No not for more internet money. For more internet.
I am getting really sick of being blocked out of videos. And internet radio. But more so internet videos. I'm not even allowed to go to Comedycentral.com, because I might accidently view the Daily Show for free. Because I totally can't do that otherwise on CTV. Now I have to go to the crappy Comedy Network site, which will let me "watch full episodes", if I don't mind getting cut off every 10 seconds for them to buffer. I also deeply miss Pandora Internet radio, which is apparently banned in Canada. I can only assume that this is because it's a bad thing for me to get introduced to bands like Broken Social Scene.
I would complain, but seriously... on whose authority were these bans put in place? Nobody owns the internet. Well, except Google. It's probably Google's fault.
I suppose if I can't get more internet, I'll settle for a gift certificates to Bennigans.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I'm guessing it's a licensing issue if the Comedy Network website is hosting them. And the Comedy Network has to bribe Bell to un-throttle their inter-tubes, hence the slowness.
With internet radio it's a similar thing - they struck a deal with U.S. record labels and had to restrict international access and screw over unAmerican music fans. It's capitalism!
Ironically all the licensing BS just means it's easier to illegally download it. Not that I condone media piracy, because it's destroying huge corporations. So... act accordingly.
hehe.. I just found a paper that explains the current controversies over intellectual property rights in Harry Potter terms.. :-P
Harry Potter and the (Re)Order of the Artists: Are We Muggles or Goblins?
Abstract:
In "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," author J.K. Rowling attributes to goblins a very interesting view of ownership rights in artistic works. According to Rowling, goblins believe that the maker of an artistic object maintain an ongoing ownership interest in that object even after it is sold, and is entitled to get it back when the purchaser dies. While this view may strike some as rather odd when it is applied to tangible property in the 'muggle' world, it actually has some very interesting parallels to the legal treatment of intangible property, particularly in the areas of intellectual property and moral rights. Because of the way these parallels have been developing and growing, we seem to be becoming more goblinish in our willingness to recognize ongoing rights in artistic objects, including allowing the artist to collect a commission on subsequent resale of the work. Practical and social considerations suggest that we are unlikely to go as far as recognizing a permanent personal right in the creator that lets him or her reclaim such an object after a sale or other transfer is made. However, we are moving closer to recognizing some forms of the collective right that the goblins actually seem to demand, a cultural moral right in important cultural objects that enables the descendants of that culture as a group to demand the return of the object. Thus, we muggles may not be as far from the goblins as we may have at first believed.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1022214
B-)
WELL...
It is a really interesting idea. Especially given that Rowling is currently in a battle over intellectual property rights for the series.
It is worth noting that the only Goblin-made objects discussed in the book are a Tiara and a Sword. Little information is given about the tiara, but the Sword (The Sword of Gryffindor specifically) has some history attached to it.
It was made for Godric Gryffindor, by Raguk the 1st "over a thousand years ago", according to Potter canon. So from the point of view of artistic copyright it has been 70+ years since the death of the "artist" and therefore public domain, by British law.
Also worth noting, Goblin silver imbides that which strengthens it. In a sense it's properties are altered by what it comes in contact with... for instance, if a sword made of goblin silver were to stab a giant Basilisk, it would then become impregnated with Basilisk venom. Such an event would ultimately change the nature of the sword, giving it new (and possibly very important plot-related) abilities. Thus it is altered significantly, and theoretically would qualify under terms of fair use.
Now I took the Goblin notion of ownership to be a commentary on how tension develops between cultures when two different groups of people have two different sets of morals with regards to things such as property (everywhere from Caledonia to the Middle East), rather than a direct allusion to current intellectual ownership and copyright policy/controvercy.
The idea that the Goblins view the sword of Gryffindor as their own, and the Wizards as their own, is an issue of two different value systems in conflict. Neither is right or wrong, they are just different and difficult to reconcile, even by three very well meaning young wizards.
Almost makes you want to read the books, so that you could argue with me eh? ;)
Maybe I'll just buy the illegal 'Harry Potter Lexicon' :-P
Post a Comment