I'm not a Bad Guy any more!

First published here.


Oh joy! Oh happy day! I'm not going to be a bad guy anymore.

Right now, I'm a hardened, cold-blooded criminal. I routinely commit acts that make me eligable for the same amount of jail time as somone who tortures small puppies. What goes on in this devious mind of mine? What makes me tick? What drives me to commit these heinous crimes?

I own a VCR with a functioning Record button.

In Australia, we don't have "fair use" laws. Anyone in the the fair old land of Oz who's ever popped in a tape to record The Simpsons or ripped a CD or downloaded just about anything from the p2p networks is a pirate.

See, our current copyright laws date back to 1968. To be fair, there's been a little tinkering with them over the past few years, but at no time has our government thought Australians should have the right to copy stuff for our own private use. We landed some great "fair dealing" exceptions (in 1980) which, for example, make it legal to perform a copyrighted work at home, but they but contain nothing that actually allows you to copy it in the first place, (e.g., you can invite a few mates over to watch a rented video, but not one that you've taped off the TV yourself).

Even the Issues Paper put out by the federal government in May last year acknowledges, "some consumers may believe that they can make a copy of an item that they have purchased containing copyright material, provided they do not sell the copy. On the other hand, some copyright notices placed on copyright material appear to claim that any copying is unlawful. Neither position is accurate."

In the words of one of the Australian Copyright Council's publications (imaginitively entitled "Information Sheet G79"):

"In a recent case, the Federal Court stated that whether a dealing is fair or not is to be judged by the criterion of a fair minded and honest person".

Courts will look both at whether an objective viewer would consider that:

• the person is genuinely using the material for one of the purposes set out in the Act; and
• their use of it is fair in that context.
  

Factors that may be taken into account in working out whether a use is "fair" include whether the person using the material is doing so for commercial purposes, and whether the copyright owner is out of pocket from the use (for example, where a person copies the whole of a work that is available for sale). However, the mere fact that the person using the material is not making a profit does not make it fair."

You'll note a fundamental flaw in the logic of the last paragraph, but it's coming from a copyright holder's back-patting club, so you should be used to reading that kind of trash by now.

Luckily, our fearless attorney-general Philip Ruddock is now looking to make some serious changes to Australian copyright laws. "We should have copyright laws that are more targeted at the real problem," he said late last month as thousands of Aussies were busily becoming criminals thanks to the new iPods they'd received for Christmas. "We should not treat everyday Australians who want to use technology to enjoy copyright material they have obtained legally as infringers where this does not cause harm to our copyright industries."

Wow! That's so cool it almost makes you forget about the national ID card he's trying to foist on us, doesn't it?

Under the Australian system, "fair dealing" is very different from "fair use". Fair dealing means you're allowed to copy stuff only if the copying falls under one or more of the specific exceptions set out in the Copyright Act. Australians are only allowed to copy certain things in the specific ways that the government says are okay. This is a pretty bad system because it relies on the government actively working out what's okay to copy and thinking about that kind of thing on a regular basis. We all know that goverment is a slow-moving beast at the best of times, and sloth-like it it's normal state, which is how most Australians came to be copyright infringers in the first place.

In essence, the current system means copyright holders get a better legal position through government inaction in the same way that a loan shark won't hassle you for a while, but will one day kick down your door to demand payment right now. Australian copyright holders could simply wait until something becomes popular (like p2p), then throw a RIAA-style dummy spit and start litigating.

What's on the table now is a chance to get the whole system reversed - the government states generally what you're allowed to do and then leaves it up to the courts to decide if anything in the future should go on the list of no-nos.

I'm kind of aprehensive about this whole change. At this point, no one in Australia is being sued for downloading like they are in the U.S., so we could just leave everything the way it is and not have any immediate problems.

The downside to is that one day, someone in some kind of anti-terrorism squad will work out that a great way to get search warrants is to claim there's "probable cause" for someone to be a copyright criminal (like if they've bought a DVD burner on their credit card) and use it as a pretext to start kicking down doors all over the country.

Stranger things have happened and we have been lulled into a false sense of insecurity...

If we do get "fair use" laws though, there's also the danger that the Australian laws will someday be "harmonized" with US law, meaning the good people of Oz may be restricted from doing quite common things under something resembling the DMCA, which everyone else in the world currently uses to ridicule Americans for not keeping a hand on their governmental tiller.

(Note to anyone not familiar with the "harmonizing" of laws - In theory, this is when two countries agree to work under the same law for the purposes of making it easier to trade with each other. In practice, it means that the U.S. has worked out how to export their laws as well as their products, to other countries. Being in legal harmony with America basically means they get to decide what you're allowed to do until you elect a government with enough balls to tell them "thanks, but no thanks").

Copyright owners have an incentive to meet user expectations. That's not me speaking, that's the federal government's position via Attorney-General Ruddock, and while I'm tempted to say something sarcastic about that statement (like "No shit, Sherlock") I think I'll have to wait until I see how badly they bollocks it up before commenting further. Looking at the Australian government's past performance in this area, I might have to wait a while for that chance.

With that all said, I think I'll go revel in my criminal genius by watching something I taped off the TV last week.

DRM and Dead Musicians

First published here.

I was out shopping last weekend and I ran into the most pathetic excuse for a sales pitch I've heard in a long time.

Being a fan of old jazz, blues and the big band sounds of the 1930s and 40s, I'm one of those people with a huge collection of bargain bin CDs. P2P is great but sometimes I just can't be bothered searching for the old obscure stuff which, for some reason, seems to only be popular with people on very unreliable 56k connections.

Having 40 or 50 half completed mp3s in my download queue for months is a real pain, so every now and then I just go out and buy the cheap compilation CDs. I figure five bucks for 30 odd tracks is pretty good for the amount of time and effort I save (hmm...wonder what would happen to the pirate hoards if all CDs were $5?)

So I walked into the local record shop, heading for the Jazz/Big Band section where I found a CD with a nice mix of old sounds. I took the five dollars out of my wallet, looked at the CD case again and what did I see written in very small print on the back?

"This disc contains Copy Control technology. Problems may be enountered on some playback devices."

This was just stupid. All the musicians featured on the CD have been dead several decades, for a start. We're talking about the Count Basie, Duke Ellington, Glenn Miller kind of era, here. Normally, I refuse to buy any CD with DRM crapware, but I really wanted this one. Maybe I'd be lucky. Maybe it would play alright on my laptop.

I decided to ask the sales guy.

"Hey man, this says the CD might not play properly on some playback devices. What does that mean?" I asked him.

"Does it? Let me see", he looked at the small print, comfortingly entitled "WARNING". "Yeah that just means you can't copy it", was the answer.

"Yeah, but it says the CD might not play", I reminded him.

"Yeah, you might get that in car CD players", was the response.

"What about on a PC?"

"Yeah, you might get issues on a PC CD player too".

"Like what?"

"I don't know".

"Does it depend on the program I use to play it?"

"Yeah, maybe".

"Like, would I get problems on Windows Media Player".

"Maybe".

"Or WinAmp?"

"Dude, I don't know".

Now the situation was moving past stupid into the realms of ridiculous.

"Would it be related to the drive brand?", I asked. "Would a Teac DW-224E be okay?"

"Mate, I really don't know."

"Well, can I return it if it doesn't play on my laptop?"

"I don't think so. I'll have to check with the manager".

"Has nobody ever asked this before?'

"No. You're the first." He gave me a dirty look while saying that.

"Look mate", I said, (yes, we Aussies really do speak like that) "This CD has the little Compact Disc logo on it, so it should play in any CD player that also has the logo."

"Man, it's only $5. It's no big deal", was his reply.

Aha! The truth comes out. It doesn't have to be a good product. It doesn't even have to be a functioning product. Apparently, consumers (sorry, customers) are just going to keep handing over money for physical CDs, regardless of whether they can play the music contained on them and without thought for whatever software may be automatically installed on any device the DRM makers can get it to work on.

I have some suggestions for the retail sector on this:

1) To EMI ('cause it was their frickin' DRM) - Send out some kind of information pack to the poor schmuck behind the sales desk for when annoying customers (sorry, consumers) like me ask what the hell they're actually buying.

2) To the poor schmuck behind the sales desk - Don't be surprised if you get those kind of questions in the future. Not everyone is prepared to take a punt on whether the thing they fork out their cash for will actually work.

3) To the poor schmuck's manager - Get a "DRM returns" policy. CDs that can't be played on devices with the little Compact Disc logo aren't technically Compact Discs because they don't follow the Compact Disc standard (called the Red Book), so don't try to hock off those pieces of plastic on an unsuspecting public. Oh, and read up on some some basic consumer law (or should that be customer law?) because I'm pretty sure you'll find something about not being allowed to sell products that don't fit their marketed description. Selling non-CDs in a CD shop could put you in a sticky legal situation.

As you can imagine, I didn't end up buying the big band compilation CD, which was a pity. Luckily I had a stack of CDs and 8 gigabytes worth of old tunes at home to soothe my frustation.

But seriously now - is John Coltrane going to be pissed at me for downloading Blue Train? I'd hate to show disrespect for the dead.

Let's hear it for Porn!

First published here.

The first photograph ever was taken by Nicéphore Niépce. He'd been mucking around trying to invent a working camera and one day he got a decent shot of the view from his workroom window. It was pretty boring but encouraged by his success, Niépce dropped his pants, pointed the camera downwards and took the world's second photograph.*

God I love the adult industry. They're so with it!

If you ever needed proof that some people would never, ever buy the content they download from the p2p networks, just look at porn (as an example, although you can take that literally if you want - blame it all on me if someone catches you). Porn producers have always been at the forefront of advances in technology, often infulencing the technology itself and it's adoption by the general public.

Want to know how we ended up with VHS instead of Betamax VCRs?

The equipment for manufacturing stuff on Betamax was expensive. The VHS gear was cheap. Adult film producers didn't have the cash to spend on Sony's Betamax, so they put all their blue movies out on VHS. Guess what people did? They bought VHS players because there was more content available for that format...

...and VCRs were fantastic! It was no longer necessary to sit in a big dark room with dozens of other people wearing a raincoat with the inner pockets cut out - you could watch people getting it on in the privacy of your own home! All you had to do was make a quick dash into an adult video store, grab the video with the sexiest cover, pay your money while avoiding the checkout guy's gaze and run out onto the street again. Then someone decided you could skip that all together and get your porn posted to you, no face to face contact required!

"Woohoo!" said all the people embarrassed about being seen buying racy movies. "Woohoo!" said the pornographers as they pocketed enormous amounts of cash, (quickly followed by "hey, maybe we could spend a few extra bucks on the set next time...") Then the internet came along and helloooo new marketplace!

Sex is such a great analogy for recorded media: you can enjoy it by yourself, or with other people. Some people will pay for it, some people won't. For those that do pay, you can watch it live or watch it on a screen. You can get it free if you know where to go. You can buy lots of gadgets to make it more interesting.

And there's something out there for everyone.

The adult industry understood this all a long time ago, which is why you'll never see them jumping up and down about losing revenue from p2p. Can you imagine for a minute what would happen if the Free Speech Coalition (how's that for a cool sounding trade organization?) went around suing people for downloading? We's be seeing court cases like Fuck Me Films vs. Does 1-25.

If you thought being sued by a record company was bad, imagine having your name stuck on that public document! It would be bloody effective of course - millions of people really would stop downloading then, but at the same time none of them would be going out and buying their smut instead of downloading it - the only reason people are downloading Leather & Chains Lovin' Volume 9 is because they wouldn't be seen dead buying it in public.

Even in some parts of the western world, being caught with that kind of film would be cause for losing your job, moving house and perhaps changing your name as well.

People selling bootleg porn DVDs (ie, real pirates) actually do get busted for it, which is all right an proper but in general the adult film industry is pretty chilled about people copying for "private home viewing". Sure it would be nice for them if all the internet pornoholics started handing over their credit cards for some hot and horny hardcore action but they figure that if it ain't gonna happen, why try and force people? After all, there's way too much rootin', tootin' fun to be had just going to work every day to waste time complaining about some spotty teenager ripping them off.

Perhaps one day Hollywood will wake up and realize the porno makers are actually pulling in more money than they are, even with all their content flying freely across the net (Yes, sales and rentals of adult movies brought in more cash than the mainstream movie business did last year).

People didn't suddenly stop buying porn when the internet started getting popular - overall they bought more.

People also didn't stop buying regular content - overall, they bought more and they'll keep buying it too, provided it can be delivered to them in new and creative ways like the adult entertainment industry has been providing over the last few years.

As much as a lot of people hate to admit it, the adult entertainment industry has been a consistent leader in recorded media and has a huge impact on the shape of the world.

So, if you're wondering who'll win the Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD battle, find out what type of next-gen player Jenna Jamison is buying.

* I have absolutely no proof of this whatsoever.

Malum Prohibitum or Malum In Se?

First published here.


Not many people are aware of two of the most important legal concepts in the world. These ideas go all the way back to Roman times and have been the basis for categorizing criminal offences for centuries, so if you've ever wondered what the legal difference is between driving too fast and killing someone with a chainsaw, read on.

Malum Prohibitum

The literal translation is "wrong because prohibited". Basically, this means something is against the law because someone decided it should be. Think parking in a No Standing Zone or dumping a broken washing machine in the park and you're starting to get an idea of a malam prohibitum crime. There's nothing inherently immoral in doing something that's prohibited in this way, but we accept the principal that those laws are there because they help society function.

Malum In Se

Meaning "wrong in itself", an act classed as malum in se is universally accepted as Just Plain Wrong. Lying under oath, for instance isn't considered a nice thing to do anywhere in the world because when you say "I promise to tell the truth" you're entering into an agreement that you'll act in a certain way. You're giving something to people that defines who you are in a very real sense and they're give you something in return: you're giving them your word and they're giving you their trust. If that kind of primal "contract" is broken, it can never be put right. That's to say, if you dump a broken washing machine and someone catches you, it's possible to pick the washing machine up and take it away again with no harm done. If you lie to someone, the lie will always be there.

Conflicts arise when people don't agree on each other's definitions of these two types of crimes. Some would say dumping your garbage in the ocean is inherently wrong because it destroys the environment. Others would say infringing someone else's copyright is inherently wrong because it's taking something without paying for it.

Both of these acts are actually malum prohibitum crimes. People have been dumping stuff in the sea for centuries with no problems because all their junk used to be bio-degradable, like excrement or rotting fruit. Nothing wrong there, but nowadays most of our garbage isn't bio-degradable so there is a problem - but if we all agree it's a bad idea and don't do it, the problem goes away and life goes on (especially for the fish who don't die from living in toxic water).

Before copyright was conceptualized, people used to copy each other's work freely. Actually, before the printing press was invented, the highest complement you could pay an author was to copy his or her book. In doing so, you showed how valuable you thought the author's ideas were. Nowadays though, creative works have been monetized so taking another person's work without rewarding them is wrong. Really.

No, I haven't gone off the deep end. Copyright infringement is wrong. However, there's a however: copyright is only a good thing when seen in the broader social context. If we all agree it's a good idea and respect it, life goes on without great authors starving in the gutter and great actors whoring to the highest bidder.

Er...hang on.

There are great authors who can't put a roof over their heads and there are great actors who sell their talent to hardcore commercial operations. What happened?

Oh yeah. The copyright systems we have don't work.

Not everyone agrees they're a good idea in their current form. Further, there's plenty of real evidence to suggest they're actually bad for a lot of people, which is probably why those people think copyright really sucks.

Okay. Let's think broader social context: think about the poor, starving artists. Are you doing that?

Now, what about the poor, starving auto manufacturers? Or the poor, starving pharmaceutical industry? Maybe we should think of the poor, starving tobacco producers? They've had a rough time over the last few years. Should we all go out and buy a pack of Marlboros to give 'em a hand? No?

Copyright today isn't socially equitable. Things are skewed to favour one particular group of people. This inequity is wrong. In fact, it's wrong in itself. Malam in se. There's a bigger wrong here and it's not because the "ordinary" people are "stealing" copyrighted work. Theft is the act of taking something with the intention of permanently depriving the owner of the thing. Taking something without paying for it is exactly what it says. Downloading a movie doesn't deprive the owner of the movie, hence it isn't stealing (and I will happily purchase a dictionary for entertainment industry executives who don't understand what the word "steal" means).

Downloading a movie without paying for it is thumbing your nose at the idea that someone can own an idea which, in it's natural state, doesn't belong to anyone in the first place.

We can change society's values so they functions in an equitable way: people who create things can be rewarded in direct relation to how much value their creation provides to everyone else. We can also change things to help the auto manufacturers and the drug companies and the tobacco producers, if we want to.

Intellectual "property" only exists because we (collectively) think it's a good idea, but at the same time We The People reserve the right to change our minds on the extent at which it should be protected.

Malam prohibita changes as we change. Malam in se will always be Just Plain Wrong.

Sceptical About Patti Santangelo?

First published here.


I've been quite saddened by some of the responses I've come across towards the Fight Goliath campaign set up to help Patricia Santangelo battle the RIAA in court.

As most people reading this are aware, this New York mom is just one of the people being targeted by the RIAA under their bizarre theory that if enough ordinary people are litigated into the ground then everyone will go back to buying CDs like the good little consumers they used be.

Doing the rounds on my favourite forums, I've come across a lot of scepticism about Patti. Here are some examples:

"Last time [I] donated any money to a cause like this it was scam. So no $$$ from me."

"methinks its a con"

"anybody remember lokitorrents?" and "Yup. First thing I thought when I saw this thread..."

I thought I might take some time to shoot down some of the unfounded doubts people may be having.

A) Patricia Santangelo wasn't running a torrent site. She's said to have been sharing music through Kazaa. No huge advertising revenue. No huge user-base. No huge facilitation of copyright infringement. Just one tiny node on a network of millions.

B) Patricia Santangelo isn't a p2p developer. She didn't come up with some great way to share billions of files with millions of other users, nor is she bundling spyware/adware with her non-existent application.

C) Patricia Santangelo can't afford a lawyer. She used to have one, but in an affidavit to Judge Colleen McMahon her now ex-lawyer, Ray Beckerman, says "(a) defendant does not appear to have the financial resources that would be required for the pretrial discovery, and summary judgment and/or trial work, that lay ahead, and (b) it is clear to the undersigned that the plaintiff's case is frivolous, so that it would be unwarranted for defendant to go to extraordinary means to finance her defense of this case."

D) Patricia Santangelo still has legal expenses. Retaining a lawyer is not the extent of the total legal fees that can be racked up fighting a civil lawsuit. Need to file a document with the court? Pay up. Need to subpoena a RIAA "piracy investigator"? Pay up. Need a one-off conversation with an expert in a particular legal or technical field? Pay up. It's not a "Lawyer costs $100/hour x 35 hours = $3,500 in legal fees" kind of situation.

E) Patricia Santangelo isn't some anonymous name on your screen, begging for money. All her details are publically available through the court documents on her case. We have photos of her with the court documents. We have videos of her on NBC, CBS, Fox, CNN and MSNBC.

F) Patricia Santangelo has opted for a trial by jury. As in turn-up-at-the-court-and-watch-the-whole-thing-with-your-own-eyes kind of trial by jury.

Now that we can see Patti isn't asking for us to "plese send bank details an i will depostit 1 million dollars 2 yor acont", what are some best or worst case scenarios?

Worst case - Patricia Santagelo runs off with all the money. The RIAA spends hundreds of thousands of dollars tracking her down so they can drag her back to court and bankrupt her.

You lose your $5 donation. The RIAA lose hundreds of thousands of dollars. Patti loses everything.

Another worst case scenario - Patricia Santagelo caves in to the RIAA and hands over all the money. You lose your $5 donation. The RIAA lose hundreds of thousands of dollars net because they've already forked out that much on legals, so they don't make a profit on the deal. Patti is spared the fate of all the others who've been sued, thanks to the kindness of people who, every day, still do exactly what she's in trouble for.

Best case scenario?

Patricia Santagelo wins. She doesn't have to pay the RIAA anything. Instead, she gets her court costs back and you get a warm, fuzzy feeling knowing your $5 donation helped stick a nail in the RIAA's coffin. Patti gets the benefit of not being bankrupted and can to go back to being a mother and a provider instead of an RIAA PR piece.

The RIAA? It gets a lot of very bad press on top of the very bad press it's already getting, and it loses a chunk of money and the ability to victimize people like you.

Unfortunately, this thing is bigger than you. Or me. Or Patricia Santagelo.

I don't have a crystal ball that will tell me if its "worth" donating to this cause. What I am doing, though, is imagining myself standing in the Valley of Elah holding a betting slip with "David - 100 Shakels To Win" written on it.

We all knew it was going to happen sooner or later. Maybe not one in the first thousand, maybe not one in the first ten thousand, but we all knew that eventually, some ordinary person was going to fight back against the huge corporate bullies.

But in fact, Patti isn't just some ordinary woman.

She's extraordinary.

Error. Aid unavailable. Please use Microsoft.

First published here.

I can see it now...

Deep down in the bowels of Microsoft's Redmond complex at the end of a long, long coridor there's a basement nobody ever enters - except for a trusted handful from Microsoft's PR department. And there, immediately after Hurricane Katrina, a meeting is called.

"Okay people, I'm looking for initial thoughts on this," says the suited head of this covert sub-section. "What's the first thing that comes to you?" he asks, pointing to a young man freshly recruited from a top New York law firm. The young lawyer already has his pitch ready.

"Only Microsoft can help you survive the aftermath of a natural disaster", he says.

This sub-section is very busy.

I was absolutely appalled when I read the statements by FEMA's chief information officer Barry West was defending FEMA's Internet Explorer 6-only website where victims of Hurricane Katrina could apply for aid.

According to West, FEMA's goal was to provide a service to help "a common denominator of users and that meant Microsoft...the priority was to set something up quickly," he told the BBC. The sheer arrogance of that statement should give Americans cause for embarresment on behalf of their government, (or considering FEMA's general inability to function during the Katrina crisis, more embarresment).

Yes, it was an emergency and Yes, most people do use Internet Explorer. But at the end of the day, how bloody hard is it to build a multi-browser website?

Seriously, even I know web designers who spend hours making sure their pages display properly in nine different browsers, and I find it troubling that FEMA didn't even consider non-IE users before the disaster. Macs have become much more viable alternatives in recent years, especially since Steve Jobs return to the company. And Linux distros are much more usable than they were even a year ago.

Non-Microsoft browsers currently account for a little under 20% of the total browser market-share, and those alternatives are eating away at Internet Explorer's dominence all the time.

Forty-five percent of people who applied for aid did so through the website. Around 20% of the browsers out there are not Microsoft's. A back-of-the-envelope number crunch shows about 9% of the total number of people who tried to apply for aid during Katrina were unable to, simply because they weren't customers of one particular company.

Yes, you read it right. Nearly 1 in 10 were told to bugger off and get a browser that FEMA could be bothered supporting.

Nobody can blame people for using other browsers, especially in the wake of the look-at-a-picture-and-get-a-virus debacle that MS had in the works for over fifteen years. I've certainly enjoyed being a Firefox user over the last week as people started talking about the warning pop-ups it gave.

Now I have to ask: can we see a repeat of this kind of thing with the Tsunami Warning System?

"Warning! You may be about to die from a tidal wave! Please purchase Windows Vista and try again. Have a nice day!"

What happens when people start using their computers as TVs in large numbers? "Error T057HD5. Earthquake Alert could not be displayed due to presence of Linux".

The reason we have standards is so everyone, not just some, can get the same information. Nex time there's a natural disaster, I invite FEMA and any other emergency response organization to post on slashdot and ask for help. I can guarentee you'll get hundreds of people willing to code a multi-browser website at no charge.

Or better yet, get multi-browser support now. It's not that hard.

Up, up, up on the top floor of Apple headquaters in California, Steve Jobs called a meeting of his top executives.

"If if this keeps happening, someone is going to die solely as a result of buying an Apple product instead of a piece of crap from Microsoft", he said.

"I'm sending you guys on a mission to Washington. 2002 E-Government Act, accessable information for the public, I don't care what you throw at 'em. Get those bastards to stop thinking about Microsoft whenever they want to do something. Information is a global resource Goddamnit!"

"Now if you'll excuse me, I have a meeting with the guys working on FairPlay..."

French Fries...and Action!

I was being dragged around a large department store the other day for the post-Christmas sales. I hate clothes shopping for two main reasons: the first is that I look good in practically anything I wear and apparently most of the enjoyment in shopping comes from walking through miles of shops in search of something that looks good. The second is that my retail "experience" is always pretty feeble. You know, people trying to sell you a $90 T-shirt with increadible features like "Calvin Klein" written on it in big letters. As I was walking throgh this shop I was startled by a shriek from a saleswoman: "Watch out! There are fries on the ground!"

She was right. I looked down and found that I was about to step in some french fries that someone had carelessly dropped on the floor of her section. I looked up to thank her for her warning, but she was on the phone. As I evesdropped shamelessly on her conversation, it became apparent that she was speaking with the stores' maintainence department to arrange for someone to come and clean up the spilt fries. I counted nine of the little bastards, and as I walked away I heard her crying out her warning to another passing shopper.

I asked someone at the stores front deask why the saleswoman didn't simply pick them up herself. Apparently it would "diminish her creadibility with respect to the [expensive] clothes" if she was seen doing manual chores. I didn't think so. I think it diminished her creadibility with respect to her intelligence.

As an Echo Boomer (born somewhere in the 80s or 90s) mine is a typical response: just pick up the damned fries. It seems that years of Nike advertising as worked: Echo Boomers Just Do It.

A few months back, Kazaa was found guilty of encouraging copyright infringments throught its "Join The Revolution!" advertising campaign. It just so happens we are in the middle of one, but Echo Boomers don't need to be told to "Join The Revolution". Although we are social animals, we just do our own thing and if it happens to coincide with a "revolution" then so be it. The idea that someone needs to be encouraged to "Join The Revolution" assumes that young people live in some kind of existential vacume when in fact, Echo Boomers do very little without consulting their friends.

Besides, there are only two reasons why anyone goes to the Kazaa website:

1) You already know what Kazaa is, what it does and want to download it.

2) You already know what Kazaa is, how badly it performs and enjoy laughing at their advertising copy.

Copyright holders should probably be thankful that tech-savvy Echo Boomers arn't as violent as other revolutionaries have been throughout the ages. Battles for power are increasinly being fought with computer networks: information, disinformation, hacked databases full of exposed secrets and compromised security systems. Corporations are the "nouveau bourgeois" and this revolution will be just like the French one of 1789, except with fewer decapitations. Power will be taken from those who have abused it and returned to the masses.

Unfortuntatly, Echo Boomers are so good at filtering advertising and ignoring stupid laws that there is a very real danger that this younger generation won't be able to enjoy these traits in the future. Unless we start playing by the old systems a bit, all the worst type of predictions of the future may come true. Things like your inability to write an email client without paying patent royalties, your right to hold a private conversation, the game mod you're allowed to play, the server you can use without going to jail, the format you can store your digital music on.

Imagine everything that can now be done with the internet. Now imagine that you can't do it any more. You have to stop that becoming a reality, because the alternative means missing out on the benefits brought by the most technologically advanced society to ever exist on our small planet.

Write a letter, send a fax or email, call someone up and let them know you're not happy - your elected representatives are a good start. Seen a bogus statement quoted as "fact" by the mainstream media outlets? Send 'em an email telling them they're wrong and CC your frineds in while your at it. Let them know that if you're going to be spending the rest of your life in this rapidly changing world, you're not going let it be shaped by some corporate lawyers to suit the interests of big business.

Make this your little mission for 2006 and get the message out before it's too late. Just Do It™