Copyright: Subsidizing Obsolescence

The world has changed. Get over it. I think people still immersed in the old business models see their infrastructure crumbling but can’t see how the new possibilities might be even better– as Apple clearly did with the iPod.

I hope Viacom has their wish: Youtube will delete all their videos– that’s their policy if they receive a complaint. Then Viacom will pay millions of dollars to show clips in ads on regular TV. Duh!

The “principle” of copyright is indeed in trouble. The trouble is that people don’t really understand the original purpose of copyright. The trouble is also that people have this illusion that Walt Disney’s “The Little Mermaid”, for example, is “original” (Disney stole it or bought it, along with “The Lion King” Pinochio, Aladdin, and most of everything else they produce). Most rock’n’roll is derived from long established models of chord progressions and riffs. Art steals from landscapes or objects (Warhol’s Campbell Soup can is only the most obvious example). Ever see a TV episode in which one major character seems to have forgotten another major character’s birthday? Lucy? Mr. Ed? Gilligan? Edith? Maude? Homer?

The sad truth is that most of the current big corporations fighting for stricter copyright enforcement could not themselves have been profitable without outright theft. (Exactly how many “reality” tv shows are there, by the way? Hey, I got an idea: we get a bunch of people on a show, have them do something, then kick one of them off every episode!…)

We have simply entered an era in which definitions of “original” and “copy” and “collage” and “edited” and “found” are rapidly changing. We’ll survive. We’ve never had as much money to spend on diversions as we do now, and the money is madly flowing in all directions. The groaning and creaking we are hearing is the sound of decrepit old business models struggling to re-orient themselves to the new realities. The nimbler minds at Google, and Apple, and YouTube, and Myspace, etc. have already found their way. The older models are not only inefficient — they’re boring.

It would be very, very bad policy for the government to try to artificially prop up those old monsters, the way some governments and unions used to try to require stokers on diesel trains. The DMCA was a clumsy attempt to do just that and I hope it dies slowly, the death of a thousand YouTubes.

There Will Never be a Secure Version of Windows

You may have heard the announcements recently about a new version of Windows, “Longhorn”, and how it will incorporate all kinds of new security features, including something called “Secure Startup”. At a demonstration in Seattle in April, Microsoft demonstrated this new feature which allegedly makes it impossible to see any files on your computer unless the “Platform Configuration Registers” (PCR) match something called a SRTM (Static Root of Trust Measurement”). The article in ComputerWorld is a bit oblique about where the SRTM (how they do love acronyms in the computer world) is located. In a chip, I would presume. On your motherboard, it would seem likely.

The ostensible purpose of these security measures is to protect your data. That’s what Microsoft wants you to believe. It’s not true. The real purpose is absorb you into the borg. All right– partly kidding. What is the borg. in this case? The online world of customer-purchase-charge.

Microsoft might be evil but they are not clueless. They know that the computer is destined to replace the television. When it does, whoever controls the feed of information to your eyeballs controls an unbelievably immense resource.

Anyone who is familiar with the real world of Microsoft operating systems can only just begin to imagine a plethora of scenarios in which you wake up one day to find that all of these “security measures” have gone wrong and instead of protecting your computers from hackers is now protecting your data from you.

More likely, however, you will wake up to find your computer has been hijacked once again by any of a dozen legal or illegal users, all trying to stick their fangs into your infoblood. Yes– “legal” users too, like AOL or Real Networks, or Adobe or Microsoft itself. Yes, even after all the promises and all the claims, Microsoft will once again have sold you a house with giant symbolic locks on the doors– and no glass in the windows. Because, after all, if you want to let the summer breeze blow through your living room, you shouldn’t actually have to get up off the sofa and open a window yourself.

Someone once mentioned that governments react quickly and decisively to terrorism primarily for this reason: it attacks their monopoly on violence. It’s an interesting observation, and at least partly, if not wholly, true. The secret of pervasive government power is that whenever they really, really don’t like what you are doing, they can bust you, violently, if necessary. On the other hand, no matter how convinced I am that Bush is a lying, scheming dupe, I can’t go find myself a beat cop, stroll into the White House, and arrest him. I can’t even suspend the normal rules of due process and evidence– as Bush has done– in order to expedite the incarceration of the man. I can’t because the state doesn’t allow me to exercise coercive power. The state wants a monopoly on violence, the way Microsoft wants a monopoly on internet connectivity.

In the same way, Microsoft wants to stop pirates and hackers from getting onto your computer because they threaten its monopoly on your eyeballs. Microsoft wants to control what you see, where you go to, what information you read. When your TV finally gets linked to your computer, Microsoft’s logo is going to be on the corner of your screen, and you will use Microsoft search engines to find the tv schedule, and Microsoft will collect fees from Hollywood to ensure that you cannot skip through a commercial.

Microsoft’s solution is NOT — I repeat, because this is profoundly true– is NOT to stop your system from being hijacked, because the only way they could do that effectively would be to give the user control over his own computer.

Microsoft’s goal is to facilitate on-line commerce and to force your eyeballs onto the websites belonging to Microsoft itself, or it’s corporate partners.

If you don’t believe this is true, try to delete Internet Explorer or MSN. Or try to prevent Microsoft from contacting it’s own web site and checking for “updates”. Try to install a version of media player that does not refuse to play certain files because it deems them to be in violation of copyright laws. (If you think the competition might be better, try to install Real Player and tell it not to take control over all your media files.)

Try to tell Windows explorer not to try to automatically play files when the cursor lands on or hovers over their names.

I’m not saying it’s not possible to do these things (some aren’t). But it’s difficult, and you will often find that the minute you have to patch your operating system, Microsoft makes everything revert back to the defaults.

Ever get the message that some files are not the official Microsoft versions? Ever try to fix that problem?

Microsoft Windows is NEVER going to be secure, because the only way to make Windows secure is to let you go where you want to go with your browser, and choose what you actually see on your screen.

It’s not going to happen.

You might some day be duped into thinking that Windows has solved the security problem. You will be duped into thinking that because Microsoft will pop up on your screen with this news. That will be like a man walking into your living room as you sit there watching your tv to tell you that your house is now safe and secure.

You will not have asked to see this news, just as you will not have asked Windows to check for security updates at the Microsoft web site, and you will not have asked for Real Networks to monitor your browsing habits and you will not have asked for Adobe to send information back to it’s website when you start Premiere, and you will not have asked for a new version of Windows Media Player that no longer plays “unauthorized” digital music or video even if you recorded it yourself.

Windows will never be secure because Microsoft is not stupid. In fact, the marketing people at Microsoft are way smarter than you or I and they see the future and they know that big money in the future belongs to sites like Google who can attract your eyeballs. But I suspect they won’t genuinely believe in Google, which was very successful by taking the high road.

The original computer was a tool, which a powerful, knowledgeable user used to accomplish tasks he or she had chosen to perform. But since Microsoft began to dominate the PC world, there has been a very steady, very consistent trajectory to the development of hardware and software from the major corporations. That trajectory leads us directly to the opposite of the computer, television.

What made the computer revolutionary was that it actually gave the user control over information. And that is a revolution that cannot and will not be allowed to stand. You– meaning the large body of computer users and consumers that now have computers in their homes–cannot be permitted to obtain the information you want without a corporation carefully screening, manipulating, and controlling it. Because the goal is to convince you that Tucker Carlson “arguing” with Wolf Bitzer is about as diverse as your news sources need to be.

Tucker: So, you think Hilary is a control-freak, free-spending, pinko, feminazi?
Wolf: I disagree. I think she is a control-freak, free-spending, pinko, fembot.
Hilary: But I basically agree with all of President Bush’s policies!
Tucker: It’s working.

They will trumpet your power of choice. Did you want your news from CNN, NBC, MSN, or ABC, or USA Today? Do you want to buy your books at Amazon or Chapters? Do you want to go to a movie at Silver City or Galaxy? Do you want to buy Nikes or Adidas? A GM or Ford? Britney Spears or Jessica Simpson? Spiderman or Batman?

And they only way they can limit your choices to the array of acceptable corporate co-sponsors and flacks, is never, ever, ever give you control over your network connection.

Think about this. Seriously– don’t pass over this point, it’s a very, very important one: how do you shut off your internet connection? Do you know?

If your only answer is “disconnect the cable”, congratulations. You have entered a world in which your access to the internet is controlled by Microsoft. Your computer is now a television. The only difference is, while you’re watching it, it’s watching you.


Microsoft is not the only Jerk Out There:

When I downloaded and installed QuickTime so I could look at some videos, I was given the option of not installing certain features, like iTunes. Then Apple completely ignored my preferences and went ahead and installed iTunes and several other options anyway. Am I displeased? Are you kidding…

Bob Dylan Sells Out

AmDylan.gif (54973 bytes) I too harsh on people?

 

In the movie, The Magic Christian, a worldly-wise millionaire (played by Peter Sellers) adopts a destitute young man (Ringo Starr) as his own son. He decides to impart to him all of the great wisdom he has accumulated over the years. The first and most important lesson is that everyone– without exception– can be bought. In the unforgettable climax of the film, Sellers scatters numerous British pound notes over the surface of a swimming pool filled with the most disgusting, offensive substances imaginable as dozens of extremely well-dressed financiers and bankers are strolling by on their way to work in their gleaming towers of steel and glass. They stop, stare, try to reach the money. One of them finally steps right into the sludge, and soon all of them are splashing around in it trying to grab the money away from the others. Yes, everyone can be bought.

I just picked up the latest edition (March-April 1998) of the Utne Reader, a bi-monthly compendium of articles by the “alternative” press. On the back of the cover, there is a picture of a very young Bob Dylan. That makes sense. Who better defines “alternative” than Bob Dylan, especially a young Bob Dylan? Think of those songs from the early 1960’s: “God on Our Side”, “Only a Pawn in the Game”, “Like a Rolling Stone”, “Masters of War”, “Visions of Johanna”… Dylan, unintentionally, perhaps (you could write a whole book on the subject), became a spokesman for a generation of young people who seemed to reject plastic, phony materialism, the consumer ethic, the idea that everything could be bought and sold, and that the ultimate goal of life was a home in the suburbs, a zillion appliances, Tupperware, and a two-car garage.

If you were born too late or too early, you probably have no idea of how powerful his mystique was. No one before or after has had anything near the pull he did in his prime. Every other major artist was acutely aware of what Dylan was doing. Even commoditized performers like Sonny and Cher included Dylan songs in their repertoire.

He was the very definition of “alternative”, because, at the time, the wholesale commoditization of life was well under way and he was one of the first and most powerful voices of popular culture to mock it. His performances were utterly compelling, because he was powerfully eloquent and uncompromisingly savage in his rejection of moral hypocrisy and glib righteousness. [notes on Dylan film]

The trouble is, there is an Apple Computer logo at the top left-hand corner of the page. And under the logo, these words: “Think different”.

Yes, everyone can be bought.

Well, I guess most other folk singers would have regarded selling out as the wrong thing to do, so, yes, I guess Bob Dylan thinks different.

I wish I knew how much he got for the ad, and why he needed the money. I do NOT wish I could hear him explain why I’m an idiot for thinking he should not have taken the money, should not have sang for the pope, should not have taken part in the tribute to Frank Sinatra, should not have allowed “The Times They are a Changin'” to be used in a Bank of Montreal ad, and should not have treated Phil Ochs like dirt way back in the 1960’s. I don’t want to hear it because it is so entirely predictable and self-aggrandizing and phony and I don’t think I could stomach it coming from Bob Dylan even if almost everything else he’s done in the past ten years should have prepared me for this.

This may sound absurd, but does anybody still need an explanation of why doing a commercial endorsement is wrong? It’s not all that complicated.

If the role of art, music, poetry, drama, and fiction, is nothing more than to entertain, then, yes, I guess there is no problem, since consumer products are just another form of gratification. And if you believe that the gleeful consumption– conspicuous or otherwise– of material goods is about as meaningful as life gets, then yes, there is no problem.

But if you believe, as I do, that there is a higher purpose to art, that it should also enlighten and stimulate and provoke, and should in some way expand our knowledge of what it means to be human, of what it means to love, of what it means to be alive, then a commercial endorsement is the anti-thesis of good art. It is a sell-out. It is betrayal of the very idea that human values are above simple self-aggrandizement.

A great artist stands out because he has the courage and integrity to observe and reflect and illuminate the weaknesses and strengths of human behaviour. When an artist agrees to accept money in exchange for the association of his image or persona with a commercial product, he shows that his integrity is compromised, because his endorsement is the result of a bribe. And when he accepts accolades and awards from people whose whole lives are dedicated to dishonesty and materialism, then he shows that he has no courage, for his acceptance is the result of his desire to become like those who thusly honor him.

When Bob Dylan first came to prominence, one of his most attractive qualities was the way he stood apart from the establishment toadies and drunken crooners that dominated the entertainment world of the 1950’s, singers like Dean Martin and Frank Sinatra, who sang meaningless love ballads to addled over-weight pant-suited matrons in the crassest of American cities, Las Vegas. Today, Dylan takes part in a tribute to the King of Crass, Frank Sinatra. How long before Dylan himself plays Las Vegas?

In defense of Dylan, I have heard people say that it’s just no big deal. Just because he endorses Apple computers doesn’t mean “Tangled Up in Blue” isn’t a great love song. In reply to that, I have to say that even if it wasn’t a big deal, it’s still a cheesy, tacky, contemptible thing to do, and you have to wonder about why Dylan would do it. Dylan’s income from song-writing royalties alone must be enormous. Did he manage his money so badly that he is desperately broke? Are the alimony payments getting out of hand? Is his exclusive Malibu mansion in need of repair? Is he so isolated and surrounded with sycophants that there is no one to tell him that, considering his stature as a songwriter of uncommon power and intensity, the commercial endorsements look petty and stupid?

Well, maybe we all should be as humble. What if someone offered me, say $100 a week if I agreed to display his product logo on my web page (as if…)? I could argue that journals and newspapers have always carried advertising so it’s really not “selling out”, it’s just the business of writing. If I sold my writing to a journal (which I have done, in fact, on a regular basis for many years) who do I think pays for the checks I receive? Right– advertisers. Dylan’s music is played on radio of course, so his royalty checks really come from the same source.

So is it really such a big leap from a royalty check to a product endorsement? The difference is that we all understand that just because a Miller Lite ad follows a Dylan song on the radio does not mean that Dylan drinks Miller Lite, in the same way we know that a General Motors ad in a newspaper doesn’t mean that the newspaper believes that General Motors cars are any better than anyone else’s cars. There is a line that is being crossed.

The bottom line, I guess, is that it is ridiculous to believe that Dylan needs the money so badly that he will allow such questions to be raised about his integrity as an artist. The answer is that Dylan, singing for the Pope and Frank Sinatra, and flogging his reputation on the Grammys, is after something other than artistic achievement. The answer is that Dylan doesn’t believe himself anymore, and therefore, why should we?

Songs from the Old Dylan:

” you used to ride on a chrome horse with your diplomat/who carried on his shoulder a Siamese cat/Aint it hard when you discover that/He really wasn’t where it’s at/After he took from you everything/He could steal..”

“…businessmen, they drink my wine/Plowmen dig my earth/None of them along the line/Have no idea of any worth…”

“Dear Landlord, please don’t put a price on my soul…”

“…but even the President of the United States must sometimes have to stand naked…”

A Playlist for Bob Dylan when he finally goes all the way and plays Las Vegas.
  • Opening number: Stuck Inside of Mobile With the Memphis Blues Again
  • Mood Piece: Dear Landlord
  • A love ballad so all those Amway salesmen can get off their duffs and shake out their double-knit pants:  Most Likely You’ll Go Your Way and I’ll Go Mine
  • For those who really appreciate the décor:  Visions of Johanna
  • For those who wonder if this is the same Bob Dylan who used to do those protest songs: My Back Pages
  • For the maids and kitchen help: The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll
  • And the waiters: Serve Somebody
  • To his former wife, Sara, if she happens to drop by: It Aint Me Babe
  • To patrons who favour the Black Jack tables:  Lily, Rosemary, and the Jack of Hearts; Black Diamond Bay
  • To those who wished it was Elvis instead: I Want You
  • Just before Milton Berle comes on: Motopsycho Nightmare
  • To a convention of Dupont engineers: Hard Rain
  • To contestants for the Miss America Pageant:  Just Like a Woman
  • After a Fashion Show:  Leopard Skin Pill Box Hat