LOL Obama, Daily 01 February 2010

The description at Flickr:

President Barack Obama gives his State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress in the House Chamber of the U.S. Capitol, Jan. 27, 2010. Captured in the photo is the moment President Obama unveiled his surprising new plan to improve our national economic picture. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

So, not only am I appropriating images from the White House Flickr Photostream (and I've been too lazy to link back to the originals, I figure folks can figure it out for themselves), but I'm also lifting chunks of their description and subverting them for my own ends. Good thing Government Works aren't covered by copyright laws in the United States.

Woohoo, First Amendment!

LOL Obama ?!?

In honor of his recently announced Nobel Peace Prize, I present to you, LOL Obama (been awhile since I've done a 'Commentary by Means of LOL Speak', though there isn't any actual LOL Speak in the caption, if I made a caption that suggested Pres. Obama spoke in LOL style bad grammar, I'd probably be accused of racism...)

(the original can be found, here)

(and I'm ignoring the White House's interpretation of their copyright on this photo, besides, this is a satirical reinterpetation of the original photograph, and falls under fair use as far as I'm concerned)

Your Daily Photo (Yet More Fauna Edition)

Two turtles, one fish, murky water, and some really negative negative space thrown in. Why must you be so negative all the time, space?

(shot at Greystone Mansion (Flickr set, here), which you've seen a gazillion times in a bunch of crap, it's up high in the Hills of Beverly)

Also, if you are taking snaps with anything that looks more professional than a point and shoot, expect a park ranger to come up and politely remind you that no commercial photography is allowed on park grounds without a really expensive permit.The friendly ranger I spoke with debated the fine points of creative commons licenses with me, I asserted that posting these shots to Flickr don't constitute 'commercial use' if I'm posting them with the non-commercial use license, the ranger implied that the Beverly Hills D.A.s office might beg to differ. Either way, he didn't prevent me from taking pictures, and just told me to tell anyone else who asks that these snaps were for 'personal use' only. Well, for me, uploading my photos publicly on Flickr is part of 'personal use', so go ahead and send me a take down notice, I'd love to challenge your rules in court with regards to what constitutes 'personal use' and 'commercial'.

Faireys, Stains, and Copyright Law . . .

So, Shepard Fairey and the AP photographer who shot the shot that was the basis for the famous series of paintings/posters are seeking an amicable agreement on what the photog sees as an infringement of his copyright. I say screw amicability! Fight this to the Supreme Court, somebody needs to stand up for fair use (the story I linked doesn't say they're working towards an agreement, but subsequent reports suggest a settlement is in the works).

Above is a reworking of the Stains video. Under current interpretations of copyright law, that's probably a violation, but luckily Animal Planet hasn't bothered with getting agressive with the takedown notices yet, cause that's some serious awesome right there (found via Martinsargent's twitter, in turn he credits nippys)

Copyright law must allow for that sort of awesomeness (or even the Obama poster stupidity, for that matter). Until that is legal, the law must be rewritten.

President Obama, fixing this and allowing mash-ups to flourish would be Change I Can Believe In!

Who Cares About the Bailout, PANDORA'S BEEN SAVED!!!

Congress can do a few things right . . .

You Might Also Enjoy . . .

Wait, you liked that? Nevermind, anyone who likes Daria is probably some anhedonic freak, so sorry, we can't recommend anything else for you to watch, in short, you suck.

(I'm really enjoying these Blockbuster Online recommendations . . .)

And MTV, there are plenty of anhedonic freaks like me out there, release all the episodes already.

And I know the main reason they can't is because of the whole music rights clearance issue (see WKRP), and also cause they don't think it's a big enough audience, but Daria was one of the better shows on TV in the late 90s and early 00s (no, really).

SO what I'm really asking for is Congress to reform the outmoded and anti-innovative copyright laws that just don't make sense in a multi-media, on-demand, youtube world.

Death to perpetual copyright, death to copyright holders exerting extortive influence over secondary uses of their copyrighted materials, death to using copyright issues to squelch protected free speech (see cafe press regarding non-lefty parody paraphenalia).

I'm as Sick of Blogging About This Topic as You Are Reading About It, but One More Thing . . .

More WGA related nonsense here. It beats writing about the Iowa Caucus, anyway.

So WGA members think they've got Jay Leno in trouble since he admitted to writing jokes to give in his monologue.

Ohhh! The Horror! The Horror!

Clearly, the WGA rules do state that a WGA member can't write, even material they perform themselves, if they choose to perform during the strike, they can only do so from scripts prepared before the strike, or only material such as anecdotes or extempraneous interviews and observations.

Jay Leno admitted to violating this when he said he discussed the jokes he was going to tell with his wife, just like he always does. Somehow the WGA is going to try and convince the public that a working comic doing his own material on his own show is doing something awful by wanting to actually be entertaining while fulfilling his contractual obligations to the studio that employs him.

I've got news for the WGA, you'll look like a bunch of major league asses if you push this issue. If you go on, do your best, that's what the public expects, outside of the public sector, most people work non-union jobs and don't care if their late night comedy comes with the union label or not, they just want funny (which doesn't really explain why Leno continues to be so highly rated, but whatever).

Reminds me of the RIAA (Pastor Jeff has a good post on this mess, here), they think just cause a badly written law is on their side, that when they push the issue, folks will change their behavior and fall in line.

Yet Another Way I'm a Scofflaw . . .

From this WaPo article (via Drudge)

Now, in an unusual case in which an Arizona recipient of an RIAA letter has fought back in court rather than write a check to avoid hefty legal fees, the industry is taking its argument against music sharing one step further: In legal documents in its federal case against Jeffrey Howell, a Scottsdale, Ariz., man who kept a collection of about 2,000 music recordings on his personal computer, the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer.

The industry's lawyer in the case, Ira Schwartz, argues in a brief filed earlier this month that the MP3 files Howell made on his computer from legally bought CDs are "unauthorized copies" of copyrighted recordings.

I must confess, I have dozens of CDs "illegally" copied on my computer. It should be more like 600-1000, but last time I installed Vista (after one tweak too many in the registry I decided to go with a fresh install) I accidentally installed it on my data drive rather than my root drive and erased all my MP3s. I was planning on re-encoding all my CDs into 320kbps MP3s anyway (disk space isn't much of an issue anymore given the size of hard drive available). Instead of ripping all my discs, I've been using my Rhapsody account and streaming them from their server, or ripping the music industry approved DRM embedded WMV copy that are available for current subscribers.

I'm less of an outlaw than I'd like to be, but one evening I'll go on a ripping spree and fill my hard drive with the "illegal" stuff.

The fact that Congress not only passed a law that had language in it that makes ripping your own CDs for personal use illegal is bad enough. On top of that you have record companies desperate and stupid enough to insist on enforcing this dumb law, and you have a situation where, new consumers will see that if you'll be accused of theft for "stealing" tracks off of CDs you've purchased, then the next step and actually stealing MP3s off the internet will seem much more justifiable (and a lot cheaper). File sharing is theft (sorry kiddies, but it is), and I have no problem with the industry attacking people who upload media (even if I might download the occasional BBC program, I think of it more like 'time-shifting' it's stuff I'd have access to anyway, just a few months early), but when you define all non-authorized use as piracy, then you make everybody pirates.

Plus, did you catch Foxtrot this Sunday?

(guess Bill Amend didn't know when he wrote it that EMI the RIAA would go after folks who copy CDs as well as DVDs on to their portables or computers)

UPDATE:

D'oh! I know it's the RIAA filing suit in the article mentioned above, I just let Drudge's pairing of that article with another specifically about EMI cloud my judgement. Seems the new owners expect folks at EMI to follow good business practices, cut waste, and develop artists for global markets. Imagine the nerve!

"Keats and Shelley’s contemporaries might have called them “star-fornicators” instead of the cruder expression we use today,"

Blogpost composed a few miles above the Protestant Cemetery behind the Pyramid Cestius on revisiting the internet cafe during a tour, October 3, 2007.

Or something like that, Ken Jennings makes an observation about the cult of fame, of course that other Ken (Russell) kind of beat him to the punch a few decades earlier with his film, LISZTOMANIA (which for some unknown and probably really dumb reason still hasn't been released on DVD) but it's still an apt observation, and many folks do suggest that the cult of the international superstar began in the early romantic period, Shelley and Byron fit the bill. Keats was the first James Dean. He was the first posthomous superstar whose supporters puffed up after his death, and even suggested his death was a result of the criticism he received while alive. Live fast, die young wasn't invented in the 1960s (can't add the 'pretty corpse' part, drowning, battlefield wounds, and TB don't tend to leave pretty corpses)

(and was my Wordsworth reference oblique enough?, or too obvious?)

And speaking of copyright issues (what we weren't?), I agree with Prof. Glenn Reynolds (at least I think I agree, he doesn't actually state his advocacy), in a post lamenting the high cost of picking up the DVD for Last Days of Disco (probably Whit Stillman's least good film, but his least good film is better than 95% of films out there) that cases like that (and the unavailability of Lisztomania) are good arguments for compulsory licensing.

License holders shouldn't be able to hold content hostage, if there are those willing to produce a product, and those willing to buy a product, then the license holder shouldn't be able to withhold a particular piece of IP off the market indefinitely (so long as the folks who are producing are willing and able to cough up reasonable license fees and royalties). From video games designed for bygone game systems, to books with a small but loyal following, to films that have missed out on the DVD era because of gaggles of lawyers, intellectual property should be handled in a way that still respects the rights of the license holder, but those rights should come with a little responsibility, too.

IP copyright shouldn't be extendable ad infinitum, either, the public domain is essentially dead, the only time anything produced since the 1940s slips into the public domain, it's because some lawyer really screwed up, that's not the spirit of the original copyright laws, and this subversion helped birth a culture where IP theft seems like a morally defensible act for many consumers.

Beware of Gurus Offering Solutions That Cost Them Nothing (and Somebody Else Dearly)

Steve Jobs is the latest guru offering up a solution to a perceived problem, that would cost his company absolutely nothing.

Given that iTunes doesn't own the rights to any of the music they provide, just manages the digital rights management, to suggest to content providers to offer up everything free of those restrictions costs Apple Corp. very little.

What would be more impressive coming from Steve Jobs would be to open up iTunes to non-Apple players media players. I'd believe in his commitment to a better consumer experience with digital entertainment if he instead offered to provide, for free, firmware and software upgrades to rival players.

If Apple wanted to, they could let Microsoft Zune users, Creative Zen users, Toshiba Gigabeat users, and all the other countless rival devices, use of DRM managed iTunes content. They could pay to have their software engineers write the code to make this bit of translation happen (it's possible there are hardware limitations involved that can't be easily overcome, but I doubt it, there are no rival AAC players, not for technical reasons, but because Apple doesn't believe in licensing their tech out to anybody else, they've historically been the least 'open source' company of all the big hardware/software firms, even worse than the reviled Microsoft).

I doubt any of their rivals would refuse entry into the large user base of iTunes customers, and presumably, if ease of use for consumers is the goal, then this would please consumers as well as the content providers (given DRM would remain).

Edgar Bronfman of Warner already rejected this idea presented by Jobs, and given Doug Morris' campaign against something as mostly harmless as YouTube, we could imagine that Universal won't be on board anytime soon.

So instead of trying to get other folks to give stuff away for free that they feel is against their motivated self interest, why won't Mr. Jobs take one for the team and offer up something of perceived value for Apple (their monopoly on iTunes users) and let their competitors at their customers and their customers at their competitors.

If the Apple branded players are so clearly superior, then they'll have nothing to fear, and by doing this move unilaterally, it will put pressure on Microsoft to do something similar with their DRM'd content on a reciprocal basis.

If my URGE subscription also gave me access to iTunes, Rhapsody, Napster and Zune Marketplace, and vice versa, then I think the market for these sort of services would skyrocket. Also, instead of competing on exclusivity, they'd compete on price and service, and isn't that where the competition should take place?

It would be better for everyone, content providers, consumers, and hardware makers alike. The devices are smart enough, and computers fast enough to make all these competing formats work seamlessly on each other's systems, it's only a matter of having the will to make it happen.

It will take a big player like Apple to make a unilateral move, one that would seem to be a sacrifice of their own market share at first, to cause the floodgates to open.

UPDATE: (09 FEB 07, 6:26pm)

Bill offers up some good criticism (and factual corrections) to my rant in the comments. Also, if someone on a webpage run by Rolling Stone (via slashdot, where there's a bit of cognitive dissonance going on regarding M$FT not being the evil-est corporation in the world) sort of agrees with me, then I'm probably on the wrong track.

Let me sum up my ownself, shorter version of above, "I hate Steve Jobs".

And speaking of anti-Apple rants, this one by Charlie Booker printed in The Guardian this week, is incandescent with rage, snark, and British goodness.

When something needs a good slagging off, it's hard to find a writer outside of Britain who can do a better job at the slagging.

Most likely audio devices already on the market couldn't be retroactively made compatible with all services, that I acknowledge readily, but Apple's talk of tearing down DRM for everyone is most likely a response to Euroweenie governments possible efforts in forcing Apple to open up their DRM unilaterally (Eurocrats hate successful companies, no success comes without some sort of evil monopoly according to a dedicated Eurocrat).

I Haven't Been Infringing Enough Copyrights Lately

It's time for another YouTube Infringomatic Post Spectacular.

I can't take credit for this, I wish I could, someone took X's Los Angeles and combined it with recent scenes of Downtown Los Angeles, good stuff this.



Here's a Bleach AMV for you. This show is on Adult Swim now, it's no Cowboy Bebop, but it's not bad, either. Also seems to me that if the producers of Bleach, or the musicians whose song was used complain, they are seriously misguided. This is free advertising, not theft.



And just because it's there, here's some awful French Pop from 1971 (très fromage)



Random enough for you?

Best/Worst 80s Videos

Andrew Sullivan, feeling a bit stung by criticism over his continued love for all things Pet Shop Boys, resorts to calling for folks to send in suggestions for the best/worst videos of the 80s that best exemplify that which the 80s music scene represents.

I picked three videos for best, and only one for worst (for that title is so clearly earned, as to be beyond dispute).

The videos I picked aren't the best videos, the best songs, but they are quintessentially 80s (at least in my opinion).

80s was a time of paying homage, as well as putting new twists on things, so my first suggestion was this clip of Power Station doing Bang a Gong. "Supergroups" were a very 80s phenom, and Power Station were one of the better ones. Robert Palmer could sing! Andy Taylor is a pretty damn fine guitarist. And drummers don't get much better than Niles Rodgers. Plus, this video has hot chicks and neon-like animation (an 80s requirement)



Next up, the somewhat obscure, and probably mostly forgotten Haysi Fantayzee doing their big hit Shiny Shiny. This video is fantastic. Their style was "interesting". The album from which this song was taken was a great album that is impossible to find nowadays. They were a novelty act, more famous in England for getting into the tabloids than their actual music, but the music had a polish, charm and unique quality that's hard to match. Plus it's hard to picture them outside of 1982-1985, which is probably why they vanished so quickly. So perfectly of the times, that they could not survive beyond those times.



The third "best" video from the 80s I chose was Aztec Camera with Oblivious. I think this is one of the greatest pop songs of all time. Roddy Frame is a god, no one can ever tell me different. The video is a series of early/mid 80s cliches thrown together. Works well anyway.



Finally, the worst, well one word is all that's needed MENUDO (the horror, the horror). Watch it if you dare, just remember, some things once seen, can't be unseen.



Finally, shame on Mr. Sullivan for all this irresponsible encouragement of gross copyright infringement. Doug Morris should sue him while he's going around suing folks (or not).

I expect posts of this ilk to spring up like poppies across the internets.

Infringement Fridays

(via Drudge)

More media conglomerate presidents are cluelessly whining about YouTube.

The history of media so far . . .

TV will destroy the current media content paradigm and drain it of all value, while lowering the level of discourse.

Cable TV will destroy the current media content paradigm and drain it of all value, while lowering the level of discourse.

Video Tapes will destroy the current media content paradigm and drain it of all value, while increasing piracy.

DVDs will destroy the current media content paradigm and drain it of all value, while increasing piracy.

YouTube will destroy the current media content paradigm and drain it of all value, while increasing piracy.

The second part of each of these statements has been true to some exent, but the first part has been ridiculously false. Each new medium has increased profits rather than reduced them, yet the content providers have fought to put draconian controls on the end users ability to enjoy their product.

(I conveniently left out P2P file sharing/MP3s effect on music, cause they most likely did drain value out of the music industry, but the decline can also be explained by shoddy product and more competing choices for entertainment dollars)

Now on to the copyright infringement portion of the post . . .

Island records is part of Doug Morris' empire so here is a seminal song in the Island catalogue. The fantastic Harder They Come by Jimmy Cliff

For me, the Warner Bros. artist that matters most is early Prince. Damn, that purple little freak was (is) good. So many great songs to choose from, I'll go with the original video for 1999. Why? Cause Lisa (I'm not sure that's Wendy next to her in the video) looks tasty (speaking of Lisa, I like the work she and Wendy are doing scoring this show), the song is great, and it's hard to believe that 1999 is so long ago, let alone 1982 when this song was first recorded.

Back to pissing off Doug Morris, Geffen Records is the home of many great acts. I'm going for a back in the day clip from Lone Justice

Finally, back to the WB, Looney Tunes is one of their most valuable assets, let's just 'drain it of value' why don't we, after watching this clip now you won't have any urge to ever buy another Looney Tunes DVD again (I guess that's what Dick Parsons is thinking, or something). This particular bit of YouTube-age is a bizarre amalgamation of Daffy Duck and Bonnie Tyler, you've been warned.

YouTube Blowout

In honor of the possible sale of YouTube to Google (news via Instapundit), I thought I'd post some YouTube goodness.

First up, Cheap Trick, just because (I Want You to Want Me).

Second, some randomness from Japan (with English Subtitles), Hard Gay in a Ramen Shop style (requires age verification, nothing explicit though)

Thirdly, Stride piano at its best, Fats Walller was a great one. Some clowning, verging on minstrelsy in this clip, but entertaining nevertheless.

Finally, Kat Dennings posted a new video this week! Woohoo! Almost ten minutes of Kat and Friend (and the friend isn't a Gumby doll this time). Good times, good times.

Let's See, I Could Either Title This Post, "It Takes One to Know One" or "I Know You Are, But What Am I?"

(via Drudge)

Reuters headline

Only a "Moron" Would Buy YouTube, Says Cuban

Mark Cuban is usually an idiot. His HDNet will be a big failure and he lucked into his broadcast.com fortune. With that said he's partially correct. YouTube isn't like other previous popular internet properties. It does have a huge cloud hanging over it, and a deep pockets owner would be exposed to an endless round of lawsuits.

That's why I think a possible way out of this would be if a consortium of media concerns agreed to operate YouTube collectively. Use directed advertising like the little google links that pop up in gmail, but make them 10-15 second commercials that are attached to the beginning of videos. Make them content sensitive, and charge based on where the content came from. If the content being shown is from your own company, you get to advertise free. If another one of the conglomerates wants to attach an ad for one of their products then charge a tiny fee. Leave the way YouTube works alone.

YouTube only enhances the value of the content owned by the media conglomerates. It's proved over and over again, just look at the success Fox News Sunday enjoyed by not fighting their clip spreading by YouTube. FoxNews.com had a different idea about this, but the big boss came down on the side of letting YouTube provide free advertising rather than forcing those that want the content to have to visit Foxnews.com.

By making YouTube a neutral playing field, and recognizing it as such, it would be a valuable commodity to all the big media players as a signal to which content is valued and which isn't. If people love what they see on YouTube, advertise there, point to a higher quality download or DVD they can purchase, and watch the profits increase.

Kill this, and watch more folks become turned off by media companies in general and seek spending their free time engaged elsewhere.

Mark Cuban is correct that the current approach to copyright would kill this site if one of the big media players try to buy YouTube and the others then decide to jealously guard their content. But if they want to act in their collective self interest, they'll let this site flourish as is. They should think of it as free market research rather than a copyright infringer's paradise.

Why Roger Ailes is a Better Executive Than Doug Morris

Roger Ailes, one of the best executives in the entertainment/news industry, has some of his intellectual property go viral on YouTube, and celebrates the fact.

Doug Morris, in contrast, is still an idiot.

YouTube doesn't function as a replacement source of entertainment, essentially it is fan directed free advertising. Fox's rating for Fox News Sunday were through the roof, thanks in no small part to YouTube.

Also, poor Tim Russert, he gave his best Monica Lewinsky impression on Meet the Press and kept his knees on the floor, buried his head in the former President's lap, and planted his lips firmly around Pres. Clinton's 'charisma'.

He must be feeling like a fool now. If Clinton ever goes on Meet the Press again, I suspect a different Tim Russert will greet him.