Bootlegging Buffy 281
Nope.
Censorship is no longer a plausible solution to real or perceived dangers, political issues or social problems. Prominent among its many legacies, the Internet has gravely wounded, if not killed, the very idea of censorship, probably for good.
If you have any doubts, consider "Buffy The Vampire Slayer," who, along with her many fans, has not only taken down a passel of demons but humiliated a craven corporation as well in a much more dramatic finale than the show's writers could have imagined.
The drama over the season finale of "Buffy" demonstrate that there are just too many people out there with too much access to too many computers for censorship to work anymore.
This is horrendous news to religions, governments, corporations, educational institutions, journalists, and moral gatekeepers who for centuries have been telling people what they should see, read and hear.
The "Buffy" debacle also shows us that the people who run these potent institutions still can't quite accept the reality of the new and porous world - and the free flow of information, ideas and imagery -- that is one of the hallmark accomplishments of networked computing.
The bone-headed corporation of the year award (won last year collectively by the music industry for its ostrich-like response to Mp3's) goes to the WB network, in recent weeks paralyzed with uncertainty over what to do about the second half of "Buffy's" final episode, "Graduation 2."
The network was afraid the fantasy violence sequence at Sunnyvale High's commencement ceremonies (in which the town's evil mayor was supposed to ascend to demonhood) was - in the network's words - "inappropriate" after the killings at Columbine High School in Colorado. So they cancelled it.
Shockingly dumb. Unless there are demons from Hell lurking in American high schools, it's hard to imagine how "Buffy" could have any bearing on the horrific but very rare outbursts violence that have broken out in several American high schools in recent years. Are kids who watch the show supposed to ascend from hell and grow scales?
By this logic, every rerun of "Gunsmoke" would provoke saloon shootouts all over the country. The lesson isn't that the WB is worrying about our kids, but that among media corporations, there is no such thing as principle, only greed and cowardice.
The WB might have a keen eye for teen angst and drama, but its corporate masters are sadly ignorant of the Net or the Web. As long as one employee of any company has access to a computer and a phone line -- in TV this means almost all employees -- the cancellation of popular programs like "Buffy" is inane.
George Lucas understands this principle, which is why he adroitly parceled out bits of "Phantom Menace" on the Web for months before the movie came out.
Although the season finale was banned in the United States, at least until mid-summer, "Buffy" aired as scheduled and without controversy in nearby but saner Canada (the country's schoolchildren seemed to survive the broadcast without incident).
Canadian Netizens - perhaps proving that Net citizenship may be growing as powerful as national boundaries - immediately posted digital copies of the episode on the Net. In the last episode, Buffy and her gang go after the town's mayor, who's been plotting all year to use the school's graduation for his "Ascension," whereby he morphs into an evil, giant, heavily armed serpent just as diplomas are being given out.
There is nothing in this episode which in any way evokes or is derivative or reflective of the tragedy at Columbine High School, or encourages or provokes viewers to go kill their classmates or commit other kinds of violence. Most of the movies being shown in theaters this week (and many contemporary TV shows, including the very excellent "Sopranos" "Walker, Texas Ranger," and "Jag") have more graphic yet equally unmenacing violence.
The finale - which I and many thousands of other people have seen -- is typically funny, even droll (skip the next two grafs if you want to learn absolutely nothing about the episode).
"If someone would just wake me up when it's time to go to college," pleads Buffy after one battle scene, "that would be great."
Oz: "Guys'take a moment to deal with this'we survived."
Buffy: "It was a hell of a battle."
Oz: "Not the battle'high school."
The finale is a perfect culmination of the show's wickedly funny premise - high school is a Hellmouth through which much evil enters the world. There's no demon more menacing than life among one's peers, and the real challenge isn't surviving monsters but adolescence and education itself.
Even with Buffy (Sarah Michelle Gellar) around, a fair percentage of Sunnyvale's students get eaten, tortured or nibbled on by vampires and other demons. That this notion is a funny and perhaps even badly-needed reflection of education for millions of American schoolkids seemed lost even on the network that broadcasts "Buffy."
To suddenly declare the premise dangerous in the wake of the noxious post-Littleton hysteria is more of the opportunistic pandering media companies are notorious for. It's the exercise of hypocrisy under the guise of morality. Your viewers are not that gullible, folks. The WB has been airing a great series it doesn't have the guts or the sense to stand behind.
In canceling the finale, the WB did considerable harm. It ratified the notion that TV -- not easy access to lethal weapons, poor parenting, uninspired and oppressive education, or mental illness -- is responsible for the spate of high school murders in recent years.
On the bright side, the WB's bumbling, and the quick and devastating response of Net-savvy fans, is one more example of how power is draining away from fat corporations and towards individuals. Like it or not, fans have to be taken into account. They now have a say.
Many people on the Net are intensely connected to pop culture, and if canceling the finale in the United States was foolish, airing it in Canada and thinking it wouldn't get onto the Web was mind-numbing. On the Net, even regularly scheduled dramas and shows like "The Simpsons," "The X-Files" and "Buffy" never really go off the air - they are intensely discussed and followed and fans write new episodes all year long.
"We are the people. We have the Internet. We have the power. Any questions?" one Buffy fan asked the WB on alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer site, one of the sites where people congregating to offer online taped versions of "Graduation 2."
(If you want what is reputably believed to be the transcript of the final episode, go to: Http://www.geocities.com/TelevisionCity/Set/1858/script.html).
The WB is going ballistic over the Net's liberation of its show. "We paid nearly a million dollars for that episode. We bought the rights to it," said a network spokesman, vowing to "aggressively" fight the Net bootlegging of the season finale.
Good luck. Kiss that tape goodbye.
The network has as much chance of keeping the "Buffy" finale off the Web as Kenneth Starr does of getting back his pornographic report on Monica Lewinsky.
The WB ought to lose every penny of its million bucks, and many millions more - a richly deserved and just fine for its stupidity and cowardice.
American politicians and most of the journalists who cover them have no appetite for dealing with complex social and political issues like violence, culture and the young. But these are difficult and expensive to consider or solve. Blaming TV shows and the Internet is easy. That's why 80 per cent of Americans do it.
Clearly, this isn't going to work any more. The collapse of censorship raises lots of complex questions from traditional notions of intellectual property to how to raise children sanely and rationally. It's time to get on with thinking about them.
From hackers to pamphleteers, the long fight for the free movement of ideas and information has some odd and unlikely heroes. "Buffy The Vampire Slayer", now in the pantheon, may be the weirdest yet.
Re:What do you think Littleton WAS? (Score:1)
Um, okay. I suppose the authority on demonology has spoken. Good thing we had C.S. Lewis to get us good counter-intel on the demonic strategy, huh?
Yes But... (Re:Great quote!) (Score:1)
Well, let's ask the people of Russia. The 'net was the only way to get news in and out of the country when the communists made their last attempt to sieze power in 1991. They could not
censor the 'net.
This is true but that attempted coup was very poorly organized. Among other things, the wannabe junta leaders tried to use local troops to quell the crowds. This is a big no no; if you want to be dictator, you need troops who won't think twice about shooting people. That ain't gonna happen if the troops are related to the people they are supposed to shoot.
Sure enough the Russian troops in that coup refused to fire on civilians. China on the other hand, brought in troops from other provinces to put down the Tiennamen Square protesters. And we all know how that one turned out.
So yes, the Internet does help get the truth out. But if the government is ruthless enough and efficient enough, your story is going to be told posthumously.
Katz - hand over your drafts, now (Score:1)
You heard me. Hand over your rough drafts. The People Of The Net have the Right to see your work before you've self-censored.
JonKatz strikes again (Score:1)
Katz, you trouble is that you're way too used to longish articles. Keep short, keep simple, keep ontopic, and you'll see use complaining a bit less.
I wasn't even going to comment anything, but your topic drift forced me to. Let's hope you read this and improve your skills.
Re:Censorship and Freedom (Score:1)
I agree with your statements somewhat. I don't think that what the WB did in pulling the episode constitutes censorship.
Indeed, earlier in the year right after Littleton occured, the WB rightly pulled an episode called "Earshot" from broadcast. In this episode Buffy gains telepathy and learns that some kids are planning violence at school.
WB was being sensitive. The WB was right then. They are wrong now.
This issue has more to do with the way violence is delivered in the media (be it tv, computer, movies, etc) than censorship.
We have 2 courses set out in front of us: Do we eliminate or tone down violence in the media, hoping that this will prevent more Littletons, or do we let media do what it wants and let the parenting happen at home?
Many people had a legitimate gripe that WB was in effect legislating parenting. Indeed, many people (I am one of them) fear that the government will go too far.
Let the parenting happen at home. Don't try to impose your views of what should be in the media on the rest of us. If you don't like it, don't watch it or let your kid see it. Your kid is your responsibility, not mine.
--docfbl@yahoo.com
Interesting side note: Is it really bootlegging if you provide a tape of an episode of a TV show to someone without charging money? I thought you were allowed to copy as long as you did not rebroadcast or charge money for viewing/make money off of it.
Disappointed In You, Katz (Score:2)
John, you've written a long article about how pirating a television show is a huge ringing blow for liberty.
Perhaps we should examine why so many people have their identities wrapped up in a vehicle to sell makeup and anti-pimple ointments instead? Perhaps we should examine why our culture and our minds are so filled with meaningless garbage that we would care enough to pirate a television show to begin with?
The true victory in this situation would have been if they had aired the final episode, and no one had watched it at all.
Has the internet, with all of its potential as a communications medium, been turned nothing but another outlet for television?
I think you are usually pretty close to on target with your writings, but in my opinion you've strayed far from what is important with this one.
One more thing. . . (Score:2)
I hate to miss a good TV episode, but it actually is a relief to see a large corp. make an attempt to consider the feelings of its viewers (whatever their true motivations are).
Yes, We all know how to use the remote, or the channel button on the TV, but sometimes there is something called decency and consideration. If anyone has noticed, TV has entirely lacked in this for the past decade. Maybe the WB's self-censorship (regardless of its motivation) will be a start towards removing some actual senseless TV. Not out of fear from the public, but out of realizing TV should not sell out for ratings.
As for 'controlling' the Internet. How is the free flow of every little single bit of information going to solve the world's problems? It's almost like telling the absolute tactless truth to everyone all the time. Sure, its cool to grab something rare to 'stick it' to The MANN. But are US netizens decadent enough to proclaim pirating a POSTPONED TV episode a moral victory? There is a time and a place for everything. Including the distribution of information.
Our impatient self gratification has got to take a back seat sometime.
I might be completely out of line with these questions, so feel free to flame me in oblivion.
Freedom & Corporations (Score:2)
Secondly, you calling the bootlegger's actions "Grand Theft" is irresponsible and wrong. Theft would be if someone stole Warner Brothers' copy, so they no longer had it. This is copyright infringement, plain and simple. A crime, but nowhere near as dire a crime as Grand Theft. Nor should it be, since WB was not significantly injured by the infringement. WB wasn't showing the episode anyway, and most of the people watching the bootlegs will still tune in if/when they get around to airing it, so WB still will get the same ad revenue as before.
The bulk of your argument boils down to "Warner Brothers owns Buffy, so they can do whatever they want with it." This argument hides two fallacies in it. It equates ownership of information (eg. the episode) to ownership of real goods (eg. the master copy of the episode). It also equates the rights of a corporation to the rights of an individual.
First, on the rights of corporations. The US has gone through great efforts to pretend that corporations and individuals are equal under the law. This despite the fact that corporations are not subject to the same criminal penalties we are (I'd like to see someone put some major polluting company away for 15-25 years for negligent manslaughter). Corporations should be treated differently, morally and legally.
Secondly, information is not property, you can't own it (or steal it). Legally speaking, you can own the copy rights to information, but this is a substatially broken system. By airing the episode in Canada, Canadian viewers gained access to the information. Why shouldn't they be allowed to share it with their less fortunate neighbors?
Internet = Phantom Menace (Score:1)
The real story here isn't the cancelation of the final episode of a TV show- its about the power of the Internet. I think we all know deep down how powerfull it is- therein lies the huge draw for so many of us.
I wont assume to preach to the choir on this point, but I will illustrate with an anecdote. One of my friends runs a fairly major X-files website and listserv. A whole culture has developed around this with people submiting scripts and info on shows in advance (I think they pull them off of satelites or something...) I suspect this is much like the buffy crowd.
The Internet poses a phantom menace for any and all who censor. We are seeing some censoring already. I.E. Australian censorship [salonmagazine.com], or in Shangh ai [techserver.com], or those slowly disapearing textfiles.
Let us hope that the Internet continues to be successful as an outlet for free speach.
I he missed. (Score:1)
------------------
'Tis better to die trying, (Score:1)
Give us a break (Score:2)
Say it with me: They were just trying to avoid bad PR, so they bowed to pop-psychology. Katz is right, fighting demons in a school doesn't equal having two kids go nuts and shoot their innocent classmates, and it certainly won't cause them to do so.
----
Quotation Time (Score:3)
Free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
Pretty darn good for an oversized board game; my girlfriend initially thought it was de Toqueville. Anyhow, this discussion reminded me of that very sane little bit from the game -- it seems like the folks writing for video games these days have the people who write TV fluff pretty badly beaten...
----
Alex in Clockwork Orange meets Fox (Score:3)
The rough sex, the violence -- I knew it all looked framiliar from someplace... Kuberick must have found a Fox tape that had fallen through a timewarp from 2002 or something.
----
Re:Yay! No more Microsoft charcodes (Score:1)
Oz: "Guys'take a moment to deal with this'we survived."
Buffy: "It was a hell of a battle."
Oz: "Not the battle'high school."
Maybe we should get Jon to use Vim. There is a Macintosh port.
--
Its technically feasible, for now. (Score:1)
...phil
Re:What do you think Littleton WAS? (Score:1)
Not without a lot more discussion of whether or not there's a god, which is inappropriate for this board. Take it to alt.religion.christian or the like.
...phil
Re:Its technically feasible, for now. (Score:1)
This is another case where technology will outstrip enforcement capability, and this time we will say it's a Good Thing.
...phil
Re:What do you think Littleton WAS? (Score:1)
An attempt to direct the conversation into an appropriate forum. You'll notice that I have exactly no power to force the discussion - it was only a request. The fact that you regard a request that you don't like as censorship says a lot more about you than about me.
...phil
Re:What do you think Littleton WAS? (Score:1)
And while religion is tied up with morals, the reverse is not necessarily true. Atheists are perfectly capable of making moral decisions. No simplification is implied. In fact, it's often the opposite: if you don't use a religious basis for morality, then the analysis becomes more complex, since the morality must stand alone. You don't have the convenient fall back position of "God said so."
...phil
Re:Yeah! Fight the power! (Score:1)
And you have evidence (other than the statement of a PR droid) that the decision was made on any basis other than money?
Try to remember what the actual product of the television industry is. Hint: it's not TV shows.
...phil
Re:What do you think Littleton WAS? (Score:1)
...phil
anyone got the episode? (Score:1)
Well, does anyone know where to download that
last episode?
Re:Censorship vs. Tactfulness (Score:1)
>WB was exercising their right to be tasteful
Shouldn't that read:
WB was exorcising their right to be tasteful
-buffy
Re:Quotation Time (Score:1)
The point is not which show wasn't aired, but why the show was not aired. Don't pick at the details and miss the entire point.
Re:Its technically feasible, for now. (Score:1)
Re:Its technically feasible, for now. (Score:1)
is it worth the risk
Re:State-controlled media (Score:1)
Censorship takes many forms. A very popular one involves making sure that reporters (and whole news agencies) who kill stories they're asked to kill get more and better interviews, sneak peeks at press releases, etc. The others find themselves shut out.
Re:State-controlled media (Score:1)
Agreed. I think the two are inter-related. The muck rakers get demoted, fired, or simply stagnate because of the unstated rules about what gets you access to interviews.
I should have mentioned that this also includes the corperate world, only instead of interviews, the controlling factor is advertising dollars. The muck rakers get held back or kicked out because otherwise, sponsors get upset, and ad revenue is threatened. Nobody ever gets fired for saying NICE things about a sponsor.
The only reason we EVER hear bad things about sponsors (and government) is because otherwise, even the couch potatos would eventually change the channel, and then the sponsors would all move to greener pastures.
Re:You insensitive creep. (Score:1)
It's been done before (Ellen & I'm sure others).
Re:Censorship and Freedom (Score:1)
The most important point, as I understand it from my friend the Buffy fan, is that WB has NOT, in fact, cancelled the season finale, but rather has _postponed_ it a month or two longer. There's a HUGE difference.
Adam
allegorical reference (Score:1)
Instead of allowing this "graduation" to happen, the show was "postponed", delaying the transition of the audience (intended or not) from childhood to adulthood. In having "them" make the decision for us, whether we can exercise our own judgement as to whether we'd be offended or shocked, or experience Post Littleton Stress Syndrome, anyone with a TV that has the WB pipe to it, has been treated like a child.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
-jafac's law
allegorical reference (Score:2)
Instead of allowing this "graduation" to happen, the show was "postponed", delaying the transition of the audience (intended or not) from childhood to adulthood. In having "them" make the decision for us, whether we can exercise our own judgement as to whether we'd be offended or shocked, or experience Post Littleton Stress Syndrome, anyone with a TV that has the WB pipe to it, has been treated like a child.
I for one, will download this from the net and view it, w/o commercials. Fuck WB.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
-jafac's law
Look at it this way... (Score:1)
Unfortunately, I don't believe WB is acting out of concern for society. It is simply a defensive measure to make sure they don't get caught up in litigation or in arguments between the "TV is harmful" and "freedom of speech" people. Who can blame them? The way society can all-of-a-sudden gang up again something, as rediculous as it is, can be very bad.
Some may say they're just being tactful and considerate. BAH! When was the last time the media was considerate? They weren't even tactful and considerate in their coverage of the actual shootings.
-Derek
P.S. PBS is the only one that produces regular quailty programming.
Re:I he missed. (Score:1)
Overly-sensitive? It's not the public.. (Score:2)
Why is it that the majority of people that I've talked to all think that what happaned in Littleton is a tragedy, but non of them think that censorship or blaming tv, video games, etc is the answer nor "the right thing" to do. Yet we're still being bombarded by the Politicians and other controling parties (IE: religious groups) that it's all the fault of tv, games.. etc. And they all seem to say that "the people" demand stricter gun laws, that "the people" demand censoring things the politicians deem immoral or offensive.
Hmm... I'm one of "the people" and no one asked me of my opinion, hell no one asked any of my friends, neighbors or coworkers for what they demand either. So who is it that's REALLY "demanding" all this? I really doubt it's "the people".
Ex-Nt-User
Re:New Coke, Old Coke (Score:1)
Warning: Hearsay ahead...
There is a third theory that can be considered in this case: it was all a smoke screen to hide the switch from cane sugar to corn syrup as the sweetener. By the time Coke came "back" no one remembered what the original really tasted like and so the switch was complete.
Supposedly you can still get Coke with cane sugar in containers marked as Kosher during Passover as corn products are not allowed.
Is there anyone out there familiar with Jewish traditions who can comment on this?
What do you think Littleton WAS? (Score:1)
Has it occurred to you, Jon, that there ARE demons from Hell in American high schools? It would sure explain a lot. And I don't think half-baked rationalism can explain what is happening to our society.
Don't be foolish enough to think that the demonic images in "Buffy" are the real thing. The genuinely demonic is far more common and far more pernicious than anything in media. See C.S. Lewis' "Screwtape Letters" for a chilling (and sometimes funny) example of what Demonic activity really looks like.
Re:What do you think Littleton WAS? (Score:1)
As for seeing them... Many historical accounts exist of people seeing things that they took to be demons. Just because you reject the accuracy of these accounts does not privilege you to deny their existence.
"I don't think alarmism and relying on the paranormal is the answer either."
Reality check... You are using the worxd paranormal as thought it, in and of itself, proves something.
As soon as you can explain human thought in purely rationalist (!=rational) terms, I will concede that this topic is paranormal. However, I regard the prescense of non-physical influences on human thought as no less normal than human thought.
If something verifiably exists, the fact that you have not directly observed it does not make it "para-normal".
Re:What do you think Littleton WAS? (Score:1)
Also, let mo observe that you have probably never tried to duplicate their "religious" experiments. Just because the religious experiment takes most of a lifetime to do doesn't invalidate it.
Objectivity is a myth we aspire to, not a real object, and anyone who's seriously studied science knows it. The lack of objective observability merely makes religion open to question, not false.
As for the AC bit... I speak the truth. Why should I hide? I notice tho, that you seem to feel a need to hide.
"Every thing that is evil fears the light." -- Jesus of Nazareth, 31AD.
Of course. (Score:1)
You insensitive creep. (Score:1)
Should this episode really have aired, at the risk that the students of Columbine would have their memories dredged back up? Apparently Fox felt it would have been in bad taste. Apparently you don't care.
I think canceling one episode of one tv show is a small price to let my friends back home get on with their lives.
OK, I meant WB, not Fox (Score:1)
I really wouldn't have cared if the episode aired. (Score:1)
I don't really care if WB airs a show that's in bad taste. Hell, Fox does it all the time and I still watch x-files and futurama. But Katz is slamming WB for *volutarily* exercising good taste by not airing a show that might offend people affected by Columbine. He called their decision "Shockingly dumb". What a loser! *This (Katz slamming WB) is what I have a problem with.* And all you out there crying censorship, I think you're losers too. Heaven forbid anyone take anybody else's feelings into account!
Re:Censorship and Freedom (Score:1)
To all those saying "don't watch it..." (Score:2)
I'm sorry some of you Buffy fans missed out on your final episode, but somebody at WB *must* have thought the episode was in bad taste if they yanked it. I'm sure they lost a ton of money, and that should say a lot.
If you missed out on the episode, I'm sorry. But don't be so quick to step on other people's feelings, you might be on the other side soon enough.
Re:US censorship (Score:1)
Re:US Censorship == Corporate Tyranny (Score:1)
I am shocked and appalled. (Score:1)
"Pray for our generation. We can't win."
- Tourist
Re:You insensitive creep. (Score:1)
Obviously the show has little to do with actual events. And whatever connection it does have, it's always had, so the only solution would be to cancel it entirely, rather than just a specific episode.
So if you don't like it, you don't have to watch it, and this makes you the arbiter of what you think is good taste, rather than some anonymous guy at a network. I know I trust my judgement, and therefore I don't watch the show at all. If someone else tells me I had better not watch it, then I might decide to start, to see what all the fuss is about.
It's a bit juvinile, but people are more prone to be interested in something that other people are displaying passion (either way) for. Boring stuff, OTOH gets ignored. Now if you'll excuse me, my friends are all jumping off of a cliff, and I figure it can't be all bad.
Re:Alex in Clockwork Orange meets Fox (Score:1)
Maybe they can have someone being chased around the room by an old washing machine drive. ;)
Re:Use it or lose it (Score:1)
At any rate, the point was that it's silly for copyrights to persist after the author's death in the first place. it should only be a tiny bit of assistance to the family so that they have time to find an alternative means of support.
Use it or lose it (Score:2)
I realize that current copyright law does not work this way, but I think it would be much better if copyrights were more like trademarks. Unless they are used (e.g. books always in print, software rewritten or supplied with emulators) they drop into the public domain. This seems to have happened de facto with Buffy here, and that's frequently just as good as de jure.
Of course, a time limit, like five years after the author's death (AND NO LONGER!) would still be a good thing to have in effect. Then we just need trademarks to ultimately expire, and we'll be all set...
Good taste?! You're kidding, right? (Score:1)
If it weren't for South Park, I would have gotten rid of my cable subscription a LONG time ago.
Taste? Two words:
Jerry Springer
I'm getting less and less impressed with mainstream media as time goes on.
This came out a bit harsher than I intended, but... but... taste!? I'd chalk this up to cowardice long before I credited some media mogul with the decency exibited by the average NAMBLA memer.
(that's North American Man/Boy Love Association for the blissfully ignorant: pedophiles seeking legitimacy. Wow.)
"equivalent of BBC" (Score:1)
The PBS (Public Broadcast System) is sponsored by government grants, but it's all educational and informative TV, with the occasional comedy on-loan from the BBC. "Are you Being Served?" is hilarious.
Re:You lack proper context. (Score:1)
~luge
Re:What do you think Littleton WAS? (Score:1)
have experienced both God and the antithesis. Many of them you accept as scientific authority, but not as religious. Why? A few names to drop: Einstein, Decartes, Pascal.
Two points. Einstein was a deist - his god was nature. I.E. he did not experiance the antithesis since there was no antithesis in his belief system. And I don't accept them blindly as scientific authorities - I believe Einstein was wrong about quantum physics and I've never heard of Decartes in connection with science before. (And what about the opposition - Gould, Asimov, Hawking and Sagan? I have respect for them as scientific authorities, so why shouldn't I have respect for them as religious authorities?)
As for why I don't accept them as religious authorities, it's because (a) they disagree about religion, and (b) they're human, i.e. they're sometimes wrong.
Re:State-controlled media (Score:1)
At least as far as the Internet getting into China, it is state-controlled info. Companies here in the US and elsewhere are making big bucks by developing the hardware and software that makes it possible for China to have such a very fine filter on Internet access...
The genie has been let out of the bottle, I hope, though, in the more liberal Western-style areas. When the commies learn that Free Markets can exist in China with state control replaced by Organized Crime (i.e., where companies have to pay for "protection", bribery, etc.), and realize that it's just the same thing they have now but with different buzzwords, then they'll do it. I think Hong Kong, et al. are just testing the waters on this. But most of China is pretty poor materially, and the powers that be are more interested on keeping them contained (ala the mars citizenry in "Total Recall") than anything else... Gotta keep those rural peasants rural...and...peasants.
Re:Censorship vs. Tactfulness (Score:1)
Censorship, in a broader context, I think is more like:
A small group of people decides what information is fit and unfit for the rest of the people to watch.
Sure, it happens as a consequence of the programming process. But market forces (i.e., "not enough people watch this show", which means, advertisers aren't getting enough bang for their ad bucks) are accepted forms of censorship, but most people don't think of them as censorship.
Parents censor their children.
People censor for themselves (I, for one, hope to never watch "Titanic").
Was Disney...er, ABC, right in broadcasting the "outing" episode of "Elaine"?
doesn't bother you? Then you should talk to some anti-gay person about that show.
Isn't "Professional Wrestling" a little more worrisome than an episode of a show that could *possibly* have been problem causing for one small subpopulation?
Do TV stations still show "Twister" even as the latest community gets sucked off the map in real life?
Re:Does Jon understand the WB's motivations? (Score:1)
Seen those "Homicide" or "NYPD: Blue" episodes where their story line happens to parallel something bad recently happening in society regarding cops and criminals and innocent bystanders (and the advertising mentions this linkage)?
Do you watch "Twister" whilst thinking about the recent tornados in Oklahoma City?
Re:Censorship and Freedom (Score:1)
...yet, how many "challenger" jokes did you hear the next day at school or work, and how many times did you get to relive the experience each time the TV news had to "recap" the current situation:
'In case you've been living in a cave the last few months, the space shuttle "challenger" blew up last month'...
...or watch Joe Theismann's leg crumple like a weak chicken wing on 'Monday Night Football'?
Re:To all those saying "don't watch it..." (Score:2)
My wife helped deal with 300 burnt-to-a-crisp bodies at the KAL crash in Guam (she worked in the Morgue. No, she's not a mortician or pathologist, so the "it was her job" doesn't fit here at all. She was part of a "psychiatric team of counselors and support staff" the Navy brought there to help prevent the people working at the scene from, among others, developing PTSD... I'll leave it at that. If you want to find out a little about the behind-the-scenes of a plane crash, I can let you in on a little. Send me e-mail).
Should she, whenever we/she walk by a barbeque restaurant, be able to go in and demand that the rack o' ribs roasting on the spit in the front window be taken down because some people might find it offensive (she should have the right, yes, but she usually turns her eyes, and doesn't eat BBQ ribs anymore. I can't blame her...), and then when they don't, start proclaiming that these restaurant operators are cruel, insensitive, uncaring bastards for not thinking about what other people might feel about this suggestive display of violence towards other living beings (with the implied threat of a boycott or lawsuit to follow soon)?
Should TV be banned from showing in-close scenes from disasters to "protect" those scarred by previous scenes in the past? Should movies be allowed to show suggestive scenes (think of Luke's parents in Star Wars burning on the ground) such as smoldering corpses, whathaveyou?
No, someone at WB, probably the legal or PR department, decided that it could have had bad *financial* repurcussions if they aired it, although networks usually do this because advertisers (who TV stations REALLY care about, because they pay the bills, not you or I sitting on our duffs) threaten to pull advertising regarding episodes.
But the local WB station in Denver could have chosen to not run the episode. Wouldn't that have "protected" the people most likely to have been affected by watching it?
Katz is right...
Re:I think you're missing the point... (Score:1)
Large scale distribution of bootlegs is now so easy it's impossible to stop. That's the real point here.
It's also getting real hard to make money off of bootlegs as well. That's the other real point.
Respect our "license" but we can ignore yours. (Score:1)
If the open source movement wants people to
accept and use the GPL and associated licenses then it is critical that they respect and do not misinterpret other people licenses. Ignoring a licenses because you do not agree with it is not the thing to do. Work to change the system rather than ignoring what someone elses holds to be true.
Ignorance is bad, education is good.
You're right (Score:1)
Re:Censorship and Freedom (Score:2)
What HAS happened here is a failing of a large number of people's logic. I play quake2.. alot. I am not a psychopatic killer. If there were even a weak correlation here, hundreds would be shot to death every day. Millions of people play quake.. and less than 0.01% ever wind up trying to shoot somebody. If that. I've found stronger correlations between people who eat rye bread and breast cancer!
Second question you brought up was "decency". In short, if this was the case, why didn't they recall all their released movies that depicted violence? I'll let you answer that one.
--
The Star Wars analogy (Score:1)
I don't applaud theft or impatience..this is something else..The decision was quite hypocritical. And if you follow the reasoning, it means every single tv show or movie or CD has to be screened before release..
( off topic ) China doesn't have "free speech" (Score:1)
Pols in China and pols in the US and AU are cut from the same cloth. President Cliton would call the the national guard out to take away your network, if a CNN poll told him too. China's officals are keeping themselves in power, and the best way to do that is keep democracy out.
I know it's horrible to have less "rights", but it's still basicly the same problems wherever you are... Janet Reno as Mao? The flames shall come. =)
Moderate this up! (Score:1)
Re:You lack proper context. (Score:1)
Re:I don't get it (Score:2)
Re:Quotation Time (Score:2)
I didn't realize that "Buffy" was a source of enlightened information, here I thought it was a boring, mindless, TV show that appealed to adolescent insticts.
Re:Yeah! Fight the power! (Score:2)
Re:I don't get it (Score:2)
Implied in WB's "First broadcast rights" is the right not to broadcast. It isn't "First broadcast obligation" after all.
The real tragedy (Score:2)
Re:Not all of Canada got to see it... (Score:2)
Actually, my wife makes me watch that show every week with her, I personally don't like the show much, other than for the girl who plays Buffy ;-)
Re:Its technically feasible, for now. (Score:1)
You make some good points here & further down in the thread, Altus, but can I suggest an alternative a little more futuristic?
Using a voice call to mask data transfer.
And what will the authorities do? Prosecute every person who has a bad connection on an international call?
I'm not sure what the laws on pornography are in Singapore, but if they are as repressive as in other authoritarian states, then there will be a flourishing black market for porn. And it will pay not only for the risks, but also for developing the technology.
Little Dutch Boys have only so many fingers they stick into the dike . . .
Geoff
What is with you and Monica Lewinski? (Score:1)
The impeachment hearings have been over for a while and your guy is still in office. Why do you insist on mentioning that sorry episode in every article you post here? Your sad fascination with Ken Starr, Monica Lewinski, et.al. really doesn't add anything to your writing.
GET OVER IT ALREADY! (p.s. everyone else has)
Sounds like (Score:1)
And is your argument that TV violence begets absolutely no RL violence? Maybe you ought to actually do some research into the matter before you dash off a hasty, one-sentence-per-paragraph tirade on a subject about which you obviously know little.
Normally, Jon, I enjoy your articles. But this one just seemed to be an attempt to pander to your audience.
You mean you FELT that? (Score:1)
In Search of a Better Analogy (Score:2)
Under Katz's definition, he would do it to himself.
Jon, I think you're in love with the Internet. There's no shame in that, but it's still only about communication.
Five years ago, people would have mailed fuzzily copied videotapes to each other. (Two years ago, they did that for Babylon 5.)
There's nothing new under the sun. You'll pardon me if I yawn when you find a new fad that looks just like the old fad.
--
QDMerge -- generate documents automatically.
Re:I don't get it (Score:2)
If the
WB decides what they air. The word censorship is misused and the accusation is unfounded. If they want to pay Sarah and the gang for hundreds of episodes which are never seen, then that's their business. The fact that people stole their intellectual property and posted it to the web is not a sign of liberation.
How would you feel, Jon, if I stole a draft of a book that you wrote and then published that book to the web before you could have it published in print? It's theft.
This will bring about higher ratings (Score:2)
First of all, this isn't censorship. This is just
network stupidity. Censorship would be if the WB
had aired the episode and then had the
government pass a law to prevent us from
talking about it somehow.
Secondly, the ironic thing about this is that
when the WB finally does get the balls to air
the show, they'll probably get record high
ratings. The people who've seen a dupe of the
tape or who've watched it streamed across the
Internet or read a transcript will watch it for
the better and bigger and clearer picture.
People who have never watched the show before will
watch it out of curiosity to see what everyone was
talking about.
And WB will get a bunch of new viewers, renew the
show for another season, and get potentially
better ratings.
This whole thing could just be a ploy for
bigger ratings. On the other hand, I'm not
a Machiavellian Cynic. . .
-Augie
I don't get it (Score:3)
I am missing something here? (Score:2)
I don't see why WB should deserve the all the flak its getting. They seem to be trying to be sensitive to the stuff at Littleton. I can see how scenes with high school students running around the school and getting attacked would seem inappropriate.
It seems like there's a double standard operating here. We complain about coporations trying to exploit the event when they release things like this about events that we care about. But if the event in question doesn't resonate much with us, everyone starts shouting censorship, calls for booycotts, and adovocates pirating the show. Would we have done the same if George Lucas decided to delay the release of star wars for a few weeks?
BTW, I think Katz is really reaching when he makes the analogy between the people being persecuted at school and the show having demons running around the high school.
Slammin WB (Score:3)
The article is about the 'Net, and the power it gives us. I've seen this for years.. but it's hard to put into words.
You can see it with most software. You can see it with mp3, you can see it with vcd, and anything else that can be broken down to information.
Regardless of any percieved 'morality' issues, regardless of any attempt at cencorship, regardless of what laws governing 'money' or 'intellectual property', there is nothing that will stop people from sharing information easily and quickly.
I don't have to speak out against IP, or against morality, or against *anything* to state that people will copy, pirate, whatever you want to call it anyway, and that they should have the right to.
Our society is run by money.. but shouldn't it be run by people? Money is a means to an end, but it's gotten out of hand. We spend our lives inside, watching TV, even playing on the Internet, and don't pay attention to what's going on around us in the real world. THAT is why our cities suck, are ugly, and dirty.
THAT is why we take a new suburb where there is TONS of space and cram the houses closer and closer together instead of putting up nice yards for people.. because of money.
There is something besides money here... there is the inalienable right for ME to share any information I want with YOU, and I will!
Re:To all those saying "don't watch it..." (Score:2)
THINK, people! Emotions and feelings are fine and all, but give me a fucking break. Don't be so damned weak-willed. You want to see the real sign of the degradation of mankind? Look at the people who are too affected by everything, too offended by everything, and too lazy to DO THEIR OWN THING INSTEAD.
And, just so it's clear, I hate that damn show and never watch it anyway. It's a matter of principle.
Yeah! Fight the power! (Score:3)
Oh sure, some would say there are more important things you could get upset about. Some would say that the U.S Constitution is being slowly eroded while we watch television. None of that matters, though. What matters is being able to watch the season finale of "Buffy". Heck, they can take our rights, they can increase our taxes, JUST DON'T MESS WITH OUR T.V. SHOWS!
Clearly, this is a huge victory for "netizens". It proves that we have the power to make change WHERE IT MATTERS. It proves that we can pat ourselves on the back when we make those changes. It proves that we have writers who can write long articles about T.V. shows. It proves that we can write long posts on slashdot about those articles.
Yes, thanks to "The Buffy Effect", I will sleep better knowing that the rights-takers are now almost certainly cowering in fear.
Re:What do you think Littleton WAS? (Score:2)
Pull cosmology (such as presence or absence of demons) out of moral questions, and you have oversimplified the question. The fact that many of us have different cosmologies makes morality a very hairy question, but I think that it is necessary hair.
Censorship and Freedom (Score:4)
The "Buffy" issue is not about censorship. It is about freedom. WB used their freedom, and made a decision. They decided not to air the show, in the name of good taste. They did not do this for market share; the TV biz thrives on controversy. They probably lost ratings in this decision, but they did the Right Thing.
How dare we call this censorship and decry it as such? Who holds the right to censor WB, to take away their freedom and force them to air an episode they don't want to air?
Yes, force. That is exactly what the bootleggers did; they forced the release of this material. They were the ones who restricted WB's freedom not to release an episode they wanted not to release.
We don't own Buffy. WB does. They have the right to air, to pull, to make their own Buffy channel with 48 episodes per day. If you don't like that, pick up a web cam and write your own TV show.
Katz, you're just wrong.
This isn't about saying that this episode causes real world violence. This is about keeping people from having the very real pain of Littleton thrown in their faces again.
I've seen this done once before. When the Challenger exploded, MTV pulled all their "spaceman" ads. This wasn't censorship. NASA didn't force them to do it. NASA probably didn't even ask. MTV did this by itself. This wasn't some sort of political statement on the US space program. This was simple human decency. Even media companies are capable of this.
If they were forced to pull the ep, that would be a problem. When a company chooses to do the decent thing, they should be applauded. To harass them or complain about them doing the decent thing is to throw decency away entirely. That is the wrong path. To say that the government should not legislate decency is not to say that one should not display it one's self.
The bootleggers performed nothing short of grand theft. This was WB's episode, to show or not as they decided. I doubt even RMS would advocate this sort of activity, and his worldview appears to revolve around the freedom of IP. There is a big difference between activist and guerilla, you know.
Not all of Canada got to see it... (Score:2)
It was a shame, because I (um, I mean my wife
So don't go around thinking that Canada is THAT much less restrictive than the US..
A few points.... (Score:3)
2. The WB felt that graduation violence was inappropriate around the time of graduations. They did what they felt was the responsible thing.
3. THey have the rights to Buffy. THey can do whatever the heck they want with it.
4. You have no inalienable right to watch TV. THe WB is not compelled to ever show this episode.
5. It's a TV show. Chill. I didn't freak out last night when the audio feed of the finale of DS9 cut out. It's still just TV.
6. This is not a breaking sort of spy story to sneak copies of the Buffy finale out of the WB vault. Eveyr copy or transcript I have seen so far is from Canadian viewer who saw it/ taped it when it broadcast there. We are the Internet and have the power? Bull. You are Canadian and have a VCR.
WIth all the stuff in the world to worry about today, let's not get our undies in a bunch over the finale of one fantasy TV show.
PS: I caught a later episode of the DS9 finale. Wow. Now there's some good TV!
Joss Wheedon's Grateful Dead Moment (Score:2)
"OK, I'm having a Grateful Dead moment here, but I'm saying, 'Bootleg the puppy.'"
But the bootlegs aren't easy to find (Score:2)
Those search engines don't reveal very much. Some straightforward queries at Altavista and Googol disclosed at most three relevant sites, each of which had already been "lawyered."
My experience is that the same seems to be true of the supposed "rampant" distribution of bootleg copies of the Phantom Menace.
I admit I didn't try very hard -- perhaps half an hour or so. Perhaps a few die-hard fans might be willing to work harder to find their copies, but few will find it worth the effort. But if it isn't trivial for me to find it, then it won't be easy at all for everyday Joe to get a copy, and then censorship hasn't been effectively combatted at all.
Indeed, there will always be a subculture distributing bootlegs -- the only problem is to contain it so the subculture is commercially unimportant. It is not clear to me that the Internet has made the bootleg culture substantially more of a threat, particularly in view of recent laws.
Indeed, since DMCA provides recourse through the ISP's, who own meat and metal and often have a stream of commercial contacts with the USA, it is actually fairly easy for a lawyer to shut down many or most piracy shops. I suspect real censorship (where it is legal) can operate the same way.
That, together with the fact that the activity is itself illegal, suggests that maybe Jon was too quick to suggest that the Internet is the great equalizer.
Re:You just don't know (Score:2)
If you want to defeat "censorship," you need to be able to publish widely, not covertly. If you can't do so without fear of criminal responsibility or civil liability -- or if Joe is going to have to look over his shoulder to assure not being arrested for criminal activities of obtaining a copy, you simply aren't playing the "power to the people" game, but are merely entertaining friends and relations.
Careful! Censorship never dies . . . (Score:4)
We in the United States, who are largely protected by the Courts and agressive litigation strategies of groups such as the ACLU, have grown complacent over time about censorship. We have grown to believe that the "bad guys," regardless of who they are and what they stand for will never be able to shield us from the light because of the almighty Bill of Rights.
Not so, Joe. And the liberating power of the Internet is not necessarily all good. It is, indeed, a vast wasteland and small voices can be truly and completely lost in that vastness. Moreover, the attractiveness of private censorship in the form of momma-ware and other filtering technologies invites willful or accidental blindness to content that can be controlled without the benefit of a government. In this sense, censorship is simply moving from use of government to another form, which should probably be the topic of another thread.
Yet another way in which censorship is effected today is by abusing the marketplace of ideas another way -- filling it with counter-content. Spamming is a tremendously effective way to bury opposing content, and when well-executed, is not always easy to counter. Sometimes the marketplace of ideas requires antitrust legislation.
Others have written about this particular circumstance of the Buffy affair not being a censorship issue. I will not pass on the point (though I share this view) but instead will assume that Jon is correct that somehow Warner is "censoring" content from the public. This kind of censorship, keeping secrets, is indeed much more difficult than once it was.
But this isn't the kind of censorship that is most dangerous and troublesome -- the keeping of content from the masses, which content is highly popular and popularized. When the majority wants to hear something, censorship has always been totally ineffective, even before we had the internet. Popular voices don't require first amendment protection, its the unpopular ones that are hard to save.
It is mostly when the majority wants content to be buried that civil liberty is really at risk.
This is why the casebooks are filled with overturning of laws dealing with Nazis marching in Skokie, "F*ck the Draft" jackets and Flag Burning -- It is the unpopular views that require protection.
It is the tiny voices, highly disapproved of by the marjority, who need protection. And without the clamour of a large and powerful activist community, those voices remain tiny, buried in the vast wasteland of the internet. As effectively censored as if government had squashed each publisher with a tank.
In many respects, I think, censorship has far more options on the internet than elsewhere. Even if you disagree with this point, consider at least whether it is dangerously arrogant to complacently presume that censorship has become impractical. Maintaining vigilant awareness to censorship in all forms is, perhaps, is the only way to assure our liberty.
Re:Quotation Time (Score:2)
While I would agree that the free flow of information is requisite, it is not sufficient. The US theoretically has a free flow of information, but witness all the other factors which permit corporate tyranny to exist in the US... ignorance of history, the pressure of conformance, advertising, the socially unacceptable nature of real political discourse, rejection of diversity by the mainstream, complicity of media in spinning the news to suit (corporate) power, etc.
It's clear that free flow of information is not *enough*. The society also has to be willing to listen to that information. Even when it has something really unappealing to say (which is a real challenge in the super-nationalistic US). Bring up a really gory political concern in the US and you largely get shocked looks and reactions which reveal how deeply unacceptable it really is to raise serious issues. Go ahead. Try it. Just *try* to get someone from the media to answer questions and investigate US military involvement/support in East Timor or Turkey! Or hell, get them to report the recent violation of the War Powers Act. They won't do it. But not because of any overt censorship. Institutions in the US are a manufacturing place for people who can be trusted to hold power *without* bringing up messy issues. That's *how* you get to be a journalist to begin with... it's known that you won't rock the boat. Getting through the system far enough to be a reporter is proof that you know the limits and won't report outside the lines.
For a far better discussion of this, please read Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent". It's a real eye opener.
New Coke, Old Coke (Score:2)
underestimated the buyer loyalty to a certain taste
or
pulled a great free advertising stunt with the new/old coke uproar which filled the news for months on end
I personally believe it was the first followed quickly by the second, coke did something stupid which upset their fan base, then capitalized on the media attention for free advertising.
I expect WB is in the middle of the same thing. They underestimated the power of their fan base and the internet, but they will capitalize on the media uproar and will air the show later this summer to the best ratings Buffy has ever had. If they are smart, they will make it a directors cut with extra clever dialog and gore filled scenes.
Is Jon on the WB payroll?
the AntiCypher
Re:Fantasy and Reality (Score:2)
No they have not. This is urban legend created by Catholic schools during the late seventies too keep parents of students from allowing their children to play the game after the church realized that simply condeming the game's common use of magic just wasn't enough. The story was then worked into some of those pamphlets that Southern Baptists leave all over the place, and it spread like wildfire. Stop believing everything you hear.
I think you're missing the point... (Score:2)