Kicks ass.

Weird video though.

Viacom Sues Google

You probably know that the media giant Viacom recently sued the internet giant Google over Viacom content which appears on YouTube.  People who watch big companies like these have been saying that as soon as YouTube got purchased, the lawsuits would come.  Mostly because YouTube didn't have a lot of money, so suing them for damages wouldn't net much.

Now that YouTube is owned by Google, there's money to be had, and so now a company isn't limited to seeking injunctions so their content can't be shown on YouTube, now they can seek damages--quite a bit of damages actually.  Viacom claims Google owes it 1 billion dollars, which is pretty hefty.

Google for its part has been trying to negotiate with Viacom, to work out some sort of deal where Viacom content can be shown on YouTube.  The lawsuit may just be another way that Viacom is choosing to negotiate, so it may never actually go to court.

Viacom seems less interested in allowing YouTube to show Viacom content, and more interested in having all of its content taken off YouTube.  The sticking point, from what I've heard, has been the filtering of any future Viacom content from YouTube.  In order to prevent any more Colbert or South Park or whatever from appearing on YouTube, people would need to actively view every posted video and delete content owned by Viacom (which is a pretty wide variety of stuff).

Google has basically said "when you want something taken down, just send us a list and we'll take it down."  But that isn't good enough for Viacom, and they want Google to actively filter the material.  To which Google has indicated for that kind of service they would need some sort of compensation.  Of course Viacom is not going to pay Google to take down content which belongs to Viacom in the first place!

The complexity of such filtering, while perhaps not immediately appreciated by Viacom, is certainly appreciated now.  MoveOn.org and a number of other groups have sued Viacom for asking Google to remove videos which were not Viacom content, but parodies of Viacom content and therefore protected under fair use.  You see, it's not as simple as searching for "Colbert" and printing a list.  Duh.

All that aside, I think Viacom has a good case against Google.  The content really does belong to Viacom, and it is copyrighted.  The "we can't control what our users do" argument didn't work for Napster and I wouldn't expect it to work here, even though the content here is partial clips instead of entire songs.  The hope therefore is that Viacom will instead work out a deal with Google so that the case doesn't go to court.

In many ways it is good for a company to have clips of it's content appear on YouTube.  For example, I was never a big Family Guy watcher.  But after laughing my ass off to some clips on YouTube, I went out and bought the first season of Family Guy on DVD, and now I own seasons 1-4 on DVD.  The YouTube clips made the owners of Family Guy some money in my case.  It's really a form of free advertising, and some companies have embraced that.

Ultimately if the case goes to court, I expect Viacom will win, and YouTube will have to change dramatically.  I hope that doesn't happen.

Carol Burnett Sues "Family Guy" Creators

In one of the recent seasons of family guy there is an 18-second clip featuring Carol Burnett's famous cleaning-lady character mopping up the floor of a pornography shop.  Ms. Burnett has responded to this parody of her character by suing the creators of Family Guy for copyright infringement, and is seeking 2 million dollars in damages.

When I was a kid, I loved the Carol Burnett show.  I watched it all the time (even in reruns) with my family and laughed myself silly.  What I find odd is that many times the show included parodies of movies, TV shows, or novels.  So clearly, Ms. Burnett understands the use of parody, particularly in comedy.  One would think that to see her trademark character remembered after all these years would be flattering.

Guess not.

There's no way she is going to win.  It's obviously parody and is protected.  I can't see how she would not know this and so I'm assuming she just needs the money and is hoping for some sort of settlement.  It's depressing really, because I've always liked Carol Burnett.

Wow.  You've probably heard about this since it is all over the internet, but people are just going nuts about the movie "Hounddog" which premiered at the Sundance Film Festival.  I've heard both good and bad reviews about the quality of the picture itself, but there is an explosion of outrage over the fact that the film portrays the child-star, Dakota Fanning, being raped.

On multiple occasions financial backers have pulled out of the production, and the film has no buyer presently.  What it does have is hordes of people calling for the head's of the director Deborah Kampmeier, Fanning's agent Cindy Osbrook, and her mother Joy.  There's even online petition demanding their arrest and some are going further than that, as this excerpt from a CNN article notes:

...Even before the first screening of "Hounddog" at the Sundance Film Festival this week, a Christian film critic, citing Fanning's age, decried the movie as child abuse, and Roman Catholic activist Bill Donohue called for a federal investigation...

...Ted Baehr, chairman of the Christian Film and Television Commission and publisher of the Web site movieguide.org, claims "Hounddog" breaks federal child-pornography law. He said the law covers material that "appears" to show minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

"Even if they're not actually performing the explicit act, we are dealing with a legal issue here," he said.

Baehr said Fanning is being exploited in the film, and that it should be considered an outrage.

"Children at 12 do not have the ability to make the types of decisions that we're talking about here," he said. "If we're offended by some comedian's racial slur, why aren't we offended by somebody taking advantage of a 12-year-old child?"

Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, said he has asked the U.S. Justice Department to investigate whether anti-pornography laws have been broken...

It's not hard to understand why people would be upset by a film showing a 12 year old girl being raped, even if it isn't real.  It's an upsetting concept.  That it happens in the real world is tragic and brutal and awful. If it did not happen in the real world, a film like this would likely never have been made.

And there is the fear (which Bill Donahue mentioned in an interview) that sick perverts will see the film and be inspired to act out their twisted fantasies.

Count bastion of Bill-O'Reilly-Wannabeism Sean Hannity among the offended, who interviewed a conservative child advocate who had seen the film, and was sadly shocked when she informed him that the various claims about the rape scene were not factual.

As for what I think about Hounddog?  Well, I don't like the idea, and I have no desire to see the film.  I don't think I could watch that.  Especially since Dakota Fanning is such an amazing actress, doubtless she would be able to convince me that it was really happening and I don't think I could bear it.

But then, not having seen the film, I'm not about to make a snap judgement as many others seem prepared to do.  If you haven't seen the film, then you really can't comment on whether or not Dakota was in some way injured during the production.

As far as what I have heard from people who have actually seen the film, the scene is disturbing but tastefully done (inasmuch as it is possible to do so).  There's no nudity or skin-on-skin contact.  Basically the rape is implied by carefully editting together various disparate clips shot at different times.  You see Dakota shout "No!", you see a man unzip his fly, you see a hand hit a wooden floor, etc.  Each individual component is shot separately, nobody is unzipping their pants in front of Dakota, nobody is touching her inappropriately.  The rape takes place in the mind of the viewer.

Add to this the fact that Dakota's mother and a child welfare worker were present on set during the shooting of this scene, and that really ought to allay fears, but apparently it does not.

It is disturbing to me that this level of outcry doesn't surface over movies where children are enduring violence, or abject suffering of any other sort.  Only when the subject matter is sex do folks go nuts.

I would hope that the primary reason one would be offended is if one thought Dakota was being exploited, or worse yet emotionally injured by performing in this production.  All other concerns really ought to be secondary.   But from the criticisms I'm hearing, it sounds more like people using Dakota's fame to add oomph to their particular platforms while using inflammatory terms like 'kiddie porn' to describe the film.  I find that disturbing for sure.  That is also exploitation.

Although Fanning says she has no career plan in mind other than to keep acting, I have to assume she is trying to break out of kid roles and break into more mature roles.  She will be 13 in February, and can't realistically do "Charlotte's Web" and "Cat in the Hat" films forever.  This is a trail blazed by many actresses before her who transitioned into adult roles by portraying an abused youngster, Jodie Foster in Taxi Driver, Brooke Shields in Pretty Baby, Jena Malone in Bastard Out of Carolina, Dominique Swain in Lolita (1997), Linda Blair in Born Innocent, etc.

These break-out roles are very common.  The last big one to make the news was probably the announcement that Daniel Radcliffe of Harry Potter fame will be appearing nude onstage in a production of Equus, a story about a young man who is carnally obsessed with horses.  Granted, Radcliffe is 17, but the motivation is probably the same.

Some might wonder why such a film has to be made at all, even if Fanning is in no way harmed during filming.  Personally, since I will never see it because of the subject matter, I can understand that sentiment as well.  This is the second movie this director has made about a young girl who is raped, and I suspect it's because she wants to raise awareness of child abuse.  From a Reuter's article:

..."Hounddog" is based on director Deborah Kampmeier's personal history, and she called the criticism of Fanning's decision to take the role an insult to the young actress.

"She should be applauded [for] the voice she has given to so many silenced women," Kampmeier said...

Okay, I'll applaud her, but I still don't like it.  But then, I guess I'm not supposed to.  I'll close with various quotes from the precocious Dakota Fanning herself who is angry about the criticism that has erupted over Hounddog.

From Fanning tells "Hounddog" critics she is mad (Reuters):
..."When it gets to the point of attacking my mother, my agent ... my teacher, who were all on the set that day, that started to make me mad," [...] "I can let other things go, but when people start to talk about my mother, like, that's really bad in my opinion ... that's an attack, and that's not fair. They hadn't seen the movie,"...

..."I loved the Elvis Presley story line. I loved the fact she's born of hard circumstances and is trying to survive those," Fanning said. "I like so many things about it that had nothing to do with being abused, or sexually abused."...

..."I'm going to be a freshman in high school in September, and I think it would be irresponsible of my parents not to let me know of things that happen and to try not to get yourself in uncomfortable situations," [...] "It's educational."...

From Online Petition Demands Arrest of Dakota Fanning's Mother and Agent (Cinematical.com):
..."You have to prepare your children for things that happen in the world. Everything isn't rosy."...

From Dakota Fanning: 'It's called acting' (CNN):
..."It's not a rape movie," [...] "That's not even the point of the film."...

..."It's not really happening," [...] "It's a movie, and it's called acting. I'm not going through anything. Cody and Isabelle aren't going through anything, their characters are." [...] "And for me, when it's done it's done," [...] "I don't even think about it anymore."...

What do you think?

---

It's official... I'm becoming addicted to YouTube.  You'll recall I talked about the user SuttSteve recently.  Another user I've been checking out from time to time is impytherap.  These guys identify themselves as "Nobody's Watching"; their thing being that 99% of network television sucks.  So they are always making fun of television shows, and sometimes of other videos on YouTube.  There is apparently one show they like, though, and that is LOST.  That right there gives them high marks from me.  Here's a video they made about LOST in which the uber-hot Maggie Grace herself (Shannon Rutherford) makes an appearance.

You remember Gary Brolsma, the "Numa Numa guy", yes?  I wrote about him back in February of 2005.  I really liked his silly dance and lipsync video, and so did like a billion another websurfers.   I heard somewhere that the attention was a little overwhelming and for awhile Gary wasn't necessarily happy with his fame.  But apparently he's gotten over it.

Two months ago Gary released "A New Numa Video" featuring him goofing about to a new song.  The new song is a Russian piece which includes a lyric that says "nu numa ura hey".  Unlike his previous effort this video clearly is more professional.  Gary describes the music on his website www.newnuma.com:

...The second video was recorded and produced by Gary Voelker and Andrew Lee of Seattle-based Experience Studios. The idea of "New Numa", was just a reaction to fans to give them something new from me, and to let them know I'm still around and doing well, and just overall conveying the message of fun and laughter...

...New Numa's song was specially created for me by Variety Beats, with vocals performed by Chad Russell, under the BeLive Productions record label. The song is in Russian with lyrics about a children's song about a hunter and a bunny, again, not directly relevant to what's actually happening in the video...

In addition to Gary at his nutty best, the new video also includes his band.  Yes, you read that right, Gary has a rock band now.  They're called "The Nowadays" and you can listen to some of their music and find out about them on the band's MySpace page.

Needless to say, it's obvious the New Numa Song is a commerical enterprise.  I say good for Gary, he saw an opportunity and is turning it into something that benefits him.  Needless to say, many people who haven't done so are quick to label him a "sellout", an epithet most undeserved in my opinion.  Onesuch person went so far as to create a parody video called "I will not pay for Numa".

---

Okay, I recently picked up Weird Al's new album "Straight Outta Lynwood", and I have to say that by and in large I found the album disappointing, but that said there are some real gems in here, and if you haven't seen the video for "White & Nerdy" I insist you do so, I guarantee you will laugh your ass off...   more »

I've watched a lot of movies recently, and it would take forever to write reviews of all of them, so here is my fourth sort of bi-annual Bullet Movie Review!

Needless to say these opinions are mine and mine alone, and some of them may offend you.  If you are offended by any of my reviews here, please keep in mind, it's only a movie. ...   more »