Questions for robots on saving the world: Pirating!

Proof that technology is an unstoppable force to be reckoned with can be shown in the actions taken by the music and movie industry concerning piracy. When the first personal CD burner was put into a personal computer the music industry has been scrambling to find ways to keep its empire intact. From possibly illegal software (RCA) on CD’s to stop a CD from being “ripped” onto the hard drive or “burnt,” to sealed Discman’s delivered (Sony) to music journalists to stop unreleased albums from leaking on the internet. No avenue has not been explored to protect this multi-billion dollar industry’s from going the way of history.
The “bad guys” entrusted in protecting their benefactors in music buisness is an organization known as the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). The RIAA has done everything from enlist musicians to condemn “pirating” such as the now hated Lars Ulrich of Metallica, to busting children from starting (Napster), or simply using file sharing networks on the internet. This ten year effort started in the mid nineties and has continued it way all the way up to the Supreme Court; which ruled in 2005 that an individual can not be responsible for the user’s actions on his/her file sharing network. This essentially sealed the fate of the record industry and was indicated by a drop in album prices, the closing of record store giants (Tower Records), and a jump in online sales from sites such as I-Tunes.
While the record industry scrambles to find new ways of making money off of underpaid “true” artists, and overpaid “industry” artists; the movie industry is starting to fight their own war over pirated DVD’s that would signal a drop in DVD sales a large portion of their—an even bigger multi-billion dollar industry. And once again the big studios have an acronized face to hide behind the Motion Picture Association of American (MPAA). And, as the MPAA is taking the same route the RPAA took by busting kids who are utilizing already existing technology at their disposal. Certain differences in both cases should be pointed out.
In the music business the main problem was that albums were being leaked before their release date via the internet; by journalists and music rags with advance copies of the album. Sometimes consumers would have early copies of albums a month or even two, before an album’s scheduled release date. And, what this did in terms of sales was decrease the anticipation sales and first week numbers, a period that is the largest percentage of sales typically for any mainstream record. In contrast, while “bootlegs” of movies have existed for twenty years on street corners of New York, these low quality camcorder copies of already released films have never posed any threat to the movie industry. As well, it is unheard of for movies to leak onto the internet before they are ever to be released, which should send a message to the music industry concerning how they treat the way promotions and early copies of records are treated.
Essentially what this means is that box-office numbers are not being affected by DVD “ripping;” which doesn’t even become and issue for a film until it is released in a format that can be copied sometimes a year after it first appeared in theaters. So what this means is that while the record industry has only one method to make money from a record, the movie industry profits both from the initial release of the film and the DVD release. As well, unless the home computer user has some knowledge of the technology he won’t be able to “rip” a purchased or rented DVD onto a blank medium. The user can try and download the movie but with large file sizes it takes at least a couple of days of uninterrupted broadband downloading, and once the file is on the computer the user runs into the same problem of how to get the movie onto a playable DVD.
What this debate really does for me more than anything else is feeling sorry for the “true” musicians who are loosing money in this battle; not for the four giant record companies, and not the Best Buy’s or Target who have other ways to make profits. Even if a movie tanks in the theaters and falls victim to DVD piracy, the actor in the movie—as long as it’s from a big studio—still gets paid for his/her performance. Albeit, these “true” musical artists I keep mentioning can make their money by touring and selling merchandise out from under the pressure of their label. In this regard “true” fans and artists of music will find themselves escaping the Titanic sinking ship of the over bloated record industry to the small and safe comforts of independent labels that distribute mainly through their partners in independent record shops.
So why is the MPAA fighting by shutting down sites that are distributing “ripping” software, and going after—once again—kids who are simply making copies of their favorite DVD’s so they don’t have to pay for a movie they probably have paid two other times to watch. Greed kills kills again, and then dies itself; all you have to do is wait!

2007 state of the union address by Goerge W. Bush

Best described as politicians on pogo-sticks the State of the Union address was received today by members of the house and senate, along with the judges of the supreme court, and army generals; they bobbed up and down,--from sitting to standing—like a headgear adorned eight year old on a sugar high bobbing for that last unattainable apple. The speech given by President George W. Bush was notably contrived and placid; surely in response to the lowest presidential rating (28%) since Richard Nixon was bracing for the break in the Watergate flood, as well as having been given to a newly democratic controlled house and senate. In this context I am sure the president and his speech writers knew exactly what to emphasize in the forty minute speech and what to strike from it altogether.
Considering the presidents mention of the isle, and that it doesn’t matter which side representatives were on, only that they crossed that line when it came to getting things done; it was amusing to watch the red side hop to its feet leaving the blue’s in theirs with signs of contempt on their faces. The most contentious issue the president addressed was surely the Iraq war and the loaded yet mostly uninformed debate concerning whether to send more troops of start bringing the ones already there home. Are senators, representatives, and the American people that uniformed and naive to believe that “failure” in Iraq will surely result in worsening terrorist attacks on our county or simply that it will leave Iraq worse that when we got there.
I guess this use of fear as a weapon has always been one of most irritation for me. And, while it is possible that terrorist attacks could increase if the US pulls out of Iraq, it is also just as possible that by “staying the course” in Iraq could also easily result in more terrorist attacks. Its just how all things work when the future is uncertain and best described as chaos like a drop of water on the hand could easily fall in any direction. Of course I could just as easily compare the war in Iraq much like a responsible camping trip in the wilderness: That you leave those areas exactly as you found them, taking with you only pictures, and leaving some sparse but inevitable footprints.
For the most part the speech was almost too safe, with no real policy points being addressed, or with nothing unexpected coming out of it. The only real unexpected part of the speech was in the introduction of former professional basketball player Dekembe Mutumbo following a section of his speech about AIDS in Africa. Although, where the correlation of Mutumbo’s American citizenship and the worst regional AIDS epidemic in the world relate to each other, I don’t know. If Mutumbo has sponsored an organization to confront this issue that affects his homeland of Congo then the president did not name that organization.
I wanted to make this “review” more comedic, even gonzo-ish in nature but like all things I let the writing take the lead and not my intentions. So as the reader is left with an expressionless glaze over their faces and a thought about how it would be nice to have those last five minutes back; I say to you: You read really fucking slow I could have read over this in at least two minutes! Oh yeah and as far as stats and things go, the same sort that interest me the least, this state of the union was first ever to be opened by a female speaker of the house.

Who really is the wolf in this picture . . .

For the sake of debate, I want to have a person next to a picture of a wolf on a wall and have it photographed in black and white so the viewer of the picture can participate in a debate with his mind as to who really is the "wolf" in the frame? And since the art in this scenario is the unspoken diolouge the individual has with thier mind and not my interpretation of the picture I can only add "talking points" as it were; to promote conversation. Wolves (as we know them) were first encountered in the North Americas when the "colonists" were attempting to get a stranglehold over the most hospitable areas of the Americas. Wolves who are predatory animals were percieved as a danger to the white settlers and thier livestock - so were killed in great numbers for mainly this reason; and secondly the furs they provided. It's not completely known exactly how many wolves were killed by explorers, trappers, settlers, etc. But what is known is that contrary to hollywooods portrayal of the wolf; and what the commom belief was at the time: No wolf has ever attacked a human bieng in the wild, and that fact is important to point out in this debate. Slogans like, "wolf in sheeps clothing" pop into mind here when trying to back up this view that worlves are the evil, to the sheeps good. At one point in American history one of the most populated area for wolves was Yellowstone National Park and in the year 1926 they were declared extinct from the park and would not be re-introduced until 1995 in small, non-impactful numbers. One could say that the Wolf was one of historical America's worst blunders; even if compared to our treatment of the native americans or other misstreatd animals like the bison. Before our arrival in the new world there existed a natural equlibrium between the wolves - thier many varried pray - and the native americans that had reached all time population highs shortly before the first spanish ship ever landed in the carribean. So I guess I'll pose the question one more time with this last bit of information to mull over: Until you look a wolf in the eyes in the wild, or in captivity you will never know how truly different they are from the common domesticated dogs (whom some anthropoligists believe are decended from quite dissimilar african wild dog breeds) and how magnificent these timid--beautiful creatures, that are perfect examples of evolution in action, as well as an example of one of natures mechanisms for keeping some herds numbers in check. So with the image of a person sitting or standing beside the picture (I use the picture example because a picture of a person beside a Wolf would be made to show the person as friend to the wolf) of a Wolf and ask yourself: Truly who is "Wolf" in this picture?