Media Regulation

Grand Theft Auto: Masterpiece or Abomination?

by on April 27, 2008 · 11 comments

In less than 36 hours, one of the most anticipated—and most demonized—games in years will hit the shelves. Grand Theft Auto IV, the “true” successor to the groundbreaking Grant Theft Auto III, has been the focus of intense criticism ever since being announced. But while GTA IV will undoubtedly be filled with extreme violence, it may also be a masterpiece of human creativity.

On Friday, IGN reviewed GTA IV, giving it a highly elusive perfect score. Calling it “masterful” and an “American dream,” IGN says GTA IV is the greatest game in nearly a decade. Since the press embargo ended this morning, many other reviewers are reaching similar conclusions.

No real surprises there. What’s surprising, however, is that unlike its somewhat one-dimensional predecessors, GTA IV offers unprecedented character depth along with an “Oscar-caliber” storyline. And it also depicts the ugly downside of crime in the same vein as epic films like Goodfellas and Scarface, retelling the classic story of a struggling immigrant coming to America in search of fortune, haunted by the experiences of a past life.

Naturally, Grand Theft Auto’s release has re-ignited public debate over how games affect kids and whether new laws are needed to protect children from the gratuitous violence found in many video games. GTA has been a favorite target of politicians for the past eight years, and the usual suspects like Jack Thompson and Tim Winter have predictably spoken out against GTA IV. But parental controls are more robust than ever, as Adam has documented, and some have even suggested that kids should be playing Grand Theft Auto. Despite the recent explosion in hyper-realistic violent games, violent crime rates have been dropping across the board. Maybe games like GTA are just another harmless outlet for kids to express violent behavior, much like playing cops and robbers.

As game budgets have swelled and public interest in gaming has expanded, more games than ever transcend the stereotype of gaming as a juvenile pursuit with little artistic merit, reminding us that games can be artistic expressions on par with books, movies, or songs. Critics whose gaming experience consists of having played Pacman in an arcade may belittle gaming as a trivial pastime, but anybody who has played Bioshock or Gears of War or Oblivion knows better. Games can critique the harsh realities of modern society and offer insight into the nature of the human soul in ways that less interactive forms of media cannot. Likewise, games deserve both critical admiration and legal protection.

Of course, GTA IV is no Mona Lisa. But the way things are going, it’s entirely possible that the next timeless masterpiece of artistic expression will be created not with a brush or pen, but with lines of code.

SHARE: 11 comments

Do Not Track Registry Likely to Include Exemptions

by on April 25, 2008 · 12 comments

Last week a scad of stories from Reuters to News.com covered the growing push for a “Do Not Track” registry similar to the “Do Not Call” list that serves to protect US households from mid-dinner sales calls. While I understand the concerns expressed by folks like Marc Rotenberg of EPIC and Jeff Chester of the Center for Digital Democracy, who were both cited by Anne Broache in the News.com piece from last week, I think that asking the government to hold a master list of IPs and consumer names is a bad idea, or at least one that won’t do much to really protect consumers.

First, tracking people online is a bit different from calling folks in their homes. Telemarketing, while highly effective in terms of sales produced per dollar of marketing money spent, is still orders of magnitude more expensive than spamming or collecting data online without consent. Both of these activities are illegal today, but they still occur. They occur so much that spam-filtering technology contains some of the most advanced natural language recognition and parsing software created. Cory Doctorow has mused that the first artificial intelligences will emerge from Spam and anti-Spam computer arrays.

So this list wouldn’t be the magic wish that privacy advocates and legislators might dream it to be. It would cause law-abiding companies like Google, AOL, and Microsoft to stop collecting data, but so could privately developed and enforced systems.

Anne Broache notes that cookies are a bad solution for stopping data tracking as many anti-spy-ware programs delete cookies, since cookies are often used for the purpose of data tracking. But why not just create a new variety of cookie? Call it a cake, a brownie, a cupcake–maybe even a muffin. Whatever you call it, just specify that a standards-compliant browser must contain a place for something similar to a cookie to be placed that will opt consumers out of tracking schemes. This isn’t a technological problem at all, it’s just a matter of industry deciding to follow this course.

My other concern is something that fellow TLFer and former CEI staffer James Gattuso pointed out in a 2003 piece in regard to the “Do Not Call” list, namely that the government will likely exempt itself from the rules. In our post-9/11 world (whatever that means) we should expect government–the supposed protector of our rights–to make these sorts of moves. But you don’t have to trust my assertion, look no farther than Declan McCullagh’s Wednesday post at New.com. The FBI is pushing hard for Internet companies to retain data so that they can later sift through it. It’s doubtful that the government will place itself on “Do Not Track” list if they believe they can gain useful intelligence by tracking people online.

So, by and large, this proposed registry seems unnecessary and ineffective. Industry can easily work out a way to allow consumers to opt-out and the two groups I’m most afraid of–the Russian Mob and the U.S. Government–won’t pay heed to any registry anyway.

Instead or wringing our hands over advertisers tracking what duvet covers we buy, can we turn our attention to what our freewheelin’ executive branch is trying to pull-over on us? Seems to me they’re cooking up exemptions to more than just this registry–a few of my favorite Constitutional Amendments spring to mind.

SHARE: 12 comments

Localism is the new Fairness Doctrine

by on April 23, 2008 · 28 comments

Just as pink was the new black and The Backstreet Boys were the new New Kids on the Block, the FCC is now turning “Localism” into the new Fairness Doctrine.

The Fairness Doctrine mandated that controversial issues of public importance be presented in a manner deemed by the FCC to be honest, equitable, and balanced. Though Localism isn’t concerned with political speech, both sets of rules interfere with the editorial process, both control and compel speech, and neither passes Constitutional muster.

The FCC has reasons to believe that Localism is a concern, but those reasons lack the weightiness and depth of well-conducted policy research needed for rule making. Commisioner Copps has stated that:

We have witnessed the number of statehouse and city hall reporters declining decade after decade, despite an explosion in state and local lobbying. The number of channels have indeed multiplied, but there is far less local programming and reporting being produced.

Yet only a few short years ago former FCC Chairman Michael Powell made this statement on the issue of localism:

Local newscasts have become the staple of any successful local broadcast tele

vision station, demonstrating that serving the needs and wants of your local community does not just fulfill their public obligations, but also simply make good business sense.

Powell also stated in 2004 that Americans today “have access to more local content than at any time in our nation’s history.” But still, commissioners like Michael Copps don’t approve of how that local news is produced or what it contains.

But events of national and international importance do not occur in accordance with regulators’ preconceived notions of how much coverage ought to be allotted to them. Local news outlets should not be wary of reporting on wars overseas, famine in the developing world, or other non-local issues they deem important for fear of neglecting to comply with bureaucratic dictates.

The Fairness Doctrine had the arguably worse effect of making many broadcasters shy away from political coverage altogether, for fear that–try as they may–their coverage would be considered “unbalanced.” Twenty years after instituting this misguided rule, the FCC finally acknowledged this fact in the wake of a 1985 Supreme Court decision (FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364) which found that the rule was “chilling speech.”

The result was an explosion in talk radio content beginning most famously with conservative pundit Rush Limbaugh, but also creating new space for left-liberal voices like Thom Hartmann and Al Franken.

Where the Fairness Doctrine chilled all speech, Localism will compel speech of which FCC Commissioners like Copps approve. In a world of limited broadcast hours, compelling one sort of speech means sacrificing speech of another, effectively censoring speech.

Should we be content to let the FCC tell us what we have to say when we’d never stand for it telling us what we can’t say? Oh wait, I suppose we do let it tell us what we can’t say.

SHARE: 28 comments

Internet Futurama: Hollywood Writers, Little Presidents, and Neutrality Regulation

by on April 23, 2008 · 8 comments

Justine Bateman may have grabbed the headlines, but she wasn’t the only witness from Hollywood at yesterday’s Senate hearing on neutrality regulation.  Nor did she have the most interesting resume.  That honor goes to Patric Verrone, the president of the Writer’s Guild of America, west, whose own writing credits include work for everything from The Simpson’s and Futurama to Rugrats and the Muppets.   As Verrone himself put it, “I am the only panelist to have written a film about a robot poker tournament in space Vegas in the year 3009 so I think my expertise in the area is unquestionable.”

Strangely enough, I first came into contact with Verrone not from his WGA work, or even from 31st century poker tournaments, but from Ebay, where he sells miniature figures of U.S. presidents and other notable individuals.   My six-year old son Peter and I have become avid collectors of the figurines. 

 

Verrone is no stranger to market power – being the only known vendor of the pricey presidents.  (Although I suspect the demand side is rather thin as well). 

Outside of the tiny figurine world, Verrone is best known for leading Hollywood writers through a 100-day strike, which finally ended in February of this year.  Oddly, however, Verrone, in his testimony, uses that experience as evidence of the need for Internet regulation.  

Continue reading →

SHARE: 8 comments

Britannica Blog’s excellent “Newspapers & the Net” forum

by on April 22, 2008 · 9 comments

The Britannica Blog has been running an absolutely terrific series of essays on “Newspapers & the Net,” which is examining the questions: “Are newspapers dead? Should we care?” The series kicks off with essays from three of my absolute favorite bloggers: Nick Carr, Clay Shirky and Jay Rosen, who is the author of the amazing blog, PressThink. I highly recommend that you read all the installments, however. Here’s the rundown of participants and essays in the series thus far:
Continue reading →

SHARE: 9 comments

Crovitz’s Information Age

by on April 21, 2008 · 3 comments

L. Gordon Crovitz, the former publisher of the Wall Street Journal, has started what has the potential to be a terrific new column for the Journal called “Information Age.” In it, he says, he will focus on how the Information Age “affects us as consumers, businesspeople and citizens” and “the accelerating impact of new technology.” In particular, he plans on dealing with the public policy issues surrounding this space.

His first column, entitled “Optimism and the Digital World,” is excellent. In it, he argues that:

[T]echnologists are optimists, for good reason…. as information becomes more accessible, individuals gain choice, control and freedom. Established institutions – governments, large companies and special-interest groups – need to work harder to justify their authority. As information and knowledge spread, financial and human capital become more global and more competitive. The uncertainties and dislocations from new technology can be wrenching, but genies don’t go back into bottles.

The First Law of Technology says that “with every change in technology that affects consumer behavior, we always overestimate the impact in the short term, but then underestimate the full impact over the long term.” The original dot-com era a decade ago was overhyped, but by now the Web has become a utility, increasingly available anywhere for any purpose. This is the Information Age, yet we’re just beginning to gather the information and understanding to know how it changes our lives.

This sounds very much in line with our thinking and coverage here at the TLF. [In fact, I would be remiss if I did not point to some of my own work on “The Media Cornucopia” and my ongoing “Media Metrics” series of essays, which I am about to tie it all together into a big PFF special report.] Anyway, I for one will be eagerly awaiting Mr. Crovitz’s future columns.

SHARE: 3 comments

Bad Data & Broken Databases at the FCC

by on April 17, 2008 · 6 comments

The FCC is continuing its desperate search for a reason to exist. This year it’s decided to assert its relevance by reengaging an issue that it had ignored since 2004. The “Localism” debate has reemerged and one of the most troubling aspects of this debate is the focus on the supposed lack of ownership of broadcast television and radio stations by women and minorities. While the goal of increasing diversity in the sphere of broadcast media is a noble one, the data being used to justify new rules is specious.

Many have attempted to validate their concerns over ownership diversity by referencing a March 2008 GAO study which focuses on media ownership. However, this report admits freely that FCC data is severely lacking.

Many of you who follow TLF will note that Jerry Brito has done extensive work on government transparency and the importance of making data truly accessible–you know, putting it online rather than in a basement in the Capitol. While it’s no surprise that some agencies haven’t updated their record keeping, it is a little disturbing that the FCC–a commission charged with regulating some of the most advanced technology available–doesn’t keep adequate records. Specifically the GAO sites the problems with Form 323, the FCCs method of collecting information on broadcast station owner gender, race, and ethnicity:

Companies must file the Form 323 electronically. However, FCC allows owners to provide attachments with their electronic filing of the Form 323. These attachments may include the gender, race, and ethnicity data. Since these data are not entered into the database, the data are unavailable for electronic query.

This flaw in data collection is certainly laughable, but the most glaring deficiency is that the FCC doesn’t require sole proprietors, limited partnerships, or non-profits to report on ethnicity of owners—leaving one to wonder how it assesses this information at all. Excluding these legal entities from data collection leaves only incorporated radio stations in the group required to file FCC Form 323 which contains information on race and gender.

But how does one determine the sex or ethnicity of a corporation? Clear Channel Communications—one of the nation’s largest owners of radio stations—has issued nearly 500 million shares of stock. Has Clear Channel polled every share holder about their race or gender? It’s doubtful. It’s also doubtful that any method of determining the race and gender of the owners of corporate stations could ever be done in a way that’s meaningful or anything close to a basis for sound public policy.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 6 comments

ALR media regulation symposium Friday 4/18

by on April 10, 2008 · 0 comments

The Administrative Law Review at American University will hold a pretty interesting symposium next Friday on media regulation and the legacy of Red Lion v. FCC. Don’t let their horrendous program design scare you (PDF), they have some top notch speakers scheduled, including Cass Sunstein. Check out TLF’s Red Lion coverage over the years here.

SHARE: 0 comments

And the Prize for Best Reporting in a 19th Century Medium Goes to…

by on April 9, 2008 · 12 comments

The Washington Post was ecstatic.   Having won six Pulitzer Prizes for journalism, it featured the news on the front page of yesterday’s edition, accompanied by a photo of applauding Post staff.  And they certainly deserved credit – the half-dozen prizes were the second-most won by a newspaper since the annual awards began in 1917.

 But one thing was missing in the Post photo: a newspaper.  There’s a computer screen in the foreground, being watched by the applauding staffers. And a TV in the background.  But there wasn’t an actual newspaper to be seen.

The photo says a lot about the changing face of journalism, and the rise of electronic media.  The traditional newspaper is quickly losing ground to newer forms of communication, notably the Internet.   Only two weeks ago, the Newspaper Association of America reported that print advertising had plummeted in 2007 by almost 10 percent, the largest one-year drop ever.

But despite these changes, the Pulitzer remains largely a paper-and-ink affair, limited mostly to traditional newspapers.  To its credit, the Pulitzer committee did change the rules a few years ago, allowing online journalism to be considered.  Thus, a number of winning entries have had significant online components.  But – except for the two“breaking news” categories – the rules still require that stories appear in print as well as online. 

  Continue reading →

SHARE: 12 comments

Micropayments reconsidered

by on April 7, 2008 · 37 comments

I have generally agreed with Clay Shirky (and Tim) that micropayments either don’t work very well or just aren’t needed given other pricing options / business models. But my eBay activity over the past few years has made me reconsider. I was going back through some of my past eBay purchases tonight and leaving feedback and I realized that I have made dozens of micropayments in recent months for all sorts of nonsense (stickers, posters, small car parts, Legos for my kids, magazines, and much more). Most of these items are just a few bucks, and many don’t even break the 99-cent threshold. I think that qualifies as micropayment material. And certainly I am not the only one engaged in such micro-transactions because there are countless items on eBay for a couple of bucks or less.

Of course, just because micropayments and PayPal work marvelously in the context of the used junk and trinkets we find on eBay, that does not necessarily mean they will work as effectively for many forms of media content. Advertising or flat user fees are probably still preferable since consumers don’t like the hassles associated with micropayments. Still, they seem to be working fine on eBay, so it would be wrong to claim that they never work online.

SHARE: 37 comments

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →