cfulmer]

So, the problem with Network neutrality is that it opens up the DSL and Cable providers up to competition for their other service, and that'a a big disincentive for them to roll it out. I wrote an article about this at the Duke Law & Technology Review.

Re:Network Neutrality won't work

[geekoid]

Which explains why the internet is in hardly any households.

Corporations see the end of the rampent money making through selling to ISPs, the market is nearly full. SO they go afters corporations to continue making more money every year. More money meaning, more then the previous year, not just profit.

People will not be happy when they can't connect to various internet sites and get a responsive results.

Re:Network Neutrality won't work

[Jherek Carnelian]

the problem with Network neutrality is that it opens up the DSL and Cable providers up to competition for their other service, and that'a a big disincentive for them to roll it out.

So, instead of giving up more control of public utilities, give them less control and put it back in the hands of the public.

Require that these companies get out of the "content" business and stick to owning and operating the 'pipes.' After all, it is only the pipes that are a public resource (or really the right-of-way to lay the 'pipes' across private property) - content is not a public resource so companies that get a government granted monopoly should not be allowed to leverage that monopoly to unfairly compete in other markets. Once upon a time, that kind of abuse would have been considered a clear violation of the sherman anti-trust act, now it seems to be taken for granted, the public good be damned.

Re:Network Neutrality won't work

[cfulmer]

The problem is not really that your ISP will block, say, google's current search service. They are going to block video content from say movie studios -- the problem for them is that when their customers start doing pay-per-view over the Internet, they won't be doing it through the Cable company's pay-per-view service and the Cable Company doesn't get their cut. So, how much do you think the Cable company is going to want to roll out high-bandwidth services if the end result is that their revenue drops. You can claim competition from DSL providers, but all the phone companies want to provide TV also.

Re:Network Neutrality won't work

[Guy Harris]

So, the problem with Network neutrality is that it opens up the DSL and Cable providers up to competition for their other service, and that'a a big disincentive for them to roll it out.

So how is this handled in other countries? Do any other countries require network neutrality on the part of circuit providers (i.e., providers of raw pipes to the customer) or ISPs (who could be the same entity as the raw pipe provider, or could be somebody buying raw pipe capacity)? If so, how has that affected the rollout of broadband services?

Googling for

crtc "network neutrality"

found this Toronto Star piece by Michael Geist, which argues in favor of Canada adopting a policy requiring network neutrality (and says that one telco, Telus, brieftly blocked access by its customers to a Web site set up by a union with which it was having a dispute), so I presume there was, at least at that time, no regulatory requirement for network neutrality in Canada.

Googling for

europe "network neutrality"

found other pieces by Michael Geist, which indicate that some European carriers are blocking VoIP traffic, so I assume there's no regulatory requirement for network neutrality in the countries in which they're doing that.

On the other hand, Googling for

france "network neutrality"

found a piece by Lawrence Lessig arguing that France and Japan offer better high-speed broadband than is available in the US (which might even be true in areas of comparable housing density) and required "strict unbundling", which Lessig describes as even more stringent than network neutrality.

However, it also found this blog item on the Progress and Freedom Foundation site, citing arguments before congress that a key point, at least in the case of France, was that "France operated in a monopoly environment".

So a quick Google found no obvious single conclusion about this issue. I'd be curious to see what people who aren't strong advocates of either position have to say about the raw(er) data.

Re:Network Neutrality won't work

[cfulmer]

What's up with the personal attack? That's not cool. Did you even read the article?

The problem is not with current Internet services -- I don't think that my ISP ought to charge websites extra fee for, say, downloading music from iTunes or posting to Slashdot. After all, that's what I'm paying for now.

The bigger problem is that if ISPs roll out very-high-bandwidth networks, the are going to be opening up an entire new avenue of competition for their other services. Madison River, a telephone company that provides broadband internet, for example, blocked Vonage service unless their subscribers paid an extra fee. That got slapped down by the FCC under the old rules. Under the current regulatory scheme, however, it's not at all clear that the FCC has that authority. After all, that's why you see network neutrality proposals in Congress.

Re:Network Neutrality won't work

[max born]

From your article:

Removing the neutrality requirement allows the ISP to avoid the risk that a competitor will use the ISP's increased bandwidth to compete with it.

Ideally this would work. The problem is that there's often not much competition, many people have only one choice of ISP.

I've been building IP netwroks for nearly ten years and IMHO ISPs (perhaps like the drug companies) greatly inflate the amount of their investments in infrastructure. The Internet is cheap, it's just a bunch of wires and switches. I'd much rather see the ISPs concentrate on building fat pipes and get out of the content business.

Re:Network Neutrality won't work

[geekee]

"when was the last time you heard of a ISP going out of business?"

Do you know anything about the Telcom bust in 2001-2002

Re:Network Neutrality won't work

[geekee]

"Require that these companies get out of the "content" business and stick to owning and operating the 'pipes.' "

So you don't want network neutrality? Operating the pipes gets you zero revenue. You only get revenue for getting someone to subscribe to some service at the end of some pipe with the network neutrality model.

Re:Network Neutrality won't work

[geekee]

"The Internet is cheap, it's just a bunch of wires and switches. I'd much rather see the ISPs concentrate on building fat pipes and get out of the content business."

Right, so they should invest in fat pipe that generate no revenue under the network neutrality model. Why would they? They'll provide the last mile solution to get their subscribers and let someone else worry about the backbone, since it's free.

Re:Network Neutrality won't work

[Jherek Carnelian]

Operating the pipes gets you zero revenue.

So what is my $50/month cable-modem bill? Chopped liver?

Re:Network Neutrality won't work

[aaarrrgggh]

The argument against net neutrality forgets the resolution of "open access" years ago. The (physical pipe) providers can either have net neutrality or open access to swallow. It doesn't matter which one they take, the end result for the consumer is the same. I don't expect both open access and net neutrality - there is no incentive for multiple ISPs if there is net neutrality.

The consumer is paying for a service. Theoretically, this service is for access to the internet "cloud," not isolated islands of access. The amount they are willing to pay goes up as the service provies more value (becomes something you can't live without). Part of this value is tied to bandwidth needs increasing over time.

In a perfect world, "net neutrality" would not be a concern, because if a service provider did not offer the quality that a consumer demanded, the consumer would switch providers. Physical constraints provide a monopoly or duopoly in most areas, which limits the number of last mile carriers that are viable.

Now, IF a provider was able to saturate their network links, I can see them providing an opportunity for content providers to peer with them to insure adequate access, of course for a fee. What is wrong is for them to throttle the network link to favor different providers.

Re:Network Neutrality won't work

[EzInKy]

So, the problem with Network neutrality is that it opens up the DSL and Cable providers up to competition for their other service, and that'a a big disincentive for them to roll it out. I wrote an article about this at the Duke Law & Technology Review.


It seems to me that since the information superhighway is becoming increasingly as important to maintaining a vibrant healthy economy as concrete ones the government should start considering excercising eminent domain to ensure neutrality.

Re:Network Neutrality won't work

[MsGeek]

The telecom bust happened a year earlier. When the NASDAQ took its dive in 4/2000 it took a lot of telecoms with it.

Pour out a little liquor for Pacific Gateway Exchange. [sigh] Began to die in July of 2000. By January 2001 it was delisted and bankrupt. By April 2001 it was on the auction block.

Re:Network Neutrality won't work

[illumin8]

So, the problem with Network neutrality is that it opens up the DSL and Cable providers up to competition for their other service, and that'a a big disincentive for them to roll it out.

You're an idiot. The telephone companies have been "common carriers" for over 100 years now. What do you think would happen if the telephone companies decided that they were going to start charging $0.25 a call if any business transaction were discussed on their lines? People would rightfully be up in arms. Yet that is the same thing they are trying to get away with on the internet side of their business. They're trying to sneak it in through legislation, and are spending millions of dollars lobbying and even advertising their corrupt legislation to the public.

I'm surprised you've actually bought their rhetoric, much less written an article about it.

This is all about the carriers wanting to have their cake and eat it too (remain common carrier neutral as far as liability goes, but get a cut for all the data that transits their lines).

No thanks, take your Telco industry astroturfing somewhere else.

Too much irony to take

[Anonymous Coward]

The fascinating news for me is Google, a private company standing up to the fascist tyranny of the US government.
Aside from the fact that it should be the job of the US poulation to do this, and the profound irony of a corporation
standing up for rights the ordinary individual is too apathetic and mentally lazy to deal with there is the
hilarious spectre of Washington chastising Google and Yahoo over their censorship. Could the irony be any richer? As if Washington had any moral weight left in this world whatsoever. High soap opera if you ask me. The USA just looks a little sadder and more lost with each passing day.

Re:Too much irony to take

[geekee]

"The fascinating news for me is Google, a private company standing up to the fascist tyranny of the US government."

No, the US govt. wants anonymous data, but Google doesn't want to give up any data that might reveal how they do search algorithms. Google isn't looking out for your privacy. It's just a coincidence.

Re:In other news...

[ZachPruckowski]

So who's this Anonymous Coward guy, and why can't he make up his damn mind?

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Making up your mind is for fags.

Re:Kits are not from scratch

[timster]

What if it's a "Universe Construction Kit"?

who comes up with that?

[la htris]

"Hard drive death dance tracks. daithedragon writes 'A while back Gizmodo awarded the prizes in a competition to make a dance tracks out of the recorded noises of hard drives dying.'"
seriously, who comes up with that, and moreover how do you kill a hard drive without having the noise of it getting hit or something?

Re:who comes up with that?

[slashbob22]

Forget mixing the sounds of Hard Drives dying; I have seen a few which could best 140bpm themselves. Move on over Tiesto.

Re:who comes up with that?

[dfries]

The only sound I hear is the groan coming out of my mount with each new sector that is unreadable. I'm convinced it is dying. It's a Seagate ST3160023A-RK 160GB drive with fluid dynamic bearings and very quiet, but it is up to 51 reallocated sectors and it seems to be dropping more than one a week. I guess I need to return it (again) for a warranty.

But I've learned how to track down in Linux what is on the sector that is bad. I'm getting pretty good at that.

Interesting math in the Serenity article

[whoever57]

The article states that total cinema receipts were $38 million, of which the studios receive about 55% (~$21M). Total expenses were ~$49M, yet by selling $9M worth of DVDs, the studios are now in the black (apparently).

Clearly, the math used by the author is: $48M ~= $38M + $9M, but this ignores the previously stated fact that the studios only receive 55% of ticket sales (and presumably only some proportion of DVD sales).

Re:Interesting math in the Serenity article

[ixl]

Actually, TFA states that Serenity has made the studios $9 million in rentals. Retail sales would be in addition to this amount.

Re:Interesting math in the Serenity article

[whoever57]

Actually, TFA states that Serenity has made the studios $9 million in rentals. Retail sales would be in addition to this amount.

It is still about $19M short of break even, even if you assume that the $9M is net to the studio.

Re:Interesting math in the Serenity article

[ixl]

It is still about $19M short of break even, even if you assume that the $9M is net to the studio.

Agreed. However, if you assume a DVD margin of 50% (reasonable, considering a 55% margin on box office revenue), with 2 million units sold at an average price of $20, that adds up to an additional $20 million in revenue, which would put the movie just in the black. I think the article is at least plausible.

Re:Interesting math in the Serenity article

[Robotech_Master]

Actually, everybody's wrong.

Serenity will never make a profit.

Why? Because no movie ever makes a profit.

Just ask all the writers and so forth who were naive enough to sign contracts awarding them a percentage of the net profit, rather than a percentage of the gross intake--including one of my favorite fantasy novelists, Peter S. Beagle, who is still owed a great deal of money for his work on the Rankin/Bass Lord of the Rings movie. It's questionable whether he'll ever see a penny of the $200 million that was paid to the rights-holder out of the Peter Jackson movies...

Censorship Alive and Well in West

[Jherek Carnelian]

The west isn't usually so unabashedly blatant about the censorship that goes on here. Instead, prefering to hide behind twisted versions of ideals like free markets and property rights.

But every once in a while you get something that is just as messed up as in China:

http://www.nydailynews.com/02-21-2006/front/story/ 393403p-333442c.html

Re:Censorship Alive and Well in West

[wall0159]

Agreed. It's a pity.

I think Irving is a very twisted man, and is unable to look at WW2, and the holocaust in an objective way. I think the things he says are bollocks. But I think he has the right to say them (and we have the right to call him a bloody idiot). It's a shame he's going to jail.

Having said that, it's a difficult issue. If the neo-nazis come to power, the first thing they'll do is take away free speach (eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Rose)

Also, I think free speech _must_ be tempered by respect. I think this is partly why The Cartoons have caused so many problems. We need the right to be able to say anything. But, we need to exercise that right responsibly, and not use it to facilitate hate-speech, and racism.

Unfortunately, many people who advocate free-speech are trying to use it to promote division and racism. This is something that could ultimately undo free speech in the West.

Re:Censorship Alive and Well in West

[Jherek Carnelian]

If the neo-nazis come to power, the first thing they'll do is take away free speach

There is a logical flaw in the implied argument that, free speech empowers the neo-nazis (replace with generic bad-guy-meme). Making certain communications illegal, just pushes them underground. Above ground, it can be disputed, under ground it exists in a vacuum and people exposed to it there will hear no disputing arguments and are thus more likely to be swayed. One might consider the growing numbers of neo-nazis in austria and germany, despite such censorship, to be proof that the censorship approach does not work.

Unfortunately, many people who advocate free-speech are trying to use it to promote division and racism. This is something that could ultimately undo free speech in the West.

However, restrictions on "hate speech" and the like means we are already doing that job for them.

Re:Censorship Alive and Well in West

[wall0159]

Definitely. I agree with you, and I think that free speech is so intrinsic to 'Western' society that any attempt to restict it 'for the greater good' will only bring harm.

I guess what I was trying to say was that perhaps our education system should better emphasise the importance of exercising free speech with sensitivity and tolerance.

Saying [insert bigoted, hate-filled, unsubstantiated statement here], and then 'hiding' behind freedom of speech is just pathetic, in my opinion. I think we need a way to help prevent people using lies and deceit to influence and control others. We have such a tool - it's called 'education'..

It reminds me of a quote (can't remember whos it was) 'when people complain about the cost of education, I ask them to compare it to the cost of ignorance.'

Unfortunately, education seems to be valued less and less ...

Re:Censorship Alive and Well in West

[R3d M3rcury]

Heck, don't go all the way to Austria. Just check out The Smith Act.

By the way, as a laugh, I'm always reminded of a quote by George Will: "The Liberal Conundrum: What to do about graffiti on the free speech monument?"

Re:Censorship Alive and Well in West

[R3d M3rcury]

"Also, I think free speech _must_ be tempered by respect. I think this is partly why The Cartoons have caused so many problems. We need the right to be able to say anything. But, we need to exercise that right responsibly, and not use it to facilitate hate-speech, and racism."

You had me right up until "hate-speech and racism."

At the risk of thumping a bible, I'm a firm believer in "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." For example, when Irving was speaking here in Southern California, protesters literally blocked him and anyone who wanted to hear him speak from entering the auditorium. To me, that's just wrong. How would they feel if a bunch of people blocked them from speaking out about how horrible the Holocaust was?

Sometimes exercising freedom of speech means shutting up until the other person has finished.

Re:Censorship Alive and Well in West

[wall0159]

Yup. No arguements here :-)

(Although, I reckon a better commandment would be: 'do unto others as you think they would want done unto them' ;-)

Re:Censorship Alive and Well in West

[sethstorm]

It reminds me of a quote (can't remember whos it was) 'when people complain about the cost of education, I ask them to compare it to the cost of ignorance.'

Unfortunately, education seems to be valued less and less ...
It's maybe that people are learning a bit more that $12000 would do well for 4 years as a maximum instead of one, and that excluding people from admissions will only bring discord (and unfortunately a French Revolution in education if you really let things go). When you can forcibly allow those from the Rust Belt into Stanford, MIT, Harvard, Yale, and others depending on educational - you're going to have to think that some of them will be able to bring it back when capacity complaints are addressed. At an exclusive institution, "lack of capacity" is mostly as a defense for their "prestige" policy- I thought such things as heritage preferences would be gone as a US Citizen.

Guess some people never learn the problems of allowing more H1B's and Internationals to take slots and jobs, leaving no practical upward mobility.

Re:Censorship Alive and Well in West

[lasindi]

The west isn't usually so unabashedly blatant about the censorship that goes on here. Instead, prefering to hide behind twisted versions of ideals like free markets and property rights.

And yet you link to a story about censorship that has nothing to do with free markets or property rights? The story you linked has to do with the censorship of "hate speech" that many European countries do; this censorship is really only "alive and well" in Europe -- hate speech is protected under the 1st Amendment here in the US. Please give examples that actually relate to what you are talking about.

That said, every time we have a story about human rights in China, there's a flood of posts about "OMG!! They blurred out boobs on TV today, just like the censorship in China! We're all heading to Communism and Fascism! Say goodbye to your freedom!" Is the "free world" perfect? No. But the constant cries of the "rise of Fascism" are complete exaggerations of reality and are getting very old. China is such an extreme example of censorship compared with the US that these gratuitous "This is where we're headed" posts are really irrelevant to the topic. It would be like saying "New York raised speeding fines from $100 to $150 -- we're headed down a slippery slope" in article about prison sentences for rape and murder. Guarding your civil rights is important, but some Slashdotters need to take a break from their tin foil hats and get a reality check.

Re:Censorship Alive and Well in West

[Jherek Carnelian]

And yet you link to a story about censorship that has nothing to do with free markets or property rights?

Please learn your boolean operators -> AND is one, OR is another, don't forget NOT and then there are all the synonyms.

hate speech is protected under the 1st Amendment here in the US

That is a laugh - "hate crimes" laws are all over the books. Shoot a man, get 10 years in a jail, shoot him and make a racial slur afterwards and get 20 years. The guy is just as dead either way, but expressing an opinion that the government wishes to censor gets you extra prison time.

OMG!

What-ever.

Re:Censorship Alive and Well in West

[lasindi]

Please learn your boolean operators -> AND is one, OR is another, don't forget NOT and then there are all the synonyms.

If you want to nitpick, here's the logic of my sentence: NOT("has to do with free markets" OR "has to do with property rights"). This is the logical equivalent of "has NOThing to do with free markets" AND "has NOThing to do with property rights." I don't see how my sentence was illogical. Anyway ...

That is a laugh - "hate crimes" laws are all over the books. Shoot a man, get 10 years in a jail, shoot him and make a racial slur afterwards and get 20 years.

I said hate speech is protected as free speech; I didn't say anything about hate crimes. Someone might use hate speech as evidence that a crime was committed because of racism, but that's beside my point; legal things that a defendant does are often used as evidence in a trial.

Re:Censorship Alive and Well in West

[Jherek Carnelian]

If you want to nitpick, here's the logic of my sentence:

No, actually it was you who wanted to nitpick by misunderstanding my original post through grouping two things much more closely than I said they were.

I said hate speech is protected as free speech;

In the simplfied example, the only difference is the use of a racial slur - i.e. speech, and that nets the guy 10 years in prison.

as evidence in a trial.

Not just evidence, justification for sentencing. No matter how you wiggle, the guy is being punished for holding views contrary to the wishes of the government. That is censorship.

Look at it this way - If he shoots the guy and says, "Lollipops Rule!" he doesn't get the extra 10 years. So - the expression of the guy's love for lollipops is ok with the state, but the expression of his hate is not ok with the state. One idea - OK, another idea - NOT OK. That's censorship.

Re:Censorship Alive and Well in West

[lasindi]

Look at it this way - If he shoots the guy and says, "Lollipops Rule!" he doesn't get the extra 10 years. So - the expression of the guy's love for lollipops is ok with the state, but the expression of his hate is not ok with the state. One idea - OK, another idea - NOT OK. That's censorship.

Look at it this way - suppose a powerful Democrat gets murdered at a bar. Initially it appears as though the perpetrator and the victim just got into a tussle, and that the suspect should be charged with 2nd degree murder (i.e. it was not pre-meditated). However, evidence is gathered about how the alleged murderer had mentioned great hatred for the Democratic party in the weeks preceding the killing, sending emails to friends about how the Democrats are ruining the country, etc. This indicates that the murderer may have been contemplating the crime before hand and planned it; this would get him charged with 1st degree murder and he would get a longer sentence.

Does this mean that criticism of Democrats is now censored? No. In fact, had the guy not killed anyone, he would be free to march around protesting Democrats as much as he liked.

The same is true with hate crimes. As long as you don't kill anyone, you are free to spout all the seething, stupid racism you want -- and you will not be censored.

No matter how you wiggle, the guy is being punished for holding views contrary to the wishes of the government. That is censorship.

If it's my view that I should be able to rob a bank, and I get arrested for doing it, I am "being punished for holding views contrary to the wishes of the government." Does that mean I'm being censored? No. I'm allowed to yell as loudly as I want about how I should have the right to rob banks, so long as I don't actually do it. Similarly, you have the right to be as racist as you want, so long as you don't actually kill anyone over it.

That said, I do see your point. I agree that hate crimes should be punished in the same way as any other crimes. But that my point is this: hate crime laws are not censorship, because no one is being stopped from speaking. Hate crime laws are government sponsored preaching, since they basically say "You were already bad because you killed someone, but being a racist makes you even worse." This implies that racism is wrong, and although all reasonable people agree with this, it's still a political viewpoint. Preaching? Yes. But it's at least a very big stretch to call this censorship.

Re:Censorship Alive and Well in West

[Jherek Carnelian]

Look at it this way - suppose a powerful Democrat gets murdered at a bar.

The differnce between your example and actual hate crime laws is that in your example additional punishment is for the premeditation, not for the expression of ideas. The expression may indicate premeditation, but the hate crime laws on the books are distinct and seperate from premeditation. Being a chocolate bunny fanatic and ultimately holding-up a candy store indicates just as much premeditation as hating indians and then holding-up a 7-11. But the way the hate crime laws are, you'd get an additional conviction above and beyond 'pre-meditated robbery' for the 7-11 hold-up, but not for the candy-store hold-up.

But that my point is this: hate crime laws are not censorship, because no one is being stopped from speaking. Hate crime laws are government sponsored preaching, since they basically say "You were already bad because you killed someone, but being a racist makes you even worse."

Those two sentences are contradictory. Censorship is not simply the direct prohibiting of expression, it encompasses a much broader area of government actions, including exactly what you describe. In other words, freedom of expression can not be contingent on other behaviour, otherwise is it not free.

Re:Censorship Alive and Well in West

[lasindi]

Censorship is not simply the direct prohibiting of expression, it encompasses a much broader area of government actions, including exactly what you describe. In other words, freedom of expression can not be contingent on other behaviour, otherwise is it not free.

But the point is that murder is *not* free expression. Your "right" to murder someone because of your political beliefs and get the same sentence as someone else who murdered for other reasons is not protected by the 1st Amendment, if it's even protected at all (might be under the 8th or 14th Amendments, but I'm no constitutional scholar). What I'm saying is that hate speech is protected, provided that it's actually speech; my comments extend no further than that.

Re: Reassuring News about Google's arcane logs

[dakirw]

It's rather reassuring that Google doesn't just have logs lying around. It being so hard to collate them might mean they don't really intend to use them.

Unfortunately, it only takes a week to put something together. More of an inconvenience than anything else. And if they lose this case, you can count on some clever Google engineer figuring out a faster way of doing this. There's also this thing about technology making formerly difficult processes into mundane day-to-day activities.

Serenity probably not profitable

[fremen]

A common mistake in financial planning is to just add and subtract money together over time to decide whether or not something is profitable. Profit = Revenue - Costs, so this makes sense to mose people. Let's assume that Universal gets 55% of rental dollars (like ticket sales) and that they get $10 per DVD (wild guess).

($38 million in ticket sales*(55%) + $9 million in rentals*(55%) + ($10 per DVD * 2 million DVDs)) - $49 million production costs = $-3.15 million.

Surely the movie is close to being profitable, right? Well, not exactly. You also have to consider Universal's cost of capital, which is essentially the opportunity cost of making a risky investment. In layman's terms, Universal could have put their money elsewhere instead. Roughly (and with lots of guessing), let's say that the cost of capital was 15% (market average is 10.4% and movies are far riskier investments than the market).

Assuming the capital investments followed a pattern where the movie's costs came in year 0, the advertising in year 1, the ticket sales in year 2, and the DVD rentals in year 3, then the Net Present Value of this investment would now be:

(-39) + (-10)/(1.15) + ((25 + 13) * 0.55)/(1.15)^2 + (9 * 0.55)/(1.15)^3 + (10 * 2 million)/(1.15)^3 = -15.4 million

Based on some educated guess work, I think it's safe to say that Universal is still way in the hole on this one.

Re:Serenity probably not profitable

[paullyjunge]

Nice theory, but let's say instead of making Firefly, they decided to make the next Paully Shore movie, or a Waterworld that will permanently reside in the red. You speculate on the past as if you know the future. What happened with Austin Powers(which didn't do so hot in the theatres either) could very well happen to Firefly.

Re:Serenity probably not profitable

[taustin]

You're not familiar with "Hollywood accounting," are you? You know, the sort of accounting where the studio will rent itself a $10 lamp for $300/day, to ensire the movie never makes a profit (because somebody gets a cut of the profit).

If they're admitting it made a profit, it was probably in the black from the box office alone.

Re:Serenity probably not profitable

[mgblst]

Trust the economist to turn this into a downer for everyone.

Just go home and play with your little calculator buddy, nobody wants to hear you.

ha, ha, ha, just kidding, you are great, really!

Good question.

[interactive_civilian]

ScaryFroMan asks:

Subject aside, when was the last time that a slashback didn't mention Firefly/Serenity?

Drum roll, please.

And the answer is...

Last week.

Thank you for playing.

In fact, it appears to be have been quite some time since Serenity was mentioned.

China and Censorship

[Dukeofshadows]

China is at a crossroads. Their government knows that they have the potential to become one of the most powerful economies of all time, perhaps even beating out the US in the process. But they learned from the USSR about what happens with the rapid release of repression and don't intend to give up power that fast. Even the recent promises on property were a "great leap forward" for a Communist government. So I take a wait-and-see attitude on Chinese censorship because while the government wants to keep people isolated for the sake of control, they also know that without the Internet and the flow of information it generates as a resource they are at a serious disadvantage in the global market.

Re:China and Censorship

[randyjg2]

It is a lot simpler than that...China is very protectionist, and is allowing foreign companies in only as a stopgap measure while their own industries ramp up. In Googles case, Baidu is going to dominate market share, and the major concern that most observers have about Google is what other parts of their business they will ignore, and what they will trade to China in a delusional attempt to gain market share.

No one on both sides cares much about the censorhip issue per se, China is so porous it's effectively nil. What I, and many others, are worried about is what other compromises may be going on and whether or not their scops goes far beyond Google China.

Re:China and Censorship

[sethstorm]

China is very protectionist, and is allowing foreign companies in only as a stopgap measure while their own industries ramp up.
Somehow people miss this point quite clearly when supporting Free [to enslave] Trade policy with China instead of furthering our own.

Firefly? Why didn't anyone tell me...

[Hamster Lover]

OK, I should probably turn in my geek card, but just this last weekend I rented the first season of Firefly and watched the show for the first time. I have to admit my interest was not picqued over a "space western" but seriously, the show is very, very well done. I love all of the characters, the ship, the setting, and the universe - it's just so well done and a loss for television now that it's off the air. I really only have myself to blame and had I realized sooner that Josh Whedon was involved I would have watched sooner.

I bought the DVD set and so have several of my friends. We're working on getting our out-of-touch parents to at least watch Serenity and go from there after getting our parents hooked on Smallville and Battle Star Galactica.

Spread the word.

Re:Firefly? Why didn't anyone tell me...

[fm6]

Don't get too hooked. Joss Whedon announced that Firefly was gone for good some time ago.

Re:Firefly? Why didn't anyone tell me...

[Al Al Cool J]

Actually, no he didn't. That was a widely repeated misquote. What Joss said to the reporter was that the movie provided closure to the main story arcs that were introduced in the series. The reporter then sensationaly played it up as if Joss was finished the Firefly 'verse. Joss has always maintained that he has plenty more stories to tell in 'verse and will jump at any opportunity to do so.

Re:Firefly? Why didn't anyone tell me...

[sab39]

No he didn't. He said that making Serenity brought "closure", but that's not the same as being finished for good. He followed up with a clarification once it was clear that lots of people were misinterpreting what he'd said. Check previous slashbacks for the link.

I'm not saying there's a huge amount of hope for the show to be reborn, but Joss has never ruled it out.

Keep buying those DVDs! :)

Re:Firefly? Why didn't anyone tell me...

[fm6]

OK, I stand corrected. And I wouldn't mind seeing the TV series revived. But I'm not holding my breath.

Re:Kits are not from scratch

[Awod]

Sounds good but does it involve Sony?

Oblig

[magefile]

"Gets real lonely out there in the black ..."

Why only question tech companies?

[Dot_Killer]

Are we now expecting some US government determined business ethics for US companies? When did that start?

I see the reason why people are talking about Google, Yahoo, M$ and Cisco dealings in China. BUT it is sort of limited in scope. Why are the Republicans and Congress focusing on technology companies' business practices only. It is just another easy political game. US companies do billions of dollars of business in China and the congress is concerned that US tech companies are following the authorities of China on what they are allowed to do in their country. Could a foreign company operative in the US that did not follow restrictions that the US has laid out? So why do we expect US companies to go to China and operate in a way in which the government would not allow them, China could just pull the plug. The US likes the idea of the internet being another venue to expand the US culture around the world, the same way movies and tv already do; but not necessarily spreading freedom.

The US government only agitates in this when a government is in power that they do not agree with. I doubt they are asking for more real freedom in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or Egypt. I wont get into all that right now.

I actually wish a deeper debate on US company ethics and practices around the world. Why are we jumping on Google. Have you seen what Walmart is doing in China; check out the Walmart movie. We should be discussing the "race to the bottom" mentallity occuring now by US companies. We should be asking what US oil companies are doing in Africa, clothing companies in East Asia, companies in Mexico and Central America. We should be talking about humane work conditions, fair wages, end to police state enforced sweatshops.

The tech companies pose a problem because they are actually undermining US policy toward China by allowing China to weed out Western influences. But the Republicans or Congress as a whole don't seem to care about the race to the bottom happening all over the world.

Re:Why only question tech companies?

[randyjg2]

Countries act in their own best interest. It isn't the American governments job to worry about anyone but Americans except to the extents that other countries problems affect America. They have enough work to do at home.

The focus on internet search engine companies is specifically because they are making private deals with China, deals China refused to discuss with a congressional delegation when it traveled to China to ask them about it. (see some of my earlier posts.)

Search engine companies are expecially worrisome because they hold the information thats the key to national competitive advantage. More importantly, there are a large but unknown number of "nation sponsored" industrial espionage groups operating here in the United States, not only from China, but from some of the tiniest countries in the world as well. And almost all of them use Internet search engines extensively in some part of their operations, and could do a lot more if they had access to the internal records of a company like Google or Yahoo.

A few hours ago, a spammer was sentenced for stealing a 1.6 BILLION customer records from Acxiom, one of the the companies that basically controls what your background check reveals, http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/1700AP_Comp uter_Privacy.html

The search engine companies internal records are potentially a lot more dangerous than Acxioms (see some of my earlier posts for why). A lot of people are seriously concerned when foreign nationals start sniffing around them and aren't very transparent about what they are doing.

Re:Why only question tech companies?

[emamousette]

I took a look around (admittedly, a brief one) and the only official Treasury department reference to China's status in the business world was here:

There currently are a few countries which must obtain an annual presidential waiver or extension of a waiver to continue their NTR status. China is the most important country in this group which must obtain an annual waiver to maintain NTR. The waiver for China has been in effect since 1980. Every year, since 1989, legislation has been introduced in Congress to disapprove the President's waiver. The legislation has sought to tie China's NTR renewal to meeting certain human rights conditions that go beyond freedom of emigration. Through 1998, attempts to deny China NTR have failed. NTR is likely to be approved for China in 1999 as well.

So why are these tech companies being called in about business practices? They should be suing Congress for harrassment because as stated on this same page:

Under NTR both parties agree not to extend to any third party nation any trade preferences that are more favorable than those available under the agreement concluded between them unless they simultaneously make the same provisions available to each other. Although NTR is a reciprocal agreement, it must be negotiated separately with each country. Furthermore, each individual agreement must include additional and specific provisions that take into account national security, dispute settlement procedures, trade promotion, and various other considerations.

So if Congress has granted NTR/MFN status to China, that means that the security and "other considerations" clauses are already defined. Either Google et al. are violating those tenants or they are not.
This is really just Congressional grandstanding at it's worst.

What other build-it-yourself kits?

[Khyber]

After all, even in these days of MAKE magazine, how many other true build-it-from-scratch computer kits are there?

Umm, was it called the Altivec, or Altair? I can't remember. :(

Serenity

[sab39]

I rewatched Serenity today right after watching the series through a couple of times, and the first thing I thought was "what the hell did they do to the ship?!"

I never noticed it watching the movie the first time, but one of the most beautiful things about the series was that even though it was a spaceship, everything was all mechanical and just a touch run-down and clunky. In the movie they made it all shiny - and not in a good way. The doors to the crew quarters actually went mechanical and got fluorescent lights around them when opened!

Oh well. Still a great movie, but it just seemed like a shame after they put so much effort into getting the atmosphere of the ship so perfect in the series.

Re:so what about china? Who the **&&% care

[garbletext]

so, not a shareholder, eh?

In other news...

[geekee]

"New York Times backs network neutrality."

A liberal newspaper backs a socialist system. In other news, the Pope is Catholic.

Clambake's on, BUT

[MilenCent]

From the old Slashdot story on this:

http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Axenu.net+sci entology&btnG=Google+Search

And I didn't say it was Clambake that was removed -- they were, but then were restored. But not ALL pages were returned to the database.

Austin Powers v Firefly

[TCQuad]

What happened with Austin Powers(which didn't do so hot in the theatres either) could very well happen to Firefly.

As someone who enjoyed Firefly and Serenity I hate to say this, but the analogy doesn't really fit.

Austin Powers cost $16.5 million to make and grossed $53 million (box office) in North America. Serenity cost $39 million and grossed $38.8 million (box office) worldwide.

While Austin Powers wasn't anything spectacular, it was cheap and solid in the box office, creating a base that could be built up on. I think most people would admit that Serenity's base is solid, but limited. There's no real way to get people (as a group) who don't watch SciFi already to get them to watch Firefly unless you go person to person. It's just not in their nature, unfortunately.

We got the movie, we got an ending and a taste of success. Unfortunately, we also learned where the boundaries are, and they're closer than we thought.

Re:so what about china? Who the **&&% care

[panaceaa]

Not of Google's, but I own way more Yahoo! than I wish I did. It's had a rough 30 days. (But so has Google.)

Serenity NOW!

[MrMadnutz]

So in Pittsbugh, I just noticed the other day that Comcast, as "evil corporation" as they are, have a completely separate On-Demand category in the Main Menu for Serenity-Firefly. Holy Crap, people! That's freaking amazing. Too bad I own them all already :(

Re:In other news...

[Duhavid]

Network neutrality is socialist?

And does the liberality of the paper mean that
they will be an automatic dupe of this "socialist"
system, and endorse it without thought? Or could
it possibly be that they made up their own minds
on a reasonable ( to them ) principal ( that you
dont happen to agree with )?

The service is IPv4 routing

[tepples]

You only get revenue for getting someone to subscribe to some service at the end of some pipe with the network neutrality model.

In the case of a network-neutral last-mile ISP, this "service" would be line maintenance and Internet Protocol routing. We don't want the IPv4 routing service to be tied to the purchase of other services offered by the same company.

A loss on Serenity 1 ^= a loss on Serenity 2

[paranerd]

I'd never heard of Firefly until Serenity came out and I didn't get to see Serenity in the theaters. Since then I've rented the DVD, bought the DVD, bought the series DVDs, bought the comic book, and gotten my daugter and 6 coworkers enthralled by the series. 3 of those coworkers have spread the news further abroad. If Serenity 2 comes out I can promise Universal at the very least 20 ticket sales that weren't there for Serenity 1. That's the power of geometric progression.

Re:Google's reasoning -

[MilenCent]

I've already responded to this point, twice, in this conversation. Clambake was restored, but other pages were removed due to the notice that were not, and remain absent from Google search results to this day.

The Altair...

[Old Man Kensey]

...specifically, the MITS Altair 8800. There's a wonderful section in Steven Levy's Hackers about it and how baffled the company was at the intense demand for such a thing; from the link above, "...results of a program were indicated by the pattern of flashing lights on the front panel." That wasn't a status display, it was the output.

Re:The Altair...

[Khyber]

Thank you. I realized this after going to my bookshelf and pulling out 'Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution" to get a recap. That was one of the best books ever written IMHO.

I don't think Google would fold that easily...

[Old Man Kensey]

Given that they stood up to the DoJ in the face of a subpoena, I would suspect a more likely Google response if they lose (or it looks likely they will) would be a highly efficient way of destroying anything like "web search log data" in their systems. It only takes a week to put something together...

"Sorry guys, it looks like a really nasty program wiped out everything. And then it melted the hard drives down. So there's nothing to give you access to or hand over any more. Have a nice day. And don't worry, the steel spikes you see descending from the ceiling in the man-trap where you are, are completely harmless, and the armored exit doors are locked for your convenience."

I had a similar experience

[JimTheta]

I had a similar experience. I thought it would suck because I think Buffy is terrible. I figured that if Whedon created crap like Buffy, then Firefly couldn't be all that his rabid fanbase made it out to be.

But I borrowed the box set from a friend, and it was great! Just utterly fantastic. (Ok, the second disc was a little weak.) Haven't seen Serenity, but I'll get around to it.

By the way, I suggest avoiding the Dark Horse comic based on the franchise. It's supposed to bridge the gap between the last episode and the film, but it really doesn't provide anything of interest. Except an unsettling pinup of Inara (how could someone funk up her face so bad?). The pinup of Kaylee's not right either.