Friday, May 7, 2010
No, Really, Dude...shaddup!
ALEX EPSTEIN has a really fun one on why alleged evildoers really can't help themselves.
The State of the Copyright Debate
I LIKE MICHAEL GEIST. I think he's smart, I think he's provocative and writes well and certainly knows his issues from his perspective. But when he reports on creators' issues (and challenges going forward) with any new copyright law, this is the general quality of comment he attracts from his legions of copyright fans:
Oh to be twenty-one (or thirty-three) and to be so blasé and dismissive about complex issues.
The problem with the copyfans & the fair use now advocates of all stripes is that they have a wonderful ability to view the debate in the most simple of terms. We can categorize those terms thusly:
Gimme.
The problem with gimme, of course, is that it's hard to plug into any kind of self-sustaining economic model by which artists get paid for their labors. Add to this the fundamental ignorance that people seem to have about the entire structure by which content creators currently get paid. You'll often hear this expressed as "I buy a book once, why do I have to keep paying for it?" or some such thing.
The impression seems to be that the true value of the art is paid for by the consumer at point-of-purchase. And that artists and content creators want some cushy deal that nobody else gets. (Ie: I paint your house once, and you keep paying me to paint your house for five more years, or until five years after I die, or whatever.)
What makes the idea of the art fundamentally different is three factors: 1) reproducability 2) timelines of creation 3) life of the artist
In the case of 1) reproducability let's take a painting, like the Picasso that sold for a record number this week. It's easy to understand why that fetched so much: it's unique. Picasso painted it, and it's the only one, and people like Picassos.
Consider what it would be like if the Rolling Stones had recorded, say, Exile on Main Street and everybody knew how great it was, maybe there had been a listening party or something, and then only one person could buy it. How much would that recording be worth? What about The Godfather? There was a film fest in 1972 and they showed The Godfather and everybody went apeshit, and then Francis Ford Coppola sold the film -- the original negative -- to one guy. And then only he got to show it to friends & lucky people. How much would that cost?
Obviously with these kinds of art, a market developed for reproductions. In fact the whole model of making money was based on reproduction & distribution of those copies. The artist creator gets a percentage of each copy, mass produced, rather than imbue all the value in the one, unique work. (ie: the painting, though in the case of the Picasso, there is both -- reproduction rights, and the value of hte unique original.) So we bought our Picasso posters & prints for dorm room walls, and our Godfather DVD or VHS box sets. So long as everything was physical, it was hunky dory. But digitization changed the value proposition -- because now the physical product that would kick back whatever percentage to the artist (instead of its true value in a lump up front a la the auctioned Picasso) doesn't sell anymore. Now, digital bits can flow freely -- and do -- through bit torrent networks & sharing sites & burned copies handed from friend to friend to friend.
"I pay for cable so I've paid already so I shouldn't have to pay a levy for a PVR."
No, Chester. What you did there, was pay for the pipe to bring content into your home. You paid the admission price to the museum. That doesn't give you the right to go home with the Picasso. You can be as petulant as you want; stamp your feet all you like. The facts are just not on your side here.
The problem then as it currently exists in our imperfect world is that the cure has been worse than the disease. People who've lawfully bought DVD's of their favorite show find they're locked down with DMCA anti copy crap that keeps them from playing them on the device they want, or from playing it on two computers, or streaming it to another location in their house... in short, the idea of what people want to do, lawfully, with the media they've bought and paid for has expanded, but the system is trying to keep it locked down. This is retrograde and contrary to the way that people want to use media.
The idea of blanket licensing & levies is a more European idea that says, "look, people will use it how they use it. We may not get 100% of the money for other uses, the way we used to when "other uses" meant film, TV sale, audio book on tape, trade paperback, etc. -- but we will at least get part of that money. And that is way better than suing your customers or gumming up everything with stupid digital locks that the nefarious types are just going to break anyway, leaving you in the position of punishing your most ardent fans or consumers. And content creators are the last people who want that.
2) Timelines of creation. Inevitably, when I challenge some asshole directly about "why should I have to keep paying blah blah blah" and find out what they do, they're somebody who wants to talk about things in terms of their job. So let's do that.
We'll take me as an example. I get paid to write now. It's a precarious job, because I'm totally self-employed, and I can't collect unemployment benefits. My income swings widely from year to year, yet I can't average the income, so when I make a lot, I can't put more of it away because I'm taxed like a Wall Street CEO, and when I make mouse fart money I can't even go on pogey.
Add to this the fact that, just like a doctor goes to Med School for years, and interns, and goes through residencies to get to where they are, I had to teach myself to write. It took years. More than a decade of pounding out crappy scripts in my spare time, not making a dime, working one or two jobs I hated. Artists do the same thing, but have to somehow afford paints and brushes or canvases. There's more than one artist I know who spent their time choosing between whether to eat or buy another canvas one day. I have a friend who's an opera singer who blows me away with the rundown of the costs of vocal coaching, exercises, money to go to places to audition, other professional training. All of this to get to the point where -- if they're lucky -- if they're very, very, very lucky, you might hear of them, and maybe want to buy something they made. Now you get to see if their investment in themselves-- let's call it "sweat equity" -- pays off. We can all make fun of Michael Bublé now, but truth is the guy worked his ass off for a lot of years to learn his craft. Watch a bit of Tréme and see how all those musicians enjoy cushy wonderful, gala-ridden lives getting to make a living. I got a brave bit of prediction for you here: those braying loudest on the copyright file: put you in that life and you couldn't cut it, even if you had the talent.
In short, part of what you're paying for that "every time" isn't the thing you've got in your hands. You're amortizing the entire apprenticeship period of that artist for when they weren't making a goddamn dime.
The timelines of creation are long. And the initial purchase price of a movie ticket or a DVD rental or an Itunes track does not fully reflect that sweat equity. In a world where the purchase of physical items breaks down, something needs to rise to replace that, so that the true value of the creative work can flow to the artist. Believe me, left to themselves, the corporations will always figure out a way to get you to shell out more -- and for the most part, you'll do it happily -- be it a Happy Iron Man Meal or some piece of shit that you don't need. And that will never flow back to the person who did the initial creating. Joe Schuster & Jerry Siegel had to sue to get money out of Superman, the character they created that made Time Warner BILLIONS. No, where people like the brave commenter above leave the track is in trying to get the artist paid for their labour. That's why these guys, so long as you bray about what your rights should be & crap all over efforts for artists to earn a living, or comment ignorantly as above....well....you can lick my sweaty neck. (I was going somewhere else with that, but my Mom occasionally reads this blog. Hi Mom. Thanks for the casserole.)
3) life of the artist
Let's take the case of Yann Martel. Yann Martel was a big deal in 2001 for publishing Life of Pi. Book clubs, Booker Prize, the whole magilla. Martel's been working on his followup for years. It's 2010. That's nine years. Nine years to come up with the new book.
And it came out. And critics are shitting all over it. It's starting to look like it might be a big flopperoo.
Ouch.
Once again, the artist takes a huge risk -- and it might not pay off. And there's a limited number of those things that you have in you. A novelist's career might span thirty years -- but it's going to have a number of flops. And the flops that make you nothing still take the same sweat, and tears, and toil, and time, and psychic grit to get through as the lauded successes. Courtney Love is just as batshit crazy when she puts out her good CD's as her bad ones. Clint Eastwood's lovely, meticulous filmmaking might give you Million Dollar Baby, or something lesser like Gran Torino, or hell, Space Cowboys. That's just the way it goes.
A TV writer has a shelf life, as well. There's some cruel math at work. You start out a young turk, have a few years to rise up. Maybe you get lucky and do something that hits, or maybe you don't and are a journeyman. But if you get 15 years in before you get aged out that's pretty lucky indeed. You have to make your bones how you can, fast as you can -- from as many different ways as you can.
The point is, the model is not, and never has been the same as a builder who builds a house and sells it to you. It is much more like an owner of a house on the beach that's very desirable and lovely that rents it out to people because it's desirable and lovely.
There is a lot that's shitty about copyright now that many artists don't agree with. I think that the copyright terms, which are now more than 75 years after death (what they call the Disney exemption, because that prevented Steamboat Willie from falling into the public domain) are ridiculous. I think there's got to be a way to allow mashups & stuff to happen.
(And keep in mind that there are mechanisms that do work here. Onceuponatime the argument was all about how hip hop was going to be killed by the man because of having to clear samples. Most samples were illegal. Now most samples are legally cleared. And there's no hip hop anywhere on the shelves, or on the Itunes charts, right? Please.)
I think that when it comes to something like "fair dealing" it's a finer slice. I think works should be able to be used for comment, parody, satire -- and limited educational use. But you know, agreements were reached on things like copying for school use in textbooks and things - and I see absolutely no reason to think that "it's too hard to police" is a valid argument why wide-open educational use of copyrighted materials should be expected. I also think it's a bit odious that Educational representatives, most of whom have pensions & tenure -- ie: job security, are arguing against a fair compensation regime for people who are essentially self-employed freelancers with none of those economic cushions.
I'm a consumer too. And I certainly think that current law does not work for the consumer and how our relationship to media has changed in the last few decades. And I sure as hell don't think a draconian, DMCA-style U.S. law will make things better. And the law should be forward-thinking, to encompass and provide a roadmap of how to do things in NEW media not conceived yet.
(At the very least, I would like the next law to deal with the fact that for years I've been able to lend a friend a book -- but now I can't do the same thing for an e-book. That, to me, is a restriction of my rights. And maybe if they want to go that way then an e-book really shouldn't be priced anywhere near a trade paperback. I'm not paying Amazon $14 for something I can't lend. $9, we'll talk.)
What I do know, is that in the copyright consultations last year, the thing that depressed me most was the disconnect between the people doing the creating, and the so called "copyright activists" demanding their "gimme."
It seems to me that if you're an "expert on copyright law," with legions of followers with whom you exhibit great influence, then part of your responsibility comes with truly engaging on the creator side of the equation, and figuring out a stand that you can articulate to your followers that doesn't involve content creators assuming all of the risk in the brave new world going forward. It's not enough to demand. You have to engage on a creator-friendly, not just consumer-friendly solution to the problem.
Because, quite frankly, you may be educating your followers on things like "fair dealing" and "digital locks," but a quick scan of your comments section shows a paucity of understanding of creator issues, and a powerful desire to roll people like me up in there with the big bad "them."
I don't think of myself or my friends as "them." But by allowing that linkage to go unchallenged, you hurt the very cause you claim to espouse, and wind up looking like someone fronting another self-interest group who may be agitating for a pyrrhic victory: widespread use of copyrighted materials isn't going to get you too far once nobody can afford to make any.
Except, I guess, Sony.
All Michael Bay, all the time. Enjoy that world. Brr.
UPDATE: Not often, but sometimes you get a comment that you read and think, "well that's a way better ending to the post than mine was." So it's promotion time! I'll give commenter John the last word on this post. Please feel free to continue discussing in the comments below. I'm going to bow out for a while because I'm still really quite ill, and I think it's time for a little hard napping.
John writes:
Nice work -- your posting is making the digital rounds.
I agree with you on almost everything you've written, and most of my disagreements would be minor quibbles on language. For instance, I despise much of the vocabularly of the larger copy-debate. Words like "draconian," "corporatist" and "DMCA-style" start my eyes a-rolling.
Unfortuanetly, that's exactly the vocabulary that gets the mob excited, which I guess is why it's so often used. What's the point of having an accurate, meaningful, well-informed discussion on the way to new legislation, when you can shout DMCA in a crowded theatre and start a stampede.
The leaders of the copyfight were all invited very early on to genuinely engage with professional creators, and it seems clear they all consciously chose a different constituency -- "lowest price is the law" consumers. It's a shame for everyone.
Amen to that.
Heres a tip...
Hey, creators of music, movies, any type of IP, heres a tip. The world is changing, they way you do business has to change as well.
Try creating something that people will actually PAY for, like something decent for a change
Oh to be twenty-one (or thirty-three) and to be so blasé and dismissive about complex issues.
The problem with the copyfans & the fair use now advocates of all stripes is that they have a wonderful ability to view the debate in the most simple of terms. We can categorize those terms thusly:
Gimme.
The problem with gimme, of course, is that it's hard to plug into any kind of self-sustaining economic model by which artists get paid for their labors. Add to this the fundamental ignorance that people seem to have about the entire structure by which content creators currently get paid. You'll often hear this expressed as "I buy a book once, why do I have to keep paying for it?" or some such thing.
The impression seems to be that the true value of the art is paid for by the consumer at point-of-purchase. And that artists and content creators want some cushy deal that nobody else gets. (Ie: I paint your house once, and you keep paying me to paint your house for five more years, or until five years after I die, or whatever.)
What makes the idea of the art fundamentally different is three factors: 1) reproducability 2) timelines of creation 3) life of the artist
Consider what it would be like if the Rolling Stones had recorded, say, Exile on Main Street and everybody knew how great it was, maybe there had been a listening party or something, and then only one person could buy it. How much would that recording be worth? What about The Godfather? There was a film fest in 1972 and they showed The Godfather and everybody went apeshit, and then Francis Ford Coppola sold the film -- the original negative -- to one guy. And then only he got to show it to friends & lucky people. How much would that cost?
Obviously with these kinds of art, a market developed for reproductions. In fact the whole model of making money was based on reproduction & distribution of those copies. The artist creator gets a percentage of each copy, mass produced, rather than imbue all the value in the one, unique work. (ie: the painting, though in the case of the Picasso, there is both -- reproduction rights, and the value of hte unique original.) So we bought our Picasso posters & prints for dorm room walls, and our Godfather DVD or VHS box sets. So long as everything was physical, it was hunky dory. But digitization changed the value proposition -- because now the physical product that would kick back whatever percentage to the artist (instead of its true value in a lump up front a la the auctioned Picasso) doesn't sell anymore. Now, digital bits can flow freely -- and do -- through bit torrent networks & sharing sites & burned copies handed from friend to friend to friend.
"I pay for cable so I've paid already so I shouldn't have to pay a levy for a PVR."
No, Chester. What you did there, was pay for the pipe to bring content into your home. You paid the admission price to the museum. That doesn't give you the right to go home with the Picasso. You can be as petulant as you want; stamp your feet all you like. The facts are just not on your side here.
The problem then as it currently exists in our imperfect world is that the cure has been worse than the disease. People who've lawfully bought DVD's of their favorite show find they're locked down with DMCA anti copy crap that keeps them from playing them on the device they want, or from playing it on two computers, or streaming it to another location in their house... in short, the idea of what people want to do, lawfully, with the media they've bought and paid for has expanded, but the system is trying to keep it locked down. This is retrograde and contrary to the way that people want to use media.
The idea of blanket licensing & levies is a more European idea that says, "look, people will use it how they use it. We may not get 100% of the money for other uses, the way we used to when "other uses" meant film, TV sale, audio book on tape, trade paperback, etc. -- but we will at least get part of that money. And that is way better than suing your customers or gumming up everything with stupid digital locks that the nefarious types are just going to break anyway, leaving you in the position of punishing your most ardent fans or consumers. And content creators are the last people who want that.
2) Timelines of creation. Inevitably, when I challenge some asshole directly about "why should I have to keep paying blah blah blah" and find out what they do, they're somebody who wants to talk about things in terms of their job. So let's do that.
We'll take me as an example. I get paid to write now. It's a precarious job, because I'm totally self-employed, and I can't collect unemployment benefits. My income swings widely from year to year, yet I can't average the income, so when I make a lot, I can't put more of it away because I'm taxed like a Wall Street CEO, and when I make mouse fart money I can't even go on pogey.
Add to this the fact that, just like a doctor goes to Med School for years, and interns, and goes through residencies to get to where they are, I had to teach myself to write. It took years. More than a decade of pounding out crappy scripts in my spare time, not making a dime, working one or two jobs I hated. Artists do the same thing, but have to somehow afford paints and brushes or canvases. There's more than one artist I know who spent their time choosing between whether to eat or buy another canvas one day. I have a friend who's an opera singer who blows me away with the rundown of the costs of vocal coaching, exercises, money to go to places to audition, other professional training. All of this to get to the point where -- if they're lucky -- if they're very, very, very lucky, you might hear of them, and maybe want to buy something they made. Now you get to see if their investment in themselves-- let's call it "sweat equity" -- pays off. We can all make fun of Michael Bublé now, but truth is the guy worked his ass off for a lot of years to learn his craft. Watch a bit of Tréme and see how all those musicians enjoy cushy wonderful, gala-ridden lives getting to make a living. I got a brave bit of prediction for you here: those braying loudest on the copyright file: put you in that life and you couldn't cut it, even if you had the talent.
In short, part of what you're paying for that "every time" isn't the thing you've got in your hands. You're amortizing the entire apprenticeship period of that artist for when they weren't making a goddamn dime.
The timelines of creation are long. And the initial purchase price of a movie ticket or a DVD rental or an Itunes track does not fully reflect that sweat equity. In a world where the purchase of physical items breaks down, something needs to rise to replace that, so that the true value of the creative work can flow to the artist. Believe me, left to themselves, the corporations will always figure out a way to get you to shell out more -- and for the most part, you'll do it happily -- be it a Happy Iron Man Meal or some piece of shit that you don't need. And that will never flow back to the person who did the initial creating. Joe Schuster & Jerry Siegel had to sue to get money out of Superman, the character they created that made Time Warner BILLIONS. No, where people like the brave commenter above leave the track is in trying to get the artist paid for their labour. That's why these guys, so long as you bray about what your rights should be & crap all over efforts for artists to earn a living, or comment ignorantly as above....well....you can lick my sweaty neck. (I was going somewhere else with that, but my Mom occasionally reads this blog. Hi Mom. Thanks for the casserole.)
3) life of the artist
Let's take the case of Yann Martel. Yann Martel was a big deal in 2001 for publishing Life of Pi. Book clubs, Booker Prize, the whole magilla. Martel's been working on his followup for years. It's 2010. That's nine years. Nine years to come up with the new book.
And it came out. And critics are shitting all over it. It's starting to look like it might be a big flopperoo.
Ouch.
Once again, the artist takes a huge risk -- and it might not pay off. And there's a limited number of those things that you have in you. A novelist's career might span thirty years -- but it's going to have a number of flops. And the flops that make you nothing still take the same sweat, and tears, and toil, and time, and psychic grit to get through as the lauded successes. Courtney Love is just as batshit crazy when she puts out her good CD's as her bad ones. Clint Eastwood's lovely, meticulous filmmaking might give you Million Dollar Baby, or something lesser like Gran Torino, or hell, Space Cowboys. That's just the way it goes.
A TV writer has a shelf life, as well. There's some cruel math at work. You start out a young turk, have a few years to rise up. Maybe you get lucky and do something that hits, or maybe you don't and are a journeyman. But if you get 15 years in before you get aged out that's pretty lucky indeed. You have to make your bones how you can, fast as you can -- from as many different ways as you can.
The point is, the model is not, and never has been the same as a builder who builds a house and sells it to you. It is much more like an owner of a house on the beach that's very desirable and lovely that rents it out to people because it's desirable and lovely.
There is a lot that's shitty about copyright now that many artists don't agree with. I think that the copyright terms, which are now more than 75 years after death (what they call the Disney exemption, because that prevented Steamboat Willie from falling into the public domain) are ridiculous. I think there's got to be a way to allow mashups & stuff to happen.
(And keep in mind that there are mechanisms that do work here. Onceuponatime the argument was all about how hip hop was going to be killed by the man because of having to clear samples. Most samples were illegal. Now most samples are legally cleared. And there's no hip hop anywhere on the shelves, or on the Itunes charts, right? Please.)
I think that when it comes to something like "fair dealing" it's a finer slice. I think works should be able to be used for comment, parody, satire -- and limited educational use. But you know, agreements were reached on things like copying for school use in textbooks and things - and I see absolutely no reason to think that "it's too hard to police" is a valid argument why wide-open educational use of copyrighted materials should be expected. I also think it's a bit odious that Educational representatives, most of whom have pensions & tenure -- ie: job security, are arguing against a fair compensation regime for people who are essentially self-employed freelancers with none of those economic cushions.
I'm a consumer too. And I certainly think that current law does not work for the consumer and how our relationship to media has changed in the last few decades. And I sure as hell don't think a draconian, DMCA-style U.S. law will make things better. And the law should be forward-thinking, to encompass and provide a roadmap of how to do things in NEW media not conceived yet.
(At the very least, I would like the next law to deal with the fact that for years I've been able to lend a friend a book -- but now I can't do the same thing for an e-book. That, to me, is a restriction of my rights. And maybe if they want to go that way then an e-book really shouldn't be priced anywhere near a trade paperback. I'm not paying Amazon $14 for something I can't lend. $9, we'll talk.)
What I do know, is that in the copyright consultations last year, the thing that depressed me most was the disconnect between the people doing the creating, and the so called "copyright activists" demanding their "gimme."
It seems to me that if you're an "expert on copyright law," with legions of followers with whom you exhibit great influence, then part of your responsibility comes with truly engaging on the creator side of the equation, and figuring out a stand that you can articulate to your followers that doesn't involve content creators assuming all of the risk in the brave new world going forward. It's not enough to demand. You have to engage on a creator-friendly, not just consumer-friendly solution to the problem.
Because, quite frankly, you may be educating your followers on things like "fair dealing" and "digital locks," but a quick scan of your comments section shows a paucity of understanding of creator issues, and a powerful desire to roll people like me up in there with the big bad "them."
I don't think of myself or my friends as "them." But by allowing that linkage to go unchallenged, you hurt the very cause you claim to espouse, and wind up looking like someone fronting another self-interest group who may be agitating for a pyrrhic victory: widespread use of copyrighted materials isn't going to get you too far once nobody can afford to make any.
Except, I guess, Sony.
All Michael Bay, all the time. Enjoy that world. Brr.
UPDATE: Not often, but sometimes you get a comment that you read and think, "well that's a way better ending to the post than mine was." So it's promotion time! I'll give commenter John the last word on this post. Please feel free to continue discussing in the comments below. I'm going to bow out for a while because I'm still really quite ill, and I think it's time for a little hard napping.
John writes:
Nice work -- your posting is making the digital rounds.
I agree with you on almost everything you've written, and most of my disagreements would be minor quibbles on language. For instance, I despise much of the vocabularly of the larger copy-debate. Words like "draconian," "corporatist" and "DMCA-style" start my eyes a-rolling.
Unfortuanetly, that's exactly the vocabulary that gets the mob excited, which I guess is why it's so often used. What's the point of having an accurate, meaningful, well-informed discussion on the way to new legislation, when you can shout DMCA in a crowded theatre and start a stampede.
The leaders of the copyfight were all invited very early on to genuinely engage with professional creators, and it seems clear they all consciously chose a different constituency -- "lowest price is the law" consumers. It's a shame for everyone.
Amen to that.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Come To Think of It, I've Never Seen Her Birth Certificate...
I'VE SERVED for two years on the Writers Guild of Canada National Council, and was recently acclaimed to a second term. Today the new executive convened for the first time with an important task: to select a new President to help guide the organization through the next two years, and advise the hardworking Executive Director, Maureen Parker, and her tireless staff.
I'm very pleased to say that by unanimous consent we selected somebody with her eye planted firmly on the next frontier of opportunity for writers: the digital realm.
Many of you will already know Jill Golick from her blogging & her extensive work in new media creation. There are great challenges ahead, and Jill's well poised to help us meet them.
Over at her place, you can read her first thoughts on the challenges ahead directly.
It's a new day.
Many of you will already know Jill Golick from her blogging & her extensive work in new media creation. There are great challenges ahead, and Jill's well poised to help us meet them.
Over at her place, you can read her first thoughts on the challenges ahead directly.
It's a new day.
Moving Forward on Copyright: The Creators' Voice
MY PESSIMISM was at a high ebb yesterday, egged on no doubt by the nasty intenstinal flu I've been battling for the last three days. But today I was reminded that though the tea leaves don't look great for the Government's upcoming views on copyright, no one has yet seen the actual legislation.
Through the consultations last year, one of the things that I found most disturbing is how little actual truck anyone seemed to be giving to the needs and wishes of those who create copyrightable works. It's one thing to argue about the loss to academia & the public with restricted fair dealing; but it seemed to me that too many of those who argued for consumer-focused and friendlier copyright laws seemed to little consider or integrate thought of creators' rights; what they should expect from a future law. I was quite supportive of flexibility for consumers; it's just that the love from the other side seemed... shall we say, wan at best.
Academics and the public have a case for expanded rights. So do consumers, in terms of demanding flexibility for lawful uses and the right to be able to consume media as they wish. But at the same time, the ones with the most to immediately lose are creatives themselves. And what seemed to be on offer for us is a whole lot of unproven faierie dust about "alternative revenue" and "becoming more entrepeneurial" -- stuff that sounds great and romantic to a 21 year old with a guitar, but is probably less helpful for a screenwriter who needs $15 million in loan guarantees upfront to get a film made.
So there were other signals to be heard yesterday, too, apparently, from a government that insists it's not going to turn its back on content creators. So we'll see. In the meantime, the Creators Copyright Coalition, an umbrella group consisting of many different creators' groups, including songwriters, Screenwriters, Directors, book authors & performers, released their position on a forward-looking copyright law:
You can read more by clicking here to download the release, or just read more after the jump.
Through the consultations last year, one of the things that I found most disturbing is how little actual truck anyone seemed to be giving to the needs and wishes of those who create copyrightable works. It's one thing to argue about the loss to academia & the public with restricted fair dealing; but it seemed to me that too many of those who argued for consumer-focused and friendlier copyright laws seemed to little consider or integrate thought of creators' rights; what they should expect from a future law. I was quite supportive of flexibility for consumers; it's just that the love from the other side seemed... shall we say, wan at best.
Academics and the public have a case for expanded rights. So do consumers, in terms of demanding flexibility for lawful uses and the right to be able to consume media as they wish. But at the same time, the ones with the most to immediately lose are creatives themselves. And what seemed to be on offer for us is a whole lot of unproven faierie dust about "alternative revenue" and "becoming more entrepeneurial" -- stuff that sounds great and romantic to a 21 year old with a guitar, but is probably less helpful for a screenwriter who needs $15 million in loan guarantees upfront to get a film made.
So there were other signals to be heard yesterday, too, apparently, from a government that insists it's not going to turn its back on content creators. So we'll see. In the meantime, the Creators Copyright Coalition, an umbrella group consisting of many different creators' groups, including songwriters, Screenwriters, Directors, book authors & performers, released their position on a forward-looking copyright law:
The Creators Copyright Coalition (CCC) is an alliance of 15 professional associations of individual creators and performers and copyright collective societies active in the theatre, the visual arts, the applied arts, literature, music, recording and audiovisual (radio, television, film and commercials). Together these 15 associations and collectives represent more than 100,000 creators (authors and performers) who are copyright owners.
CREATORS PUSH FOR COPYRIGHT REFORM
Toronto – Canadian creators are urging the government to adopt copyright laws that support arts and culture in Canada.
“There are key steps the government could take today to reform Canadian copyright laws that would balance the interests of both Canadian creators and consumers,” said Bill Freeman, Chair of the Creators Copyright Coalition (CCC).
On behalf of Canadian creators from across the country, the CCC is looking for the new copyright bill to:
- Ratify the WIPO Internet Treaties
- Update the private copying regime
- Designate writers and directors as joint authors of AV works
- Facilitate consumer access to content while ensuring creators are fairly compensated
- No expansion of fair dealing
- Institute strong penalties against content piracy
“Our coalition brings together organizations with diverse interests. We all agree that these points must be reflected in the new copyright bill if the government is serious about taking a balanced approach that respects content creators,” said Freeman. “We also look forward to bringing our perspective to the upcoming digital economy consultations. For example, we’ll urge the government to consider the potential for collective licensing to facilitate consumer access to our works while ensuring Canadian creators are compensated.”
Media Inquiries: Bill Freeman, CCC Chair, 416 203-2956, billfreeman@rogers.com
You can read more by clicking here to download the release, or just read more after the jump.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Consultation, Schmonsultation
THIS IS JUST relentlessly depressing on every single level. I am filled with disgust.
From Michael Geist:
And my answer, this time is, not a Goddamn thing. You're Canadian. You're just going to sit back and eat it. And they know it.
The fuck with the funny coloured money & the own the podium shit. We really want to save money, let's just make it official: outsource governance to Washington.
We'd still get screwed on copyright, but hey, they have a health care bill now at least.
From Michael Geist:
PMO Issues The Order: Canadian DMCA Bill Within Six Weeks
The bill is not expected until June, but it will have dramatic repercussions once introduced. First, the bill represents a stunning reversal from the government's seeming shift away from C-61 and its commitment to a bill based on the national copyright consultation. Instead, the consultation appears to have been little more than theatre, with the PMO and Moore choosing to dismiss public opinion. Second, after adopting distinctly pro-consumer positions on other issues, Moore has abandoned that approach with support for what may become the most anti-consumer copyright bill in Canadian history.This is the part where people usually write in and say, 'wow, what can we do about this!'
And my answer, this time is, not a Goddamn thing. You're Canadian. You're just going to sit back and eat it. And they know it.
The fuck with the funny coloured money & the own the podium shit. We really want to save money, let's just make it official: outsource governance to Washington.
We'd still get screwed on copyright, but hey, they have a health care bill now at least.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Justified Craft, Breaking Away, & Car Living
MEANWHILE, BACK IN the subject of TeeVee...
The Globe has a nice profile today by Stephen Cole of Elmore Leonard where he rhapsodizes about how thrilled he is with what Graham Yost has done with the character of Raylan Givens in Justified.
Part of what I love about Justified is that it manages to create its world so effortlessly & instantly, but then goes around and breaks all the rules of what you're supposed to do to establish a TV series. They go to L.A. in the 3rd episode. L.A.! I mean, who does that? Changes locale in ep 3?
They also did a nice slow burn building up the Daddy character as a formidable foe, then introduced him as a character who seemed weak and past his prime (though still capable of some real kicks.)
I am completely addicted to this show, which makes up for...
Breaking Bad. I know, I know, I read the tweets & the interviews saying that the show is bananas now, but, as suspected, losing all sympathy for Walt just sort of drained my desire to watch the series. Something's gotta go. While I like my antiheroes, I guess I just don't like things quite so nihilistic. Hey, if I want nihilism, I look in the mirror.
I will also say with some relief that I screened the first episode of HBO Canada's's new show from George F. Walker, "Living in Your Car," (which Canadians can watch online here) and enjoyed it -- with a couple of lingering questions. I was not a big fan of either This is Wonderland or (especially) The Line, so I'm delighted to say that the pilot for LIYC is brisk & snappy. It's actually a pretty textbook example of how to introduce a lot of backstory in a smart & funny, breezy way.
The lead, John Ralston, is enjoyable and charismatic. I don't know what kind of pop new Walker collaborator Joseph Kay (who created the show with Walker & Dani Romain) brought to the table, but the feel of this show is much more current than the last couple. I just am not sure, like Breaking Bad, if it's going to be a series with the kind of legs to keep me hooked. As played in the pilot, the Ralston character is charismatic but not a bit sympathetic. I'm going to need a reason to care about him in subsequent episodes. Still, it's another strong case in the argument that Canada's premium pay services are following their American counterparts by churning out the most consistently engaging and interesting homegrown shows.
I just hope we're not treated to a scene of a woman in a slip in a motel having a long argument with somebody anytime soon.
The Globe has a nice profile today by Stephen Cole of Elmore Leonard where he rhapsodizes about how thrilled he is with what Graham Yost has done with the character of Raylan Givens in Justified.The trick to storytelling, Leonard believes, “is leaving out the parts readers skip.” That’s something Justified, which airs in Canada on Super ChannelMonday nights, manages with economy and wit, he says. The story of U.S. Marshal Raylan Givens, a Stetson-wearing lawman who returns to Harlan County to deal with a messy past, manages to pass Leonard’s creative checklist.
“Last night’s show was terrific,” the writer says. “Action all the way, good story, suspense .... The funny stuff was funny.”
“I got a whole bunch of his paperbacks and handed them out to writers,” Toronto-born Yost says. “We wanted everyone to get the rhythm and feel of Elmore Leonard.”
Yost literally handcuffed writers to Leonard by having inspirational bracelets made up that read WWED – “What would Elmore do?”
“I gave ’em to my kids and grandkids,” Leonard laughs, adding that whatever Yost did, his actors captured Leonard’s sound.
Part of what I love about Justified is that it manages to create its world so effortlessly & instantly, but then goes around and breaks all the rules of what you're supposed to do to establish a TV series. They go to L.A. in the 3rd episode. L.A.! I mean, who does that? Changes locale in ep 3?
They also did a nice slow burn building up the Daddy character as a formidable foe, then introduced him as a character who seemed weak and past his prime (though still capable of some real kicks.)
I am completely addicted to this show, which makes up for...
Breaking Bad. I know, I know, I read the tweets & the interviews saying that the show is bananas now, but, as suspected, losing all sympathy for Walt just sort of drained my desire to watch the series. Something's gotta go. While I like my antiheroes, I guess I just don't like things quite so nihilistic. Hey, if I want nihilism, I look in the mirror.
I will also say with some relief that I screened the first episode of HBO Canada's's new show from George F. Walker, "Living in Your Car," (which Canadians can watch online here) and enjoyed it -- with a couple of lingering questions. I was not a big fan of either This is Wonderland or (especially) The Line, so I'm delighted to say that the pilot for LIYC is brisk & snappy. It's actually a pretty textbook example of how to introduce a lot of backstory in a smart & funny, breezy way. The lead, John Ralston, is enjoyable and charismatic. I don't know what kind of pop new Walker collaborator Joseph Kay (who created the show with Walker & Dani Romain) brought to the table, but the feel of this show is much more current than the last couple. I just am not sure, like Breaking Bad, if it's going to be a series with the kind of legs to keep me hooked. As played in the pilot, the Ralston character is charismatic but not a bit sympathetic. I'm going to need a reason to care about him in subsequent episodes. Still, it's another strong case in the argument that Canada's premium pay services are following their American counterparts by churning out the most consistently engaging and interesting homegrown shows.
I just hope we're not treated to a scene of a woman in a slip in a motel having a long argument with somebody anytime soon.
Bye the Bye...
WHILE THIS SHOULD probably go without saying, as the hits to the blog go bananas & as news orgs circle ... ahem ... "no comment," I should stress that despite Jane Taber's assertion that I'm a "big shot" at the WGC, that's really not true. What I write here is my own opinion, and does not necessarily reflect that of the Writers Guild of Canada.
I feel like I should throw up the FBI/Interpol warning now. For the record, if I ever do do a DVD commentary, I'm totally going to say the word, "fuck." Judge me as thou wilt.
I feel like I should throw up the FBI/Interpol warning now. For the record, if I ever do do a DVD commentary, I'm totally going to say the word, "fuck." Judge me as thou wilt.
Oh, Dear, It's the Mop & Pail...& They'd Like To Borrow A Cup of Crazy
FURTHER TO OUR silly little contretemps yesterday, I notice-- "Quelle horreur!" -- that Canada's National Newspaper has gone squirrel with my little story. (As opposed to "going viral" where an internet meme takes off, "going squirrel"is when the MSM can't help themselves from picking up something from a blog, but still manages to intimate that people the internet are nuts.)
Exhibit A -- Jane Taber's Ottawa Notebook:
To correct the gentle writer for the august organ of record, I am a big deal only in relative circumference.
The thing is, I am more than willing to give the Honourable Member from Port Moody, Coquitlam & the other place I can't remember the benefit of the doubt -- poorly chosen words by a superfan in a medium that's (supposed to be) informal -- but the divisive, secretive and closed thinking this government shows dealing with anyone who disagrees with them, and the Minister's own propensity for being highly dismissive and rejecting input from anyone who isn't in "his" camp colours it a bit differently.
And the "lighten up" response -- that riposte that followed a thousand dirty jokes & ass grabs in the office 20 years ago -- isn't stellar. What would have been the harm in, "I misspoke, and it was dumb. I thought like a hockey fan not a government minister. Like all Canadians, I just hope for some good hockey and a final between two Canadian teams -- and then, may the best team win. P.S. I think that's the Canucks.")
There. P.R. problem solved.
The post I wrote was really using the Hockey thing as a jumping off point to discuss and illustrate the minister -- and the government's -- prevailing attitude, which is -- "we know better, and if reality or data disagrees, we will choose ideology."
Sometimes teachable moments come wrapped in padding & face masks.
Ah well, back to the word mines.
I expect acorn showers from the Small Dead Animals nuthatch in 5, 4, 3...
-Posted from iPad, nerds!
UPDATE 05/03:
This is cross-posted from below, where a commenter, "Red Snapper" points out another excellent take on the subtext of this article:
You know, part of the rumbles over the Gordon Brown gaffe last week (separate & apart from the debate over whether the woman he spoke to was actually a bigot or not) comes from the fact that deep down, this is what a lot of us fear about politicians -- especially in a Parliamentary system where they're supposed to be more loyal to the party than their constituents -- when the doors are closed, they barely pay lip service to other people's opinions. We're not naive. We saw the result of George W. Bush's government shutting out any and all advisors that didn't conform to their worldview: it transformed government into a purely political apparatus, with disastrous effects for the United States, and the world. (In contrast, if you'll remember, to the Clinton years, when Republicans had to worry and harrumph over stained dresses because any of their good ideas were actually, you know, embraced by Clinton)
Blocking contrary voices on Twitter just proves that the guy is really, really interested in saying how great he is going around handing out money -- serving his portfolio? Not so much.
Exhibit A -- Jane Taber's Ottawa Notebook:
First, favouring one homegrown squad or the other when there are only two Canadian teams left in the playoffs is bad enough when you are the Canadian Heritage Minister. But going so far as to favour the Western team (he represents a suburban Vancouver riding) over the team from Quebec when the party that you represent as Minister of Official Languages is depending on the province for its majority government is deranged.
In a blog post called Tweets Have Consequences, Denis McGrath, a TV writer and a big deal in the Writers Guild of Canada, wrote: “I wouldn’t have minded the evocation of the 2nd iteration of the Alberta wingers who took over the Conservative party a while back, but Moore is a politician – and words, whether they’re calling a constituent a ‘bigot’ or choosing a team in a match – have impact.”
Arguing that sport is a “special metaphor for everything”, Mr. McGrath writes that by stating that the Canucks are Canada’s team, Mr. Moore is doing what the Harper Conservatives do best – splitting Canadians apart into “an us or them.”
“Us doesn’t include the CBC, artistic elites, union people, city dwellers – and Quebec. In a fractious, minority parliament situation, divide & conquer, shore up your base & cherry pick some ridings here and there might be the only way toward stability. But it’s killing the country. Killing it.”
Mr. McGrath comments, too, on Mr. Moore’s poor timing in declaring the Canucks “Team Canada” on the heels of the men’s hockey Olympic gold medal victory that united the country. He says it goes beyond “tone deafness, into a very much darker corner of the current political climate.”
Oh, and he was just warming up…
Building to his conclusion, Mr. McGrath tells Mr. Moore not to lecture the electorate as to who is more Canadian, based on who they are rooting for in the playoffs.
So James Moore, what were you thinking? “Was trying to have fun. Relax, lighten up. Geez,” Mr. Moore told his critic.
To correct the gentle writer for the august organ of record, I am a big deal only in relative circumference.
The thing is, I am more than willing to give the Honourable Member from Port Moody, Coquitlam & the other place I can't remember the benefit of the doubt -- poorly chosen words by a superfan in a medium that's (supposed to be) informal -- but the divisive, secretive and closed thinking this government shows dealing with anyone who disagrees with them, and the Minister's own propensity for being highly dismissive and rejecting input from anyone who isn't in "his" camp colours it a bit differently.
And the "lighten up" response -- that riposte that followed a thousand dirty jokes & ass grabs in the office 20 years ago -- isn't stellar. What would have been the harm in, "I misspoke, and it was dumb. I thought like a hockey fan not a government minister. Like all Canadians, I just hope for some good hockey and a final between two Canadian teams -- and then, may the best team win. P.S. I think that's the Canucks.")
There. P.R. problem solved.
The post I wrote was really using the Hockey thing as a jumping off point to discuss and illustrate the minister -- and the government's -- prevailing attitude, which is -- "we know better, and if reality or data disagrees, we will choose ideology."
Sometimes teachable moments come wrapped in padding & face masks.
Ah well, back to the word mines.
I expect acorn showers from the Small Dead Animals nuthatch in 5, 4, 3...
-Posted from iPad, nerds!
UPDATE 05/03:
This is cross-posted from below, where a commenter, "Red Snapper" points out another excellent take on the subtext of this article:
I also question his increasing use of the "block" function. He's actively shunning cultural organizations he's supposed to be standing up for as well as taxpayers who are so outrageous as to now [sic, he means 'not'] fawn over him 24/7.That's a great point. The Minister got Pissed off at ACTRA a few weeks ago and blocked them, so that he doesn't have to read their responses, and they can't "follow" him. This is a regular thing now with the Minister. If you're not in step with his worldview, he does the digerati equivalent of putting hands over ears and petulantly shouting, "naah naah nahh can't hear you!"
You know, part of the rumbles over the Gordon Brown gaffe last week (separate & apart from the debate over whether the woman he spoke to was actually a bigot or not) comes from the fact that deep down, this is what a lot of us fear about politicians -- especially in a Parliamentary system where they're supposed to be more loyal to the party than their constituents -- when the doors are closed, they barely pay lip service to other people's opinions. We're not naive. We saw the result of George W. Bush's government shutting out any and all advisors that didn't conform to their worldview: it transformed government into a purely political apparatus, with disastrous effects for the United States, and the world. (In contrast, if you'll remember, to the Clinton years, when Republicans had to worry and harrumph over stained dresses because any of their good ideas were actually, you know, embraced by Clinton)
Blocking contrary voices on Twitter just proves that the guy is really, really interested in saying how great he is going around handing out money -- serving his portfolio? Not so much.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Oh New York...
THEY'RE INTERVIEWING a T-Shirt vendor on CNN who I've seen in Times Square a hundred times.
When the shoes start to drop on this, it's going to get ugly very quick.
How awesome are the police & citizenry of Manhattan? Rockstars.
When the shoes start to drop on this, it's going to get ugly very quick.
How awesome are the police & citizenry of Manhattan? Rockstars.
Writer Make Good
MY FRIEND Rob Sheridan wrote a lovely first person account of his career rise in the National Post. Now imagine what would happen if Canadian papers thought to profile more actors, writers & directors BEFORE they left for the USA? Hmm?
I'd always talked about making a go of it in Hollywood, but had never really tried. I sent out some scripts, took some meetings. Ten years earlier I had gotten so many rejection letters; now the same agencies were pitching me. I had a good meeting at Warner Bros. and my agent at William Morris helped negotiate me an offer on a blind pilot script deal. That means they're hiring me not for a specific idea, but on the strength of my work that they've read. It means I'll be playing in a bigger field.
I tend to spend so much time worrying about doing a good job that I'm not real good at allowing myself the opportunity to enjoy a moment. Last night, however, I was at a Beverly Hills restaurant, drinking a martini and my cousin was encouraging me to bask in my success. I'm trying to enjoy this, but generally speaking, I'm thinking about the work ahead.
Tweets Have Consequences
CANADIAN HERITAGE MINISTER James Moore likes to call himself "the iPod Minister." He's "hip," and plugged into new technologies, and is the guy pushing the CMF to get all jiggy with that online content creation that hasn't made anybody any money yet.
And yet...
I was very surprised when waiting for a plane to find he'd tweeted this yesterday:
Now, on the one hand, it's almost a funny. I wouldn't have minded the evocation of the 2nd iteration of the Alberta wingers who took over the Conservative party a while back, but Moore is a politician -- and words, whether they're calling a constituent a 'bigot' or choosing a team in a match -- have impact.
Yes. I know. Moore is from Vancouver. He should be expected to root for the Canucks. He could have said any version of, "My team in this playoffs is the Canucks," he could have said, "West Coast Rules! Vancouver!" or anything similar, and we would have taken it in that spirit. But that's not what he wrote.
"The Canucks are Canada's Team in these playoffs."
What does that mean, exactly? Well, to an eye practiced in the art of discerning & interpreting Conservative Party spin -- a task that most of us have grown to learn since they took the reins of power four years ago -- it is the same old thing of splitting apart into an us or them. Us doesn't include the CBC, artistic elites, union people, city dwellers -- and Quebec. In a fractious, minority parliament situation, divide & conquer, shore up your base & cherry pick some ridings here and there might be the only way toward stability. But it's killing the country. Killing it.
Sports is a special metaphor for everything. People invest so much because, in the end, it's not as gnarly & real a thing as your pension, or your employer maybe shutting up shop, or the fact that you're not sure you'll be able to pay your mortgage in three years. Sports is freighted with an emotion greater than its actual, real-life importance. Someone in the political class surely knows that.
Now let's talk Hockey. 84% of the country watched the Gold Medal Canada Hockey game. The Hockey Playoffs are routinely the highest rated shows of the year in this country. Moore's party knows that -- they even changed the Citizenship guide so that immigrants would know how important the sport was to this country.
Which is why Moore's comment -- coming on the heels of one of the most stunning comebacks by a team that a whole lot of "Canadiens" think of as "Canada's team" goes beyond tone deafness, into a very much darker corner of the current political climate.
By circumstance, I happened to be in Montreal the night the Canadiens walopped the Capitals, and did the unthinkable -- advance to the 2nd round of the playoffs by beating the best team in the game.
It was unlikely. It was surprising, and it was joyous. The bar I was in erupted. The man beside me, a 72 year old in an old style Habs sweater, let loose a strain of joyous French invective that sounded like Jacques Brel coughing. He told me later that he'd seen his first game at the Forum in 1946.
To my right there were three businessmen from Cincinatti. One was a Penguins fan, but said that "tonight I'm rooting for MONNNtreal." These were nice, decent guys -- and the convo only got dicey a couple times when they started talking about Barack HUSSEIN Obama -- and the heart of division came back to the fore. I subtly indicated that, in fact, I was Team Obama, and a remarkable thing happened. We sort of, by covenant or mutual agreement, agreed to let it go. We were tired, and in a fun place. We agreed that maybe the sides working together a bit more was important. They said that they loved coming to Montreal because it was so different that it gave them a totally different perspective on the world. "That's why I like it too," I said.
Another beer, another story, good natured -- about the Democrat friend one of the guys always gives a hard time to. And he gives it right back. "I'd like to see what he did to Hannity if he got a shot." Still neighbours. Still friends. The war in the media doesn't have to hit main street after all. By the time they left, I had a standing invitation to visit Cincinatti. And Patrick to my left had regaled me with the stories of the three times he'd met The Rocket.
Outside in the streets, up on Ste. Catherine, the flags were waving and the kids were screaming. Anglo & French, songs shouted together. A legacy shared across a language barrier. If nothing else, that's why the Canadiens win was important. More important, in fact, because of how unexpected and unlikely it was.
That's what Sports is good for too, Minister Moore. Crafting the unlikely metaphor for life, that if you listen and live it, just might transfer a bit of hope to other areas, too.
We're so tired of everyone in Ottawa acting like a bunch of two year olds. Your party's default position of blaming everything on the other -- liberal plots, the CBC, bias from the civil service -- doesn't cut it anymore. You've been running the country for years now. Whatever's wrong -- you own it. We don't want to hear whose fault you think it is. We want you to fix it. You have a minority government. That means you need help. Start looking for help and stop looking for who to blame.
And while you're at it, next time you're in an unfriendly (read: Non-Conservative) part of the country, may I gently suggest you take the iPod earbuds out of the ear and listen for a moment? My specialty is the cultural sector, and I know from listening to you & reading your tweets for a year or so now, that gosh, you get an awful lot wrong. I can't believe that's not true in some of the other areas of your stewardship.
It's ironic that a party that takes so much of its energy from regional, Western disaffection concentrates so much of the power in one man's office, and refuses to accept outside ideas or advice -- even from within the party. Perhaps you tweet & twitter so much because the PMO's door is closed to you, too. I don't know.
What I do know is this: there are many of us out here that yearn for a Canada where the first thing you don't hear from a Vancouverite is how much they hate Toronto; where you can enjoy the beauty of an Alberta trail without getting into an argument; and maybe where the spirit of those anglo kids & French kids shouting for joy in the streets can be marshalled for something other than the most unlikely of hockey wins.
I did a quick in-and-out trip to Winnipeg in the last couple days for a seminar. I met some great people, had wonderful conversations. On the flight there, I watched Defendor, the Woody Harrelson, Hamilton-shot movie written & directed by an Actor I first met when he was in my Miniseries Across The River to Motor City, Peter Stebbings. It was great. A wonderful movie about personal responsibility & heroism & about how ordinary people can do extraordinary things. On the way back I saw a funny, scabrous dirty heist movie, The High Life -- about four hapless guys trying to pull a bank heist. It was like a rougher Canadian Guy Ritchie movie. And it was based on a play that I remember seeing in Toronto several years ago. Yes. That's right. A movie based on a Canadian PLAY.
Accessible, entertaining, Canadian. Made for us. Made by us. Not the slightest bit elitist. I also, as I do a lot, flipped through the TV section, lingering over the French language episodes of Les Boys & a Patrick Huard comedy special. I keep hoping one of these days I'm going to see these available on the inflight entertainment system with English subtitles. I'm curious. I'd like to see what Quebec is watching, too. And right now my French isn't good enough to follow it. I hope one day to fix that, too. Because I think that's kind of one of the cool things about Canada.
When you take the iPod buds out of your ears to face a non-Conservative audience, it's amazing the things you'll hear. You won't like some of it. But I'm confident you might hear one or two things that could change your perspective a little.
I guess the question is, what's more important to you? Serving the great nation that Canada is? Or working relentlessly to make it over in the Conservative ideology you support?
There are two Canadian teams in these playoffs, Minister Moore. You're from Vancouver, and we'll give you a pass for rooting for the Canucks. But don't tell us who's more Canadian.
That is not, and will never be your call to make. If you don't get that, then there's something in your ears besides earbuds.
UPDATE: I stipulate that the "iPod Minister" thing probably came from the Press, not the Honourable MP himself. Quick on the uptake, if not the accepting of responsibility. "Lighten up," of course is the familiar riposte of anyone who's ever been taken to task for telling a sexist joke or making an off-colour remark. I learned from personal experience years ago that "lighten up," is about the worst answer you can make in about 99% of these circumstances. But it heartens me to think that we won't see any kind of puffed-up or manufactured outrage coming from the Minister the next time a Liberal MP makes a bad joke, or if somebody on a CBC Panel tweeks the government. It's clearly a new day dawning, where we'll all be able to "lighten up." I salute the brave Minister for choosing to lead the charge. Follow through, and you'll be a better man than I, Gunga Din.
AND YET ANOTHER UPDATE 05/03:
A commenter, "Red Snapper" below points out another excellent take on the subtext of this article:
You know, part of the rumbles over the Gordon Brown gaffe last week (separate & apart from the debate over whether the woman he spoke to was actually a bigot or not) comes from the fact that deep down, this is what a lot of us fear about politicians -- especially in a Parliamentary system where they're supposed to be more loyal to the party than their constituents -- when the doors are closed, they barely pay lip service to other people's opinions. We're not naive. We saw the result of George W. Bush's government shutting out any and all advisors that didn't conform to their worldview: it transformed government into a purely political apparatus, with disastrous effects for the United States, and the world. (In contrast, if you'll remember, to the Clinton years, when Republicans had to worry and harrumph over stained dresses because any of their good ideas were actually, you know, embraced by Clinton)
Blocking contrary voices on Twitter just proves that the guy is really, really interested in saying how great he is going around handing out money -- serving his portfolio? Not so much.
UPDATE: I stipulate that the "iPod Minister" thing probably came from the Press, not the Honourable MP himself. Quick on the uptake, if not the accepting of responsibility. "Lighten up," of course is the familiar riposte of anyone who's ever been taken to task for telling a sexist joke or making an off-colour remark. I learned from personal experience years ago that "lighten up," is about the worst answer you can make in about 99% of these circumstances. But it heartens me to think that we won't see any kind of puffed-up or manufactured outrage coming from the Minister the next time a Liberal MP makes a bad joke, or if somebody on a CBC Panel tweeks the government. It's clearly a new day dawning, where we'll all be able to "lighten up." I salute the brave Minister for choosing to lead the charge. Follow through, and you'll be a better man than I, Gunga Din.
A commenter, "Red Snapper" below points out another excellent take on the subtext of this article:
I also question his increasing use of the "block" function. He's actively shunning cultural organizations he's supposed to be standing up for as well as taxpayers who are so outrageous as to now [sic, he means 'not'] fawn over him 24/7.That's a great point. The Minister got Pissed off at ACTRA a few weeks ago and blocked them, so that he doesn't have to read their responses, and they can't "follow" him. This is a regular thing now with the Minister. If you're not in step with his worldview, he does the digerati equivalent of putting hands over ears and petulantly shouting, "naah naah nahh can't hear you!"
You know, part of the rumbles over the Gordon Brown gaffe last week (separate & apart from the debate over whether the woman he spoke to was actually a bigot or not) comes from the fact that deep down, this is what a lot of us fear about politicians -- especially in a Parliamentary system where they're supposed to be more loyal to the party than their constituents -- when the doors are closed, they barely pay lip service to other people's opinions. We're not naive. We saw the result of George W. Bush's government shutting out any and all advisors that didn't conform to their worldview: it transformed government into a purely political apparatus, with disastrous effects for the United States, and the world. (In contrast, if you'll remember, to the Clinton years, when Republicans had to worry and harrumph over stained dresses because any of their good ideas were actually, you know, embraced by Clinton)
Blocking contrary voices on Twitter just proves that the guy is really, really interested in saying how great he is going around handing out money -- serving his portfolio? Not so much.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
We Were Happy To Be Served
Of course, if you're a longtime Sticks reader, this cup might have done more than simply keep your hot beverage warm on that trip to New York. It might just have made you a better writer.It was for decades the most enduring piece of ephemera in New York City and is still among the most recognizable. Trim, blue and white, it fits neatly in the hand, sized so its contents can be downed in a New York minute. It is as vivid an emblem of the city as the Statue of Liberty, beloved of property masters who need to evoke Gotham at a glance in films and on television.
It is, of course, the Anthora, the cardboard cup of Grecian design that has held New Yorkers’ coffee securely for nearly half a century. Introduced in the 1960s, the Anthora was long made by the hundreds of millions annually, nearly every cup destined for the New York area.A pop-cultural totem, the Anthora has been enshrined in museums; its likeness has adorned tourist memorabilia like T-shirts and ceramic mugs. Like many once-celebrated artifacts, though, the cup may now be endangered, the victim of urban gentrification.
I'm off this morning to do a workshop on spec writing in a very Grey Winnipeg. I am reliably informed that all the rain will be creating the standing pools of water that make the bugs so bitchin' in about a week or so. I am glad I'm on a flight out tonight.
Come up and say 'hi' at the workshop. Hope they get something out of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)