I dunno. But after 23+ years of living with Star Wars, you'd think Lucas could come up with something a little less obvious and a little more inspiring.
Me, I thought "Balance of the Force" was a great title but, no, that got nixed...
Actually, one of the most interesting sentences of the article is this: "[The NeXT box] can also record with the fidelity of a compact disc."
It's interesting, of course, in light of Napster -- and in light of the RIAA's utter lack of foresight.
It's hard to be a prophet -- but you can't help look back on articles like this and feel ominous rumblings of things to come.
It also points to the RIAA's astonishing hubris. The sense of "Well, we're the goddamn RIAA. We don't have time to think about the future and protect our assets. NeXT? Fidelity of a compact disc? What the fuck are you talking about?"
Just out of curiosity: how can a one-time post of the Bill of Rights be a 'troll?'
Isn't the Bill of Rights what this 'carnivore' crap is all about?
And why in the world -- aside from the carnivore crap -- would posting a Bill of Rights (in the proper context) be a 'troll?'
Is a troll because no collateral information is attached? Because the author didn't write something like: "That's the Bill of Rights. That's what this carnivore crap is all about."
The preceding message should be moderated up because had sense enough *not* to attach any collateral info. The Bill of Rights (in this context, at least) pretty much speaks for itself.
You're a contextualizer, aren't you? You have a real inability to deal with any content that's not properly contextualized.
In the case of Slashdot, you probably need a context for all postings, right? You need to have the context properly defined -- and linked precisely to the message it refers to -- or, as far as your concerned, it's a troll.
Asking for attention to be stopped merely draws attention. I say this not as a troll, but to prove a point: that for attention to be stopped, all parties involved -- or at least the party wanting attention to be dropped -- must be proactive and actually *refrain from commenting*
Silence may be a virtue, but it's virtually impossible in this so-called "information age." Why? Because keeping one's mouth shut, hands down, is one of the more difficult things to do in this world. (Of course, Slashdot actively encourages you to open your mouth -- metaphorically -- so the fact that someone is actually posting on Slashdot and asking *not to draw attention to something* makes absolutely no sense at all.)
It is, of course, like asking you to forget about the pink elephant. But when people say that: "It is, of course, like asking you to forget about the pink elephant." Then I have to wonder: forget about forgetting about the pink elephant... why must it be forgotten the first place? I mean, why not *consider* the pink elephant? And why not *not* ignore the request to ignore the pink elephant?
What is it about silence that is so powerful? And why is it that advocates of silence (who are, in fact, far from silent) so certain that non-silence is so dangerous? Isn't silence, in fact, more 'dangerous' than non-silence?
And in the case of drawing attention to something: isn't silence, in fact, a more powerful weapon for drawing attention? Why do the advocates of 'not drawing attention to something' not stop and think that their most powerful weapon is exactly the thing they are negating when they attempt to implement their most powerful weapon?
Really. That's absolutely true. The more money you have, the less savvy you have.
Don't get me wrong. Big money folks -- individuals and corporations alike -- are smart. But smarts aren't what I'm talking about here.
'Savvy' is something that's earned -- something that takes a significant amount of time to acquire.
What I see in all these 'music wars' is an absolute lack of savvy on the part of the big money RIAA.
Yeah, they got the big bucks. And, yeah, they got the big money lawyers who can stand in a courtroom and be heard -- but I have to wonder if the execs that are driving this thing -- the Porsche driving, weekend-in-the-Hamptons, "Bri, did you see the way Sony dropped 3 points last week?", "Gotta have my cell phone. Where's my cell phone? For fuck's sake, Lois, where the fuck did you put my cell phone?", Armani wearing, frat-boy laughing, lite beer drinking, Gucci shoe and matching sock wearing exectives -- if the execs driving this thing have any 'savvy' at all.
Maybe savvy is the same thing as 'moxy?' I don't know. But whatever it is -- moxy, savvy -- it's lacking.
Fanning isn't lacking it, Boies isn't lacking it, and, truth be told, the judge ain't lacking it either: she seems like one iron-clad, dammit it's all common sense, black robe wearing, "Counsel, can you get the point?", finger waving member of the judiciary.
And that's fine. I don't fault the judge. I fault the RIAA for their brute-force, savvy-less attacks on technology.
The issue isn't about Napster. It's not even about music per se. It's about how music is represented in a modern age. It's all about the medium, baby. That's the message.
If you honestly think the problem is Lars and Metallica and their shrill little whiny voices, then you've completely misunderstood the message here. Lars can go rip his shirt off, droop his tongue, and bang the fuck out of his drums for all I care. The little sweaty weasel. But he's right about one thing: it's not about money. It's about control. Who controls the media? And who controls the access to the media? Because why is that important, class? Because who controls the 'media' isn't controlling the *thing* -- the music, the video -- they are controlling the 'medium'.
That's right. And that's fucking scary. Think about it.
It's all McLuhan, all the way. Medium, baby. That's what this means.
Napster is dead. It sucks, but get over it. Napster may be the martyr for the second coming of the New Age of Mimesis. (Katz, are you reading this? Are you here? Anybody home? Read Auerbach's Mimesis. That's my advice to you, pal. You're a smart guy. You got the two loving canines drooling at your feet as you write your columns. For fuck's sake, stop looking at technology so closely. It's not about the thing itself -- it's about the The Thing that Enables the Thing. It's the medium, Katz. Write a column about how digital culture is the great enabler -- not for democracy, but for 'mimisis' --- for representations of reality as they're filtered through our collective consciousnesses. It's Husserl's 'lifeworld' -- the idea that the medium is the intersection between our Being (Heidegger's 'Dasein?') and those things Outside-Being (the lifeworld -- the not-Being -- the not-Dasein))
Once everybody understands that, we can dispense with the assinine little 'IANAL' posts and get down to what really matters: it's not the music, it's not the DivX.avi's, it's not DeCSS -- but it's about the thing that enables all that good shit to be available.
Katz, are you listening? Do you read Slashdot? Write a column about this. This is the key issue. Technology Enablement in the New Age of Mimesis.
There. I've got your title for you. You'll win a goddamn Pulitzer if you can write that. That's what all this about it. Don't go talking to your snivelling technology experts or looking at 'applications' like Napster and CuteMx and whatever else you're studying: take a long, broad view and take a look at what the 'eurocentric' West has been talking about for centuries.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that when (and if) big corporations die, art (and culture) will die, too.
All this has nothing to with the artist. It's all about corporations getting as much money as they can.
Art will triumph. Corporations won't. Corporations fear Napster (or DeCSS or whatever) because it means the corporations are at peril. Art will never be at peril.
True, artists will have to find a way to be subsidized. But Mozart did okay. Haydn, too. Chaucer? Yep, Chaucer, too.
If anything erodes, it'll be the phoniness that corporations have substitued for 'art'.
I've always wondered this: what the value of thunder? And why do people so get pissed off then it's stolen?
I ask this seriously -- it isn't meant to be a troll.
I've always figured that the only people angry about having their thunder stolen are the egomaniacs -- people like Jobs, in other words -- people who use the information (the "thunder") more to boost their self-image than as an end in itself.
Who cares when the information gets out? The end is the information -- the new Apple box -- not the fact that Jobs needs to hear the 'oohs' and 'aaaaahs' from the press as he's making these announcements, right?
I mean, really, what is more important? The fact that Apple is introducing some interesting looking computers and can thereby flex their design and implementation muscles once more -- or the fact it's Steve Jobs up there at podium, whipping the silken cloth off these computers much in the same way a magician whisks the cloth off his beautiful assistant? (The assistant, in other words, isn't there to facilitate the trick in any real way -- she's more to make the magician look good. Although this begs the question, is it ever possible for a magician -- with the exception of Ricky Jay and his card tricks -- to actually look good? No magician is cool, although every single magician thinks they are cool. But I digress...)
I'm sure there are legal issues here -- information needs to be released at specific moments, and if it's released before -- if the thunder is stolen -- then, well, some heads will roll. (But again: why? I don't understand this.)
I'm also interested in the greco-roman mythology at work here (or Scandanavian) the fact that 'big announcements' are equated with 'thunder' -- the voice from above, the booming voice of authority -- and that this thunder -- this voice of authority -- can actually be stolen. Do those who have thunder stolen ever recover it?
Is it possible, say, for Jobs to sue the pants off MacInsider in an attempt to recover the stolen thunder? Or does thunder -- once it's stolen -- simply cease to be? (Meaning: it's thunder only once -- only at the moment when the announcement is made -- and once that moment has passed, it is no longer thunder.)
And why thunder? It's the mythology reference, I assume. But why not steal lightning instead?
I mean, hell, if I had the choice between stealing thunder or stealing lightning, I'd probably opt for lightning. There's a lot more power in a bolt of electricity from above than from a rip roaring crack from nowhere in particular.
Um, I think the idea is to highlight the inequities by focusing on what has (lately) become a 'stereotypical' inequity.
There's a measure of postmodern (postcolonial?) irony in attempting to do this by highlighting 'white guys' and pointing to the fact that they're probably 'rich' and 'fat.'
But the very verbal act of highlighting these particular traits seems to indicate that (a) the speaker him/herself is attempting to prove that he/she is 'enlightened' -- or at least aware of the inequities and is attempting to demonstrate this awareness by pinpointing the 'traditional inequities' or (b) the speaker him/herself is attempting to utilize this particular trope -- 'rich, fat white guys' -- to situated an ironic (postmodern) center from which future arguments can be posited.
I see evidence of (a) but don't yet see (b) in the particular text. (And (b), of course, has all sorts of problems. More about these below...)
The difficulty with this trope is the way in which it is employed and the purposes for which it is employed. If, for example, we knew the race or gender of the author of the text -- then how does the author's gender or race effect the usage of the trope in this context?
Can this trope be used effectively without any knowledge of the author's gender/class/race? If so, then it seems to beg the question: why highlight these particular features of the target you are referring to? What's the rhetorical purpose here? And how is that purpose informed by the author's own cultural (racial/gender/class) status?
And not only that -- but the doesn't the very verbal act of specifying race/gender/class in what appears to be an ironic context become itself as problematic as that to which it is referring to?
Contrary to what the author thinks, the trope in question is not actually decentering the traditional 'western' cultural matrix by highlighting inequities.
Is it not merely highlighting the very matrix it is attempting to subvert with its slick rhetoric of postmodern 'irony?'
(We could, at this point, turn to Kierkegaard for a good explanation of how the 'concept of irony' skirts beween the real and the ideal [Kierkegaard uses Socrates as an example -- views of Socrates by Plato, Xenophon, and Aristophanes] but we'll skip that for now.)
In the end, the troping seems pretty damn problematic and probably does not have the rhetorical effect that the author thinks it has.
Not only that -- and to make things pretty simple -- it's a tired stereotype whose time has come to be retired. It's even tired when used with ironic (postmodern) detachment. (The litmus test for a sterotype these days is whether it would pass the Letterman test [Letterman being the king of popular postmodern irony]. If Letterman says it and it bombs, then it's tired. If Letterman says it and it still gets a chuckle, then it probably has a few more miles left to it.)
This should be no surprise. My reading of the US Academy Awards is that they've always been a combination of an award for peer-recognition and a bow to the grand tradition that is "cinema."
The history of cinema, of course, is one of innovation, so, yeah it is a bit surprising (okay, I'll admit) that they don't recognize innovation.
But as usual there are a lot of politics here -- and probably Jack Valenti is involved somehow, too ("I can't recall that. No, sir. I can't recall. I can't seem to recall. Nope, don't know. Can't recall. I'm sorry, I can't recall.").
Last week I attended a meeting in Santa Barbra and ran into one of the dudes coding for this place.
One planned enhancement for the software is configurability for the amount of *exposed flesh* shown before the engine kicks in and blocks the image. The idea is to have 'sliders' -- client-side java applets, I'm told -- on a admin/config page which would allow for a specific percentage of (for example) nipple. Once the network identifies the presence of nipple, the position of the configuration sliders determine if this presence is, in fact, pornographic or not pornographic.
My question to the dude I met was how does the program quantify 'pornography' in the first place? If the neural networks are scanning for flesh, then they must have some sort of way to contextualize and quantify porn. (Since the 'I know porn when i see it' definition can't possibly work in a programmatic environment.)
His response was interesting: he claimed that while he couldn't explain exactly how it was accomplished, he mentioned that several state governments are looking to extrope's definitions of a 'porn' image in order to settle various state and local pornographic cases throughout the country.
He explained that it will possible to dump out the specific 'porn' settings -- set by the sliders on the config page -- and generate a long list of what, according to the admin, constitutes porn: 63.5% exposed nipple, more than 72% bare (suntanned but not pale) flesh, the absence of either a shirt or pants [but the presence of black {but but not white} underwear], the presence of various objects in the room in which the photograph was taken (a smoking cigarette in an ashtry, for example; or a bottle of Dewar's scotch that looks as though it could have been inbibed by the photographic subject; one black high heeled pump turned on its side, pointing away from the camera but [an important distinction] *toward* the bed), and so on.
The difficulty, I was told, was derving an algorithm robust enough to exploit the neural networks but not tax it to its limit. (The employee was telling me that just a few hours ago successfully implemented the algorithm if the clothing on the subject in question was purchased from JC Penney's or from Victoria Secret.
"It was tough," he explained. "Victoria's Secret uses significantly smaller weaves in their nylon undergarments (hence the higher price for lingerie from VC as opposed to JC Penney's). Try getting a program to recognize a bra from VC, and you've got the holy grail of censorware!"
Re:Diversion from the main task/ counterproductive
on
Terminus Demo Released
·
· Score: 1
No, it wasn't -- are you so bruised by mass culture that you're incapable of taking anything at face value?
Sarcastic readings have nothing to do with being 'bruised by mass culture.' Now, if you're talking about 'misreadings' in the Harold Bloom sense ('A Map of Misreading', 'The Anxiety of Influence,' etc.) then, yes, I admit to misreading my predecessors in order to derive a space for my own artistic creations. It's an oedipal thing, according to Bloom, and, sure, it's quite possible that the matrix of mass culture somehow subverted my reading of your 'text'. But I don't think this is what you meant.
- A core gaming community is an important foundation for any OS. - The lack of one doesn't seem to have done Unix any harm.
Your second sentence is a non-sequitur. Nowhere -- implicitly or explicitly -- did I state that core gaming community was a necessity. I merely stated that it was important. You're right: but so what? That wasn't my (brief) point. It doesn't follow. What are you refuting?
- Early Apple made the mistake of ignoring games in favor of "productivity apps". - Apple survives to this day as an extremely profitable company; what's your point?
My point is this: why alienate gamers? As much as you (or I) may hate games, they still serve adefinite purpose among computer users. You may devalue their importance -- or even marginalize their importance or purpose -- but why should linux evangelizers pretend that they don't exist? (Much in the same way that Apple did over a decade ago). Obviously, Linux users want games... so why make the big show of feathers and pretend that they're useless? Says who? You? Okay, games are useless. Fair enough. So what? Hey, shhhh, don't tell the boss?
-There is absolutely *no* "damage" that an OS can suffer if its core community promotes and evangelizes games. -Killed off the Amiga, I seem to recall
Piracy killed off the Amiga. Games did not.
- Dude, if you work in place where the mere existence of games threatens acceptance of the OS, then it's time to get a new f*$king job. - I don't like computer games. I don't think that corporate computers should have computer games. Unlike you, I don't think that there is any "right" to install games on somebody else's property.
Where did I state -- implicitly or explicitly -- that I think that users have a "right" to install games on "someone else's property"?
Re:Diversion from the main task/ counterproductive
on
Terminus Demo Released
·
· Score: 1
I assume this is meant to be sarcastic and should be read as such.
A core gaming community is an important foundation for any OS.
Early Apple made the mistake of ignoring games in favor of "productivity apps".
There is absolutely *no* "damage" that an OS can suffer if its core community promotes and evangelizes games.
Dude, if you work in place where the mere existence of games threatens acceptance of the OS, then it's time to get a new f*$king job.
This is all well and good -- and is a remarkably lucid description of the internet.
But you misunderstand, I think, the RIAA's central contention. They are not, contrary to what's implied your article, attempting to "shut down the network."
Nor are they attempting any control over the internet per se.
What are they doing is this: attempting to control the distribution of recordings on the internet.
Attempting to control the internet and attempting to control the distribution of recordings are, in fact, two completely seperate ideas.
You're absolutely right: there is no centralized control of the internet and so any attempts to discover a 'center' and eradicate it are fruitless. There are many centers -- and centers are themselves decentered around other centers -- so any effort in this direction would be misguided.
However, as much as I despise the draconian 'bulldoze mentality' of the RIAA, they do, in fact, have a legal right to attempt to quell what they perceive to be rampant illegal distribution of their so-called 'intellectual property.'
Now, yesterday I posted several rants about the validity of 'intellectual property' and whether or not it's even theoretically possible to commodify something like 'intellectual property' -- so I would won't repeat that stuff here.
But the real interesting point of all this will be how the judge -- or the 'judges' -- handles the delicate issue of controlling the 'illegal' distribution of recordings on a decentered network. I haven't given this too much thought -- but my first impulse is that, well, someone -- maybe the RIAA or maybe the judge -- is going to have to think long and hard about the notions of 'control.'
What, exactly, does it mean to 'control' a commodity on a network that itself cannot be controlled?
Is it possible, in fact, to 'lose control' of something you never had control of in the first place? Or, to put it another way, prior to the internet, what did 'control' mean? Did it mean being able to manipulate the distribution channels? Did it mean being able to manipualte the record buying public into perceiving that everything was 'under control?' Did it mean manipulating the artists?
The point that everyone seems to be missing here -- the RIAA especially -- is that we're talking about taking draconian measures to control access to art. Or, to put it another way: no one here is actually talking about "art"; instead everyone is talking about controlling the access to the art.
And it's utterly absurd.
Think about it: do we really need retinal scans and fingerprint scanners or biometric typing tutors to... er... listen to MP3s? Or even to watch "Big Daddy?"
All of these "copy control measures" are in place solely to *guarantee* the flow of profits not to the artists but to the corporations that contract the artist.
I mentioned this in today's Napster story, but -- and come on, where is Katz when we need him? -- no one is talking about what's really going on here: the fact that 'intellectual property' as the studios would have us believe it is dying a slow, expensive death.
And, if that wasn't enough, all this should start people thinking about the notions of 'intellectual property' in the first place.
Come on, Katz, for chrissake: write one of your grand editorials about this -- about how technology is (finally) questioning the very notions of "property" -- and what it is that makes this a so-called "property" in the first place.
What we're witnessing with all this biometric nonsense and CSS absurdity is the very loud gasps of corporations attempting to stay afload on yesterday's notions of 'property' and 'profit.'
This, finally, may be the single most important contribution of the internet: the paradigm shifting notion that yesterday's 'intellectual property' cannot survive in an age where 'democracy' plays itself out not in parchment 'constitutions' or 'declarations' but across fiber optic cables and digital switches.
'Property' has always depended as much on the presence of an object as much as its absence. Property has value when, say, you have a Lexus and you know that not everyone else does. This makes your Lexus valuable in the marketplace. Everyone *could* have a Lexus, sure, but not every one does. Everyone *could* own a house, but not everyone does.
But what happens when you realize that your highly prized commodity (as determined by an artificially designed marketplace) suddenly loses its intrinsic value?
Short of the specific things we need for survival -- food, shelter, sex -- the value of everything else is artificially assigned by the culture in which it is commodified.
You go ape shit and attempt to preserve its value. But the question is this: for whom is this value being preserved for? And, more importantly, why? Are you preserving its value because without value the object will disappear? Well, this is what Jack Valenti will have us believe. If there is no copy protection for the next Brad Pitt movie, there will be no Brad Pitt movies. (Now, if this means that there will be no more absurd films like 'Fight Club', I'd be delighted. But Valenti would have us believe that even another 'Seven' -- a brilliant film -- would never get made, which would, indeed, be a shame.)
Of course, this is bullshit. Art won't stop if suddenly there are no more corporations to exploit it. All that will happen is that a lot of the dead weight will be jettisoned.
My point is that the link between 'art' and its earning potential for corporations is an artificial link. Art will always exist -- and art will continue to exist, even when it loses its status a 'property' by the corporations that use it to make money.
Re:Understanding what Napster is
on
Napster Wars
·
· Score: 1
Okay, so, um, lessee: the RIAA wants to force Napster to block MP3s with 'Metallica' in their title?
It won't take too long to figure out how to circumvent that, eh?
Or is the RIAA seeking to have Napster's search function hobbled? A search for 'Metallica' won't turn up any files?
The RIAA is looking to compile a dictionary of kinds of forbidden searches? You can search for 'Mtllica' but you can't search for 'Metallica?' You can search for 'Sprngstn' but you can't search for 'Springsteen?'
How about that one? You think that's gonna work? That throws a healthy dose of anarchy into Napster's searches, but, ya know, those little hacker shits are pretty smart. Won't take too long to figure that one out either.
I must say, though, that I'm very surprised that the RIAA keeps pursuing this. There *must* be some backroom talks going on. This is only the 'public' side of things.
I'll bet Hillary R. is privately being advised that she better start thinking of ways to exploit stuff like Napster and Gnutella. Heck, I can't believe all the RIAA people are so stupid as to believe that lawsuits will stem the tide. The legal wrangling buys time -- but in the meantime, I'd be very surprised if there wasn't a helluva lot of private wrangling going on with various music startups -- the "join forces" mentality.
Re:Artists with their own record labels
on
Napster Wars
·
· Score: 1
I've said this before: short previews suck.
That's not what the internet is about. That's not how digital distribution should be used. The "preview" mentality is the RIAA mentality: "Okay, you thieving shits, we'll use the goddamn internet, but we're gonna use it to tease you. We're not gonna exploit it. We'll give you 30 seconds of a song in order to *make you buy the CD*."
Well, screw that. I don't want to buy the CD. I'll pay for the download if it's reasonable -- or, yeah, okay: I'll buy the CD if it's reasonably priced: 8.99 to 10.99 -- but I'll be goddammed if I'll buy into the RIAA's "preview" mindgame and succomb to their marketing tactics. The only reason they're giving the "preview" is to manipulate you into buying their full-priced CD.
The "preview" isn't a value-add -- it doesn't enhance the 'art' or make available more of the 'art'. The "preview" only points back to the problem -- even though the RIAA takes great pains to disguise the "preview" as a new way of viewing the 'art.'
All art is to some extent manipulated by the way middlemen/middlewomen decide to commodify it. Intellectual property has nothing to do with 'art.' How come nobody is talking about this?
How come nobody is saying, look: intellectual property is just another phrase for 'leveraging corporate profits?' How come nobody is questioning the link between artistic creation and 'property?'
For chrissake: how come no one is writing editorials about the very idea of 'intellectual property' in the first place? Valenti goes on and on about how crazy our culture will become if 'property' suddenly loses its status as a commodity. How come no one is talking about the relation of 'property' to the artist?
Just who owns this property anyway? And how is it possible to own art in the first place? And once ownership is established, just what, exactly, does that mean?
Taking news for truth is obviously a logical fallacy. Any thought regarding the method in which information is gathered and disseminated, including analysis of corporate hierarchy and business model will make this clear. This is the main reason for the proliferation of "media studies" in middle and secondary schools (not that it's taught right or has any lasting effect).
It might be a logical fallacy, but that has nothing to do with reality. We can can "logicize" our interpretations, and our interpretations of our interpretations, but the corporate god-mentality is predicated on our most primal emotions -- the ability to be persuaded by 'falsity' masking itself as 'truth' -- and not upon our critical intellects.
I mean, what is truth but a corporate tag-line repeated enough so that we cease to interpret it critically and accept its spin? Microsoft really believes that it innovates. Intel really believes that if we put hide the macintoshes on campus, we'll actually believe that there are no macintoshes -- only Intel machines.
As for "media analysis" -- yeah, I'd love to see us all grow up in a more "critically aware" culture. Everybody hates critics. It's fashionable among, say, the movie-going public to bash Roger Ebert. I mean, who needs critics, right? All they do is just complicate things. (Students are fond of taking this tack: why can't the critics just enjoy it? I mean, why does everything have to be so dissected?)
Why? Well, I'll tell you why: precisely because the corporations -- and even the journalists -- *want* us to take the news as truth. They want us to believe in the singularity of textual interpretations. They *don't* want us to think critically. They don't want people to realize that all interpretation is subjective and that 'meaning' really is indeterminate and open to a multiplicity of interpretations.
They want us to really believe that if we just hide the macintoshes in our computer rooms that the macs will then no longer *be*. Out of sight, out of mind. Get rid of the ontological problems by eradicating those things which could possibly contribute to the formulation of the problem in the first place.
Corporations want us to abandon critical thinking and give ourselves over to the money machines. It's what Eisner is talking about when he threatens to withhold Snow White from distributors. If you can't guarantee that no one will copy my DVD, I'll just withhold it. I'll keep it. It has nothing to do with art. Eisner's plea to the government for massive government intervention in the area of digital copyrights has nothing to do with intellectual property per se -- but everything to do with corporate profit.
There's nothing inherently wrong with that -- it's part of the deal -- it's part of the culture in which we live. But corporations want us to think otherwise.
I think new writing has stayed pretty much the same: which is to say, it has remained clear, simple, but generally uninspired.
Of course, 'inspired' news writing is not the point; after all, isn't news writing -- at least in the big news dailies -- targeted at, say, a 7th grade reading level?
I might agree with you if you say the *analysis* has slipped over the years -- but even that's hard to judge since 'analysis' is such a slippery word in the first place.
And, of course, it's entirely possible that 'bad analysis' may actually mean 'good analysis of a simple subject.'
Regardless, I think this whole issue comes down to the notion of trust. Newspapers and news magazines have an enormous amount of hubris when it comes to things like 'journalistic integrity' and 'trust'. "You can trust us, because, well, we've been around for 156 years. I mean, for chrissake, how long has *eNews* been around?'
The editors and news writers of print rags steadfastly maintain that they're doing it the way it has always been done -- and the way it should be done -- and that's why you can *trust* us. You can't say the same for MSNBC.com or CNN.com -- or can you?
Last night I watched 'Network.' An amazing film -- made even more amazing by the fact it's over 24 years old. (Substitute 'Microsoft' or 'Intel' for every time the Howard Beal character rages on about 'IBM' or 'Exxon', for example.)
It seemed that Network was touching on this same issue: the idea of trust eroded by the corporate machinations of ever-changing culture. What's the role of 'network' news in an era when Dan Rather has been, for the most part, made irrelevent? (Answer: there is no role for the network pawns except little drones designed to exact profit from you and me. For chrissake: why is it that 'Dan Rather' and 'Peter Jenkins' demand such respect? They're talking heads, that's all -- yet a significant portion of the American public (not to mention these guys themselves) consider these heads erudite authorities on everything from WWII vets to cultural trends. What, they sit on a chair and read the news with a deep, sombre voice and they're some sort of intellectual elite?)
I mean, I can remember watching Walter Cronkite sitting behind his anchorman's desk and report each night about Vietnam -- and I can remember the sense that, well, I could 'trust' Cronkite. "That's the way it is," he'd always say, and I believed him.
And I think that's the same angle that newspapers will continue to follow: you may have access to faster news, more up-to-the-minute news, but our news is news you can trust. You can set your clocks to it, goddammit, because we're a bunch of old white guys in suits and we're telling it the way it is. And, boy oh boy, you better believe the corporations are breathing down our necks -- but we've got integriry and we know journalism like no one else knows journalism -- so don't go telling *us* about conflicts of interest because, we're keeping the corporations in check so we can keep our ethics intact.
This, of course, is bullshit. It was bullshit in 'Network' ("I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it!") and it's bullshit today: there is no trust. There are no 'journalistic ethics'. There is only god, spin, and Microsoft. And not necessarily in that order. (And if it was up to Microsoft, they'd patent god and copyright the bible.)
All this talk about the death of intellectual property is such bullshit. Artists won't stop making art because the business model has shifted. If anything, this'll sift out some of the 'bad' art from the 'better' art. Record labels might be forced to jettison some dead weight. I don't have a problem with that because artists -- good artists, I mean -- are savvy. Art will triumph over business.
But here's what the death of 'intellectual property' really means: it means the death of the stranglehold of corporate America on ordinary Americans. It means what it has always meant: that the internet is the great equalizer and that if you're gonna compete with this equalizer, you gotta be smart -- not just daddy's little son/daughter who got the suit job because daddy had a fit of nepotism (or generosity) one day and decided to let you in on the secret of America: that corporations are god and that if you're one of the chosen -- one of the old, white, pin-stripe-wearing, wingtip "Hey mister, shine my shoes will ya? I gotta get to work!" wearing, going off to the Hamptons for the weekend, name-dropping, Lexus SUV driving, cell phone jabbering, illiterate, yes, but I really want to become literate, I just don't have the time talking -- fuckers who think life is a thing to be lived once you've made your third million and able to order whatever the fuck it is you want from the Williams Sonoma catalog even those 4000 dollar outdoor grill with built-in plumbing -- then you are one sorry heap of shit.
Forget about the quality of newswriting mister, because in the end, it's these guys that could care less. They just wanna leverage their minimal education, makes their money, and then takes their spoils. They wanna leave everybody else like smoking heaps in their wake.
Since texts have a multiplicity of interpretations -- semiotics, the sign/signified stuff -- then I'd advocate a more rigorous reading method on the part of the reader rather than a more critical posting method on the part of the poster.
It's up to the reader to determine what is and what isn't sarcastic. The reader must make that determination. I mean, what if, for example I say [sarcasm]I'm six feet tall[/sarcasm].
What exactly does this mean? Does it mean I'm actually four feet tall? Does it mean I'm six feet tall and I'm tired of people saying I'm five foot nine inches?
What's the context?
Let's face, if you're reading slashdot non-critically -- if you are, for example, a 'literal' reader -- then you're gonna get fooled by the presence of the [SARCASM][/SARCASM] tags, as well as their absence.
While I appreciate the the rants against displaying logos, it's interesting to think about how "logos" -- corporate or religious -- help us form our own identities.
Let's face it: Christianity itself is one of the more icon-centric "corporations" around. (I say "corporation" because I don't know how else to describe it. It's a religion, yes, -- and one, of course, with deep, deep, spiritual roots -- but its grasp on the human psyche and consciousness is as powerful and pervasive as Microsoft, IBM, or Sun. My own last foray into a 'Christian' church two weeks ago [for a baptism] struck me in the same way a visit to any corporate headquarters might strike me: the faithful must go all out -- pull out all the stops -- to make sure the unfamiliar [folks like myself] are persuaded that theirs is a culture to hold high above all others. This is itself is interesting -- the corporatizing culture of contemporary religion -- but that's another argument for another Slashdot story. Perhaps our own eager college freshman, 5-paragraph, essayist and cultural critic, JonKatz, might care to pick it up?)
Anyway, the logo. The icon. Logos and Christianity. Logos and corporations. The important thing (IMHO) to keep in mind about logos is their iconographic power to assist in molding our own private selves.
We slap on that little RedHat decal or the Debian bumpersticker because not only do we endorse the product itself, but we are also attempting to carve out (what seems to be) a much more difficult "space" in our consciousnesses: we're attempting not only to promote the product for others, but we're either affirming for the first time or reaffirming what that product *means* within ourselves.
It's a unique act of self-identification -- and subsequent self-awareness, perhaps -- that we undertake in order to (a) define ourselves and (b) define our own unique place in the world around us.
What's dangerous, of course, is that just as the logos we choose have the power to define our conscious selves, the logos we don't choose (probably) have that same power to inform our unconscious selves. (Assuming, for the moment, that choice is a conscious act.)
It's for this reason that a religion like Christianity is so driven by the image: an image (placed properly or improperly) has remarkable formative powers. I make no judgments on this one way or the other -- the power of icon-driven religions -- but only mean to identify this instance as a means to support my ideas of the power of the logo.
But I also acknowledge the important of logos -- of the image -- and how it affirms and directs and constructs our own identities. As much as we're driven by words and speech, we're also driven by the image. It's interesting (to me, at least) to think how inseperable the image is from the word and even speech itself.
Modernity (post-modernity) has managed to conflict the written word, the spoken word, and the image into one 'thing.' (That thing is maybe "culture"? I don't know).
Yeah maybe, it's the new coat-of-arms for our culture. And if that's true -- if the image over the thousands of years that it has remained a potent force is really inseperable from other 'acts of consciousness' -- speech, writing -- then think of its *political* implications. If you're a good little Marxist and perhaps believe (like Frerick Jameson) that culture is inseperable from the "political unsconscious" that informs every conscious act -- especially artistic acts like writing a novel, writing a screenplay, or coding an application -- the logo informs a large part of this unconscious.
It has a remarkable power to *define* -- define ourselves, our choices, and the world around us.
Slashdot Mirror
I dunno. But after 23+ years of living with Star Wars, you'd think Lucas could come up with something a little less obvious and a little more inspiring.
...
Me, I thought "Balance of the Force" was a great title but, no, that got nixed
Actually, one of the most interesting sentences of the article is this: "[The NeXT box] can also record with the fidelity of a compact disc."
It's interesting, of course, in light of Napster -- and in light of the RIAA's utter lack of foresight.
It's hard to be a prophet -- but you can't help look back on articles like this and feel ominous rumblings of things to come.
It also points to the RIAA's astonishing hubris. The sense of "Well, we're the goddamn RIAA. We don't have time to think about the future and protect our assets. NeXT? Fidelity of a compact disc? What the fuck are you talking about?"
Just out of curiosity: how can a one-time post of the Bill of Rights be a 'troll?'
Isn't the Bill of Rights what this 'carnivore' crap is all about?
And why in the world -- aside from the carnivore crap -- would posting a Bill of Rights (in the proper context) be a 'troll?'
Is a troll because no collateral information is attached? Because the author didn't write something like: "That's the Bill of Rights. That's what this carnivore crap is all about."
The preceding message should be moderated up because had sense enough *not* to attach any collateral info. The Bill of Rights (in this context, at least) pretty much speaks for itself.
You're a contextualizer, aren't you? You have a real inability to deal with any content that's not properly contextualized.
In the case of Slashdot, you probably need a context for all postings, right? You need to have the context properly defined -- and linked precisely to the message it refers to -- or, as far as your concerned, it's a troll.
Do you even understand what a 'troll' is?
Is this message a troll?
Not only that, but this, too:
... why must it be forgotten the first place? I mean, why not *consider* the pink elephant? And why not *not* ignore the request to ignore the pink elephant?
Asking for attention to be stopped merely draws attention. I say this not as a troll, but to prove a point: that for attention to be stopped, all parties involved -- or at least the party wanting attention to be dropped -- must be proactive and actually *refrain from commenting*
Silence may be a virtue, but it's virtually impossible in this so-called "information age." Why? Because keeping one's mouth shut, hands down, is one of the more difficult things to do in this world. (Of course, Slashdot actively encourages you to open your mouth -- metaphorically -- so the fact that someone is actually posting on Slashdot and asking *not to draw attention to something* makes absolutely no sense at all.)
It is, of course, like asking you to forget about the pink elephant. But when people say that: "It is, of course, like asking you to forget about the pink elephant." Then I have to wonder: forget about forgetting about the pink elephant
What is it about silence that is so powerful? And why is it that advocates of silence (who are, in fact, far from silent) so certain that non-silence is so dangerous? Isn't silence, in fact, more 'dangerous' than non-silence?
And in the case of drawing attention to something: isn't silence, in fact, a more powerful weapon for drawing attention? Why do the advocates of 'not drawing attention to something' not stop and think that their most powerful weapon is exactly the thing they are negating when they attempt to implement their most powerful weapon?
I've got 39 CDs worth of music. My plan to get a 50-75 gigger tomorrow at buy.com and put my whole collection on line from now until whenever.
Two words for the RIAA:
FUCK YOU, YOU FUCKING RECORDING INDUSTRY MAFIA.
(okay that's more than two words...)
Big money has little savvy.
.avi's, it's not DeCSS -- but it's about the thing that enables all that good shit to be available.
Really. That's absolutely true. The more money you have, the less savvy you have.
Don't get me wrong. Big money folks -- individuals and corporations alike -- are smart. But smarts aren't what I'm talking about here.
'Savvy' is something that's earned -- something that takes a significant amount of time to acquire.
What I see in all these 'music wars' is an absolute lack of savvy on the part of the big money RIAA.
Yeah, they got the big bucks. And, yeah, they got the big money lawyers who can stand in a courtroom and be heard -- but I have to wonder if the execs that are driving this thing -- the Porsche driving, weekend-in-the-Hamptons, "Bri, did you see the way Sony dropped 3 points last week?", "Gotta have my cell phone. Where's my cell phone? For fuck's sake, Lois, where the fuck did you put my cell phone?", Armani wearing, frat-boy laughing, lite beer drinking, Gucci shoe and matching sock wearing exectives -- if the execs driving this thing have any 'savvy' at all.
Maybe savvy is the same thing as 'moxy?' I don't know. But whatever it is -- moxy, savvy -- it's lacking.
Fanning isn't lacking it, Boies isn't lacking it, and, truth be told, the judge ain't lacking it either: she seems like one iron-clad, dammit it's all common sense, black robe wearing, "Counsel, can you get the point?", finger waving member of the judiciary.
And that's fine. I don't fault the judge. I fault the RIAA for their brute-force, savvy-less attacks on technology.
The issue isn't about Napster. It's not even about music per se. It's about how music is represented in a modern age. It's all about the medium, baby. That's the message.
If you honestly think the problem is Lars and Metallica and their shrill little whiny voices, then you've completely misunderstood the message here. Lars can go rip his shirt off, droop his tongue, and bang the fuck out of his drums for all I care. The little sweaty weasel. But he's right about one thing: it's not about money. It's about control. Who controls the media? And who controls the access to the media? Because why is that important, class? Because who controls the 'media' isn't controlling the *thing* -- the music, the video -- they are controlling the 'medium'.
That's right. And that's fucking scary. Think about it.
It's all McLuhan, all the way. Medium, baby. That's what this means.
Napster is dead. It sucks, but get over it. Napster may be the martyr for the second coming of the New Age of Mimesis. (Katz, are you reading this? Are you here? Anybody home? Read Auerbach's Mimesis. That's my advice to you, pal. You're a smart guy. You got the two loving canines drooling at your feet as you write your columns. For fuck's sake, stop looking at technology so closely. It's not about the thing itself -- it's about the The Thing that Enables the Thing. It's the medium, Katz. Write a column about how digital culture is the great enabler -- not for democracy, but for 'mimisis' --- for representations of reality as they're filtered through our collective consciousnesses. It's Husserl's 'lifeworld' -- the idea that the medium is the intersection between our Being (Heidegger's 'Dasein?') and those things Outside-Being (the lifeworld -- the not-Being -- the not-Dasein))
Once everybody understands that, we can dispense with the assinine little 'IANAL' posts and get down to what really matters: it's not the music, it's not the DivX
Katz, are you listening? Do you read Slashdot? Write a column about this. This is the key issue. Technology Enablement in the New Age of Mimesis.
There. I've got your title for you. You'll win a goddamn Pulitzer if you can write that. That's what all this about it. Don't go talking to your snivelling technology experts or looking at 'applications' like Napster and CuteMx and whatever else you're studying: take a long, broad view and take a look at what the 'eurocentric' West has been talking about for centuries.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that when (and if) big corporations die, art (and culture) will die, too.
All this has nothing to with the artist. It's all about corporations getting as much money as they can.
Art will triumph. Corporations won't. Corporations fear Napster (or DeCSS or whatever) because it means the corporations are at peril. Art will never be at peril.
True, artists will have to find a way to be subsidized. But Mozart did okay. Haydn, too. Chaucer? Yep, Chaucer, too.
If anything erodes, it'll be the phoniness that corporations have substitued for 'art'.
Brittney Spears? N'Sync? Backstreet Boys?
Buh-bye.
I've always wondered this: what the value of thunder? And why do people so get pissed off then it's stolen?
I ask this seriously -- it isn't meant to be a troll.
I've always figured that the only people angry about having their thunder stolen are the egomaniacs -- people like Jobs, in other words -- people who use the information (the "thunder") more to boost their self-image than as an end in itself.
Who cares when the information gets out? The end is the information -- the new Apple box -- not the fact that Jobs needs to hear the 'oohs' and 'aaaaahs' from the press as he's making these announcements, right?
I mean, really, what is more important? The fact that Apple is introducing some interesting looking computers and can thereby flex their design and implementation muscles once more -- or the fact it's Steve Jobs up there at podium, whipping the silken cloth off these computers much in the same way a magician whisks the cloth off his beautiful assistant? (The assistant, in other words, isn't there to facilitate the trick in any real way -- she's more to make the magician look good. Although this begs the question, is it ever possible for a magician -- with the exception of Ricky Jay and his card tricks -- to actually look good? No magician is cool, although every single magician thinks they are cool. But I digress...)
I'm sure there are legal issues here -- information needs to be released at specific moments, and if it's released before -- if the thunder is stolen -- then, well, some heads will roll. (But again: why? I don't understand this.)
I'm also interested in the greco-roman mythology at work here (or Scandanavian) the fact that 'big announcements' are equated with 'thunder' -- the voice from above, the booming voice of authority -- and that this thunder -- this voice of authority -- can actually be stolen. Do those who have thunder stolen ever recover it?
Is it possible, say, for Jobs to sue the pants off MacInsider in an attempt to recover the stolen thunder? Or does thunder -- once it's stolen -- simply cease to be? (Meaning: it's thunder only once -- only at the moment when the announcement is made -- and once that moment has passed, it is no longer thunder.)
And why thunder? It's the mythology reference, I assume. But why not steal lightning instead?
I mean, hell, if I had the choice between stealing thunder or stealing lightning, I'd probably opt for lightning. There's a lot more power in a bolt of electricity from above than from a rip roaring crack from nowhere in particular.
Is it possible to fart online?
Move on.
You don't say.
Hmmmm.
My own take on pomo ironic detachment.
Heh. (Irony is swell.)
Um, I think the idea is to highlight the inequities by focusing on what has (lately) become a 'stereotypical' inequity.
...)
There's a measure of postmodern (postcolonial?) irony in attempting to do this by highlighting 'white guys' and pointing to the fact that they're probably 'rich' and 'fat.'
But the very verbal act of highlighting these particular traits seems to indicate that (a) the speaker him/herself is attempting to prove that he/she is 'enlightened' -- or at least aware of the inequities and is attempting to demonstrate this awareness by pinpointing the 'traditional inequities' or (b) the speaker him/herself is attempting to utilize this particular trope -- 'rich, fat white guys' -- to situated an ironic (postmodern) center from which future arguments can be posited.
I see evidence of (a) but don't yet see (b) in the particular text. (And (b), of course, has all sorts of problems. More about these below
The difficulty with this trope is the way in which it is employed and the purposes for which it is employed. If, for example, we knew the race or gender of the author of the text -- then how does the author's gender or race effect the usage of the trope in this context?
Can this trope be used effectively without any knowledge of the author's gender/class/race? If so, then it seems to beg the question: why highlight these particular features of the target you are referring to? What's the rhetorical purpose here? And how is that purpose informed by the author's own cultural (racial/gender/class) status?
And not only that -- but the doesn't the very verbal act of specifying race/gender/class in what appears to be an ironic context become itself as problematic as that to which it is referring to?
Contrary to what the author thinks, the trope in question is not actually decentering the traditional 'western' cultural matrix by highlighting inequities.
Is it not merely highlighting the very matrix it is attempting to subvert with its slick rhetoric of postmodern 'irony?'
(We could, at this point, turn to Kierkegaard for a good explanation of how the 'concept of irony' skirts beween the real and the ideal [Kierkegaard uses Socrates as an example -- views of Socrates by Plato, Xenophon, and Aristophanes] but we'll skip that for now.)
In the end, the troping seems pretty damn problematic and probably does not have the rhetorical effect that the author thinks it has.
Not only that -- and to make things pretty simple -- it's a tired stereotype whose time has come to be retired. It's even tired when used with ironic (postmodern) detachment. (The litmus test for a sterotype these days is whether it would pass the Letterman test [Letterman being the king of popular postmodern irony]. If Letterman says it and it bombs, then it's tired. If Letterman says it and it still gets a chuckle, then it probably has a few more miles left to it.)
This should be no surprise. My reading of the US Academy Awards is that they've always been a combination of an award for peer-recognition and a bow to the grand tradition that is "cinema."
The history of cinema, of course, is one of innovation, so, yeah it is a bit surprising (okay, I'll admit) that they don't recognize innovation.
But as usual there are a lot of politics here -- and probably Jack Valenti is involved somehow, too ("I can't recall that. No, sir. I can't recall. I can't seem to recall. Nope, don't know. Can't recall. I'm sorry, I can't recall.").
Last week I attended a meeting in Santa Barbra and ran into one of the dudes coding for this place.
One planned enhancement for the software is configurability for the amount of *exposed flesh* shown before the engine kicks in and blocks the image. The idea is to have 'sliders' -- client-side java applets, I'm told -- on a admin/config page which would allow for a specific percentage of (for example) nipple. Once the network identifies the presence of nipple, the position of the configuration sliders determine if this presence is, in fact, pornographic or not pornographic.
My question to the dude I met was how does the program quantify 'pornography' in the first place? If the neural networks are scanning for flesh, then they must have some sort of way to contextualize and quantify porn. (Since the 'I know porn when i see it' definition can't possibly work in a programmatic environment.)
His response was interesting: he claimed that while he couldn't explain exactly how it was accomplished, he mentioned that several state governments are looking to extrope's definitions of a 'porn' image in order to settle various state and local pornographic cases throughout the country.
He explained that it will possible to dump out the specific 'porn' settings -- set by the sliders on the config page -- and generate a long list of what, according to the admin, constitutes porn: 63.5% exposed nipple, more than 72% bare (suntanned but not pale) flesh, the absence of either a shirt or pants [but the presence of black {but but not white} underwear], the presence of various objects in the room in which the photograph was taken (a smoking cigarette in an ashtry, for example; or a bottle of Dewar's scotch that looks as though it could have been inbibed by the photographic subject; one black high heeled pump turned on its side, pointing away from the camera but [an important distinction] *toward* the bed), and so on.
The difficulty, I was told, was derving an algorithm robust enough to exploit the neural networks but not tax it to its limit. (The employee was telling me that just a few hours ago successfully implemented the algorithm if the clothing on the subject in question was purchased from JC Penney's or from Victoria Secret.
"It was tough," he explained. "Victoria's Secret uses significantly smaller weaves in their nylon undergarments (hence the higher price for lingerie from VC as opposed to JC Penney's). Try getting a program to recognize a bra from VC, and you've got the holy grail of censorware!"
Sarcastic readings have nothing to do with being 'bruised by mass culture.' Now, if you're talking about 'misreadings' in the Harold Bloom sense ('A Map of Misreading', 'The Anxiety of Influence,' etc.) then, yes, I admit to misreading my predecessors in order to derive a space for my own artistic creations. It's an oedipal thing, according to Bloom, and, sure, it's quite possible that the matrix of mass culture somehow subverted my reading of your 'text'. But I don't think this is what you meant.
- A core gaming community is an important foundation for any OS.
- The lack of one doesn't seem to have done Unix any harm.
Your second sentence is a non-sequitur. Nowhere -- implicitly or explicitly -- did I state that core gaming community was a necessity. I merely stated that it was important. You're right: but so what? That wasn't my (brief) point. It doesn't follow. What are you refuting?
- Early Apple made the mistake of ignoring games in favor of "productivity apps".
- Apple survives to this day as an extremely profitable company; what's your point?
My point is this: why alienate gamers? As much as you (or I) may hate games, they still serve adefinite purpose among computer users. You may devalue their importance -- or even marginalize their importance or purpose -- but why should linux evangelizers pretend that they don't exist? (Much in the same way that Apple did over a decade ago). Obviously, Linux users want games ... so why make the big show of feathers and pretend that they're useless? Says who? You? Okay, games are useless. Fair enough. So what? Hey, shhhh, don't tell the boss?
-There is absolutely *no* "damage" that an OS can suffer if its core community promotes and evangelizes games.
-Killed off the Amiga, I seem to recall
Piracy killed off the Amiga. Games did not.
- Dude, if you work in place where the mere existence of games threatens acceptance of the OS, then it's time to get a new f*$king job.
- I don't like computer games. I don't think that corporate computers should have computer games. Unlike you, I don't think that there is any "right" to install games on somebody else's property.
Where did I state -- implicitly or explicitly -- that I think that users have a "right" to install games on "someone else's property"?
I assume this is meant to be sarcastic and should be read as such.
A core gaming community is an important foundation for any OS.
Early Apple made the mistake of ignoring games in favor of "productivity apps".
There is absolutely *no* "damage" that an OS can suffer if its core community promotes and evangelizes games.
Dude, if you work in place where the mere existence of games threatens acceptance of the OS, then it's time to get a new f*$king job.
This is all well and good -- and is a remarkably lucid description of the internet.
But you misunderstand, I think, the RIAA's central contention. They are not, contrary to what's implied your article, attempting to "shut down the network."
Nor are they attempting any control over the internet per se.
What are they doing is this: attempting to control the distribution of recordings on the internet.
Attempting to control the internet and attempting to control the distribution of recordings are, in fact, two completely seperate ideas.
You're absolutely right: there is no centralized control of the internet and so any attempts to discover a 'center' and eradicate it are fruitless. There are many centers -- and centers are themselves decentered around other centers -- so any effort in this direction would be misguided.
However, as much as I despise the draconian 'bulldoze mentality' of the RIAA, they do, in fact, have a legal right to attempt to quell what they perceive to be rampant illegal distribution of their so-called 'intellectual property.'
Now, yesterday I posted several rants about the validity of 'intellectual property' and whether or not it's even theoretically possible to commodify something like 'intellectual property' -- so I would won't repeat that stuff here.
But the real interesting point of all this will be how the judge -- or the 'judges' -- handles the delicate issue of controlling the 'illegal' distribution of recordings on a decentered network. I haven't given this too much thought -- but my first impulse is that, well, someone -- maybe the RIAA or maybe the judge -- is going to have to think long and hard about the notions of 'control.'
What, exactly, does it mean to 'control' a commodity on a network that itself cannot be controlled?
Is it possible, in fact, to 'lose control' of something you never had control of in the first place? Or, to put it another way, prior to the internet, what did 'control' mean? Did it mean being able to manipulate the distribution channels? Did it mean being able to manipualte the record buying public into perceiving that everything was 'under control?' Did it mean manipulating the artists?
The point that everyone seems to be missing here -- the RIAA especially -- is that we're talking about taking draconian measures to control access to art. Or, to put it another way: no one here is actually talking about "art"; instead everyone is talking about controlling the access to the art.
... er ... listen to MP3s? Or even to watch "Big Daddy?"
And it's utterly absurd.
Think about it: do we really need retinal scans and fingerprint scanners or biometric typing tutors to
All of these "copy control measures" are in place solely to *guarantee* the flow of profits not to the artists but to the corporations that contract the artist.
I mentioned this in today's Napster story, but -- and come on, where is Katz when we need him? -- no one is talking about what's really going on here: the fact that 'intellectual property' as the studios would have us believe it is dying a slow, expensive death.
And, if that wasn't enough, all this should start people thinking about the notions of 'intellectual property' in the first place.
Come on, Katz, for chrissake: write one of your grand editorials about this -- about how technology is (finally) questioning the very notions of "property" -- and what it is that makes this a so-called "property" in the first place.
What we're witnessing with all this biometric nonsense and CSS absurdity is the very loud gasps of corporations attempting to stay afload on yesterday's notions of 'property' and 'profit.'
This, finally, may be the single most important contribution of the internet: the paradigm shifting notion that yesterday's 'intellectual property' cannot survive in an age where 'democracy' plays itself out not in parchment 'constitutions' or 'declarations' but across fiber optic cables and digital switches.
'Property' has always depended as much on the presence of an object as much as its absence. Property has value when, say, you have a Lexus and you know that not everyone else does. This makes your Lexus valuable in the marketplace. Everyone *could* have a Lexus, sure, but not every one does. Everyone *could* own a house, but not everyone does.
But what happens when you realize that your highly prized commodity (as determined by an artificially designed marketplace) suddenly loses its intrinsic value?
Short of the specific things we need for survival -- food, shelter, sex -- the value of everything else is artificially assigned by the culture in which it is commodified.
You go ape shit and attempt to preserve its value. But the question is this: for whom is this value being preserved for? And, more importantly, why? Are you preserving its value because without value the object will disappear? Well, this is what Jack Valenti will have us believe. If there is no copy protection for the next Brad Pitt movie, there will be no Brad Pitt movies. (Now, if this means that there will be no more absurd films like 'Fight Club', I'd be delighted. But Valenti would have us believe that even another 'Seven' -- a brilliant film -- would never get made, which would, indeed, be a shame.)
Of course, this is bullshit. Art won't stop if suddenly there are no more corporations to exploit it. All that will happen is that a lot of the dead weight will be jettisoned.
My point is that the link between 'art' and its earning potential for corporations is an artificial link. Art will always exist -- and art will continue to exist, even when it loses its status a 'property' by the corporations that use it to make money.
It's completely impractical -- don't kid yourself.
Okay, so, um, lessee: the RIAA wants to force Napster to block MP3s with 'Metallica' in their title?
It won't take too long to figure out how to circumvent that, eh?
Or is the RIAA seeking to have Napster's search function hobbled? A search for 'Metallica' won't turn up any files?
The RIAA is looking to compile a dictionary of kinds of forbidden searches? You can search for 'Mtllica' but you can't search for 'Metallica?' You can search for 'Sprngstn' but you can't search for 'Springsteen?'
How about that one? You think that's gonna work? That throws a healthy dose of anarchy into Napster's searches, but, ya know, those little hacker shits are pretty smart. Won't take too long to figure that one out either.
I must say, though, that I'm very surprised that the RIAA keeps pursuing this. There *must* be some backroom talks going on. This is only the 'public' side of things.
I'll bet Hillary R. is privately being advised that she better start thinking of ways to exploit stuff like Napster and Gnutella. Heck, I can't believe all the RIAA people are so stupid as to believe that lawsuits will stem the tide. The legal wrangling buys time -- but in the meantime, I'd be very surprised if there wasn't a helluva lot of private wrangling going on with various music startups -- the "join forces" mentality.
I've said this before: short previews suck.
That's not what the internet is about. That's not how digital distribution should be used. The "preview" mentality is the RIAA mentality: "Okay, you thieving shits, we'll use the goddamn internet, but we're gonna use it to tease you. We're not gonna exploit it. We'll give you 30 seconds of a song in order to *make you buy the CD*."
Well, screw that. I don't want to buy the CD. I'll pay for the download if it's reasonable -- or, yeah, okay: I'll buy the CD if it's reasonably priced: 8.99 to 10.99 -- but I'll be goddammed if I'll buy into the RIAA's "preview" mindgame and succomb to their marketing tactics. The only reason they're giving the "preview" is to manipulate you into buying their full-priced CD.
The "preview" isn't a value-add -- it doesn't enhance the 'art' or make available more of the 'art'. The "preview" only points back to the problem -- even though the RIAA takes great pains to disguise the "preview" as a new way of viewing the 'art.'
All art is to some extent manipulated by the way middlemen/middlewomen decide to commodify it. Intellectual property has nothing to do with 'art.' How come nobody is talking about this?
How come nobody is saying, look: intellectual property is just another phrase for 'leveraging corporate profits?' How come nobody is questioning the link between artistic creation and 'property?'
For chrissake: how come no one is writing editorials about the very idea of 'intellectual property' in the first place? Valenti goes on and on about how crazy our culture will become if 'property' suddenly loses its status as a commodity. How come no one is talking about the relation of 'property' to the artist?
Just who owns this property anyway? And how is it possible to own art in the first place? And once ownership is established, just what, exactly, does that mean?
It might be a logical fallacy, but that has nothing to do with reality. We can can "logicize" our interpretations, and our interpretations of our interpretations, but the corporate god-mentality is predicated on our most primal emotions -- the ability to be persuaded by 'falsity' masking itself as 'truth' -- and not upon our critical intellects.
I mean, what is truth but a corporate tag-line repeated enough so that we cease to interpret it critically and accept its spin? Microsoft really believes that it innovates. Intel really believes that if we put hide the macintoshes on campus, we'll actually believe that there are no macintoshes -- only Intel machines.
As for "media analysis" -- yeah, I'd love to see us all grow up in a more "critically aware" culture. Everybody hates critics. It's fashionable among, say, the movie-going public to bash Roger Ebert. I mean, who needs critics, right? All they do is just complicate things. (Students are fond of taking this tack: why can't the critics just enjoy it? I mean, why does everything have to be so dissected?)
Why? Well, I'll tell you why: precisely because the corporations -- and even the journalists -- *want* us to take the news as truth. They want us to believe in the singularity of textual interpretations. They *don't* want us to think critically. They don't want people to realize that all interpretation is subjective and that 'meaning' really is indeterminate and open to a multiplicity of interpretations.
They want us to really believe that if we just hide the macintoshes in our computer rooms that the macs will then no longer *be*. Out of sight, out of mind. Get rid of the ontological problems by eradicating those things which could possibly contribute to the formulation of the problem in the first place.
Corporations want us to abandon critical thinking and give ourselves over to the money machines. It's what Eisner is talking about when he threatens to withhold Snow White from distributors. If you can't guarantee that no one will copy my DVD, I'll just withhold it. I'll keep it. It has nothing to do with art. Eisner's plea to the government for massive government intervention in the area of digital copyrights has nothing to do with intellectual property per se -- but everything to do with corporate profit.
There's nothing inherently wrong with that -- it's part of the deal -- it's part of the culture in which we live. But corporations want us to think otherwise.
I think new writing has stayed pretty much the same: which is to say, it has remained clear, simple, but generally uninspired.
Of course, 'inspired' news writing is not the point; after all, isn't news writing -- at least in the big news dailies -- targeted at, say, a 7th grade reading level?
I might agree with you if you say the *analysis* has slipped over the years -- but even that's hard to judge since 'analysis' is such a slippery word in the first place.
And, of course, it's entirely possible that 'bad analysis' may actually mean 'good analysis of a simple subject.'
Regardless, I think this whole issue comes down to the notion of trust. Newspapers and news magazines have an enormous amount of hubris when it comes to things like 'journalistic integrity' and 'trust'. "You can trust us, because, well, we've been around for 156 years. I mean, for chrissake, how long has *eNews* been around?'
The editors and news writers of print rags steadfastly maintain that they're doing it the way it has always been done -- and the way it should be done -- and that's why you can *trust* us. You can't say the same for MSNBC.com or CNN.com -- or can you?
Last night I watched 'Network.' An amazing film -- made even more amazing by the fact it's over 24 years old. (Substitute 'Microsoft' or 'Intel' for every time the Howard Beal character rages on about 'IBM' or 'Exxon', for example.)
It seemed that Network was touching on this same issue: the idea of trust eroded by the corporate machinations of ever-changing culture. What's the role of 'network' news in an era when Dan Rather has been, for the most part, made irrelevent? (Answer: there is no role for the network pawns except little drones designed to exact profit from you and me. For chrissake: why is it that 'Dan Rather' and 'Peter Jenkins' demand such respect? They're talking heads, that's all -- yet a significant portion of the American public (not to mention these guys themselves) consider these heads erudite authorities on everything from WWII vets to cultural trends. What, they sit on a chair and read the news with a deep, sombre voice and they're some sort of intellectual elite?)
I mean, I can remember watching Walter Cronkite sitting behind his anchorman's desk and report each night about Vietnam -- and I can remember the sense that, well, I could 'trust' Cronkite. "That's the way it is," he'd always say, and I believed him.
And I think that's the same angle that newspapers will continue to follow: you may have access to faster news, more up-to-the-minute news, but our news is news you can trust. You can set your clocks to it, goddammit, because we're a bunch of old white guys in suits and we're telling it the way it is. And, boy oh boy, you better believe the corporations are breathing down our necks -- but we've got integriry and we know journalism like no one else knows journalism -- so don't go telling *us* about conflicts of interest because, we're keeping the corporations in check so we can keep our ethics intact.
This, of course, is bullshit. It was bullshit in 'Network' ("I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it!") and it's bullshit today: there is no trust. There are no 'journalistic ethics'. There is only god, spin, and Microsoft. And not necessarily in that order. (And if it was up to Microsoft, they'd patent god and copyright the bible.)
All this talk about the death of intellectual property is such bullshit. Artists won't stop making art because the business model has shifted. If anything, this'll sift out some of the 'bad' art from the 'better' art. Record labels might be forced to jettison some dead weight. I don't have a problem with that because artists -- good artists, I mean -- are savvy. Art will triumph over business.
But here's what the death of 'intellectual property' really means: it means the death of the stranglehold of corporate America on ordinary Americans. It means what it has always meant: that the internet is the great equalizer and that if you're gonna compete with this equalizer, you gotta be smart -- not just daddy's little son/daughter who got the suit job because daddy had a fit of nepotism (or generosity) one day and decided to let you in on the secret of America: that corporations are god and that if you're one of the chosen -- one of the old, white, pin-stripe-wearing, wingtip "Hey mister, shine my shoes will ya? I gotta get to work!" wearing, going off to the Hamptons for the weekend, name-dropping, Lexus SUV driving, cell phone jabbering, illiterate, yes, but I really want to become literate, I just don't have the time talking -- fuckers who think life is a thing to be lived once you've made your third million and able to order whatever the fuck it is you want from the Williams Sonoma catalog even those 4000 dollar outdoor grill with built-in plumbing -- then you are one sorry heap of shit.
Forget about the quality of newswriting mister, because in the end, it's these guys that could care less. They just wanna leverage their minimal education, makes their money, and then takes their spoils. They wanna leave everybody else like smoking heaps in their wake.
Since texts have a multiplicity of interpretations -- semiotics, the sign/signified stuff -- then I'd advocate a more rigorous reading method on the part of the reader rather than a more critical posting method on the part of the poster.
It's up to the reader to determine what is and what isn't sarcastic. The reader must make that determination. I mean, what if, for example I say [sarcasm]I'm six feet tall[/sarcasm].
What exactly does this mean? Does it mean I'm actually four feet tall? Does it mean I'm six feet tall and I'm tired of people saying I'm five foot nine inches?
What's the context?
Let's face, if you're reading slashdot non-critically -- if you are, for example, a 'literal' reader -- then you're gonna get fooled by the presence of the [SARCASM][/SARCASM] tags, as well as their absence.
So goddammit, just try a closer reading, okay?
While I appreciate the the rants against displaying logos, it's interesting to think about how "logos" -- corporate or religious -- help us form our own identities.
Let's face it: Christianity itself is one of the more icon-centric "corporations" around. (I say "corporation" because I don't know how else to describe it. It's a religion, yes, -- and one, of course, with deep, deep, spiritual roots -- but its grasp on the human psyche and consciousness is as powerful and pervasive as Microsoft, IBM, or Sun. My own last foray into a 'Christian' church two weeks ago [for a baptism] struck me in the same way a visit to any corporate headquarters might strike me: the faithful must go all out -- pull out all the stops -- to make sure the unfamiliar [folks like myself] are persuaded that theirs is a culture to hold high above all others. This is itself is interesting -- the corporatizing culture of contemporary religion -- but that's another argument for another Slashdot story. Perhaps our own eager college freshman, 5-paragraph, essayist and cultural critic, JonKatz, might care to pick it up?)
Anyway, the logo. The icon. Logos and Christianity. Logos and corporations. The important thing (IMHO) to keep in mind about logos is their iconographic power to assist in molding our own private selves.
We slap on that little RedHat decal or the Debian bumpersticker because not only do we endorse the product itself, but we are also attempting to carve out (what seems to be) a much more difficult "space" in our consciousnesses: we're attempting not only to promote the product for others, but we're either affirming for the first time or reaffirming what that product *means* within ourselves.
It's a unique act of self-identification -- and subsequent self-awareness, perhaps -- that we undertake in order to (a) define ourselves and (b) define our own unique place in the world around us.
What's dangerous, of course, is that just as the logos we choose have the power to define our conscious selves, the logos we don't choose (probably) have that same power to inform our unconscious selves. (Assuming, for the moment, that choice is a conscious act.)
It's for this reason that a religion like Christianity is so driven by the image: an image (placed properly or improperly) has remarkable formative powers. I make no judgments on this one way or the other -- the power of icon-driven religions -- but only mean to identify this instance as a means to support my ideas of the power of the logo.
But I also acknowledge the important of logos -- of the image -- and how it affirms and directs and constructs our own identities. As much as we're driven by words and speech, we're also driven by the image. It's interesting (to me, at least) to think how inseperable the image is from the word and even speech itself.
Modernity (post-modernity) has managed to conflict the written word, the spoken word, and the image into one 'thing.' (That thing is maybe "culture"? I don't know).
Yeah maybe, it's the new coat-of-arms for our culture. And if that's true -- if the image over the thousands of years that it has remained a potent force is really inseperable from other 'acts of consciousness' -- speech, writing -- then think of its *political* implications. If you're a good little Marxist and perhaps believe (like Frerick Jameson) that culture is inseperable from the "political unsconscious" that informs every conscious act -- especially artistic acts like writing a novel, writing a screenplay, or coding an application -- the logo informs a large part of this unconscious.
It has a remarkable power to *define* -- define ourselves, our choices, and the world around us.
That's pretty damn wicked.
What do I propose to be done about this situation?
For chrissake, get Katz an editor. That's all. Someone who can offer somewhat objective feedback to Katz about his articles.
Would I volunteer for this?
You bet.