Thursday, January 31, 2008
Sunday, January 27, 2008
While sitting at home pondering the future I considered what form DRM (Digital Rights Management) and copyright may take in years to come.
Technology always continues to improve and be what was once the province of huge corporations and countries are made more accessible to the average consumer. The old ways of recording events are rapidly being phased out. As gears and switches in the telephone are no longer utilized soon actual film may be a thing of the past. Perhaps this is the last generation that will actually expose light to an emulsion to make a photograph except for the historical hobbyist.
So with the recording of digital media and the fact that the average person can easily manipulate complex data what will become prominent in the after-market of the future will be the demands of businesses and governments to control information and ensure revenue sources by protecting intellectual properties. This already exists in one form in regards to music and DRM and is the reason I will not purchase some brands of music players. I support the spirit of copyright and disagree with those who believe that anything once created is free or can be copied and mass-produced for profit without compensation to the creator. I can get behind DRM, EULA, trademarks and copyright. That is, within reason. I have about 400 compact discs and even more DVDs that I have purchased over the last 15 years and I refuse to let any person or company dictate where and when I can listen to them and in what format. I routinely copy movies to my laptop or music to my player and watch and listen to them in a more convenient format when out and about. It is one thing to watch a movie during lunch on a park bench and an entirely different matter to make copies of Good Luck Chuck and sell them at a swap meet or hand them out to the entire office where you work. If companies no longer sell a product and instead intend only to lease it temporarily then they should quit dancing around the subject and just take that position. Tell the buyer the rules flat out instead of misleading the consumer by letting them believe they actually own what they just purchased.
So I have imagined that copyright law in the future will be even more restrictive and probably applied to ridiculous levels in an always connected, online and on-demand electronic world. Currently DRM or copyright is applied when the content is created. In the future it may be applied before something actually exists.
I imagine that soon technology will be available, and then the inevitable law, that would require all recording devices to access a license database of copyrighted material prior to allowing the photograph or video to be successfully recorded. In the near future all image recording devices could be required to determine if the the image or subject in the selected scene was protected by copyright or was restricted in some way. Anyone attempting to take a photograph of a work of art, something in public venue or some other media or subject that is otherwise protected would find their attempts blocked by the software of the recording device. Even today with little effort and varying success commonly available software can analyze a digital image for content such as in facial or shape recognition or in use for comparison for differences between images.
The future camera loaded with restrictive software would otherwise function normally, but the software would block and spoil the image for the user unless a fee is paid to the owner of the copyrighted subject or an EULA is strictly adhered to.
The recording device would simply not capture an image if something restricted by copyright is anywhere in the image field.
I could understand the use of this technology in protecting works of art, documents, company or government secrets and the like. The extreme power of repeated camera flashes can result in a fading of paint and inks, destroying precious art, movies would be recorded by small cameras in theaters for the purposes of bootlegging and bad people could take photographs of military installations in pursuit of nefarious deeds.
While the technology would be deployed in the interest of protecting intellectual and actual property it would of course be abused rather quickly.
Some legal department somewhere would claim that the image of a Torrey Pine that has existed for centuries on a San Diego bluff in a protected National Park was their intellectual property because a stylized image of it is on their company letterhead. Future DRM would prevent visitors or Forest Rangers from taking photos and documenting the tree for posterity or health management. The legal fight to determine the ownership of the image of the tree could drag through the courts for years. As I was just reminded, something similar actually occurred in regards to a Californian Cyprus tree several years ago.
As actually happened, the Steel Bean sculpture in Chicago was considered copyrighted and no one was allowed to take photos of it. People were routinely harassed and threatened if they posed with or took a photo of the publicly-funded sculpture. Future DRM of the kind required for digital recording devices I have imagined would ensure a poor photo of the sculpture. Unless the tourist forked over a fee to to the City of Chicago to release (temporarily?) the rights to create a special memory then their visit will be disappointing and an unhappy girlfriend will result.
Typically, as history has shown when money is involved, everyone wants a piece of the action. So the software and database would be enforced to extremes and nearly everything would be restricted against general use by the public for some reason or another.
So much for liberty.
We won't always have Paris.
A lovely sunset. Or was it? I let my annual subscription with the Desplay Inc. photo pool lapse!
There are even times when some governments and businesses claim events are copyrighted and cannot be recorded without permission. Of course, they will never allow anyone to obtain that license to reveal the details of any event they wish suppressed.
Imagine how differently some events would have played out in the world media if the future DRM software was available now to stop a bunch of poorly led soldiers from using their cellphone cameras?
Good luck getting that software patch from the government of Darfur.
Genocide? What genocide? You have no proof!
Of course while the blocking software would be a boon to government agencies seeking to control the flow of information to the public, there will always be the inevitable errors and over-enthusiastic application and it is usually to the detriment of mankind. An oversight by failing to obtain the proper licenses will block the Hubble telescope from capturing a once-in-a-billion-year celestial event. Oops! Sorry, the Universe will just have to keep its secrets just a bit longer!
Careless application of the database and poor maintenance will inevitably cause tactical setbacks in the battlefield of tomorrow.
As the role of high technology continues to increase the license database of allowable copyrighted images may not be updated at the same frenetic pace as war operations. Terrorists could list their facilities as copyrighted and international law would not allow the other country to access satellite or public images to plan attacks or mount a defense. The scene as viewed via the digital recording devices of gun cameras and guided missiles may be blocked by the database and the success of the precision air strike would be in doubt. All due to shoddy customer service and failure to renew the licensing subscription by the client.
If the eager cameras cameras of the Paparazzi were to be denied taking photos of copyrighted celebrities then there would be fewer incidents of road rage, mishaps and tragic accidents.
Yet by using the future DRM the publicity-hungry celebrity would gain some control over the use of their image.
Any incident that would possibly gain them positive or or negative publicity would be managed with greater success by restricting the use of the image until a deal is made to send revenue their way or even to stop publication of the image entirely.
The media would love the future DRM and next to the government be the biggest client of the software. Revenue would pour in with the control of their news images as affiliates and websites pay to unlock photos and videos for viewing. That is, until some company or individual decides that a negative story needs to be censored by blocking an image connecting their product to their misdeeds.
Then of course the media would wring their collective hands and cry about censorship, ignoring that they themselves are some of the greatest violators of free speech, open dialog and have long given up any right to claims of journalistic integrity.
As usual, only the average consumer will be inconvenienced in any way. The future DRM that I imagine will of course not hinder the tech-savvy any more than the restrictive attempts on digital media do today. Digital recording devices will be illegally modified and software will be hacked to provide images unhindered by the wishes of the copyright holders. An entire underground movement over being able to freely view the objects of the real world will be created, diligently working in the shadows to bring an unrestricted reality into the light.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
There are about three story arcs from the classic Charles Schulz strip Peanuts that have always stayed with me and that I remember fondly from my youth. One was when Snoopy went to the moon and the other was when Snoopy's doghouse was threatened by freeway construction. The final one I refer to is one I read in a paperback collection when I was young and recently visited again via the Peanuts website, which is running all the classic strips pretty much in chronological order.
It is the story of when sister Lucy steals Linus' security blanket forcing the lad to go "cold turkey" from his steady supply of banky. It was a funny story and had a happy ending, depending on whether you think recidivism was a good thing or not. As a kid I loved the story arc for what it was but as an adult I read a lot of different things into the Schulz story, which makes me think that the recent biography that got the Schulz Family so upset could be partially correct in being able to peer into the mind of the creator through the content of his strips.
The original story ran from 2nd to the 21st of January 1961 and you can read the entire arc through these links to the official website. I'd just link to the first part of the story and tell you to have at it but the website employs a sliding time line and in a few weeks will no longer make January available to readers.
Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, Part 11, Part 12, Part 13, Part 14, Part 15, Part 16, Part 17, Part 18, Part 19
Monday, January 21, 2008
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Thursday, January 17, 2008
A Japanese company is selling "Rice Babies" as birth announcements. Sold as gifts, a bag of rice that weighs the exact same amount as the newborn is imprinted with the baby's face and vital statistics.
Makes me wonder how many parents are going to understate the actual weight of the baby so their friends are not horrified at receiving a 15 pound bag of rice as a birth announcement.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Undead or Alive is a recent DVD comedy release about zombies in the old West. Not a great film but it isn't bad either and it is full of familiar faces like Brian Posehn, Chris Kattan and Navi Rawat. The script and directing is a bit thin in places, some of the acting is definitely B-Movie caliber but that's okay and the budget is what you expect. But the creators gave it a good try and seemed to have pulled it off in making a fun little film.
The highlight of the movie for me was this exchange between Elmer, Luke and Sue. It was pretty funny if a bit familiar.
Some language not safe for work.
If you have ever seen or read A Boy and his Dog then Undead or Alive won't hold many surprises for you but this premise could actually be a nice direct-to-DVD franchise for the lead characters.
This image of the looming Specter of Death of the unfortunately stylized art on this San Diego church sign must really help in filling the seats.
Lay some green in that collection plate or get a visit from the grim reaper, folks!
Monday, January 14, 2008
Sunday, January 13, 2008
On occasion advertising, even those generated from large agencies, will contain an error or two in their presentation. A minor failure in proofreading, clarity or sheer carelessness will sometimes allow a conceptual goof to slip by the watchful eyes of the editors and creative staff. When that happens the results can be dumbfounding, unintentionally hilarious or insulting and offensive.
What usually occurs is careful and well-considered art and copy specifically designed to attract attention both consciously and unconsciously. These artfully crafted messages that could be construed as an innocent coincidence usually rely upon promoting a product through sex or sexual situations. Take for example this plug for Disneyland & California Adventure theme parks "2 Fer" gift card promotion. It features a little kid straining to pull a sword out of an anvil. Or he's showing Dad just who the man in the family really is.
The horses in the background are a nice touch, also. I don't recall a carousel being at at either park but I admit it has been a few years since I've visited them.
There are no mistakes in advertising.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
The ad is made inexcusable even in 1897 by going further than the using a simple caricature representing an ethnic group to pitch a product. No one in editorial, marketing or the art department understood that showing forcibly displaced refugee Native Americans wandering about the Reservation, wearing their government-issue blanket, passing graffiti depicting a happy Indian drunk on cleanliness and firewater was demeaning and offensive? I don't buy that at all. It almost looks like a book illustration adapted for advertising use.
As horrible as the advertisement is the mind-set behind it yet exists and still permeates modern advertising. Different groups are targeted but race and culture and a "not us" mentality are still used to sell products with little change, except now humor is used to replace Manifest Destiny. This allows companies to distance their product from the ad or claim their focus group thought the spots were relevant to their experience just in case anyone notices. It would only take a little updating for the Sapolio advertisement to be relevant to today's political and cultural climate and therefore be perfectly acceptable to Southerners and Republicans.
The right kind of cleansing would bring them heathens next to the right God. Maybe end the war if they would just quit acting all stone age and maybe bathe once in a while. Except, we all know what would really bring about a quick end to the comflict, don't we?
Maybe using a more fashionable group will work.
Now that's an easy stereotype to attack. The creative and imaginative are always a great target to belittle and make me feel superior. Too be honest though, all the cons I went to it wasn't the fans that were unwashed and smelly. One certain comic creator smelled so bad I wasn't able to complete a sale of an old Ditko Spider-Man comic to him and had to leave the area.
Show the apes some love...
Too much monochrome. This place needs a dash of color.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Sunday, January 06, 2008
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
In 1964 in the UK, Hayley Mills appeared with some long-forgotten minor celebs on the variety television program A Night of 100 Stars.
Decades after her appearance and only her star still brightly shines and it blazes mightily in spite of that one attention-desperate skank to her right hiking up her costume skirt up to expose some copious flank for the camera.
Your sad attempts at longevity failed to withstand the test of time, you hussy. Hayley + Talent = Win.