Warner Music CEO Edgar Bronfman's own kids are music pirates, he admitted in an interview. "Naturally, his kids were forced to cough up thousands of dollars to the RIAA to keep from getting sued. Right?" Ars Technica asks rhetorically. Of course not -- Bronfman says he disciplined the kids (he says he prefers to keep the details in the family) and gave them a talking-to about stealing music.

Of course, music piracy is wrong, but the problem with the current system for dealing with piracy is that punishments are far too draconian. Casual music piracy is morally equivalent to shoplifting -- but we treat it like grand larceny, dragging people into criminal court and ruining their lives. Bronfman understands this principle when it comes to his own children.

JASRAC, a Japanese media organization, decided the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act is "too much trouble" and wants YouTube to cooperate in preemptively filtering pirated videos from being uploaded: "While such a system is being implemented, JASRAC wants YouTube to take three provisional measures: 1) post a Japanese-language notice on the "top page of the YouTube website" warning about copyright infringement, 2) keep track of the names and addresses of users making uploads, 3) terminate the accounts of anyone who uploads material that JASRAC claims is under copyright."

In other words, JASRAC thinks the 21st Century is a mighty inconvenient place to live, and wants YouTube to turn back the clock to 1974, and also assume that every one of its users is a criminal. Outrageous demands like JASRAC's make use realize that, bad as the DMCA is, it could be a lot worse.

Ars Technica is the source of this article, and the authors of that piece make a very common error: They refer in the first paragraph to "copyrighted" videos. In fact videos on YouTube are copyrighted. Copyright isn't enjoyed only by people lucky enough to sell their work to corporations who have enough money to hire lawyers, it adheres to all creative work: This blog post, your unpublished novel, and your Christmas letter.

The U.S. military completed a round of testing of the Active Denial System, a weapon that inflicts searing pain at a distance -- but (according to the military) produces no injury. It motivates targets to run away -- and fast. It's been certified for use in Iraq.

The ADS shoots a beam of millimeters waves, which are longer in wavelength than x-rays but shorter than microwaves -- 94 GHz (= 3 mm wavelength) compared to 2.45 GHz (= 12 cm wavelength) in a standard microwave oven.

The longer waves are thought to limit the effects of the radiation. If used properly, ADS will produce no lasting adverse affects, the military argues.

Documents acquired for Wired News using the Freedom of Information Act claim that most of the radiation (83 percent) is instantly absorbed by the top layer of the skin, heating it rapidly.

The beam produces what experimenters call the "Goodbye effect," or "prompt and highly motivated escape behavior." In human tests, most subjects reached their pain threshold within 3 seconds, and none of the subjects could endure more than 5 seconds.

Boing Boing worries the weapon will be used for torture.

This motorized toothbrush from 1938 operated hands-free, so a man could brush his teeth and shave at the same time. The Modern Mechanix Blog says: "The idea of trying to do something else with my face while I have a sharp razor blade in my hand is not very appealing." (Via Boing Boing.)

Yesterday I wrote that Vista is expected to push Microsoft's stock price up next year, even though it's not exactly stirring up a frenzy of excitement in the marketplace. In "Does Vista Look Better As A Market Play Than As An OS?" I wondered aloud why Linux wasn't taking advantage of the opportunity. In response came a link to a piece from Business 2.0 by Owen Thomas that rehearses something I'd forgotten: Linux may be free, but it's too expensive for PC makers to install on their machines.

Continue reading "How Can Linux Be More Expensive Than Vista?..."