Standing athwart history, shouting “Oop! Ack!”
Must…stop…thinking…of…Dingy…Harry…
Bit of fantasy, perhaps? Maybe some wholesome Harry Potter, now that the series is all wrapped up with nothing new to speculate about…
….Oh.
Wow.
Okay, so maybe politics is more comforting after all.
ABC’s blog gets it partly right in their coverage of the Move On Democrats vs. Rush Limbaugh:
No mater what, Democrats are going to make a ton of money for a charity off their political vitriol.
It definitely was vitriol on the part of Harry’s Harpies. But for Reid (or ABC) to take credit for Senate Democrats’ role in this is as ridiculous as the Nazis demanding residuals from The Diary of Anne Frank because it wouldn’t exist without them.
The Democrats are not Nazis, obviously, but their attempt to silence a critic by twisting his words to the president of a federally-regulated communications company reeks of latter-day fascism. Their action went beyond mere griping about bad press, and into active attempts at suppression of which the letter is just one; efforts to revive the Fairness Doctrine would be a direct threat to Limbaugh’s livelihood. Some pundits are referring to Reid’s letter to Mark Mays as the Declaration of Incompetence; incompetent it may be, but no less dangerous for it.
If good came from this incident, it is due entirely to Rush, and his audience. Reid tried to bury him in BS, in part to fight back from MoveOn.org’s disastrous “general Betray-Us” ad. But Rush appealed to a market solution to this demagoguery, and benefited a worthy cause in the bargain. He put his own cash on the barrelhead to back up his convictions. Reid’s response – barely before the auction ended, and after the 2 million mark had passed – skated over his culpability and Rush’s generosity, and tried to pass himself off as an insider in this auction (with his good friend “Mark May [sic]“). He said he wished he could have gotten even more signatures for it…because that would have made it more valuable, I suppose. (If the non-signing Dems were to compose a letter of their own, distancing themselves from the first, I bet it would go for a pretty penny.)
So…I give Reid credit for sensing the danger enough to try to salvage the situation. Given the mainstream media these days, he may get some of what he hopes for. But whatever shreds of respect I had for Reid vanished today. His disingenuousness is truly staggering.
I was outraged when Harry Reid used his position as Senate Majority Leader to send a letter, signed by 41 US Senators (all Democrats), to Mark Mays of Clear Channel, decrying (their knowing misinterpretation of) comments made by Rush Limbaugh in the concocted “phony soldiers” scandal Reid used the floor of the Senate to pound on, lobby against, libel, and question the patriotism of a private citizen. Reid’s actions approach a Bill of Attainder, which the Rule of Law explicitly prohibits.
The letter to Rush’s boss at Clear Channel didn’t go anywhere, of course; Mays’ response was decisive in support of Limbaugh. An objective hearing of Rush’s comments make clear that he was speaking of specific “phony soldiers” who claimed to be Iraq War veterans but in fact were not, such as Jesse MacBeth, whom Rush discussed in an earlier segment. Mays gave the letter to Limbaugh, no doubt with a few attaboys for the free publicity.
Reid’s efforts to promulgate the Big Lie about Limbaugh, however, backfired. Rush is very media savvy; he had little trouble putting that letter to good use. He auctioned it off on eBay as a “historic document” showing the blatant abuse of power by the current Senate majority and its ethics-challenged leader.
All proceeds of the auction would go to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Fund, which provides college scholarships to children of wounded soldiers, marines, police, etc. Limbaugh is on the board of directors of this charity, and he offered to match the winning bid, and challenged all of the senators who signed the letter to do the same. Since the start of this brouhaha was the allegation that Limbaugh was bad-mouthing our troops, Rush’s choice of response is both poetic and practical.
As the end of the auction neared, the bidding accelerated, finally selling for $2,100,100.00 to philanthropist (and Limbaugh fan) Betty Casey at 1pm (Eastern) today. Rush reiterated his pledge to match that amount.
Reid took to the floor of the Senate again today, his tone subdued, his delivery stunted, and his content gobsmackingly audacious. Reid gave a brief summary of how Rush came to receive a letter with so many Democratic senatorial signatures, leaving out the whole libel and allegations of treason thing; praised the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation without praising Limbaugh, and even suggested that Rush should take note of the good they do; referred repeatedly to Mark Mays as “Mark May” and referred to conversations with the man about Rush as though the auction were Reid’s idea; and encouraged taxpayers to go to the auction (searching for “harry reid letter” as though to claim credit) and … bid. Click here for video.
Reid looks and sounds beaten, speaking under duress, hating every syllable. His war against Limbaugh, to borrow Reid’s phrase, “is lost.” Yet he attempted to claim credit for Limbaugh’s idea, made as though to reach across the aisle to work with Limbaugh for “this worthy cause” bare hours before the auction ended, didn’t mention Rush’s personal commitment to match funds OR Rush’s challenge to Reid and the other signatories to put THEIR money where their mouths are.
It’s a shameless performance by Reid, and Rush was reveling in his conquest today, dragging the corpse of Reid’s character behind his verbal chariot before the walls of Radio Troy. (tortured metaphor, I know…oh well.) Rush’s comments a few weeks back have officially cost him 2.1 million dollars and a Benjamin, but he may well consider it worth every penny. In words and action, the contest between Rush and “Dingy Harry” over who cares more about the troops was decided overwhelmingly today. Reid may have power, but in this confrontation Rush exercised authority Reid cannot hope to match.
And he did it with a smile, while Dingy Harry’s performance today left little to praise but sheer chutzpah.
Update: See HotAir for part of Rush’s reaction to Reid’s failed face-saving.
There are certain politicians that just get my engines running, and not in a good way.
There have been times when I fed off that knee-jerk outrage, and other times when I just wanted to escape to more soothing topics.
The previous post, about Harry Reid, just pushed me over the edge. Time to find my “oooommmmm” side again.
I’m sweating up a storm, packing up my office for a move this weekend (Bigger cubicle! Massive decluttering! Labsourcing half my equipment! I’ll have room for a cot again!) My iPod is set to Baroque (random). I’m steering clear of some of my favorite sites for a few days and curling up with book or three and some seriously cheesy television. Maybe check in with some good friends.
I’m feeling better already.
[edited - added link and commentary]
“I am a Democrat because I am a Mormon, not in spite of it.”
–Sen. Harry Reid, speaking at Brigham Young University
I had to laugh at this article. It says he spoke before a crowd of “over 4000″ at the Marriott Center. The Marriott, which seats over 24,000, typically drew 12,000 to 16,000 for addresses like this when I was a student. 4,000 is a pitiful turnout.
Harry Reid is one of the most contemptible politicians in American politics. Virtually everything that comes out of the man’s mouth is viciously judgmental, ill-informed, and inflammatory.
I wouldn’t care what party Reid was in, were his rhetoric not so loathesome. As it is, I’m glad he’s a Democrat, because I wouldn’t want that mouth representing my party.
Orrin Hatch is bad enough, thank you very much. At the same Marriott Center (in front of about 20,000 people) in my school days, he once said, “I used to be a liberal Democrat. But then I learned how to read and write.” Even at conservative-bastion BYU, the joke fell flat – such a partisan cheap-shot didn’t fit the occasion, the annual Freedom Festival around July 4. Politics is my sport, and I root for my team as much as the next guy, but there is a time for partisanship, and a time for diplomacy. It bugs me when a politician can’t help but slip in the stiletto.
Hmmm. Maybe it’s being in the Senate that makes you a jerk, and why it’s easier for governors to become president. the latter have to speak for ALL the people on certain occasions, where Senators spend most of their time scrabbling for power within their respective parties. Different skills, different expectations.
With the exception of the entry of Fred! Thompson to the GOP nomination race, today’s debate was pretty average.
Depending on who you ask, the winner was Rudy, Mitt Romney, McCain, or Fred Thompson. There were a couple of head-to-head moments of note: Rudy v Mitt over taxes, which I thought Rudy won; Mitt trading amusing zingers with Fred (Mitt: “these debates are like LAW AND ORDER – a sprawling cast, interminable dialog, and Fred shows up near the end”; Fred: “I thought I’d be the best actor on stage; I stand corrected”). My favorite moment was Fred zapping the (heh) moderator, Chris Matthews: “Nobody asked your opinion, Christopher.”
There are still too many candidates, for both parties. It’s not that the lower-tier guys are bad; it’s that they are distracting from the real race. I know Ron Paul is considered a dark horse for the general election, a 21st-century Jimmy Carter. I like watching Duncan Hunter and Mike Huckabee debate. But unless there is a serious shock in the early primaries, they have no shot, and I’d love to give more time in these debates for those who do.
My gut feeling: the GOP nod will come down to be Mitt and Rudy. Fred and McCain, the senators, have a shot but I give them longer odds. I don’t expect Paul to quit – ever – but he’s a longshot.
As for Chris Matthews: he is a terrible moderator, too in love with the sound of his own voice. I don’t want a “hardball” debate. I want serious people running a serious debate, not howler monkeys running a media circus. Go back to peddling your book, Christopher.
I may feel Johnny Fairplay’s pain. But frankly, if you’re hell-bent on monkey-humping someone on live television, don’t pick Danny Bonaduce.
Danny has a history of nipping unwanted sexual advances in the bud. To put it mildly.
(h/t Ace)
As a follow up to my last post, the jury took mere hours to return a verdict of willful copyright violation against the Minnesota mom over a handful of 80s music.
It’s the first suit filed by the RIAA that made it to a jury trial, and the RIAA won it…after a fashion. They had sought up to $150,000 per song, but were awarded a total of $222,000 (about $9000 per song). Still, for the defendant: Ouch. “This is what can happen if you don’t settle,” said Richard Gabriel, an RIAA attorney quoted by Wired magazine in the article link.
Let that sink in. If the RIAA comes after you, they want your money, and they’re willing to squeeze it out of you – hopefully before you start to think about fighting back.
Stomping individuals with both feet over file sharing isn’t going to win this war. The economies of scale just aren’t there. How many individuals HAVE a quarter of a million dollars for the RIAA to go after? How many teenagers – the most prolific file-sharing demographic – have even $1,000? This approach is as likely to stop piracy as the highway patrol is to stop speeding.
The only way to change the culture of file sharing is via a mix of education – the piracy equivalent of marching Junior to the corner store to apologize for stealing the candy bar – and more innovation in content delivery. When you can buy a song for under a buck, that’s essentially a candy bar. LET THE PUNISHMENT FIT THE CRIME. A little humiliation goes a long way. If you throw Junior in county lockup over a packet of ill-gotten M&Ms, that’s a bit over the top. (If he ROBS the corner store, then we can talk about orange jumpsuits.)
Not everyone who has tried to sell music in the age of Bittorrent has succeeded, but some have. Apple has sold over a billion songs in just a few years, by making it ludicrously easy to buy. They continue to innovate, such as by partnering with Starbucks; if you hear a cool song while waiting for your latte, one virtual button on your iPhone buys it for you.
This is the difference between iTunes Music Store and the RIAA; the later cares about how much each song is worth to THEM, and tries to get that cost from individuals. Apple’s model focuses on what a song is worth to YOU. One treats you like a customer; the other, like a defendant. (Apple isn’t a corporate model in all ways, though, as their don’t-mess-with-OUR-iPhone brickapalooza this week shows.)
The RIAA should learn from SCO, which recently declared bankruptcy; you cannot sue your way to solvency. Their victory this week is Pyrrhic at best.
“When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song.”
” ‘Making a copy’ of a song you bought is a nice way of saying, ‘steals just one copy.’ ”
–Jennifer Pariser, head of litigation for Sony BMG
Jennifer isn’t just a lone crank; she is testifying on behalf of Sony BMG in a million dollar lawsuit brought by the RIAA against a woman who posted songs (a lot of songs, apparently) on a file sharing service. While I might agree that the Napster Hausfrau did something wrong, I don’t see her crimes adding up to a million-plus. Illegal file sharing among individuals is a problem, and there are billions of dollars at stake in the solution(s)…but a poorly-considered reverse-lottery Scheißesturm crackdown on random individuals like this could cost vastly more in terms of corporate loyalty.
This is not the first time Sony has shot itself in the foot.
In his recent “Don’t Download this Song,” Weird Al Yankovic – who made the song and video available for free download – mockingly sang, “Cuz you start out stealing songs / then you’re robbing liquor stores / and selling crack / and running over schoolkids with your car…” The ethical slippery slope is not that steep. Ripping a CD you purchased to put on your iPod is not the same as chipping in with three friends to buy a CD you all rip to your Zunes, and that is different from sneaking into your roommate’s desk to dump their My Songs folder onto an external hard drive…you get the picture. If you’re running an offshore mirror of Pirate Bay loaded with goat-porn adware, then I’d probably file an amicus brief for Sony. If you have a few bootleg REO Speedwagon CDs ripped ten years ago at 64Kbps WMA, then I’d say you’ve already punished yourself more than the Commonwealth could.
If I buy a CD, I don’t feel the least bit guilty ripping it to my iTunes folder. I can’t say the same about using Google to download that Sesame Street Disco album I bought on 8-Track in 1978. My purchase of The Best of Hall and Oates on vinyl doesn’t entitle me to free copies of the same album on cassette, CD, video and hologram as new technologies emerge…though I did spend hours as a kid making mix tapes for girls (who ended up falling for the fellow making mix tapes with Journey: Escape) or dubbing on cassette for my evening walks. I also taped a lot off the radio. The quality of the dub often sucked, and I killed more than one Walkman when it ate my tapes, but my generic Walkman knockoff player was the iPod of its day – taking a subset of my content away from my main library. This is an idea as old as leaving the pipe organ at church and taking the accordion on on the road – sometimes you want quality, at other moments, convenience.
From the dawn of MP3 encoding, I was making backups of my CDs. The quality sucked, but I was impressed that it worked at all. As the years passed and my hard drives and iPods got bigger, I re-ripped the CDs again, and again, from the same source. The destination was the same in every case: my own two ears. When I played the MP3, I wasn’t playing the CD–and neither was anyone else. One-purchase-one-user strikes me, and I believe most people, as sensible.
Sony, though, would criminalize this behavior. And if they haven’t said so in court, other RIAA suit-weasels are on record stating that customers do not, and should not, “own” music, in any form. You buy a particular, limited license to access their content, and any variation from that license is criminal. Imagine Doubleday stating that you can only read their books in natural light, and reading at night by a lamp violates the service agreement.
a hardware solution – a hardcover book, a vinyl LP – has a natural usage limitation. You can’t share your book with all your friends at the same time, for example; you have to lend it to one buddy at a time. A software solution is much more flexible, which makes usage issues more complicated; more options are POSSIBLE than are ALLOWED, and what is ALLOWED can vary from provider to provider. Jonathan Coulton gives away his music, but won’t be offended if you send him cash. This week Radiohead invited us to “pay what it’s worth to you” for their newest album. Weird Al offers songs and videos for free, but also sells a CD/DVD with vastly higher quality versions of the same. Elton John wants to shut down the Internet for five years.
It’s no wonder consumers can get confused about where the line is. And with the vast move in 2007 away from DRM (digital rights managed, or copy-protected) music toward more open formats by Apple, Amazon, Rhapsody and others, it’s hard to see what Sony is thinking by going in the exact opposite direction. The more you treat customers like thieves, the more thieving they are likely to do. Robin Hood was a “hero” because the Sheriff of Nottingham was a tyrant; when a multibilliondollar entertainment giant tries to put a hausfrau a million in the hole for being a bit too generous with her music collection, it’s not just the scofflaws who start wishing for Little John to deliver a swift uppercut to The Man.
This is Sony, who has been bucking standards and releasing propietary – and ultimately doomed – formats for years in an attempt to control all aspects of their content. Remember Betamax? 12-inch diameter, quarter-inch thick laserdiscs that played movies 30 minutes per side? minidiscs that only they supported? UML format movies for their PSP? Memory Sticks in an already crowded field of flash memory? Blu-Ray? Even when their technology is superior, as it often is, the lack of openness has torpedoed their hopes for market domination time and time again. Their biggest successes, like the Walkman cassette player, used standard media (ordinary cassette tapes). Their computers are often gorgeous, but heaven help you if you try to open one up to add memory or swap out a disc drive. You, the unwashed masses, are not worthy to tinker with the perfection that is delivered to you from Mount Sonai.
And if you buy their music CDs and let it anywhere near your computer, you might get a little added bonus – a rootkit monitoring your behavior. The lengths to which Sony has tried to go to “protect” themselves has repeatedly infringed on the rights of people who shelled out hard-earned money for it. What was once a name synonymous with quality has taken some serious hits in recent years for stunts like this.
So if Sony wants me to call me a criminal for copying their music, my option as a consumer to not touch their music in any form becomes more attractive. If enough customers stop buying Sony music, then recording artists will be more likely to seek new contracts with companies other than Sony. If they want absolute control, they can have it…over an ever-decreasing domain.
That’s how the market works. Try Googling “whatever the market will bear” – it’s everywhere. But that philosophy is a two-edged sword. If you as the producer are not sensitive to changes in the market, you can find yourself not just caught up with, but bypassed so thoroughly you become irrelevant. IBM used to be the center of the PC universe; now their entire PC business is in the hands of Chinese company Lenovo. Railroad monopolists were quite proud of their lock on cargo and passenger transport…until the trucks and cars and roads and planes came along that didn’t share the constraints of trains. No cash cow lasts forever, and you either adapt or perish.
It’s why companies that once sold software at a grand a pop no longer exist, but others can give their stuff away and still make a profit (in installation, training, support, or advertising). Think of all the “free” television you can get, sponsored by stuff that takes up a quarter of the time you spend watching, on top of what you may be paying for in cable or satellite and/or TiVo fees. And if you miss an episode, you can go to iTunes and grab it for a price, or use your expensive broadband internet to find a bittorrent. Heinlein’s TANSTAAFL (there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch) dictum bears out: one way or another, we all pay.
And for the most part, we’re willing to. That Sony’s nickel-and-dime approach can lead them to thinking they’ve been wronged to the tune of millions by an individual who COULD simply have misconfigured her firewall is not surprising, but it is disappointing. I can only take solace in knowing that their mindset has cost them vastly more than that over the years, and if they don’t wise up, they will eventually run out of rope.