Sunday, 08 May 2011
This afternoon, my wife and I finished up a home video and uploaded it to Youtube. A few hours later, my wife checked her email and, alas, the video was removed.
No, we didn’t make porn.
It was a simple, 1 minute video of our kids playing with toy light sabers. Obviously, the best option for this kind of video is Star Wars music. Turns out, George Lucas is just as feisty about his copyrights as Disney, Apple, and Dr. Seuss.
“Hey,” you say, “Why pick on Lucasfilm and 20th Century Fox? They didn’t remove your video, Youtube did.”
Well, yes, that’s true. But Youtube has a policy of taking down pretty much anything that gets a complaint. If the complaint is due to the content being objectionable (e.g., nudity, extreme violence or gore), then Youtube often leaves the video up, but alerts the owner that changes need to be made. If multiple complaints persist, Youtube removes the video.
They’re a little less forgiving when it comes to copyright. If someone says, “Hey, they used my audio/video,” then Youtube just gets rid of it.
I can’t say I blame them. Copyright law is complicated and ridiculous. Even though our video’s usage was defensible under fair use (a short clip, no profit made on our part, no profit lost on Fox’s part), the power in this country goes to who has the biggest wallet, not who has the most cogent argument. So, if someone complains to Youtube, they are better off just removing the ‘offending’ video than trying to fight it. Justice is expensive.
Anyway, we’ll post the video at our site one of these days.
In the mean time, if you feel like seeing what our kids are up to these days, CLICK HERE. And, if that’s not enough, then CLICK HERE.
Monday, 09 May 2011
Okay, so here’s an article on Gun Control. You don’t have to read it. I don’t care. The reason why I’m mentioning the article is because of paragraph seven. So, scroll down to paragraph seven (it’s the one that begins “That’s the bad news”). Now read the last two sentences of that paragraph.
Did you do that? Okay, now here’s an article discussing bananas.
It’s a good idea, really. If you are going to write up an important paper, or a potentially contentious one, it’s smart to put in a little something to see if people actually read the damn thing. If you read the second article, it notes that none of the first 19 pages of commenters, evidently, read the article. I would like to know how many comments that is – after all, who tallies up comments by # of pages? – but still, that’s remarkable.
Actually, though, the case is a bit overstated, because that sentence wasn’t added in until later, meaning the first few pages of commenters are off the hook.
This reminded me Van Halen, who used to stipulate in their contracts to concert venues that their snack tray contain absolutely no brown M&Ms. Many people cite this as an example of rock-god extravagance, but in this case, the caveat was buried in the rider to assure people read the whole thing. If they showed up and there were brown M&Ms, then the band had reason to believe other, more serious aspects of the contract were breached.
Tuesday, 10 May 2011
Today, for class, we had to read the story Bartleby, the Scrivener, written by Herman Melville. It’s either a long story or a short book, so, I don’t really know what to call it. Besides Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, it’s the longest single thing we’ve read for class.
Unlike Douglass’ story, however, I had never read this story before. In fact, I’d never ever heard of it before. I once tried to read Moby Dick (that’s Melville’s greatest hit), but after about 80 pages during which the only thing that happens is the narrator, Ishmael, walks into a tavern, I got to thinking that maybe I didn’t want to read the other 10 duotrigintillion pages. In view of this, it was unlikely that I would ever read anything by Melville. Alas, something was assigned for class, and so I found myself plowing through Bartleby over the last few days.
Here’s a funny thing about Bartleby, and I could say the same for many short stories from the 19th century: something’s missing. I mean, I keep reading thinking there’s going to be a big pay-off, or that the ‘mystery’ will be solved, but that never happens. It’s kind of like if Hitchcock had never filmed the last fifteen minutes of Psycho. Or, for you young kids out there, it’s like Pixar couldn’t be bothered to create the last fifteen minutes of Toy Story 3. I mean, either way, it’s a good story, but the end provided that exposition, that denouement, if you will (and I will), that wrapped everything up just right.
Still, I recommend Bartleby. It’s an early example of depression being depicted in fiction (this was back when they called it “melancholia,” though), and the head-scratching that will ensue was worth the couple hours it takes to read the short book. Or long story. Whichever.
Wednesday, 11 May 2011
Lending credence to my theory that religion is FUBAR, here’s an article about the Hasidic paper Der Tzitung. Looks like the local orthodox Jewish paper decided that printing an article about bin Laden’s assassination was very important, as was including a photo of VIPs observing the events unfold. However, since women are dirty, dirty creatures who do filthy things like birth babies and give men ‘sinful’ thoughts, then it’s only appropriate that the women in the photo be digitally removes.
It’s not like these two women were the waitresses or the cleaning staff (though the removal would still be as stupid), no, these two women were Director for Counterterrorism Audrey Tomason and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Tomason’s removal makes the picture kind of silly, because then Tony Binken is just kind of leering over Bill Daley’s shoulder for no reason – one has to wonder why Binken doesn’t just step to his left a couple of feet.
But the removal of Clinton makes the picture really stupid. Look at her: she’s the focal point of the image. My eyes went straight to her for two reasons:
1) She’s right in the freakin’ middle of the photo.
2) Apart from General Webb, who appears to be in mid-fart, she is the only human in the room displaying any sort of emotion. Yes, everyone else is showing a look of intense concentration and perhaps nervousness (again, except for Webb, who’s farting), but Clinton makes the image by offering it some non-bureaucratic emotion.
Here’s the real kicker, the photo was originally released on the White House’s Flickr page, the caption states “The photograph may not be manipulated in anyway.”
I must comment on a few good points other commenters brought out:
1) Do you think Bill Clinton looked at the altered photo and thought, “if it was only that easy…” Ha! Hillaryious!
2) If it’s wrong to have photos of women, ’cause they make men have dirty thoughts, then why is it okay to have pictures of men? Or sheep? Or watermelons? Or apple pies?
Oops…guess Der Tzitung went against the White House. I warn them: look at the people in that picture: they are not to be messed with.
How fast can you subitize? Here’s a fun game in which to find out.
I once watched a film adaptation of Bartleby, The Scrivener called “Bartleby.” It was set in more modern times and starred George McFly. If I remembered more, I might have been able to give a recommendation.
Thanks for the suggestion, David. As I mentioned to you in person, I’m not always crazy about older texts being ‘updated’ to a modern setting, but I do want to check out this movie. Thanks.