July 8, 2006
Hollywood to America: You Much Watch Our Smut
A recent appellate court ruling has decided that it is illegal for companies to pay Hollywood for movies and then sanitize them of gratuitous nudity, over-the-top profanity, and puerile violence. For years, Hollywood has found ways to insert into otherwise coherent storylines scenes of nudity, sex, profanity, and violence.
In what seems like a simple compromise, a company would pay for the video, sanitize the content for those who request that service, and then sell the video to the consumer. In these cases, Hollywood gets paid for the price of the movie.
That apparently is not enough.
It isn't enough for Hollywood to get paid for their trash, consumers must watch the garbage in unedited form to make sure that viewers either have to manually fast-forward or otherwise endure pornography that is completely irrelevant to the storyline. Hollywood says that editing their films destroys the "creative intent" of movie producers.
Exactly what does a nude Kate Winslet add to the storyline of Titanic… well, besides masturbatory material?
Christians and other groups have responded to the trend of Hollywood being barely able to make a movie without some B-rate actress flashing the audience by setting up companies to siphon out the irrelevant content. Again, in cases where people buy these movies with the cleaned content, Hollywood gets paid full price. They make exactly as much as they would if someone bought the unedited film some place else.
There is simple economics involved. This is a free country, if people demand porn; they can get porn (despite the clear objectification of women and harm it does to society). However, if people want movies without the extraneous and non-plot enhancing nudity, violence, or profanity, that is something that presents a clear and present danger to our nation. In this case, we cannot allow supply to meet demand.
Here's the interesting feature, by pursuing this line of litigation with firms like Clean Flicks, Hollywood is causing direct harm to their bottom line. Instead of allowing consumers to buy the films edited to their standards, it generates a conflict. Consumers are now faced with the choice to either buy the film that they object to as-is, or to not buy it at all. This litigation has made the voice of the American Family Association, Coral Ridge Ministries, and the like that much louder. Ever better, it gives a catalyst to help propel the nascent efforts of a Christian movie-making industry into a viable movement.
The ability to choose to terminate a pregnancy (or more accurately, murder their child) is celebrated. The ability to choose the gender of one's sexual partner is hailed. The ability to choose to have sexual relations outside marriage (or adultery for that matter) is elevated to civil right. In all areas of American life, the right to choose whatever one wills is held up as the central and united ideal. That is, until someone chooses to express their Christian values in their economic activity. (Or for that matter, if they dare utter the name of Christ in anything that can be labeled a "public square".)
Hollywood, in rejecting a compromise that allows everyone to benefit, has chosen to bring the culture war to the forefront and fired the opening volleys. They believe that their monopoly on American moviemaking gives them the right to dictate what society's values should be. As a result, they've directly attacked one their streams of revenue.
Hollywood has the right to produce trashy films, or to attempt to integrate trashiness in films that can stand on their own without it. However, the consumer has the right not to buy such trash.
With the incredible success of films like The Passion of Christ, Lord of the Rings, and other family-friendly films one would think that the movie industry would see that there is an untapped market to be exploited. Instead, they've chosen against their financial interest and decided to alienate that market. In a free market, businesses that tell their customers that their values don't matter tend to not do well in the long term. Time will tell how long it will be until another entity fills the void.
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:50 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
December 5, 2005
Anyone Know a Good Deal on a Cellphone?
So I lost my cellphone. Go me. I have an old one I used to use, and tried to get it activated. I find out that federal law requires that cell phones have GPS's so the police can track you when you dial 911. Awesome! Federal law used to dictate cell phone policy (how is this a part of the commerce clause) to require individuals to carry a tracking device.
And at the same time costing me 200 some odd bucks...
Awesome.
Posted by John Bambenek at 4:06 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
August 15, 2005
Why You Don't Piss Me Off...
I come home today and find my front lawn cut up and a new unmarked utility box sitting in my lawn. Is it cable? Is it power? I just don't know because it isn't marked.
So I checked the eminent domain laws and made sure. They have to give notification, period. And for good reason, you don't want people driving on your grass dropping strange boxes in your lawn. (John at StoptheACLU thinks it's Big Brother watching me... maybe it's just the ACLU).
Extra fun part, it's not on an easement either. So looks like I'm filing an eminent domain lawsuit to dog them for a few grand in legal fees and kick them around a bit.
I just gotta figure out who this box belongs to first.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:28 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
August 11, 2005
TippingPoint: An IPS That Doesn't Work and Support That's Even Worse
I recently got some demo equipment from TippingPoint to evaluate at my office, particularly their intrusion prevention system. This device may work for you, it may not, I simply have no idea because I never got a functioning device. The first one they sent out had major packet loss as soon as I turned on the IPS functionalist. After two days the sent out a new one. If that one was even plugged into the network (even in Layer 2 / dumb hub) mode, it dropped all packets.
I’m fair, sometimes things get broken in shipping or maybe you got a bad card but I wasn’t about to give them a third shot. After reporting the second device’s problems it took them a week to get back to me via email to get my address to send out a third device. By then I had already shipped all the devices back. If it takes them a week to get back to me without phone calls to tell me what I already know, it is doubtful that their support is up to par if I ever had a problem when this thing got into production.
It is simply not that hard to do rudimentary testing on a device for problems. Hint: if it drops packets, it’s broken. It’s much less hard for support to give you a courtesy call to let you know they haven’t forgotten about your failed and under-warranty device. In the end, they may write the greatest rules in the world, but their devices (or at least their testing of them) suck and their support is deplorable.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:48 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
