Pitch Perfect Satire: NSA Intercepted Children's Letters To Santa

from the cookies-is-the-interception dept

That Anonymous Coward points us to what may be the most pitch perfect satire of the NSA's activities, in a write-up about how the NSA intercepted children's letters to Santa, over at the Duffel Blog. The concept is obvious from the title, but it's the attention to detail, matching almost point for point the kinds of things that have been revealed that the NSA actually does, that make the satire so perfect.

The documents describe an operation known as MILK COOKIES, based out of Fort Meade and run in conjunction with the U.S. Postal Service. COOKIES is the interception of the letters while MILK feeds them through a complex series of algorithms to spot any hidden messages.

Agency director Gen. Keith Alexander had previously testified to Congress in 2011 that the NSA would occasionally collect letters addressed to Santa, but insisted that it was totally accidental and that no one was actually reading or storing them.

The NSA is prohibited from directly monitoring American citizens under both Executive Order 12333 and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. However, because the letters are addressed to the North Pole, which falls outside of U.S. territory, they are considered potential foreign intelligence signals which the NSA is authorized to intercept.

The article includes the history of the program, discusses the ELFCHELON data center in the North Pole, and even discusses how the NSA has "routinely hacked Santa’s Naughty and Nice List for any information on world leaders." As we head into a little break, this seems like an appropriate post to go out on...

Filed Under: christmas, letters to santa, nsa, satire, surveillance

Viral Satire Over Student Suspended For Saying 'Merry Christmas' Leads To Real Problems For Elementary School

from the forward-this-to-everyone dept

I used to think a news item going "viral", where everyone forwards it or shares it with roughly everyone else, was kind of a cool thing. What a neat little way the internet can facilitate the spreading of important of interesting information, I thought. Then I discovered that many of my fellow American internet denizens apparently suffer from a combination of being exceptionally gullible and not knowing what Snopes.com is. That combination results in too many people (read: any people) believing that a combination of soda and Mentos will kill you, that our government is building million dollar housing complexes for illegal immigrants with my Social Security money, and that Muslims are getting cities to ban Christmas lights for reasons unknown to anyone. Every single one of those stories is false, but it went viral so the idiotic masses were outraged.

Mix a bit of satire -- designed to fool just enough of the people -- into that viral explosive mix, and things can get weird.

Take the following, for example, where a satirical news story about a student in San Francisco being suspended for wishing an atheist teacher "merry Christmas" spread far and wide and resulted in the taxpayers having to foot the bill for the immensely stupid backlash. The story appeared in the National Report, a satirical news site, and claimed that the above suspension had occurred at Argon Elementary. There is no Argon Elementary in San Francisco. But there sure is an Argonne Elementary, and those parents were pissed.

But an Internet hoax had people across the country believing it did, resulting in e-mail tirades and more than 75 phone complaints and veiled threats of violence against the fictitious teacher or the actual principal. And taxpayers picked up the tab for beefed-up security and staff time to deal with the phony story.

Because of the threats, Argonne elementary school administrators called an emergency teacher meeting to review security procedures and district officials assigned an extra security officer to the campus. In addition, police have increased patrols around the school this week, said district Assistant Superintendent Leticia Salinas.

Okay, a couple of things. To start off with, if you're the type of person who spreads these kind of "War on Christmas!!!" stories and theories around, I'd like you to do me a quick favor: walk outside. You don't have to go anywhere in particular, just walk outside. Since it's December, assuming you live at least somewhere near other human beings, and I promise you that you won't be able to walk five minutes in any direction without seeing the sickly glow of multi-colored lights, a whole lot of red and green, or that insufferable torture you guys call Christmas music. If there was ever a war on Christmas, which there wasn't, you guys won, mmkay?

Next, if you're of the Christian flavor of homosapien, and a slight to one of your holidays causes you to threaten violence against other people in general, you're doing Christianity wrong. It's "turn the other cheek", not "turn the other cheek, grab your guns, and rain hellfire down upon the infidels." That's your guys' rule, not mine. I'm just asking you to follow it.

But the wider lesson is that the internet has progressed to the point where you should be immediately suspicious of any sensational viral news item, because chances are it's bullshit. But it didn't stop eager people, including a radio reverend, Craig Donofrio, from jumping into the fray:

"Thank you for your monumental blunder, it will provide me weeks of material on my show," he wrote to Argonne's real principal, Cami Okubo. "Keep up the terrible work. It makes my job so much easier! MERRY CHRISTMAS! Craig."

Only later did Donofrio realize he had been duped.

"It is sad that people make up such stories and agitate others into outrage in such a way," he said in an e-mail to The Chronicle on Tuesday, adding that he had apologized to the principal. "I was very happy that I did fact-checking before going on air with this story, and it has not been discussed on-air."

Donofrio doesn't seem to get that it's satire. It wasn't designed to "agitate people into outrage," but to be funny -- and, having people overreact to it is part of how satire works, highlighting how easily some people can be fooled. Hell, even those of us that should know better can be fooled. In the end, if something is so insane as to get your ire up, there's a half-decent chance that it's too insane to be real. Invest some time in verifying whether a story is real before threatening the kind of holy violence that apparently Jesus was a huge fan of. I mean, I know Die Hard is a Christmas movie, but it isn't meant to be a template, okay?

Filed Under: merry christmas, overreaction, satire, viral

Rep. Mike Rogers Angrily Defends Bathroom Spycam

from the as-long-as-they-don't-know-about-it dept

Ken White blogs at Popehat. He's a litigator and criminal defense attorney at Brown White & Newhouse LLP in Los Angeles. His views are his alone, not those of his firm. This post is cross-posted from Popehat with permission.

And, because we here at Techdirt have had issues with Mike Rogers' office in the past, we hope that they have a dictionary and a copy of the Constitution -- though, given the comments that inspired this post, it seems like he might need a remedial refresher course.

Dateline: Washington, D.C.: Representative Mike Rogers (R-Michigan) was defiant today in the face of accusations that he had installed a small digital camera in the women's bathroom in his office at the Capitol.

"This is just politics," said the ten-term Congressman. "I would argue the fact that we haven't had any women come forward with any specificity arguing that their privacy has been violated, clearly indicates, in ten years, clearly indicates that something must be doing right. Somebody must be doing something exactly right."

When reporters asked how women would know to complain — the spycam, funded by the government, was expertly hidden — Rogers asserted that was the point. "You can't have your privacy violated if you don't know your privacy is violated," said Rogers.

Rogers went on to explain that the nation's Capitol — which has housed figures like former Congressman Bob Filner and former Senator Bob Packwood — presents known dangers to women, and that the spycam is calculated to make certain they are protected from those dangers. "If the women knew exactly what that spycam was about, they would be applauding and popping champagne corks. It's a good thing. it keeps the women safe. It keeps the Capitol safe," Rogers asserted.

Rogers then abruptly concluded the interview, threatening to sue reporters if they wrote about it.

Filed Under: mike rogers, privacy, satire

Study: Claiming That Games And Violence Are Linked Now Linked To Violence

from the we've-gone-meta dept

You know how this usually works when we talk about major media and their comments on violent video games. One of the mindless talking heads on one of the cable news programs that I've been trying to convince you to never watch jumps to the wrong conclusion about games after some tragedy and then I make fun of them. It's been a nice, tidy, symbiotic relationship thus far: they apparently need to say something stupid and I apparently need to tear their nonsense to shreds.

But now we've got a problem. It turns out that these baseless claims that video games lead to violence may themselves be leading to violence.
"Dude, bro, what does that even mean?"
Image Source Okay, so it's just a parody article by The Guardian, but it so closely mimics the real nonsense spewed by the media about video games that, like me, you'll probably read it through the first time and think it's plausible someone actually said this stuff. The joke starts with a claim of a study.

Dr Mario Vance, a psychological researcher at the Rapture Institute for headline-inspired science, conducted a seven-year longitudinal study that monitored the anger levels of more than a thousand volunteers from gaming communities. The results showed statistically significant increases in overall aggression and violent tendencies that occurred very soon after tenuous mainstream media stories claiming video games cause violence.

"Mainstream media have never liked video games, but it's just getting silly lately," said Dr Vance. "Recently, several media sources focused on Aaron Alexis (the Washington naval yard gunman) and his enthusiasm for Call of Duty as a cause for his brutal crimes. Because when wondering what could have made a naval reservist, someone trained by the military to engage in actions with the express intention of killing people, turn to violence, the obvious conclusion is 'video games', apparently.

This is something we've actually seen in our comments about these kinds of tragedies: why are we so focused on the video games, or the guns for that matter, instead of banking that the source of violence might be the violence-training some of these perpetrators receive in our military? This, of course, isn't to say that our military turns people into mass murderers or anything of that nature, but it's a much better direct link than the fact that these guys played Grand Theft Auto.

The article about the "study" then goes on with some rather funny quotes that parody some other counter-examples we've heard in our comments section.

"I used to enjoy multiplayer gaming. Granted, it expanded my vocabulary for homophobic insults considerably, but I've never felt the urge to travel to war-torn regions and practise my sniper skills for real. But my mother read that I could turn violent so confiscated my Playstation. One dubious article in the Telegraph and she decides I'm too impressionable. She owns four Derek Acorah DVDs and keeps asking her fortune teller what to do about me, so yeah, I'm the main problem here."

So, if it's a parody article, what's there to learn here? Well, the problem is that all the made up quotes, claims, and bullshit in this parody article aren't far off from what's being spoon-fed to the public by a mass media that would rather go the lazy self-serving route of scaring the hell out of parents than actually tell the truth about the link between games and violence, which is to say there is none. Sure, this pro-gamer article was pulled out of someone's ass, but if mass media can do it we can too.

Filed Under: satire, studies, video games, violence

Man Suggests Nature Walk To Observe NSA Spies Threatened Habitat; Has Law Enforcement Visit His Habitat

from the nsa:-no-satire-allowed dept

Facebook continues to be an intelligence operative's best friend. Many of its users subvert any sort of expectation of privacy simply by leaving their accounts on the default settings. (This also works out well for Mark Zuckerberg.) Anything set to the public default can and, apparently, will be seen.

If you want to make a joke about the NSA, feel free. Just don't be surprised if it gets a response.

Normally, Daniel Bangert's Facebook posts tend to be of the serious variety. The 28-year-old includes news items and other bits of interest he encounters throughout the day. "I rarely post funny pictures," he says.

Recently, though, he decided to liven up his page with something a bit more amusing -- and decided to focus on the scandal surrounding the vast Internet surveillance perpetrated by the US intelligence service NSA. He invited his friends on an excursion to the top secret US facility known as the Dagger Complex in Griesheim, where Bangert is from.

He described the outing as though it were a nature walk. He wrote on Facebook that its purpose was to undertake "joint research into the threatened habitat of NSA spies." He added: "If we are really lucky, we might actually see a real NSA spy with our own eyes." He suggested that those interested in coming should bring along their cameras and "flowers of all kinds to improve the appearance of the NSA spies' habitat."

Few of Bangert's friends took him up on his offer. However, he did receive some queries from some other interested parties. Four days after his post, he received a phone call from the local police who wished to discuss the post. Unfortunately for Bangert, this phone call was interrupted.

Bangert's doorbell rang at almost the exact same time. The police on the telephone told him to talk with the officers outside of his door. Bangert quickly put on a T-shirt -- which had a picture of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden on it along with the words "Team Edward" -- and answered the door.

Bangert says he answered all of the questions truthfully, saying that, yes, his intention was that of heading out to watch the spies. "The officers did smirk a bit," he notes.

So, how did the local police hear of Bangert's "event?" According to the spokesperson, US military police had come across the post first and passed the info along. Apparently, this information wasn't done traveling, resulting in Bangert receiving yet another phone call.

Not long later, Bangert got another call asking him to report to Central Commissariat 10 of the German federal police. They too then sent an officer to his home. "The wanted to know if I had connections with (anarchist groups) or other violent people," Bangert says. He told the officers that he didn't, repeating over and over that he "just wanted to go for a walk."

The federal police were less amused by Bangert's post (he was called *gasp* a "smart aleck"), but unable to find anything damning, they resorted to more bureaucratic forms of dissuasion -- suggesting Bangert secure a permit for his "demonstration." They also told him not to post anything on the web about their visit. Bangert met them halfway.

Bangert took their first piece of advice, registering his "demonstration" even though, as he says, "it wasn't supposed to be one." But he ignored the police's second suggestion and reported on their visit on his Facebook page. "How much more proof do you need," he wrote. "Everyone says that they aren't affected. But then I invite people for a walk and write obvious nonsense in the invitation and suddenly the federal police show up at my home."

Bangert's story spread to the local media, resulting in his "nature walk" being joined by another 70 people who wished to view spies in their natural habitat. It also attracted a police "escort" comprised of squad cars bookending Bangert's group. Although attempts were made to coax the spies out of their offices for closer observation, the walk ended without any actual spy sightings.

Bangert wisely neither confirms nor denies reports there will be more "nature walks" in the future.

So is he planning a repeat? "I didn't say that and I didn't write it anywhere," Bangert replies.

This particular incident ended amicably, without arrests or conjecture about terrorist activities. But it only takes one overreaction for things to go horribly worse, and the more reponding entities there are, the higher the chance is that this might offcur. It also clearly indicates that American operatives are exercising active surveillance on German citizens' online activities, something German citizens aren't exactly thrilled about, especially when the local US military base has the power to send officials after anyone who offends the "sensibilities" of their permanent visitors.

Filed Under: daniel bangert, germany, nature walk, nsa, nsa surveillance, satire

Chamber Of Commerce Drops Lawsuit Against Parodists The Yes Men, Who Ask The Chamber To Reconsider

from the please-re-bring-it dept

Roughly four years ago, activist group/prankster demigods the Yes Men held a press conference where they presented themselves as spokesmen for the US Chamber of Commerce and announced the Chamber had done an about-face on climate change. Everything was going well until an actual representative of the CofC crashed the Yes Men's party, exposing them as impersonators. A good time was had by all, except the Chamber of Commerce (and some duped reporters), the former of which immediately ran off to lawyer up.

Things escalated quickly.

The Chamber's first move was to fire off a DMCA takedown notice aimed at the Yes Men's Chamber of Commerce-aping website (www.chamber-of-commerce.us [no longer live]). This first attempt went nowhere quickly, although it did draw the attention of the EFF. Realizing copyright infringement might not be the best card to play, the Chamber shifted strategies and sued the Yes Men for trademark infringement. All of this took place in about 72 hours.

Nearly four years later, the Chamber of Commerce has decided to drop its suit against the Yes Men. The legal system in this country can be many things, but "speedy" isn't one of them.

The Chamber seemed pretty sure of itself four years ago. It was confident enough to rush into a lawsuit and a round of Streisanding to punish activists who briefly made them look ridiculous. But a push back by the EFF (and David Wright Tremaine LLP), citing use of trademark in criticism as protected speech, possibly caused the Chamber to reconsider seeing this one through.

Most entities who suddenly find a lawsuit against them dropped, especially one pursued by a much larger organization with deeper pockets, will take a few deep breaths and welcome the chance to go back to a more normal life, one free of pending legal action.

Not the Yes Men.

Soon after learning of the lawsuit's dismissal by the Chamber, the group fired off a response detailing their disappointment in the Chamber's unwillingness to see this thing through.

Washington DC, June 13, 2013 – The Yes Men today implored the U..S. Chamber of Commerce to reconsider their recent decision to withdraw the lawsuit they filed nearly four years ago, in a press conference on the steps of the lobbying giant itself.

"Just as their case against us was finally heating up again, the U.S. Chamber decided to drop it," said former defendant Andy Bichlbaum of the Yes Men. "The U.S. Chamber knew this was our chance to challenge their silly claims and, since they claimed we had 'damaged' them, investigate the details of their finances through the discovery process. It's the height of rudeness to deprive us of this great opportunity."

"The U.S. Chamber's lawsuit represented the only time in 17 years that anyone has been stupid enough to sue us," said former defendant Mike Bonanno. "This was the chance of a lifetime, and we profoundly deplore the U.S. Chamber's about-face."

Perhaps it's this sort of "can do" attitude that encouraged the Chamber's withdrawal from the battlefield. It's certainly not as though the organization suddenly learned to laugh at itself and adopt a more laissez faire approach to criticism-via-impersonation. More likely, it realized it was in for a tougher battle than it originally imagined and quite possibly didn't want to expose more of its inner workings than was strictly necessary.

The Yes Men had such great plans for the Chamber, too.

"In just the last fifteen years, the hoaxsters at the U.S. Chamber have spent nearly a billion dollars lying to children and adults, and generally lobbying for corporations and against humans," said Bichlbaum. "This lawsuit gave us a chance to help reveal the U.S. Chamber's many hoaxes to the public."

It's a sad day at the Yes Men HQ, but hope still springs eternal. The group is planning a little legal action of its own.

The Yes Men are considering a lawsuit against the U.S. Chamber for depriving them of the opportunity to expose them. "Tell 'em to put their damn helmets on," said Bonanno, echoing Tom Donohue's words upon launching the U.S. Chamber lawsuit in 2009.

I'm not sure where the Yes Men are heading with this, but it promises to be entertaining. Of course, they still need some legal help and this new angle has yet to find a lawyer that's willing to play the part of the straight man in a courtroom farce.

Filed Under: dmca, parody, pranks, satire, trademark, yes men
Companies: us chamber of commerce

Copyright Maximalism: Turning Satirical Works Into Ridiculous Reality

from the the-copyright-industries-hope-to-be-'satire-free'-by-2015 dept

Last week, we discussed Microsoft's patent filing on a content distribution system that counted heads and charged license fees accordingly. Utilizing the Kinect or some other unnamed technology, Microsoft had the beginnings of the copyright industries' wildest dreams: an opportunity to treat the public's living rooms like theaters and collect "admission" from every viewer.

Rick Falkvinge has amusingly pointed out that "prior art" exists for this "Content Distribution Regulator" -- in the form of a satirical piece published at BBspot (and covered here years ago, noting that it "hit too close to home") five years before Microsoft's filing.

Six years ago, a satire site wrote a story about how the copyright industry wanted more money if you invited friends to watch a movie in your living room. This notion has now been patented in new technology: automated headcounts coming to a living room near you, to enable new forms of restrictions. Apparently, the copyright industry takes six years to catch up with the very worst satire of it.

The satirical piece Falkvinge quotes deals with the MPAA trying to push through a bill that would allow it to take control of people's living rooms and treat them like theaters.

The MPAA is lobbying congress to push through a new bill that would make unauthorized home theaters illegal. The group feels that all theaters should be sanctioned, whether they be commercial settings or at home.

This paragraph in particular is eerily prescient:

The bill would require that any hardware manufactured in the future contain technology that tells the MPAA directly of what is being shown and specific details on the audience. The data would be gathered using various motion sensors and biometric technology.

Sounds exactly like Microsoft's idea, doesn't it? In fact, it sounds close enough that you could argue that it should invalidate the patent in question. Either way, there's no way the MPAA isn't hoping this comes to fruition. Sure, money can be made by producing new movies but it's so much simpler to charge people over and over for the same item. Various format changes over the years have resulted in some double- and triple-dipping. Digital distribution, combined with Microsoft's consumer-unfriendly device, takes rentals into "real money" territory and very possibly will take digital purchases in that direction as well. Here's a quote from the satire that may as well be real:

"Just because you buy a DVD to watch at home doesn't give you the right to invite friends over to watch it too. That's a violation of copyright and denies us the revenue that would be generated from DVD sales to your friends," said Glickman. "Ideally we expect each viewer to have their own copy of the DVD, but we realize that isn't always feasible. The registration fee is a fair compromise."

We've heard wording like this before, where industry heads claim some irrationally high license fee is a "fair compromise." It's viewed as fair by licensing agencies because if they were able, they would have charged much, much more.

Falkvinge points out that those satirizing these industries may just be unwitting futurists:

So be careful when you write satire about the madness and delusions of the copyright industry (and that certainly isn't hard – more often than not, ordinary journalism will do fine). Either tread very carefully, or start a little stopwatch the next time you publish satire about what that parasitic, shameless industry will think of next.

This is a fact. The content industries' love of licenses (and the ability to charge multiple times for the same content) has made it into an easy punchline. Beyond the satire Falkvinge quoted are other examples demonstrating that your average citizen already recognizes the colossal overreach of these industries and the absurdity of the licenses connected to each form of artistic expression they cover.

Earlier this year, sportswriter Mike Tanier used public performance licensing (namely, the violation of these licenses) as the lynchpin for his plan to rid the NFL of replacement referees.

If the crowd at an NFL game sings "Hey Jude," television networks will be stuck broadcasting "Hey Jude" without the rights-holders permission. The sound editors are pretty good at obscuring the B.S. chant, but that only takes a little bit of white noise. Try editing away one of the most recognizable melodies in the world on live television. The broadcast will sound like it is coming from Venus. But if the NFL doesn't drown out the singing, someone big and powerful is going to show up at league headquarters in a suing mood.

When you've got sportswriters using aggressive licensing issues as a punchline, you know the it's reached critical mass. Not only is a sportswriter skewering performance rights organizations, the NFL's copyright paranoia, the Beatles' fierce grasp on its catalog and the overreaction of all these entities to "unlicensed" use, he also laying it out there confidently, expecting his audience to recognize the ridiculousness of it all without needing to resort to pages of footnotes and links to relevant legal information. It's obvious to everybody but the licensing agencies how utterly preposterous this all is.

Need another example of this common knowledge? Just recently, a piece at famous humor site McSweeney's recasted Gil Scott-Heron's famous phrase, explaining exactly why "the revolution will not be televised." Here's a few choice quotes from a much longer piece (all of it worth reading):

The revolution will not be televised due to our blackout policy. Because the revolution is taking place in your market, you will be unable to watch the revolution. Instead of the revolution, the classic Billy Bob Thornton/John Cusack film, Pushing Tin, will be televised.

The revolution will not be televised, but it will be available for streaming on Hulu.com seven days after the revolution takes place.

The revolution will not be televised because of a dispute between the revolution and DIRECTV. If you'd like to see the revolution, please call DIRECTV and demand that they put the revolution back on the air.

The revolution will not be televised, but if you have a cable subscription, you can log in to WatchRevolutions.com and use their authenticator to watch the revolution. Just provide your username and password, and you will have access to the revolution live, plus alternate angles, commentary, and the ability to share your login with up two more IP addresses.

With digital distribution, each iteration is subject to its own limitations and restrictions, just the way the content industries prefer it. As the shift continues in this direction, I would expect the major players to continue their march into brave new licensing schemes far surpassing satirists' most fevered dreams. They control the licenses they've "sold" their customers and have shown they have absolutely no qualms about abusing consumers in order to squeeze a few more dollars out of the content. Microsoft's filing turns what was originally a series of punchlines into a very plausible glimpse of the future.

Filed Under: copyright, drm, patents, satire
Companies: microsoft

$exytime: Thanks To An Easily Exploitable System, Three Lawyers Have 'Patented Sex'*

from the when-two-people-love-each-other-very-much-and-have-secured-licensing... dept

*No, not really.

We all yearn for several things, among them true patent reform and the touch of another human being. Especially there. And there. But maybe not there... at least not without some... but I digress. The U.S. has long held to the notion of "first to invent," rather than "first inventor to file." Until recently, that is. The America Invents Act silenced critics who complained that "first to invent" made the system slightly harder to exploit. But that's all behind us now. As these three lawyers point out in their hilarious parody video, "first inventor to file" opens the door for some pretty devious behavior. (CAUTION: Probably NSFW. Contains sexual terminology, some light swearing and Patrick Leahy.)

There's a lot to love in the video, even if the opening is a little slow (but entirely necessary). If you're a patent wonk (does such a thing exist?), shout-outs to patent laws (PL 112-29, yo) and an appearance by David Kappos, the director of the USPTO, will provide a few thrills. If you're everyone else, there's a ton of sexual verbiage and Patrick Leahy, both Obamas and Michael Jackson all get name checked. Keep your eyes peeled for a distracted patent officer 'rubber-stamping' an application.

All in all, it's good clean fun that takes a few jabs at the more ludicrous aspects of the patent process. I'd love to see them expand this idea out further, perhaps encompassing some of the research aspects, like somehow making Google's Prior Art finder harvest results from Google Images. Or checking a sexual partner for infringement by requiring a list of past partners and positions. Or maybe tackle the "patent troll" angle: the guy who patents sex but never actually performs the act.

Filed Under: first inventor to file, first to file, first to invent, patents, satire, sex

Copyright Sci-Fi: What Will Lifelong Copyright Terms Mean When People Live Way Longer?

from the satire-time dept

Correction: I initially mistook the name of Paul Di Filippo's regular column for the title of the story itself. Post has been updated with the correct title.

As copyright issues have been propelled into the mainstream conversation, they have become an increasingly juicy target for lampooning by authors and artists. Satire is a clumsy tool for explaining an unknown concept, but an ideal way to skewer one that people are already talking about. Reader aethercowboy points us to a new creative construction of copyright found in the latest issue of Fantasy & Science Fiction, in the form of a short story by author Paul Di Filippo for his regular column Plumage from Pegasus.

In What Immortal Hand or Eye Could Frame Thy Dreadful Copyright?, Di Filippo muses about the effects of "life plus 70 years" copyright terms in a future where medical science allows people to live much, much longer (not an unrealistic notion). The story is no masterpiece—rather a quick scene geared at sci-fi wonks, heavily indulging in the pulp technique of tossing out references to unexplained futuristic details and relying on the reader's knowledge of science fiction tropes to fill in the gaps. It's like a less elegant version of Kurt Vonnegut's Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow, with copyrights in place of beds. But Plumage from Pegasus is fun because it takes a central concept we talk about a lot—that copyright law is out of sync with technological realities—and pushes it to an exaggerated extreme in the way that only sci-fi can. Overall, of course, it's just neat to see the copyright discussion turn up in yet another cultural corner.

I'll leave you with the beginning of the story—you can read the whole (short) thing on the F&SF website.

Today was my father's five-hundredth birthday, and also the day that I had determined to murder him.

But before you think too poorly of me, let me inform you that my father was Arden Pence.

Yes, that Arden Pence! Creator and sole owner of what had once been one of the most beloved entertainment franchises in the inhabited Solar System: Rajah Robot and Poxy Toff, Oort Cloud Explorers. A multi-platform, full-sensory, optionally immersive fictional construct that had generated trillions in profits, but which, for the past two centuries, had not manifested a single new idea, instead gradually frittering away all its goodwill and prestige in an endless series of self-imitation and recycling, until now the series was practically a byword for staleness and decrepitude.

I was Arden Pence's sole heir, his son, Kilmer. Although a youthful two-hundred-and-sixty-five years old, I was not getting any younger, and my well of patience had steadily evaporated to undetectable amounts. For two hundred years I had been biding my time, watching in frustration as my father's intellectual property, the delight of my own childhood, dwindled and became a source of predictable mild amusement for the public, all the while waiting for some mortal accident—a quench in the nearest zero-point capacitor, a hail of rogue strangelets from an exploding spaceship—to strike my progenitor and legally deliver the franchise into my hands.

Filed Under: paul di filippo, satire, science fiction