Category: News

Digital downloads seem to be the way of the future, looking at the current landscape of the gaming industry now. Even analysts say that retail will be…

The President condemns the "despicable" attacks at Fort Hood, honoring those who were killed and injured.  He also commends those who stood up to help and console those affected: "even as we saw the worst of human nature on full display, we also saw the best of America."

 

Looking for more new games to play? Coming in just in time for the weekend are new download game options for both the Wii and DSi stores. Seven new on…

Sony’s released a new Bluetooth mouse that’s also compatible for use with your PlayStation 3 unit. The VGP-BMS80 is a multi-function laser mouse that …

I’m writing this post because there is a lot of hoopla about vaccinations right now and I think one more anecdote to the pile of anecdotes out there about vaccinations is important.

My daughter, Bean (yeah, that’s not her real name), is going to be three really soon and I need to go into her history a bit to really be able to delineate her vaccination story effectively.

Bean was born about three years ago to two of the most loving parents on the planet, if I don’t say so myself. To this day I’m amazed at the changes your body and brain go through when you have a kid. I was always the kind of guy that thought kids were something my sister should have, I now have completely reversed that position.

Its amazing to me how you can love someone so much that just cries, needs to be fed, burps, pukes, pisses and poops. But you do, and each week that passes, I love her more and more. Bean learned to walk a little later than average, but not much later, 13 months. But she learned some basic sign language at 8 months (“more” was her first signed word).

Our household has 2 languages in it, I’m an English speaker trying to learn French. My wife is French who speaks perfect English. We decided that I would talk to Bean in English and she would talk to her in French.

With the signing and the dual languages we expected her to start speaking late and she did. But in time we started to realize that she still wasn’t speaking even after allowing for some extra time. There was a word here or there, but she was way behind in speaking. The inability to communicate lead to temperament issues and the all out tantrums were both common and severe. As new parents we had trouble differentiating between normal toddler tantrums and this. But looking at the pace of other kids, we slowly realized that Bean was behind the curve.

We further noted extreme discomfort in social situations. She did a little better with adults, but when it was other kids she would be very flustered and usually end up in a tantrum. Its so hard to see someone you love that much get so upset by normal social interactions that other kids are actually having fun with.

We also noticed that she was rarely smiling or happy. She didnt giggle like other little girls not near as often.

In time we got child therapists. New York State has a great program where therapists come to your house to help your child get up to speed. We have a speech therapist, an occupational therapist (not what it sounds like, the OC helps her negotiate new and different tactile senses), and a therapist to help with her social interactions. I really appreciate these programs available in my sate and now understand where some of the exorbitant tax money goes.

We also took Bean to a developmental psychologist. The autism word was thrown around, but it became clear that bean was probably not autistic. She was very ahead in some cognitive areas and very behind in others, but he didn’t think it was a case of autism.

 

I want to fast forward to the beginning of October now. Bean got her flu vaccination. It had thimerisol and everything. She had absolutely no physical reactions to it whatsoever: no fever, no swelling, no pain. However since the shot there have been some huge changes in her.

Bean was able to start school since then. She can be in a group of 7 kids in good comfort. This is totally amazing. She has been really fun to be around, really explorative, points out lots of new things here at home, at school and at our weekend house. She can talk well enough that we generally understand what she wants to say although there is still some baby talk that comes out that is hard to understand. She laughs at funny stories or when we joke around. She still has tantrums when she doesn’t get her way, but they are rarely for random or unintelligible reasons anymore. Basically it feels like ever since we got the flu shot for her, she has become a normal child for her age.

 

Everything in this post is 100% true and accurate as far as I can remember it. I am also 100% sure that if I ask my wife, she will have a different chronology and describe the severity of different aspects of Beans personality differently, but not differently enough that we couldn’t ascribe her improvement to the flu vaccination. You’ll notice that I went ahead and gave credit to the vaccination for her improvement and not the months of work the therapists did.

But I know its not the flu vaccination, of course it isn’t, because there is no reason to think that it is, just like the other way. Just because something happens hours, days or weeks after a vaccination doesn’t necessarily mean that it was because of the vaccination itself. The cause and effect must specifically be studied. To date there is simply no good reason to fear vaccines unless you have allergies to eggs, or some familial history of negative reactions.

 

I understand how vaccinations work with your immune system. I learned it in high school and relearned it to be able to understand this so called controversy. I have heard the claims by antivaxxers and have read the responses of medical professions on each and every one of those claims even as goalposts move. I then went and checked the claims of the medical professionals. You know what? the people who actually do science and medicine as a living are far better at explaining why they are right, backing up their claims with references that actually confirm what they are saying and have far, far larger datasets that they draw on to show the veracity of their claims. That is part of the years of training that went into their education to be a medical professional. Folks like Kevin Trudeau, Jenny McCarthy, and JB Handley have never had to deal with that rigor and are completely unequipped to back up anything they say without misrepresentation, conspiracy theories, and ad hominem attacks. Their delusions are no more probable, no more explainable, and no more real than the idea that my daughters extreme cognitive improvement came from the flu vaccine.

I love my daughter. I love her to the point that stepping in front of a moving train for her seems like a tiny inconvenience. Part of my love for her is to show her immune system what the bad guys look like, so it can fight them without causing suffering for her.

 

Oh, and by the way, I didn’t start speaking until I was near three. No, I don’t think any delays she had were from her vaccinations.

In case you haven’t heard yet, Patch 1.20 has been released yesterday for Media Molecule’s LittleBigPlanet. Otherwise known as “Celtic Promise”, this …

The latest and exclusive video of Modern Warfare 2. It is the Xbox Avatar clothing. Check it below and let us hope for some more such videos before the release of the game on November 10, 2009. Stay tuned as we keep you updated.

Michael Scott alerts us to a recent paper by professor and copyright expert Jessica Litman about “Real Copyright Reform.” While there’s been some chatter here and there about doing real copyright reform, there seems to be no real effort behind it. That’s for a few reasons, including the fact that many people still remember what a pain the last attempt at real copyright reform was (it took decades) combined with the realization (especially on the part of copyright holders) that their ability to push through laws that solely favor themselves to greater and greater degrees may not be so easy this time around. Thanks to the internet and various “wars” on consumers, copyright isn’t just an arcane subject that the day to day person doesn’t know much about. A serious attempt at remaking copyright laws might actually draw out well-reasoned and well-argued points that go against the current views held by the record labels and movie studios. See what’s been happening in Canada, for example.

Litman’s paper goes through the problems with today’s copyright law, and begins to explore what real copyright reform should entail, even while noting the political difficulty of having it go anywhere:

A wise approach to copyright revision might inspire us to rethink the model. If both creators
and readers are ill-served by distributor-centric copyright, and if the economics of digital distribution
now makes it possible to engage in mass dissemination without significant capital investment, perhaps
it is time to reallocate the benefits of the copyright system. The consolidation of control in distributors’
hands does not appear to have made life easier or more remunerative for creators. Copyright lobbyists
have not shown that recent enhancements to copyright have made it easier or more rewarding for
readers, listeners and viewers to enjoy copyrighted works. Perhaps the classic picture of copyright is
too far removed from its reality to be useful.

From there, Litman makes similar arguments that have been made recently by James Boyle and William Patry (among others), wondering why there is little investigation into the actual impact of changes in copyright law, rather than just assuming that “stronger protections” lead to better results, when so much of the evidence suggests otherwise. And, of course, all of this harkens back to the speeches by Thomas Macauley from over a century and a half ago, back when he was able to point to the lack of evidence from those who wished to extend copyright law:

Copyright is monopoly, and produces all the effects which the general voice of mankind attributes to monopoly…. I believe, Sir, that I may safely take it for granted that the effect of monopoly generally is to make articles scarce, to make them dear, and to make them bad. And I may with equal safety challenge my honorable friend to find out any distinction between copyright and other privileges of the same kind; any reason why a monopoly of books should produce an effect directly the reverse of that which was produced by the East India Companys monopoly of tea, or by Lord Essexs monopoly of sweet wines. Thus, then, stands the case. It is good that authors should be remunerated; and the least exceptionable way of remunerating them is by a monopoly. Yet monopoly is an evil. For the sake of the good we must submit to the evil but the evil ought not to last a day longer than is necessary for the purpose of securing the good.

And yet, in copyright reform today, there seems to be no one in the political realm with enough power to play the role of Macauley today. But Litman raises these same issues:

Instead of asking how to enhance copyright owner control, I suggest, we ought to be asking
why. Does a particular proposed enhancement of copyright owner prerogatives seem likely to
expand opportunities for creators or improve reader, listener or viewer enjoyment of copyrighted
works? Is it likely to make the copyright system simpler, more effective, or more transparent? Does it
seem to be designed to shore up copyright’s apparent legitimacy? If not, it seems as likely to make the
current mess worse instead of better.

Litman goes on to suggest that the fact that so many people out there don’t have any respect for copyright law at all is pretty clearly the fault of the current copyright holders who have twisted and abused the law to the point that people just don’t respect it. So, her ideas for copyright reform are based on bringing back “legitimacy” to copyright law by focusing on four principles:

1. Radically simplifying copyright law
2. Empowering content creators (rather than intermediaries and distributors)
3. Empowering readers, listeners and viewers (who, after all, are supposed to be part of the beneficiaries of copyright law)
4. Disintermediating copyright away from the middlemen who seem to control the law today

To then accomplish this, she suggests the following steps:

1. Focus on commercial exploitation (rather than personal use)
2. Simplify what copyright covers (rather than breaking out each separate exclusive right within copyright)
3. Reconnect creators to their copyright (via a termination right that lets them take copyrights back from third parties)
4. Clearly recognize readers’ (or viewers’, listeners’, users’, etc) rights
5. Get rid of existing compulsory license (and similar) intermediaries, such as ASCAP, BMI, SoundExchange and others

It’s definitely an interesting proposal, though I think there are some serious problems with it. I’ve said in the past that the line between commercial use and personal use is increasingly blurry, so trying to draw that distinction may be a lot harder than most people think. We’re already seeing the kind of mess termination rights create, and I’m still not sure why they help matters, rather than just make them more complex. And, of course even as Litman notes, new intermediaries will spring up to fill the void of the old ones.

Still, if you’re interested in copyright and copyright reform, it’s certainly a worthwhile paper to read just to get you thinking.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Only a couple of days left for Modern Warfare 2 for release. More and more info is being poured. Here is one of those. Four new screenshots of the game was released. Have a look…

There were rumors out there that the iPhone would be coming to authorized resellers soon, and we’re finally starting to see it showing up. Surprisingly, The Shack will be the first one out the gate.

I’ve discussed in the past the question of whether or not there’s even a moral question to consider when it comes to copyright, if you can first show a situation where everyone is better off (i.e., if the end result of content being shared, willingly, is better for both the content creators and consumers, why should morals even be a question?). Separately, I have made clear that I do not engage in any sort of unauthorized file sharing — noting that it is illegal and, I personally believe, wrong. Some people have pushed back on that latter point, suggesting that my labeling it as “wrong” is, in fact, a moral statement as well. A couple months ago (yes, I’m slow, but I’m catching up on some old “saved” submissions), SteelWolf sent over some thoughts on why file sharing is not wrong, and why there’s actually a moral argument in favor of sharing:

It is through sharing that we develop a culture and advance humanity. Creative works like art and music are, at their core, about sharing with others. They tell stories, reveal personalities, or comment on the world in ways that others can appreciate, forming a part of our culture as they are spread around. Gregor Mendel’s discoveries about genetics had no value while they were gathering dust on the monastery bookshelf; it is only when those discoveries were shared with the world that they became vital.

Infinite Goods Should Be Shared

Say you have something that is good for others, and it is infinite, so you will not lose any of it by giving some away. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that most people’s idea of morality would dictate that they should share that thing. In general, information is something that can be seen as a public good. If somebody has a discovery or an idea, it costs nothing to give it away, it is not scarce, yet it can potentially benefit the world.

On this, I absolutely agree — but it is much more the argument for why the content creators themselves should share their content first. And that’s where things get tricky. I do think it makes sense to share content. I think that content creators would find themselves better off if they share their works (and do so strategically, in combination with a business plan that takes advantage of it). But what if the original creator doesn’t want the content shared? Then what?

SteelWolf argues that there’s a moral imperative to share, but again, this seems to apply more to the content creator, than those downstream:

Faced with an infinity of good things in the form of content information, why would somebody chose not to give it away? What is gained by hoarding something that can help others and costs nothing to share? Let’s say you figure out that you can protect people from a deadly virus, say, influenza, with a vaccine. While it costs something to manufacture physical vaccines and mail them to everybody in the world, sharing the information behind it is free. Others can chose whether or not they want to invest money in creating their own, but sharing has given them the option to do so where before it did not exist. Faced with this situation, who would chose to let thousands of people perish by denying them even the potential opportunity to save themselves?

Yet this is exactly the choice many people are making in the name of “intellectual property.” They would rather see others suffer than share something infinite with them, desperately clinging to business models that depend on scarcity. In the 21st century, ideas, information, digitized content are all infinitely available. For these things, the Star Trek replicator has been made, and it’s time to use that as a stepping stone to greater things.

Faced with an infinite supply of information that can potentially benefit billions of people, I chose to share. Those who try to hoard this information are both attempting to drink the ocean and doing wrong.

While I think this is interesting, and at times compelling, in the end I’m still not convinced there’s a moral component here, except potentially for the creator/innovator. But, at the same time, I still believe that we’re better off taking the moral discussion out of it. Perhaps a moral argument like the one above is helpful to convince some, but it leads right back to the economic discussion, where some will ask why anyone would bother in the first place, if they’re just told they need to give it away for moral reasons.

Instead, I’m more convinced by economic arguments that show greater opportunity in sharing infinite goods, in that it decreases the cost of creation, promotion and distribution, while making it easier reach a larger audience for selling scarce products. Again, if you can make the economic argument, and then throw in the moral benefits of spreading information on top of it, that makes sense. But a purely moral argument still falls a bit short for me. Still, I’m sure it will lead to an interesting discussion here.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Last year, we wrote how odd it was that former VP Al Gore banned reporters from a speech he gave, where all audio-video equipment was also banned. These days, such “no reporters allowed” speeches make no sense — because anyone can be a reporter. Yet, it seems that there’s something in the veep sauce (or veep wannabe sauce) that leads to these sorts of positions, as former VP candidate, Sarah Palin, is trying to do the same thing, barring “reporters” along with any kind of recording devices from a talk that she is giving. You can understand, perhaps, why politicians like to do this, but it seems both out of touch and completely pointless. Every single person in that room can be a reporter in one way or another — and it doesn’t take a recording device, but a pencil and some paper (or a decent memory). Trying to block out the “official” press is just a waste of time.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

The always thorough DPReview has finally published its epic review of the Canon 7D. Their conclusion? Brilliant. While in the end your purchase probably will rely more on your investment into the Canon, Nikon, Pentax, or whatever ecosystem, the 7D performs incredibly well and should be considered among the very best available. Not much else to say except I wish I had two grand burning a hole in my pocket so I could pick one up.

Is Rupert Murdoch flip-flopping on paywalls again? Way back when (i.e., two years ago) Murdoch was a big believer in the idea that news should be free online, and that he could more than make it up with other business models. But, then, earlier this year, he did a complete flip-flop, declaring that all his publications would put up paywalls, saying that free content is bad, and accusing aggregators and search engines of “stealing” content. Some speculated that it was all a ploy to get others to put up paywalls. Though, others just think Murdoch’s getting a little senile. Either way, it looks like he’s stalling a bit. Jay Rosen points us to the news that Murdoch is “postponing” the date for when he wants his papers to have paywalls. It’s not clear if the delay is due to technical difficulties in implementing a paywall, or if he’s actually reconsidering. Either way, it doesn’t look like the great big paywall is going up any time soon.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

I amaze myself sometimes. You see, I have so much power as a writer on this invincible and influential blog that sometimes I can change an entire industry with but a word. Case in point: apparently my recent post on Eee’s decision to change the touchscreen to resistive on their Eee Keyboard was so crushing that they’ve altered their entire business plan and delayed the device to accommodate it. O Mighty Blogger! Thou humblest the world!

Actually, I’m guessing they did some focus groups and found that the trade-off of “lower price and crappier touchscreen” with “people actually wanting the device” was unacceptable. At any rate, the device (which had an original internal release window of August-ish) may not make it in time for the holidays. It’s not rare that we see a device at CES that doesn’t make it during the next year, but I really had hopes for this thing.

We were already somewhat concerned about the nomination of Victoria Espinel for the IP Czar job in the administration (forced on the administration by the silly and pointless “ProIP” Act from last year). On Thursday, she had her confirmation hearings where she said pretty much what we expected about how important intellectual property is, and how she viewed her job as coordinating different government agencies to crack down on infringers. Much of her (brief) testimony (pdf) talked up the usual industry claims about the importance of intellectual property on the economy, not recognizing how misleading they are. These are stats that simply credit anything covered by intellectual property laws, as if the only reason those industries exist is because of those laws. That’s a mistake.

But more troubling? Espinel made it clear that her job is not to do as the Constitution requires, and make sure that intellectual property laws are properly “promoting the progress of arts and the useful sciences” (she never mentions this part), but, instead she claims her focus is cracking down on infringement to protect jobs:

If I am confirmed as the United States Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, I will work side by side with agencies, Congress, stakeholders and the public to ensure that jobs that depend on intellectual property are not compromised by others’ unwillingness to respect and enforce the rule of law….

But intellectual property law is not about “protecting jobs” it’s about encouraging innovation. Innovation can be disruptive. Jobs can get shifted around. Protecting jobs is not encouraging innovation. It’s the opposite.

Better and smarter protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights will create more jobs…

There’s simply no evidence to support that. Shouldn’t our IP Czar rely on actual evidence rather than broad industry claims that are unproven?

Then, on being questioned she appeared to support Hollywood’s position that any net neutrality laws won’t apply to mandating content filters on ISPs. It’s looking like — just as was initially feared — this position is really to get Hollywood’s own representative in the White House. What a shame. If you must have an “IP Czar” shouldn’t it be someone who’s actually focused on making sure progress is being promoted, rather than someone who wants to blindly crack down on infringement with no thought towards whether or not it makes sense?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Back in September, we wrote about Glenn Beck’s misguided attempt to gain control over the domain name used as part of an internet meme that is critical of Glenn Beck, GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com (it’s a dead site now, keep reading). If you’re unfamiliar with the meme, it’s mocking a favorite tactic of various cable news talk show hosts, to “ask questions” that are accusatory in nature, whether or not there’s any substance to back them up. Glenn Beck didn’t accuse the site of defamation or anything, but filed a domain name complaint, saying that it violated his trademark. As we noted at the time, the trademark claim was really questionable — and, of course, only served to draw more attention to the site and the internet meme.

The site brought on lawyer Marc Randazza who filed one of the most brilliant responses (pdf) to a legal threat that you’ll ever see. It’s quite amusing. Randazza takes the old “moron in a hurry” test up one level, using the “abject imbecile” test. And then there was this:

We are not here because the domain name could cause confusion. We
do not have a declaration from the president of the international
association of imbeciles that his members are blankly staring at the
Respondent’s website wondering “where did all the race baiting content
go?” We are here because Mr. Beck wants Respondent’s website shut
down. He wants it shut down because Respondent’s website makes a
poignant and accurate satirical critique of Mr. Beck by parodying Beck’s
very rhetorical style. Beck’s skin is too thin to take the criticism, so he
wants the site down.

Apparently, Randazza’s letter worked wonders. The WIPO Arbitration Panel has rejected the attempt to take the domain, saying that it was a legitimate use of Beck’s name:

In the present context, this Panel considers that if Internet users view the disputed domain name in combination with a visit to Respondent’s website, the “total effect” is that of political commentary by Respondent, capable of protection as political speech by the First Amendment under the Hustler Magazine standard. Respondent appears to the Panel to be engaged in a parody of the style or methodology that Respondent appears genuinely to believe is employed by Complainant in the provision of political commentary, and for that reason Respondent can be said to be making a political statement. This constitutes a legitimate non-commercial use of Complainant’s mark under the Policy.

Either way, now that the site’s owner has prevailed, he apparently feels he has made his point, and has agreed to voluntarily hand over the domain (pdf), along with an explanation in the First Amendment and how not to respond to internet memes:

It bears observing that by bringing the WIPO complaint, you took what was merely one small critique meme, in a sea of internet memes, and turned it into a super-meme. Then, in pressing forward (by not withdrawing the complaint and instead filing additional briefs), you turned the super-meme into an object lesson in First Amendment principles.

It also bears noting, in this matter and for the future, that you are entirely in control of whether or not you are the subject of this particular kind of criticism. I chose to criticize you using the well-tested method of satire because of its effectiveness. But, humor aside, your rhetorical style is no laughing matter. In this context of this WIPO case, you denigrated the letter of First Amendment law. In the context of your television show and your notoriety, you routinely and shamelessly denigrate the spirit of the First Amendment….

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

This morning the Department of Labor released its Employment Situation report for October and while the numbers are disappointing, they are not surprising. Analysts have known for some time that the unemployment rate could reach this level, but it remains an unacceptable situation.

When this administration began its work in January 2009, the economy was in a freefall, shedding 700,000 jobs a month. We met these challenges head on by immediately putting a plan into action to create jobs and drive economic growth. As a result, housing markets are now showing signs of recovery, credit is flowing again and just last week we saw that the economy is growing, rather than shrinking, for the first time in a year.

Unfortunately, there are still millions of Americans who want employment but cannot find it. We are committed to supporting these Americans as they look for work and struggle to raise their families and pay their bills. 

Earlier today, the President signed legislation that expands unemployment benefits as well as provides an additional tax cut for struggling businesses to help save and create jobs. Extended UI benefits will strengthen our economy further. By helping struggling families pay for groceries and other household needs, economists say that these benefits are one of the best ways to stimulate economic activity.

In addition to this extension, we’ve worked over the past months to revolutionize the unemployment insurance (UI) system. The Recovery Act made $7 billion available in incentives to states to modernize their UI systems. As a result, more workers, including part-timers, and people upgrading their skills are now eligible for benefits for the very first time. These efforts have not only have strengthened the safety net but make it possible for unemployment insurance to be a stepping stone to a better future for millions of Americans.  

To be sure, we have a long way to go.  There are still millions of Americans who need and want work but can’t find it.  There are still too many families struggling.  But you can’t have job growth until you have growth in economic output. That is what the policies of this Administration are designed to create and I will make sure that the Department of Labor is supporting workers every step of the way.

Hilda Solis is the Secretary of Labor