[Quote:]

The Al Gore-produced global-warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth is being panned by critics nationwide who claim the 90-plus minute environmental film is “too disturbingly realistic and well-researched to enjoy.” “I found it difficult to suspend my disbelief in man-made climate change for the first half-hour—and utterly impossible after that—which makes for a movie-going experience that’s far more educational than it is enjoyable,” said New York Post film critic Skip Hack. “Gore’s film overwhelms viewers with staggering amounts of scientific information until nothing about global warming is left to the imagination, and that’s just not good entertainment. Two stars.” Some critics have called the film’s claims that sea levels could rise 20 feet somewhat sensationalistic, although most agree that this is not enough to save the film from being unwatchably factual.

[Quote:]

We emphasize and affirm the tendency that it is getting harder to distinguish between local transfers of data and “file sharing�? between different systems, for example in wireless environments. Digital technology is built on copying bits, and internet is built on file-sharing.
Copying is always already there. The only thing copyright can do is to impose a moral differentiation between so-called normal workings and immoral.
For the copyright industry, it is of extreme importance to keep people uninformed of the real workings of networked computers. They want to make an artificial distinction between “downloading” and “streaming”, as equivalents to record distribution and radio broadcasting.
But – and we should keep insisting that – the only difference between “streaming” and “downloading” lies in the software configuration on the receiving end. However, copyright law will never be able to acknowledge that. It has to rely on fictions, on a kind of cognitive mapping, where notions valid for traditional one-way mass media are forcefully applied to the internet. We call it Mental Rights Management (and it is the very precondition for DRM).
It is essential for the copyright industry to keep the majority of computer users trapped in the belief that the �?window�? of their web browser is exactly a window, through which they can look at information located elsewhere, under someone else’s control. Then our job is to clarify that everything you see on your screen or hear through your speakers, is already under your control.
Zeros and ones have no taste, smell or color – be they parts of pirated material or not. Therefore it is impossible to construct a computer that cannot reproduce and manipulate these zeros and ones – as such a machine would no longer be a computer, but something as grotesque as a digital simulation of the machines of the last century.

[..]

The copyright industry today likes to present the problem as if internet were just a way for so-called “consumers�? to get so-called �?content�?, and that we now just got to have �?a reasonable distribution�? of money between ISP:s and content industry. But we must never fall in that trap, and we can avoid it by refusing to talk about “content�? altogether. Instead, we talk about internet as communication.
Therefore, it is totally wrong to regard our role as to represent “consumer interests�?. On the contrary, it’s all about escaping the forceful division of humanity into the two groups �?producers�? and �?consumers�? that copyrights produces in different ways.
An obvious example is the movie industry’s bizarre lobbying to “plug the analog hole�?, by introducing a law banning video equipment able to rip analog media. The law proposal put forward by the MPAA mentions that so-called professional producers of course should have a license to use these video cards anyway. The effect would of course be an extreme consolidation of the split between producers and users.
But so-called “alternative compensation systems”, that some voices put forward as a progressive alternative to DRM and mass-criminalization, they are no less reproducing this split. The idea is usually to impose a special fee on every internet connection, so that a bureaucracy could channel the money to publishers and other rights holders.
This way we can save both the copyright system and file sharing, says amongst others Lawrence Lessig, the EFF, and the Swedish Green party. However, none of them likes to specify exactly how it should be decided which creators that should get money. If book authors should get compensation when their books are digitally transmitted, why should not bloggers get a part of this compensation as well? So, for the very notion of “compensation” to work, there must be someone filtering out the “worthy” forms of artistic creation from “unworthy”. (Or the system could give every internet user money for every line they are writing in a chat, but that would maybe better be called an universal basic income.)
This dilemma also illustrates the schizophrenic nature of industry. Companies like Microsoft and Sony on one hand tries to use DRM to block out independent cultural production. But on the other, they are already totally dependent of what they call “user-generated content�?.
Clever entrepreneurs of course do understand that internet business is not about selling information. It is about selling the possibility to interact. Overcoming the split between producers and consumers is not some utopia of a world to come, but a necessity to let communication media be communication media instead of simulating one-way media.

[Quote:]

A tortoise caught by a fisherman in Cambodia is being kept at a pagoda where it is revered for its healing powers.

Worshippers at the Prasat Raingsey pagoda in Kandal province pray in front of it, wash injuries with water it has bathed in, and even drink its bathing water to cure illnesses.

The Impressed Tortoise (Manouria impressa) was caught by a fisherman in Kampong Cham province. He and his family experienced strange dreams that night, and they decided to take it to the local pagoda for luck. The next night, other people in the village experienced dreams in which the tortoise told them to take it to the Prasat Raingley pagoda.

The tortoise is believed to be a guard of Buddha. Local faiths which believe in the healing powers of animals are fairly common in Cambodia.

[Quote:]

(Click thumbnail for enlargement.) I just opened a letter sent to Boing Boing from some fools at Baker & McKenzie LLP in London.

The letter states that their client, Infront Sports & Media, “anticipates the possibility of unauthorized streaming and downloading of FIFA World Cup matches.” The letter goes on to warn Boing Boing that Baker & McKenzie will be “actively monitoring your website … to identify unlawful activity and will, if necessary, take appropriate action to ensure the protection of Infront’s rights of those licenses.”

Oh brother. I don’t even know what the FIFA World Cup is. I’m guessing it’s soccer, which I hate just as much as any other pro sport. Every editor at Boing Boing detests professional sports, and we would sooner stream a video of a crumpled up paper napkin in the corner of a room than show some jackasses running after a ball. The only time we would ever post anything about pro-sports would be to make fun of them.

Baker & McKenzie, be on alert: henceforth, Boing Boing will be actively monitoring your website to identify dumbass activity and will, if necessary, take appropriate action to point out instances of wasting clients’ money by sending out unnecessary and obnoxious warning letters.”

Brought to you courtesy of the President of the United States:

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Next week, the United States Senate will begin debate on a constitutional amendment that defines marriage in the United States as the union of a man and woman. On Monday, I will meet with a coalition of community leaders, constitutional scholars, family and civic organizations, and religious leaders. They’re Republicans, Democrats, and independents who’ve come together to support this amendment. Today, I want to explain why I support the Marriage Protection Amendment, and why I’m urging Congress to pass it and send it to the states for ratification. [...]

Marriage cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious, and natural roots without weakening this good influence on society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all. [...]

In our free society, people have the right to choose how they live their lives. And in a free society, decisions about such a fundamental social institution as marriage should be made by the people — not by the courts. [...]

Unfortunately, activist judges and some local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage in recent years…. These court decisions could have an impact on our whole Nation….This national question requires a national solution, and on an issue of such profound importance, that solution should come from the people, not the courts.

An amendment to the Constitution is necessary because activist courts have left our Nation with no other choice. [...]  Democracy, not court orders, should decide the future of marriage in America.

The President couldn’t have made his position any clearer. Courts should not be overturning the will of the people when it comes who should and should not be allowed to marry. Now, which enterprising White House reporter will ask whether the President thinks that Loving v. Virginia and Brown v. Board of Education should be overturned?

[Quote:]

As the recording industry tries to block file trading of songs across peer-to-peer networks, blogs and other viral distribution channels, the major labels suddenly have a whole new piracy concern: music videos.

The rise of user-generated content sites like YouTube, MySpace, Google Video and iFilm has sparked a revolution in the viral sharing of music videos across these Web communities. The problem is, much of the distribution taking place — outside a select number of promotional deals — is happening without the approval of record companies.

In recent weeks the Recording Industry Association of America has been stepping up its efforts to stop sharing of popular videos on such sites, particularly on the rapidly expanding YouTube. The site, which now claims more than 6 million visitors and 40 million streams daily, has become a haven for unlicensed music videos, which users are capturing with
TiVo and other digital video recorders and then posting the files to the Web. Much of the material is coming from recorded MTV broadcasts.

The RIAA recently issued cease-and-desist letters to YouTube users sharing videos from the likes of Nelly Furtado, Beyonce and Rihanna.

[..]

Viral video sharing would not have been an issue just 18 months ago, when the labels still viewed music videos as a promotional tool for selling albums. But today videos are a rapidly growing money-maker for the music business. The RIAA estimates that sales of music videos topped $3.7 million in three months, after being introduced in October. Meanwhile, the major labels also are sharing in the profits of ad-supported video-on-demand offerings from AOL, Yahoo, Music Choice and others.

Music videos are advertisements – commercials, and charging for them is the best idea I have heard in decades! Perhaps the idea will catch on, and all advertisements will be withheld from us unless we pay. Poor us, life will be so boring just watching our programs without the joy commercial interruptions bring.

The MPAA could learn a lot from this! That’s right, keep those movie trailers under lock and key! They usually show all the interesting parts of the movie, and they are condensed into just a few minutes! Who would pay to see a bloated movie when the Cliff Notes version is available?!? They should be charging more for the trailers than the movies. Pull them from the theaters and TV! That way, people will want to see the movies even more.

There’s no way to avoid it any more: the soccer world championship tournement is starting the coming week…