Re:Confusion About Abbie Hoffman
on
Steal This Film
·
· Score: 1
I didn't say equally right, I said (or implied) equally deserving of an opinion. We as a society are free to reject one side or the other, but they should still have the right to speak.
Re:Maybe Joe Schmoe shouldn't be using a computer.
on
AOL 9.0 Called Badware
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I use a Mac. In fact, I am typing this on an iBook, waiting for my Mac Pro order to come in (31 more days...). I don't think it's Joe Schmoe's fault. I am not blaming anyone. I'm saying we need to fix it. Windows needs to be more secure. Patching needs to be easier for Joe Schmoe. But most of all, Joe Schmoe needs more education than "PCs have viruses. I'm a Mac, and I'm virus free". We need to accept that most relatively unskilled home users will continue to use Windows on their desktops. We need to educate them how to use Windows safely, or adapt the internet to the fact that there are thousands of hostile bots out there.
Wikipedia works rather well at the core. Articles about science topics, or most history topics are OK. There are issues with current event topics, but there are plenty of editors working on those. the real problem that no one mentions with Wikipedia is on the fringes. there are 1.3 or so Million english articles. Some of them are poorly translated paragraphs from other languages. Some of them are straight lifts from a Press Release, and some of them are pretty incomplete. This is one such case. While editors can work on NPOV more directly with articles like George W. Bush or Jesus, there are only a handful of editors working on the fringes. I was hitting up the random pages button, and a few days ago, I stumbled across the "Miss Bikini of the Universe" page (no jokes, please). It consists of a few poorly translated paragraphs, a picture that's three years out of date (but attractive nonetheless), and a notice that Ukraine's candidate won the most recent one (which apparently was over the weekend in China somewhere), but no mention of the winner's name, DoB, etc. Now, I tried to do some cleanup - verb tenses, complete sentences, etc., but the page needs an awful lot of work, and frankly, I'm busy, and the orginal writer looks like he ran a few news articles through Babelfish.
I was referring to this article. AFAICT, that's the original copy, it's also hosted by the Swedish Pirate Party. Although, yes, you are correct in that a lot of TV channels have done what I suggested in my previous post, and offered free access to some episodes in an attempt to get more viewers.
Re:Maybe Joe Schmoe shouldn't be using a computer.
on
AOL 9.0 Called Badware
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I would love to see someone operate a toaster oven with the same casual disregard for safety that people seem to want to operate computers with.
I put my toaster on the counter, stick the pop tarts in, and push the button. They get done in a minute, and I eat them.
The problem with computers is that if you use the washer incorrectly (or set it up incorrectly), it floods. You notice the problem right away. Most users don't realize they're botted until 2-3 months later (when the adware or spyware gets really, really bad).
The best way to do this is to offer computer classes with incentives, and to make home installion a part of computer sales. Failing that, Dells should all come with the firewall on, and AV and anti-spyware installed and running with a 6 month subscription, as well as a note (in dead tree form) reminding the user that he needs to update and renew the stuff in 6 months.
Sorry, I thought you were trying to totally ignore my point with a flippant remark. It turns out that I was wrong to disregard you. Mea culpa
Anyhow, I agree that a side effect of this is going to be that some pirates get rich. But if the *AA continues to bust them, they face some risks. I'm no advocating 100% free IP, just saying that there are models that work decently for artists. We're getting to the point now where the CD sales go exclusively to the record labels, in exchange for CD production and advertising. A skilled (and smart) artist can use P2P cover advertising and pass out demoes to all the radio stations he can find. A $10,000 solution can produce a decent 160 KB/s AAC recording that'll sound fine on a P2P network or over a radio. Rather than thousands of dollars to rent the studio and do the touch-ups, you can cut that in half at least, and you don't have to press a million CDs, maybe only a few thousand to sell at the first few shows. The real money for an artist is in shows and merchandise. Where I volunteer at my college, we are going to offer an artist several tens of thousands of dollars ($20-40 thousand or so) to play once before a 3-5 thousand person crowd. That's where the money is. And let me tell you, the artists we look at aren't always the ones you hear on the radio, but a lot of kids have heard of them anyways. It's not the artist who goes bankrupt, it's the label.
I think you are confusing Microsoft's DRM and Apple's DRM.
No, I'm advocating for Apple's DRM style, while trying to avoid mentioning them (in the interest of avoiding any flames). Apple has it pretty much right with the DRM (but I'd still like to re-encode my old DRMed MP3s to AAC)
Re:Maybe Joe Schmoe shouldn't be using a computer.
on
AOL 9.0 Called Badware
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
After all, it is often computers owned by people like the average Joe Schmoe which get compromised and are used to send spam or propagate worms.
Let's talk about Joe Schmoe for a second here. Joe Schmoe is probably a decent guy, and not necessarily dumb. It's just that he has a job, bills to pay, hobbies, and with any luck, a wife/girlfriend, and maybe kids. He thinks of his computer as he thinks of his washing machine. He buys it at a big box store, spends an hour or so setting it up, and then he uses it as a tool. When it breaks, he calls Geek Squad or the smart nerdy kid down the street, just like if the washing machine breaks, he calls the repair guy from Sears.
He doesn't look at a PC as a car, he thinks of it as a washing machine. We need to educate him about how to use it safely (SP2, patches, and AV for starters), and acting all high-and-mighty about it gets you nowhere.
No. The DRM impedes Joe Average, because he can't deal with using FairUse4WM. He's gonna have a harder time dealing with file-sharing, especially as the studios work to make it harder (via lawsuits, shutdowns, etc). Also, he won't generally want to use it for complex things that could break the DRM (it'll stay on the family computer, and on the kid's iPod). But the semi-skilled, like you or I (who can easily use Ourtunes, Bittorrent, or Usenet if we wanted to) are the most likely not to get iTMS or Yahoo (because we can pirate, and because the purchased music won't do what we want). If piracy becomes harder, and we can hack our DRMed music to run on our players or Linux systems, or convert it to , we'll be more willing to transition to the paying realm of Yahoo music. I don't expect non-existant DRM, but if we can crack DRM, but have a harder time sharing it over the Net, there will be overall more money made by the studios.
"Bad" is in English what "Mal" is in Latin/Greek. Badware is adware, spyware, viruses, rootkits, worms, trojans, and anything else I'm not thinking of that John Q. Public doesn't want on his PC. "Trojans" are sort of an abstract concept for most (they think of the condom before the Trojan horse), but any idiot knows that "badware" is, well, BAD.
Well, it's a nice way to sum up adware, viruses, worms, trojans, rootkits, spyware, and all that stuff. It's easy to understand. Joe Schmoe might not know what a rootkit is, but he's got a good idea that "badware" or "malware" (my prefered term) is not something he wants on his computer.
So, Google technically owns like 5% of AOL, and funds stopbadware.org. So this is sort of like Sony vs. Sony, isn't it? Not directly relevant, but interesting as it shows how widespread these big Internet companies are, and how many pies they have their fingers in.
Re:Confusion About Abbie Hoffman
on
Steal This Film
·
· Score: 1
I still see that as a distinction without a difference.
In my mind (and again, this is IHMO), it's difference of intent. Communicating your passion versus trying to deceive.
You can be a smartass if you want, but here are some ideas.
1) Use piracy to get noticed (for performers, writers, etc.) 2) Use piracy as hype ("33") 3) Sell merchandise. Even if a movie doesn't make much money, if it's well liked and received, you can still make money on community forum ads, t-shirts, posters, special editions, etc.
4) Create an advantage to being registered and legit. Something like BattleNet for Warcraft III, where you can pirate the game and get a bit of fun out of, or go on Bnet (CD key needed, and harder to fake) and have hours more fun.
I meant more like having 800mhz DIMMs in a board that only supports 667MHz DDR2, or X6800 with a PATA harddrive, mis-matched DIMMS in a dual-channel motherboard, or a 250W powersupply with a dual-core + SLI system. Stuff like that that a novice computer builder might not realize immediately.
Read this book: Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig (PDF warning). He discusses the different types of piracy. I'm in a criminology class, and right now (beginning of semester), we're defining crime. A lot of it has to do with the idea of "social harm". Some piracy brings social harm, some piracy brings social benefit, and some brings no net social change at all. The goal here should be getting rid of "harmful" piracy while allowing "beneficial" or "neutral" piracy. In fact, a clever person could find ways to optimize their benefit from "beneficial piracy" and get some gains out of "neutral" piracy. that's what I'm trying to say.
The goal of DRM is to make content harder to pirate than most people are willing to work. IE, make DRM easier than piracy. However, since only one or two people (hi-fi and low-fi versions) need to crack a CD/song to get it into the filesharing networks, DRM as it stands is failing. However, a non-crippled DRM, that can do almost everything pirated music can do, can work well. It's easier to use, legal, and can play on most players. That sounds like something that can beat piracy, because most people want easy, legal, and affordable music. $10 or $15 a month for music is reasonable, and if you get decent rights to go with it (any MP3 player, all your computers, etc.), it sounds like a great deal.
Re:Confusion About Abbie Hoffman
on
Steal This Film
·
· Score: 1
You forgot CNN. CNN is every bit as biased as Fox News.
I didn't say my examples were exclusive. I picked a biased liberal and a biased conservative. If you'd rather the comparison be Al Franken vs. Ann Coulter or Michael Moore vs. Rush Limbaugh or whatever, go for it. The point isn't in the examples it's in the fact that this is extending a pre-existing political trend to other social issues.
I almost mentioned that in the post. But Apple differs in that you get a complete software ecosystem that does a lot of things better than Windows (but some things not as well). You can't BYO OS X on Intel machine (at least not legally, in the US, right now). Apple attempts to distingush itself from Dell/HP/Gateway with the OS and the ease of use. Dell/HP/Gateway try to distingush themselves from a BYO solution with service/support and ease of set-up. It's similar, but not at all identical.
Re:Confusion About Abbie Hoffman
on
Steal This Film
·
· Score: 1
Given this impossibility, the only difference between "filmmaker's view shining through" and "film to make a [presumably different] point" is how honest the filmmaker is being about their own point of view.
It's the difference between "I'm interested in this, so I talk about it" (bias based on subject selection) and "This is what I think, wrapped up and packaged as fact" (deliberately misleading bias). I only consider the second one actual bias, because anyone who makes a documentary on (let's say) the ancient Romans and their battles is saying (implicitly) "I like the ancient Romans, so I'm going to talk about them. This isn't about the Gauls or the Goths or Carthage, so they will get less screen time. They could still be decent guys, and there are other movies/resources about them, but they're only in this because they fought the Romans". Whereas someone how tries to portray their documentary as 100% fact is saying "I'm talking about this because this is the truth. The other resources portraying other points of view are wrong".
I'm not saying copyright infringement is good, or only harms "big" companies. I'm just saying that most instances of media discussion of copyright infringement (and I've seen a fair few in my time at college) tend to be biased anti-piracy, without the discussion of positive gains for society or the copyright holder that may or may not outweigh the losses, but at least need to be looked at.
You pay extra (over the XPS or the custom-built machine) in exchange for extra service/support and the style factor. That's all it is. Quality parts assembled by a quality manufacturer in a sleek case. For a lot of people who want to game, and have more money than computing knowledge or assembly and maintenance time, Alienware or XPS is worth paying more for. They get something that "just works" (as well as any Windows PC does) with a warranty, and insure themselves from making stupid component decisions (stuff that is non-compatible, or stupid bottlenecks)
It tends to harm the business models where creators of a work, and those who financed it, get money in return. Not necessarily, or at least not fatally. I illustrated at least one scenario where the current business model is somewhat helped by piracy. Another business model could be to give away earlier works to try to build a name for yourself, then move to more traditional means of production. If an actor/actress/director can become famous because everyone looks at the non-DRMed free copies of their early works because they are free, then you suddenly become a household name and can get a job in a serious movie. Similarly with bands. A lot of bands I know (I work at a lot of concerts) that haven't "made it" yet (or never will) hand out dozens of free CDs, in an attempt to gain fans.
Re:Confusion About Abbie Hoffman
on
Steal This Film
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You can have minority propaganda. Propaganda, however, has gone from an objective meaning "a one-sided piece designed to convince", to a throughly negative meaning roughly equal to "lies disseminated through media". The original definition is more correct here (since we can't easily evaluate who's lying and who isn't). Given the negative connotation of "propaganda", I hesitate to use it in this case (just as I would if the MPAA released something with anything approaching objective fact in it).
Re:Confusion About Abbie Hoffman
on
Steal This Film
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
English is not my native language. I honestly wouldn't have ever guessed that. Your English is great.
What you're saying is that the very act of capturing something on film is taking an opinion on it. That's true, and it is a bias, but it's not a deliberate bias. The bias I'm talking about isn't "this story needs to be told", it's "this is the answer, the other guy is a twit". "I want to tell this story" is a totally different level of bias compared to "This is my point of view disgused as fact". The former is an assumed part of every story, whereas the latter is a deliberate attempt to deceive. When I say that un-biased films can exist, I mean only that they don't deliberately attempt to sway you to their side, they just want you to see what they have to say, and maybe get you to talk about it.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't say equally right, I said (or implied) equally deserving of an opinion. We as a society are free to reject one side or the other, but they should still have the right to speak.
I use a Mac. In fact, I am typing this on an iBook, waiting for my Mac Pro order to come in (31 more days...). I don't think it's Joe Schmoe's fault. I am not blaming anyone. I'm saying we need to fix it. Windows needs to be more secure. Patching needs to be easier for Joe Schmoe. But most of all, Joe Schmoe needs more education than "PCs have viruses. I'm a Mac, and I'm virus free". We need to accept that most relatively unskilled home users will continue to use Windows on their desktops. We need to educate them how to use Windows safely, or adapt the internet to the fact that there are thousands of hostile bots out there.
Wikipedia works rather well at the core. Articles about science topics, or most history topics are OK. There are issues with current event topics, but there are plenty of editors working on those. the real problem that no one mentions with Wikipedia is on the fringes. there are 1.3 or so Million english articles. Some of them are poorly translated paragraphs from other languages. Some of them are straight lifts from a Press Release, and some of them are pretty incomplete. This is one such case. While editors can work on NPOV more directly with articles like George W. Bush or Jesus, there are only a handful of editors working on the fringes. I was hitting up the random pages button, and a few days ago, I stumbled across the "Miss Bikini of the Universe" page (no jokes, please). It consists of a few poorly translated paragraphs, a picture that's three years out of date (but attractive nonetheless), and a notice that Ukraine's candidate won the most recent one (which apparently was over the weekend in China somewhere), but no mention of the winner's name, DoB, etc. Now, I tried to do some cleanup - verb tenses, complete sentences, etc., but the page needs an awful lot of work, and frankly, I'm busy, and the orginal writer looks like he ran a few news articles through Babelfish.
I was referring to this article. AFAICT, that's the original copy, it's also hosted by the Swedish Pirate Party. Although, yes, you are correct in that a lot of TV channels have done what I suggested in my previous post, and offered free access to some episodes in an attempt to get more viewers.
I would love to see someone operate a toaster oven with the same casual disregard for safety that people seem to want to operate computers with.
I put my toaster on the counter, stick the pop tarts in, and push the button. They get done in a minute, and I eat them.
The problem with computers is that if you use the washer incorrectly (or set it up incorrectly), it floods. You notice the problem right away. Most users don't realize they're botted until 2-3 months later (when the adware or spyware gets really, really bad).
The best way to do this is to offer computer classes with incentives, and to make home installion a part of computer sales. Failing that, Dells should all come with the firewall on, and AV and anti-spyware installed and running with a 6 month subscription, as well as a note (in dead tree form) reminding the user that he needs to update and renew the stuff in 6 months.
Sorry, I thought you were trying to totally ignore my point with a flippant remark. It turns out that I was wrong to disregard you. Mea culpa
Anyhow, I agree that a side effect of this is going to be that some pirates get rich. But if the *AA continues to bust them, they face some risks. I'm no advocating 100% free IP, just saying that there are models that work decently for artists. We're getting to the point now where the CD sales go exclusively to the record labels, in exchange for CD production and advertising. A skilled (and smart) artist can use P2P cover advertising and pass out demoes to all the radio stations he can find. A $10,000 solution can produce a decent 160 KB/s AAC recording that'll sound fine on a P2P network or over a radio. Rather than thousands of dollars to rent the studio and do the touch-ups, you can cut that in half at least, and you don't have to press a million CDs, maybe only a few thousand to sell at the first few shows. The real money for an artist is in shows and merchandise. Where I volunteer at my college, we are going to offer an artist several tens of thousands of dollars ($20-40 thousand or so) to play once before a 3-5 thousand person crowd. That's where the money is. And let me tell you, the artists we look at aren't always the ones you hear on the radio, but a lot of kids have heard of them anyways. It's not the artist who goes bankrupt, it's the label.
I think you are confusing Microsoft's DRM and Apple's DRM.
No, I'm advocating for Apple's DRM style, while trying to avoid mentioning them (in the interest of avoiding any flames). Apple has it pretty much right with the DRM (but I'd still like to re-encode my old DRMed MP3s to AAC)
After all, it is often computers owned by people like the average Joe Schmoe which get compromised and are used to send spam or propagate worms.
Let's talk about Joe Schmoe for a second here. Joe Schmoe is probably a decent guy, and not necessarily dumb. It's just that he has a job, bills to pay, hobbies, and with any luck, a wife/girlfriend, and maybe kids. He thinks of his computer as he thinks of his washing machine. He buys it at a big box store, spends an hour or so setting it up, and then he uses it as a tool. When it breaks, he calls Geek Squad or the smart nerdy kid down the street, just like if the washing machine breaks, he calls the repair guy from Sears.
He doesn't look at a PC as a car, he thinks of it as a washing machine. We need to educate him about how to use it safely (SP2, patches, and AV for starters), and acting all high-and-mighty about it gets you nowhere.
No. The DRM impedes Joe Average, because he can't deal with using FairUse4WM. He's gonna have a harder time dealing with file-sharing, especially as the studios work to make it harder (via lawsuits, shutdowns, etc). Also, he won't generally want to use it for complex things that could break the DRM (it'll stay on the family computer, and on the kid's iPod). But the semi-skilled, like you or I (who can easily use Ourtunes, Bittorrent, or Usenet if we wanted to) are the most likely not to get iTMS or Yahoo (because we can pirate, and because the purchased music won't do what we want). If piracy becomes harder, and we can hack our DRMed music to run on our players or Linux systems, or convert it to , we'll be more willing to transition to the paying realm of Yahoo music. I don't expect non-existant DRM, but if we can crack DRM, but have a harder time sharing it over the Net, there will be overall more money made by the studios.
"Bad" is in English what "Mal" is in Latin/Greek. Badware is adware, spyware, viruses, rootkits, worms, trojans, and anything else I'm not thinking of that John Q. Public doesn't want on his PC. "Trojans" are sort of an abstract concept for most (they think of the condom before the Trojan horse), but any idiot knows that "badware" is, well, BAD.
Well, it's a nice way to sum up adware, viruses, worms, trojans, rootkits, spyware, and all that stuff. It's easy to understand. Joe Schmoe might not know what a rootkit is, but he's got a good idea that "badware" or "malware" (my prefered term) is not something he wants on his computer.
So, Google technically owns like 5% of AOL, and funds stopbadware.org. So this is sort of like Sony vs. Sony, isn't it? Not directly relevant, but interesting as it shows how widespread these big Internet companies are, and how many pies they have their fingers in.
I still see that as a distinction without a difference.
In my mind (and again, this is IHMO), it's difference of intent. Communicating your passion versus trying to deceive.
You can be a smartass if you want, but here are some ideas.
1) Use piracy to get noticed (for performers, writers, etc.)
2) Use piracy as hype ("33")
3) Sell merchandise. Even if a movie doesn't make much money, if it's well liked and received, you can still make money on community forum ads, t-shirts, posters, special editions, etc.
4) Create an advantage to being registered and legit. Something like BattleNet for Warcraft III, where you can pirate the game and get a bit of fun out of, or go on Bnet (CD key needed, and harder to fake) and have hours more fun.
I meant more like having 800mhz DIMMs in a board that only supports 667MHz DDR2, or X6800 with a PATA harddrive, mis-matched DIMMS in a dual-channel motherboard, or a 250W powersupply with a dual-core + SLI system. Stuff like that that a novice computer builder might not realize immediately.
Read this book: Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig (PDF warning). He discusses the different types of piracy. I'm in a criminology class, and right now (beginning of semester), we're defining crime. A lot of it has to do with the idea of "social harm". Some piracy brings social harm, some piracy brings social benefit, and some brings no net social change at all. The goal here should be getting rid of "harmful" piracy while allowing "beneficial" or "neutral" piracy. In fact, a clever person could find ways to optimize their benefit from "beneficial piracy" and get some gains out of "neutral" piracy. that's what I'm trying to say.
The goal of DRM is to make content harder to pirate than most people are willing to work. IE, make DRM easier than piracy. However, since only one or two people (hi-fi and low-fi versions) need to crack a CD/song to get it into the filesharing networks, DRM as it stands is failing. However, a non-crippled DRM, that can do almost everything pirated music can do, can work well. It's easier to use, legal, and can play on most players. That sounds like something that can beat piracy, because most people want easy, legal, and affordable music. $10 or $15 a month for music is reasonable, and if you get decent rights to go with it (any MP3 player, all your computers, etc.), it sounds like a great deal.
You forgot CNN. CNN is every bit as biased as Fox News.
I didn't say my examples were exclusive. I picked a biased liberal and a biased conservative. If you'd rather the comparison be Al Franken vs. Ann Coulter or Michael Moore vs. Rush Limbaugh or whatever, go for it. The point isn't in the examples it's in the fact that this is extending a pre-existing political trend to other social issues.
Sounds suspiciously like Apple.
I almost mentioned that in the post. But Apple differs in that you get a complete software ecosystem that does a lot of things better than Windows (but some things not as well). You can't BYO OS X on Intel machine (at least not legally, in the US, right now). Apple attempts to distingush itself from Dell/HP/Gateway with the OS and the ease of use. Dell/HP/Gateway try to distingush themselves from a BYO solution with service/support and ease of set-up. It's similar, but not at all identical.
Given this impossibility, the only difference between "filmmaker's view shining through" and "film to make a [presumably different] point" is how honest the filmmaker is being about their own point of view.
It's the difference between "I'm interested in this, so I talk about it" (bias based on subject selection) and "This is what I think, wrapped up and packaged as fact" (deliberately misleading bias). I only consider the second one actual bias, because anyone who makes a documentary on (let's say) the ancient Romans and their battles is saying (implicitly) "I like the ancient Romans, so I'm going to talk about them. This isn't about the Gauls or the Goths or Carthage, so they will get less screen time. They could still be decent guys, and there are other movies/resources about them, but they're only in this because they fought the Romans". Whereas someone how tries to portray their documentary as 100% fact is saying "I'm talking about this because this is the truth. The other resources portraying other points of view are wrong".
I'm not saying copyright infringement is good, or only harms "big" companies. I'm just saying that most instances of media discussion of copyright infringement (and I've seen a fair few in my time at college) tend to be biased anti-piracy, without the discussion of positive gains for society or the copyright holder that may or may not outweigh the losses, but at least need to be looked at.
You pay extra (over the XPS or the custom-built machine) in exchange for extra service/support and the style factor. That's all it is. Quality parts assembled by a quality manufacturer in a sleek case. For a lot of people who want to game, and have more money than computing knowledge or assembly and maintenance time, Alienware or XPS is worth paying more for. They get something that "just works" (as well as any Windows PC does) with a warranty, and insure themselves from making stupid component decisions (stuff that is non-compatible, or stupid bottlenecks)
It tends to harm the business models where creators of a work, and those who financed it, get money in return. Not necessarily, or at least not fatally. I illustrated at least one scenario where the current business model is somewhat helped by piracy. Another business model could be to give away earlier works to try to build a name for yourself, then move to more traditional means of production. If an actor/actress/director can become famous because everyone looks at the non-DRMed free copies of their early works because they are free, then you suddenly become a household name and can get a job in a serious movie. Similarly with bands. A lot of bands I know (I work at a lot of concerts) that haven't "made it" yet (or never will) hand out dozens of free CDs, in an attempt to gain fans.
You can have minority propaganda. Propaganda, however, has gone from an objective meaning "a one-sided piece designed to convince", to a throughly negative meaning roughly equal to "lies disseminated through media". The original definition is more correct here (since we can't easily evaluate who's lying and who isn't). Given the negative connotation of "propaganda", I hesitate to use it in this case (just as I would if the MPAA released something with anything approaching objective fact in it).
English is not my native language.
I honestly wouldn't have ever guessed that. Your English is great.
What you're saying is that the very act of capturing something on film is taking an opinion on it. That's true, and it is a bias, but it's not a deliberate bias. The bias I'm talking about isn't "this story needs to be told", it's "this is the answer, the other guy is a twit". "I want to tell this story" is a totally different level of bias compared to "This is my point of view disgused as fact". The former is an assumed part of every story, whereas the latter is a deliberate attempt to deceive. When I say that un-biased films can exist, I mean only that they don't deliberately attempt to sway you to their side, they just want you to see what they have to say, and maybe get you to talk about it.