joe posts

The Washington Post has an article by two lawyers tasked with representing Gitmo POW… er, “Enemy Combatant” Abu Zubaydah. The “information” gained through Zubaydah’s “interrogation” has been used by the intelligence community to justify terrorism warning levels and arrests, and his “confessions” have been used by President Bush and other high-ranking officials to justify their “enhanced interrogation techniques.” I have to put “scare quotes” around all those terms because the truth is he was secretly tortured by the CIA. Anything he said has to be looked at through that lens.

After torturing him, the government sent in a so-called ‘clean team’ that used regular interrogation techniques on the guy to get the same information so they could claim they didn’t rely on torture or “enhanced interrogation” to learn what he knew. The videotapes of the torture sessions were then destroyed so nobody can be sure of what he went through. Not even him, because some officials think he was seriously mentally ill even before CIA goons went to work on breaking him. On top of all that, the president of the United States has declared Zubaydah guilty even though his case has yet to come before any kind of judge or jury.

Imagine what it would be like to have to defend that man. Joseph Margulies and George Brent Mickum give us an idea of what they’re dealing with:

The administration declares with certainty that Zubaydah is a “senior terrorist leader and a trusted associate of Osama bin Laden” who “helped smuggle al-Qaeda leaders out of Afghanistan.” Dan Coleman, a former FBI analyst who was on the team that reviewed Zubaydah’s background file, disagrees, describing him as “insane, certifiable” and saying he “knew very little about real operations, or strategy.” We do not presume to know the truth. So far, we know only what has been publicly reported. But we hope to uncover the facts and present them to those with the power to act upon them.

Yet Zubaydah’s mind may be beyond our reach. Regardless of whether he was “insane” to begin with, he has gone through quite an ordeal since his arrest in Pakistan in March 2002. Shuttled through CIA “black sites” around the world, he was subjected to a sustained course of interrogation designed to instill what a CIA training manual euphemistically calls “debility, dependence and dread.” Zubaydah’s world became freezing rooms alternating with sweltering cells. Screaming noise replaced by endless silence. Blinding light followed by dark, underground chambers. Hours confined in contorted positions. And, as we recently learned, Zubaydah was subjected to waterboarding. We do not know what remains of his mind, and we will probably never know what he experienced.

Of course, the challenge of reconstructing what took place was made infinitely more difficult when the CIA destroyed the recordings of Zubaydah’s interrogation. But we already know something about what these techniques produce. It was the Cold War communists who perfected the dark art of touchless torture. And with it, they brought U.S. soldiers to the tipping point, where the adult psyche shatters, leaving behind a quavering child. At the end of their ordeal, these soldiers made fantastic admissions of American perfidity and spoke unreservedly about their supposed misdeeds.

The Bush administration says Zubaydah and other products of the CIA “black site” program repeated their confessions to FBI agents — a “clean team” that used authorized interrogation techniques to scrub away the fetid stain of torture. But the communists didn’t need to hold our soldiers at gunpoint as they recited their confessions. Continued cruelty becomes unnecessary when a prisoner has lost the will to resist.

What will we be able to learn, at this point, from Zubaydah? Will we be able to recreate the interrogations without the tapes? Will we get access to the material that led Coleman to a conclusion so different from the administration’s? – washingtonpost.com (emphasis mine)

I hope that they are able to mount some kind of a defense for the man. Terrorist or no, the worst of the worst must be given a fair trial or their punishment – in this case, execution – will be nothing but a raw display of state power rather than a democratic condemnation of a criminal and the crimes committed. The fact that American officials were being informed that the courts set up to prosecute Gitmo detainees were modeled on the Nuremberg trials made it seem as though they were making a serious effort to ensure every captive had a fair trial. Unfortunately it seems the only common strand between the two courts is the use of the death penalty. Col. Morris Davis, a former prosecutor for the Guantanamo Military Commissions and not exactly your average leftist commie/terrorist-loving liberal, resigned over the way the trials were to be conducted. From The Nation:

[I]n an interview with The Nation in February after the six Guantánamo detainees were charged, Davis offered the most damning evidence of the military commissions’ bias–a revelation that speaks to fundamental flaws in the Bush Administration’s conduct of statecraft: its contempt for the rule of law and its pursuit of political objectives above all else.

When asked if he thought the men at Guantánamo could receive a fair trial, Davis provided the following account of an August 2005 meeting he had with Pentagon general counsel William Haynes–the man who now oversees the tribunal process for the Defense Department.

“[Haynes] said these trials will be the Nuremberg of our time,” recalled Davis, referring to the Nazi tribunals in 1945, considered the model of procedural rights in the prosecution of war crimes. In response, Davis said he noted that at Nuremberg there had been some acquittals, which had lent great credibility to the proceedings.

“I said to him that if we come up short and there are some acquittals in our cases, it will at least validate the process,” Davis continued. “At which point, [Haynes's] eyes got wide and he said, ‘Wait a minute, we can’t have acquittals. If we’ve been holding these guys for so long, how can we explain letting them get off? We can’t have acquittals. We’ve got to have convictions.‘”

Davis submitted his resignation on October 4, 2007, just hours after he was informed that Haynes had been put above him in the commissions’ chain of command. “Everyone has opinions,” Davis says. “But when he was put above me, his opinions became orders.” – The Nation (emphasis mine)

So much for US credibility. Naturally I can’t know (nobody can) the whole story, but when you start to piece it together you get a glimpse of a very very ugly jigsaw puzzle.

Step 1: Capture middle eastern men. It doesn’t really matter what they’ve done or who they are.

Step 2: Torture them until they confess to whatever the military and/or CIA wants to hear.

Step 3: Use regular interrogation techniques on the torture victims to get the same information. Authorities can claim their information was verified, even if the victim is “confessing” because they’re scared of another round of torture or are severely warped by their experience.

Step 4: Destroy any evidence of torture. Ensure those who committed torture are immune to prosecution.

Step 5: Set up courts that can use secret evidence and evidence gained through coercion against the accused. Declare the captives guilty before they’re given a chance to contest the charges.

Step 6: Guarantee convictions to justify the torture and extended detention of the captives. No acquittals allowed.

Step 7: Execute the convicted. They can’t speak from the grave.

Step 8: Declare the trials a success.

To me it looks like they’ve invented a perfect propaganda machine, one that chews up bodies and churns out justifications for everything the Bush administration desires. It’s like something out of Brazil.

Journalist, author and blogger Cory Doctorow recently published an interesting column detailing his thoughts on the concept of “Intellectual property.” He argues that it’s a loaded term – knowledge can’t be the same thing as physical property. It’s merely a way for a copyright holder to frame the issue in a way that’s favourable to their interests. After all, any kind of copyright infringement sounds scarier if the infringer is accused of “theft of property.” But can we steal knowledge? Can we put a monetary value on non-physical works, especially in the Internet age when digitally transmitted movies, music and books are nothing but 1s and 0s?

“Intellectual property” is one of those ideologically loaded terms that can cause an argument just by being uttered. The term wasn’t in widespread use until the 1960s, when it was adopted by the World Intellectual Property Organization, a trade body that later attained exalted status as a UN agency.

WIPO’s case for using the term is easy to understand: people who’ve “had their property stolen” are a lot more sympathetic in the public imagination than “industrial entities who’ve had the contours of their regulatory monopolies violated”, the latter being the more common way of talking about infringement until the ascendancy of “intellectual property” as a term of art.

Does it matter what we call it? Property, after all, is a useful, well-understood concept in law and custom, the kind of thing that a punter can get his head around without too much thinking.

That’s entirely true – and it’s exactly why the phrase “intellectual property” is, at root, a dangerous euphemism that leads us to all sorts of faulty reasoning about knowledge. Faulty ideas about knowledge are troublesome at the best of times, but they’re deadly to any country trying to make a transition to a “knowledge economy”.

Fundamentally, the stuff we call “intellectual property” is just knowledge – ideas, words, tunes, blueprints, identifiers, secrets, databases. This stuff is similar to property in some ways: it can be valuable, and sometimes you need to invest a lot of money and labour into its development to realise that value.

Read it at The Guardian

Boingboing discussion

Two copyright-related stories caught my eye this week. First up is a National Post piece on a plan by the Songwriters Association of Canada to push a $5/month levy on Internet use, with the money going to subsidize the recording industry. CRIA (the Canadian equivalent of the USA’s lawyer-happy RIAA) is not happy. Surprising, really.

“The more pressing concern is that the industry itself will become distracted by this and precious time and resources will be devoted to either promoting or combating an idea which has a snowball’s chance in hell,” said CRIA president Graham Henderson.

He contended that if implemented, the songwriters’ plan would ruin the viability of online music sellers such as iTunes and PureTracks.ca and seriously threaten Canada’s bricks-and-mortar music retailers.

“The primary marketplace for records completely collapses, to be replaced by a levy system,” he said. “What you are basically saying is, ‘OK, we are going to let the government run this.’” – National Post

I’m not really in favour of the $5 levy plan, but it’s a better solution than anything I’ve heard the recording industry propose. They’ve basically been sitting around for 10 years waiting for the government to come along and protect them – now they’re whining that songwriters want the government to come along and protect the industry. ‘Brick-and-mortar’ retailers were already screwed, thanks to big box discount stores like Wal-Mart and Futureshop that can afford to lose money on music sales. Puretracks and iTunes offer an inferior product – digital files with DRM – for about the same price as a CD with better quality sound, liner notes and no DRM infections. That’s why I’ve spent very little money on online music. On top of the industry’s inability to embrace new distribution technologies, in the last ten years about eight major video game consoles were released, and I’m sure that has just a little bit to do with slowing music sales. We consumers only have so much money to spend on the products sold by huge multinational corporations. A $60 video game is about four CDs… maybe the recording industry should sue the video game industry for “lost opportunities.”

UPDATE (Mar 6th, 2008): Just stumbledupon this article by musician Janis Ian. It’s from 2002, but it’s still relevant in that she explains how even well-established, mature musicians profit from Internet downloads; and she takes the industry and it’s trade associations to task for having done nothing for the artists they’re supposedly looking out for. 

Then there’s this gem. It looks like the Tories “STOLE” music to use in a campaign ad… oh wait, it wasn’t a campaign ad… it was just an “attack video” directed against the Liberal party. No… not an advertisement at all:

 

The video was presented to support the Tories’ claim that the Liberal leader would run up $62.5 billion in new debt if elected. It splices together video clips of Mr. Dion citing financial figures, accompanied by a segment of the 1974 hit song, For the Love of Money.

The press conference was led by Industry Minister Jim Prentice, who is also responsible for overseeing reforms intended to strengthen Canada’s copyright laws. Copies of the video were broadcast by media organizations on national television, but have not been broadcast by the Tories.

Canadian rights to the song in the video are owned by Warner/Chappell Music Canada Ltd. A spokeswoman with Warner head office in New York confirmed that the company contacted the party to discuss its use of the song in the video.

“Warner/Chappell recently sent a letter to the Conservative Party of Canada confirming its unauthorized use of a song written by Warner/Chappell writers,” wrote Amanda Collins in an e-mailed statement. “As a regular course of business, we contact parties that use our musical compositions without permission. We look forward to working with the party to resolve this matter quickly.” – Ottawa Citizen (emphasis mine)

Tsk tsk tsk… Prentice’s office clearly has some learning to do, considering he’s in charge of “fixing” our copyright laws.

Canada’s unofficial commander-in-chief had some harsh words for Canadians who question his war.

“I’m not going to stand here and tell you that the suicide bombings of this past week have been related to the debate back here in Canada. But I also cannot stand here and say that they are not.

“And, certainly, there is a perception out there that the Taliban will try to take advantage of the debate back here and try to prevent a cohesive mission and will indeed attempt to attack our Canadian Forces in Kandahar.” – Toronto Star

“The Taliban will always look at us and try to assess if they can influence things back here. We take many actions to prevent that from occurring but the longer the debate goes on – if it goes on an extended period of time – the more difficult it is to do that and I just wanted to raise a cautionary flag, that’s all,” – Vancouver Sun

I’ve been against the invasion ever since it started six years ago as a way to capture Osama and get revenge for 9/11. But this kind of propaganda almost makes me feel guilty, eh? And it should – we’ve given millions of dollars in grants to think tanks and academics to promote the mission. I’d hate to think our taxes were being wasted on ineffectual pro-war propaganda.

The Department of National Defence is intruding on academic financing, spending millions of dollars sponsoring think tanks and scholars to offer up agreeable commentary. When these intellectuals comment, they are not always quick to disclose that the military funds them.

Take the Conference of Defence Associations, a think tank that got $500,000 from DND last year. That money comes not with strings, but with an entire leash. A current DND policy reads that to receive money, CDA must “support activities that give evidence of contributing to Canada’s national policies.” Apparently, if CDA’s activities were neutral and unbiased, or even-handedly supported and questioned government policy, DND would refuse to pay!

…

Most people would find it strange that DND sponsors the salaries, research, travel and tuition of dozens of professors, postdoctoral fellows and graduate students. But DND’s Security and Defence Forum does exactly this. The list of Canadian universities getting over half a million dollars of SDF money is extensive: York University ($580,000), UQAM ($630,000), Wilfrid Laurier University ($630,000), Université Laval ($655,000), McGill ($680,000), UBC ($680,000), University of Manitoba ($680,000), UNB ($680,000), Carleton University ($780,000), Dalhousie University ($780,000), University of Calgary ($780,000) and Queen’s University ($1,480,000).

What’s the money for? It’s not for the technical work that militaries obviously require — building better airplanes, for example. Instead, it sponsors policy scholars, who create the ideas, news and views that shape Canadians’ perception of the military and the war. And the evidence suggests that the military and government have politicized some SDF grants. The same bureaucrat who administers SDF grants to scholars also manages DND’s liaison with cabinet and Parliament. When DND needs a kind word in Parliament or the media — presto! — an SDF-sponsored scholar often appears, without disclosing his or her financial link. – Globe and Mail

The top general is trying to stifle the anti-war crowd by making them choose between supporting the mission and supporting the troops; being against the war and helping the Taliban; or just shutting up and letting the war rage on unopposed. The Department of National Defense is paying off academics and funding think-tanks to promote the war and influence politicians. We’re turning a blind eye to the unprecedented prosecution of a child soldier as a war criminal by a kangaroo court. Our government has lied to the world about the torture of our POWs. Our ‘conservative’ government is throwing as much money as it can at the military machine with military spending at it’s highest since WWII, and in return our military leaders show nothing but contempt for transparent debate.

But hey, all this lying and deception, vicious propaganda and wasted tax dollars are necessary to promote freedom and democracy in another land.

Better get used to it. It looks like the soldiers will be fighting until at least 2011. Perhaps longer, if General Hiller demands it.

I recently blogged about Canada’s CEOs protesting the lack of a real federal government plan to tackle climate change – not because it might, you know, affect the survival of the human race, but because having to navigate 10 different provincial environmental protection schemes could result in lost profits and decreased investment opportunities. “Policy chaos” was the term used to describe this complex patchwork of laws and regulations. As it turns out, chaos is what the Tories wanted all along (even when they said otherwise). From the Globe and Mail:

Both Environment Minister John Baird and Resource Minister Gary Lunn yesterday declared that each province is free to chart its own course on tackling emissions.

In January, federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty raised the perils of such an approach: “Generally speaking, the consensus I would say is that it is desirable in Canada not to have multiple regulators in various areas of the economy,” he said when asked about emerging provincial carbon taxes.

Yesterday, Mr. Baird took a markedly different stand.

“What works in British Columbia may not necessarily work in Nova Scotia,” he said. “What works in Ontario may not work in Alberta. Different provinces are coming forward with different approaches that suit their needs.”

I guess the Tories believe Canada’s provinces are all isolated and hermetically sealed? Because if they knew our provinces were all connected by lakes, rivers, fields, the atmosphere, etc. one might think it would be beneficial to tackle pollution as a nation instead of hoping that somehow Alberta’s oil sands or Ontario’s manufacturers (if there are any left) don’t pollute the water we all have to drink and the air we all have to breathe.

But I guess ‘policy chaos’ is easy to embrace once it’s clear that the Tories in power are nearly alone in their hands-off approach to dealing with pollution.

A common belief among folks who deny scientific evidence of climate-change is that climatology is inherently unreliable, so we shouldn’t worry when scientists publish articles that conclude that our pollution is harming the environment. For example:

“Politicians feel ‘the science is settled’, which I can’t tell you how arogant [sic] and down right retarded that sounds! Scientists are always discovering new things, and disproving old theories. If all the scientists really knew everything there is to know about our climate, then how come I don’t know if it’s going to rain next week or not?” – Angry Conservative

I guess he hadn’t heard of the weather network. They can’t tell you if it’s going to rain, but they can usually give you a probability of precipitation, determined scientifically.

The ‘global cooling scare’ of the 1970s is brought up by those who believe it proves there is some kind of inherent flaw when it comes to climatology. The data is supposedly too complex to interpret and explain. In the 1970s (I wasn’t around back then) Newsweek and other magazines and news sources published stories discussing the possibility of a new ice age brought about by dropping global temperatures. Climate-change deniers frame it this way: back then the commie-loving environmentalist kooks were worried about the cold; and now the Al Gore-loving environmentalist kooks are worried about the heat:

“But for those with memories and the nerve to actually think for themselves, the climate doomsayers have been proven wrong throughout the decades. In the late 60’s and early 70’s, the in-vogue hysteria about climate change and how it spelled the end for humanity as we know it revolved around the concept of global cooling. Again, this arose out of a misunderstanding of long term temperature fluctuations and the fact that the earth was at the end of the cycle of the Little Ice Age.” – prisonplanet

Andrew Weaver, writing for the Ottawa Citizen, took a look back at the scientific data that supported the ‘global cooling’ theory of the 1970s. As it turns out, there wasn’t any.

“Like many of you, I have heard it said that in the 1970s, scientists were saying the world was heading into a new ice age. This has always bothered me because in my 20 years as an active climate researcher, I have never come across a peer-reviewed scientific study that has actually made this claim. Fortunately, today we have the searchable database ISI Web of Science, containing information from more than 6,000 scientific journals, so getting to the bottom of this is an easy task.

It turns our that there is not a single peer-reviewed original scientific study that argued this to be the case. The only paper that came close was one written by NASA scientists Ichtiaque Rasool and Stephen Schneider in 1971.” – Ottawa Citizen

The 1971 paper had a single concluding sentence that suggested the chemicals being poured into the atmosphere might lead to a global cooling trend. And the methodology of that study was disputed soon after it was published.

Global cooling had little to no scientific support, even when it was a popular headline. So it doesn’t make much sense to use it as an argument against climatology in general. Certainly it shows that the media can get carried away when it comes to fear-mongering, but anyone who lived through the run up to the Iraq War knows that.

When allegations of Afghan POW abuse were made, the Harper Administration smeared critics by accusing them of being Taliban sympathizers. When the Tories fired Linda Keen for doing her job, they accused her of being a Liberal hack who wanted cancer patients to die. When they were accused of knowing about POW torture and stopping the POW transfers while denying anything improper was going on, Harper blamed the military for not keeping the head of the Canadian government informed. Then he blamed his communications director for blaming the military.

Now there have been some questions about the involvement of Harper’s deputy press secretary in a legal dispute between the department of Public Works and a real estate firm. Harper had this to say:

“The Bloc member mentioned two people who are of Greek origin – one who was an employee here in Ottawa, another one who is a supporter of the Conservative party in Montreal. The fact that [there's] two Montreal gentlemen of Greek origin doesn’t mean there’s a conspiracy here.” – Globe and Mail

No… no it doesn’t, Steve. The fact that your press secretary is going to bat for a Tory-connected real estate firm involved in a lawsuit against your government means there might be some kind of conspiracy here.

But it’s the conservatives.. what can you expect. You can’t really beat the absolute shit that comes out of the mouth of our ruling right-wing party. Every time a new challenge presents itself, their primary response seems to be to find someone to blame. That’s what passes for leadership on the federal level these days – focus on turning every issue into one that results in political gain instead of actually governing.

Came across an article from rabble.ca by Andrew Mindszenthy comparing Canada’s blooming military budget and our governments’ abandonment of social housing programs. Seems we fight over there so we can’t afford to change things here.

Activists target war abroad, and war on homes

excerpt:

Fifteen years ago, Canada’s federal government scrapped our national housing program, turning Canada into the only industrialized country without one. Federal funds for new housing fell to zero, while about one percent of the budget went to maintaining – inadequately – existing public housing. Soon after, Canada’s most populous province, Ontario, followed the neo-liberal trend when it cancelled social housing projects that would have housed 40,000 people and announced that the “market” would now provide this human necessity.

Together with sweeping cuts to social services and neo-liberal economic reforms, the effects on poor people were devastating. Among other predictable consequences, homelessness increased dramatically. By 1998, the newly formed Toronto Disaster Relief Committee (TDRC) was leading a campaign to declare homelessness a “national disaster.” Canada’s largest cities and civil society demanded an extra one percent of the budget for housing. The federal government refused, but released some emergency relief funding in response to our pressure.

Now, 300,000 thousand people experience homelessness annually in the worst housing crisis since the Great Depression. In a statement after his Oct. 2007 visit, the UN Special Rapporteur on housing observed “the deep and devastating impact of this national crisis… including a large number of deaths,” and notes federal inaction as its cause.

While the poorest people in Canada suffer and die, billions in government surpluses go to corporate tax cuts and wealth distribution to the richest minority skyrockets as they “break away” from the rest of us.

It is no coincidence that military spending is also skyrocketing – to the highest level since WWII, at $18.2 billion or 8.5 percent of the budget. It is no coincidence because Canada’s military plays a key role in this movement by the rich and powerful to squeeze more out of ordinary people.

… more …

Living in a city experiencing a serious shortage of rental units – one of the lowest vacancy rates in Canada – I read about the effects of housing shortages on a daily basis, and I know quite a few people who’ve been stuck without a place to live. Some landlords have recently raised their rents significantly; one local apartment complex stuck their tenants with a 41% increase. I’ve seen that place – it’s not worth $900 a month for 1 bedroom. Our mayor (who has more serious problems to deal with) sees increased home ownership as part of a solution. But since many Sudburians work in the service sector or for temp agencies or are here to go to school, I doubt anyone will see relief anytime soon, thanks in part to our province’s pitiful minimum wage and their hands-off approach to dealing with poverty.

When exactly is “the market” supposed to swoop in and deliver increased housing options at reasonable rates? I keep hearing about this “market” … but it never seems to come to town and deliver what’s promised. The Sudbury Star article about the rent increase mentions an interesting decision by the government to let landlords with newer buildings to increase rents to whatever they want, whenever they feel like it. It was, believe it or not, meant to help us avoid the housing crunch we’re now in.

“However, [the tenants] said they will ask the provincial government to change a law approved in 2006 that allows owners of buildings constructed after Nov. 1, 1991, to charge whatever rents they like. The intent of the change was to encourage more apartment construction in Ontario.”

The reasoning seemed to be that landlords will be more likely to build nice apartments for people knowing that they can jack up the rent whenever they feel like it. How could a ‘free market’ solution like that fail?

“The city’s vacancy rate is less than one per cent, in part because there has been no major construction of apartment buildings in the city since 1995, [Mayor] Rodriguez said.”

Great.. so the province throws a bone to landowners, developers and landlords, who built a few places and then sat on their hands for over a decade. It conveniently helped cause a housing crisis which is now paying off with 1 bedroom apartments costing nearly $1000 a month in a province where a full-time minimum wage earner makes just over $1200 a month.

Yet another triumph of neo-liberal government policies.

All the politicians need to do now is act like average people have the time, money and resources at hand to fight for what should be a basic right and it’ll look like this is fair.

“Sudbury [Liberal] MPP Rick Bartolucci said he is encouraging the tenants to appeal.

‘I think it’s worth filing the appeal to see whether or not the percentage increase is justified,’ Bartolucci said. ‘The landlord has to provide proof that he meets the criteria in order to raise the rent.’”

Thanks, Rick!

I guess we can’t blame the landlords and the developers – I imagine they’re doing quite well for themselves as the market tightens up. It’s their job to maximize profit and that just happens to have the side effect of making it much harder on people living on or under the poverty line when there is a housing shortage. The business community just took advantage of a government policy that was aimed at benefiting them and only them, so it’s not their fault. It’s the fault of the taxpayer financed morons who saw deregulation and ‘market solutions’ as an effective way of tackling housing-related problems and pushed it through without thinking about the consequences.

So the video game industry turns a record profit, then turns around and whines about how piracy makes them lose money. Makes… sense…?

ESA, IIPA slam Canada for not fixing copyright “deficiencies”

Maybe if they stopped using copy-protection schemes that prevent games from working properly on certain PCs they’d get a little more respect. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve bought a game only to find it unplayable because of SecuROM or some other unadvertised ‘protection’ software bundled with the game. Even the game that came free with my system wouldn’t play – it failed the disc check every time! I’m not sure what my problem is – an unusual DVD/hard drive setup? I wonder if protection software just doesn’t like computers that don’t come from major companies.

I wouldn’t have a problem with protection software at all if they openly advertised what the company plans to install on your system. I recently picked up Bioshock and it really should have “Protected by SecuROM” in bold lettering across the front of the box. That way I wouldn’t have wasted my money on it. It’s twisted that their ‘protection’ schemes just force people to search for cracked .exe files to play games they’ve actually paid money for. It just makes websites like gamecopyworld get a lot more traffic.

I guess recording industry bigwigs are still running out of bad ideas to protect their jobs. Cary Sherman, RIAA President, recently talked about implementing ‘piracy filters’ on the ISP and user level. Since network-level filters could easily be defeated by the most basic encryption options available, Mr. Sherman ‘mused’ that encrypted files could still be filtered by your own computer:

“Filters can be put in the applications for example. You know, one could have a filter on the end user’s computer that would actually eliminate any benefit from … encryption because if you want to hear it, you’d have to decrypt it, and at that point the filter could work.”

The video can be found at Gizmodo. Though the RIAA is now saying their president’s statements were only ‘musings’ it’s still an interesting window into the mindset of Big Media distributors. And it reveals that the RIAA president knows pretty much nothing about computers or computer users. How exactly would a filter be able to “listen” to analogue output? Who in their right mind would encumber their machines with complex filtering software?

Much of the focus has been on his comments about filtering copyrighted files, but I was glad to hear the bit at the end when he explained that the RIAA considers personal-use CD-copying as copyright infringement in principle (they won’t take the legal position that it’s allowed), but that they’re generously not hunting down people who do that sort of thing. So we should feel lucky that we’re not being sued for using an mp3 player? Hmmm! I’m just glad they’ve made their position somewhat clearer.

Talk about a lack of perspective. Someone has say “Heh heh heh… gentlemen, it’s just music.” The RIAA and CRIA seem to think their products are important to our health and wellbeing; we have to be protected at all costs from the ravages of “piracy,” and if the industry is sinking it’s the fault of us consumers, not the fault of a business model that hasn’t really changed in a century.

There are plenty of independent artists out there releasing music outside of their control. There are mainstream artists breaking away from their broken business models. There’s lots of legitimately free music online. And there are still used record stores and record shows where you can buy all kinds of music without a dime flowing to the industry.

And if it comes down to it, I have a couple of guitars and will never be bored even if my large, expensive music collection becomes enough of a legal liability that I have to get rid of it all.

So yeah, relax about the whole “piracy is killing music” thing. Music will survive. Recording industry executives, however…