Disney's Anti-File Swapping Cartoon 417
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."
Whose side is the cartoon on??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Next up, hunters using "Bambi" as material for showing why hunting is great.
As propoganda - funny but not worrisome (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Ironic.. (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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.
Just Say NO (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
What really happens... (Score:2, Insightful)
"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!"
While the propaganda aspect may make us queasy (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Last time I checked... (Score:3, Insightful)
Copying something does not involve taking, deprivation, or even anything capable of being owned. (copyrights are ownable, content is not)
These are fine differences, but they're there.
Re:Last time I checked... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:While the propaganda aspect may make us queasy (Score:5, Insightful)
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")
Re:Maybe someone should... (Score:2, Insightful)
Did it occur to you to correlate record sales with the general state of the economy? Or is only that Napster explaination suitable to your worldview?
Re:As propoganda - funny but not worrisome (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Looks like the 'giants of computing'... (Score:3, Insightful)
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."
Re:Last time I checked... (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole concept of "Stealing" is a wordfuck, a lie, a purposeful confusion of concepts to create a false fact, ie copying music=stealing the music.
The only possible crime is unauthorized distribution, which is a COMMERCIAL, CIVIL, offense. Or at least used to be, before the wordfuck of "Steal" began.
Re:Ironic.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:While the propaganda aspect may make us queasy (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Whose side is the cartoon on??? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
hysteria: Two points of view (Score:3, Insightful)
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]
Re:Maybe someone should... (Score:2, Insightful)
What we need are examples of this infringement. If people saw what the IP hegemony could do to you if we gave them carte blanche to protect their "rights" then they might stop feeling guilty for "condoning piracy" and start feeling proud about supporting individual rights.
The Oft Avoided Question on /. .... (Score:1, Insightful)
Whether this cartoon is serious or a parody, there is a serious implication. The music industry as we know it could be destroyed along with our copyright system. That may or may not be a bad thing, but it is naive to believe that it is a good thing just because it allows you to get music for free. Ultimately there is a question of incentive and whatever system has to contain a way to cause people to want to create and distribute music and books.
Re:Just Say NO (Score:2, Insightful)
I knew we were in trouble with that damn egg commercial, that guy.
I knew that was the government's take on drugs, we're fucked, you know. "Here's your brain." I've seen a lot of weird shit on drugs, I have never ever ever ever ever looked at an egg and thought it was a fucking brain, not once, all right? I have seen UFO's split the sky like a sheet, but I have never ever ever looked at an egg and thought it was a fucking brain, not once. I have had seven balls of light come off of a UFO, lead me onto their ship, explain to me telepathically that we are all one and there is no such thing as death, but I have never ever ever ever ever looked at an egg, and thought it was a fucking brain. Now. Maybe I wasn't getting good shit. I admit it, I see that commercial, I feel cheated. Hey, where's the stuff that makes eggs look like brains? That sounds neat. Did I quit too soon? What is that, CIA stash? You see the guy in that commercial, that guy's got a beer gut- "All right, this is it. Look up, man. This is your brain. I ain't doing this again. That's your - " The guy's drunk and doing this fucking commercial. "Here's your brain." That's an egg! That's a frying pan, that's a stove, you're an alcoholic, dude, I'm tripping right now, and I still see that is a fucking egg, all right? I see the UFO's around it, but that is a goddamn egg in the middle. There's a hobbit eating it, but, goddamn it, that hobbit is eating a fucking egg. He's on a unicorn, but that dam-up-nup-oh-hop, that's a fucking egg, yeah. How dare you have a wino tell me not to do drugs.