YouTube's getting in hotter and hotter water. The class-action lawsuit I mentioned earlier is growing. Essentially, the intellectual property environment's a little more complex than I've seen mentioned before:
Unlike the music labels such as Universal and EMI, which own copyrights to specific recordings of songs, the NMPA owns copyrights to music lyrics and specific melodies. Media companies that wish to use music usually have to obtain licenses from both the music label and the NMPA, as pointed out by the Wall Street Journal —something that YouTube has not done when forming agreements with the four major labels to use their music on the site in exchange for a cut of ad revenue.
And being a class-action suit, merely settling out of court will be a little more difficult. Each party's going to have their own agenda.
This does nothing but strengthen my believe that Google is a bit cavalier in how it approaches intellectual property, and that this is going to cost them.
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
Russian's New "Anti-Westernism"
An interesting read in the Moscow Times on Russia's growing anti-Western stance. Some excerpts:
The Russian political elite has long dreamed of finding a national idea capable of rallying the people. Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev tried to consolidate the country with his idea of socialism "with a human face." Former President Boris Yeltsin roused the people around anti-communism.
And President Vladimir Putin came to power under the unofficial slogan: "Let's put an end to the Yeltsin-era chaos." Now the elite is pushing a new national idea to rally the nation. It can be stated as follows: "We will protect the country from external enemies and establish a new global order to replace the one that so humiliated Russia in the 1990s." To put it more simply, Putin's motto is: "Russia is back!"
And then:
What is behind the new national idea? Anti-Western ideology has become an important factor that legitimizes the highly centralized state. The Kremlin has to offer some kind of explanation for the concentration of authority in so few hands, the elimination of political pluralism, the expansion of the state's role in the economy and the redistribution of property. The search for enemies and the cultivation of a "siege mentality" have always been used to justify "iron-hand" regimes in Russia. To be sure, the Kremlin also has created smaller enemies, such as Georgia, Ukraine, and the Baltic states. In addition, liberals and certain unpopular oligarchs serve as convenient adversaries. But a great power should not be shooting at sparrows with a cannon or focusing so much attention on "small fries," as one Russian analyst said. The West, and especially the United States, has proven to be the most convincing enemy.
And yet, interestingly:
Fortunately, the majority of people have managed to avoid getting caught up in the anti-Western hysteria. Polls show that 70 percent of Russians still consider Europe to be a partner. But there are definite consequences to the Kremlin's heavy anti-Western propaganda. The elite, which has built a political and foreign policy program based on anti-Western ideas, cannot easily switch back to the opposite position. That is the legacy Putin leaves behind -- a legacy built by everyone who today shouts with such enthusiasm, "Russia is back!"
It's an interesting read that explains quite a bit.
The Russian political elite has long dreamed of finding a national idea capable of rallying the people. Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev tried to consolidate the country with his idea of socialism "with a human face." Former President Boris Yeltsin roused the people around anti-communism.
And President Vladimir Putin came to power under the unofficial slogan: "Let's put an end to the Yeltsin-era chaos." Now the elite is pushing a new national idea to rally the nation. It can be stated as follows: "We will protect the country from external enemies and establish a new global order to replace the one that so humiliated Russia in the 1990s." To put it more simply, Putin's motto is: "Russia is back!"
And then:
What is behind the new national idea? Anti-Western ideology has become an important factor that legitimizes the highly centralized state. The Kremlin has to offer some kind of explanation for the concentration of authority in so few hands, the elimination of political pluralism, the expansion of the state's role in the economy and the redistribution of property. The search for enemies and the cultivation of a "siege mentality" have always been used to justify "iron-hand" regimes in Russia. To be sure, the Kremlin also has created smaller enemies, such as Georgia, Ukraine, and the Baltic states. In addition, liberals and certain unpopular oligarchs serve as convenient adversaries. But a great power should not be shooting at sparrows with a cannon or focusing so much attention on "small fries," as one Russian analyst said. The West, and especially the United States, has proven to be the most convincing enemy.
And yet, interestingly:
Fortunately, the majority of people have managed to avoid getting caught up in the anti-Western hysteria. Polls show that 70 percent of Russians still consider Europe to be a partner. But there are definite consequences to the Kremlin's heavy anti-Western propaganda. The elite, which has built a political and foreign policy program based on anti-Western ideas, cannot easily switch back to the opposite position. That is the legacy Putin leaves behind -- a legacy built by everyone who today shouts with such enthusiasm, "Russia is back!"
It's an interesting read that explains quite a bit.
Digg Report
Digg Report: Today's #1 Digg, at a light 2833 Diggs, is a link to a list of "20 Things I Learned from Tech Support." It's cute, as are many such lists.
Yahoo!'s China Troubles Keep Growing
I think things are going to get tougher for Yahoo! in their Chinese troubles before they get any easier. I remain torn on whether American businesses should do business with nations that don't recognize individual rights (my natural inclination as an Objectivist is to say that they should not), but this quote is unsupportable:
Yahoo! has always said its Chinese subsidiary was only obeying local laws.
Such a stance can be taken to support any action, no matter how evil. It could have been used to justify a company's direct support of and business with the Nazis. After all, the Holocaust was simply the result of local German laws.
Yahoo! has always said its Chinese subsidiary was only obeying local laws.
Such a stance can be taken to support any action, no matter how evil. It could have been used to justify a company's direct support of and business with the Nazis. After all, the Holocaust was simply the result of local German laws.
Russian and China Play War Games
The Russian/Chinese joint military exercises being discussed for some time now seem a bit larger than necessary for anti-terrorism activities, specifically, unless it were anti-terrorism of the "invade a territory and root out terrorists" variety. The linked story speculates that it could be a show of defiance against NATO.
Which, of course, if true, is of concern.
Which, of course, if true, is of concern.
Russia Continues Showing Two Faces
Russia needs to decide whether it wants to join in the European missile shield program, or whether it wants to continue seeing it as a threat to Russia. Because continuing to talk about alternatives to the American plan while developing new weapons to defeat the system is just self-contradictory and tiresome.
Other than merely envying America's currently dominating role in the world, I just don't see much reason for Russia to believe that the West is a threat to them. Sure, we're cozying up to some of Russia's neighbors, but Russia isn't supposed to be an enemy any longer. They're supposed to be a "democracy," (in quotes because I hate that term), and "democracies" aren't supposed to fight wars. At least, it's never happened in the past.
Perhaps Russia perceives a threat because it knows itself that its turn toward totalitarianism (of a more national socialist nature) will eventually bring it at odds with the West. Hell, maybe it's already happening. As far as I can tell, Russia has no intention of joining the West and supporting individual rights (to the extent that the West does so, of course), and so perhaps it's just preparing itself for the inevitable.
Other than merely envying America's currently dominating role in the world, I just don't see much reason for Russia to believe that the West is a threat to them. Sure, we're cozying up to some of Russia's neighbors, but Russia isn't supposed to be an enemy any longer. They're supposed to be a "democracy," (in quotes because I hate that term), and "democracies" aren't supposed to fight wars. At least, it's never happened in the past.
Perhaps Russia perceives a threat because it knows itself that its turn toward totalitarianism (of a more national socialist nature) will eventually bring it at odds with the West. Hell, maybe it's already happening. As far as I can tell, Russia has no intention of joining the West and supporting individual rights (to the extent that the West does so, of course), and so perhaps it's just preparing itself for the inevitable.
Monday, August 06, 2007
Presidential Candidate Tom Tancredo Suggests Attacks on Mecca and Medina if US is Nuked
I'm sure I'll be roasted for this, if it gets any wide readership, but I don't necessarily disagree with Republican Presidential candidate Tom Tancredo when he suggests that one way to avoid an Islamic fundamentalist nuclear attack on the US is to establish a policy that such an attack would result in equal attacks against Mecca and Medina.
If taken seriously, this would have two affects. First, it would certainly give the state sponsors of terrorism, who would be the ones to give the terrorists the weapons in the first place, reason to give the whole matter some thought. Second, once they thought about it, it would give them reason to actively seek out any and all terrorists who might be considering such an attack, and make sure it doesn't happen.
Is it a harsh policy? Certainly. But then, a nuclear attack against the US would have harsh repercussions, not just for the US. In fact, targeting Mecca and Medina would result in far fewer human losses than targeting Tehran and Damascus. And it would demonstrate that the US is not a nation to be trifled with--which is the one lesson al Qaeda and other terrorists organizations haven't yet learned (because we haven't taught it to them).
All they understand is strength. And such a policy would represent the sort of strength that they would certainly understand. After all, their targets on 9/11 were of just as much symbolic value to Americans as these holy sites are to Muslims, and yet the terrorists had no problem attacking them. In fact, that was the point--which should be the point of our policy, as well.
If taken seriously, this would have two affects. First, it would certainly give the state sponsors of terrorism, who would be the ones to give the terrorists the weapons in the first place, reason to give the whole matter some thought. Second, once they thought about it, it would give them reason to actively seek out any and all terrorists who might be considering such an attack, and make sure it doesn't happen.
Is it a harsh policy? Certainly. But then, a nuclear attack against the US would have harsh repercussions, not just for the US. In fact, targeting Mecca and Medina would result in far fewer human losses than targeting Tehran and Damascus. And it would demonstrate that the US is not a nation to be trifled with--which is the one lesson al Qaeda and other terrorists organizations haven't yet learned (because we haven't taught it to them).
All they understand is strength. And such a policy would represent the sort of strength that they would certainly understand. After all, their targets on 9/11 were of just as much symbolic value to Americans as these holy sites are to Muslims, and yet the terrorists had no problem attacking them. In fact, that was the point--which should be the point of our policy, as well.
The Register Reports Shocking News That Sales Went Up and Prices Went Down
Umm, news to the Register: in elastic markets (like computer chips) sales typically do go up as prices go down. That's a result of this thing called "economics." In fact, and this might come as a surprise to the story's writer, companies sometimes actually lower prices on purpose to increase sales.
Read the story. It actually states that, although sales were up, chipmakers were hurt because prices were lower. I don't mind a little ignorance in a journalist, but man, this is a doozy.
Read the story. It actually states that, although sales were up, chipmakers were hurt because prices were lower. I don't mind a little ignorance in a journalist, but man, this is a doozy.
Founders Believed in Seperation of Church and State
A tremendous post on the Rule of Reason blog supports with copious amounts of evidence the notion that America was not founded on Christian moral principles. It's an important discussion of the need and justification for the seperation of church and state.
It's not a short read, but I won't quote any here because it's too tightly-written an essay to quote from. If you care at all about the issue, you'll read the piece in its entirety.
It's not a short read, but I won't quote any here because it's too tightly-written an essay to quote from. If you care at all about the issue, you'll read the piece in its entirety.
Miltary Loses Track of 190,000 Weapons in Iraq
I'm not sure what I find worse about this MSNBC story, that we've lost track of 190,000 assault rifles and pistols provided to Iraqi security personnel, or that we were giving them AK-47's instead of American weapons. From my limited military perspective, that would seem, well, stupid.
I was in the military, as it happens, and so I know how these things can happen. The military's a bureaucracy like any other, and when things are rushed and policies not followed (as seems to be case here), things like this are commonplace. The lost of the weapons, I mean. But, at the risk of repeating myself, I still don't get that we were handing out AK-47's.
I was in the military, as it happens, and so I know how these things can happen. The military's a bureaucracy like any other, and when things are rushed and policies not followed (as seems to be case here), things like this are commonplace. The lost of the weapons, I mean. But, at the risk of repeating myself, I still don't get that we were handing out AK-47's.
Cox and Forkum on Islamic Crackdown on Concert Attendees
Cox and Forkum on a recent arrest of 230 Iranian youths attending a private concert. Apparently, the arrest is part of an effort to crackdown on the sort of "immoral" behavior defined during the original Islamic Revolution.
With Imajihadi (or whatever his name is) as lunatic President and with Islamic totalitarianism on the rise, nah, there's no reason for the US to be concerned about Iran.
With Imajihadi (or whatever his name is) as lunatic President and with Islamic totalitarianism on the rise, nah, there's no reason for the US to be concerned about Iran.
Digg Report
Digg Report: Today's #1 Digg, at 5929 Diggs, is a link to a picture of Kevin Mitnick's business cards. For those who don't see hacking as a criminal activity, I suppose this is sort of like hero-worship. To others, well, it's not.
Ron Paul's Appeal is to the Internet's Youngsters
I agree that this is fascinating: Ron Paul barely registers in the mainstream of the 2008 Presidental campaign, but on the Internet, he's #1 over both Dems and Republicans. CNET suggests that perhaps it's an age thing, that Paul's positions resonate with the Internet's younger demographics.
I'll buy that. I think it also relegates the Internet to relative unimportance in contemporary politics.
I'll buy that. I think it also relegates the Internet to relative unimportance in contemporary politics.
Google/YouTube Sued for Copyright Infringement
And therein lies the rub: yes, Google/YouTube might remove copyrighted material whenever requested, but by that time, the cat's already out of the bag. With tools for downloading video from YouTube, by the time it's removed thousands or even millions of copies might already have been made.
These services must devise methods to prohibit the infringement in the first place. How they do so is up to them, but until they do, they're providing a platform for committing crimes. At the very least, such civil actions as that discussed in the linked CNET story should succeed.
These services must devise methods to prohibit the infringement in the first place. How they do so is up to them, but until they do, they're providing a platform for committing crimes. At the very least, such civil actions as that discussed in the linked CNET story should succeed.
Boing Boing Interviews Sudhir Vankatesh About Street Gangs
Boing Boing posts about an upcoming book by Sudhir Venkatesh (author of Freakonomics) on street gangs. To be titled Gang Leader for a Day, the author had this to say in an interview at Columbia University:
Q: How do gang members see themselves as fitting in with society at large? Do gang members have a real comprehension that the things they do — dealing drugs, engaging in violence, destroying property, scaring people — are widely perceived as not only illegal but also morally wrong?
A: Many gang members who attain leadership status are deeply conscious of their perception by wider society. They tend to make two arguments when discussing their behavior: first, that whites also work in the underground economy but are not prosecuted (or stigmatized) to the same degree (just look at the differential rates of punishment for powder cocaine and crack cocaine — the former is distributed by whites to a far greater degree); and second, that corporations also engage in criminal activity, but are rarely viewed as outlaws — not just Enron, but oil and other companies that have established histories of supporting anti-democratic regimes in developing counties to secure their own profits.
What fascinates me the most about the gang leader's answer is this part: "that corporations also engage in criminal activity, but are rarely viewed as outlaws." If the book is supposed to show that gang leaders are actually in touch with what's really going on, then it's already failed. American corporations and businesspeople are perhaps the single most persecuted group in American society, being blamed for everything from pure greed to outright evil. If the only example this gang leader can think of is Enron, than he's not very well read.
Q: How do gang members see themselves as fitting in with society at large? Do gang members have a real comprehension that the things they do — dealing drugs, engaging in violence, destroying property, scaring people — are widely perceived as not only illegal but also morally wrong?
A: Many gang members who attain leadership status are deeply conscious of their perception by wider society. They tend to make two arguments when discussing their behavior: first, that whites also work in the underground economy but are not prosecuted (or stigmatized) to the same degree (just look at the differential rates of punishment for powder cocaine and crack cocaine — the former is distributed by whites to a far greater degree); and second, that corporations also engage in criminal activity, but are rarely viewed as outlaws — not just Enron, but oil and other companies that have established histories of supporting anti-democratic regimes in developing counties to secure their own profits.
What fascinates me the most about the gang leader's answer is this part: "that corporations also engage in criminal activity, but are rarely viewed as outlaws." If the book is supposed to show that gang leaders are actually in touch with what's really going on, then it's already failed. American corporations and businesspeople are perhaps the single most persecuted group in American society, being blamed for everything from pure greed to outright evil. If the only example this gang leader can think of is Enron, than he's not very well read.
Iran and Saudi Arabia: Allies?
Once again, a very dubious source, but imagine if this post is true. The money quote:
Iran's President and the king of Saudi Arabia stressed on boosting unity and brotherhood among Muslims in a phone conversation.
If this conversation actually took place, and has any real meaning, then we just promised $20 billion to an Arab that hopes to be allied with Iran.
Somehow I doubt it really means anything (and the $20 billion to Saudi Arabia can't really be made any worse), but it's just creepy.
Iran's President and the king of Saudi Arabia stressed on boosting unity and brotherhood among Muslims in a phone conversation.
If this conversation actually took place, and has any real meaning, then we just promised $20 billion to an Arab that hopes to be allied with Iran.
Somehow I doubt it really means anything (and the $20 billion to Saudi Arabia can't really be made any worse), but it's just creepy.
Sunday, August 05, 2007
Digg Report
Digg Report: Today's #1 Digg, at 2869 Diggs, is a link to what the poster calls the most "intense" tattoo you'll ever see. I say, it's the most grotesque.
Ahmadinejad Says Israel Should "go find somewhere else" To Live
I wonder a bit about this source, but if true, then Iranian President Imajihadi (or whatever his name is) has put his foot into it again. Here's a quote:
Iran's outspoken President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called on Israel to "go find somewhere else" for its state and leave its territory for the creation of a Palestinian state, according to an interview published Saturday. "Our support (for the Palestinian people) is unconditional.
I'm sure that, as usual, this will be downplayed by the Left as merely mistranslation, as with the hundreds of other such statements he's made. If this source is valid, it's just another piece in a long line of evidence that Iran is led by a madman.
Iran's outspoken President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called on Israel to "go find somewhere else" for its state and leave its territory for the creation of a Palestinian state, according to an interview published Saturday. "Our support (for the Palestinian people) is unconditional.
I'm sure that, as usual, this will be downplayed by the Left as merely mistranslation, as with the hundreds of other such statements he's made. If this source is valid, it's just another piece in a long line of evidence that Iran is led by a madman.
China Publishes Anti-Corruption Game
The Chinese government is taking corruption seriously: it created a game where the object is to kill all corrupt officials on the way to a corruption-free paradise. This is, I suppose, to prepare future Chinese leaders to avoid corruption.
There's an irony there. Leave a comment if you've noticed it.
There's an irony there. Leave a comment if you've noticed it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
