Surprisingly enough, they get it all wrong.

No doubt due to the controversy stirred up by Kevin McCollough, who’s since apologized for misrepresenting the game and gamers, Fox News decided to tackle the issue of sexuality and Mass Effect.

Games journalist Geoff Keighley does an admirable job of trying to set the liars straight, but he’s outnumbered. One “expert” suggests that the game desensitizes the player to sexuality (without mentioning that the sexual content is PG-13 levels at the most), and a member of the “panel” asks why the game wasn’t rated Adults Only (again, PG-13…).

Of course, the host admits that she only recently bought a video game for the first time, and another says she feels old, wondering where the Atari went.

And they’re telling viewers what to think about video games. They’ve all made idiots out of themselves, being willfully ignorant and spreading what’s tantamount to lies.

The whole issue would be hilarious if people didn’t actually watch, and believe, Fox News. Instead, it’s really, really frustrating, and more than a little scary.

Update:
Joystiq reminds me that the “expert” actually laughs when Geoff asks her if she’s ever played Mass Effect. Then she says no.

As the line between creator and audience becomes more and more muddled, that is to say, cooperative and indistinct, is there some singularity out there where creator and consumer become indistinguishable from one another?

What would that look like?

Or is the participatory culture a fad? Is the much-heralded “conversation” a real thing, or merely an extension of normal human communication?

But, of course, how does one define “normal human” in any scenario, let alone one of language, something hardly definable as it is?

Anyway, just a question posed to the aether, I guess. I’ve been able to find little discussion on this subject — real, contemplative consideration of where this is going, that is.

A thought: If I’m writing this post, now, with the intent of conversation, and the assumption of readership–and I wouldn’t write it in absence of these–are you not just as necessary a part of this discussion as I am? So even in this incredibly “traditional” sense, where is the line between creator and consumer, if we’re both seemingly equal participants?

Maybe I just need to sleep more.

What is wrong with these people? It’s like they insist on making everything as terrible as possible.

Because a rootkit wasn’t bad enough. Because admitting DRM is a bad idea by telling people how simple it is to get around wasn’t bad enough.

Well, now that they’ve finally decided to drop DRM, here’s how they plan to implement it:

“DRM free music from Sony BMG will be available from January 15 to those who purchase a plastic card called the “Platinum Music Pass” for the album they want from a retail store for $12.99. Buyers will then have to visit MusicPass.com and enter a code to download the DRM free album they selected in the store.”

You have to go to the store, by a piece of plastic, go back home, and then download the songs DRM-free.

Wow. I hope lots of people get fired for this.

TechCrunch suggests that maybe they’re setting this up to fail, so that they can claim there was no demand for DRM-free and go back to selling DRMemd music.

Me? I think they’re just idiots.

Link.

Photo credit: swanksalot on Flickr, used under license. 

Sony has a solution for iPod users who’ve cashed in their Sony Rewards points for DRMed WMA-format music: Just circumvent their DRM.

And they even tell you how. Of course it’s the old ‘burn it to a CD, then rip CD’ trick, but still, helpful!

Sony is, of course, the last major music publisher to still insist on DRM, but at least they understand that it’s useless, easily circumvented, and annoying.

“Attention iPod users:

Our download service provides files in the WMA music format or the WMV video format, which is not supported by Apple Macintosh computers. To use your music with an iPod, simply follow the steps below:

1. Save each downloaded song to your PC
2. Burn a music CD (in CDA file format)
3. Import the music from the CD into iTunes
4. Update your iPod”

Ars Technica story.

via Michael Geist

To the point, even, that I don’t want my mp3s to think I don’t like them.

Yeah.

I’ve noticed a really odd thing that I’ve been doing for some time that I don’t quite understand. It seems that instead of skipping to the next song in Amarok when it’s near its end, I’ll restore the window and drag the time slider to the end of the song. This is because I’m worried that skipping the song will affect its rating/score, and I don’t want to do that if I like the song.

I even have a few “sacrificial” songs in my playlist. When I want to skip to an album way down on the list, I’ll place the song to be sacrificed below the current track, drag the slider to the end, and then once it’s playing the sacrificial song I can safely skip to the song I’d wanted. Because I don’t care if the sacrificial song gets a bad rating.

Read the rest of this entry »

Canada’s planned changes to copyright law will include lots of rules that will make it the worst, most restrictive in the developed world, according to Cory on BoingBoing:

If this law passes, it will render all of the made-in-Canada exceptions to copyright for education, archiving, free speech and personal use will be irrelevant: if a technology has a lock that prohibits a use, your right to make that use falls by the wayside. Nevermind that you’ve got the right to record a show to watch later — or to record a politician’s speech so you can hold him to account later — the policeman in the device can take that right away with no appeal.

via Michael Geist

Howard Knopf’s article in The Hill Times outlines what proposed changes to Canada’s copyright law will do to Canadians (screw them over), and why, despite Canada already having stronger copyright law than America, it’s going to happen.

This is happening mostly because of a lot of spin and propaganda from the U.S. Ambassador to Canada, David Wilkins, as well as the considerable efforts of Canadian lobbyists such as Graham Henderson, president of the Canadian Recording Industry Association, which is the Canadian arm of the RIAA. Important Canadian “indies” such as Nettwerk have left CRIA, and disagree with its desire to sue fans and families. Nettwerk is a leading label that produces the Barenaked Ladies, Avril Lavigne, and Sarah McLachlan.

The ambassador was quoted by Deirdre McMurdy on Nov. 16 in The Ottawa Citizen as saying that Canada is known for having the weakest copyright protection in the G8.” That is not only ridiculous. It is false and misleading.

First, the G8 includes Russia. Enough said.

Michael Geist warns that a new Canadian copyright bill is only a few weeks away.

I, for one, hope it’s in the form of a DMCA-style law. I’ve just been feeling a touch too free lately, you know?

According to the Ottawa Citizen article Geist references, U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins says that “no one expects the law to be identical [to America's], but hopefully it will be compatible.”

“That means that Canada would have to meet the three criticisms of its current copyright law put forward by the U.S. Trade Representative earlier this year in its Special 301 report, which includes implementing an international treaty signed in 1997 (WIPO), as well as incorporating some of the elements of the U.S. Digital Millenium Copyright Act.”

This is bad, because, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation:

“[T]he DMCA and DRM have done nothing to stop “Internet piracy.” Yet the DMCA has become a serious threat that jeopardizes fair use, impedes competition and innovation, chills free expression and scientific research, and interferes with computer intrusion laws. If you circumvent DRM locks for noninfringing fair uses or create the tools to do so, you might be on the receiving end of a lawsuit.”

In practice, this means that I will not be allowed under law to play DVDs on my computer. Seriously. As I’m running the Linux operating system, I need to break the (albeit weak) encryption on the discs to allow for playback. But this violates the DMCA. I have no intention of pirating (Arrr) the content, nor even sharing it, I merely mean to view the content I purchased. But the DMCA does not even allow for this simple, innocent use.

Chilling, indeed. But, then again, it’s often quite cold up here. I suppose we’ll just get used to it…

Marvel is offering its archives online for $9.99/month, or $58.99 a year.

Sounds great, doesn’t it?

Well…

“Marvel Digital Comics Unlimited products will be viewable only in a Web browser and not downloadable.”

Well, that’s a drag. But at least I can check out the comics I plan to purchase online first, and then go pick them up at my local comic shop so I’ll have a hard copy, right?

“Additional content will not include new comics until six months after their print publication.”

Oh. So, why would I use this service?

“The move comes after years of discussion amongst fans and professionals about an intuitive and legal alternative to downloading pirated comics.”

So it offers less than the pirated comics do (apparently it requires some sort of “reader,” and doesn’t let you store a hard copy), except it charges money for it, and it’s out of date. Sweet, I’ll take two.

Read the rest of this entry »