Pirates, Stereo, Mad Cows, and The Power of Words

In a time before personal computers and AIDS, I was told to come in after class by my English teacher in high school. She wanted to talk to me about some words I had used in class. These didn't include the F word, the S word, or any on George Carlin's list. They included pissed (as in "pissed off") and bitch (as in "bitched out").

She was probably in her forties, and probably considered herself hip to these kids, but was undoubtedly raised in a time when there was little wiggle room in school on the concept of "proper" language. She wanted me to say "ticked off" instead of "pissed off", and my concept was that words were free and shouldn't be constrained, while I pointed out that I kept myself from using the F word and the S word in school, because I was smart enough to know the rules and consequences on cursing. I considered her attitude prissy and closed, but I made the choice to follow the herd...

The media in general (I'm not demonizing the media, but I probably will be throwing the good in with the bad, in this case),

is using some words that are just plain wrong. They are taking the easy way out, not thinking this through, and probably in some cases (I'm not singling out Fox News) choosing words to sensationalize a concept.

*

Pirates. To pirate something was to steal something, derive income from it, and deprive income from it to the previous owner.

People who pirated were called pirates. The word pirate is from
Middle English (from Old French, from Latin prta, from Greek peirts, from peirn), to attempt, from peira, trial. It's generally accepted that the term was applied to criminals-at-sea because to live, they would attempt or try anything, presumably anything out of the accepted ethical and moral ways to live their lives. Current usage of pirate for someone who trades a file on the internet came by way of pirate radio stations, famously operating from waters off British shores, that didn't submit to government fees and regulations; pirate was a cute way to refer to these stations. These stations made no profit, but played music that the BBC wouldn't play, and besides infringing on legally assigned radio frequencies, caused little trouble.

Now, people who have an MP3 image of a music recording on their hard drive are called pirates. Where's the profit to this sharer? Where's the deprivation of potential profit or deprivation of use for the owner (let's assume that the potential marketing value of this availability is at least equal to the potential for loss). People selling mixtapes or bootlegging copies of other peoples' property to sell at flea markets or on the streets of Shanghai are certainly pirates. To call these people pirates provides the media with a way to stir peoples' emotions and give their audience a hook to remember this attractive issue from one relevant story to the next. To call them infringers (if this file sitting on their hard drive is indeed a copy of the copyright holder's intellectual property, or if this file is indeed a performance, both of which would be an infringement of the copyright holder's exclusive rights), would be more accurate wouldn't be as sexy. To call them file traders would be even less sexy, but if the file is sitting on their hard drive, are they even trading it?

*

The definition of Stereo: A combining form meaning solid, hard, firm, as in stereochemistry, stereography.

Origin: Gr. Stereos solid. See Stare to gaze. From the Greek "stereos" meaning "solid" - having three dimensions.

Two-channel, 5.1, 10.2, etc., are all examples of stereo audio. Our purpose and intent is to present music and sounds so that they appear as a solid audio image to the listener. Two channels have been in common use for half a century, but this limitation to two speaker was chosen mostly for marketing reasons: the consumer audio companies recognized the appeal of stereo sound, but chose to believe that people would only be willing to accept the addition of one other speaker (and amplifier channel) in their living rooms. Stereo sound had first been presented, in theaters, using three channels across the front. The three-channel stereo approach persisted in theater settings and in professional music production, and is thankfully finding its way to homes.

Six-speaker (or more) systems will of course never be accepted or applicable in every listening situation, but peoples' willingness to install these speaker systems in their homes for movie presentations has shown that there is a substantial market for music presented in better stereo than two channels can provide.

It's time to take back the word "stereo" and apply it any time a solid sonic-image presentation is desired, and not limit this word's usage to two-channel.

*

Mad Cow! The chance of getting Mad Cow disease is less than being struck by lightning six thousand times in your life. The media, needing something to talk about and again to hook people into coming back for more thrills tomorrow (same bat time, same bat channel), call this bug Mad Cow instead of BSE, the abbreviation of the real name of the disease. People get rabies every year and die; people put things up their rear end and die, yet nobody gets Mad Cow, and we could choose to completely avoid the issue by not eating beef if we wanted, and we still hear stories about Mad Cow every day.


The power of words ebbs and flows. Whether it is with great thought or casual indifference, the words we choose affect the impact and clear communication of our ideas. When we speak of the presentation of ideas we have to care to choose our words wisely. It is unwise in the popular media to choose inflammatory words which distort the impact of the described condition.

My high school English teacher should be proud of how I observe the power of words, and their effect on us.

RIAA and MPAA - Poor, Poor Pitiful Me

And with these trade organizations, it is me, me, me, me, and more me, please.

The music industry is a profitable but basically self-hating, failing organism. The business model built over the last 25 or so years, based on Album sales and indentured-servitude artist contracts, is based in another time and another place. The record companies' refusal to re-evaluate and re-structure, with current culture and technology in mind, is setting back art (or at least Pop Art) 25 years in the process, all to support funneling revenue to the top of the business food chain.

The movie industry has found ways, in the face of changing culture and technology, to prosper. Still relying on the blockbuster (not Blockbuster©) for profits to support the less-or-non-profitable releases, motion picture studios need to figure out a way to level the differences between profitable movies and non-profitable movies so more and better films can be made, but finds ways (like home/rental video releases andforeignn distribution) to recoup expenses from even modestly attended film releases.

These industries desire to be ten times bigger than they are, but they will never be pharmaceutical companies or automobile manufacturers. The potential for exponentially increased profits (and more yachts, tennis courts, and Lakers tickets for the execs) blinds these industries to how they may be able to ensure that there is a profitable entertainment industry for their grandchildren, and that our entertainment continues to become more...entertaining, and enlightening.

So what do they do to their best customers? Sue them! Tell them they are criminals for listening to free music! Whack away at the best marketing tools since the invention of radio and television.

The recent rulings against the RIAA's actions and specific sections of the DMCA are perhaps the first blows for sanity, and the future of music, in quite a while. Simply put, the RIAA isn't a special class, and potential violators of copyright law, whether on the internet, at a friend's house, or at your local public library, have to be treated at least as well as any other accused criminal. An ISP can't be responsible for what people do with its technology any more than Ma Bell could when Al Capone called to order a hit on someone.

Whether trading a file on the internet is indeed a violation of any law has not yet been tested in the courts. As someone who depends on the music industry for his living, I insist that there be a way to recognize when an artistic creation belongs to me, and a way for revenue generated by this art to reach me.

Copyright law is woefully inadequate to the task in light of today's technology and culture. The DMCA is a step backward to an economic stone age, where the caveman with the biggest club will win the prey; in fact, it puts that club in the hand of it's worst-case owner: the government. Anyone who considers themselves conservative and has expressed a desire for smaller government should have been howling at this travesty of personal rights since its first draft, but the DMCA was passed in an atmosphere of supporting a bigger, stronger government and political structure at any cost. Jefferson's ideal of limited copyright to encourage creativity yet not empower government or big-business monopolies over art should be the model to which we return.

The RIAA has positioned itself to gain enormous political power, through its recent appointment of Cary Sherman as president in particular, far beyond its natural reach in society. It has superficially liberal politicians, like California's Boxer and Waxman, basically on the industry teat, supporting the town-company like a company-town politician should.

These politicians won't have a broad voter base if the voters wake up and see how they protect, at least in this instance, the greed of the few over the need of the many; the ranks of artists and consumers far outweigh the privileged entertainment industry executive class.

The RIAA and MPAA do not in any way, shape, or form, represent the interests of artists and consumers They must realize that society and industry will be better served by more creative art and unfettered freedom, and act to support art and free exchange of ideas.

Good points in this letter to the LATimes:

"doctors, lawyers and insurance companies who benefit from this $30-billion extortion", "California employers pay two to three times more than the rest of the country and give legitimately injured workers the worst benefits in the nation".

I would bet that this business owner voted to recall the sitting Governor and voted to elect Schwarzenegger. She blames the state legislature for this situation, and I can't argue much about any negative evaluation of that snake pit. To blame our porky representatives for the greed and robbery of the insurance companies is ultimately disingenuous.

Insurance companies, barring 9/11 losses, are having a great year, and a great decade. They spread out your-and-my money by investing it, so their stock market profits have been flat over, say, five years. Is it any surprise that given the opportunity, and legal possibility, they raise rates when and where they can? Since WC insurance is required of employers by state law, state law should also reasonably regulate what the employers can be charged.

Given that studies show that Californians are nearly 50% more likely that the residents of other states to file WC claims, we have to know that human nature will rear its beautiful head when allowed. This does not mean that we can let Business Nature grab small businesses (who insures the insurers?...) and toss them (at least the cowardly, unimaginative and racist among them) to neighboring states.