This is going to be interesting trying to type a rambling, given that I'm finding my head repeatedly rotating to the right while typing to observe the psychedelically edited montage of shots, art, sketches, partially completed CGI shots and scene fragments from The Matrix set to a funky techno beat.

Very cool stuff. Whoa. ;)

Yeah, I've just been sitting here playing with and stumbling across all sorts of cool featurs of this marvellous technology. (Of course, I haven't even picked up the manual yet, although I think it might be worth reading in order to take advantage of some of the program selection features of this player.) It's easy to see why "The Matrix" was considered by many to be the killer app of the DVD medium. Besides the movie itself being awesome, the special features on this thing rock.

(In case anyone reading this bothers to look at the entry time, yes, I did get off work very early today. (I was even home for nearly an hour before starting to type this.) What can I say? My employer is kind. :) )

I considered making a movielog entry last night, given that the viewing I had fits the qualifications. (To quickly bring the not-so-longtime readers up to speed, I have certain criteria for what can be put in a movielog entry. One of those criteria is that the movie be seen in its original aspect ratio. Hence, up until now, all but a few home viewings have failed to make it into my movielog, given the proclivity of studios to put out virtually every VHS release as pan-and-scan only (bleah).) I decided I was just too sleepy to make any intelligent comments, and went to bed at midnight. I might still write one up though.

Truly amazing stuff, this technology. Dare I directly quote another member of the festing circle. Yes, I think I do. :) "I think I'm going to have to swear off watching movies on any format other than DVD. The superior picture quality to VHS makes one step, but the extended features -- a chance to get into the director's head and understand the movie better -- make it better than even the silver screen." --Jaeger Couldn't have said it better myself. :)

[Bitscape resists the urge to pop in his Madonna 93:99 disc, to be viewed for the very first time, knowing that if he does, this rambling will almost certainly never be finished in a timely manner.]

<note adjective="serious">
Do I feel guilty for breaking the boycott? In honesty, a little bit. At the same time, not. On the one hand, I am still appalled by the actions of the MPAA and its conglomerates. On the other, when I witness the great things that can -- and have -- been created with the technology, it's hard not to say, "Those who made this should be rewarded and honored." Is it really time to throw the baby out with the bath water (dumb cliché" metaphor, but I'm using it anyway), and cast aside all the because of a bunch of silly lawyers? And what it all comes down to, is that I haven't got it all figured out just yet.
</note>

And that transitions us nicely into a topic I want to at least say a little bit about (especially given my rant the other night): The long awaited Lars interview. After reading what he had to say, my respect for the band and what they are doing was largely restored.

First of all, if you've ever seen much footage of this guy talk, it's very easy to picture him answering the questions as you read his responses. Definitely that Lars style. It brought back to my mind scenes of the documentary video (still sitting in my drawer, last time I checked), in which -- during the tour with Guns and Roses -- he pretty much acted as the diplomat between the bands when conflicts arose. And here he is, playing the role of the diplomat again. He does it well.

I think I now have a much clearer idea as to where the band is coming from, and I can at least understand their position in this.

That said, I think what we have here is a fundamental difference in basic assumptions made by Metallica (which are probably held by much of the mainstream music industry as well), and those of the hacker community. I don't believe either side can be classified as strictly "right" or "wrong" even though I think of myself, personally, as fitting more into the "hacker" philosophy of things. (Although even this position could be seen as hypocritical now, given the means through which I make my income.)

Throughout the interview, Lars repeatedly makes the point that because Metallica created this music, they should have the right to decide what happens to it. "Napster has the right to exist. I support Napster's right to exist, OK? But I want them to support my right to not be part of it." He reiterates several times that their whole beef with Napster is that the much of the music is being traded without consent from those who created it.

In a way, this makes a lot of sense. After all, it is largely the basis for our system of copyrights, which has been around for ages. Should not the person who makes something have a right to choose what happens to it? Should not the director of a movie (assuming the unlikely scenario that it would even be the director who could make the call) be able to say, "I want people to be only able to view this movie in such-and-such country, pay X dollars, and only if they are using a viewing decice approved by me. I made the movie, so it's my right to say!"

Ok, straying a bit there, but not by much. ;)

The central question: How much power does somebody who creates a piece of art deserve over what happens to it and where it goes? (Since -- based on what Lars said -- Metallica is making all the decisions on this issue all by themselves, we can nicely get around other side debates which would inevitably in most other cases, such as "How much control does the artist really have if the art is distributed monopolistic conglomorates who themselves pay no attention to what the creators of the work want.)

Here's the counter argument: If I release something into the world, I automatically relinquish control of what happens to it. Dandelion seeds. If a dandelion grows in my yard, it is my dandelion. If I pick it and blow the seeds into the wind, do I have the right to decide where those seeds will land? After all, since the dandelion belongs to me, so do the seeds, right?

Here's the thing: It doesn't matter what I say, or how many lawyers I summon. Those seeds will scatter, and propagate, and I will have no control over it. Common sense. But then, maybe that's not the best example, because I didn't actually create the dandelion, the seeds, or the genetic codes which they contain. (And yes, I am aware of gene patents. Let's not open that can of worms right now.)

Here's a better example: Parents. They create their children. Therefore, they have the right to choose everything that happens to these children, right? Of course, to a limited degree, they do, at least for a while. But eventually, these children must be released into the world, and go where they will, outside the parents' control. As it is with children, so it must be with songs. (Now I KNOW Tori Amos would be able to understand this example. ;)

We get back to the old hacker saying. Information wants to be free.

I can understand, though, how Metallica would not instantly subscribe to (on even necessarily be aware of) such a philosophy. It runs counter to the basis upon which their world is built. For what it's worth (at least when it comes to paycheck time), so is mine, really. It wasn't so many years ago that I was also an unquestioning believer in such ways.

On one statement of his, at least, I can wholeheartedly agree: The Internet is changing our perception about a lot of things. We live in interesting times.

For those content vultures in search of more even more online reading material, I also recommend checking out this article by John Perry Barlow, Greatful Dead lyricist and co-founder of EFF. Lots of eloquent points for anyone who cares about these issues. More food for thought. Food for thought good. :)

And now, this rambling has gone on far longer than would be sane for any normal person. So I shall conclude it, and get on with the long weekend ahead. :)