Thursday, December 20, 2007

Thoughts on This Film is Not Yet Rated

Just watched the spectacular film This Film is Not Yet Rated, which chronicles how the MPAA actually places ratings on films. A few things of note:
  • The interviewees echo a concern that has been voiced many times before, namely that a film is penalized more for sex than for violence, especially where female pleasure is concerned
  • There is an appeals process that a filmmaker can go through to change the rating on his film. On the board that oversees this process sits one Catholic priest, one Protestant pastor, (WTF???) and a handful of Big Media insiders
  • The McCarthyist investigation into Hollywood in the 50's was largely a power move by Big Media executives to break the back of labor unions that were on strike at the time (makes me want to read The Shock Doctrine, which I saw on display the other day)
  • The Requiem for a Dream director makes an interesting point: in PG-13 movies, gunplay is shown without the consequences (that is, no blood or guts, just people going 'oomph' and falling down) whereas in R rated movies it is not. He believes this should be the other way around because it is misleading: why is it more appropriate to show younger kids violence with less consequences?
  • In a conversation with an MPAA spokesman, it is revealed that the MPAA's main disincentive for rating films lower is that they recieve a lot of mail from various special interest groups. This is in stark contrast to the MPAA's oft-given reason for keeping the process so secretive: to "protect people from possible influence" (not to mention people who have a financial incentive in influencing the ratings are integrated into this process).
  • Any film using military-loaned equipment must submit 5 copies of its script in advance of the movie's release to the Pentagon, so the military can censor any negative detections of military life (drinking, drugs, language, excessive violence etc.).
This film exposes the hypocrisy and nepotism of the Hollywood rating system. Independent films are censored in the interest of diverting more viewers towards Big Media productions (because many theaters/chains will not carry a movie if it gets an NC-17 rating). I was surprised to discover the military and Christianity's role in censorship of films (perhaps I shouldn't have been), but certainly not surprised that the MPAA ratings are mostly arbitrary and inherently aligned with the interests of major studios. In conclusion, never trust ratings -- they're a bunch of bullshit, rife with bias and Big Media politics.

Sunday, December 16, 2007

Gitmo soldiers editing Wikipedia... your tax dollars at work

It seems that at least one soldier at Guantanamo Bay was editing articles on Wikipedia and other sites that were dedicated to discussing Gitmo abuse. I feel great about paying for this guy to disseminate misinformation. The parallels to 1984's Ministry of Truth are quite apparent, as the New York Times article hammers home. The greatest part is the quote from an officer denying the whole thing... "THAT would be unethical." Unlike torture.

Mike Huckabee is an Idiot

From page 71 of today's New York Times Magazine, an article about Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee:
Huckabee says he believes that the next president of the United States will have to lead Western civilization in a worldwide conflict with radical Islam.
This from a Baptist minister who is endorsed by the author of the apocalyptic "Left Behind" series of novels. Everyone don your crusader getups, we're in this for the long haul.

Wednesday, December 05, 2007

Copyright and Free Speech are not Compatible, and other Follies of Dan Glickman

For anyone that thinks that copyright and free speech can be enforced simultaneously on the Internet, the statements and actions of the MPAA can be a rude awakening. The MPAA and others are trying to get ISPs to build in packet-sniffing technology into the architecture of their networks solely to enforce the interests of copyright owners. Trouble is, there is no standard for identifying certain 1's and 0's over a wire as 'copyrighted' and others as 'not copyrighted.' Not to mention that you can't try and determine the copyrighted-ness of data without examining all of the data, thus violating the privacy of a (formerly) two-party, private exchange.

The MPAA's Dan Glickman has a lot of laughably misinformed opinions and spouts a number of misleading statements in the Ars article which merit addressing.

"Protection of content from theft."

Woah, buddy. "Theft" is when I steal something. You can't steal data. It's impossible. When I make a copy of someone else's data, they still retain that data. Contrast that to say, stealing a car, which is an act of theft after which the rightful owner can no longer use the car. Peer to peer file sharing also differs from theft in that the transaction is consensual, whereas with theft it is not.

"Piracy costs the studios $6 billion worldwide every year"

$6 billion, eh? Well, it's worthwhile noting that you have an interest in inflating this figure to make the "problem" seem like it is larger than it really is. Second, where are you getting these figures? Studies have come out that argue that file sharing actually increases sales. I can't find the link, but I think I remember reading that the RIAA attorney in Capitol v Thomas said that there was no basis for determining those figures. Even if that isn't true, the way the MPAA is coming up with these figures is arbitrary.

"'Traditional organized criminals would drool' over the margins made by pirates."

Oh, really? You think everyone that downloads anything is making money off of the transaction somehow? Get real. 99.9% of file sharing has to be non-commercial between fans who just want to trade songs that they are interested in. I would also think that robbing a bank would pay WAY higher margins than selling DVDs of Police Academy on Chinese streets. The cost of production is essentially the price of the physical DVD, and there's no significant barrier to entry. So if you charge a billion yuan for Rush Hour 2, someone will certainly undercut you, if not download the movie for free themselves.

"Piracy"

Let us also remember that this term in and of itself is overloaded. This used to be a term for distributors that would print an author's work without paying him. (See Stallman's Free Software, Free Society) Let's call it what it is: file sharing of copyrighted content that is illegal in the American jurisdiction. Not 'piracy.'

Monday, December 03, 2007

Crossing the border? You're a terrorist!

From the Washington Post via Slashdot: It seems as though the federal government has hatched yet another brilliant idea with which to invade Americans' privacy. The culprit is another data-mining and analysis mega-project aimed to screen everyone who enters and leaves the country for a potential terrorist threat.

In a round-the-clock operation, targeters match names against terrorist watch lists and a host of other data to determine whether a person's background or behavior indicates a terrorist threat, a risk to border security or the potential for illegal activity. They also assess cargo.

Each traveler assessed by the center is assigned a numeric score: The higher the score, the higher the risk. A certain number of points send the traveler back for a full interview.

Yet another opportunity for bigoted assumptions about the nature of terrorists and bad data to act as an excuse for the government to expand its power. A little imagination reveals what the scoring system might look like:
+5 points if an Arab
+5 points if you are under 30
+5 points if you are dark-skinned
+5 points if you are wearing a turban
+5 points if you have no intention of returning to your home country
... and so on ...
+5 points if you look at the border officer the wrong way
+5 points if you assert your rights as a U.S. citizen
+5 points if you have recently attended a peace rally
+5 points if you have ever spoken against any policy of the political party in power

But, of course, DHS et al feel no accountability to any individual citizen, just like their no-fly (and other) lists. Once you've been marked as a terrorist (however apocryphal that label might be), just try getting off of it:

According to yesterday's notice, the program is exempt from certain requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974 that allow, for instance, people to access records to determine "if the system contains a record pertaining to a particular individual" and "for the purpose of contesting the content of the record."

Scary.