Friday, November 18, 2005

Oh, the irony: Sony, busted again

There's been a lot in the news lately about a certain copyright-protection technology that Sony put on compact discs that they sold--the problem is that these CDs installed a "rootkit" onto Windows PCs that resulted in a substantial security risk. Sony got roundly (and rightly) flamed for this, and finally decided to recall the discs.

But now, it turns out, this copy-protection scheme is itself in violation of someone else's copyright. Is this the very height of irony, or what?
Sony's DRM woes expand to include copyright infringement

If Sony BMG was hoping that the controversy surrounding its copy-protected CDs was going to die away, it was reckoning without infamous hacker Jon Lech Johansen, better known as DVD Jon.

It seems that the XCP software from UK company First4Internet that Sony had been using to prevent unauthorised copying of its music CDs, until it agreed to recall some 4.7 million discs, contains code 'infringing the copyright of several open source projects', Johansen notes in his blog. This includes code that he himself wrote for VLC, a free cross-platform media player.

The code was uncovered by Finnish software developer Matti Nikki, who also discovered other copyright violations.

'Multiple software components on the CD have references to the LAME open source MP3 code,' he wrote in an email. His findings have been substantiated by others.

'We can confirm that at least five functions in the XCP software are identical to functions in LAME,' Thomas Dullien from Sabre Security, a company that specialises in the analysis of complex software, told Reuters.

Although open source software can be freely used, it must be credited as such. No mention of it was made in the XCP code.

Code in the LAME application is licensed under the lessser GNU General Public Licence (LGPL) that, while not as ascetic as the GPL, still places obligations on the use of that code. This includes terms such as 'You must cause the whole of the work to be licensed at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License'. [...]
Can you say "Oops!"

Don't DVDs already have enough extraneous crap on them?

State attorneys general want smoking warning on DVDs

LOS ANGELES - Kids, don't try this at home.

With a new study showing that exposure to on-screen smoking prompts many American adolescents to light up, state prosecutors from across the country want Hollywood to slap anti-smoking admonitions on all new DVDs.

Attorneys general from 32 states signed a letter sent this week to 10 movie studios asking executives to add anti-smoking public service announcements to all home-viewing releases that depict smoking.

"We're urging (studios) to do more," said Maryland Attorney General J. Joseph Curran Jr., author of the letter.

"The industry's leaders are responsible Americans," he said, "and I'm sure they're just as concerned about the health of their children as the doctors are."

The attorneys general suggest that studios include a public service announcement with all upcoming DVDs. A spot has already been developed by several organizations for theatrical use beginning in January.

Kori Bernards, spokeswoman for the Motion Picture Association of America. said studios will consider the request individually.

"There's no collective decision at this point," she said, pointing out that MPAA ratings already indicate whether a movie depicts underage smoking.

Researchers at Dartmouth Medical School concluded that exposure to smoking in movies is a "primary risk factor" in determining whether kids will take up the habit.

The study, released Nov. 7, looked at 6,522 adolescents and found that 38 of every 100 who tried smoking did so because of their exposure to smoking in movies.

The more on-screen smoking that kids see, the more likely they are to light up, the study found, regardless of where they live or whether their parents or peers smoke.

"No child is immune to the influence of smoking in movies," study author Dr. James Sargent said in a statement....
Okay, so there's a correlation. However, there is one blatantly obvious question that nobody seems to be asking here: Do these "public service" announcements actually do any good? Young people know full well when they are being manipulated. There seems to be an assumption here that, just because young people appear to be influenced by behaviors they see on a DVD, that they will also be influenced by some preachy faux-cool PSA that they're forced to watch at the beginning of the disk (I'd bet money that most of the studios who decide to go ahead with this will make the announcements unskippable, as if that will make them more compelling--kind of like those unskippable bold-faced FBI copyright warnings that have done absolutely no good in cutting down on piracy). Of course, what is also being forgetten is that a great many people who watch these discs are adults who don't smoke and who don't give a flying fuck. Seriously, why should I care if a teenager does something stupid? Is it my problem? Hardly.

Perhaps a better solution would be to just slap an "R" rating on any movie that depicts smoking of any kind. Then the other part of that would be to actually get parents to use the parental lockout feature that the law requires to be included on every DVD player sold in the United States. Remember that? This is the feature that everyone whined and cried for back when Bill Clinton was President, and which everyone then proceeded to ignore, just so they could whine and cry again about those evil movie studios marketing R-rated movies to kids--which turned into Joe Lieberman's pet issue in the 2000 election. Probably the solution would be to have the lockout feature activated by default on any new DVD player. That way, people who did not want to use it would have to turn it off. That is a sacrifice with which I could easily live, and which is much preferable (for everyone) to having to watch some stupid-assed, condescending announcement at the beginning of every disc.

No, I think what is the real solution to this problem is to investigate the real reasons kids choose to smoke, and to do something about them. There isn't a single person in this country who isn't well aware that smoking is dangerous, and yet many people continue to choose to begin smoking. Why do they do that? Do these attorneys general seriously expect people to believe that kids make a conscious decision to start smoking just because they see it in a movie? Or is it more that the movie provides validation for a decision they were already considering? The key question there is, why were they even considering it in the first place?

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

A gender-neutral courtesy title is needed for English

Just a thought as I slave away at the daily grindstone--it's high time that the English language had a gender-neutral courtesy title.

What is a courtesy title, you might ask? Examples: Mr., Mrs., Ms., Miss, Dr. Used in business letters, such as, "Dear Dr. Smythe," or "Dear Ms. Hibsch."

The problem is that many people are of indeterminite sex. Someone named "Robin" or "Leslie" or "Pat" (or people from cultures where the names themselves are gender neutral, such as China)...if you aren't familiar in advance with what sex the person is, what do you do? Waste precious time trying to find out? Or simply go with "Dear Robin"? Which, in many cases, is not really appropriate. I've been known to just pick "Mr." or "Ms." randomly and hope for the best, but that's hardly a good solution. It's all a crock, and there is no real reason for keeping it this way other than that's the way it's always been done.

It would be far simpler, and would save a lot of time, to have a generic, all-purpose courtesy title available. It makes sense. The question is, what would it be?

The only time I have ever come across an idea in this regard was in a science fiction novel I read a long time ago, "Brightness Falls From the Air", by a woman using the pseudonym "James Tiptree, Jr." Her solution was "Myr" for the singular, and "Myrren" for plural. It sounds weird, but that's going to be true for any new language idea. Remember when using "bad" to mean "good" felt really bizarre? (Or choose your own example, based on whatever age and ethnic group you are in.)

Or else we could just start calling everyone "Dr."

Actually, that sort of leads to an interesting idea--rather than having the title refer to sex and marital status, have it refer to the person's professional status (which we are all totally obsessed with anyway). So anyone with a doctorate in anything would be "Dr." as now, but people with bachelor's degrees would be "Bch." Well, okay....maybe not. ;)

Saturday, November 12, 2005

Mastectomy Bill/Petition

I received an e-mail from a relative of mine. I'll cut out the personal part and just post the generic, chain-letter part:
> > Mastectomy Bill in Congress
> > It takes 2 seconds to do this and is very important ..
> > please
> > take the time and do it really quick!
> > Breast Cancer Hospitalization Bill - Important
> > legislation for
> > all women.
> > Please send this to everyone in your address book. If
> > there
> > was ever a time when our voices and choices should be
> > heard, this is one of
> > those times. If you are receiving this it's because I
> > think you will take the 30
> > seconds to go and vote on this issue and send it on to
> > others you know who
> > will do the same.
> > There's a bill called the Breast Cancer Patient
> > Protection Act
> > which will require insurance companies to cover a
> > minimum 48-hour
> > hospital stay for patients undergoing a mastectomy.
> > It's about eliminating the
> > "drive-through mastectomy" where women are forced to
> > go home hours after
> > surgery against the wishes of their doctor, still
> > groggy from anesthesia and sometimes with
> > drainage tubes still attached.
> > Lifetime Television has put this bill on their web
> > page with a
> > petition drive to show your support. Last year over
> > half the House signed on.
> > PLEASE!
> > Sign the petition by clicking on the web site below.
> > You need
> > not give more than your name and zip code number.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.lifetimetv.com/health/breast_mastectomy_pledge.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > This takes about 2 seconds. PLEASE PASS THIS ON to
> > your
> > friends and family. THANKS

I'd be inclined to support a bill like this that was more generalized--there are, in my opinion, way too many procedures that are classified as "outpatient" these days. These are especially problematic for people who live by themselves, without a spouse or SO to help take care of them. Several years ago, in fact, I had a small cyst removed from my back, but the wound was large enough to require stitches. It was difficult keeping the wound clean without any help (not to mention how annoying it was when the nurse glibly instructed me to "have your significant other help you wash this every day"). Imagine how awful it must be for people who have had procedures that can actually be called "surgery."

I hesitate to support a bill that singles out a particular type of operation like this. The question is, would this legislation, if passed, act as a chink in the armor of the healthcare cartel, or would it generate a response on the part of HMOs that would make further legislation even more difficult to pass? And what happens if it gains significant support in Congress but Dubya vetos it? Given how any action at all tends to result in a negative response on the part of the healthcare industry (they can always be counted on to carefully guard their interests), I am not inclined to support the petition. I really hate saying "no" to something like this, but I think it's pretty clear a lot more is needed than just this one thing. I am also uncomfortable that this focuses on just one sex. Access to decent healthcare is not a women's issue. It's an everyone issue.

However, I will hotlink the address above, in case anyone else who happens to read this might be interested in offering their support to it.

Thursday, November 10, 2005

Pat Robertson: Proof that intelligent design is bullshit

Recently, voters in Dover, Pennsylvania were intelligent enough to vote out of office members of their school board who had wanted "intelligent design" to be taught in high school biology classes alongside evolution.

Pat Robertson seems to be taking exception to this:

Pat Robertson: Intelligent design rejection was a vote against God

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. The Reverend Pat Robertson says Pennsylvanians who voted members of the Dover Area school board out of office for supporting "intelligent design" rejected God as well.

[snip]

On today's broadcast of "The 700 Club," Robertson told Dover residents, "If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God." The founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network explained, "You just voted God out of your city." [snip]
The fact that morons like Robertson are actually members of our species is pretty conclusive proof that there is nothing especially "intelligent" about our design. I also have to wonder how many of these ID advocates have ever suffered from a tubal pregnancy. Or a kidney stone. Or a hernia. Or an inflamed prostate gland. Or chronic lower back problems. Need I say more?

Props to Chicklet on Drive We Said forums for the link.