NRA's Plan: If We Blame Video Games & Movies For Sandy Hook Massacre, Perhaps People Will Stop Blaming Guns

from the oh-that'll-go-over-well dept

There's been a fair amount of discussion about "gun control" in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre -- and whether or not you believe that gun control is important or that it wouldn't have made a difference one way or the other (and I've seen both arguments over and over again in the past few days), one thing that a number of people have talked about is the gun lobby's silence in response to the tragedy. The NRA, one of the most powerful lobbying groups out there, has remained mostly quiet on the subject, even to the point of shutting down its Facebook feed (which was getting bombarded) and staying silent on Twitter. However, the organization started to speak up yesterday, putting out a message about how it, too, was horrified by the tragedy, and announcing an important press conference for Friday. According to Fox News, the point of the conference is to "push back" and apparently that means blaming videos games and movies:

Sources close to the issue had earlier alerted Fox News that the National Rifle Association -- which has remained silent since Newtown, chiefly to allow for a proper period for mourning -- would soon start to "push back" against the gun-control lobby.

"If we're going to have a conversation, then let's have a comprehensive conversation," said one industry source. "If we're going to talk about the Second Amendment, then let's also talk about the First Amendment, and Hollywood, and the video games that teach young kids how to shoot heads.

Of course, as we've been noting the past few days, this kind of thing may actually go over well with grandstanding politicians who have used the tragedy to push this line of action, despite the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that such things have had any impact at all.

This is basically the NRA's "hey, look over there!" strategy.

And, whatever you think of the gun control issue, I can't see that working out well for the NRA in the long run. It might get the attention of a few grandstanding politicians, but these days, a very large percentage of the population plays video games. It's not an issue that's confined to a small group of teenaged boys any more. And pissing off the large and growing group of gamers with bogus claims about how they're being brainwashed to murder people isn't going to win many fans.

Filed Under: blame, gun control, massacre, movies, sandy hook, video games, violence
Companies: nra

Another Politician Boards The Bandwagon: Sen. Rockefeller Blames Violent Games And Television For Newtown Tragedy

from the that's-my-drum-and-i'm-going-to-beat-the-hell-out-of-it dept

As Mike covered earlier, politicians are particularly opportunistic beasts, willing to turn any tragedy into a soapbox and a chance to push through pet legislation. Even if the politicians aren't particularly wed to gun control or censorship, they're more than willing to get on the bandwagon if it will net them a little facetime with the press or the appearance of "doing something."

The latest addition to the list of opportunists is Sen. Jay Rockefeller, who states that something needs to be done about violent video games and movies, whether or not they had anything to do with last week's tragedy.

“We also need to look at the violence our kids see every day starting at a young age. By the time children reach 18 years old, they have seen tens of thousands of violent images – on television, the internet, or video games. As parents, research confirms what we already know – these violent images have a negative impact on our children’s wellbeing. While we don’t know if such images impacted the killer in Newtown, the issue of violent content is serious and must be addressed.

Rockefeller doesn't specify any particular research, but then, this is a press release, not an editorial. And despite admitting that everything he's worried about may not have affected the Newtown killer, something must still be done because... well, because this is Rockefeller's pet issue.

Back in 2007, Rockefeller led a push to grant the FCC "explicit authority" over violent and indecent programming, including the assessment of heftier fines for violators. Back then, he used his "tens of thousands of violent images" scare quote as well, and mentioned a wealth of research that backed up his assertions... but failed to name a single study in his press release.

Having failed with this initial push, Rockefeller saddled up the hobby horse again in 2009, revisiting the Children's Television Act. He claimed this was just a fact-finding mission and not another attempt to push the FCC to clean up television to his exacting specifications. One is almost tempted to believe him, right up until he details his frustration with the reactions of his fellow senators to his FCC-related effort.

He said he had not been deterred by the reactions of his fellow Senators to a hearing last year at which he featured a clip reel of violent programming. He said he was shot down, mostly by members of his own party, because of concerns over the First Amendment. "There was an automatic mindset that because the First Amendment exists, you cannot even be talking about this so don't waste my time. I was furious, and I was undeterred."

As everyone knows, the First Amendment only protects speech you 100% approve of.* How dare these so-called Senators express concerns about turning the FCC into a tool of censorship! It's refreshing that Rockefeller remains "undeterred" in his efforts to sacrifice the First Amendment on the altar of "protecting the children."

*100% not a fact.

He's a few years behind his biannual schedule, but Rockefeller is riding high in the hobby horse saddle yet again, thanks to America's rather more frequent delivery of exploitable tragedies. He may have made a few points on gun control and mental health in this release, but he undoes any forward momentum by opportunistically exhuming his "violent media" platform.

Filed Under: blame, grandstanding, jay rockefeller, movies, newtown, video games, violence

Can Someone Explain Why Facebook's CFO Should Be Fired For Getting An Awesome Deal?

from the this-makes-no-sense dept

We've been a bit confused about the hubbub and complaints concerning Facebook's IPO. Yes, the stock has dropped tremendously since the IPO, which was bad for those who bought high (and for some employees whose options may now be under water), but from Facebook's perspective, the IPO was great. Think of it this way: if I have a painting, which I sell for $10 billion, and three months later, the next owner can only get $5 billion for it, it seems like I did a good job in negotiating the deal to get my $10 billion. I sold high, just like you're supposed to.

So it's a bit of a head-scratcher to see NY Times financial reporter Andrew Ross Sorkin suggesting Facebook's CFO, David Ebersman, deserves to be fired for getting a positively amazing deal for Facebook. In Sorkin's world, Ebersman was supposed to get less for Facebook to benefit Wall Street. That seems wrong.

And yet if there is one single individual more responsible than any other for the staggering mispricing of Facebook’s I.P.O., it is Mr. Ebersman. He signed off on the ever-increasing offer price, which ended up at $38 after the company had originally planned a price range of $29 to $34.

He — almost alone — pushed to flood the market with 25 percent more shares than originally planned in the final days before the offering. And since then, as the point person for investors, he has done little to articulate how or why the company’s strategy will lift the stock price any time soon.

At a time when investors are looking for some semblance of accountability on Wall Street and in corporate America, it is remarkable that nobody — no bankers, no one at Nasdaq, no one at Facebook — has been fired for botching the offering.

Sure. Perhaps someone on Wall Street should be fired, or Nasdaq for its technical problems, but Ebersman? He convinced Wall Street to fork over a ton of money to Facebook at an extremely high price. He should be seen as a financial wizard, not someone who should be fired. Mathew Ingram points out that it's silly to blame Ebersman when it takes a lot of people to make a market. But the best response may come from this Tumblr page that rewrites Sorkin's article in a more accurate way -- highlighting how Facebook got a hell of a deal for itself.

Now, yes, there's a longer term issue to think about as well: Facebook's relationship with investors is not a one-time thing (in theory), and you can question if the continued and rapid descent in share price makes it more difficult to go back to the public markets in the future. But this is Wall Street we're talking about, where money speaks above all, and it speaks loudest for those who get a lot of it. If there's an opportunity to make money from future Facebook offerings, they'll happen no problem. And, really, does anyone doubt that Wall Street take advantage of Facebook in the same way, if the shoe was on the other foot? I mean, look at the history of IPO "pops" that shot up 100% or more on opening day -- which is basically Wall Street doing the exact same thing that Ebersman did: mis-pricing the stock for their own financial benefit. But those are celebrated, not panned.

Basically, Sorkin's column seems like sour grapes from the Wall Streeters' perspective. Facebook made out very nicely in the IPO, got a ton of money at a much higher valuation than the market now thinks the company is worth. In other words it got a heckuva deal. A failure would have been pricing the stock at a point that people didn't want to buy it. But they did buy it, because Wall Street incorrectly thought that sucker retail investors would eat up the stock and drive up the price. They didn't. But that's not Facebook's fault.

Some have bemoaned that this shows how Facebook doesn't care about investors. But there's something to be said for that. Wall Street investors are notorious short-term thinkers, focused on this quarter or possibly (if they're looking "far out") the financial year. But that's not how you build long term strategic value. It seems Facebook was smart to take a ton of money when it was offered, and then to focus on trying to build a good product, and not really worry what Wall St. or its favorite journalists have to say.

Filed Under: andrew ross sorkin, blame, david ebersman, ipo, wall street
Companies: facebook

If I Were The MPAA... How I Would Deal With My Car Break-In

from the a-study-in-contrasts dept

My family and I got back from our annual vacation in the Current Middle Ages last Friday morning around 2 a.m.  Exhausted from the trip, I forgot to take in my iPod and left it visibly displayed on the front seat. When I went out to the car the next morning, I found the passenger-side window broken and the iPod (along with some other items in the front seat) stolen. I called the police, and an officer came out to take my report. He was properly professional and sympathetic. He informed me that the chief tool available was a database that pawnshops must maintain of any electronic devices that are pawned. If the serial number on my iPod came up in the database, they would nab the felon. Otherwise, though, there wasn't much hope. The officer also advised me that there had been some similar incidents in the general neighborhood and that the best way to avoid having my car broken into in the future was to make sure that no electronics or charging cords were visible. I thanked him for his professionalism and advice and that was that.

 

Then I got to thinking, what if I were the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) or the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)? How would I handle the theft of my iPod and the advice from the police on how to avoid future break ins? Rather differently, as I explain below . . . .

So if I were the MPAA, how would I handle this?

1. Berate the cop who answered my call for not stopping the crime before it happened. I would also go around to everyone in my neighborhood and accuse them of "supporting theft" from their failure to set up a neighborhood watch to protect my right to leave my iPod in the front seat of my car.

2. When the cop told me that I could reduce the likelihood of future car break-ins by keeping electronics hidden, I would shout at the cop for "supporting theft." After all, I have a perfect right to keep my iPod in my car, prominently displayed if I want. How dare this cop tell me to change my behavior to avoid getting robbed!

3. Later, I would try to get the cop who advised me on how to avoid future car break-ins fired for "abetting car thieves." I would conduct a public smear campaign in which I accused this cop of being in bed with thieves, fences, and other nefarious dealers in stolen goods because he "supports theft" by advising me how to avoid future car break-ins rather than setting a 24/7 guard on my driveway or preemptively arresting anyone who looks like he or she might steal my iPod. After all, if you really cared about stopping theft, you wouldn't tell me to change my behavior or take steps to protect myself! I have a perfect right to leave my iPod in my front seat, and theft is wrong. So telling me to hide my iPod to avoid a break in means you don't really want to enforce the law.

4. While I'm at it, I will also accuse my neighbors of secretly wanting to steal my iPod. They have motive (who wouldn't want a free iPod?) and opportunity, so they are all prime suspects. I will demand the police conduct a house-to-house search. If they are too busy, I insist the police give ME the right to do a house-to-house search. I will also start harassing my neighbors and treating them like criminals. If they tell me to bugger off, and demand to see a warrant before I search their homes for my iPod, I will point to their bad attitude as proof that they are either thieves or support thieves. Why else would they object?

5. I would lobby the Montgomery County Council to place a 24/7 guard on my driveway so I can leave my iPod in the front seat. I would also insist on a video surveillance system and fingerprinting for anyone who comes with 500 feet of my car. Any neighbors who complain about what a waste of tax payer money this is, or that it invades their privacy, or that they don't like giving fingerprints to police to protect my right to leave my iPod in the front seat "support theft" and deserve the smear treatment.

6. I would give $1 million in campaign donations to any County Council rep who votes for my proposals. I would give the same amount to the opponents of any County Council member who even suggests that my proposals are a little extreme and maybe I ought to just put my iPod in the glove compartment. I would hold parties where County Council members can meet famous movie stars and recording artists, all of whom will urge the members of the County Council to vote for my eminently reasonable proposal to avert the veritable crime wave of iPod thefts in my driveway.

7. I would produce statistics that show that Montgomery County loses thousands of dollars and numerous jobs annually from iPod theft from my driveway. Anyone who questions the accuracy of these statistics "supports iPod theft."

8. Then I will wonder why I am so unpopular with my neighbors. I will conclude they have been deluded by the pawnshop lobby. Or they support iPod theft. But it can't be anything wrong with me, since I have a perfect right to leave my iPod in the front seat of my car and anyone who questions any measures to protect that right either supports theft or is being controlled by the pawnshop lobby.

You may ask, wouldn't it actually be easier, cheaper and more effective for me to change my habits and be a bit more careful about leaving my iPod and other electronic devices on the front seat of my car? To which I can only say "if you can even ask that question, you clearly support iPod theft."

 

Stay tuned . . .

Cross-posted from Tales of the Sausage Factory

Filed Under: blame, law enforcement, mpaa

Legacy Artists Sign Letter Demanding ISPs & Search Engines Pitch In To Return Them To Their Former Glory

from the because-when-I-think-underpaid,-I-think-Simon-Cowell,-Elton-John,-etc. dept

In what one can only assume was the result of a long weekend retreat at an exclusive resort, various British artists have banded together to post an open letter to, well, who knows? The open letter, signed by several beneficiaries* of the recording industry, calls for the British government to make with the three strikes and such already. Apparently, these artists feel that the badly drafted (and hastily approved) Digital Economy Act is taking far too long to implement. In the meantime, millions of pirating pirates are pirating millions of pounds right out of their pockets. 

*The full list of signatories includes Simon Cowell, Roger Daltrey, Professor Green, Sir Elton John, Lord Lloyd-Webber, Dr (?) Brian May, Robert Plant, Roger Taylor, Tinie Tempah and Pete Townshend. With a few exceptions, we're looking at artists that have re-sold albums on vinyl, eight-track, cassettes, CDs, SACDs and digital.

The letter touches all the right political nerve endings, starting with the British "creative sector:"

As the world's focus turns to Britain, there is an opportunity to stimulate growth in sectors where Britain has a competitive edge. Our creative industries represent one such sector, which creates jobs at twice the speed of the rest of the economy.

Considering the "creative sector" involves everyone from songwriters to bagboys, it can probably be safely stated that the "creative industries" create jobs faster than whatever few industries remain once the "creative sector" finally closes the tent door. 

Next there's a bit of talk addressing trade deficits... or something:

Britain's share of the global music market is higher than ever with British artists, led by Adele, breaking through to global stardom. As a digitally advanced nation whose language is spoken around the world, Britain is well-positioned to increase its exports in the digital age.

No sooner are we assailed with the news of an impending if-only British Invasion than the authors begin conflating piracy with consumer confusion:

We can only realise this potential if we have a strong domestic copyright framework, so that British creative industries can earn a fair return on their huge investments creating original content. Illegal activity online must be pushed to the margins. This will benefit consumers, giving confidence they are buying safely online from legal websites.

"Fair return," eh? Well, one man's "fair" is another man's "month's worth of income." If you start with phrasing that makes your musical exports sound more like a colonizing force than a gift to the world, you need to be careful about what you assume is a "fair" return on your investments. Even domestically, people got a tad touchy when asked to shell out several pounds for a couple of decent tracks and 45 minutes of filler. Didn't seem all that "fair" back then, but we never heard Roger Daltry, Brian May, Elton John et al. complaining.

And as for the "buying safely online..." Well, that's just like ICE saying it needs to shut down file lockers because consumers might purchase faulty counterfeit fire alarms. For the most part, people engaged in "not paying" for their music and movies have confidence in their safety. It's not that people aren't buying because the pay options aren't "safe." They're not buying for any number of reasons. The content is over-priced. The content is "not available" for purchase due to licensing and region restrictions. The content is crippled with DRM. Sometimes they're not buying simply because they don't want it, but in the eyes of many in the industry, a drop in sales is always due to copyright infringement.

After half-assedly coming to the "aid" of the beleaguered consumer, the collective classic rock hydra turns on the faces of the internet itself:

The simplest way to ensure this would be to implement the long-overdue measures in the Digital Economy Act 2010; and to ensure broadband providers, search engines and online advertisers play their part in protecting consumers and creators from illegal sites.

By "protecting" consumers, they of course mean "cut off service," "serve with threatening letters," "allow certain industries to alter search results" and "punish fiscally without showing evidence of damage." Yes, nothing would send the masses back, money in hand, to the welcoming arms of the recording industry than giving each accused pirate (based on nothing stronger than an IP address, of course) the opportunity to spend their own time and money attempting to prove a negative. I imagine historians and economists will discuss the sudden spike in music sales resulting from the implementation of the Digital Economy Act for years to come, holding it up as a triumph of enforcement over reality. The recording industry will party like it's 1999 (except, like, if Napster had never happened).

They wrap up the open letter with a heartfelt plea:

We are proud of our cultural heritage and believe that we, and our sector, can play a much bigger role in supporting British growth. To continue to create world beating creative content, we need a little bit of help from our friends.

Hmm. "Friends." Well, it can't be the consumers. And it certainly can't be the ISPs and search engines (which really just means Google). So, these "friends" must be politicians. And if you can't "get by" without a little help from those friends, should you really be in business anyway? 

Filed Under: andrew lloyd-webber, blame, copyright, elton john, enforcement, pete townshend, roger daltrey, roger plant, simon cowell, three strikes, uk

UK Report Blames The Internet For Terrorism, Says ISPs Should Take Down Content

from the can't-even-understand-the-role-of-an-isp-then? dept

It appears that technologically clueless, reactionary politicians blaming the internet for terrorism and demanding ways to censor content are not just limited to US Senators named Lieberman. Nope, it appears that some elected officials over in the UK have similarly allergic reactions to the internet. The Home Affairs Committee in the UK Parliament has released this fear mongering report about how the internet is somehow radicalizing the youth into being terrorists, and how ISPs need to pull down content.

All of these reports seem to assume that because some kids used the internet to learn about terrorism, that it's the internet's fault they became terrorists. There's no thought to the idea that these disenfranchised kids were likely to seek out whatever way they could to join a terrorism organization. That would involve actually understanding the root causes of terrorism, though, and it's much, much easier to just point a finger and blame the internet. Of course, since it appears these luddites don't understand the internet at all, it's no surprise that they confused ISPs with hosting companies -- and demanded that the ISPs "take down" content, when the only thing they really could do would be to block content. Hosting companies would be able to remove it. David Meyer, the ZDnet UK reporter who wrote the story linked above, asked a spokesperson for the committee to explain this rather glaring error, and the person "was unable to explain." That should tell you just about everything you need to know about this report, and it should be laughed out of any further discussion should it ever be brought up again.

Filed Under: blame, censorship, isps, terrorism, uk

Insurers Suggest Podium & Stage Collapse Tragedies Are The Inevitable Result Of File Sharing?

from the say-what-now? dept

You may have heard about the recent tragedy at the Belgian Pukkelpop music festival, in which a tent collapsed in the middle of a big storm and four people died. This came soon after a series of other mishaps with stages collapsing, including at a Cheap Trick show, a Flaming Lips show and the big collapse at the Indiana State Fair, which resulted in multiple deaths as well.

Apparently some unnamed insurance companies have come up with an interesting theory behind all these collapses. As pointed out by JonMontgo, one company seems to be suggesting there's a direct connection to unauthorized file sharing. This comes from a BoingBoing post, which actually links to an image from a Belgian (?) newspaper: It does not sound like anyone's trying to get out from paying what they owe, but are just trying to explain what happened. Alex Schroeder on BoingBoing did a "loose translation" and came up with:

"The crashing down of the podium of the Pukkelpop rock festival that killed five and injured eighty last August 18, is maybe not due to the violence of the storm. Confronted with multiple similar catastrophes, the experts of insurance companies see it as the unexpected consequence of the falling disc sales. The bands have a vital interest in giant concerts, they rent giant podiums overloaded with video equipment and spots. The rain and the wind do not destroy more often than before, but when they fall, the damage is much greater."

That seems like a pretty weakly supported assertion. I'm not sure that the importance of concerts automatically leads to more video equipment, but whatever. Either way, it seems like a pretty big stretch to somehow pin this on file sharing.

Filed Under: blame, collapse, file sharing, insurers, stage

Father: Why Isn't Facebook Keeping My Kid Off Its Site?

from the parenting-is-for-losers dept

Facebook is a fascinating study in how different countries around the world deal with forward technology and the internet as a whole. It really is something of a Rorschach Test of each nation's legal system and process. We've heard recently how Germany nixed Facebook's "Like" button. UK officials had the brilliant idea that rioters would go back to sipping Earl Grey tea instead of throwing things at other things, if only they weren't on those intoxicating social networking sites. Meanwhile, in America, teachers in Missouri had to sue for the privilege of friending their students (because we might be able to trust these teachers to be in direct contact with our children, but not on the scary internet!).

And now reader Paddy Duke alerts us to the story of a Northern Irishman and his quest to get Facebook to keep his 12 year old daughter off its site. Because, really, who else could possibly accomplish such a feat? He is apparently suing Facebook for negligence.

The issue is that this gentleman's 12 year old daughter didn't tell Facebook she was 12. She said she was older, thereby routing around Facebook's age policy. Then she posted reportedly racy photos of herself along with other personal information, such as her home address and the name of her school. The kicker is that she did at least some of this while in the care of the Northern Health and Social Care Trust facility, which appears to be primarily an institution for children and the elderly who are suffering from mental health issues.

I have two questions. First, if Facebook is negligent in allowing her to use their site, what word should we use for this father also allowing her to use the site and not stopping her unwanted behavior? Supernegligent? Negultragent?

Secondly, what's the solution here? Any age check done by Facebook is going to be porous at best. The linked BBC article has a quote from this Father-Of-The-Year candidate's solicitor (attorney):

"An age check, like asking for a passport number would be a simple measure for Facebook to implement."

If it's so simple, I'd love to see this attorney take a crack at it. Passport numbers wouldn't work for a variety of reasons. First, you're potentially depriving Facebook of a swath of users who don't have passports. I recognize this is probably less of a concern in Europe, but it's still an issue. Also, what's to keep children from swiping their parent's passports to create accounts? This 12 year old girl already routed around her father's attempt to shut down her Facebook page. Do we really think she would have stopped at the "Input Passport Number Here" field, thrown up her hands, and went back to playing with dolls and sugersnaps or whatever her father imagines her doing if only she'd had real parents?

And why should Facebook have to implement such a system, paying the costs for doing so, all so parents don't have to parent? I'm not a father, which I recognize some will use to say that I just don't understand the trials and tribulations of raising children in the internet era. They're wrong. I do understand all that. That's why I'm not a parent. I know I'm not ready for that responsibility just yet. But if I ever do have children, I'll be sure not to take a website to court to cash in on my being asleep at the wheel.

Filed Under: blame, liability
Companies: facebook

Caught With A DUI In New Jersey? You Can Now Blame The Bar That Served You

from the liability? dept

This is from a few weeks back, but techinabox writes in to point out the latest in ridiculously misapplied third party liability. It appears that in New Jersey, if you get good and drunk at a bar, and then hop in your car and get into legal trouble for driving under the influence (DUI), you can blame the bar for serving you... and win. The state supreme court said that it's perfectly reasonable for Fredrick Voss to sue the bar that served him drinks, even though he was the one who drove to the bar on his motorcycle, drank a bunch, and then got back on his motorcycle after drinking, drove off, ran a red light and got into an accident. A lower court still needs to determine if the bar actually is liable, but the supreme court seems to have no issue with holding bars liable in such situations. It's pretty scary that we keep seeing stories concerning attempts to stretch third party liability. Beyond blaming the wrong party, third party liability only serves to take responsibility off the parties actual responsible. It's a bad idea... but one that seems to be getting more and more popular.

Filed Under: blame, dui, new jersey, responsibility, third party liability