Puzzled Daily

Don’t Let Big Business Ruin the Internet Forever!

Shady Brady — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 15:27:18 +0000

DON’T LET BIG BUSINESS FOREVER RUIN THE INTERNET!

Wikipedia is down. I repeat, Wikipedia is down.

That’s right, the geniuses at Wiki have offered us a sneak preview of what the internet might look like once big business has trampled all over it. And it doesn’t look good, folks.

Read this article right now to find out “How PIPA and SOPA Violate White House Principles Supporting Free Speech and Innovation.”

Posted verbatim below for convenience.

Over the weekend, the Obama administration issued a potentially game-changing statementon the blacklist bills, saying it would oppose PIPA and SOPA as written, and drew an important line in the sand by emphasizing that it “will not support” any bill “that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet.”From eff.org:Yet, the fight is still far from over. Even though the New York Times reported that the White House statement “all but kill[s] current ve

The Anti-Circumvention Provisionrsions of the legislation,” the Senate is still poised to bring PIPA to the floor next week, and we can expect SOPA proponents in the House to try to revive the legislation—unless they get the message that these initiatives must stop, now. So let’s take a look at the dangerous provisions in the blacklist bills that would violate the White House’s own principles by damaging free speech, Internet security, and online innovation:

In addition to going after websites allegedly directly involved in copyright infringement,

a proposal in SOPA will allow the government to target sites that simply provide information that could help users get around the bills’ censorship mechanisms. Such a provision would not only amount to an unconstitutional prior restraint against protected speech, but would severely damage online innovation. And contrary to claims by SOPA’s supporters, this provision—at least what’s been proposed so far—applies to all websites, even those in the U.S.

As First Amendment expert Marvin Ammori points out, “The language is pretty vague, but it appears all these companies must monitor their sites for anti-circumvention so they are not subject to court actions ‘enjoining’ them from continuing to provide ‘such product or service.’” That means social media sites like Facebook or YouTube—basically any site with user generated content—would have to police their own sites, forcing huge liability costs onto countless Internet companies. This is exactly why venture capitalists have said en masse they won’t invest in online startups if PIPA and SOPA pass. Websites would be forced to block anything from a user post about browser add-ons like DeSopa, to a simple list of IP addresses of already-blocked sites.

Perhaps worse, EFF has detailed how this provision would also decimate the open source software community. Anyone who writes or distributes Virtual Private Network, proxy, privacy or anonymization software would be negatively affected. This includes organizations that are funded by the State Department to create circumvention software to help democratic activists get around authoritarian regimes’ online censorship mechanisms. Ironically, SOPA would not only institute the same practices as these regimes, but would essentially outlaw the tools used by activists to circumvent censorship in countries like Iran and China as well.

The “Vigilante” Provision

Another dangerous provision in PIPA and SOPA that hasn’t received a lot of attention is the “vigilante” provision, which would grant broad immunity to all service providers if they overblock innocent users or block sites voluntarily with no judicial oversight at all. The standard for immunity is incredibly low and the potential for abuse is off the charts. Intermediaries only need to act “in good faith” and base their decision “on credible evidence” to receive immunity.

As we noted months ago, this provision would allow the MPAA and RIAA to create literal blacklists of sites they want censored. Intermediaries will find themselves under pressure to act to avoid court orders, creating a vehicle for corporations to censor sites—even those in the U.S.—without any legal oversight. And as Public Knowledge has pointed out, not only can this provision be used for bogus copyright claims that are protected by fair use, but large corporations can take advantage of it to stamp out emerging competitors and skirt anti-trust laws:

For instance, an Internet service provider could block DNS requests for a website offering online video that competed with its cable television offerings, based upon “credible evidence” that the site was, in its own estimation, promoting its use for infringement….While the amendment requires that the action be taken in good faith, the blocked site now bears the burden of proving either its innocence or the bad faith of its accuser in order to be unblocked.

Corporate Right of Action

PIPA and SOPA also still allow copyright holders to get an unopposed court order to cut off foreign websites from payment processors and advertisers. As we have continually highlighted, copyright holders already can remove infringing material from the web under the DMCA notice-and-takedown procedure. Unfortunately, we’ve seen that power abused time and again. Yet the proponents of PIPA and SOPA want to give rightsholders even more power, allowing them to essentially shut down full sites instead of removing the specific infringing content.

While this provision only affects foreign sites, it still affects Americans’ free speech rights. As Marvin Ammori explained, “The seminal case of Lamont v. Postmaster makes it clear that Americans have the First Amendment right to read and listen to foreign speech, even if the foreigners lack a First Amendment speech right.” If history is any guide—and we’re afraid it is—we will see specious claims to wholesale take downs of legitimate and protected speech.

Expanded Attorney General Powers

PIPA and SOPA would also give the Attorney General new authority to block domain name services, a provision that has been universally criticized by both Internet security experts and First Amendment scholars. Even the blacklist bills’ authors are now publicly second-guessingthat scary provision. But even without it, this section would still force many intermediaries to become the Internet police by putting the responsibility of censorship enforcement on those intermediaries, who are usually innocent third parties.

The Attorney General would also be empowered to de-list websites from search engines, which, as Google Chairman Eric Schmidt noted, would still “criminalize linking and the fundamental structure of the Internet itself.” The same applies to payment processors and advertisers.

These are just some of the egregious provisions in PIPA and SOPA that would drastically change the way we use the Internet (for the worse), and punish millions of innocent users who have never even thought about copyright infringement. As Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanianexplained, PIPA and SOPA are “the equivalent of being angry and trying to take action against Ford just because a Mustang was used in a bank robbery.” These bills must be stopped if we want to protect free speech and innovation on the web.

Filed under: Miscellaneous, Puzzling, Reasons Why the internet Is Dumbing Down America

FAILED PILOT REVIEW #1 – Who’s Afraid of Diana Prince?

Shady Brady — Sat, 03 Dec 2011 22:41:00 +0000

Recently, I downloaded the much maligned and unpicked-up Wonder Woman pilot David E. Kelly made just to see it for myself. In order to appreciate all the backlash, I thought it behooved me to view the source material. Before I get to that though, let’s take a look at Wonder Woman’s very first shot at the small screen, or any screen for that matter–1967’s Who’s Afraid of Diana Prince?

Never mind who’s afraid of Diana Prince. Who the hell is she? Well, she’s Wonder Woman’s alter ego. But since the Amazing Amazon is a goddess from a man-less isle, her need for a secret identity has always been a little less important than DC’s Big Two: Batman and Superman. Recognition alone proves this. Bruce Wayne? Clark Kent? Household names. Diana Prince? Not so much. It’s likely this wouldn’t be the case if Wonder Woman could’ve translated to the screen a little bit easier. Here’s one such attempt.

The time: 1967. The place: Hollywood, an American suburb unlike any other. Batman starring Adam West is in its heyday, and The Powers That Be think lightning can strike twice. Producer William Dozier puts together a five-minute segment featuring Wonder Woman to show Warner Bros., hoping they’ll order a pilot. They don’t.

End of story. Except it’s not, because in the age of information nothing is trivial forever but everything is forever trivialized.

The first thing one might notice when coming to this piece of cinema history is the title. And how stupid it is for a show about a superhero called “Wonder Woman.” And it doesn’t have anything to do with Who’s Afraid of Virginia Wolf? that I know save the fact that the Taylor/Burton film was released in the same decade and that it features two people in an apartment with a disagreement. That doesn’t bode well for these next five minutes, does it?

It’s a dark and stormy night. Our bespectacled, twenty-something heroine is curled up on the couch with a newspaper (will she be thoughtful and mature?) wearing high heels and a skirt (nope.)

Diana Prince, Couch Potato: "Hmm, what else is on TV?"

Played by Ellie Wood Walker, she’s smart, she’s fashionable, and while there’s nothing ancient about this brunette-next-door’s looks, she seems to have a little bit of sitcom trouble living in the modern world. The sections of the newspaper, for instance, are practically springing to life to get out of her Amazonian hands! Instead of scooping up the stray sections, this superhero inexplicably throws herself off the couch and while flapping like a fish out of water she calls for her mother to come pick her up. Wait. Smart, fashionable, cute, and quirky, yes, but clumsy and helpless? No. Come on, Batman writers. You know better than that! After all, Bruce Wayne had a secret identity, too. “Clutz” Kent only worked for Superman because he was in disguise. In his Kent persona, Superman turned on the goofball charm to allay suspicion that he was anything more than ordinary. Unless he sensed a peeping Tom, Superman wasn’t breaking dishes at home. He wasn’t tripping down the stairs when nobody was looking. Because, in fact, he’s Superman! Why is Diana Prince, Wonder Woman, so helpless in the privacy of her own home?

After she’s righted on the couch like a paraplegic, Diana shuffles through the newspaper sections again like she has Goldilocks Syndrome. She’s unable, it seems, to find the perfect article to read. “It seems so quiet here tonight,” she decides to scream over the crackling storm.

“Well, thank goodness it’s raining–there are no planes tonight making all that noise,” screams back her mother. She’s played by a character actress (Maudie Prickett) noted on imdb.com for portraying maids and busybodies, so naturally she’s busying herself on the set with the housekeeping.

Anyway, now that her mother’s pointed it out, Diana too realizes how much water is being hosed at her fake windows. “So, that’s it,” she says, galloping across the stage to look outside. “It’s raining cats and dogs. Steve’s plane must be grounded!”

WW & ST 4-EVA!

Steve, as in, Steve Trevor, Ace Pilot. He must’ve been meant to play her love interest, as he does in the comics and most other interpretations, including the Lynda Carter series. Why it’s an emergency that his plane is grounded, I don’t know. Where is this set, anyhow? The mother’s dialogue indicates that it’s usually noisy. Do they live near an Air Force base? If so, why does it matter that Steve’s grounded?

Diana rushes across the stage and pleades with her mother, “I won’t be having any dinner tonight!”

In full sitcom character mode, the mother protests. “Oh, don’t be silly. Where do you think all that strength comes from? Those gods?” She looks to the sky. “No, from my cooking.”

"Egads, why am I such a cliche? I'm a freaking goddess!"

“I have to help Steve. He’s waiting at the airport and there’s no planes.”

Batman uses his resources to stop maniacs from pillaging Gotham; Wonder Woman uses her powers to pick up her boyfriend from the airport. The mother, of course, isn’t happy. How can her daughter meet a man off cavorting with. . . men.

“Look,” she says, her approach temporarily becoming less Alice Kramden and more Joan Crawford, “you can’t be so smart you can’t take a mother’s advice. Now this is no kind of night for you to be flying around in that outfit of yours. This is the kind of night for you to watch TV or read the newspaper (yeah, because we all know how well that went.) Eat your rutledge!”

Clearly, Diana’s under her mother’s thumb. The overbearing matriarch of Paradise Island–exactly, imagine the overbearing Jewish mother cliche–desperately wants to marry Diana off. Like all good overbearing Jewish Goddes Mothers do (“You don’t know how it feels to be the mother of an unmarried daughter your age. Why, the whole neighborhood’s talking.”) Presumably, she’s sick and tired of picking up a daughter that needlessly tosses herself on the floor.

“But the fate of the free world depends on me,” Diana protests.

Great Teacup in the Sky, I hope not.

The last strange minute of this “production” sinks the whole ship. In order to save the man in her life who isn’t “the man” in her life, Diana knows what she must do: put on something really, really slutty. The closet door revolves open and when Diana steps out the other side she is no longer Diana Prince the Clutz, she is Wonder Woman the Vain.

"Would you fuck me? I'd fuck me. With something invisible."

Announcer V.O. (same guy from Batman): Wonder Woman, who knows she has the strength of Hercules, who knows she has the wisdom of Athena, who knows she has the speed of Mercury, and who thinks she has the beauty of Aphrodite!

Cue the goofy burlesque music as the Amazing Amazon preens in front of the mirror like a horny teenager. Arms outstretched, body swaying, hands feeling hips. It’s a one-woman lovefest and it’s ridiculous. I’ve never seen such a ridiculous non sequitur in my life. She even outstretches her arms as if to say, “Here we are, Wonder Woman, have at us!”

Full disclosure: this has to be seen to be believed. If you don’t intend to watch the whole four minutes, fast forward to 3:00 (see vid below), at least. There’s some kind of Black Swan thing going on here. Whether it ties into the comic book continuity somehow, who knows and who cares. It’s a strange and strangely satisfying thing to watch.

Except for one bit, we don’t see any power demonstrations. That’s disappointing. Lynda Carter was so badass she even deflected bullets off her bracelets when she appeared on A Special Olivia-Newton John. Let me un-Yoda that title for you to increase the impact of this fact. Lynda Carter was so badass as Wonder Woman she even deflected bullets off her bracelets when she appeared on an Olivia Newton-John Special. However, the lead actress does appear in full WW regalia at the end, “flying” off her roof by first clumsily levitating and then slowly scissoring the air with her legs. Until she gains enough crotch momentum, I guess, to actually fly offscreen.

"Up, up. I said, up, up. And... away. Yep, up, up, and--one more scissor should do it. Woo hoo! Go Team Vagina!"

Point of fact, despite its ridiculousness, I did think some of this material held promise. More than that, I thought it might have been a little before its time. Like a female-led Great American Hero. The self-awareness of the script implied that we’d be poking fun at the conventions of the superhero genre without sacrificing its trimmings. (“You can’t be a decent martyr on an empty stomach,” her mother nags.) This could have been something special. Think Kevin Williamson writing Wonder Woman (which, knowing Hollywood and especially the development hell the character’s been languishing in pretty much since the Carter administration, he’s probably been attached at some point.)

Some Wonder Woman fans were disappointed David E. Kelly’s pilot didn’t get picked up, while others were relieved. How can the guy who gave us Ally McBeal. I mean, remember Calista Flockhart’s on the cover of Time?

From 1998

All of this proves what a strange hero Wonder Woman really is. Her comic book’s always dwindling in sales and her film/TV projects lag in development hell, yet she remains popular in the hearts and minds of the public. Even non-comic book fans have a stake in WW. Why? She’s Rosie the Riveter. She’s the lone female in DC’s Holy Trinity of heroes and she makes Top 10 lists all the time. So why isn’t she more popular? I can throw out a dozen haphazard theories (Is she too sexy? Is she not sexy enough?), but the best one I can come up with is this: Wonder Woman doesn’t have a story. Bruce Wayne witnessed his parents die at the hands of a criminal so he grows up to fight crime. Superman, the last son of a dying planet, was sent to Earth to ensure a better future. Where is Wonder Woman: Year One or All-Star Wonder Woman?

And let’s face the elephant in the room while we’re at it. Wonder Woman is a tough sell. You don’t say, a feminist hero who spent her formative years in bondage by men is a tough sell? You bet.

Interestingly, Who’s Afraid of Diana Prince? was brought to us by the same team who made what is now often mistaken online for a Batgirl pilot, a spinoff of the aforementioned Batman, but what was in fact a promo used to convince studio execs at ABC that Batman deserved a third season. What they produced, I think, is just as good or bad as any episode of kiddie Batman, given your opinion of that show.

The truth is Wonder Woman can’t sell much, but she represents something people aren’t prepared to let go of. If only somebody can figure out what. Whatever it is, I don’t think David E. Kelly has any idea, and it’s certainly not in this clip:

Filed under: Comics

What happened to seancodyreviews.com?

Shady Brady — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 01:24:48 +0000

This is not a blog post so much as a beacon or a probe. For anybody who knows, what’s happened to seancodyreviews.com? I was a lurker at that website and now it’s kaput with no explanation (see above.) From what my lazy googling has gleaned, the site operators have offered no explanation. How uncouth.

Does anybody know what happened? Did Gef and Nick give any warning? Were there personal reasons or did The Powers That Be at Sean Cody shut them down? And where can I read about gobbers now?

This all comes on the heels of one model’s revealing look inside the hiring and operating processes of Sean Cody and other “houses.” Yadda, yadda, yadda, conspiracy?

UPDATED————

This is a fake update, but it still counts because I know in the future I will still be wondering what happened to seancodyreviews.

Filed under: Miscellaneous