Slashdot Mirror
Bootlegging Buffy
Nope.
Censorship is no longer a plausible solution to real or perceived dangers, political issues or social problems. Prominent among its many legacies, the Internet has gravely wounded, if not killed, the very idea of censorship, probably for good.
If you have any doubts, consider "Buffy The Vampire Slayer," who, along with her many fans, has not only taken down a passel of demons but humiliated a craven corporation as well in a much more dramatic finale than the show's writers could have imagined.
The drama over the season finale of "Buffy" demonstrate that there are just too many people out there with too much access to too many computers for censorship to work anymore.
This is horrendous news to religions, governments, corporations, educational institutions, journalists, and moral gatekeepers who for centuries have been telling people what they should see, read and hear.
The "Buffy" debacle also shows us that the people who run these potent institutions still can't quite accept the reality of the new and porous world - and the free flow of information, ideas and imagery -- that is one of the hallmark accomplishments of networked computing.
The bone-headed corporation of the year award (won last year collectively by the music industry for its ostrich-like response to Mp3's) goes to the WB network, in recent weeks paralyzed with uncertainty over what to do about the second half of "Buffy's" final episode, "Graduation 2."
The network was afraid the fantasy violence sequence at Sunnyvale High's commencement ceremonies (in which the town's evil mayor was supposed to ascend to demonhood) was - in the network's words - "inappropriate" after the killings at Columbine High School in Colorado. So they cancelled it.
Shockingly dumb. Unless there are demons from Hell lurking in American high schools, it's hard to imagine how "Buffy" could have any bearing on the horrific but very rare outbursts violence that have broken out in several American high schools in recent years. Are kids who watch the show supposed to ascend from hell and grow scales?
By this logic, every rerun of "Gunsmoke" would provoke saloon shootouts all over the country. The lesson isn't that the WB is worrying about our kids, but that among media corporations, there is no such thing as principle, only greed and cowardice.
The WB might have a keen eye for teen angst and drama, but its corporate masters are sadly ignorant of the Net or the Web. As long as one employee of any company has access to a computer and a phone line -- in TV this means almost all employees -- the cancellation of popular programs like "Buffy" is inane.
George Lucas understands this principle, which is why he adroitly parceled out bits of "Phantom Menace" on the Web for months before the movie came out.
Although the season finale was banned in the United States, at least until mid-summer, "Buffy" aired as scheduled and without controversy in nearby but saner Canada (the country's schoolchildren seemed to survive the broadcast without incident).
Canadian Netizens - perhaps proving that Net citizenship may be growing as powerful as national boundaries - immediately posted digital copies of the episode on the Net. In the last episode, Buffy and her gang go after the town's mayor, who's been plotting all year to use the school's graduation for his "Ascension," whereby he morphs into an evil, giant, heavily armed serpent just as diplomas are being given out.
There is nothing in this episode which in any way evokes or is derivative or reflective of the tragedy at Columbine High School, or encourages or provokes viewers to go kill their classmates or commit other kinds of violence. Most of the movies being shown in theaters this week (and many contemporary TV shows, including the very excellent "Sopranos" "Walker, Texas Ranger," and "Jag") have more graphic yet equally unmenacing violence.
The finale - which I and many thousands of other people have seen -- is typically funny, even droll (skip the next two grafs if you want to learn absolutely nothing about the episode).
"If someone would just wake me up when it's time to go to college," pleads Buffy after one battle scene, "that would be great."
Oz: "Guys'take a moment to deal with this'we survived."
Buffy: "It was a hell of a battle."
Oz: "Not the battle'high school."
The finale is a perfect culmination of the show's wickedly funny premise - high school is a Hellmouth through which much evil enters the world. There's no demon more menacing than life among one's peers, and the real challenge isn't surviving monsters but adolescence and education itself.
Even with Buffy (Sarah Michelle Gellar) around, a fair percentage of Sunnyvale's students get eaten, tortured or nibbled on by vampires and other demons. That this notion is a funny and perhaps even badly-needed reflection of education for millions of American schoolkids seemed lost even on the network that broadcasts "Buffy."
To suddenly declare the premise dangerous in the wake of the noxious post-Littleton hysteria is more of the opportunistic pandering media companies are notorious for. It's the exercise of hypocrisy under the guise of morality. Your viewers are not that gullible, folks. The WB has been airing a great series it doesn't have the guts or the sense to stand behind.
In canceling the finale, the WB did considerable harm. It ratified the notion that TV -- not easy access to lethal weapons, poor parenting, uninspired and oppressive education, or mental illness -- is responsible for the spate of high school murders in recent years.
On the bright side, the WB's bumbling, and the quick and devastating response of Net-savvy fans, is one more example of how power is draining away from fat corporations and towards individuals. Like it or not, fans have to be taken into account. They now have a say.
Many people on the Net are intensely connected to pop culture, and if canceling the finale in the United States was foolish, airing it in Canada and thinking it wouldn't get onto the Web was mind-numbing. On the Net, even regularly scheduled dramas and shows like "The Simpsons," "The X-Files" and "Buffy" never really go off the air - they are intensely discussed and followed and fans write new episodes all year long.
"We are the people. We have the Internet. We have the power. Any questions?" one Buffy fan asked the WB on alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer site, one of the sites where people congregating to offer online taped versions of "Graduation 2."
(If you want what is reputably believed to be the transcript of the final episode, go to: Http://www.geocities.com/TelevisionCity/Set/1858/script.html).
The WB is going ballistic over the Net's liberation of its show. "We paid nearly a million dollars for that episode. We bought the rights to it," said a network spokesman, vowing to "aggressively" fight the Net bootlegging of the season finale.
Good luck. Kiss that tape goodbye.
The network has as much chance of keeping the "Buffy" finale off the Web as Kenneth Starr does of getting back his pornographic report on Monica Lewinsky.
The WB ought to lose every penny of its million bucks, and many millions more - a richly deserved and just fine for its stupidity and cowardice.
American politicians and most of the journalists who cover them have no appetite for dealing with complex social and political issues like violence, culture and the young. But these are difficult and expensive to consider or solve. Blaming TV shows and the Internet is easy. That's why 80 per cent of Americans do it.
Clearly, this isn't going to work any more. The collapse of censorship raises lots of complex questions from traditional notions of intellectual property to how to raise children sanely and rationally. It's time to get on with thinking about them.
From hackers to pamphleteers, the long fight for the free movement of ideas and information has some odd and unlikely heroes. "Buffy The Vampire Slayer", now in the pantheon, may be the weirdest yet.
Um, okay. I suppose the authority on demonology has spoken. Good thing we had C.S. Lewis to get us good counter-intel on the demonic strategy, huh?
Well, let's ask the people of Russia. The 'net was the only way to get news in and out of the country when the communists made their last attempt to sieze power in 1991. They could not
censor the 'net.
This is true but that attempted coup was very poorly organized. Among other things, the wannabe junta leaders tried to use local troops to quell the crowds. This is a big no no; if you want to be dictator, you need troops who won't think twice about shooting people. That ain't gonna happen if the troops are related to the people they are supposed to shoot.
Sure enough the Russian troops in that coup refused to fire on civilians. China on the other hand, brought in troops from other provinces to put down the Tiennamen Square protesters. And we all know how that one turned out.
So yes, the Internet does help get the truth out. But if the government is ruthless enough and efficient enough, your story is going to be told posthumously.
You heard me. Hand over your rough drafts. The People Of The Net have the Right to see your work before you've self-censored.
Well, as usual, he starts going well and coherently, staying on topic and talking seriously about the issue. But then, he runs out of topic, and he starts putting insane comments about the school shootings (which he knows raise his popularity by 50%) instead of cutting the topic and letting us complete it.
Katz, you trouble is that you're way too used to longish articles. Keep short, keep simple, keep ontopic, and you'll see use complaining a bit less.
I wasn't even going to comment anything, but your topic drift forced me to. Let's hope you read this and improve your skills.
I agree with your statements somewhat. I don't think that what the WB did in pulling the episode constitutes censorship.
Indeed, earlier in the year right after Littleton occured, the WB rightly pulled an episode called "Earshot" from broadcast. In this episode Buffy gains telepathy and learns that some kids are planning violence at school.
WB was being sensitive. The WB was right then. They are wrong now.
This issue has more to do with the way violence is delivered in the media (be it tv, computer, movies, etc) than censorship.
We have 2 courses set out in front of us: Do we eliminate or tone down violence in the media, hoping that this will prevent more Littletons, or do we let media do what it wants and let the parenting happen at home?
Many people had a legitimate gripe that WB was in effect legislating parenting. Indeed, many people (I am one of them) fear that the government will go too far.
Let the parenting happen at home. Don't try to impose your views of what should be in the media on the rest of us. If you don't like it, don't watch it or let your kid see it. Your kid is your responsibility, not mine.
--docfbl@yahoo.com
Interesting side note: Is it really bootlegging if you provide a tape of an episode of a TV show to someone without charging money? I thought you were allowed to copy as long as you did not rebroadcast or charge money for viewing/make money off of it.
Has the glowing mind control box that is proudly displayed in livingrooms around the country truly gained this much control over us?
John, you've written a long article about how pirating a television show is a huge ringing blow for liberty.
Perhaps we should examine why so many people have their identities wrapped up in a vehicle to sell makeup and anti-pimple ointments instead? Perhaps we should examine why our culture and our minds are so filled with meaningless garbage that we would care enough to pirate a television show to begin with?
The true victory in this situation would have been if they had aired the final episode, and no one had watched it at all.
Has the internet, with all of its potential as a communications medium, been turned nothing but another outlet for television?
I think you are usually pretty close to on target with your writings, but in my opinion you've strayed far from what is important with this one.
Littleton, Colo. wasn't the only place where school shootings occured. Unless we forget, there have been other places (maybe not as public) where lethal school violence has occured. Enough to say this isn't an isolated problem.
I hate to miss a good TV episode, but it actually is a relief to see a large corp. make an attempt to consider the feelings of its viewers (whatever their true motivations are).
Yes, We all know how to use the remote, or the channel button on the TV, but sometimes there is something called decency and consideration. If anyone has noticed, TV has entirely lacked in this for the past decade. Maybe the WB's self-censorship (regardless of its motivation) will be a start towards removing some actual senseless TV. Not out of fear from the public, but out of realizing TV should not sell out for ratings.
As for 'controlling' the Internet. How is the free flow of every little single bit of information going to solve the world's problems? It's almost like telling the absolute tactless truth to everyone all the time. Sure, its cool to grab something rare to 'stick it' to The MANN. But are US netizens decadent enough to proclaim pirating a POSTPONED TV episode a moral victory? There is a time and a place for everything. Including the distribution of information.
Our impatient self gratification has got to take a back seat sometime.
I might be completely out of line with these questions, so feel free to flame me in oblivion.
First off, I agree with you, WB's actions were not censorship. Censorship is when an organization or person with power compels someone with less power not to say or show something. Warner Brothers was not compelled to pull the show, so, whether you think the move was right or wrong, it wasn't censorship.
Secondly, you calling the bootlegger's actions "Grand Theft" is irresponsible and wrong. Theft would be if someone stole Warner Brothers' copy, so they no longer had it. This is copyright infringement, plain and simple. A crime, but nowhere near as dire a crime as Grand Theft. Nor should it be, since WB was not significantly injured by the infringement. WB wasn't showing the episode anyway, and most of the people watching the bootlegs will still tune in if/when they get around to airing it, so WB still will get the same ad revenue as before.
The bulk of your argument boils down to "Warner Brothers owns Buffy, so they can do whatever they want with it." This argument hides two fallacies in it. It equates ownership of information (eg. the episode) to ownership of real goods (eg. the master copy of the episode). It also equates the rights of a corporation to the rights of an individual.
First, on the rights of corporations. The US has gone through great efforts to pretend that corporations and individuals are equal under the law. This despite the fact that corporations are not subject to the same criminal penalties we are (I'd like to see someone put some major polluting company away for 15-25 years for negligent manslaughter). Corporations should be treated differently, morally and legally.
Secondly, information is not property, you can't own it (or steal it). Legally speaking, you can own the copy rights to information, but this is a substatially broken system. By airing the episode in Canada, Canadian viewers gained access to the information. Why shouldn't they be allowed to share it with their less fortunate neighbors?
----
Open mind, insert foot.
The real story here isn't the cancelation of the final episode of a TV show- its about the power of the Internet. I think we all know deep down how powerfull it is- therein lies the huge draw for so many of us.
I wont assume to preach to the choir on this point, but I will illustrate with an anecdote. One of my friends runs a fairly major X-files website and listserv. A whole culture has developed around this with people submiting scripts and info on shows in advance (I think they pull them off of satelites or something...) I suspect this is much like the buffy crowd.
The Internet poses a phantom menace for any and all who censor. We are seeing some censoring already. I.E. Australian censorship, or in Shangh ai, or those slowly disapearing textfiles.
Let us hope that the Internet continues to be successful as an outlet for free speach.
2^5
Jon, usually I agree with you entirely, but I think you are misinterpreting why WB cancelled the finale. WB wasn't afriad that it would cause violence, they're were afraid they would offend people, and IMHO, rightfully so. No, I wouldn't be offended, but that's not to say that my parents wouldn't be. It made fine sense from a PR standpoint. And I doubt that WB was thinking about the internet's effect when they cancelled it any more than I think about the internet's affect on drinking my soda.
------------------
than to never try at all.
Bill - aka taniwha
--
Leave others their otherness. -- Aratak
Say it with me: They were just trying to avoid bad PR, so they bowed to pop-psychology. Katz is right, fighting demons in a school doesn't equal having two kids go nuts and shoot their innocent classmates, and it certainly won't cause them to do so.
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
Pretty darn good for an oversized board game; my girlfriend initially thought it was de Toqueville. Anyhow, this discussion reminded me of that very sane little bit from the game -- it seems like the folks writing for video games these days have the people who write TV fluff pretty badly beaten...
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
The rough sex, the violence -- I knew it all looked framiliar from someplace... Kuberick must have found a Fox tape that had fallen through a timewarp from 2002 or something.
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
I don't know about the rest of you, but in the following snippet, I'm seeing apostrophes where there should be em-dashes:
Oz: "Guys'take a moment to deal with this'we survived."
Buffy: "It was a hell of a battle."
Oz: "Not the battle'high school."
Maybe we should get Jon to use Vim. There is a Macintosh port.
--
And when the low-earth-orbit IP repeater satellites come on line, China's network filtering will go right out the window.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
Has it occurred to you, Jon, that there ARE demons from Hell in American high schools? It would sure explain a lot.
Not without a lot more discussion of whether or not there's a god, which is inappropriate for this board. Take it to alt.religion.christian or the like.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
If it's censorship for WB to delay the timing of an episode, what do you call an attempt to make fundamental discussions of reality off-topic?
An attempt to direct the conversation into an appropriate forum. You'll notice that I have exactly no power to force the discussion - it was only a request. The fact that you regard a request that you don't like as censorship says a lot more about you than about me.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
Seems to me you're using a convenient redefinition of the word cosmology. Last I saw, it didn't have anything to do with religiously-defined beings.
And while religion is tied up with morals, the reverse is not necessarily true. Atheists are perfectly capable of making moral decisions. No simplification is implied. In fact, it's often the opposite: if you don't use a religious basis for morality, then the analysis becomes more complex, since the morality must stand alone. You don't have the convenient fall back position of "God said so."
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
Just because a network has made a programming decision based on something besides money, people get upset.
And you have evidence (other than the statement of a PR droid) that the decision was made on any basis other than money?
Try to remember what the actual product of the television industry is. Hint: it's not TV shows.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
When the discussion is on general metaphysical issues, it's probably appropriate elsewhere, but I don't care. I'd probably even take part. The problem is that you (or whoever) is trying to sell a very narrow religious viewpoint (demonology as a specific subset of christianity), and with the usual collection of very thin evidence. If there's one thing I personally believe Slashdot is not, it's a forum for preaching. (Of course, Rob has the final say here.)
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
Posted by nuku:
:)
Well, does anyone know where to download that
last episode?
Posted by Buffy the Overflow Slayer:
>WB was exercising their right to be tasteful
Shouldn't that read:
WB was exorcising their right to be tasteful
-buffy
Censorship takes many forms. A very popular one involves making sure that reporters (and whole news agencies) who kill stories they're asked to kill get more and better interviews, sneak peeks at press releases, etc. The others find themselves shut out.
Agreed. I think the two are inter-related. The muck rakers get demoted, fired, or simply stagnate because of the unstated rules about what gets you access to interviews.
I should have mentioned that this also includes the corperate world, only instead of interviews, the controlling factor is advertising dollars. The muck rakers get held back or kicked out because otherwise, sponsors get upset, and ad revenue is threatened. Nobody ever gets fired for saying NICE things about a sponsor.
The only reason we EVER hear bad things about sponsors (and government) is because otherwise, even the couch potatos would eventually change the channel, and then the sponsors would all move to greener pastures.
If 'taste' is really the issue, then the local affiliates could have made the call. For 'taste' it was really unnecessary to try to 'shield the fragile sensibilities' of the entire country.
It's been done before (Ellen & I'm sure others).
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I have to agree 100%. Katz, I usually agree with you, but this time you're on the wrong side. WB has the right to do what they want with their show, and the folks who are bootlegging it may be demonstrating the power of the Net, but they're also violating the law.
The most important point, as I understand it from my friend the Buffy fan, is that WB has NOT, in fact, cancelled the season finale, but rather has _postponed_ it a month or two longer. There's a HUGE difference.
Adam
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
The postponing of this show is an allegorical reference to our society at large - that these kids were to graduate - from High School - being children, to College, being adults.
Instead of allowing this "graduation" to happen, the show was "postponed", delaying the transition of the audience (intended or not) from childhood to adulthood. In having "them" make the decision for us, whether we can exercise our own judgement as to whether we'd be offended or shocked, or experience Post Littleton Stress Syndrome, anyone with a TV that has the WB pipe to it, has been treated like a child.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
-jafac's law
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
The postponing of this show is an allegorical reference to our society at large - that these kids were to graduate - from High School - being children, to College, being adults.
Instead of allowing this "graduation" to happen, the show was "postponed", delaying the transition of the audience (intended or not) from childhood to adulthood. In having "them" make the decision for us, whether we can exercise our own judgement as to whether we'd be offended or shocked, or experience Post Littleton Stress Syndrome, anyone with a TV that has the WB pipe to it, has been treated like a child.
I for one, will download this from the net and view it, w/o commercials. Fuck WB.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
-jafac's law
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
...if, by pulling the show, WB is really saying that TV is dangerous, then maybe we can hold them accountable for some of the violence in society. After all, haven't they already pumped out a good deal of damaging visual violence? Make them pay a cool million to educational/counseling programs for every hour of violent programming. Sounds fair to me.
Unfortunately, I don't believe WB is acting out of concern for society. It is simply a defensive measure to make sure they don't get caught up in litigation or in arguments between the "TV is harmful" and "freedom of speech" people. Who can blame them? The way society can all-of-a-sudden gang up again something, as rediculous as it is, can be very bad.
Some may say they're just being tactful and considerate. BAH! When was the last time the media was considerate? They weren't even tactful and considerate in their coverage of the actual shootings.
-Derek
P.S. PBS is the only one that produces regular quailty programming.
I don't think US "citizens" (as in majority of people) are overly-sensitive. I think it's the few with the $$$ and Agendas that are trying to convince US that we SHOULD be overly-sensitive.
Why is it that the majority of people that I've talked to all think that what happaned in Littleton is a tragedy, but non of them think that censorship or blaming tv, video games, etc is the answer nor "the right thing" to do. Yet we're still being bombarded by the Politicians and other controling parties (IE: religious groups) that it's all the fault of tv, games.. etc. And they all seem to say that "the people" demand stricter gun laws, that "the people" demand censoring things the politicians deem immoral or offensive.
Hmm... I'm one of "the people" and no one asked me of my opinion, hell no one asked any of my friends, neighbors or coworkers for what they demand either. So who is it that's REALLY "demanding" all this? I really doubt it's "the people".
Ex-Nt-User
Warning: Hearsay ahead...
There is a third theory that can be considered in this case: it was all a smoke screen to hide the switch from cane sugar to corn syrup as the sweetener. By the time Coke came "back" no one remembered what the original really tasted like and so the switch was complete.
Supposedly you can still get Coke with cane sugar in containers marked as Kosher during Passover as corn products are not allowed.
Is there anyone out there familiar with Jewish traditions who can comment on this?
"Unless there are demons from Hell lurking in American high schools,"
Has it occurred to you, Jon, that there ARE demons from Hell in American high schools? It would sure explain a lot. And I don't think half-baked rationalism can explain what is happening to our society.
Don't be foolish enough to think that the demonic images in "Buffy" are the real thing. The genuinely demonic is far more common and far more pernicious than anything in media. See C.S. Lewis' "Screwtape Letters" for a chilling (and sometimes funny) example of what Demonic activity really looks like.
-- Slashdot sucks.
This happened before and this will happen again. Any really big TV show or movie always ends up getting pirated and then distributed over the internet. It should be assumed by now. :)
Not everything is about free speech; "digital", "vitual" or otherwise. Whatever happened to "good taste"?
Should this episode really have aired, at the risk that the students of Columbine would have their memories dredged back up? Apparently Fox felt it would have been in bad taste. Apparently you don't care.
I think canceling one episode of one tv show is a small price to let my friends back home get on with their lives.
You can tell I don't watch much tv...
Really, I wouldn't. Let me just fire off one more comment before I have to get back to work (last one I promise!)
I don't really care if WB airs a show that's in bad taste. Hell, Fox does it all the time and I still watch x-files and futurama. But Katz is slamming WB for *volutarily* exercising good taste by not airing a show that might offend people affected by Columbine. He called their decision "Shockingly dumb". What a loser! *This (Katz slamming WB) is what I have a problem with.* And all you out there crying censorship, I think you're losers too. Heaven forbid anyone take anybody else's feelings into account!
You are so right on the mark. Thank you for explaining this to people in a clearer manner than I had time to think out (I'm supposed to be working right now...)
I don't think some of you are getting it...
I'm sorry some of you Buffy fans missed out on your final episode, but somebody at WB *must* have thought the episode was in bad taste if they yanked it. I'm sure they lost a ton of money, and that should say a lot.
If you missed out on the episode, I'm sorry. But don't be so quick to step on other people's feelings, you might be on the other side soon enough.
I don't think censorship of network TV is bad. Aren't the "airwaves" technically everyone's property? Therefore, one could argue that community decency standards for the entire US apply. So, if some folks find it offensive, it shouldn't be shown, not on network TV at least. Now, I don't know if WB is network or cable (watch very little TV, just the Simpsons), but I can understand why, for PR, they'd bend to the popular cries of society. Why bash them for that? That's not censorship. They willingly didn't show it, correct? I don't think Uncle Sam stepped in and said, No. Anyway, I think it's a hoot that it was shown on the Internet. One of my favorite Simpson's lines is: "Bart: We've got to let the whole world know about these adult's secrets. Milhouse: We could put it on the Internet. Bart: No, we need to reach people whose opinions matter!" :)
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
I could have sworn that the airwaves were public property. I thought that if I wanted to broadcast a television show from my home, I could, I would just need to get set up with the FCC. Are you saying that an individual could not do this? I like the idea of community decency standards, and don't find that to be censorship at all. I still fail to see how either corporate censorship is even at all remotely close to the type of censorship that is unconstitional.
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
Never, ever refer to "Walker, Texas Ranger" as "a very excellent TV show."
"Pray for our generation. We can't win."
- Tourist
Hm? I had understood that you held copyrights throughout your entire life, and that they were extended to 70 years after your death (who gets it is determined by your will, or the courts, like the rest of your estate).
At any rate, the point was that it's silly for copyrights to persist after the author's death in the first place. it should only be a tiny bit of assistance to the family so that they have time to find an alternative means of support.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Basically WBros paid a million dollars for a tape that they decided to sit on. It shouldn't be terribly suprising then that it is still valuable. If they don't want to take advantage of that, like they have been all along, then others will likely step in to do so. If WB wants control back, they need only air the episode - I bet that most of the big Buffy fans (I don't care for the show myself) will plonk down in front of the tube and watch it all the same.
I realize that current copyright law does not work this way, but I think it would be much better if copyrights were more like trademarks. Unless they are used (e.g. books always in print, software rewritten or supplied with emulators) they drop into the public domain. This seems to have happened de facto with Buffy here, and that's frequently just as good as de jure.
Of course, a time limit, like five years after the author's death (AND NO LONGER!) would still be a good thing to have in effect. Then we just need trademarks to ultimately expire, and we'll be all set...
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Holding back a show in the name of good taste?! What a joke. Have you ACTUALLY WATCHED ANY TV LATELY?!
If it weren't for South Park, I would have gotten rid of my cable subscription a LONG time ago.
Taste? Two words:
Jerry Springer
I'm getting less and less impressed with mainstream media as time goes on.
This came out a bit harsher than I intended, but... but... taste!? I'd chalk this up to cowardice long before I credited some media mogul with the decency exibited by the average NAMBLA memer.
(that's North American Man/Boy Love Association for the blissfully ignorant: pedophiles seeking legitimacy. Wow.)
--Mark
The PBS (Public Broadcast System) is sponsored by government grants, but it's all educational and informative TV, with the occasional comedy on-loan from the BBC. "Are you Being Served?" is hilarious.
Actually, Katz is a former TV exec, IIRC... CBS, I think...
~luge
IAAL,BIANLY
...the Net...
At least as far as the Internet getting into China, it is state-controlled info. Companies here in the US and elsewhere are making big bucks by developing the hardware and software that makes it possible for China to have such a very fine filter on Internet access...
The genie has been let out of the bottle, I hope, though, in the more liberal Western-style areas. When the commies learn that Free Markets can exist in China with state control replaced by Organized Crime (i.e., where companies have to pay for "protection", bribery, etc.), and realize that it's just the same thing they have now but with different buzzwords, then they'll do it. I think Hong Kong, et al. are just testing the waters on this. But most of China is pretty poor materially, and the powers that be are more interested on keeping them contained (ala the mars citizenry in "Total Recall") than anything else... Gotta keep those rural peasants rural...and...peasants.
Hmm...
Censorship, in a broader context, I think is more like:
A small group of people decides what information is fit and unfit for the rest of the people to watch.
Sure, it happens as a consequence of the programming process. But market forces (i.e., "not enough people watch this show", which means, advertisers aren't getting enough bang for their ad bucks) are accepted forms of censorship, but most people don't think of them as censorship.
Parents censor their children.
People censor for themselves (I, for one, hope to never watch "Titanic").
Was Disney...er, ABC, right in broadcasting the "outing" episode of "Elaine"?
doesn't bother you? Then you should talk to some anti-gay person about that show.
Isn't "Professional Wrestling" a little more worrisome than an episode of a show that could *possibly* have been problem causing for one small subpopulation?
Do TV stations still show "Twister" even as the latest community gets sucked off the map in real life?
...hmm. WB really wanked on it.
Seen those "Homicide" or "NYPD: Blue" episodes where their story line happens to parallel something bad recently happening in society regarding cops and criminals and innocent bystanders (and the advertising mentions this linkage)?
Do you watch "Twister" whilst thinking about the recent tornados in Oklahoma City?
...yet, how many "challenger" jokes did you hear the next day at school or work, and how many times did you get to relive the experience each time the TV news had to "recap" the current situation:
'In case you've been living in a cave the last few months, the space shuttle "challenger" blew up last month'...
...or watch Joe Theismann's leg crumple like a weak chicken wing on 'Monday Night Football'?
It doesn't matter if WB hold the copyright anymore. WB rights mean nothing if they can't enforce them.
Large scale distribution of bootlegs is now so easy it's impossible to stop. That's the real point here.
It's also getting real hard to make money off of bootlegs as well. That's the other real point.
The , lets say, misuse of this program breaking the message at the end re rebroadcast and public use has issues for open source use.
If the open source movement wants people to
accept and use the GPL and associated licenses then it is critical that they respect and do not misinterpret other people licenses. Ignoring a licenses because you do not agree with it is not the thing to do. Work to change the system rather than ignoring what someone elses holds to be true.
Ignorance is bad, education is good.
Dammit, I agree with you. You see, I've had this urge to wear speedos (and ONLY speedos) that are two sizes too tight on the subway. But I've been censoring myself...out of fear. Now I see that my fellow citizens have engendered my fear. But I'm tired of being hassled by the man! Starting tomorrow, it's Speedo time. See you all on the C Train! If you don't like my pasty, flabby physique, there's always the next car! God bless America!
This has nothing to do with the "pain of littleton". There is no parallel to be drawn between their children being shot to death, and a satirical show about how (essentially), high school is hell. If that was the case, satire and any show dealing with unhappy things and high school would all have to be "censored".
What HAS happened here is a failing of a large number of people's logic. I play quake2.. alot. I am not a psychopatic killer. If there were even a weak correlation here, hundreds would be shot to death every day. Millions of people play quake.. and less than 0.01% ever wind up trying to shoot somebody. If that. I've found stronger correlations between people who eat rye bread and breast cancer!
Second question you brought up was "decency". In short, if this was the case, why didn't they recall all their released movies that depicted violence? I'll let you answer that one.
--
Thanks for all the great e-mail about this column. SOme of you have e-mailed defending the WB for acting responsibly. I don't think this analogy goes far. Star Wars has more violence involving kids than this finale..should it be yanked from theaters?Should Walker? Jag? Matrix? To postpone or cancel a program like this is to buy into the demonstrably false notion that this is what is causing kids to harm each other. I don't believe that and I don't think the WB does either.
I don't applaud theft or impatience..this is something else..The decision was quite hypocritical. And if you follow the reasoning, it means every single tv show or movie or CD has to be screened before release..
jonkatz@slashdot.org
Hey, you know america and .au are supposedly democractic. They supposedly have no censorship... well they do censor and snuff out anything that opposes their views like any other nation.
Pols in China and pols in the US and AU are cut from the same cloth. President Cliton would call the the national guard out to take away your network, if a CNN poll told him too. China's officals are keeping themselves in power, and the best way to do that is keep democracy out.
I know it's horrible to have less "rights", but it's still basicly the same problems wherever you are... Janet Reno as Mao? The flames shall come. =)
.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
Massacres happen all over the world, however Littleton became a major media event in the US, so that is why the US is sensitized to that particular tragedy. I don't know how the story was treated in Canada.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
No you are exactly right. WB has every right to do with "Buffy" as they see fit, it's their intellectual property. The freedom of speech includes the right not to speak, for whatever reason you wish.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
After you get down off your soapbox, don't forget that the TV networks, by their nature decide what we can and can't watch. They decide what gets produced, what gets shown, and what gets cancelled, they decide what news stories will generate enough ratings, and therefore are worth showing. Just because a network has made a programming decision based on something besides money, people get upset.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
If I shoot my own cheesy TV show, and send it to WB for airing, and they refuse to show it, is that censorship? No, of course not. In this case neither does the production company have the right to have their show shown.
Implied in WB's "First broadcast rights" is the right not to broadcast. It isn't "First broadcast obligation" after all.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
The real tragedy in all of this is the amount of internet bandwidth being wasted passing copies of this show around.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
Actually, my wife makes me watch that show every week with her, I personally don't like the show much, other than for the girl who plays Buffy ;-)
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
Jon,
The impeachment hearings have been over for a while and your guy is still in office. Why do you insist on mentioning that sorry episode in every article you post here? Your sad fascination with Ken Starr, Monica Lewinski, et.al. really doesn't add anything to your writing.
GET OVER IT ALREADY! (p.s. everyone else has)
someone had his favorite show canceled. Is that a legitimate reason for slamming WB? C'mon, Jon. That article had about as much finesse as a pre-election "information" spot, and was just plain inaccurate to boot. The flipside of free speech is that each speaker can also decide what NOT to say. In this case, WB has decided not to air a show which, by many accounts, is unusually violent and bloody. No network is obligated to air programs they think harmful. Indeed, the expectation that they SHOULD have aired it is a sort of reverse censorship that is even more tasteless than the imputed censorship.
And is your argument that TV violence begets absolutely no RL violence? Maybe you ought to actually do some research into the matter before you dash off a hasty, one-sentence-per-paragraph tirade on a subject about which you obviously know little.
Normally, Jon, I enjoy your articles. But this one just seemed to be an attempt to pander to your audience.
After watching a whole season of some blonde bimbette staking vampires, it's remarkable there's any sensation there at all. BTW ER doesn't glorify violence. A video of a tour through a bloodbank would surpass most if not all slasher flicks in blood content, but would still contain no violence. Deadly, bloody violence is what I was speaking of; to pretend you think otherwise is just quibbling.
By watching more TV?
Or by bootlegging it? I'm not sure either of those options are optimal.
--
QDMerge -- generate documents automatically.
how to invest, a novice's guide
Real censorship would be WB executives raiding Katz's house, duct-taping his mouth shut, and taking away his keyboard.
Under Katz's definition, he would do it to himself.
Jon, I think you're in love with the Internet. There's no shame in that, but it's still only about communication.
Five years ago, people would have mailed fuzzily copied videotapes to each other. (Two years ago, they did that for Babylon 5.)
There's nothing new under the sun. You'll pardon me if I yawn when you find a new fad that looks just like the old fad.
--
QDMerge -- generate documents automatically.
how to invest, a novice's guide
Was just sitting here thinking. Kind of interesting that I'm reading yet another oppurtunistic rant from Katz about "censorship" and then scrolling down to read my level 3 and above comments.
/. censors know what they're doing...
Hope the
Later,
FM
Frank W. Miller
If WB had decided that Buffy's ratings were too low to justify the air time, would it have been censorship? No. Are they required to air an episode simply because they bought it? No.
/. gods decide to remove this article from their server and ban Katz forever, is it censorship? No. Get your own server. Get your own broadcast network.
If the
WB decides what they air. The word censorship is misused and the accusation is unfounded. If they want to pay Sarah and the gang for hundreds of episodes which are never seen, then that's their business. The fact that people stole their intellectual property and posted it to the web is not a sign of liberation.
How would you feel, Jon, if I stole a draft of a book that you wrote and then published that book to the web before you could have it published in print? It's theft.
i think the premise of this article is just flawed. censorship implies limiting communication because the message is not to the censor's liking. now, wb canceled the finale because it revolved around a high school massacre. but wb couldn't care less about whether massacres are or are not to be broadcasted. that sounds not like censorship, but more like trying not to be blatantly distasteful in the eyes of the general public.
My other car is a cons.
Well..one of the better reasons that has been brought to my attention is that Canadians have no taste in the first place. So there really isn't anything to offend there.
Disagree? Ever seen Degrassi Junior High?
P.S. this was humor.
As one member of the 60s era, i must say, dream on. Every keystroke you make, every surf that you take, they are watching you. How could CorpGovLLC keep tabs on everyone? Offer the system for Free, allow a time frame of total willpower to be issued by those online, then, when most people are online, start knocking on doors. So why am i here in it? I gave up on privacy years ago. I speak my thoughts in the real world and therefore, i would never be hard to find. When they come for you, remember, we had a good time! We stood for something. Of course if the above is wrong, no harm done, if it's true, you're prepared, if it's not true, a least you were keeping your options open. ~g.
an enigma wrapped around a paradox driven by a paradigm shift
Why don't you just admit when you say, "Good Taste" you mean "What dosen't offend me personally at this moment" and come out with it.
One of the strangest things about TV censorship is that people act as if the masses are somehow compelled to watch something. As if you can't press the power button on your TV and pick up a damned book. That's what I do when I see something dumb and/or in "bad taste".
It's probably better for you anyways.
America has a strange sickness. We have twisted words like "compassion" and "courtesy" and "moral" and "good taste" to fill a strange roll. People use them to get what they want. We need to be understanding and compassionate. So therefore we ban what I find offensive. Politicans have been doing this more and more this decade.
It's sick. It's using someone else's pain or difficulty to futher your own moral agenda.
So, don't say that that episode of a silly show would stop lives. If it does, then maybe they need to get some therapy. Not for any violent incedents, but because they put far to much stock in television.
- Paradox
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
Hi all,
First of all, this isn't censorship. This is just
network stupidity. Censorship would be if the WB
had aired the episode and then had the
government pass a law to prevent us from
talking about it somehow.
Secondly, the ironic thing about this is that
when the WB finally does get the balls to air
the show, they'll probably get record high
ratings. The people who've seen a dupe of the
tape or who've watched it streamed across the
Internet or read a transcript will watch it for
the better and bigger and clearer picture.
People who have never watched the show before will
watch it out of curiosity to see what everyone was
talking about.
And WB will get a bunch of new viewers, renew the
show for another season, and get potentially
better ratings.
This whole thing could just be a ploy for
bigger ratings. On the other hand, I'm not
a Machiavellian Cynic. . .
-Augie
If they were really pulling it out of good taste, and didn't want to show it, then why did it air in Canada? This isn't about good and bad taste, it is about avoiding bad press, which they have, for the most part, done.
-Cheetah
While I agree that censorship of US TV is lame (I was in the UK a couple of months ago, way better TV), I am at least glad that US video releases are not censored unlike the UK releases.
The stories of cuts in Region 2 DVD I read about in DVD/Hometheater forums is ridiculous.
Q.
That would explain the media's reluctance to devote much news coverage to the shootings. Very sensitive of them.
Okay - given that Warner Brothers is a big corporation, and therefore worthy of our suspicion from the get-go. But if you take their explanation at face value, I think Jon's assertion here falls apart.
What they've publically stated is that, because there are (I'm told - haven't been able to see it yet) kids running around, screaming, and getting killed in general, they felt that it would be disrespectful to show the episode so soon after Littleton. They didn't say that they believe that TV violence causes precipitates real violence, or that they were canning the episode entirely.
Maybe you don't trust the WB, and you think their justification for postponing the episode is bogus. But Jon doesn't address that here, and neither has anyone else (that I can see).
PS - Am I the only one who thinks that the WB has supplanted Fox as most willing to experiment with the lineup? Or am I smoking crack?
The key now is bombarding people with misinformation. You dont have to be speaking truth to be heard, and although censorship might not work, anyone can get a website to advance their agenda and be just as vocal as the the people they are trying to censor. Anyone can say anything, and have it archived for all time, but nothing says they have to be telling the truth.
-Rich
With "The Matrix" - it's a fairly common practice these days, someone going in with a camcorder, etc etc.
With the SW trailers - they were coming out already. No biggie.
But with Buffy - the key fact here is that WB in a sense "promised" the airing of that show - by the fact that it was the second half of a 2-parter, from previews, and pre-airing hype - and went back on that promise - and The People found a way around it.
"People" using "unnecessary" quotes should be "shot".
I was in the US at the time all this wibble was going on and after seeing the ridiculous amount of censorship that was going on already I can honestly say I'm not surprised - the amount of censorship in the US is RIDICULOUS!
:)
The US TV companies and whatever-the-equivelent-of-the-bbfc is really need to wake up to the real world.
End rant!
TV Content ->(information)-> eyes/ears -> Brain
.... Brain/Heart
Shotguns -> (bullets) ->
The difference which should be painfully obvious is:
1) You expect to find information on TV (I know, not necessarily accurate, but info nonetheless)... You don't expect to find bullets at school
2) If some unwelcome information finds its way to your brain, interupting the flow (i.e. not watching it anymore) will generally allow you to escape without drastic consequences (for exceptions, see the shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater analogy in explanations by the founding fathers on what does not constitute protected free speech)
Got it? Is that simple enough for you?
chris
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
What exactly has WB done that is wrong? They created a show with their money--a show they own the rights to--and decided not to publish it (at least for now). Since when is it wrong to censor yourself? I do it all the time (though you can't tell from some of the stupid things I've said on /.), and I'm sure most of us do it too. I know we all have those times when you think, "I could say something really, really inappropriate right now. I'm going to do it, really I am . . . no wait, that would make me look like a jerk." And then you stop yourself. Or when you have an otherwise really funny joke about snipers that you're about to tell, but then you realize, "Oh! Your husband was sniped, wasn't he? You probably didn't think that was very funny, did you? Get a sense of humor!" You can censor youself out of taste, and while external censorship has a tendancy to be ungood (I don't care if that's not a word!), it's often better to have too much self-censorship than not enough. Or maybe we don't think that way.
No porn on tv - you call this a benefit? =)
Resistance is not futile - www.gnu.org
Do some reasonable people believe that these things exist?
M. Scott Peck. See The People of the Lie . Peck is a trained, licensed, and practicing psychiatrist who claims to have encountered demonic activity and participated in exorcisms. And yes, he distinguishes between demonic activity, imbalanced brain chemistry, and simple cussedness.
Of course, I suspect this is a sucker question. Would anyone who does believe in and claim to have witnessed these things qualify as "reasonable" in your book? I doubt it. Very tight, clean, closed, self-consistant logic there. :^)
One last thing, I believe that Quantum Mechanics fairly well demolished objectivity a while back.
Bah, humbug. Nobody really believes this, on a practical, day-to-day level, on matters they really care about. If you doubt me, let's try a thought experiment: say your bank statement comes and your savings account has an unexplained $2,000 missing. Do you (a) chalk it up to quantum uncertainty (all hail Heisenburg), or (b) get all moralistic about objective reality and right and wrong and proceed with your bank on the basis of there being one true objective answer to the question "what is the balance in this account"?
"Now you and I have, I hope, this advantage over all those clever new philosophers, that we happen not to be mad." -- G. K. Chesterton
cpt kangarooski wrote: Okay, then we don't air it in Colorado.
No! No! No! (tho' apart from that one line, I mostly agree w/ the post)
Several posts here have claimed it's not censorship unless the content is completely suppressed, whereas Buffy was merely postponed in some markets (The U.S.).
I beg to differ. What WB did may have been ineffective censorship, but it's still censorship, and it's still a Bad Thing. Instead of keeping the program from U.S. viewers, they've kept it from U.S. viewers who don't have easy access to the Web. This is not an improvement. Nor would it be an improvement to merely keep the program from Colorado viewers who don't have easy access to the Web.
Completely suppressing content (rather than merely limiting it to particular markets) happens all the time. It's the reason we don't see hour after hour of crappy, unfunny outtakes. Someone (a censor?) decided those scenes were not up to a show's usual standards (TV has standards? I can't believe I'm typing this!) and decided to remove them. It may be censorship, but at least it's consistent. No one gets to see the flubbed lines and embarassing mistakes.
What disturbs me about this BtVS incident is not that the network decided not to air the episode, but more that they did air it in some markets and not in others. It annoys me that some network exec gets to decide that this program is good enough for Canadian viewers, but not good enough for me and my country(wo)men. Excuse me, but I'd like to be the one who decides what is and isn't appropriate material for me to watch, and when it's okay for me to watch it.
I don't care one bit about Buffy and her exploits. I've never even seen the show. The fact that someone else has tried to dictate whether I have the opportunity to view them (even though it appears that, to a large extent, they've failed)... that I do care about.
i totally agree with all of the above,
besides:
The bootleggers performed nothing short of grand theft.
in the case with the fact that the viewers would have watched the episode anyway and they want to see it i can't see how you can call it grand theft.
because they are not getting it from WB is not their choice, they are not aviding them at all.
i compare this to my getting episodes of futurama and simpsons (FOX).over here in New Zealand we are a few months behind USA. altho i am watching them off the net, when they are on TV i still watch them, so fox, and TV2 (the local Broadcaster of simpsons)will still my viewership. regaurdless of me watching it off the net or not.
and with futurama, Tv2 havn't even mentioned futurama, and i would like to watch it now, instead of months (or perhaps a year) from now, i download the episodes. and as with simpsons, as soon as futurama is shown here i will watch it and everyone will get their money.
and i beleive the viewers will still watch the buffy on tv (if they're not big fans they are not going to go to the effort of d/ling the net version)
besides the versions on the net are still not good enuff to be a complete replacement for the TV versions
Airing this episode, which apparently has nothing to do with kids shooting other kids (and therefore nothing to do with what happened in Colorado), is not insensitive or designed to throw anything in anybody's face. It is entertainment pure and simple. All the network need have done was to show a little blurb at the beginning of the episode saying that it was filmed before all of this tragedy occurred and was not inspired by it, blah, blah, blah, and that if you were not prepared to deal with it DON'T WATCH IT!!!! America is long on protecting us from what is perceived as "dangerous information/entertainment" and short on personal responsibility. Don't take away my ability to watch one of my favorite TV show's just because some people have a hard time dealing with life. I for one am sick and tired of having to suffer and pay for the fact that a small but VERY vocal minority are less mentally/emotionally well-adjusted than I am. I'm sorry, but I don't feel that you are helping these people by helping them hide from the world. Sorry people, bad things happen and life is sometimes horribly unfair. One piece of entertainment kept off the air is not going to change that. If you can't deal with it, tune out, don't spoil it for everyone else.
Put your own business on the line.
Start your own TV network.
Create your own shows, or buy the rights to one that's for sale.
Deal with the FCC, conservative watchdog groups, advertisers and the viewing public.
Then judge what WB in the wake of Littleton.
Walk a mile in their penny loafers and wingtips before you judge them so harshly.
My Heart Is A Flower
1) A network paid a lot of money to make a show they didn't air for a questionable reason.
2) The fans got annoyed.
3) The fans exchanged copies/transcripts of the show.
4) A lot of this was done on or with the assistance of the internet.
Lesson - all other things aside, your show runs on your fans, don't annoy them, they've got the technology to support each other and don't have any qualms about using it.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
Yup, thanks a lot. Let this be an example to all writers!
(Yup, feel free to moderate me down, but I'd just like to show a lot of people like ISO html)
I don't see why WB should deserve the all the flak its getting. They seem to be trying to be sensitive to the stuff at Littleton. I can see how scenes with high school students running around the school and getting attacked would seem inappropriate.
It seems like there's a double standard operating here. We complain about coporations trying to exploit the event when they release things like this about events that we care about. But if the event in question doesn't resonate much with us, everyone starts shouting censorship, calls for booycotts, and adovocates pirating the show. Would we have done the same if George Lucas decided to delay the release of star wars for a few weeks?
BTW, I think Katz is really reaching when he makes the analogy between the people being persecuted at school and the show having demons running around the high school.
"When you sit with a nice girl for two hours, it seems like two minutes. When you sit on a hot stove for two minutes, it
Many posters seem to think this article is about how 'evil' WB is.... I have a different take.
The article is about the 'Net, and the power it gives us. I've seen this for years.. but it's hard to put into words.
You can see it with most software. You can see it with mp3, you can see it with vcd, and anything else that can be broken down to information.
Regardless of any percieved 'morality' issues, regardless of any attempt at cencorship, regardless of what laws governing 'money' or 'intellectual property', there is nothing that will stop people from sharing information easily and quickly.
I don't have to speak out against IP, or against morality, or against *anything* to state that people will copy, pirate, whatever you want to call it anyway, and that they should have the right to.
Our society is run by money.. but shouldn't it be run by people? Money is a means to an end, but it's gotten out of hand. We spend our lives inside, watching TV, even playing on the Internet, and don't pay attention to what's going on around us in the real world. THAT is why our cities suck, are ugly, and dirty.
THAT is why we take a new suburb where there is TONS of space and cram the houses closer and closer together instead of putting up nice yards for people.. because of money.
There is something besides money here... there is the inalienable right for ME to share any information I want with YOU, and I will!
Sorry, but they _can't_ control it. Remember, we're talking about _the internet_ here. The amount of information they'd have to block (including newsgroups, ICQ etc) in order to be efficient is so darned huge I'm pretty sure they can't pull it off in the long run however hard they tried. Sure, filtering certain sites and certain words helps. A little. But the information will find a way in anyway. It's in it's nature.
Floris.
--- Your superiour intellect is no match for our puny weapons
WB was exercising their right to be tasteful
Ok, everyone who believes that any network in this country makes their decisions based on "taste", raise their hands.
The networks have shown their dedication to profit-mongering through the shameless exploitation of just about every aspect of life you could imagine, so it would be logical for us to view WB's decision with that in mind. WB pulled the show to avoid souring its relationship with squeamish advertisers, and for no other reason.
Is there anyone out there familiar with Jewish traditions who can comment on this?
The "Kosher for Passover" Coke is the only Coke that is made with cane sugar instead of corn syrup. Plain "Kosher" Coke may use corn syrup. I believe most Coke bottled in the USA is kosher. It may not be marked as kosher, even if it is. Ask your local Rabbi or kashrut authority if you have questions.
It seems that there are many people here who don't believe that there has been any censorship in this whole issue. I think there has.
Warner Brothers are the victims and the perpetrators here.
Knowing the likely over-reaction to the scenes depicted in the Buffy finale from some sections of the US people, they decided to postpone the show. Now, some people argue that this is their right - and I don't disagree - but if you look at the motive for this action, then it is fear.
Fear of what might happen to them if they did use their own judgement and that told them to show the episode. So Warners were censored. And they passed that censorship on to us. Hence the heavy use of the word 'Cowardice' in John's post.
The real perpetrators are the factions in society who would react to this episode without thinking and attempt to attack Warners through ignorance, or for their own ends. However, Warners have to take some of the responsibility for not having the guts to stand up to these people and do whatever they think is right.
And there's the potential flaw in my argument.
Perhaps Warners did honestly and truly believe, without external influence, that it would be in bad taste to air the show.
I don't think so. I think they were afraid, and so they were, in effect, censored, and then they passed that censorship on to the rest of us.
I've just been deeply amused and saddened by the argument "The government is not involved so its not censorship". Since when was the government a pre-requesit for censorship? Many parties can censor many others, as we've seen here.
Postponement is better than cancellation, but ultimately it sends the message that there's something wrong with the show.
Perhaps some people would have found the show in bad taste. "They don't have to watch it" is a cliche. It also happens to be true. What I find in extremely "bad taste" is that my opportunity to watch the show and make my own judgement was taken away. Not even by Warners, but by the faceless masses that they are afraid of. Certainly no one that I elected or gave power over me. Not even anyone accountable to anyone.
Predudice and cowardice combined have terrible results. This is just a TV show - but if you want to live in a free country you have to be willing to fight the small battles as well as the big ones, because those who would take away your freedoms are more likely to do so by chipping at them than by invasion.
I believe Warner brothers acted out of fear. The people who engendered that fear are the guilty party - they're the censors. And we all need to fight this sort of mindless reaction
The digital distribution/copyright/net censorship argument is another essay for another time
Lord Pixel - The cat who walks through walls
A little bigger on the inside than out
Technically feasible? Hmmm...
It's certainly technically feasible to censor your average point-and-drool windows-using moron, sure. Give even that moron a copy of the most rudimentary encryption program, and filters, etc, are useless.
PGP, especially GPG (open-source 2048-bit-encryption, yay!) is great. You can get GPG from german servers, too, so that US export stupidity doesn't apply.
The wonderful thing about the internet is that any bit of data can be made public, and there's so much of it that it's just not possible to scan through every bit of it. The censorship schemes assume that any data of interest will be plain, human-readable text. Put the same censored data in a jpeg, and then what? (just to give a web-centric example for the person who originated this thread, and is naive enough to think that censorship might work.)
Think again.
Excuse me? There is NO censorship here. WB owns the show and they have the right to show or NOT SHOW any or all episodes in any way, time or manner they choose! WB paid the money, the show belongs to them.
Just becuase someone creates something does not make it part of a public's right to view, own, or judge. I have created many pieces of art which no one outside of my immediate group of close friends has or will ever see. Are you trying to say that it's a matter of censorship that I don't make my personal art available to the whole world?!?!?!
This is not censorship. This is piracy.
I am a huge fan of the show, however I can understand the bumping of the episode to a later date. Of course, the Littleton incident was not caused by violent TV shows or the Internet, but there needs to be some level of taste in broadcasting scenes that would be a harsh reminder of real (and very recent) events. Feel free to disagree, but I think the WB was exercising their right to be tasteful rather than outright censorship.
I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
You know, Buffy has a disclaimer before each episode (as explained in a previous thread) warning of violence and such. Perhaps, a "special" disclaimer warning the viewer "This show contains violent situations in a high school. Viewer discretion is advised", or something along those lines. Then, let the viewers decide if they want to watch. If they feel they would be offended, or if they feel it hits too close to home, then perhaps they can skip out on this episode. Perhaps more importantly, the PARENTS could decide if it is too violent for their children. The rest of us who enjoy the show, and can seperate fantasy from reality can go about our lives.
Just a thought. Educate people to censor what they themselves see or read. Don't educate people to censor what others see or read.
WB made a simple choice in pulling Buffy's episode from the air. They decided that the social morality of the time would not be accepting of such a thing. The primary reason for the pulling was *probably* more based on the idea that there could be outrage from concerned parents (*cough* 700 Club *cough) not on their feelings of tragedy over the shootings. Reality is the episode would never make anyone go shoot his neighboor, but there are people who would like you to think it would, because they don't personally like the show. Or because they want to make a name for themselves. Or maybe because they're just psycho. Whatever reason lots of people are looking for targets to do some finger-pointing at for this whole thing and the WB did not want to paint a bulls-eye on itself.. or even take the chance of drawing a microscopic X.
--Justin Hager
>This has nothing to do with the "pain of littleton".
Maybe not, maybe so. I think that is a valid opinion that I agree with, but that WB does not. It's a judgement call. I would probably do the same if I were at WB.
The public's opinion on violence and its possible role in the school shootings seems to be in flux. Clinton is getting a 'study' together to explore the impact of violence in videogames, movies, TV, etc. If I were an exec at WB, I think I would find discretion the better part of valor in this case.
I don't think the reasoning would be that airing this episode could cause further school violence, I'm not sure anyone outside of the parents and their lawyers buy that. I am pretty sure that this is about not exposing their collective arse to the media and its pundits.
"On the next Geraldo... does TV violence like Buffy the Vampire-Slayer contribute to high-school masacre?"
No thank you, I'll tuck this little episode away for now and wait until this Littleton thing blows over a bit, take my chances with the upset fans. What?... Some kids are distributing it on the net? Oh well, at least they can't blame us since we didn't bradcast it in the US.
Just adds to the interest for when it does get eventually broadcast, eh?
If anyone here actually watched the "Buffy" when the "Graduation Day" was supposed to be run, they would have seen a deally saying "Uhh, we're not going to run this episode right now. We'll run it sometime during the summer." So the episode hasn't been canceled, as Katz has erroniously reported, but simply postponed.
As a side note I would just like to say, that if your graduation keynote speaker ascends to a 20-foot-fire-breathing-serpent-demon, you are DUTY BOUND to slay him. So you see the airing the episode would actually be doing a service to high-school students nationwide. (After all high schools are filled with demons.
That's it, folks! Stand up for your rights! Fight the greedy network corporations who deny your right to watch your favorite prime-time television show!
Oh sure, some would say there are more important things you could get upset about. Some would say that the U.S Constitution is being slowly eroded while we watch television. None of that matters, though. What matters is being able to watch the season finale of "Buffy". Heck, they can take our rights, they can increase our taxes, JUST DON'T MESS WITH OUR T.V. SHOWS!
Clearly, this is a huge victory for "netizens". It proves that we have the power to make change WHERE IT MATTERS. It proves that we can pat ourselves on the back when we make those changes. It proves that we have writers who can write long articles about T.V. shows. It proves that we can write long posts on slashdot about those articles.
Yes, thanks to "The Buffy Effect", I will sleep better knowing that the rights-takers are now almost certainly cowering in fear.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
The "Buffy" issue is not about censorship. It is about freedom. WB used their freedom, and made a decision. They decided not to air the show, in the name of good taste. They did not do this for market share; the TV biz thrives on controversy. They probably lost ratings in this decision, but they did the Right Thing.
How dare we call this censorship and decry it as such? Who holds the right to censor WB, to take away their freedom and force them to air an episode they don't want to air?
Yes, force. That is exactly what the bootleggers did; they forced the release of this material. They were the ones who restricted WB's freedom not to release an episode they wanted not to release.
We don't own Buffy. WB does. They have the right to air, to pull, to make their own Buffy channel with 48 episodes per day. If you don't like that, pick up a web cam and write your own TV show.
Katz, you're just wrong.
This isn't about saying that this episode causes real world violence. This is about keeping people from having the very real pain of Littleton thrown in their faces again.
I've seen this done once before. When the Challenger exploded, MTV pulled all their "spaceman" ads. This wasn't censorship. NASA didn't force them to do it. NASA probably didn't even ask. MTV did this by itself. This wasn't some sort of political statement on the US space program. This was simple human decency. Even media companies are capable of this.
If they were forced to pull the ep, that would be a problem. When a company chooses to do the decent thing, they should be applauded. To harass them or complain about them doing the decent thing is to throw decency away entirely. That is the wrong path. To say that the government should not legislate decency is not to say that one should not display it one's self.
The bootleggers performed nothing short of grand theft. This was WB's episode, to show or not as they decided. I doubt even RMS would advocate this sort of activity, and his worldview appears to revolve around the freedom of IP. There is a big difference between activist and guerilla, you know.
--The basis of all love is respect
In Edmonton, the only channel that carries it is YTV, and they didn't show it.. (They claimed that "it was made unavailable to them by their supplier".)
:o) was looking forward to seeing it..
It was a shame, because I (um, I mean my wife
So don't go around thinking that Canada is THAT much less restrictive than the US..
A similar thing happened with Michael Moore's show, The Awful Truth, easily the most outrageous show on American television. The show is sponsored by the BBC and shown on the Bravo cable network. I recommend it to all slashdotters.
Here's an excerpt from Moore's latest email newsletter, entitled "The missing four minutes from this Sunday's Awful Truth":
I wonder if British viewers will post the missing four minutes. (I'm disappointed that Michael Moore didn't.)My boss is using one of these services. Scary? Nope. The company I work for pays for this pipe to the 'Net - pays for the machine I use it with, pays me for my time while I am here. It's not censorship when he tells me what I can and cannot do with his stuff on his time - it's called "employment". if he did it to me when I was home, THAT would be censorship.
1. Not "cancelled". "Postponed". The finale was POSTPONED. It'll be shown later.
2. The WB felt that graduation violence was inappropriate around the time of graduations. They did what they felt was the responsible thing.
3. THey have the rights to Buffy. THey can do whatever the heck they want with it.
4. You have no inalienable right to watch TV. THe WB is not compelled to ever show this episode.
5. It's a TV show. Chill. I didn't freak out last night when the audio feed of the finale of DS9 cut out. It's still just TV.
6. This is not a breaking sort of spy story to sneak copies of the Buffy finale out of the WB vault. Eveyr copy or transcript I have seen so far is from Canadian viewer who saw it/ taped it when it broadcast there. We are the Internet and have the power? Bull. You are Canadian and have a VCR.
WIth all the stuff in the world to worry about today, let's not get our undies in a bunch over the finale of one fantasy TV show.
PS: I caught a later episode of the DS9 finale. Wow. Now there's some good TV!
But have they actually gone to any news organization or web site, and shut them up or shut them down through force or intimidation?
After all, this is just a war, not something important like a sex scandal.
(Speaking of which ... Jon, you're still sore about the Starr report? Relax, it's over, Bill got away with it. Let it go.)
> He called their decision "Shockingly dumb".
What was shockingly dumb was the decision to
go ahead and air the episode in Canada at the
scheduled time. Anyone with three brain cells
would have realized that because Canada uses
NTSC-standard equipment that bootleg copies
where more than just a probability.
Especially something like BtVS, a "cult favorite".
Sheesh...and locally, they're using BtVS as a
backdrop for enticing one into ordering cable
so you can watch the WB. Paid adverts on the
broadcast channels, BTW.
How do *you* spell "hypocrites"?
> Heaven forbid anyone take anybody else's
> feelings into account!
You mean like the original coverage of the
Columbine shootings on NBC?
James
The old chestnut about might making right comes to mind.
So good of you, Jon, to cheer on the people who decide that the ability to be rude and ignore the wishes of others constitutes a mandate to do whatever the hay they want.
-- Micah Lionette
and I would like someone to not encourage the profiling, banning, judging, and simplistic nazi-fascism everyone around my state keeps pushing!
Insensitive indeed.
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
WB doesn't give a fuck. How about complaining that NEWS STATIONS were zooming in on the action to get a better story?
How about the fact that NEWS STATIONS can't give it a rest?
How about the fact that when I'd like to watch something else and hear about some news as well I can't because the FUCKS at NBCABCMSCNNCNBC can't drop the issue? Why don't they give it up?
Given that they won't, at least have the courtesy of showing a show that doesn't blame Littleton on television, music, books, sex, and so on and please get that idiot surgeon (who spends all day seeing flesh) off the air.
Insensitive indeed.
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
How about the feelings of people who see history running aground again? How about the fact any idiot can have feelings, but nobody gives a fuck when shit really counts?
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
My state has gone crazy and seeing one more Tv show censored will put me over the edgs!
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
Films and television existed for years without governmental censorship and content control. The web will be no different. As much as it really really bothers me, people better get comfy with their bits being sniffed, cleansed, and taxed, because its going to happen.
You've made the all-too-common mistake of equating the Internet to TV, film, and other media. It reminds me of the fallacy that portals like Yahoo! will eventually dominate like ABC, NBC, and CBS. The Internet is yours and mine- television _never_ was.
No intelligent person here is going to deny that WB had every right to do what they did. Was it censorship? No. Was it justified? Perhaps. Should it have been done? Most definitely NOT.
I don't care what anyone says, the notion that what the WB did was done out of "good taste" is ludicrous. I don't know how many consecutive days of around the clock coverage of the Columbine HS incident we were subjected to by MSNBC, CNBC, FOX NEWS, and CNN, interrupted only by reports on the Kosovo bombings. Where were the crys for decency in the name of good taste then? In addition to reports on the weapons and strategy used in the shootings and talk of unknown accomplices, we heard detailed descriptions of the grusome deaths of many of the students and the teacher that died, yet I heard no pleas for compassion then. I don't give a flip about the show Buffy, but if this had happened to a show I did like, I'd be damned if I'm going to change my life because of two psycho Nazi f*cks.
Likewise, anyone who says that TV stations should excersize "good taste" more often is equally insane. Insane, not because all of this talk about "good taste" seems like a slippery slope to censorship, but because I'll decide for myself what I think is in good taste and watch it. No Suit is going to tell me what will emotionally disturb me; if something grosses me out or hits too close to home, guess what I do...I change the channel, just like all of the other big boys and girls out there. If you don't like something, don't watch it. The shows that people watch stay on the air, the shows that people don't watch get cancelled. This is capitalism; this is the way it should be.
If WB doesn't want to air an episode, fine. If they think they risk more by showing an episode than not showing it, fine-it's their right. I just think people need to grow up and take a little responsibility for themselves rather than crying any time something happens that they don't like.
But that's just my opinion; I could be wrong.
-
-
It is possible for your mind to be so open that your brain falls out.
I guess I can't speak for everyone else in this debate, but as far as I'm concerned the commotion isn't about the fact that the WB did anything *wrong* necessarily, but that we're all tired of this notion that the games we play, the movies we see, and the shows we watch make us killers.
I'm pissed because I can't watch Buffy just because it *might* offend twenty people in another state that don't even have to watch it.
I'm pissed because I can't eat delicious and fattening popcorn in movie theaters anymore because a bunch of health freaks bitched.
I'm also pissed because I can't get fried apple pies at McDonald's because of those same health freaks. WHY ARE YOU GOING TO MCDONALD'S IF YOU DON'T WANT TO EAT FAT?????
-
-
It is possible for your mind to be so open that your brain falls out.
Yes, it is WB's right to not release the episode...
But it is anyone's right to break the law if he wants. If he doesn't get caught...too bad for the WB...
-
-
It is possible for your mind to be so open that your brain falls out.
I think that the Littleton tragedy has immortalized the perpertrators of the crime and has given them a almost fantisy status. They have taken their virtual reality games and have acted them out in reality.
The problem here, and what WB also is aware of, is that many people have trouble separating fantasy from reality. For example, Dungens and Dragons, a game that I have played many times, encourages people to take on roles that they usually would not be in. Some people have gotten so much into the roles, that they actually killed their fellow games.
High school students who are under pressure because they are different often create or withdraw into fantasy worlds. I personally withdrew into video games--and had a lot of fun and got rid of a lot of frustration doing so. I never thought of going into my high school with a broadsword and hacking people to death, something that a chaotic neutral character may do in D&D or something I might do if I were playing some game on my computer--just because I felt like it, and because it got rid of frustration.
WB probably is trying to stop or at least not encourage American students who have been taking guns into schools and getting arrested every few days for the past couple of months...or at least thinking about it...from going to their graduation and killing someone. The US is in an almost surealistic state since this Littleton fiasco, and I don't think that those persecuted high schoolers with mental imbalances understand that the surealism of the situation is not a reality...that their fantasy of killing the ass holes that are giving them shit every day cannot become reality.
The Albanians suppressed the the Serbians for many years. Why do you think they are killing them? Because they are happy neighbors? The Serbians don't think that they are wrong. Guess what? The world has just bombed them to the stone age...but kids who bring guns to school, like the Serbians, think that they are not wrong. And they will be arrested, persecuted, and harrassed even more for doing so.
Straight out front: I am, by most religious systems, an athiest and have been since 15, about 17 years in total.
The reply:
This sounds so much like the great UFO debates. Just because YOU haven't seen the greys doesn't mean a thing because I have made contact (no, not really, I don't believe in this either). Demons and Angels are the same, people who believe shake their heads and consign the rest of us to the Lower Plane for the Morally Defective. What is wrong with insisting on objective evidence? If your demons, or greys, exist, show me a real picture or better still hand the critter an invite to Charlie Rose or Nightline. Do some reasonable people believe that these things exist? Of course, even without the vagries of the human mind, we have to take our early conditioning into account. Most of us, even Einstein, are raised in cultures that loudly insist that the supernatural is real. It takes years to think otherwise, and even then there are lingering points. I don't eat much meat to begin with, but on Fridays in Lent, I simply cannot consume any flesh. Too much baggage and deep conditioning.
As for life-long experiments, these are started with the idea that they will lead to the divine, not as test to see if there is a divine. I am certain that if I spent four hours a day for the next thirty years telling myself that Atlantis exists and the Queen of the Island is in telepathic communion with the good people of the world, that soon enough I would hear her voice. This proves nothing except that the human mind can be conditioned and is subject to suggestion. We are quite aware of that fact and Madison Avenue and the media try to use it daily.
If you want to discuss any of the crushingly real problem in the school system, good. The system certainly needs to be changed. Just don't try to use this as a backdoor to introduce your belief system.
One last thing, I believe that Quantum Mechanics fairly well demolished objectivity a while back.
Speaking of cancelling things for political reasons...
What ever happened to Brimstone (On FOX, I think?) That was a cool series, and it has disappeared! My only guess is that since the hero is out of hell, they dropped the series under pressure from some stupid special interest group.
Anybody have any more details on what happened?
Apparently not everyone on the creative side is in opposition to the conduct. Cinescape Online reports Buffy Creator Joss Weedon saying,
"OK, I'm having a Grateful Dead moment here, but I'm saying, 'Bootleg the puppy.'"
Jon seems to overestimate the bootlegger's abilities to distribute copies beyond the Internet's "inner cliques." An average user is not likely to be armed with more than a report, a pointer to recently-killed links and the URLS of some portal search engines.
Those search engines don't reveal very much. Some straightforward queries at Altavista and Googol disclosed at most three relevant sites, each of which had already been "lawyered."
My experience is that the same seems to be true of the supposed "rampant" distribution of bootleg copies of the Phantom Menace.
I admit I didn't try very hard -- perhaps half an hour or so. Perhaps a few die-hard fans might be willing to work harder to find their copies, but few will find it worth the effort. But if it isn't trivial for me to find it, then it won't be easy at all for everyday Joe to get a copy, and then censorship hasn't been effectively combatted at all.
Indeed, there will always be a subculture distributing bootlegs -- the only problem is to contain it so the subculture is commercially unimportant. It is not clear to me that the Internet has made the bootleg culture substantially more of a threat, particularly in view of recent laws.
Indeed, since DMCA provides recourse through the ISP's, who own meat and metal and often have a stream of commercial contacts with the USA, it is actually fairly easy for a lawyer to shut down many or most piracy shops. I suspect real censorship (where it is legal) can operate the same way.
That, together with the fact that the activity is itself illegal, suggests that maybe Jon was too quick to suggest that the Internet is the great equalizer.
And if would have no clue how to get things like this, how would average Joe ever get clueful?
If you want to defeat "censorship," you need to be able to publish widely, not covertly. If you can't do so without fear of criminal responsibility or civil liability -- or if Joe is going to have to look over his shoulder to assure not being arrested for criminal activities of obtaining a copy, you simply aren't playing the "power to the people" game, but are merely entertaining friends and relations.
. . . it just changes its shape.
We in the United States, who are largely protected by the Courts and agressive litigation strategies of groups such as the ACLU, have grown complacent over time about censorship. We have grown to believe that the "bad guys," regardless of who they are and what they stand for will never be able to shield us from the light because of the almighty Bill of Rights.
Not so, Joe. And the liberating power of the Internet is not necessarily all good. It is, indeed, a vast wasteland and small voices can be truly and completely lost in that vastness. Moreover, the attractiveness of private censorship in the form of momma-ware and other filtering technologies invites willful or accidental blindness to content that can be controlled without the benefit of a government. In this sense, censorship is simply moving from use of government to another form, which should probably be the topic of another thread.
Yet another way in which censorship is effected today is by abusing the marketplace of ideas another way -- filling it with counter-content. Spamming is a tremendously effective way to bury opposing content, and when well-executed, is not always easy to counter. Sometimes the marketplace of ideas requires antitrust legislation.
Others have written about this particular circumstance of the Buffy affair not being a censorship issue. I will not pass on the point (though I share this view) but instead will assume that Jon is correct that somehow Warner is "censoring" content from the public. This kind of censorship, keeping secrets, is indeed much more difficult than once it was.
But this isn't the kind of censorship that is most dangerous and troublesome -- the keeping of content from the masses, which content is highly popular and popularized. When the majority wants to hear something, censorship has always been totally ineffective, even before we had the internet. Popular voices don't require first amendment protection, its the unpopular ones that are hard to save.
It is mostly when the majority wants content to be buried that civil liberty is really at risk.
This is why the casebooks are filled with overturning of laws dealing with Nazis marching in Skokie, "F*ck the Draft" jackets and Flag Burning -- It is the unpopular views that require protection.
It is the tiny voices, highly disapproved of by the marjority, who need protection. And without the clamour of a large and powerful activist community, those voices remain tiny, buried in the vast wasteland of the internet. As effectively censored as if government had squashed each publisher with a tank.
In many respects, I think, censorship has far more options on the internet than elsewhere. Even if you disagree with this point, consider at least whether it is dangerously arrogant to complacently presume that censorship has become impractical. Maintaining vigilant awareness to censorship in all forms is, perhaps, is the only way to assure our liberty.
As one poster already pointed out, in places like China the network topology has been arranged to allow strict control of content. Simply put, all the bits going out of China go through a few select nodes.
Films and television existed for years without governmental censorship and content control. The web will be no different. As much as it really really bothers me, people better get comfy with their bits being sniffed, cleansed, and taxed, because its going to happen.
I think Malaysia is also looking for ways to silence foreign websites that are critical of the Malaysian government. A really sick attitude in my opinion! And obviously, it's not going to work unless they unplug themselves from the reset of the world.
The problem in the US is that corporate censorship and "community decency" standards apply to news coverage too. It isn't polite or respectable to talk about certain kinds of events as they pertain to the US government and US multinational corporations. It "wouldn't do" to talk about things like US complicity and military involvement in Turkey and East Timor. Or the MAI (which you may not even know exists, given the cooperation of corporate-controlled media). That's why you don't hear about the stuff that matters until it's too late. Just take a close look at the Balkans conflict. It's a tour-de-force in media control/spin.
Interesting grassroots site for those interested in stalling or reversing corporate dominance. It really reveals just how one sided the whole thing has become.
Yes, very interesting isn't that? It's not that NATO objects to Serbian propaganda internally. It's that they don't want objective evidence of what's really going on to leak out without being spun properly first!
Yes, but for the most part they don't have to resort to that sort of thing. Journalists are the product of a very rigorous homogenizing system that produces remarkable conformity of thought among the "cream of the crop". It's really not possible for a journalist for an agency like CNN/MSNBC/ABC etc. to get to that position without repeatedly demonstrating that they know what's "polite" to report on. Any that happen to slip through the cracks are demoted or, in the case of a british journalist fired over his opinion on kosovo... whose name escapes me right now, simply fired. Those who really want to rake the muck almost always get filtered out *long* before they can cause any real damage. So the system is self-censoring in a way. It's just not possible for reporters in a corporate media structure to think outside the lines. That's not why they're there.
For example, a high level official has been quoted in marginalized radical magazines as having said "we intentionally set the bar too high on kosovo. what they really needed was a good bombing" or something to that effect. Why that wouldn't make news in a truly free press, is beyond me! Another good example of self-censorship of US media is the failure to report the actual contents of Appendix B of the rambouillet document or the order of events regarding the negotiation (including serbian willingness to accept terms with UN occupation at the outset!). A more recent example of a very blatant act of self-censorship is the fact that The New York TImes, the de-facto journal of record for history, failed to report Clinton's flagrant violation of the War Powers Act on May 25.
US corporate news self-censoring works well enough that actual censorship is rarely if ever required. The really insidious thing about it though is that (unlike Serbian/Russian/Chinese etc. censorship) it's not apparent that anything is being surpressed.
Overall I liked this article, but Katz misses some important stuff. First of all, he loses focus partway in when he starts rambling about _why_ the episode should/should not be censored. If I understood the article correctly, its focus should be _how_ the episode was censored, and why it was not successful. Those two topics are separate and combining them makes for a weaker essay.
/Being Digital/, then in the July issue of Wired. Dissapointingly, Negroponte glosses over that fact in his book, ignoratly assuming that the problems of repressive governments will magically dissappear shortly, and the whole world will have equal access to information. But now I'm off on a tangent, so I will end this comment.)
Even worse, he then talks about high school as a Hellmouth and associated topics, straying very far from the thesis of the essay. Somehow, he makes it back to the original point at the end, after going off on several tangents.
(FWIW, I agree with him about both why it should not have been ceonsred and how it failed, but the article should have been more focused.)
Secondly, there is a major point about censorship that is not addressed at all in the essay. The United States is known for its freedom of speech and information. It is not surprising that when censorship (Actually, it was not really censorship because it was the WB itself who recalled the episode. It was not the government imposing rules.) actually is attempted, it fails. I see no faults in his argument as it applies to the US, or Canada, or any other developed nation where >10% of the people have internet access. But Katz forgets about those countries like Saudi Arabia and North Korea where the government censors almost everything, including the internet. There are so few North Koreans with internet access that this wonderful distrubution mechanism just would not have a significant effect. If the government keeps tight enough controls on information, even the internet cannot obsolete censorship, at least not yet.
Don't assume that everyone has the same oppertunities to information access as you. My favorite statistic: over half of the world's population has never placed a phone call.
(I first saw this in Negroponte's
As far as I know, China does not offer Internet access at all. Sure, they offer a select number of Internet services that they can monitor and censor.
You think China is censoring people running programs remotely using X? I think they simply closed that port...
The Web is not the Internet people, people attempting to censor the Web (see Australia) are just driving the adoption of other protocols and services (fine by me).
Anyone else remember the early Ninetees when EVERYTHING (even ftp servers) were to be available via email...
Congratulations, Jon. I'm glad you found an editor that doesn't inflict the painful Microsoft character set on us (seen as ?s for those of us with ISO-compliant character sets).
We all appreciate seeing your stories in a readable format.
--
Kirby Files
Political correctness is a form of censorship, albeit a very subtle one. By saying "folically challenged" you are censoring yourself from having thoughts of "bald" or "chrome dome".
There is self-censorship when you decide not to read something.
There is government censorship when Canada Customs decides that a chili cookbook called Hot Hot Hot is dangerous to Cdn citizens (they thot it was a sex book)
There is greed induced censorship when a tv station/show or newspaper owned by a tobacco company doesn't run a story about smokes causing cancer.
Whew! If all that isn't censorship, then I don't know what is...check out Carl Jensen's Project Censored books and find out what you've been missing (literally)
While a station has the right not to release a show, it is their product, it's not as if Buffy was a "bad" product. Anyone remember Degrassi? In the series finale where Wheels gets drunk and hits a car and there's a kid and her mom in the car...
no one ever said, hey, don't show that, the kids will go out now and get drunk...
No, I don't think this trivializes it. If all citizens expressed the same outrage over materials witheld from them, what a more just and democratic society we would have!
I don't like the idea of censorship or political correctness especially since that both are just a huge joke. The fact that WB got burned has got me grinning and I hope that more companies get the message. Long live the freedom of the internet!
Earshot is available on various websites.
"My God...It's full of ads!" -Fry, about the Internet, Futurama
DEER LOWERED, I loved those fried apple pies...especially when the apple goo dripped out and burned your lower lip. Those baked ones just don't cut it anymore.
"My God...It's full of ads!" -Fry, about the Internet, Futurama
Speaking as someone who's somewhat on the front lines of this issue, I, for one, found access to the bootleg from usenet--alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer (You may find the post on dejanews if you do a search for "Download" and "Graduation 2").
/.
From what I've read on the group, the vast majority of posters on atbvs had little objection to the bootlegging, especially in light of Buffy creator Joss Whedon's approval.
While atbvs may not exactly be "widely" published, it did generate enough buzz to get USA Today to run a story on the fan movement. Once that story (which does mention atbvs) ran, I began to see a wide spectrum of stories from Salon Magazine to Yahoo and then now here at
At the very least, while there may not be widely published buzz, the fanbase of BTVS is well aware of what's going on with the bootlegs, and word-of-mouth likely plays a large role in getting a copy to everyone who feels ok about watching one.
"My God...It's full of ads!" -Fry, about the Internet, Futurama
Remember the "New Coke" fiasco years ago? Where a big stupid corporation did one of two things
underestimated the buyer loyalty to a certain taste
or
pulled a great free advertising stunt with the new/old coke uproar which filled the news for months on end
I personally believe it was the first followed quickly by the second, coke did something stupid which upset their fan base, then capitalized on the media attention for free advertising.
I expect WB is in the middle of the same thing. They underestimated the power of their fan base and the internet, but they will capitalize on the media uproar and will air the show later this summer to the best ratings Buffy has ever had. If they are smart, they will make it a directors cut with extra clever dialog and gore filled scenes.
Is Jon on the WB payroll?
the AntiCypher
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
You obviously have NO CLUE how to get anything like this. It isn't on the web. It is all distributed across private ftp's, which people get access to via friends they make on IRC. Try hanging around in a few VCD chat rooms on efnet for a while and see how hard it is to get a copy of the Buffy Episode, Star Wars, etc....
I don't know if there are actually daily shootings in inner city schools, and there sure as hell aren't massacres, but you are right. Schools in poor, urban, and mainly black area's have been hotbeds of violence for years, and as usual, the majority white politicians just let it slip through the cracks. Hell, if this had happened in a black school, it wouldn't have been an issue for more than a day.
Pretty fucked up, ain't it?
Depending on the IP rights claimed by the vendor, bootlegging the puppy (and I do mean puppy) might be illegal.
I've got a plant on my pool deck that came with a tag saying it is illegal to propagate it.
Fear my wrath, please, fear my wrath?
Homer
We apologize for the inconvenience.
I'm not tricked by this stealth campaign against the Bill of Rights, or for statements by government/corporate shills on slashdot defending it.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Hmm, question, what about people with satellite dishes or near the border who can and do get wild feeds and Canadian programming? Um, should we send the police to their houses so they can't get the show? What about all the people who watch the X-files, Buffy, etc. ahead of time because they get the wild feed (and before the local commercials have been put in, I might add) what should we do about them?
The fact is the only reason that the WB is upset about this (considering that almost anyone would rather watch the actual show than a fuzzy RealVideo version) is because they weren't able to control whether we could see this episode or not. Really, I don't know why they don't just show it already....
Or maybe they weren't planning to show it at all?
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Remember, intercepting wild feeds is not illegal, Orbit (a satellite dish enthusiasts magazine) even publishes them. And this is a magazine thats widely distributed and gets lots of advertising, not some little underground magazine.
All the Internet is doing, in this case, is giving the power of the dish to those who don't have one.
In fact, one of the things that has been a great concern to me is "regional coding" which is going to eventually change the nature of information itself. No longer will you be able to buy a movie legitimately that comes from someplace else in the world and watch it in your own country. Look at the way DVDs, even open DVDs, have chips to make sure that you can't watch, say, the European version of Scream (the violent version) in the US on a US DVD player. Not so much because I want to see Scream (I haven't seen it at all, yet) but because I may want to see some obscure little art film or anime I might want to see that will never make it stateside. And this is corporate censorship of disks that you legitimately bought and paid for... a little off topic, so I'll end here.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
I'd just like to add, that the trailers were hardly a big deal... but check out the VCD section of http://www.isonews.com . Several full telesync versions of Episode One were readily available to be downloaded, within a scant few days of the opening of the movie.
I think that really hammers home the point of just how futile it is to stop the spread of.. pretty much anything. If one person has access to it, and it's in demand.. there's just no way you're gonna stop it from getting out there.
- Kythorn
John can tend to be a little outspoken, but I think the point he was really trying to make here wasn't whether or not it was within WB's rights to show, or not show the episode, as it clearly is their choice whether or not to show it.. I think the real point is WHY they chose not to show it. They didn't show it, because they were covering their own ass.. in the aftermath of the school shootings, they chose to wait it out, and show the episode at a later date, not because they thought it might influence more kids to go out and commit these acts of violence, but simply because they didn't want to be in the spotlight for depicting such acts and being 'insensitive' or 'unfeeling' or whatever other nonsense they would have been labeled with.
It's a simple matter of trying to preserve their 'name' or 'reputation'. It was their choice to make. I feel they made the wrong one. In my eyes, all it proved was they care more about their reputation than they do about their fans.
They can sensor television, but they can't censor the net? This isn't a new concept. It boils down to what types of media they censor. You can say whatever you want over the telephone lines, but they already censor radio waves. This is pretty much the same as censoring broadcast television, but not censoring the 'net. It's just that ANYONE can 'broadcast' over the net. You don't need a license.
Remember... we may have the power now but the forces have already aligned to take it away. China, Australia, yes, but also big money in the US. Maybe YOUR boss isn't using one of these services, yet... but censorship CAN happen. Here are some companies that are MAKING IT SO...
www.cyberpatrol.com
www.n2h2.com
www.surfwatch.com
They provide services for your employer, university, isp, etc. to block not only sex drugs etc., but also specific political content. Scary.
so, what WB(a HUGE TV/Movie conglomerate) is saying is that "TV is dangerous." hmm...TV is dangerous>Movies are dangerous>WB execs head down to the county building for food stamps...doesn't make sense that they hurt themselves like this Dan _____ Who's got the keys to my beamer?
net censorship is growing! Australia just passed a law to fine and shut down ISP's not banning/filtering porn - companies are pulling out already as the law means massive fines for a 'social problem' - what will be next?
It doesn't matter if the public wants to see the last episode... they don't own the copyright!! You don't like it? Boo-freakin-hoo. It is WB's right to release (or not release) anything they wish. They made a decision, and it's their right to uphold it and not have a bunch of techno-weenies illegally distributing their material.
I have no idea why Canada gets sugar and the US gets corn syrup, but that's another story for another day.
My understanding is that it is a cost issue, which originally arose from sugar price supports in the US. It probably continues either because of taste expectations, or the costs of retooling the bottling plants. (_For God, Country and Coca-Cola : The Unauthorized History of the Great American Soft Drink and the Company That Makes It_, Mark Pendergrast)
Supposedly you can still get Coke with cane sugar in containers marked as Kosher during Passover as corn products are not allowed.
I don't think it is the "corn product" aspect, but the enzymes used to make the syrup. The plant I worked in produced a run of Kosher for Passover syrup every year, by emptying out the tanks, using a special enzyme, and getting inspected by the rabbinical authority.
It's all about choice. The last group that should be able to choose what we watch is the media. If the show was made, shouldn't we have the ability to decide if we want to watch it? How about putting more information with the program so parents can make informed decisions? I honestly cannot believe that the networks have our best interests in mind.
That being said, I'm in Canada, so ha!
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
If you remember back a few weeks ago, there were bootleg copies of "The Matrix" on both the web and usenet. I remember a few months back that this pretty common. I know of a few people that got the SW trailers a few days earlier.