Copyright Enforcement Gone Wild

Copyright enforcement has been big this week. First, an old case of file sharing had a jury decision this week. The US Appeals court in Minnesota reinstated a jury award of $220,000 against a casual home user of a file-sharing service that no longer exists. She didn't make any money off the service, and it was never proved that she was actually the one who downloaded the songs at her home. She was one of millions of users of the service, and most of us assumed at the time that if it was illegal, we would simply get shut off, not sued. I know a lot more people were guilty, and have not been summoned to court...yet.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/11/entertainment-us-copyright-thomasrasset-idUSBRE88A1CH20120911

Today we learn that a person who downloaded academic journals from a non-profit organization is guilty of nine felony charges. He used an open wifi connection at a state university to perform the downloads. And yet he is being charged by law enforcement as if he was a malicious, destructive hacker.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/09/aaron-swartz-felony/

Tim O'Reilly is a major publisher of technology ebooks who profits from copyrighted content. He came out earlier this year against several bills proposed in congress to take harsher measures against copyright violations, including shutting down entire websites for being suspected of hosting a link to copyright material. In toher words, if you searched Google and found a link to pirated material, the feds could have shut down the entire Google service(s). Or if my blog was suspected of plagiarizing, the entire blogspot community could have been shut down. Scary stuff, especially in the land of the free and the home of the brave. Tim O'reilly is thankful for pirates who share his material with markets who never would have heard of him. Those markets are now purchasing from O'Reilly. He prosecutes pirates when they are found, and O'Reilly's customers are his greatest source for reporting pirated material.

https://plus.google.com/+TimOReilly/posts/LZs8TekXK2T

Are we out of control with copyright enforcement, or is it about time we crack down on these menaces to society? 

I admit it: I am guilty of pirating. When I was a kid, I recorded hours of tv shows and movies on VHS, and was an artist at producing mix tapes of songs recorded off the radio. And yet, a conservative estimate of how much money I have spent on legitimate tapes, CDs, DVDs, and Blue-Rays with the profits going to the rightful owners is about the same as the GDP of a third world country. I would record a song off the radio and like it so much that I wanted a clean copy of it, with liner notes and the rest of the songs on the album. There were movies I wanted, and didn't want to wait to record it or it wasn't playing so I purchased it. Today, I don't have the time to be a pirate so I pay for what I want. However, there are books I never would have read, songs I never would have heard, TV shows I would never have watched, if it wasn't freely available somewhere. 

For example, Hulu is a great sources for movies and TV shows I never would have seen before, but the industry has yet to embrace the model. Moreover, it is a source for commercials I would have skipped if I was watching on TiVo or a cable/satellite DVR. Last night I watched a show called "Honey Boo Boo" that I never would have watched otherwise. I started by watching Saturday Night Live and they did a Honey Boo Boo sketch. I was tired and in the mood for silliness, so I searched for the show. It wasn't on Hulu, so I Googled it but my frame of mind could have been easily distracted, erasing Honey Boo Boo from my consciousness forever. 

A distraction did not present itself, and I located Honey Boo Boo on TLC's website. They require me to download an app to my iPad. Normally I would have moved on to something else instead of hassling with a new app, but last night I decided there was nothing better to do. I downloaded the free app and within minutes I was watching Honey Boo Boo and laughing hysterically. With one caveat: I was required to watch a commercial about every 5 minutes, and it was the same commercial over and over again. Not even an entertaining commercial targeted at my demographic: this was a Dove body wash commercial targeted to soccer moms. But I know the commercial by heart, and it was worth the boredom to view Honey Boo Boo clips. So now I am talking to my sphere of influence about a TV show I would never have seen, and I am aware of Dove body wash. THAT is a market-based solution to the problem.

Let's say I was able to obtain Honey Boo Boo from a pirated source, commercial free. It would have taken a lot longer, and I may have exposed myself to malware or worse in the process. Then when I finally saw the show, I would have talked to my sphere of influence about it, and we all would be watching the next episode live, with commercials. I know I only have an MBA, but that still sounds like a win for Capitalism to me.

A Word and a Quote: Diapason; Anger

Diapason (Dyuh-PAY-zon) - noun
-A full, rich outpouring of sound.

I like this word. It is fun to say, and makes me think of the chills you would get in an old cathedral when the choir and accompaniment bring your favorite song home. There are some potential metaphors there that could transform an entire paragraph.

The original Latin/Greek means "through all the notes". Technically, the original meaning came from Pythagoras' work applied to music, and the "dia" comes from tuning Pythagorean intervals using an interval of 2:1 to get diapason, and then breaking it down from there to fifths, etc. So the diapason would be like hitting every string on a tuned guitar.


______________________________________________________

“Anger is like gasoline. If you spray it around and somebody lights a match, you've got an inferno. [But] if we can put our anger inside an engine, it can drive us forward.”
–Scilla Elworthy

This quote is great for me because I tend to react with anger first, and find myself frustrated more than the people around me (which tends to make me even more frustrated and angry.) My anger isn't very dangerous because I have it under control, but it is my natural state. I keep an eye on it because I know it could easily get out of control and then would be hard to reign in.

However, I also see controlled anger as beneficial. Emotional investment in a problem or idea tends to help us manufacture the energy, creativity, and endurance required to solve a problem or accomplish a great achievement. My frustration in the Marine Corps at obstacles or at periods of high stress could have turned into dejected surrender but instead I used it to push through and conquer the impossible. While working for my undergrad and my MBA, I was often driven by anger at leaders who I felt were ignorant and should be working for me. I knew I could never get to their level without solid credentials that begin with a degree.

My kids make me angry, and that is where the fine tuning is crucial. If I didn't feel the anger, then I may not care enough to keep coaching them on being better people. Of course, with kids almost any amount of anger expressed can be devastating. So I have to keep coaching them and never give up, but I can't relate to them in the same way that my drill instructors related to me. At least not yet... :)

There is a bumper sticker that says "If you aren't angry, you aren't paying attention." It has been applied politically to both the left and right wings, as if their perspective should be obvious to everyone. This quote reminds me that they're both right, but add the caution that could prevent either side from diving off the deep end. Anger can empower us, and sometimes people choose not to be angry out of laziness or fear. Anger can get out of hand, cloud our judgement, and lead good people to make bad decisions.

You can layer your emotions and motivations by focusing more on some and less on others. Emotions like anger are hard to ignore and need to be factored in even if they seem undesirable, but you can limit their affect on your thinking and actions by focusing more on another emotion. For example, when my kids do something that they know is wrong, my immediate reaction is anger. But at all times, I feel love, pride, nostalgia, and other emotions. I let those positive actions be the filter and funnel that my anger has to pass through.

The end result is a spike in blood pressure, a stern look, a mental desire to impart a lesson, and carefully measured words that express disappointment, a clear expectation, and a loving reminder that I know they will one day may better decisions. I have good kids who commit very minor offenses (annoying the sibling, leaving messes, and playing games when they're supposed to be folding laundry) and voluntarily hug me when I least expect it, so it seems to be a system that works.

As we approach November 7th in a election year, I find politics to be on my mind continuously. But this year, I am more concerned with how to bring the two sides closer together rather than the validity of my own convictions. I think that what makes the Tea Party so nutty is the fact that they long ago let anger cloud their judgement, and that makes rational conversations difficult. However, their anger also inspired like-minded individuals and enables them to keep fighting for their convictions with vigor and tenacity. I think the only solution is to tap into the anger of the middle, but we need to find a stronger and more attractive emotion than anger which will sway the less nutty members of the right and will contain an engine within which to contain that anger and turn it into fuel (and keep it away from the steering wheel.) I know there are enough people who love this country and are angry at both the domestic and foreign extremists who threaten this country. If we can find that right mix of emotional appeal, it would allow me to use the diapason metaphor I am searching for in this sentence.

I am a registered Republican, but I can no longer explain why except that I do not have time to change my party affiliation with the county election commissioner. The registration has never been a help or hindrance, and I doubt that it is a blip in the data. But personally, it means something. The is strength and safety in numbers, and I want to support like-minded people to make this nation great.

There was a time just a few years ago when I taught my children that Democrats are bad people, and carried 10 Conservative talking points in my back pocket. Now I find myself on the fence but leaning a little to the left. In 2008, I had to explain that not all Democrats are bad, and that Republicans in 2008 are dishonest. Now, in 2012, I still am shocked at how dishonest my Republicans had become, and how they fight to seize the low ground every time.

During Clinton's administration, I was convinced that Democrats always claimed the low ground and Republicans possessed the intellectually-honest argument. As it turns out, Kenneth Starr's "independent" investigation was a distraction from the fact that Bill Clinton was reducing welfare roles, reducing regulations, reducing government, balancing the budget, and increasing good will among our allies.

I still own numerous well-worn books by Limbaugh, Coulter, and other Conservatives. I held several jobs where I could listen to talk-radio during the peak hours (Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, etc.) I received A's in history and political science for my Bachelor's and have completed my MBA, which should almost provide Conservative credentials by default.

I elected G.W. Bush because of his "compassionate Conservatism" which I interpreted to mean a balance between self-reliance and the fact that some people cannot sustain themselves no matter what. At the time, I welcomed a war in Iraq (and was still on reserve duty, so I was willing to go myself.) In 2004, I was a rabid Bush supporter and was willing to fist-fight you over my convictions.

By 2007, I had realized that the economy was tanking while Republicans tried to convince us that nothing was wrong. I realized that the national debt was trending ever upwards and that the war was being executed without a solid strategy while my civil rights were being eroded. I suddenly realized that the only thing that could be considered "Conservative" about the Bush administration was the protections of the wealthy, but that was coming at the expense of the middle class, which was very un-Goldwater.

I read both of Obama's books, as well as many other non-Conservative sources and realized I had missed out on a whole spider-web of intelligent discussion that is not as entertaining as Limbaugh and Coulter, but that is only because their aim is intellectual honesty rather than entertainment.

I find I still believe that people should pull themselves up by their bootstraps and be allowed to fail--but that also applies to corporations as well. Republicans under Bush are quick to throw out cash to large businesses that struggle due to their own incompetence (airlines, auto manufacturers, AIG, etc...) but do not see the value in saving small businesses and middle class families from destruction. You don't need an MBA to see that small businesses and middle-class families are what supplies the growth in any bull market. If Republicans are willing to ignore that, and ignore that rising gas prices are going to affect the cost of goods across the economy which will threaten the solvency of families and small businesses, which will mean a lower consumer confidence index and a higher unemployment rate, which will feed a bear market or worse, which will lower big-ticket purchasing, which will lead to layoffs, which lowers consumer spending, which leads to layoffs, ... If you cannot see that, then you should not be in office. If you can see that and try to pretend like everything is okay, then I have to start considering conspiracy theories.

Why is it that McCain was always respected for being a moderate who reaches across the aisle, but as a presidential Candidate he sold himself as a staunch Conservative--but made the Republicans add Global Warming to their platform? I have read several of McCain's books and loved the man who wrote them. I would have voted for that guy, but instead we got this dishonest Manchurian candidate with an even scarier version chosen for VP. All I could do at that point was vote for Obama or move to Russia. The Republican party was unre ognizable to me.

And now in 2012 I continue to question the sanity of the GOP. Mitt Romney is another moderate--he was almost a Liberal Republican as Governor in the tradition of the Rockefellers. But with many viable Conservative candidates available, the Republicans choose Mitt. Actually, I'm okay with that and could probably vote for him if he was honest. But instead he is pandering to the Conservatives, and they are pretending that he is some kind of a second coming of Reagan (who was not very Conservative himself.)

Let's just be honest. If you follow the teachings of Jesus, whether you are a Mormon, a Baptist, a Catholic, or other, you have to admit that the teachings take a harsh stand against seeking wealth and in favor of giving to the poor and unfortunate. I have read the whole bible several times through and spent a lot of free time in the Gospels. I am confident that Jesus, given the choice between a Wall Street tycoon and a bunch of welfare recipients, would head straight to the ghetto to see how he could help them out. Sure, he would find a few who are overly lazy and would admonish them. But he would find the vast majority of them to be unnecessarily repressed do to lack of health insurance, lack of mental capacity, lack of opportunity, etc. He would have his hands full just curing simple ailments and feeding malnourished people. I am willing to bet he would point out that these cases do not require divine intervention but merely the slightest effort by a few tycoons--or the Government.

Let's be a little more honest: the more devoted an American is to their Evangelical/Protestant Christian beliefs, the more likely it is that they are rabidly opposed to Obama and outspoken in their support of Romney. How is this even possible? Romney believes that Jesus has already returned to Earth--right here in America. Romney believes that Mormons are the only ones going to heaven, and that his special Mormon underwear makes him a holier person. He believes in a religion that has been known for mass murder, polygamy, and many other sordid crimes in recent history. You have to go a few hundred years back for similar crimes of the Protestant church. Romney's religious beliefs are so far beyond those of mainstream Christians that they cannot worship together, and Christians label Mormon's as a cult. It is considered annoying if a Baptist leaves and goes to a Methodist church. But if a Baptist or Methodist were to leave for the Mormon church, it would be considered a major tragedy for that person--worthy of an intervention by family and church leaders. I have seen this with my own eyes, and it tore a good family apart. All of that is to say that if our relationship with Jesus as an Evangelical Christian has a strong influence on our political convictions, then why does it drive us to the cult-member rather than the Evangelical Christian.

Which leads me to the funniest/saddest part of the anti-Obama movement. And that's what they are: anti-Obama instead of pro-something better than Obama. They seem to hate Obama without any real reason and without a viable alternative. The funny/sad part is that there are still people who believe that Obama is a Muslim and a closet-terrorist. Even after four years of non-terrorist and non-Muslim activity from him. Even after he gives the order to kill bin Laden. Even after he has been photographed eating pork, and drinking beer with a Medal of Honor Marine-two things a Muslim would never do. We still have people forwarding photoshopped pictures and posting easily debunked lies about Obama being a devoted Muslim, about him holding his left hand over his heart during the pledge of allegiance, about him filling his cabinet with criminals and communists, etc. The lack of critical thinking on the right is pushing me to the left more and more.

So I'm off the fence. Regardless of what my voter card says, I am not a Republican. But I hesitate to call myself a Democrat. I still have an ethical issue with Abortion. I still support the 2nd Amendment. I still think that Unions are not the best answer in a Capitalist society. I still believe that Welfare should be a last resort, and that military strength is good for our nation. But I also believe that a social safety net is good for the economy, and that alternative energy is better for our economy than oil, coal, and gas. I believe individuals should stand on their own whenever possible, and I believe the same is true of corporations.

I can't be the only one who sees the value in Obamacare and insists more people pay their fair share? I can't be the only one who sees that not everybody can start their own business because of their talents, and because the cost of entry is too great in most industries. I can't be the only one who sees that some single mothers could not have prevented their situation and that our society would be better served by subsidizing them rather than expecting them to leave their kids with a stranger and work three jobs just to make ends meet.