Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
It's funny.  Laugh.

Disney's Anti-File Swapping Cartoon 417

Posted by timothy
from the evil-petting-zoo dept.
LordXarph writes: "Newsforge has a story about Disney's anti-file swapping episode of their cartoon "Proud Family." The synopsis is simply hysterical; I'm waiting for someone to write a gnutella servent called EZ-Jackster."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Disney's Anti-File Swapping Cartoon

Comments Filter:
  • by NotSurprised (525043) on Monday October 22, 2001 @05:38PM (#2462727) Homepage
    on Gnutella, or something?? ;)
  • by nyet (19118) on Monday October 22, 2001 @05:40PM (#2462731) Homepage
    A lesson in IP morality, coming from Disney?

    Next thing you know, Nike will feature ads exorting how NOT exploiting foreign workers in sweatshops is anti-American, and Just Plain Wrong(tm).
    • Re:Oh the irony. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by SubtleNuance (184325) on Monday October 22, 2001 @05:58PM (#2462834) Journal
      HA! Have a look at this: Nike 100% Slave Labour [adbusters.org] billboard.

      Absurd isnt it...talk about gaul.

      • Absurd isnt it...talk about gaul.

        Okay, I will. Gaul was the old Roman name for the area that includes much of modern-day France, Germany, and the areas in between (all those piddly little countries like Luxembourg and Belgium). It was inhabited by barbarians. The name still lives on as French culture is sometimes known as Gallic culture.

        Now, gall on the other hand... that's a different story.

        InigoMontoya(tm)
        Making fun of word-choice errors on /. for, well, a day or two now.
  • by Glock27 (446276) on Monday October 22, 2001 @05:41PM (#2462737)
    are going to do the right thing!

    Tech giants pan anti-piracy mandate! [cnet.com]

    It's good to see this, after all the press the evil big-media giants have been getting lately! :-)

    299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!

    • From the article - After weeks of conference calls and quiet rallying of the troops, technology companies including Intel, IBM, Microsoft and Compaq Computer held a coming-out press conference Monday to oppose a broad copyright protection proposal being backed by Walt Disney and Sen. Ernest Hollings, D-S. C.


      Can I see a show of hands from everyone who never thought that they'd be in the same boat as Microsoft?

      Still, this just doesn't completely jive. I thought that Microsoft was a big propenent of screwing the little guy over for intellectual property rights. Thus, WMA DRM, right?

      Maybe it boils down to the simple fact that the proposed SSSCA legislation is so outrageous and would cause so many problems that it really is getting the negative attention it deserves.

      Shame on Disney...
      • by Telek (410366) on Monday October 22, 2001 @06:39PM (#2463032) Homepage
        I thought that Microsoft was a big propenent of screwing the little guy over

        And in the spirit of keeping an open mind, maybe, just maybe, you've been reading bashdot too much and listening to too much propaganda, and maybe, just maybe, Microsoft isn't the enemy that you thought they were...
        • Blockquoth the poster:


          I thought that Microsoft was a big propenent of screwing the little guy over

          And in the spirit of keeping an open mind, maybe, just maybe, you've been reading bashdot too much and listening to too much propaganda, and maybe, just maybe, Microsoft isn't the enemy that you thought they were...


          Hmmm.... Could be...


          Nah, never happen.


          :)

      • Still, this just doesn't completely jive. I thought that Microsoft was a big propenent of screwing the little guy over for intellectual property rights. Thus, WMA DRM, right?

        You might be partially right, but Microsoft does understand the concept of not shitting in your kitchen.

        That is to say that Microsoft is comprised of geeks. While they do understand the need for copyright laws (and indeed depend on them) they also see a demand for "Pay On Demand" services that DRM could provide for us (i.e. value added services), I've never seen that Microsoft has gone out of their way to make sure that we get TOTALLY screwed, constantly, and considerably. They themselves, after all, have to use the standards they push out onto the industry. They're not just Microsoft, they're also users.

        Everyone assumes that .NET and Leased Software is a Microsoft attempt to screw everyone and everybody but in reality it may not be any better or worse, may not end up costing those it effects that much more, and it may even save them time and money if they normally upgrade often enough. The truth is, most of everything that Microsoft proposes and wants done screws the pirates more than it does anybody else.

        The legit users, if they think about it -- have nothing at all to complain about other than the principle it's self. I admit, the principle alone is enough to complain about, but if I had to pick badguys in the the IP battlefield, I could think of much worse enemies than Microsoft.

        Microsoft just wants to curb or stop Piracy, possibly illiminate it. DRM wants to create a platform for which people can legally download copyrighted material. I'm not sure how anybody can say that either of these constitute bad things in and of themselves.

        That whole monopolistic and anticompetitive thing is a different issue entirely.
      • Still, this just doesn't completely jive. I thought that Microsoft was a big propenent of screwing the little guy over for intellectual property rights. Thus, WMA DRM, right?

        Yes, but the law says that the industry would have 18 months to set a standard. Microsoft couldn't own it or control it. All their DRM code would no longer be needed. What good is a standard that can't be 'innovated' by Microsoft?
    • Although these folks appear to be lining up against this particular initiative, it doesn't appear from this article that they stand against it philosophically. Their opposition derives from their loss of control. They don't want the government to interfere with their private initiatives to accomplish this same goal.

      Holling's bill says that if these guys can't all agree on a standard, that the government will intervene and mandate one. Well, how likely do you think it is that these guys will all agree on a standard? Not likely at all, and they all know it. Instead, they would prefer to get the technical details worked out, and then ask for legislative protection.

      But don't take my word for it. From the article:

      "The MPAA agrees with the goals of the Hollings bill, that is, for the private parties to negotiate an agreement on Internet standards for content encryption, watermarking (and) digital rights management," MPAA President Jack Valenti said in a statement. "When an agreement is reached by the private parties, we will all then together support appropriate legislation regarding copyright protection in digital devices."
  • by www.sorehands.com (142825) on Monday October 22, 2001 @05:42PM (#2462743) Homepage
    Maybe someone should show the evils of the DMCA, the MPAA and the RIAA.


    Create a little cartoon or someone trying to print an image from a movie for a school book report, and the police surrounding the house. Or maybe a someone trying to setup an ebook reader for their blind friend, and the FBI busting down the door. Or a professor talking about encryption in a classroom and the RIAA comes in with a muzzle.

    • Mickey is just havin' a blast, piloting his little steamboat down the ol' Mississip'. He's whistling a little tune that sounds mysteriously like "Whistle While You Work" (Which of course, Disney owns). Suddenly, a huge lizard leaps from a nearby bush into the cockpit of the steamboat, screaming "GRRR!!! I'M HILARY ROSEN!!! YOU DIDN'T PAY FOR THE DISTRIBUTION RIGHTS FOR THAT SONG, YOU THIEF!!! PAY UP NOW!!!". Mickey is scared, but he sheepishly pulls out his cartoon pockets to demonstrate that they are empty, and Mr. Mouse doesn't have any money. Hilary punches Mickey twice, knocks him out, puts handcuffs on his hands and feet, and runs his steamboat aground. She leaps off the deck while clutching at his neck, and in the mean time, lots of bipedal dogs in black suits with sunglasses proceed to hack Mickey's boat to pieces with pickaxes. The end.
    • Working on it... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by jijoel (518327)
      I'm currently taking a class so that I can start putting stuff on the local public-access TV station. I'm planning to do a lot of short blurbs, including stuff against the DMCA, the SSSCA, the extent of copyright law in general, monopoly power, and so on, for an audience of people who don't necessarily know *anything* about the issues we discuss here every day. Given another three or four months, I think I'll get quite a collection.

      I'm also planning to so some pro-Linux/Free Software stuff, as well as tutorials on using some Free Software programs.

      The trickiest thing is the distribution. I'd love to just put the videos on my web site, and let everyone download them (GPLed, of course, so people can share them with others), but I pay enough for bandwidth that I'm afraid one slashdotting would wipe me out. Any ideas?
      • but I pay enough for bandwidth that I'm afraid one slashdotting would wipe me out. Any ideas?

        You can insert the video into Freenet [sourceforge.net], and it will remain available so long as even minimal interest remains. In addition, Freenet will automatically replicate it to multiple servers around the world to meet local demand. It's like a demand-driven free Akamai. (Okay, that may be a stretch :)

        I really think Freenet is a great idea, and I also think it would be a great idea if non-commercial pages could be inserted into Freenet shortly before being Slashdotted. Then the Freenet architects would have a lot more performance data to study so long as many Slashdotters would view the Freenet version. And the way things are going in the US Congress these days, we may need the protections Freenet has always offered readers in more oppressive nations. Hell I would think, legal issues notwithstanding, it would be easy for someone to start replying to mirror requests with a Freesite. A simple wget and URL cleansing would produce an easily-insertable site.
    • When we come up with scenarios and movies like this, everyone assumes we are being absurd, alarmist, or irrational.


      Somehow, we've not only got to create these things, but we have to make Joe Sixpack understand that what we're saying is not hyperbole. Sadly, if we don't act quick, the media providers will do it for us -- only it will be too late.

  • by Teancom (13486) <david@gnuconsult ... m minus language> on Monday October 22, 2001 @05:45PM (#2462758) Homepage
    I mean, from the "spent $125 on cd's from her $.05 salary" and "the girl was arrested by the police who showed up at her door" and calling the artist "Sir-Paid-A-Lot"???!?!? This is almost word-for-word what I would have done if I was *parodying* propaganda....

    Next up, hunters using "Bambi" as material for showing why hunting is great.
    • "spent $125 on cd's from her $.05 salary"

      yep. stealing is wrong even if you have a miserable salary that couldn't support your drug habit (free music). Note how It's not okay to see "Sir Paid A Lot" earn a $.05 salary (He is a label artist after all) and have to get a job, but the same situation with the girl earning money and paying the label is okay.

      "Sir-Paid-A-Lot"
      That's how the label would see him. And it helps paint the artist as a victim.

      You can interpret it in may ways. Either way it is a blatant attempt at swaying the behavior of viewers.

      I aint' surprised.
  • by Rev.LoveJoy (136856) on Monday October 22, 2001 @05:46PM (#2462759) Homepage Journal
    ... the RIAA and MPAA goon squad break down the family's door and imprison everyone in their labor camp (making shrink wrap). The narrator goes on to tell us about a victory for comrades^H^H^H^H^H^H^H citizens everywhere!

    ... and they lived happily ever after (except for those people who tried to express themselves, or conduct research, or any of those other infidels who Spoke Out Against The State or Disney. fuck those people, they can go to shrink wrap hell!)

    Cheers,
    - RLJ

  • Of course, I am assuming that anyone reading this thinks filesharing is great and that Disney is evil; this is true for only about 95% of the Slashdot readership, I'm sure :).

    I wouldn't worry about this sort of propoganda actually affecting children's attitudes. It's simply too clumsy (and obvious and contrived.) Children, while many people who make children's programming don't realise this, are not stupid. They can spot something phony and manipulative(which you have to admit that this is, even if you agree that filesharing is wrong) from a mile away.

    It's about as likely to drive the next generation of children away from filesharing as all those Captain Planet cartoons where to make people environmentalists. Less likely, since Captain Planet was less obviously hokey.

    • Were the wartime cartoons that easy to see through, at the time? I still remember that picture I saw in a wartime cartoons documentary, of Donald Duck being a loyal American patriot... *shudder* And those were directed at adults, if I'm not mistaken. Wartime cartoons were a whole industry. I remember how they parodied the Japanese as stupid yellow bunny-toothed guys and beautiful geisha spies. Sure, to us who have seen the light, it's just droll. But to those who haven't?

      There's a sucker born every minute, as PT Barnum put it. And with the birth rates of this century, that probably equals about 1/60 of the entire world population. 100 million suckers... eep, I think I know now why I'm sitting and hiding in front of the computer all day long.
    • Children, while many people who make children's programming don't realise this, are not stupid.

      Disney never realized this. How many Disney short cartoons do you remember? (personally, 2 or 3).

      Now how many Warner Bros. short cartoons do you remember (200, 300...). The Warner Bros. cartoons were always written so adults would find them funny - and so, kids found them funny.

      Though then I remember the Warner Bros. cartoon where two mice were discussing the advantages of free-market capitalism. That was some wierd shit there.

  • the official Disney page for the show is here [go.com], I didn't see anything about "anti-file swapping" on the site. From the looks of the flash promo it seems to be a post ren n' stimpy style modern urban comedy.
  • Ok, it's kinda funny. More pointed is the reporting on ABC news (owned by disney). I wonder how napster got reported there.

    As an aside, amazingly enough, the only place where i've seen anything close to fair reporting on a parent compant was...*gasp* MSNBC

  • Ironic.. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Dr Caleb (121505) <thedarkknightNO@SPAMhushmail.com> on Monday October 22, 2001 @05:47PM (#2462776) Homepage Journal
    that it's Disney that takes classic (lewd!!) stories like "Cinderella", "Show White and the Seven Dwarves" etc, dresses them up, reworks the characters to be a little more palatable, and sells them as "Disney's {%title%}".

    While it's not technically 'stealing'...neither is time shifting or are fair use backups, but Disney characterizes them as 'stealing'.

  • Newsforge Comments (Score:2, Insightful)

    by brunes69 (86786)

    I always find it funny whenever slashdot links to a NewsForge article, which obviously would get thousands of hits from that linking, and yet only has 3 or 4 comments, while the slashdot post has several hundred. A question to everyone, why do you never comment on the NewsForge site itself? I'm just curious.

  • Futurama? (Score:3, Funny)

    by ocie (6659) on Monday October 22, 2001 @05:50PM (#2462798) Homepage
    Wasn't this already done in Futurama, when Fry downloaded Lucy Liu's personality and appearance from kidnapster.com into a robot?
    • Re:Futurama? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Bender Unit 22 (216955) on Monday October 22, 2001 @07:00PM (#2463113) Journal
      Indeed they did, but Diznee did not have Matt Groening, so of course it would have to be a lousy onesided PC story. Would not surprice me if it ended with the words ",and DON'T do drugs!".

      Remember he also did The Cartridge Family [snpp.com] where Homer buys a gun to protect his family and joins NRA, driving Marge and the kids away from home whith his careless use of firearms :-)
      (note that Matt is not against NRA, he is a member)
      That show was not shown in some countries even though it in the end displays that the local members of the NRA in Springfield,?? are not a bunch of trigger happy dudes but cancels Homers membership.

      This only shows the difference between the two series, where (in my opinion) "Proud Family" is nothing more than a money making scheme, The Simpsons has a lot more substance even though they got hit pretty bad by the PC wave.
      No more will we see lines like this from Selma's Choice [snpp.com]:
      -[ANTI_LAMENES_FILTER_INSTEAD OF NICE CLEAN SEPERATOR STRING HERE]-
      Lisa: [reading from the pamphlet] The Duff Beer-amid contains so much
      aluminum it would take five men to lift it. Twenty-two immigrant
      laborers died during its construction.
      Selma: Eh, there's plenty more where that came from.
      -[ANTI_LAMENES_FILTER_INSTEAD OF NICE CLEAN SEPERATOR STRING HERE]-

      Oh, I guess I got a bit carried away here. What I am trying to say here is that don't forget where the series are coming for and what do expect. C'mon Disney. The alltime fluffy feelgod company? The rewrote the ending of "The Little Mermaid", they would never have made true to the story of Hans Christian Andersen where she dies.

      (on a totally unrelated note: everytime I sit down and try to write something serious /. craps out on me and have to wait for ages to log in again.
      I have made it a habbit to cut'n'paste it before I press Submit or preview)
      • (note that Matt is not against NRA, he is a member)

        Can you verify this? I'm fairly certain all the jokes in the 138th episode spectacular were just jokes. The cash register actually doesn't say NRA4EVR, but something like 847.63 - the average cost of raising a baby for a week or something like that.

        All I've heard about Matt's politics were stories about him hanging out with the Zappa clan in the 80's.
  • After realizing that "Downloadin' is stealin'", she went back to spending "$125 on CDs with her five-cent salary".

    The moral is: spend 2500 times your salary on us or you're going to jail.
  • by marijnm (454978)
    An episode where Bill Gates shows up at a kid's doorstep complaining that he is poor?

    I think it's time for open source cartoons ;)

    Marijn
  • Just Say NO (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CoffeeJedi (90936) on Monday October 22, 2001 @05:56PM (#2462825)
    hmmmm... sound familiar?
    Remember back in the 80's when we as children were all assaulted with those terrible anti-drug ads from the mind of Nancy Reagan? The "this is your brain on drugs" ad being singled out as the possibly least effective ad of all time? Now, after seeing our favorite cartoon characters turn down drugs and tell us how "bad" they were... what effect did it have?
    Most of us got to college (maybe even high school), opened our minds, tried some pot, maybe liked it, and have a pretty non-chalant view of things... maybe even smoking up every now and then. Those who don't do drugs do so for their own reasons, not because Arnold on "Diff'rent Strokes" told them not to. So the effect on today's kids will be exactly zero. If anything, they'll realize the lame "do-gooder" condescending attitude, and another piece of tripe will become unpopular and get cancelled.

    btw: have you written your representives about the SSSCA yet? i have!
    • I suspect this will have an effect very similar to the "Just Say No" campaign:


      Television: Kids! Don't download free music off the Internet, it's wrong!


      Kid: I can get music for free off the Internet? Cool! (heads off to the computer room)


      I want to see this episode; from the write-ups I can't tell if it's propaganda, parody, or something else. So I'm off to the file-sharing service to find a copy... :^)

    • Not only zero effect. Its proven on case of Neitherland and others that if pot would not have this 'just-being-a-little-bad' taste of protesting against something, its usage rate would drop by more than 70%.

      These adds are going to tell to the kids that there are alternatives to buying CD's and that they will be cool if they will 'protest' this way.

    • Yea, the adds were crap. The parodies they generated were hysterical.

      This is your brain

      This is your brain on drugs

      This is your brain with a side order of bacon

      Your brain, part of this complete breakfast!
    • A couple was arrested for using marijuana, (Drugs are bad, Mmmkay) and the police gave them a chance. They need to convince kids to not use drugs.

      The girl went to the blackboard and draw to circles, one 10" sized and other 50" sized. And said, "This big circle is you brain before the drugs, and this small circle is your brain after the drugs. Don't do drugs"

      The boy then went to the blackboard and using the same two circles said, "This smal circle is you ass before jail, and this big circle is your ass after being in jail

      -=-=-=-=-

      Where is the funny?

  • Wow (Score:5, Insightful)

    by netrat (104221) on Monday October 22, 2001 @05:59PM (#2462837)
    Wow. This is the first time I've seen the airing of a piece of blatant, unapologetic propaganda directed at children since the World War 2 era. Sure, it's been around to a certain extent since then, but always in a very underhanded, not-so-easy-to-detect form. You've got to hand it to the content-direction people at Disney, they must have balls the size of tank bearings to pull a stunt like this. I honestly don't know whether to be appalled or impressed.
    • Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)

      by jmoriarty (179788) on Monday October 22, 2001 @06:16PM (#2462933)
      This is the first time I've seen the airing of a piece of blatant, unapologetic propaganda directed at children since the World War 2 era

      Really? Then you missed Joe Camel. I never gave much credence to that fellow until a friend's four year old son pointed at Joe on the side of a bus one day and said "Look, daddy, a camel! He smokes!"

      I doubt it will make him pick up a cigarette in the face of parental education to the contrary, but it did influence him.
    • Re:Wow (Score:3, Informative)

      by MrBogus (173033)
      You missed the episode of What's Happenin? where the Doobie Brothers appear and lecture Rerun and the kids on the evils of "dubbing".
      • Holy fucknuggets... I remember seeing that one!! Sure didn't have any affect on me. Though wasn't it about "bootlegging" and Rerun bringing a tape recorder to a concert?
    • Re:Wow (Score:4, Funny)

      by bellings (137948) on Monday October 22, 2001 @06:36PM (#2463011)
      This is the first time I've seen the airing of a piece of blatant, unapologetic propaganda directed at children since the World War 2 era.

      Yeah, the "Just say No" and "D.A.R.E." programs are aimed squarely at adults.
    • by Goonie (8651)
      Hmmm. I think most of Disney's output has been propaganda with a fairly simple message:

      BUY OUR MERCHANDISE

      It's been pretty effective, too :)

    • This is the first time I've seen the airing of a piece of blatant, unapologetic propaganda directed at children since the World War 2 era.

      Haven't been to church latley have ya ?

  • Sounds intresting (Score:2, Redundant)

    by delmoi (26744)
    Anyone got a Divx copy?
  • Along about the time Sir Paid Alot complains about his 5 cent royalty check, his lawyer looks at his contract:

    "Lets see, your advance was $500,000, your touring cost was $1,000,000, the label gets 50% of the gate on your gigs, and your royalty rate on CD's is only half what it is for vinyl. Boy, you're lucky you got a whole nickel!"

  • by gnovos (447128)
    I admit I haven't seen the show, but how couldanyone think that a rap star named "Sir Paid-a-lot" helps to advocate anti-piracy? Unless there are some serious differences between the "review" and the actual show, this sounds a whole lot like a PRO-Piracy cartoon.

    • That and a couple of other things seemed like a weak attempt at showing both sides of the story. From what I saw, it looked like the show ended with an anti-piracy message.

      The people who made the cartoon may have even thought that they fairly showed both sides of the issue. People tend to have trouble realizing when they're biased.

      Of course, this is all after reading the article which comes from a source which has its own biases, and I haven't seen the cartoon for myself. *Shrug*.

  • by DzugZug (52149)
    ...downloading pirated music IS stealing. And because so many people cannot behave ethicaly, we are all going to end up with computers that wont let us copy. It's kind of like installing devices in cars that won't let us speed. Immoral behavior doesn't justify oppression but the threat of oppression doesn't justify immoral behavior either.
    • "Last time I checked...downloading pirated music IS stealing."


      Check again. It ain't necessarily so, and the legalities of this issue are being worked out as we speak. Or perhaps I should say the buying of new laws is being handled as we speak. But under traditional copyright law (i.e. laws more than a couple of years old), fair use rules allow for some downloading. Furthermore, if you own the CD already, and decide to just grab the MP3 off Gnutella instead of ripping from your CD, that isn't illegal either.

      Yes, some aspects of file sharing go too far (according to copyright laws), but not ALL downloading of music is stealing. Only the corporations want us to believe it, and sadly most of the public is buying this lie. And, of course, with new corruption to the copyright laws taking place every year, your statement may well be true someday in every sense. But it isn't right now, not while the issue is still being fought in the courts, and in the court of public opinion. So I repeat: Check again -- this issue is not as black-and-white as the corporate propaganda tells us it is.

    • because I have a feeling you didn't 'check' anything, and you're simply spouting uniformed opinion.
  • by Greyfox (87712)
    Don't cross The Mouse. He will fuck you.

    While Disney is lecturing us on Morality and IP law, they could tell us about the evils of plagarism and how if you're a big corporation you can get away with pretty much anything while fucking the little guy. And how bastardizing history and cultural myths for a quick buck should be frowned upon and at least accompanied by a disclaimer.

  • Just out of curiosity, I was wondering if there isn't a hidden message in this, after all, Disney is famous for putting hidden messages in thier work. I am particularly cusious about "Dijonay", which is pronounced correctly sounds kind of like "Disney"... And this is the guy "spreading the word" about EZ-Jackster. Things are afoot at Disney, methinks...
  • by btempleton (149110) on Monday October 22, 2001 @06:10PM (#2462903) Homepage
    And we certainly have reasons to suspect the Mouse's motives here, I've often thought this is the right approach.

    Wholesale copying of music against the permission of its creators is wrong, and our children should be informed that it's wrong. The complex issues of monopolies and exploitation of musicians are for adults to solve.

    In truth, the message we want to send here is not to blame the technology of filesharing, but the people who use it for ill. But because the RIAA and others don't see a way to get at the actual copyright infringers, they attack the filesharing technology itself, and now our PCs themselves.

    I say, when they point out that the actual infringements are the problem, we should agree with them. But fight them when they want to punish technologies or the people who aren't infringing.
    • by cpt kangarooski (3773) on Monday October 22, 2001 @06:25PM (#2462962) Homepage
      You said that "[w]holesale copying of music against the permission of its creators is wrong," but I've got to take issue with this.

      It's not wrong.

      People copy music wholesale without the permission of the creators ALL THE TIME. Indeed, Disney is known for this. They have two entire movies, their "Fantasia" series, which liberally copy music without permission from the creators. (many of whom were long dead)

      And if the copyright scheme in this country were like that of the early Republic, copying music would be perfectly allright, and not a copyright violation at all. A lot later and you'd merely have to wait for the copyright to expire -- which wouldn't take terribly long.

      It's about as wrong as installing a picket fence at your house that doesn't comply with zoning regulations, in many cases. Reasonable people are not only perfectly capable of arguing over whether some particular act ought to be infringement, and even whether we ought to have copyrights at all. (which are not mandated)

      You don't give children much credit either. They are often pretty capable of calling a spade a spade. (c.f. "The Emperor's New Clothes")
      • by btempleton (149110) on Monday October 22, 2001 @07:32PM (#2463374) Homepage
        Well, I didn't mean that I meant it was universally wrong, but in the common sense that I meant it -- taking recently recorded music that you know the creator wants to be paid for, just so that you can hear it without having to pay -- it's still my opinion that this is wrong.

        And of a number of people here, to whom the comment was really addressed. Yes, clearly if you don't buy the concept of copyright at all, you're going to think the cartoon's message is wrong in every way.

        But there are many who, like me, have said "what many users are doing with Napster/Gnutella/MusicCity/Freenet/etc. is wrong, but writing file sharing tools is not wrong."

        If you don't agree with that, then of course you won't buy what I said. If you do agree with that you may feel, as I wrote, that the right course is to teach our children what's right and wrong, not because of what the law or technology will allow you to do or forbid you to do, but because of a moral system you have.

        While many point out that making a copy doesn't physically deprive the creator of anything, they misunderstand what IP is when they say this. IP isn't really about owning particular sets of bits.

        IP is about the question of whether a creator can have control over their creation. When you copy, you appropriate that control.

        Curiously, the most physical of properties, real estate, is also entirely about control, even in things that don't deprive the landowner of anything physical.

        I own land, and I have the power to tell you not to walk on it, even though if you walk on it when I'm not there, you've had insignificant physical effect on me.

        Now you might argue that control of creations is bad if it means controlling who can make copies. But that is what IP is, for better or worse.

        • Oh, well, so basically you spoke generally even though you had a specific meaning in mind that was not difficult to articulate.

          Thanks.

          You are of course entitled to your opinion that it is wrong. As you might have guessed by my .sig here, I take a slightly dimmer view of copyright. I don't mind it in a general way, but I don't much like what we've got now in many specifics. I understand why there are those who are entirely opposed to the notion, however. I can't say that they're _wrong_ per se; in both cases, I think that we are interested in achieving the same result in the end.

          I think that you're deluding yourself, however. If copyright infringements are morally wrong, and you have, or should have, knowledge that P2P filesharing is very predominently used in illegal manners, save by citizens of countries that do not have copyright laws, for (rare) uncopyrighted materials or materials for which indiscriminate sharing is permitted, you ought to be against them. I see your position as being against yellow fever, but unwilling to condemn mosquitoes in the process, even though they're nominally innocent.

          I agree with you regarding teaching moral values however. There are many differing moral positions, and mere endorsement by legal authority is unconvincing.

          Your second assessment of what copyrights are ("IP" is another misleading term -- the copyrights may be property, but the copyrighted material, e.g. songs, are not. I'd avoid it, so as to keep out of threads like this one we're having) is much more on the ball.

          I would add though, that there are three interests to be served, and not just the one you mention. Copyright is a delicate balancing act between 1) the promotion of learning; 2) the promotion of the public domain, and; 3) the interests of the author. The entire, judicially reconized objective of copyright in the US (which has about the only sane system in the world) is to promote the public interest, through promoting to a lesser degree, the private interest of authors. Copyright's not natural; it is not earned or deserved; it is granted by the government, and then only if they want to do so. They may abstain, and authors can suck eggs.
          • Copyright is not natural, but rights of creators over creations, from which copyright derives in some views, are another animal.

            After all, the relationship between an author and a novel is intrinsic. It exists outside of society or law. It is the child of his brain, and fully under his control until he lets it out to the world.

            The law, and social practices, only come into play once it is out in the world, and we decide how far to extend that initial complete control into the realm of use by other people.

            This, as it turns out, is even more natural than so-called "real" property, which is entirely a legal fiction if you don't live on it.

            Which is the opposite of how people often present it the two forms of property.

            However, we're getting off the topic here. This is a good debate, but not for this thread.
        • >IP is about the question of whether a creator
          >can have control over their creation. When you
          >copy, you appropriate that control.

          No. IP is about the question of whether a creator can have control over *THE REPRODUCTION* of their creation. i.e. "who can make copies". But beyond that, the creator should be powerless.

          It is what _copy_right actually means. For example, if I buy a CD, the author does not have the control over how I'm going to listen to it - I might listen only on the left ear, play it backwards, sell it to my friend, or just burn the damn thing into ash.

          However, I'm bound to obey on their rules about copying. I do not complain about that and I think it is the right thing to do.

          But just "control" or "access control" is too broad. The DMCA says that, if the access control technology only allows you to listen on your right ear, from 7am to 8am for the odd-numbered songs and 5pm to 6pm for the even-numbered songs, you cannot bypass it.

          Anti circumvention - same deal. As long as I don't make copies, it is none of your business on how I look into, hack, debug, reverse engineer, whatever your lawyers call it.

          If I ran the government, I'd lock people up for the obvious terrorist act of proposing the DMCA.
      • Indeed, Disney is known for this. They have two entire movies, their "Fantasia" series, which liberally copy music without permission from the creators.

        Actually, this isn't true. Of course, they didn't pay to use music for which the copyright had expired, but they paid quite a bit to Igor Stravinsky for the use of music from his ballet The Rite of Spring. In fact, when the movie was released on video, they paid royalties to his estate.

        So, to be fair, Disney does seem to respect the intellectual property rights of others.

        That doesn't mean I like everything they do, but lets be fair.

  • by haplo21112 (184264) <haplo@epithnaERDOS.com minus math_god> on Monday October 22, 2001 @06:12PM (#2462915) Homepage
    Disney proudly brainwashing the masses for 6 generations.
    You know, seems to be, we should be teaching people to think for themselves not shoving this crap down thier throats...I guess Disney goes no my boycott List...humm which would work if they didn't own ESPN, ABC, and like a zillion other things. Seriously though I guess its thier opinion and they have a right to express it, but its the Target audience that scares me...Kids should be watching TV that teaches them to think for themselves and make thier own choices. 'Nuff said.
  • Don't forget ... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Hagmonk (201689) <luke&burton,echidna,id,au> on Monday October 22, 2001 @06:14PM (#2462920) Homepage
    ... how similar this is to the whole "Say no to drugs" campaigning that was sanctioned by the government for the longest time. Lots of kids programs featured episodes based around it - and did they work? No!

    Have you seen Traffic? We all know that the drug problem is complex and non-trivial to solve. File swapping is the same. The solution is not to try and stop people from swapping digital content, but to figure out how free digital content can integrate with our lives.

    The whole disney thing is 'spooky' of course (the contrast between disney's lovely family face and this underhanded propaganda is just fabulous), but perhaps not something to worry about.
  • New Poll? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Amazing Quantum Man (458715) on Monday October 22, 2001 @06:14PM (#2462924) Homepage
    Things like this make me want to come up with a new /. poll:

    Who is more evil?

    Microsoft
    RIAA
    MPAA
    RMS
    ESR
    The DOJ
    Congress
    CowboyNeal

  • 1. Girl working at her antiquated computer her dad gave her in her room.

    2. Mystery guy (cool hip hop looking dude in black) shows up at her window and supplies her with an up to date computer, takes her into "the Matrix" and shows her a web area called Free Jackster where she can get all the music she could ever want FOR FREE.

    3. The girl asks if this is illegal and mystery guy explains it is our birthright to have free music, creativity should not have a price.

    4. Girl gets addicted to collecting free music, her obsession leads to telling all her friends. Soon the site is getting millions of hits from kids to grandmothers.

    5. Next scene at the The Wizard Record Label board room where "Sir Paid Alot" enters to complain his royalty check was only five cents. This alerts The Wizard (head of the label) that there is a retail problem he needs to look into.

    6. Teen Girl's house is surrounded that night by police and press and she is arrested for illegal downloads, gets a warning. The news makes it clear that millions of people can't be stopped. Parents take computer away from girl and explain why free downloads is STEALING -- kind of an abirdged explanation of how copyrights work.

    7. Next scene, Asian Guy's retail record store is empty, guy is crying on the floor. Teen Girl who happens to work at the store shows up to work, Asian guy fires her for supporting all the free downloads.

    8. Next scene charts showing record sales are down down down to nothing because people get the music for free.

    9. Sir Paid Alot gets 100 million hits on his website from freeloading fans who now love his music and previously would have never actually purchased his CD, gushing about how wonderful Free Jackster is. GeekBoy, an employee who runs his website and has spikey hair and a nose ring, runs around looking exasperated because a mercury thermometer attached to Sir Paid Alot's server blows its top and spits gallons of mercury all over the server room like an oil well blowing it's top, while cartoonish sirens go off.

    10. Slick Dick, an Ad Exec representing BoingBoing Sneaker Company shows up at Sir Paid Alot's home in a shiny pointy pinstripe suit with a suitcase full of $100 bills if Sir Mix Alot will only wear their sneakers and show their logo all over his (now) sold out Nationwide tour. We see The Wizard outside Sir Mix Alot's mansion gates panhandling for money as Slick Dick leaves.

    11. Mystery Guy hires Asian Guy to write reviews of Sir Mix Alot's Greatest Hits downloads on the Free Jackster website. Jump to a Flash Movie Asian Guy produces in pantomime style of the late-night "only $19.95" Greatest Hits Album commercials, complete with scrolling song titles and Sir Mix Alot performing a la Yanni and Anne Murray behind the titles.

    12. Asian Guy proclaims he loves his new job because now he can do nothing but write about his first love, music, and not have to worry every day how The Wizard was always trying to rip him off as an independent Record Store owner. Cut to flashback where the Wizard shows up at Asian Guys' shop offering CDs priced at $11.99 while right behind Asian Guy "crying on the floor," we see he is selling his CDs for $12.00. We see Asian Guy leaving Free Jackster's offices with Rio-like device in hand, big grin and kewl shades, listening to Sir Mix Alot song, grimacing and throwing a few pennies at The Wizard begging on the street.

    13. At his sold out concert, with "kids and grandmothers" all rockin' out, Sir Paid Alot calls Teen Girl on stage, thanks her for getting rid of the "Blood-sucking middlemen" out of his life and letting him do what he always liked to do, rap fantastic straight to his fans saying his "creativity should not have a price."

    14. Sir Paid Alot makes up a rap right on the spot for Teen Girl, she swoons and her eyes turn into beating hearts bulging out of her eyesockets.

    15. On her cell phone going to Las Vegas in the back of Sir Paid Alot's limo, Teen Girl explains to her parents why the copyright system works in the old world of Vinyl and CDs, but in the new world of electronic bits, an economy of scale ensures that the artists get even more money from a more democratic connection between them and their fans and without any middlemen, sort of like the radio, with sponsors paying him endorsement fees rather than the artist getting royalty checks. She explains how Asian Guy's reviews on his now super-popular website ensures that people get exposed to new artists and new forms of popular music. Cut again to GeekBoy running around server room while mercury thermometer attached to server gushes, with Asian Guy in the background taps happily away at a computer, writing reviews.

    16. Her parents are impressed but yell at her for being in a much older Rapper's limo and being underage and tell her to come home immediately. Via Free Jackster on the computer they took away from her and her cell phone, they send her a copy of a Barney song she always listened to as a kid and that she had lost in CD form, but now is eternally available for free via the Web, conveniently and quickly, wherever they may be, with whatever device, without any red tape involved. Teen Girl cries and jumps out of the limo into a passing car being driven by Mystery Guy heading in the opposite direction. Mystery Guy drives her home where "police and press" treat her to a lavish homecoming.

    17. Mystery Guy puts on a baseball cap, complaining "my hair is always too nappy", saying to Mystery Girl, "I'm a teenager too." They kiss and the cartoon closes with Sir Mix Alot singing a la Barry White to them in the background.

    • by Anonymous Coward
      Actually, I have a friend whose dad has about 7 albums out (he shall remain nameless for his protection from the record company that he hates). He's actually put all of his music up on Napster and other file services behind his record company's back, because they give him squat for each album he sells, and he makes much more on his live shows. And, if more people listen to his music on the web, the more people that will go to his shows.

      He was telling us about how record companies suck and how they screw people. He's the one doing all of the work, and he basically sees 1% of the profits from his CD sales. Also, he told us about several other artists who are trying to screw the record companies by putting their own music up to get more fans to come to shows.

      Yes, I'm posting as an AC, but I don't really want the RIAA coming after me trying to find out who my friend's dad really is. Fuck RIAA.
  • is on the cable guide description. It read to the effect "CharacterX is shown the evils of Napster."


    Considering it was TW cable, who do you think wrote that one up?

  • by zerocool^ (112121) on Monday October 22, 2001 @07:31PM (#2463364) Homepage Journal

    If disney [disney.com] wants to discuss IP, they'd better take a look at This site [thesecretofbluewater.com].

    Basically, Disney ripped their latest fiasco, Lost city of Atlantis, straight from Nadia, queen of the see, a terriffic anime job.

    And they say they had never heard of Nadia... Take a look and see what you think.

    ~z
  • by swordgeek (112599) on Monday October 22, 2001 @07:37PM (#2463409) Journal
    1) This is not hysterical[1]. It might be hysterical if it weren't so deadly serious. Disney, for all of their happiness, is probably the number one master of propaganda; and always has been. Go watch the war films of the 1940s. Watch the anti-drug movies. See if you can find the anti-black movies of the earliest years. Disney is a manipulator.

    2) This is utterly hysterical. It is based entirely on hysteria--mass, unthinking response to carefully calculated images, designed to drive crowds.

    Do you think that by recognising and avoiding being part of the 'mindless throng' you're safe? Go ask Pete Seeger about the 'witch trials' of the 1950s.

    [1] ...in a funny sense, that is
  • ...to a video that our computer club watched over and over again in high school because it was so dumb it was funny. The video was called "Don't Copy that Floppy." Man, I wish I had that video so I could make it to an AVI and distribute it on the internet.

    Basically, guy and gal were playing this "really cool" computer game on a Mac, when gal says "man, I wish I had that game. That is so cool." Guy says "Oh, no problem. I'll make you a copy." Suddenly, this black "rapper" jumps out of the computer screen and does the "Don't Copy that Floppy" rap. It's the dumbest thing I have ever seen in my life, because it made absolutely no sense and the setup of the "storyline" is so manipulated it's pathetic.

    Anyway, in trying to make some kind of point out of this, ever since the internet has given way to the bending of copyright protection issues, corporations have been constantly trying to put out propaganda all over to try and reign things in. It never works, but don't tell corporate America that! (Otherwise, our high school computer club would have stopped making copies of games a long time ago).
  • by sid_vicious (157798) on Monday October 22, 2001 @08:21PM (#2463664) Homepage Journal
    Remember that Disney has a history of propaganda - In the movie "The New Spirit" (a film commisioned from Disney during WWII), Donald Duck reminds Americans that it is their patriotic duty to pay their taxes on time [hiwaay.net] (search for "Donald Duck" - believe me, it's there).
  • Can someone fix the link for this article? I clicked it and didn't find anything whatsoever about disney - just a blank article with a sidebar. I searched around on the site for a while but failed to find ay article with a reference to "disney".
  • by jjr (6873) on Tuesday October 23, 2001 @12:02AM (#2464354) Homepage
    Registrant:
    Disney Enterprises, Inc. (EZJACKSTER-DOM)
    500 S. Buena Vista Street
    Burbank, CA 91521
    US

    Domain Name: EZJACKSTER.COM

    Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
    DNS Operations (DO1293-ORG) dns-ops@DIG.COM
    dig.com
    506 Second Ave. Suite 2100
    Seattle, WA 98104
    USA
    (206) 664-4000
    Fax- (206) 664-4009
    Billing Contact:
    idNames, Accounting (IA90-ORG) accounting@IDNAMES.COM
    idNames from Network Solutions, Inc
    440 Benmar
    Suite #3325
    Houston, TX 77060
    US
    703-742-4777
    Fax- - 281-447-1160

    Record last updated on 25-Jan-2001.
    Record expires on 25-Jan-2003.
    Record created on 25-Jan-2001.
    Database last updated on 22-Oct-2001 14:14:00 EDT.

    Domain servers in listed order:

    NS0.STARWAVE.COM 204.202.132.15
    SENS01.DIG.COM 204.202.132.16
  • So is
    ez-jackster.net
    ez-jackster.org
    ezjackster.net
    ezjackster.org
    ez-jackster.net
    ez-jackster.org
    ez-jackster.com

    just if some one wants to have fun with them

    ezjackster.com(is taken by disney how funny)

In order to get a loan you must first prove you don't need it.

Working...