NZ A Star Paying To Act In A Supporting Role

Mr Joyce offers an anecdote to illustrate his argument: in a visit to India last year, he found “everybody was talking about how massively beautiful New Zealand was”.

When he asked about this they told him, “Oh, these two Bollywood movies that were done in New Zealand, it’s just lifted the profile of New Zealand so magnificently in India.”

Joyce squirms all through this doughty defence of the dodgy, and if Key still believes there were votes in the Hobbit capitulations he’s not as in touch as he was.

As for the “anecdote,” how much did we pay Bollywood to bring NZ attention to India’s billion odd?

As for the movie industries special needs, because it provides special benefits, FFS.

The Release Windows Archaism

As for the TV shows such as Homeland and others hits, there is not justification whatsoever to preserve this calendar archaism. They should be made universally available from the day when they are aired on TV, period. Or customers will vote with their mouse anyway and find the right file-sharing sites.

The ???Industry??? fails to assess three shifts here.

???The first one is the globalization of audiences. Worldwide, about 360m people are native English speakers; for an additional 375m, it is the second language, and 750m more picked English as an foreign language at school. That???s about 1.5 billion people likely to be interested in English-speaking culture. As a result, a growing proportion of teenagers watch their pirated series without subtitles ??? or scruples.

???Then, the ???spread factor???: Once a show becomes a hit in the United States, it becomes widely commented in Europe and elsewhere, not only because a large number of people speak serviceable English, but also because many national websites propagate the US buzz. Hollywood execs would be surprised to see how well young (potential) audiences abroad know about their productions months before seeing them.

???And finally, technology is definitely on the side of the foreign consumer: Better connectivity (expect 5 minutes to download an episode), high definition image, great sound??? And mobility (just take a high-speed train in Europe and see how many are watching videos on their tablets).

The forces arrayed against geo-blocking.

Thin walls and traffic cameras

In the timeline of human history, privacy is relatively recent. It may even be that privacy was an anomaly, that our social natures rely on leakage to thrive, and that we’re nearing the end of a transient time where the walls between us gave us the illusion of secrecy.

But now that technology is tearing down those walls, we need checks and balances to ensure that we don’t let predictions become prejudices. Even when those predictions are based in fact, we must build both context and mercy into the data-driven decisions that govern our quantified future.

David Weinberger: “Leeway is the only way we manage to live together: We ignore what isn’t our business. We cut one another some slack. We forgive one another when we transgress. By bending the rules we’re not violating fairness. The equal and blind application of rules is a bureaucracy’s idea of fairness. Judiciously granting leeway is what fairness is all about. Fairness comes in dealing with the exceptions. [–––] Matters are different in the digital world. Bits are all edges. Nothing is continuous. Everything is precise. Bits are uniform so no exceptions are required, no leeway is permitted. Which brings us to “digital rights management” […]” (Via Ed Felten.)

A very rational take on the fact that, prediction is not an invasion of privacy. And not necessarily a bad thing. That perhaps our “privacy” was a transient anomaly on the path to big data.

It doesn’t spare us though from the need to provide human slack in all things.

Glasses to blur vision of ultra-Orthodox men ?? Feminist Philosophers

From NBC:  It’s the latest prescription for extreme ultra-Orthodox Jewish men who shun contact with the opposite sex: Glasses that blur their vision, so they don’t have to see women they consider to be immodestly dressed.

HHGTTG peril sensitive glasses take on a new role. Google Glasses might have a more specific solution in the future.

Given the sensitivities of some to images, a wider constituency could be imagined.

The News Media meets ‘New Media’: Rights, Responsibilities and Regulation in the Digital Age

-Who are the news media and what is their role in society?

-Should the news media continue to have access to special legal privileges to enable them to do their job? If so, who should qualify for these privileges and under what conditions?

-What standards should apply to the news media and how should they be held accountable to these standards?

-And what legal standards and accountabilities should apply to the thousands of ordinary New Zealanders who are not part of the news media but who make use of digital technology and the read/write web to publish and communicate publicly in a variety of mediums?

 

These are some of the challenging questions the Law Commission considers in its November 2011 Issues Paper: ‘The News Media Meets ???New Media???: rights, responsibilities and regulation in the digital age.’

The paper was prepared in response to a Government request for a review of the legal and regulatory environment in which New Zealand???s news media and other communicators are operating in the digital era.

It is important to stress that this is a preliminary paper designed to garner wide public debate and feedback on the scope of the problem and best solutions. We welcome submissions and comments on the questions and proposals contained in the paper.

Mind those “right & responsibilities.” Apart from noblesse oblige, responsibilities assessed by a third party make rights merely rewards for obedience.

Supreme Court rules ISPs not subject to broadcast regulations

“An ISP does not engage with these policy objectives when it is merely providing the mode of transmission,” the court ruled as it dismissed the challenge.

“ISPs provide Internet access to end-users. When providing access to the Internet, which is the only function of ISPs placed in issue by the reference question, they take no part in the selection, origination, or packaging of content.”

If the court had decided the Internet providers were broadcasting, they could have been subject to levies in the same way video distributors, such as cable and satellite companies, are charged.

So if an ISP provides content, not merely the mode of transmission, they get hit.  Now would you like to be a common carrier?