copy this blog

From Groklaw, 3 initiatives to improve patent mess.

Public Knowledge has come out with a primer on copyright for creators, avaiable for purchase (print) or free (pdf). It’s a good read.

This month, Turner Classic Movies will be showing Hayao Miyazaki films on Thursdays- for the most part, both the dubbed and subbed versions (Studio Ghibli films).

During the introduction, the commentator interviewing someone from Pixar said something I found strange- something along the lines of, ‘when you think of anime, of japanese cartoons, you don’t think of developed characters or plots,’ contrasting that “standard” thought to Miyazaki’s works.

That’s just bizarre. The whole reason I got into anime in the first place was because of the developed plots and characters- much more than I could expect from English equivalents for the most part. This isn’t to detract from Miyazaki- Ghibli’s works are awesome. We own many of the Japanese versions of the Ghibli films- if only Howl’s Moving Castle didn’t cost quite so much to import we’d have it now. ^_^

We’re watching Spirited Away right now- Holly is reminded of her time in Japan. In the beginning of the movie, the heroine and her family stumble upon an abandoned “theme park” of some sort. That can happen. ^_^

morning musume vs. bob sapp – Google Video

City of Villains Community Site

Interesting. Marvel and NCsoft have settled, so no case law will be developed here… I don’t know if that’s a good or bad thing.

From Wired, Wired News: Star Wars Fans Flee Net Galaxy

This certainly doesn’t inspire me in the least to try Star Wars Galaxies, even if the new play is as great as Sony Online claims (I have my doubts, but even if…). I just don’t want to pay money to a company that treats its users so poorly. First, there’s the obvious “if they did it to THEM…” thought. Second, it just seems unjust to sell out your dedicated user base in such a manner.

The Video Game Revolution: “Eight Myths About Video Games Debunked” by Henry Jenkins | PBS

A pro-game article from the PBS website by MIT Professor Henry Jenkins, refuting common attacks on games and gaming.

Wired 13.12: Thinking Outside the Box Office

Steveb Siderbergh’s new flick will be released on DVD, HDTV, and movies all at once… and a bit on copyright and the Grey Album, too.

I was amazed to see a message from a librarian who was applauding Sony’s DRM moves. This librarian believed that Sony had the right to limit copying as much as it wanted (an opinion), and that the problems with Sony DRM would just affect all those pirates out there. This was my response.

—

I’m sure most of us can agree that widescale copyright infringement is a problem, and is wrong as well as being illegal. However, the Sony situation is about something completely different- and I’d have concerns with the technology solutions described [in the message, the librarian advocated a small number of copies allowed, then the disk stopped working].

In this particular situation, Sony isn’t “sticking it” to people who are infringing copyright. They are “sticking it” to *anyone who puts one of the “protected” CDs in their computer.* Not just people who copy, but anyone at all. The rootkit opened up vulnerabilities to any Windows-based PCs of completely innocent consumers, leaving them vulernable to attackers, viruses, worms, and other online threats. That’s what the lawsuits are about.

Additionally, the protection measures are pretty consumer unfriendly anyway. No technology exists that is good enough to determine whether or not a use is infringing.

Sony could create a system to copy something only three times, but that completely ignores legitimate uses of copying. While “violating copyright” isn’t a right, there are legitimate and legal reasons for copying. Copying your CDs to our iPods (ie, space shifting), is an established and legal practice. Copying a software CD for backup is also allowed. Copying excerpts that are a fair use- for example, for purposes of scholarship, cricitism, education, and so on- may be completely fair. Not only are these uses fair and legal, but they are also very important. Technology can’t make that distinction. Sony’s “protection” mechanisms can’t make those distinctions. And these uses aren’t violating copyrights. They are exemptions to the exclusive rights that copyright holders have, and they are necessary uses.

Another big copyright exemption is the doctrine of first sale- the one that lets libraries lend out books and other materials. Many technological protection measures stop that, also.

It’s always good to go back to the Constitutional basis for copyright in the U.S. when looking at these types of situations. Copyright exists “to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;” -U.S. CONST., art. I, § 8, cl. 8.

I can’t say that Sony’s actions represented progress in any sense of the word. Education would be a better option… but that’s my opinion.

I followed this link from Sivacracy.
http://utopianhell.com/blog/hot-girl-on-girl-action

I completely see the point. For an industry that is purporting to attract female gamers, there sure isn’t equality in video games. I’m not just talking Rockstar, here… I thought it odd that World of Warcraft’s succubus didn’t offer an incubus counterpart, and apparently Everquest 2 has a similar problem.

In some games, you don’t even get the option to play a female character. In others, you’re given the option, but when given the chance to have sex with some other character, the character is female.

The reason? The bulk of game-playing America are homophobic, socially challenged men with very vivid fantasies about playing females who get to have sex with other females. Even when female characters are added to the game, they aren’t added with equal importance, nor are they added with the thought that maybe, just maybe, a woman might be playing that female character.

Completely accurate criticism. Vampire: Bloodlines, a game I played to (un)death, slightly moved in that direction, at least- there were men you could only use seduction (a skill) on while playing a male and women you couldn’t use seduction on when playing a female- but for the most part it followed that same trend. (The seduction skill was one of the dialog options used for a couple of purposes. It was one of the options available along with intimidation and persuasion to convince someone to give you information or other benefit, and it was also the option used to “seduce” people in bars and clubs to be able to feed on them without attracting attention.) Come to think of it, although I used the plural in the previous sentence, it should be amended: there was a man that could only be seduced by a man, and a woman that couldn’t be seduced by a woman. For the most part it followed the same traditional game roles noted in the article. The “people” I mentioned in the parenthetical line above were always women.

It was a start, but the gaming industry has a ways to go.