No DRM = Less Piracy?

Yeah, I knew this too (see my previous post). Apparently, a recent study shows that abandoning DRM would actually reduce digital piracy because legal customers would no longer be driven to other means in order to avoid being harassed. Shocking. . .

While I have a hard time understanding how anyone could not see this as common sense, I can believe that the sociopaths and other power freaks that run business might not.

Canada to Support Evil

I knew this was going to happen. . . but I wanted the 'tough on crime' Bill and the eradication of the long gun registry. . .

The specific evil to which I refer in the title of this post is the provision in Bill C-32 that makes it illegal to break DRM even for personal use of media that you paid for.

Let's be clear here: DRM is evil! It is the equivalent of selling a house that only one person can live in, no one can visit, the key may or may not open the front door even if the newest version of key has been provided, ownership can be revoked at any moment at the whim of the vendor, yet it cannot be resold when the 'owner' needs to move to a new city and it cannot be jacked up and trucked to the new property.

The most annoying aspect of this is that DRM serves no purpose unless law-abiding customer annoyance is the purpose. Pirates tear through DRM like tissue paper. Sometimes, the new encryption is broken before it even hits the market.

In fact, it can be argued that digital piracy exists, in part, because of DRM. This is due to the annoyance factor. Personally I have been stung with a number of Blu-rays that simply won't load despite installation of the latest firmware. Worse yet, the new firmware broke compatibilty with some of my Blu-rays that previously would load.

And I know I'm not the only one being inconvenienced by DRM. In fact, I would wager that the only people being inconvenienced by DRM are legal consumers. I've read many testimonials on the internet from those who have purchased a game that, due to draconian DRM (worthy of its own post), was unplayable so they downloaded a cracked copy. I've also read about people ripping DVD's just so that they don't have to watch the anti-piracy ad every time they want to watch a movie.

Just to highlight some of the lunacy this Bill represents, here are a few quotes from the article listed above:

"Bill C-32 would make it legal for consumers to make a back-up copy of content to protect against loss or damage."

Then later:

"Under the law, Canadians will not be allowed to break digital locks, even if it's for personal use. This includes picking a lock on a DVD purchased overseas to watch at home or to transfer a purchased e-book to read on another personal device."

How does it even make sense to say that you can make backups for personal use, yet you can not bypass the DRM to do so?

Useless.

Meanwhile there is still no word about removal of the 29 cent levy on blank CD's, which is supposed to compensate musical artists for piracy (and tacitly making said piracy legal) or how this will affect the Mountie's stance regarding file-sharers.

And hey, what is a conservative government doing meddling in the affairs of business anyway?

Harper! Laissez-nous faire!

P.s. Tivo and other PVRs were illegal? What was Futureshop really selling in all those boxes then?

"The law will legalize everyday consumer practices, such as using a personal video recorder to record a TV show for later viewing or copying music from a purchased CD to an MP3 player. These are not allowed under the current law."

Total Recalled

How come I never hear about things until well after the fact?

For those who didn't click the link above (and probably some who did) let me elucidate: They are remaking Total Recall!

Why they are doing this is not really a secret. In short, fewer people are paying $13.00 a ticket to watch movies in room full of inconsiderate people, fewer people are buying Low-Def DVDs to watch on their High-Def TVs, and even fewer people are buying overpriced DRM protected locked BDs (Can anyone say "Netflix"?).

So Hollywood is turtling into the realm of 'Safe' movies (i.e. remakes, low budget productions, etc.). And what could be safer than remaking a successful movie. And that's not all, it's one of the most successful of the many adaptations of Philip K. Dick's writings. For the record, these other adaptations are Blade Runner (1982), Screamers (1995), Total Recall 2070 (1999 TV Series), Imposter (2002), Minority report (2002), Paycheck (2003), A Scanner Darkly (2006), and The Adjustment Bureau (2011). Also in the works are a Blade Runner Sequel and a Prequel.

Will I go see it? That is question that I can't answer yet.

Interestingly, it seems that Colin Farrell didn't get enough of a taste of (P. K.) Dick. Previously he played a fatally naive detective on Minority Report, opposite Tom Cruise. I just don't know how successful they will be replacing an Austrian Oak with an Irish Twig.

Be sure to check out the picture of the flying car prop over on the Wikipedia page.

P.s. Somebody please pick up the Lone Ranger project! So typical to cut a potentially good film when the crappy one you just made bombs at the box office

Oldie, But Far From Classic

Book Review - Whipping Star by Frank Herbert

Every so often I manage to attend the yearly book sale at my local library. Last year I just happened to notice the sign while driving by. . .

Fifty cents (CDN) for a hardcover is a very good price, assuming you can find something you like.

One of the books from my haul last year was Whipping Star by Frank Herbert. Now I admit that the last thing I read by Mr. Herbert was Dune. And that was over a decade ago. What I remember is that the book was kinda obtuse and overly dense. Of course, I was seventeen at the time that I read that tome.

Despite my first impression of Herbert's writing, I bought this novel.

Or perhaps novelette would be a more apt description. The first thing I noticed when I picked up the book was that it was quite thin. Opening the book revealed rather large font. Font almost large enough for the elderly to read.

That being said, it felt kind of refreshing to read a story that wasn't plumped up 500% like many books being written today.

Synopsis

The Empire was built on a gift from a mysterious alien race, a gift that allows instantaneous transport to any place in the universe. Now the last member of the alien race is being slowly tortured to death by a madwoman and it soon becomes clear that once the alien dies anyone who has ever transported will wink out of existence. . . and no-one is known to have not transported.

Verdict

My first impression of the writing was that it was amateurish. While reading those first few pages I surmised that this must be one of Herbert's early works. So I looked up some dates on the internet to confirm this idea, but alas, I was wrong. 1945 appears to be when his first short story was published. 1963 was when Dune appeared. 1970 is when the book form of whipping star was published (apparently a shorter version was published in Worlds of If Science Fiction the year before). I think it's safe to assume that Whipping Star was written to keep Herbert's pot of water boiling.

One thing that intrigued me was Herbert's invention called the Bureau of Sabotage, although it was not fully developed in this short work. In fact it mostly came across as just another government agency.

Herbert also created some cool alien names in this book which mostly offset the negative aspects of the Law of Alien Names. Despite this, the names match up to some pretty average aliens. That's not to say that there isn't some experimentation, especially with the eponymous race (what you couldn't figure that one out from the title?). At least, should a movie ever be made from this story, the aliens couldn't all be played by people with rubber masks.

The main character reads very much like an ethnologist from the 1960's. I picture him as a burly man wearing flannel, arrogant and full of bluster (pretty much exactly like this guy). His ethos is characterized by an oblivious humano-centrism, much as real ethnologists from the mid twentieth century were ignorant of their Euro-centrism. Central to this attitude is also the belief that everything can be understood (usually with only casual observation). Typical of literature from this period, this attitude is always correct and successful.

One last thing - I don't normally condone vandalising library books, but. . .



Rating: **.5/5

Hanna (2011)

Okay, not SF. Maybe fantasy if you take that word at its base meaning.

Whatever, I'm going to review Hanna anyway.

This could have been a good movie. At times it actually is a great movie. However, bad pacing and plot holes bring this one down.

Unfortunately for a 'thriller', this one starts out slow, without a hook, and continues in this rut for far too long. On its own, the opener wouldn't be such a bad movie. One I might not watch, but not bad. Does it fit where it is? Not so much.

Then the narrative finally switches and it seems that we get the movie that was advertised.

But the action is short lived. We then get a fish out of water story not unlike the movie Nell. Oh, there's also a bit of a lesbian romance.

Eventually the bad guys catch up with Hanna and there is a brief flash of excitement. Hanna totally outclasses these thugs, yet she opts to jump in the river rather than finish the bad guys off and rescue the family that has been helping her. The movie dishonestly leaves the fate of the family off camera. However, everyone else that encounters the bad guys meet gruesome ends and it is unlikely that the family would have escaped a similar end.

From here it's all downhill. The only gun seen (and used) belongs to the main antagonist which works quite well for her until Hanna remembers how to use it.

Ultimately this movie revels in a bleak, masochistic view of the world and offers little entertainment in return. I recommend last year's Kick-Ass over this movie.

Rating: **/5

Cyberpunk lives!

Guess I'm going to have to re-read Neuromancer soon. . .

I remember when I first heard about Cube. Like so many movies, the trailer was better than the feature. But It did prompt me to watch each of its sequels. (for a really good Canadian film check out Foolproof)

I haven't seen Splice yet. It really doesn't look like my thing.

At any rate, I think Natali is probably the right man for the job.

Blu-ray Sucks!

I'm sick and tired of Blu-ray DRM. More specifically, I'm tired of buying movies and having to wait upwards of a month to watch it because the latest firmware for my player isn't out yet. I'm tired of disc load times that creep ever upward. I'm tired of disc failures due to damaged DRM tracks. I'm sick because I payed for this headache. And I'm sick because I also payed for an expensive Blu-ray drive for my computer that requires an even more expensive piece of software that still won't play my movies!

The insanity of it all is that there is absolutely no reason to keep changing the encryption every time a new movie comes out. Let me be absolutely clear on this point: DRM does not stop pirates! What it does manage to do, and do quite well I might add, is piss of those of us that insist on giving our money to these jokers.

Now why is it that everyone seems to be joining Netflix?