Technology News
|
Stewart Baker, the former DHS official whose warnings about how SOPA would wreak havoc on online security were instrumental in convincing many of our elected officials that SOPA and PIPA were half-baked legislative disasters, now has a fascinating writeup for The Hollywood Reporter, trying to explain why the Republican Party turned strongly against SOPA/PIPA. We've pointed out a few times, that the different reactions by the Democrats and Republicans to the online protests threaten to cost the Democrats a generation of voters who had previously looked to them as the party that "got" the internet.
Of course, where it gets even more insightful is Baker's analysis not just of how the Democratic Party appears to have miscalculated badly the reaction to these bills, but how truly and spectacularly Hollywood has failed to understand what happened -- in part because Hollywood still thinks that it drives pop culture. The truth, however, as Baker points out, is that the internet drives popular culture these days... and on the internet, Hollywood is a big bully:
The [entertainment] industry still doesn't understand its adversary. From the start, studios saw the fight over SOPA as a struggle with a bunch of other companies -- Google and Internet service providers among them -- that were hoping to profit from the Internet travails of the entertainment industry.
That turned out to be wrong. In fact, the industry is fighting what amounts to a new popular culture.
Unlike the old pop culture Hollywood dominated, this one is largely independent of the music, movie and broadcast industries. In fact, people who spend hours online instead of watching TV or going to movies will probably encounter the entertainment industry only when YouTube videos of their kids dancing to Prince or spoofing Star Wars are pulled down by Hollywood's bots, or when the RIAA threatens to sue them for their college savings, or when digital rights software makes it hard to move their stuff to a new tablet or phone.
To the entertainment industry, these episodes might seem like collateral damage in the fight to stop piracy. To the new pop culture, though, collateral damage and misuse of enforcement tools are everywhere, and they threaten everyone. The content industry has made itself into the villain. Increasingly, it looks like an occupying power, obeyed at gunpoint, despised for its ham-handed excesses and resisted from every dark corner. Unfortunately for Hollywood, as its customers migrate to the Internet, it is losing not just their money but their hearts and minds as well.
There's a lot more in Baker's article about the political implications of all of this, which are worth thinking about as well, but I wanted to focus on this key point. Last week, at the Midem music industry conference, I was amazed at how many people from the legacy music business believe, 100%, that the reason SOPA/PIPA were stopped was because Google stepped up its lobbying efforts. I can't even begin to count how many conversations I had with people trying to explain to them that Google only played a small role in what happened, really jumping on the bandwagon pretty late in the game. It was a widespread group of internet users who spoke up, and that really has changed the equation. And Hollywood still can't seem to wrap its mind around that.
That may be because Hollywood was popular culture for so long. It seems to just assume that this is still the case, when there's an awful lot of evidence suggesting otherwise. And really, that explains both Hollywood's confusion in how to deal with all of this, as well as one of the reasons it's lashing out. When Hollywood no longer drives pop culture, it loses its influence, and as it loses its influence, that's going to spell trouble for its business model. The biggest threat to Hollywood's dominance isn't piracy. It's that people no longer view Hollywood as the main source of pop culture any more. Art forms often lose their popularity over time. A few years back, we pointed to a quote from Paul Oskar Kristeller that seems worth highlighting again:
There were important periods in cultural history when the novel, instrumental music, or canvas painting did not exist or have any importance. On the other hand, the sonnet and the epic poem, stained glass and mosaic, fresco painting and book illumination, vase painting and tapestry, bas relief and pottery have all been "major" arts at various times and in a way they no longer are now. Gardening has lost its standing as a fine art since the eighteenth century. On the other hand, the moving picture is a good example of how new techniques may lead to modes of artistic expression for which the aestheticians of the eighteenth and nineteenth century had no place in their systems. The branches of the arts all have their rise and decline, and even their birth and death.
Perhaps it's not piracy that Hollywood is fighting here. Maybe it's the industry's own cultural relevance.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read more at.... |
|
|
DRM sucks. You know it, we know it, Gabe Newell and CD Projekt know it. Ubisoft apparently never got the memo however, and in the process of switching servers next week, the company will offer up yet another reason for DRM sucktitude. Thanks to that nasty always-on DRM, six games won't be playable whatsoever during the move -- single player included. Plenty of other games will have their multiplayer capabilities "impacted" during the transition, including console versions of the games.
According to a statement by Ubisoft (thanks to the always-useful Slashdot for sending us its way), the transition should start on Tuesday, February 7th; there's no word how long it will take. Single player and multiplayer will both be disabled for the following games:
Assassin's Creed - MAC
Tom Clancy’s H.A.W.X. 2 - PC
Might & Magic : Heroes VI - PC
Splinter Cell Conviction - MAC
The Settlers 7: Paths to a Kingdom - PC
The Settlers - MAC
Rather than try and list out all the games that will have their multiplayer nerfed, Ubisoft took the easy route and instead decided to list the small handful of games that won't be affected at all. The following will be fully playable at all times:
Anno 2070 - PC
Assassin’s Creed Revelations - OnLive, PC, PS3, X360
Driver® San Francisco - PC, OnLive, PS3, X360
Just Dance 3 - X360
The Settlers Online - PC web-based
Isn't DRM grand? I think you may be driving gamers into Pirate Bay's arms, Ubisoft. Read more at.... |
|
|
For years now, we've mocked how the NFL insists that no one can use the term "Super Bowl" in an advertisement unless they're an official sponsor of the event. That's why it's become so typical to see advertisers using "the big game" instead -- though, five years ago, the NFL even sought the trademark on "The Big Game" because so many advertisers were using it. However, Paul Levy rightly takes advertisers to task for being "weenies" and not standing up to the NFL on this. As he says:
Of course, the NFL's position is nonsense -- this is a nominative use that is just as permissible as, for example, referring to the "Chicago Bulls" instead of "the two-time world champions" or "the professional basketball team from Chicago" (Judge Kozinski's example from a different era, when the Bulls mattered).
Basically, the game is called the Super Bowl, and calling it that isn't trademark infringement, so long as you don't imply that you're an official sponsor or otherwise officially associated with the game. Of course, where it gets even more ridiculous is when news organizations heed the NFL's warnings over this -- such as the email Levy received from the Boston Globe (pdf) about the Super Bowl, where the term doesn't appear at all. Levy points out that it's simply ridiculous that a news organization (and a big one with plenty of lawyers who get this) would still not use "Super Bowl." Levy suggests we start calling such ridiculousness out:
Instead of praising retailers who skate close to the edge, we should take a page from David Bollier’s excellent Brand Name Bullies and call them Brand Name Weenies. Indeed, it is disappointing that a major metropolitan newspaper that belongs to an 800 pound gorilla like the New York Times Company is unwilling to defy the NFL by using the term in in its advertising. The Times and the Globe certainly advertise their coverage of the New York Giants and the New England Patriots, also trademarked names. If big players like the Times don’t have the cojones to stand up for bullying from the NFL, they make it harder for everybody else. In their recent book Reclaiming Fair Use, Pat Aufderheide and Peter Jaszi warn that when we refrain from exercising our fair use rights, and act as if those rights do not exist, we help create a culture in which fair use loses ground to overly aggressive copyright enforcement. The same is true in the trademark realm. We can only hope that when the next Superbowl rolls around, the Times and its brethren, and even the HDTV sellers, will have shed their timidity.
It's the Super Bowl. Call it the Super Bowl. Just... uh... don't have too many friends over to watch it on a big screen. Because that's copyright infringement.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read more at.... |
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
|
|
Page 7 of 453 |
|
