The Avengers is something that, as far as I know, has never been done before. Plenty of movies have had sequels or prequels or spinoffs. A few movies have pitted characters from different franchises against each other to see who would win in a fight--see Alien vs. Predator. But I know of no other movie franchise that has set up a shared universe through multiple movies that stood independently, then brought them together in a crossover. This attempt is of course based on the pattern of the comic books from which its characters come, as they maintain separate comic book lines for each hero, but also have periodic crossovers. Doing this was both a financial and artistic risk, since it demanded more of both audiences and screenwriters. Judging by the numbers, the financial risk has paid off. The artistic risk is also a success--and what a success.
The best stories can change your life, but there are very few of those. A good college literature program can introduce you to most of the written ones in a few years (as well as a number of stories that will fail to change your life). The best film stories are few as well, and a fairly short percentage of one's lifetime could nearly exhaust our supply. So most good books or good films will not reach that height, and they don't have to. When I go to the movies, I do not expect to have a transcendent experience most of the time. Sometimes, I just want a movie that puts a smile on my face without killing any brain cells. Keeping this caveat in mind, for the rest of the review I am not going to make much effort at restraint.
The Avengers may not be the best superhero film of all time, but it certainly feels like it is while you're watching it. Joss Whedon, as expected, has expertly balanced the all-ego ensemble collected from four movie franchises so that no one gets ignored or takes over too much screen time. The dialogue is up to his usual standards of quality, if a little more restrained than it sometimes has been. Whether that leads it toward corporate blandness or necessary correction of Whedon's idiosyncrasies can be disputed--I lean toward the latter, but then, I never cared about Buffy, so I guess I'm not a hardcore fan.
I could continue going through what elements of the movie are typical Whedon, and whether he overcomes flaws he sometimes exhibits, but I don't think anyone cares how it compares to his other work. They care about whether the climactic city battle feels like a Transformers retread or not. It does not. In fact, the city battle starts out very well, then at a critical moment, turns into the most beautiful symphony of destruction I have ever seen. Good special effects are necessary, but not sufficient, to achieve this. It is the characters, that we have been made to care about, the plot buildup, that has reached the critical point, and the integration of everyone into a team that works exactly as it should, that makes it beautiful. Just as it became so exquisite I almost cried, I died laughing instead to see Loki hilariously defeated.
There is also plenty to enjoy before the final battle, whether the trickster god getting tricked by Black Widow, then apparently succeeding anyway, but sowing the seeds of his ultimate failure; or Captain America's interruption of Loki's grand speech; or Agent Coulson's geeking out over being in Cap's presence. I have a few quibbles about the film, but nothing really worth complaining about.
Finally, for the five people who don't know the premise of the film: Loki (the villain from Thor) has learned that the Tesseract (the powerful artifact from Captain America) has been rediscovered, and is in the possession of S.H.I.E.L.D. (the secret government agency from Iron Man). He steals it, and S.H.I.E.L.D.'s director, Nick Fury, convinces Bruce Banner (The Incredible Hulk), Iron Man, and Captain America to join him in attempting to recover it and defeat Loki. Then Thor shows up with his own ideas about how to deal with Loki. Hilarity ensues, and much party-bringing, at least by Iron Man's definition. Also, a note for everyone: there are two post-credits scenes, not one. Stay until the very end of the credits.
Sunday, May 6, 2012
Monday, April 30, 2012
On Changing Titles
I was going to write a review of The Pirates! Band of Misfits (it's a good movie--you should go see it), but I decided instead to write about the strange practice of changing British titles for American audiences. I know titles of books and films are often changed when translated, but changing titles between countries that share a language is a bit odd, especially when there is no definitional problem.
Aardman Animation named their film after the book on which it is based, The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists. This is quite straightforward and understandable, but apparently not suitable for an American audience. The same thing happened with Harry Potter. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone became Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone, a title that eviscerates the historical element of the magic item in question. Sure, plenty of people have no idea what the Philosopher's Stone is, but fantasy books often create magical artifacts out of whole cloth, and no one complains about that. In both cases, the original title is more specific, and in one case, much more evocative, at least for those in the know.
From this it appears to me (though of course two titles is not enough evidence to draw firm conclusions) that the inclusion of highly educated professions in the title is a no-no for marketers targeting Americans. As an American, I find this annoying. Do marketers really think we fear books and movies that appear educated or highbrow? Or, worse, are they correct?
Now, this could just be a coincidence. Another title changed for America was the title of the first book of the His Dark Materials trilogy. It was called Northern Lights in Great Britain, and The Golden Compass in America. The changed title is actually more consistent with the pattern used for the remaining books of the trilogy, The Subtle Knife and The Amber Spyglass, as each book is named after an important and powerful item. The original title, on the other hand, is a bit generic. So at least in this case, I think the title change was the result of coming up with a better idea.
Despite the occasional improvement, marketers still seem far too concerned about altering things to fit the American market, even when those things might be desirable precisely because they are not American. So: marketing people--stop it.
Aardman Animation named their film after the book on which it is based, The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists. This is quite straightforward and understandable, but apparently not suitable for an American audience. The same thing happened with Harry Potter. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone became Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone, a title that eviscerates the historical element of the magic item in question. Sure, plenty of people have no idea what the Philosopher's Stone is, but fantasy books often create magical artifacts out of whole cloth, and no one complains about that. In both cases, the original title is more specific, and in one case, much more evocative, at least for those in the know.
From this it appears to me (though of course two titles is not enough evidence to draw firm conclusions) that the inclusion of highly educated professions in the title is a no-no for marketers targeting Americans. As an American, I find this annoying. Do marketers really think we fear books and movies that appear educated or highbrow? Or, worse, are they correct?
Now, this could just be a coincidence. Another title changed for America was the title of the first book of the His Dark Materials trilogy. It was called Northern Lights in Great Britain, and The Golden Compass in America. The changed title is actually more consistent with the pattern used for the remaining books of the trilogy, The Subtle Knife and The Amber Spyglass, as each book is named after an important and powerful item. The original title, on the other hand, is a bit generic. So at least in this case, I think the title change was the result of coming up with a better idea.
Despite the occasional improvement, marketers still seem far too concerned about altering things to fit the American market, even when those things might be desirable precisely because they are not American. So: marketing people--stop it.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Review: John Carter
John Carter [of Mars] is the badly-marketed live-action debut of Andrew Stanton, he of Pixar fame. Why the marketing department decided to chop off the most interesting part of the title I will never understand--the full title does manage to make it into the credits, but of course that's too late. I could go on about uninspiring marketing, but I would rather focus on the movie, which is quite good, although flawed.
The movie is intended to be the first part of a trilogy, and is based on Edgar Rice Burroughs' A Princess of Mars, the first of his series of books about John Carter, a Civil War veteran transported to the warring world of Mars. There are significant plot changes between book and movie, intended partly to tie the first part of the trilogy together more tightly with the rest. Since the specifics of Burroughs' plots are not the primary reason for reading his books--sword fights on Mars and wildly imaginative technologies and settings are--this is not problematic as such. In fact, one change makes John Carter's instantaneous transportation to Mars actually make a degree of sense, whereas in the book the reader simply had to accept that it happened with no justification. Certain other changes add emotional depth. But there are problems, and they are two-fold.
The less-serious problem is that the plot can get convoluted at times as it tries to simultaneously introduce Barsoom (the Martian name for their planet), follow Burroughs' plot, and give a certain amount of backstory on both the conflict on Barsoom and John Carter's own life. I had little trouble following it with knowledge of the books to help me, and it certainly has a less-complicated plot than certain original movies I have seen, but those who have not read the books may sometimes be confused.
The more-serious problem with the plot is that parts of it depart from the original toward more typical modern Hollywood plot elements. Now some of book's plot elements were either cliches when Burroughs wrote them--repeated rescues of a damsel in distress--or were made cliches by him because he reused them and influenced others to do the same. But that is no excuse for the movie to push the buttons labeled "weary disillusioned warrior" or "girl outfights guy." I will give the screenwriters credit for not overdoing the latter beyond the initial scene of it, but the initial scene did not need to happen that way. Also happily, John Carter, who in the book always likes being a warrior, eventually gets over his disillusionment in the movie, and the pile of sword-riven bodies he leaves is one of the main things I was hoping for in the movie's rendition of the numerous sword and gun battles. But the bad beginnings are still annoying.
Regarding the action, which is always vital for this sort of sci-fi, It is quite exciting and sometimes unexpected. In addition to Carter's turning-point sword battle, there is good aerial combat, a good climactic battle, and a pretty decent arena fight.
The setting, particularly for the arena fight, is not quite what it could be, however. Because the John Carter of Mars books have influenced so much later sci-fi, there was always a risk of the movie seeming unoriginal. The arena's design falls into this trap, looking far too much like the one on Geonosis. Some of the other settings and equipment, though by no means all, seem derivative as well.
Getting this far in a review without mentioning the acting usually means it's not that memorable, and that is the case here. No one does a bad job that I can recall, and some of the actors are quite good; this is just not an actor's movie. The only particular acting scene that sticks in my mind is the wordless sequence of glances exchanged by John Carter and the princess Dejah Thoris as they begin to fall for each other.
All the criticisms and faint praise above should not take away from the good that is in this movie. The final minutes of the film in particular are very cleverly written, tense, and emotionally satisfying. For this reason, I walked out happy, and can recommend the film.
The movie is intended to be the first part of a trilogy, and is based on Edgar Rice Burroughs' A Princess of Mars, the first of his series of books about John Carter, a Civil War veteran transported to the warring world of Mars. There are significant plot changes between book and movie, intended partly to tie the first part of the trilogy together more tightly with the rest. Since the specifics of Burroughs' plots are not the primary reason for reading his books--sword fights on Mars and wildly imaginative technologies and settings are--this is not problematic as such. In fact, one change makes John Carter's instantaneous transportation to Mars actually make a degree of sense, whereas in the book the reader simply had to accept that it happened with no justification. Certain other changes add emotional depth. But there are problems, and they are two-fold.
The less-serious problem is that the plot can get convoluted at times as it tries to simultaneously introduce Barsoom (the Martian name for their planet), follow Burroughs' plot, and give a certain amount of backstory on both the conflict on Barsoom and John Carter's own life. I had little trouble following it with knowledge of the books to help me, and it certainly has a less-complicated plot than certain original movies I have seen, but those who have not read the books may sometimes be confused.
The more-serious problem with the plot is that parts of it depart from the original toward more typical modern Hollywood plot elements. Now some of book's plot elements were either cliches when Burroughs wrote them--repeated rescues of a damsel in distress--or were made cliches by him because he reused them and influenced others to do the same. But that is no excuse for the movie to push the buttons labeled "weary disillusioned warrior" or "girl outfights guy." I will give the screenwriters credit for not overdoing the latter beyond the initial scene of it, but the initial scene did not need to happen that way. Also happily, John Carter, who in the book always likes being a warrior, eventually gets over his disillusionment in the movie, and the pile of sword-riven bodies he leaves is one of the main things I was hoping for in the movie's rendition of the numerous sword and gun battles. But the bad beginnings are still annoying.
Regarding the action, which is always vital for this sort of sci-fi, It is quite exciting and sometimes unexpected. In addition to Carter's turning-point sword battle, there is good aerial combat, a good climactic battle, and a pretty decent arena fight.
The setting, particularly for the arena fight, is not quite what it could be, however. Because the John Carter of Mars books have influenced so much later sci-fi, there was always a risk of the movie seeming unoriginal. The arena's design falls into this trap, looking far too much like the one on Geonosis. Some of the other settings and equipment, though by no means all, seem derivative as well.
Getting this far in a review without mentioning the acting usually means it's not that memorable, and that is the case here. No one does a bad job that I can recall, and some of the actors are quite good; this is just not an actor's movie. The only particular acting scene that sticks in my mind is the wordless sequence of glances exchanged by John Carter and the princess Dejah Thoris as they begin to fall for each other.
All the criticisms and faint praise above should not take away from the good that is in this movie. The final minutes of the film in particular are very cleverly written, tense, and emotionally satisfying. For this reason, I walked out happy, and can recommend the film.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Review: Moby Dick
Moby-Dick, or, The Whale
by Herman Melville
Penguin Books, 2001, 633 pages
As Moby-Dick was the biggest hole in my knowledge of American literature, I finally determined to remedy that fact by reading it. My thoughts about it are below. Now I call this a review, but I am not really qualified to give it an ordinary review. It has been judged. Regardless of my personal opinion, this book is one of the greatest American novels--though I personally would place it below Huckleberry Finn. So what follows are my reactions, positive and negative, and a few thoughts.
The primary storyline of Moby-Dick is quite fascinating--even though I knew roughly how it would end, thanks to numerous sources having mentioned it, the buildup still kept me interested. The problem is that Melville insisted on giving me an entire course on whaling history and practice before I got to the climax. Some of the information--such as how harpoons and lances function--was necessary for the story to be understood. Some of the information--such as the procedure for cutting in and getting oil from a whale--while less strictly necessary, was still interesting and justifiable. But the long discussions of whale-paintings, fossil skeletons, and whether Hercules can be considered a whaler tend to bog down the story.
I will also note in passing that one chapter considers the potential danger of overfishing whales and dismisses it for various reasons. While the sperm whale has survived remarkably well, one has only to look at current estimates for the Right Whale's population to know that this chapter is completely mistaken.
Despite some clear flaws, though, the entertainingly delineated characters and increasingly cosmic scope of the story kept me interested. It is perhaps not entirely consistent to begin with hilarious encounters between the narrator (Ishmael) and his unwanted cannibal bed companion, and to end with strangely fulfilled prophecies and Biblical allusions, or to create characters who are quite human, warts and all, and give them shipmates who stand in for the devil. But then again, maybe it is. For the encounter of ordinary unprepared humans with obsession personified and his devilish minions, locked in eternal struggle with the deadliest aspects of creation, has a peculiar effect, and might be exactly the point.
A Greek tragedy or Beowulf may be cosmic in portraying things about the relation of gods and men, existential threats to humanity, the heights and depths humans can reach, and so forth. But I think Melville achieves something still powerful, but different, by bringing ordinary humans in contact with something cosmic for which they are not prepared.
I have no intention here of trying to work out everything Melville is saying about fate, obsession and vengeance, man's relation to nature, of any of the other subjects he touches on. So I will simply finish by saying I quite enjoyed the book and found the last several chapters very gripping, and I have been given a lot to think about.
by Herman Melville
Penguin Books, 2001, 633 pages
As Moby-Dick was the biggest hole in my knowledge of American literature, I finally determined to remedy that fact by reading it. My thoughts about it are below. Now I call this a review, but I am not really qualified to give it an ordinary review. It has been judged. Regardless of my personal opinion, this book is one of the greatest American novels--though I personally would place it below Huckleberry Finn. So what follows are my reactions, positive and negative, and a few thoughts.
The primary storyline of Moby-Dick is quite fascinating--even though I knew roughly how it would end, thanks to numerous sources having mentioned it, the buildup still kept me interested. The problem is that Melville insisted on giving me an entire course on whaling history and practice before I got to the climax. Some of the information--such as how harpoons and lances function--was necessary for the story to be understood. Some of the information--such as the procedure for cutting in and getting oil from a whale--while less strictly necessary, was still interesting and justifiable. But the long discussions of whale-paintings, fossil skeletons, and whether Hercules can be considered a whaler tend to bog down the story.
I will also note in passing that one chapter considers the potential danger of overfishing whales and dismisses it for various reasons. While the sperm whale has survived remarkably well, one has only to look at current estimates for the Right Whale's population to know that this chapter is completely mistaken.
Despite some clear flaws, though, the entertainingly delineated characters and increasingly cosmic scope of the story kept me interested. It is perhaps not entirely consistent to begin with hilarious encounters between the narrator (Ishmael) and his unwanted cannibal bed companion, and to end with strangely fulfilled prophecies and Biblical allusions, or to create characters who are quite human, warts and all, and give them shipmates who stand in for the devil. But then again, maybe it is. For the encounter of ordinary unprepared humans with obsession personified and his devilish minions, locked in eternal struggle with the deadliest aspects of creation, has a peculiar effect, and might be exactly the point.
A Greek tragedy or Beowulf may be cosmic in portraying things about the relation of gods and men, existential threats to humanity, the heights and depths humans can reach, and so forth. But I think Melville achieves something still powerful, but different, by bringing ordinary humans in contact with something cosmic for which they are not prepared.
I have no intention here of trying to work out everything Melville is saying about fate, obsession and vengeance, man's relation to nature, of any of the other subjects he touches on. So I will simply finish by saying I quite enjoyed the book and found the last several chapters very gripping, and I have been given a lot to think about.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Review: The Secret World of Arrietty
As good as some (read: Pixar) computer animation is, I don't want traditional hand-drawn animation to die. So Studio Ghibli's continued adherence to the un-trendy, non-dimensionally-enhanced hand-drawn form of film is always welcome. Their latest film is based on The Borrowers, with a script by the famed Hayao Miyazaki and direction by first-timer Hiromasa Yonebayashi.
As usual, the animation and backgrounds are beautiful, and the close-up views of plant and insect life necessitated by the borrowers' small size are well-detailed. In addition, simply seeing how the borrowers have repurposed things like postage stamps, tape, and straight pins is quite intriguing. (I should mention for anyone not familiar with the books that borrowers are tiny people who live by "borrowing" items that humans will not likely miss.)
Not having read any of the books lately, I cannot compare Arrietty's story to the books' stories in detail, but I can say that the film's story is very good. It follows the intertwining stories of the human being Shawn, who has been sent to a house in the country to lessen the stress on his diseased heart, and the adventures of Arrietty, the teenage borrower who lives beneath the house's floorboards and accidentally meets him. Since her parents warn that human knowledge of their existence will force them to move, the meeting immediately causes a crisis. A nosy housekeeper (amusingly voiced in the English dub by Carol Burnett) complicates matters even more.
Although there are exciting moments, the plot does not attempt to keep a fast pace. This makes its one-and-a-half hour length seem a bit longer, which has both benefits and drawbacks. Sometimes the slow pace simply allows more time to appreciate the animation and contemplate the emotional journey of the characters. At other times, though, the film drags a bit. This is a comparatively small drawback, but it does become apparent when the film is compared to certain other plot-thin Studio Ghibli films, such as My Neighbor Totoro, which has practically perfect pacing.
As for other aspects of the film, I have already mentioned Carol Burnett's excellent voice work; the other English voice actors are generally solid, and the music is well-done. I could have done without the second credits song, though, which I suspect was included to boost the musical career of Arrietty's voice actor Bridgit Mendler. Even with a few flaws, The Secret World of Arrietty is a solid debut for Yonebayashi, and another successful entry in the Studio Ghibli canon.
As usual, the animation and backgrounds are beautiful, and the close-up views of plant and insect life necessitated by the borrowers' small size are well-detailed. In addition, simply seeing how the borrowers have repurposed things like postage stamps, tape, and straight pins is quite intriguing. (I should mention for anyone not familiar with the books that borrowers are tiny people who live by "borrowing" items that humans will not likely miss.)
Not having read any of the books lately, I cannot compare Arrietty's story to the books' stories in detail, but I can say that the film's story is very good. It follows the intertwining stories of the human being Shawn, who has been sent to a house in the country to lessen the stress on his diseased heart, and the adventures of Arrietty, the teenage borrower who lives beneath the house's floorboards and accidentally meets him. Since her parents warn that human knowledge of their existence will force them to move, the meeting immediately causes a crisis. A nosy housekeeper (amusingly voiced in the English dub by Carol Burnett) complicates matters even more.
Although there are exciting moments, the plot does not attempt to keep a fast pace. This makes its one-and-a-half hour length seem a bit longer, which has both benefits and drawbacks. Sometimes the slow pace simply allows more time to appreciate the animation and contemplate the emotional journey of the characters. At other times, though, the film drags a bit. This is a comparatively small drawback, but it does become apparent when the film is compared to certain other plot-thin Studio Ghibli films, such as My Neighbor Totoro, which has practically perfect pacing.
As for other aspects of the film, I have already mentioned Carol Burnett's excellent voice work; the other English voice actors are generally solid, and the music is well-done. I could have done without the second credits song, though, which I suspect was included to boost the musical career of Arrietty's voice actor Bridgit Mendler. Even with a few flaws, The Secret World of Arrietty is a solid debut for Yonebayashi, and another successful entry in the Studio Ghibli canon.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Review: Cross Purposes and Other Stories
Cross Purposes and Other Stories
by George MacDonald
Facsimile available at Archive.org
George MacDonald is better known as the author of what are essentially the first modern fantasy novels--works like The Princess and Curdie or At the Back of the North Wind--but he also wrote a number of shorter fairy tales. This book collects several of these; in addition to the title story, this collection includes "The Golden Key," "The Carasoyn," and "Little Daylight." All the stories are interesting, but some are more worthwhile than others.
"Cross Purposes" is the weakest of the stories. It is interesting, but meanders rather a lot. Parts of the story feel loose and a bit silly, while others are quite beautiful. Its basic storyline follows a boy and a girl who are brought to Fairy-land and encounter various dangers. Some of their struggles are clearly symbolic and suggest something of MacDonald the theologian, but others seem more trivial.
"The Golden Key" is something quite different. I had read claims that this tale was MacDonald's best, and having read it I can say that it is certainly quite deep and fascinating. It shares its title with a short tale by the Brothers Grimm (that tale tells of a boy finding a key, then the box it goes to, and ends just as the boy is opening the box), but rather than just leaving a mystery for critics to discuss, it portrays the entirety of life. I cannot claim to understand all that MacDonald is getting at with only one reading, but from beginning to end the story is well-written, with a constant suggestion of the path to salvation.
In "The Carasoyn," MacDonald combines two stories, one about a boy named Colin, and a continuation about the adult Colin and his son. Both parts of the story feature malevolent fairies and a mysterious old woman who aids Colin, as well as the classic fairy tale elements of precise requirements that must be held to for success and the problems of rash contracts between fairies and humans. I find this tale highly inventive--how many authors would think of having a character redirect a stream through his bedroom? MacDonald also uses the story to reveal much about his views of right behavior and his philosophy of life. It is perhaps not so good as "The Golden Key," but still undoubtedly worthwhile.
The last tale, "Little Daylight," feels the most like a Brothers Grimm fairy tale, though it is also humorously self-aware in its alteration of the Sleeping Beauty theme. It is not as deep as "The Golden Key," but it is a very pleasing, tightly written story in the best tradition of fairy tales.
by George MacDonald
Facsimile available at Archive.org
George MacDonald is better known as the author of what are essentially the first modern fantasy novels--works like The Princess and Curdie or At the Back of the North Wind--but he also wrote a number of shorter fairy tales. This book collects several of these; in addition to the title story, this collection includes "The Golden Key," "The Carasoyn," and "Little Daylight." All the stories are interesting, but some are more worthwhile than others.
"Cross Purposes" is the weakest of the stories. It is interesting, but meanders rather a lot. Parts of the story feel loose and a bit silly, while others are quite beautiful. Its basic storyline follows a boy and a girl who are brought to Fairy-land and encounter various dangers. Some of their struggles are clearly symbolic and suggest something of MacDonald the theologian, but others seem more trivial.
"The Golden Key" is something quite different. I had read claims that this tale was MacDonald's best, and having read it I can say that it is certainly quite deep and fascinating. It shares its title with a short tale by the Brothers Grimm (that tale tells of a boy finding a key, then the box it goes to, and ends just as the boy is opening the box), but rather than just leaving a mystery for critics to discuss, it portrays the entirety of life. I cannot claim to understand all that MacDonald is getting at with only one reading, but from beginning to end the story is well-written, with a constant suggestion of the path to salvation.
In "The Carasoyn," MacDonald combines two stories, one about a boy named Colin, and a continuation about the adult Colin and his son. Both parts of the story feature malevolent fairies and a mysterious old woman who aids Colin, as well as the classic fairy tale elements of precise requirements that must be held to for success and the problems of rash contracts between fairies and humans. I find this tale highly inventive--how many authors would think of having a character redirect a stream through his bedroom? MacDonald also uses the story to reveal much about his views of right behavior and his philosophy of life. It is perhaps not so good as "The Golden Key," but still undoubtedly worthwhile.
The last tale, "Little Daylight," feels the most like a Brothers Grimm fairy tale, though it is also humorously self-aware in its alteration of the Sleeping Beauty theme. It is not as deep as "The Golden Key," but it is a very pleasing, tightly written story in the best tradition of fairy tales.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
SOPA and Protect IP
This has nothing to do with books or movies, but since you're looking at a website, it's relevant to you. Keep reading if you value the Internet.
This post is about two bills: the Stop Online Piracy Act in the House, and its equivalent in the Senate, the Protect IP Act. I first heard about them a month or two ago, and have been keeping up with them intermittently. Now that Congress is back from recess, they are back on the move. There are some differences between the language of the two bills, but they are both bad news. These bills could seriously harm or even destroy websites like YouTube, Wikipedia, or even Google, while causing problems for the basic infrastructure of the Internet. The supposed intent of these bills is to fight against foreign websites currently operating out of U.S. reach that are engaged in piracy and copyright infringement. The solutions proposed, however, would work about as well as spraying anthrax at a criminal fleeing through a shopping mall--if the criminal were inoculated.
I don't spend my time studying Internet architecture, nor do I look around for illegal downloads, but those who study these matters are practically unanimous in saying that the bill will not be effective. And though the ability for websites to be completely shut down without due process has been amended out of the bill, it still contains provisions that would require Internet Service Providers to implement DNS (Domain Name Service) blocking on websites accused of piracy. (A domain name is the address, such as www.google.com, that allows someone to access a website. Blocking this means that typing in the address of the site, which would still exist, would not allow you to access it.) This would reduce Internet functionality and open a number of security flaws that hackers more savvy than myself would undoubtedly exploit. In addition, search engines would be required to censor their results, a la the Great Firewall of China. There are a number of other problems with the bills that other websites have documented.
There is a hearing about the issues surrounding these bills on January 18th in the Oversight and Government Reform Committee (its members are here). The actual bill is controlled by the Judiciary Committee, which will take up work on the bill again sometime later (its members are here). A useful article about the current situation is here. If you're reading this, do some research, contact your Representative and Senators, and make an effort to stop our Internet from turning into China's.
This post is about two bills: the Stop Online Piracy Act in the House, and its equivalent in the Senate, the Protect IP Act. I first heard about them a month or two ago, and have been keeping up with them intermittently. Now that Congress is back from recess, they are back on the move. There are some differences between the language of the two bills, but they are both bad news. These bills could seriously harm or even destroy websites like YouTube, Wikipedia, or even Google, while causing problems for the basic infrastructure of the Internet. The supposed intent of these bills is to fight against foreign websites currently operating out of U.S. reach that are engaged in piracy and copyright infringement. The solutions proposed, however, would work about as well as spraying anthrax at a criminal fleeing through a shopping mall--if the criminal were inoculated.
I don't spend my time studying Internet architecture, nor do I look around for illegal downloads, but those who study these matters are practically unanimous in saying that the bill will not be effective. And though the ability for websites to be completely shut down without due process has been amended out of the bill, it still contains provisions that would require Internet Service Providers to implement DNS (Domain Name Service) blocking on websites accused of piracy. (A domain name is the address, such as www.google.com, that allows someone to access a website. Blocking this means that typing in the address of the site, which would still exist, would not allow you to access it.) This would reduce Internet functionality and open a number of security flaws that hackers more savvy than myself would undoubtedly exploit. In addition, search engines would be required to censor their results, a la the Great Firewall of China. There are a number of other problems with the bills that other websites have documented.
There is a hearing about the issues surrounding these bills on January 18th in the Oversight and Government Reform Committee (its members are here). The actual bill is controlled by the Judiciary Committee, which will take up work on the bill again sometime later (its members are here). A useful article about the current situation is here. If you're reading this, do some research, contact your Representative and Senators, and make an effort to stop our Internet from turning into China's.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
