The entertainment industry has been on a bit of a crusade this year trying to convince ISPs that either they should feel responsible for the fact that people use their broadband connections to share unauthorized content. It started with NBC Universal arguing that ISPs somehow bore the responsibility for policing their networks for others' content. It's an odd argument, because most ISPs will admit (in a quiet moment) that unauthorized file sharing had been one of the biggest drivers in convincing people to switch from dialup to broadband. Furthermore, considering that there are some enlightened companies who realize that having your best fans promote and distribute your content can be good for business, it's impossible for ISPs to know whether or not the content being passed around is being done so with or without the approval of the content holder. In fact, that can lead to situations where content that producers are happy having shared gets taken down against their will.

No matter, though, as the entertainment industry has already convinced the government that its outdated business model needs to be protected, now it's trying to convince other industries that they, too, spend their own resources to protect another industry's dying business model. The MPAA's Dan Glickman, who has had trouble understanding basic economics before, is now trying to convince various ISPs that it's their job to protect the entertainment industry's business model. Why? About the only argument he can come up with is that all that unauthorized content is a bandwidth glut: "more and more they're finding their networks crowded with infringed material, bandwidth space being crowded out." That sounds nice, other than the fact that it's not true. So far, not a single prediction that the entertainment industry has made about unauthorized file sharing has come true -- and each step they take seems to make things worse. Why would another, totally separate industry, buy into the argument that it, too, needs to drag itself down to protect someone else's dying business model?

Wired News celebrates the 41st birthday of an open-government law and lists the top five filled and unfilled Freedom of Information Act requests.

From three experiments of video simulations of shoot/no shoot decision scenarios with police officers, community members and college students, researchers from the University of Chicago, the University of Colorado at Boulder and the University of Denver determined that training and experience is effective in minimizing decisions based on stereotyped views.

Wired is running a fascinating story about a set of three 12-year-old friends, who became so obsessed with the movie Raiders of the Lost Ark in 1981, that they spent the next seven summers refilming the movie shot for shot. It's a great story (in fact, so great, that there's actually a real movie being made about these three friends making this movie), but you have to wonder what would happen if the same thing were tried again today. You'd have to think that the three kids would end up in an awful lot of trouble, rather than being celebrated. Let's run through the list...

• Illegal taping: The friends were able to learn the entire movie by sneaking a videocamera into the theater and taping it. As you know, the industry has been passing stricter and stricter laws for anyone found video taping a movie. The latest law in NY would lead to a $5,000 fine (the boys made their entire movie for $4,500) and 6 months in jail.
• Copyright infringement: By copying the entire film, clearly they could be accused of copyright infringement. In fact, just last year, Paramount sued an amateur filmmaker who downloaded the script for an Oliver Stone movie and tried to film his own version using acting students. Ironically (or maybe it's just sad), it's Paramount that's making the film about these boys recreating Raiders.
• Music rights: The film apparently makes use of the original score, which is obviously a no-no for the recording industry, as witnessed by the fact that the famed sitcom WKRP in Cincinnati had to dub in generic music as it couldn't afford the rights to use the music it had licensed for the original show.
• Public performance: Despite being infringing, this film hasn't just been for private use. It was first shown in a Coca-Cola factory auditorium upon completion, as well as at a variety of underground film festivals since then.

Everyone seems to acknowledge that this film probably violates all sorts of intellectual property rules -- though both Stephen Spielberg and George Lucas appear to be fine with it. However, a set of kids trying to do the same thing today would actually find it more difficult. While the tools to do so have become much more powerful and much cheaper -- the legal regime has become much worse. And, frankly, doesn't it seem like something is wrong with the system when a bunch of kids can't do something like this? It wasn't just a tremendously fun project for the trio, but apparently a great learning experience. All three of the "kids" now work in the entertainment industry. On top of that, the film has a huge cult following and has made many people extremely happy. You'd be hard pressed to come up with a way that this "cost" the original creators of the content a dime (and, if anything, probably encouraged a few more people to watch or rewatch the original). So why is it that these same kids today would potentially face time in jail, both criminal and civil lawsuits and huge fines for doing the same thing?