So many bad guys. So little time. Just when Joseph Lieberman and friends had convinced you that the film industry was responsible for every heinous crime known to man, it turns out it may be a, gasp, victim. Now we all know that the Internet is a beautiful thing. It allows us to communicate with people all over the world, express ourselves in unique and exciting ways, and, most importantly, it allows us to steal. That's right. The Internet allows us to steal. Forget buying a new c.d. Go to Napster. You actually want to buy a DVD? Why bother? You can just get a copy from someone online. What rights should artists have? What rights should consumers have? Our first Civilian Voice belongs to Jake who has more to say on the issue...

"I am just about sick to my head with this debate. I honestly don't know why it is a debate other than the fact that people are going through ethical gymnastics to justify their use of items they never earned. If you want a copy of X-Music Group, then learn how to play the instruments, sing the lyrics and record it.  That, according to a Hot Button ROTD, is the same as "duplicating" a chair. That's right a chair can be created by anybody with the know-how, and the materials. (Which they must buy!)  So, in a sense, you are duplicating the chair, but in reality you are creating an entirely NEW chair that you earned through your skills as a chair-maker and by purchasing the materials. You didn't download it from the Internet.  So, how can one say that music, books, film, etc. are fair game?  Take it a step further: Imagine that you have an "Automobile Replicating Garage".  You park your car on one side, press record, and an exact copy comes out the other.  Cool.  Now imagine that anybody who wanted to could come over and take that car.  Why not? You can make as many copies as you want, and it doesn't cost anybody anything, right?  Do you think automakers would have a problem with this? STOP SCREWING ARTISTS! " - Jake

A recent Hot Button ROTD made a comparison between the VCR debate of the 1980s and the recent DeCSS/DVD and Napster debate of today. David C. wants to set the record straight...

 

"Comparing the VCR debate from the 1980's (Universal City Studios v. Sony) to the DeCSS/DVD and Napster debate is misleading.  See, the VCR was used to copy programs that generally are broadcast freely for anyone with a television.  A DVD player (copier?) is different.  The consumer must buy a DVD, and the only "copyright" the consumer has is to make one copy for personal use, the consumer has no other rights because he/she only purchased a mere license, nothing more. What 2600.com did was intentionally violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. (editor's note: 2600.com provided consumers with information that would allow them to duplicate DVDs.) They were handed an injunction from the Southern District of New York, but they turned around and made every attempt to advertise the availability of DeCSS - and is still in the process of a stop the MPAA campaign.  Does anyone really think that 2600.com (and Eric Corley) were merely trying to make a Linux compliant DVD player?  Hell, no! If so, why give away the code?  You keep it as a trade secret and market your own Linux player - after getting the proper license from the movie studios to have the proper encryption keys for the CSS (Content Scramble System) security code. Congress updated the copyright laws (17 U.S.C. 1201) to specifically stop this sort of action!!  There is no 'fair use' here.  Napster wants to claim a safe harbor as an ISP, but they knew exactly what their users were doing (and the same can be said for Scour.com, which just got sued, and is even worse, for it trades full-length movies!). Musicians and movie studios do not give the movies away for free -- hence the VCR analogy to DVD players is way off base.  Each of these defendants (Napster, 2600.com, Scour, MP3.com) knew what their users were doing...and while I don't necessarily think the studios should be able to fully monitor online 'sharing', the aforementioned parties are guilty for stealing and they know it.  No sympathy from me.  You want to watch a movie -- buy it (or rent it).  You want a CD or particular song -- buy the CD.  It's really simple -- and while I know the record companies underestimate the American need for 'ownership' in the form of a tangible package, it's still violating copyrights -- and blatantly! Now... I may be unaware of the Valenti position on all of this... but does anyone really think that Napster is unaware of what its users intents are?" - David C

bkd wants to make sure everyone understands what the FCCs recent ruling on digital copyright really means and raises the question -- how far is too far?

 

"...digital viewing devices, tivos, teevees, digital video tapes, DVD RAM, et al, are going to have to comply with a copy inhibitor signal present in the video bitstream. The content companies promise us that this will be restricted to pay-per-view and other unspecified special events. I wonder if they plan to include sporting events, as those were explicitly cited as an allowable use in the Sony Betamax decision. In short, if CBS doesn't want you to tape the finale of 'Survivor' for later viewing, you will not be allowed to. As for DeCSS, there was a time in this country when you were guilty of a crime when you committed a crime. If I'm standing next to your car with a code scanner, by all means, call the cops. If I'm standing next to my car with a code scanner, um just what's the problem exactly? If a cop finds a code scanner on my person while I'm driving a stolen car, add a charge for possession of burglary tools. If cops find a code scanner on my person while I'm driving my own car, what's the crime again? If I buy a modded cable box, and I never hook it up to a cable TV jack, have I stolen cable? - bkd

Moving onto another hot topic -- Hollywood continues to take a beating for marketing sex and violence to kids. Thursday I posed the question: Are government officials just looking for a scapegoat or is there validity to their argument? Lirrah was kind enough to respond...

"During the recent hearings, Sen Bob Kerry pointed out that the very members of the panel that were pointing their fingers at the studios had voted against trigger locks on guns and after-school programs to keep kids busy.  But it's the movies that are making them violent.  Right? Here's what I don't get .... movies cost money - how many kids are spending 2-3 times a week in a movie theatre?  With prices upwards of $9 in most markets, my guess is not many.  Add to the cost, how many movies per week are of interest to kids - even teens?  But let's say they have big allowances and varied movie tastes - that's still 4-5 hours per week.  Amazing the impact Hollywood can have in that time, isn't it. Compare that to how many are spending days in front of video screens.  Nowhere in sight at last week's hearings were the makers of popular video games that not only show violent images, but immerse the child in them - the child becomes the killer.  But making killing the object of a fun, interactive game that is marketed primarily to children wouldn't have nearly the impact on the young psyche of, say, a big Hollywood film.  Right? Television also plays a daily role in the life of children.  A recent LA Times article pointed out that children are bombarded by R-Rated images every day.  Assuming they aren't spending every day in theatres, it means that the primary influences are not coming from movies. But it was the chairmen of eight Hollywood studios that were testifying last week. And yet, Senator McCain was very careful to point out that none of this is politically motivated.  Not by money given to Democrats instead of Republicans.  Not by the idea of winning American's heartland, and heartstrings, by worrying about our children.  Certainly not by election concerns. Trigger locks, gun sales, lack of after-school or public programs and activities for kids and teens, parental apathy all play a role.  But trigger locks on guns to prevent accidental shootings were voted down by our elected officials.  Funding for after-school programs has been voted down by those same officials - despite the fact that a September poll showed that 35% of kids over 10 are left alone after school. There is no doubt that studios have made mistakes in trying to market violent films to kids.  It's wrong.  Theatre owners - despite what seems to be monthly "stings" by news shows - continue to let kids under 17 into R rated films.  Could they do better?  Yes.  But are Hollywood studios really the biggest problem - the root of all the violent evil?  No.  But they make a sexy target during the elections, don't they?! " - Lirrah

And EMHa had this to say about who is really responsible for the behavior of our kids...

 

"It would be really easy to pin everything on Hollywood (just as our wonderful politicians are trying to do as we speak), but it's just not that simple. There's no question that kids have more access to violent TV shows, music, movies and video/computer games than ever before.  It has also become pretty obvious that all of the marketing gurus out there know a good target audience when they see one.  So, with all of this being thrown at American kids from every possible direction, it's no wonder they've become desensitized, overstimulated and addicted to Ritalin for their attention deficit disorders!  I think the real root of the issue lies within the family unit.  Right now we have an entire generation of post-baby boomers who are out there raising kids, while working full-time just so that they can afford the ever increasing cost of the American lifestyle.  Since they themselves don't really have the energy, or time to 'parent' their children, they assume the schools will take over this role.  I am not blowing smoke here either -- my Mom is a teacher, and I've been told firsthand how she's expected to not just teach the three R's, but act as a referee, counselor, personal hygeine instructor, nutritionist, behavior disorder specialist and on and on.  She has 4th graders that come to school with their eyes barely open because they stayed up past midnight watching WWF wrestling or R rated movies on cable. They then proceed to "act out" these shows on the playground with usually disasterous results. Where are the parents, you might ask?  Good question.  Isn't it ultimately up to them to monitor the type of games, TV shows and movies their kids get to see?  Last time I checked, the MPAA had a pretty clear ratings system in place, so that people could make informed decisions.  Most CDs with explicit lyrics need to be labeled  as such for the same reason.  We have a tremenous amount of freedom in this country, and with that freedom comes the power and responsibilty of individuals to make the best choices for themselves and their children.  That is, unless we all want the government to start making those decisions for us." - EMHa

Deedee also speaks out on the responsibilities of parents. And she wouldn't mind seeing studio execs show a little restraint...

"I have been following the recent Senate hearings (re: Hollywood Violence) with great interest. Although there has always been inappropriate material that is accessible to adolescents, it seems as if never before has so much explicit and graphic material been readily available in so many formats, and now we find out that this material is being directly marketed to underaged viewers. Children obviously have access to more forms of media and information than ever before in history, but is monitoring and restricting this access a government function? I guess that I am still old fashioned enough to believe that parents need to step up to the plate and do their jobs, and maybe with this sudden exposure, studio executives can do their part to limit exposure of inappropriate material to younger audiences. I just know that it will be a sad day indeed if our elected officials are put in charge of any more personal restrictions." - Deedee

Brennan gives us his unique perspective on why recent sex and violent-filled flicks are so bad for the kiddies...

"In the feeding frenzy of accusations and constantly re-drawn lines of morality, this argument will soon be old oranges.  Yet I must declare my outrage at the marketing practice for Disturbing Behavior.  The distribution of flyers and goodies at late-nite raves and teen hang-outs does remind me of Marlboro's pack giveaways at Berlin's youthful Love Parade.  And though the cigarette analogy has already been toyed with, I see definite similarities: major corporations selling products so cut with toxins or film splices or whatnot that the final product is undeniably dreck. It's not good enough to appease the tastes of more 'adult' sensibilites, hence it is marketed to teenagers and early-twentysomethings who are considered too stupid to know better.   I am all for youthful viewing of dreck.  I grew up watching monster movies on the television.  Oh, to sit in the audience for the pulpy fifties heyday of thrillers like The Tingler!  Or been at the drive-ins for Corman flicks, blaxploitation, bras and bullets and bikes.  Come on!  Hormones!  Rebellion against authority!  But that does not apply in any form to the clot of sex and violence-filled teen films distributed by the major studios.  This is idiocy that fits corporate ideas of transgression: MPAA-enumerated 'shocks.'  This is I Know What You Did Last Summer, Urban Legends, and others I never bothered to see.  Please: help save the youth of America.  Get some real schlock or some real class back on the screens.  Make B-films worth fighting for once more." - Brennan

 

A big thanks to those of you who lent your voices to our first and second editions of Civilian Voices. The column is going to continue to grow and evolve based on your input and e-mails, so keep 'em coming. You can respond to some of the things you've read today or start us off on a new topic. It's up to you. The next Civilian Voices will be available for your reading pleasure next Tuesday.

Meghan McCarthy
Editor, Civilian Voices

Send your submissions to civilianvoices@roughcut.com

No purchase necessary. Void where prohibited. Must be age 16 or older to submit a story. Stories will be edited for length and content by representatives of Roughcut. Not all stories will appear online. By submitting this story you agree that Roughcut has the perpetual right to use the submitted story, in any and all media, without limitation, as Roughcut may determine in its sole discretion. You also acknowledge that you will not receive any monetary compensation for the use, if any, of your story.