When Digital Art Works Infringe
What is art? Art is an image expression created by an individual using some type of media. Traditional media typically includes acrylic paint, oil paint, watercolor, clay or porcelain sculpture, screen printing, metal etching and printing, screen printing or any of any other tangible type media. Art can also be made from found objects such as bicycles, inner tubes, paper, trash, tires, urinals or anything else that can be found and incorporated. Sometimes the objects are painted, sometimes not. Art is the expression once it has been completed.
Digital Art
So, what’s different about digital art? Nothing really. Digital art is still based on using digital assets including software and 3D objects used to produce pixels in a 2D format that depicts an image. Unlike traditional media, digital media is limited to flat 2D imagery when complete (unless printed and turned into a real world object.. which then becomes another form of ‘traditional found art media’ as listed above).
Copyrights
What are copyrights? Copyrights are rights to copy a given specific likeness of something restricting usage to only those that have permission. That is, an object or subject either real-world or digital-world has been created by someone and any likeness of that subject is considered copyright. This has also extended to celebrities in that their likenesses can also be considered copyright by the celebrity. That is, the likeness of a copyrighted subject is controlled strictly by the owner of the copyright. Note that copyrights are born as soon as the object or person exists. These are implicit copyrights. These rights can be explicitly defined by submitting a form to the U.S. Copyright office or similar other agencies in other parts of the world.
Implicit or explicit, copyrights are there to restrict usage of that subject to those who wish to use it for their own gain. Mickey Mouse is a good example of a copyrighted property. Anyone who creates, for example, art containing a depiction of Mickey Mouse is infringing on Disney’s copyright if no permission was granted before usage.
Fair Use
What is fair use? Fair use is supposed to be a way to use copyrighted works that allows for usage without permission. Unfortunately, what’s considered fair use is pretty much left up to the copyright owner to decide. If the copyright holder decides that a depiction is not considered fair use, it can be challenged in a court of law. This pretty much means that any depiction of any copyrighted character, subject, item or thing can be challenged in a court of law by the copyright holder at any time. In essence, fair use is a nice concept, but it doesn’t really exist in practice. There are clear cases where a judge will decide that something is fair use, but only after ending up in court. Basically, fair use should be defined so clearly and completely that, when something is used within those constraints, no court is required at all. Unfortunately, fair use isn’t defined that clearly. Copyrights leave anyone attempting to use a copyrighted work at the mercy of the copyright holder in all cases except when permission is granted explicitly in writing.
Public Domain
Public domain is a type of copyright that says there is no copyright. That is, the copyright no longer exists and the work can be freely used, given away, sold, copied or used in any way without permission to anyone.
3D Art Work
When computers first came into being with reasonable graphics, paint packages became common. That is, a way to push pixels around on the screen to create an image. At first, most of the usage of these packages were for utility (icons and video games). Inevitably, this media evolved to mimic real world tools such as chalk, pastels, charcoal, ink, paint and other media. But, these paint packages were still simply pushing pixels around on the screen in a flat way.
Enter 3D rendering. These packages now mimic 3D objects in a 3D space. These objects are placed into a 3D world and then effectively ‘photographed’. So, 3D art has more in common with photography than it does painting. But, the results can mimic painting through various rendering types. Some renderers can simulate paint strokes, cartoon outlines, chalk and other real world media. However, instead of just pushing pixels around with a paint package, you can load in 3D objects, place them and then ‘photograph’ them.
3D objects, Real World objects and Copyrights
All objects become copyrighted by the people who create them. So, a 3D object may or may not need permission for usage (depending on how they were copyrighted). However, when dealing with 3D objects, the permissions for usage of 3D objects are usually limited to copying and distribution of said objects. Copyright does not generally cover creating a 3D rendered likeness of an object (unless, of course, the likeness happens to be Mickey Mouse) in which case it isn’t the object that’s copyrighted, but the subject matter. This is the gray area surrounding the use of 3D objects. In the real world, you can run out and take a picture of your Lexus and post this on the web without any infringement. In fact, you can sell your Lexus to someone else, because of the First Sale Doctrine, even though that object may be copyrighted. You can also sell the photograph you took of your Lexus because it’s your photograph.
On the other hand, if you visit Disney World and take a picture of a costumed Mickey Mouse character, you don’t necessarily have the right to sell that photograph. Why? Because Mickey Mouse is a copyrighted character and Disney holds the ownership on all likenesses of that character. You also took the photo inside the park which may have photographic restrictions (you have to read the ticket). Yes, it’s your photograph, but you don’t own the subject matter, Disney does. Again, a gray area. On the other hand, if you build a costume from scratch of Mickey Mouse and then photograph yourself in the costume outside the park, you still may not be able to sell the photograph. You can likely post it to the web, but you likely can’t sell it due to the copyrighted character it contains.
In the digital world, these same ambiguous rules apply with even more exceptions. If you use a 3D object of Mickey Mouse that you either created or obtained (it doesn’t really matter which because you’re not ultimately selling or giving away the 3D object) and you render that Mickey Mouse character in a rendering package, the resulting 2D image is still copyrighted by Disney because it contains a likeness of Mickey Mouse. It’s the likeness that matters, not that you used an object of Mickey Mouse in the scene.
Basically, the resulting 2D image and the likeness it contains is what matters here. If you happened to make the 3D object of Mickey Mouse from scratch (to create the 2D image), you’re still restricted. You can’t sell that 3D object of Mickey Mouse either. That’s still infringement. You might be able to give it away, though, but Disney could still balk as it was unlicensed.
But, I bought a 3D model from Daz…
“am I not protected?” No, you’re not. If you bought a 3D model of the likeness of a celebrity or of a copyrighted character, you are still infringing on that copyrighted property without permission. Even if you use Daz’s own Genesis, M4 or other similar models, you could still be held liable for infringement even from the use of those models. Daz grants usage of their base models in 2D images. If you dress the model up to look like Snow White or Cruella DeVille from Disney’s films, these are Disney owned copyrighted characters. If you dress them up to look like Superman, same story from Warner Brothers. Daz’s protections only extend to the base figure they supply, but not once you dress and modify them.
The Bottom Line
If you are an artist and want to use any highly recognizable copyrighted characters like Mickey Mouse, Barbie, G.I. Joe, Spiderman, Batman or even current celebrity likenesses of Madonna, Angelina Jolie or Britney in any of your art, you could be held accountable for infringement as soon as the work is sold. It may also be considered infringement if the subject is used in an inappropriate or inconsistent way with the character’s personality. The days of Andy Warhol are over using celebrity likenesses in art (unless you explicitly commission a photograph of the subject and obtain permission to create the work).
It doesn’t really matter that you used a 3D character to simulate the likeness or who created that 3D object, what matters is that you produced a likeness of a copyrighted character in a 2D final image. It’s that likeness that can cause issues. If you intend to use copyrighted subject matter of others in your art, you should be extra careful with the final work as you could end up in court.
With art, it’s actually safer not to use recognizable copyrighted people, objects or characters in your work. With art, it’s all about imagination anyway. So, use your imagination to create your own copyrighted characters. Don’t rely on the works of others to carry your artwork as profit motives are the whole point of contention with most copyright holders anyway. However, don’t think you’re safe just because you gave the work away for free.
3D TV: Flat cutouts no more!
So, I’ve recently gotten interested in 3D technology. Well, not recently exactly, 3D technologies have always fascinated me even back in the blue-red glasses days. However, since there are new technologies that better take advantage of 3D imagery, I’ve recently taken an interest again. My interest was additionally sparked by the purchase of a Nintendo 3DS. With the 3DS, you don’t need glasses as the technology uses small louvers to block out the image to each eye. This is similar to lenticular technologies, but it doesn’t use prisms for this. Instead, small louvers block light to each eye. Not to get into too many technical details, the technology works reasonably well, but requires viewing the screen at a very specific angle or the effect breaks down. For portable gaming, it works ok, but because of the very specific viewing angle, it breaks down further when the action in the game gets heated and you start moving the unit around. So, I find that I’m constantly shifting the unit to get it back into the proper position which is, of course, very distracting when you’re trying to concentrate on the game itself.
3D Gaming
On the other hand, I’ve found that with the Nintendo 3DS, the games appear truly 3D. That is, the objects in the 3D space appear geometrically correct. Boxes appear square. Spheres appear round. Characters appear to have the proper volumes and shapes and move around in the space properly (depth perception wise). All appears to work well with 3D games. In fact, the marriage of 3D technology works very well with 3D games. Although, because of the specific viewing angle, the jury is still out whether it actually enhances the game play enough to justify it. However, since you can turn it off or adjust 3D effect to be stronger or weaker, you can do some things to reduce the specific viewing angle problem.
3D Live Action and Films
On the other hand, I’ve tried viewing 3D shorts filmed with actual cameras. For whatever reason, the whole filmed 3D technology part doesn’t work at all. I’ve come to realize that while the 3D gaming calculates the vectors exactly in space, with a camera you’re capturing two 2D images only slightly apart. So, you’re not really sampling enough points in space, but just marrying two flat images taken a specified distance. As a result, this 3D doesn’t truly appear to be 3D. In fact, what I find is that this type of filmed 3D ends up looking like flat parallax planes moving in space. That is, people and objects end up looking like flat cardboard cutouts. These cutouts appear to be placed in space at a specified distance from the camera. It kind of reminds me of a moving shadowbox. I don’t know why this is, but it makes filmed 3D quite less than impressive and appears fake and unnatural.
At first, I thought this to be a problem with the size of the 3DS screen. In fact, I visited Best Buy and viewed a 3D film on both a large Samsung and Sony monitor. To my surprise, the filmed action still appeared as flat cutouts in space. I believe this is the reason why 3D film is failing (and will continue to fail) with the general public. Flat cutouts that move in parallax through perceived space just doesn’t cut it. We don’t perceive 3D in this way. We perceive 3D in full 3D, not as flat cutouts. For this reason, this triggers an Uncanny Valley response from many people. Basically, it appears just fake enough that we dismiss it as being slightly off and are, in many cases, repulsed or, in some cases, physically sickened (headaches, nausea, etc).
Filmed 3D translated to 3D vector
To resolve this flat cutout problem, film producers will need to add an extra step in their film process to make 3D films actually appear 3D when using 3D glasses. Instead of just filming two flat images and combining them, the entire filming and post processing step needs to be reworked. The 2D images will need to be mapped onto a 3D surface in a computer. Then, these 3D environments are then ‘re-filmed’ into left and right information from the computer’s vector information. Basically, the film will be turned into 3D models and filmed as a 3D animation within the computer. This will effectively turn the film into a 3D vector video game cinematic. Once mapped into a computer 3D space, this should immediately resolve the flat cutout problem as now the scene is described by points in space and can then be captured properly, much the way the video game works. So, the characters and objects now appear to have volume along with depth in space. There will need to be some care taken for the conversion from 2D to 3D as it could look bad if done wrong. But, done correctly, this will completely enhance the film’s 3D experience and reduce the Uncanny Valley problem. It might even resolve some of the issues causing people to get sick.
In fact, it might even be better to store the film into a format that can be replayed by the computer using live 3D vector information rather than baking the computer’s 3D information down to 2D flat frames to be reassembled later. Using film today is a bit obsolete anyway. Since we now have powerful computers, we can do much of this in real-time today. So, replaying 3D vector information overlaid with live motion filmed information should be possible. Again, it has the possibility of looking really bad if done incorrectly. So, care must be taken to do this properly.
Rethinking Film
Clearly, to create a 3D film properly, as a filmmaker you’ll need to film the entire scene with not just 2 cameras, but at least 6-8 either in a full 360 degree rotation or at least 180 degrees. You’ll need this much information to have the computer translate to a believable model on the computer. A model that can be rotated around using cameras placed in this 3D space so it can be ‘re-filmed’ properly. Once the original filmed information is placed onto the extruded 3D surface and the film is then animated onto these surfaces, the 3D will come alive and will really appear to occupy space. So, when translated to a 3D version of the film, it no longer appears like flat cutouts and now appears to have true 3D volumes.
In fact, it would be best to have a computer translate the scene you’re filming into 3D information as you are filming. This way, you have the vector information from the actual live scene rather than trying to extrapolate this 3D information from 6-8 cameras of information later. Extrapolation introduces errors that can be substantially reduced by getting the vector information from the scene directly.
Of course, this isn’t without cost because now you need more cameras and a filming computer to get the images to translate the filmed scene into a 3D scene in the computer. Additionally, this adds the processing work to convert the film into a 3D surface in the computer and then basically recreate the film a second time with the extruded 3D surfaces and cameras within the 3D environment. But, a properly created end result will speak for itself and end the flat cutout problem.
When thinking about 3D, we really must think truly in 3D, not just as flat images combined to create stereo. Clearly, the eyes aren’t tricked that easily and more information is necessary to avoid the flat cutout problem.
Whitney Houston remembered
Pop Diva
As a pop star turned Diva during the 80s and 90s, Whitney Houston’s star and talent was immense and rarely faltered. At the height of her recording career, she seemingly could have had whatever she wanted and could have written her own ticket. She had the look, the style, the smile and, most of all, the voice. She had an immensely powerful voice that was at once strong and powerful and sultry and smooth which could easily carry any song she put her mind to performing. She was definitely the Diva in every sense of the word. In her untimely passing on February 11th, 2012, she has left us with a legacy of number 1 hits, but more than the fact that they were number 1’s, they were just plain great songs with soaring powerful, passionate and often amazing vocals. Vocal performances that very few people can actually match and even fewer performers want to perform on the heels of her stellar performances. Despite the fact that I had never purchased a Whitney Houston CD until last week, I had heard most of her songs anyway. There was just no way not to have heard them on the radio, in stores, in restaurants or just generally out and about at her peak. You just couldn’t not hear her songs during her reign as Diva. Last week I purchased her Greatest Hits CD because I had decided I wanted to hear her catalog again as it had been quite a long while. I had no way to know that in less than a week she would be gone and I’d be writing this article.
2000’s
Fast forward to the 2000s when her veneer starts to crack and her star begins to fade (with fewer and fewer releases). Like many musicians, she had succumbed to her own vices which lead to her down the path of drug and alcohol abuse and that, unfortunately, took a toll on her voice and her body. This may or may not have contributed to her death, but it didn’t help her career in her last decade or her own health. It’s unfortunate too because she could have had a very long, strong and prosperous career if she had been able to get out from under her own vices including her rocky tumultuous relationship with Bobby Brown.
Unfortunately, Whitney’s is not the unfamiliar tale in the entertainment industry. A bright shining star with huge talent bringing in a lot of money is always attractive to those who wish to leech from that talent (and money) to keep the party going. Unfortunately, these leeches tend to do things that they think help the star remain a star. In fact, they are actually doing just the opposite by enabling such behaviors as drug and alcohol use. They do these things to help keep the Star ‘happy’, but, in fact these leeches are destroying the person behind the star and then leave the person to fend for themselves after the veneer cracks and the money dries up. After all, these stars are still people just like you and me with insecurities, frailties, personal vices and emotions. They are not just sources of cash or talent. Whitney’s final story is not unfamiliar and yet people are always surprised when a musical artist dies too early in life. It’s a sad refrain that seemingly repeats as often as a pop music hook. However, it’s a refrain that we definitely do not need to hear more than once and Whitney’s death is proof of that.
Whitney’s Legacy
Even with all of her vices and personal demons, she still managed to release a formidable catalog and rack up a large number of hits. And, that’s no small feat. This is how we should remember Whitney. As the Diva who amassed a large number of hits with her spectacular voice. We must celebrate her career, her talent and most of all her vocals. Let’s remember her as she was, the Diva with soaring high power vocals and not what her vices had led her to become. Even though her life ends both sadly and tragically right before the Grammy’s, she leaves behind a legacy at a poignant time when her career and her talent can be both celebrated and remembered perfectly by everyone. If there is such a thing as a perfect timing, she couldn’t have chosen a more ideal venue for us to celebrate her life, her works and her talent, ironically the evening just before the music industry celebrates the best and most talented musical artists, the Grammy Awards. Whitney definitely stole this show in her final curtain call.
We’ll both remember and miss you Whitney.
SOPA: Is it tortious interference?
SOPA and PIPA take aim at ‘online piracy’. Of course, the term ‘online piracy’ is defined as deep and wide as the Grand Canyon. How do you define ‘online piracy’? Well, clearly, taking copyrighted works without the owner’s permission is considered copyright infringement. We already have laws on the books that protect copyright holders. For years, these legal mechanisms have worked. Basically, the copyright owner identifies the alleged infringer and takes them to court, then proves the case (in front of a judge) that someone infringed. So why isn’t this enough? What changed? The entertainment industry wants more power.
For Hollywood and the music industry, the current legal system is not enough. Now they want to interfere with businesses’ abilities to continue to do business. Both the MPAA and the RIAA have tried various mechanisms to gain control over stopping piracy without involving the courts. The entertainment industry wants direct unfettered access into businesses to force them to stop ‘enabling’ the alleged pirates. No due process, no courts, no guilt or innocence determination in a court of law. No, all of this they want outside of the courts. They want to tell someone to stop doing something without any due diligence or fiduciary responsibility. “Oops, we made a mistake? My Bad. Tee hee.”
Legalized Tortious Interference
With SOPA, this goes one step further and effectively becomes legalized tortious interference. So what is tortious interference? Simply put, it’s when a random third party steps into a two party contract and causes one party in the contract to breach the contract for the other party. That is, the third party prevents a party in a contract from being able to fulfill their contractual obligations. How does SOPA do this? It does this by forcing banks or other financial institutions to stop transactions to one of their customers on a third party say alone. It does this by asking DNS registrars to disable domain names and prevent web sites from functioning without any court determination of guilt or innocence, again, on say alone.
Guilty until proven innocent
Clearly, our legal system and government system is broken. More than that, our legal system is taking a huge step backwards. Back to a time before the US adopted ‘Innocent until proven guilty’. Clearly, this mantra means little in the legal system today. With an adoption of SOPA or PIPA, we would always be presumed guilty until proven innocent. Those in the entertainment industry are severely undermining our legal infrastructure and, if you also happen to be a conspiracy theorist, systematically dismantling it with the help of of the US Congress no less.
Internet Piracy and the end of independent artists
The music and movie industries have yet to prove substantial losses regarding piracy, yet they continue on this legal tirade that attempts to systematically destroy our current legislative system with such overreaching laws as SOPA and PIPA. So overreaching, in fact, that these acts need no court interaction to remove alleged infringing sites from the internet without any court due process or a trial by peers. They offer no way to prove innocence easily or to refute any claims alleged. Simply put, the entertainment industries want to control businesses at a fundamental level outside of the courts. They simply want to call up GoDaddy and say, “You have a site that is infringing, take it down” and GoDaddy must comply with no questions asked. This is the entertainment industry’s ultimate goal:
- No legal system involvement
- Forced compliance
- No due process
- No refuting copyright claims allowed
- Instant removal
Clearly, we don’t want to be here. No single private industry should have that level of legislated control over any individual or business. Even law enforcement shouldn’t have that level of control over individuals or businesses without due process. The entertainment industry, let alone law enforcement should follow due process just like any other individual or business is required to do. If one industry is given that level of government sanctioned legal control, this country will fall and it will fall hard.
If SOPA or PIPA pass, we will move into a new dark age. An age without new books, new music or new creative works of any kind (other than those that the music and movie industries want us to see). The age of independent creative works will end. The age of creative new web sites will end. Eventually, even Hollywood and the music industry will end because of the negative backlash over the lack of substantial creative content… ultimately leaving no creative works of any kind. Independent creative people will stop creating because SOPA will have been so completely abused people won’t set up new sites for fear of a SOPA backlash. Existing businesses will stop doing business with anyone involved in creative works (and let’s hope that includes Hollywood).
Censorship
Part of the SOPA and the PIPA drafts suggest that ISPs adhere to a browsing blacklist. That is, ISPs would be required to prevent access to sites that are ‘known pirate’ sites. This is allegedly to target non-US sites, but it could just as easily target sites within the US. ISPs are and should be treated as a common carrier. That is, what is carried over their lines is not their responsibility either in or out. Requiring ISPs to become filters for the government and the entertainment industries is, again, overreaching. There is no need for this. I do understand what the MPAA and RIAA are both trying to do. But, instead of using censorship to block sites, they should simply go after the site directly. Do not censor everyone else’s view of the Internet because of an suspected problem. Again, this is simply like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. No, just throw the bathwater out .. meaning, if a site becomes a problem, go after that specific site. Don’t require ISPs to block access to the site for every subscriber in the US. Censorship is not an acceptable problem resolution in any form here in the US. That representatives and senators are even considering this is amazingly chilling.
Chilling effects
Legislation like SOPA is chilling. It should not ever be passed. This legislation is the wrong legislation at the wrong time and for the wrong industry. No one industry should wield that level of unregulated power towards any other industry. The DMCA attempted that level of control but failed to work. SOPA is the next step to come out of the DMCA, but it is far too overreaching. Worse, this type of legislation needs to end before the United States as we know it ceases to exist. With legislation like SOPA, the US is leading itself to its own demise. We are, in effect, legislating the US out of existence and SOPA is just one step towards that end.
Consider who the major players are in Hollywood and in the music industry. Most of the players are not even US companies. Again, a conspiracy theorist could have a field day with all of this.
I’m sorry to say that entertainment is the least of this country’s worries, let alone the entertainment industry. They can fend for themselves. Boo Hoo, the movie and music industry might have lost 50 cents because someone allegedly downloaded a song or watched a movie online. Show us the numbers! The entertainment industry already has laws and the court system to back them up with both patent and copyright infringement claims. There is no need for any further legislation on this front. The US needs to focus its efforts on the economy and keeping this country afloat. The US is not responsible for propping up industries that can’t even properly manage themselves. Let’s let Hollywood and big music figure out how to manage themselves using the existing laws.
More then that, let’s make these industries first prove substantial losses to piracy before we give them any level of power, let alone this level. Just say ‘No’ to SOPA and PIPA. Write your congressional representatives and ask them to not support this legislation.
2011 in review
Happy New Year Everybody!
The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2011 annual report for this blog.
Here’s an excerpt:
Madison Square Garden can seat 20,000 people for a concert. This blog was viewed about 66,000 times in 2011. If it were a concert at Madison Square Garden, it would take about 3 sold-out performances for that many people to see it.
iPad: disgusting and cool at the same time
While I initially thought the iPad wouldn’t be that useful, I have since found it does have a place in the world of computing. Definitely not as a replacement computer, but for quick notes, as an entertainment device, light gaming or web surfing, it works quite well. For other things, not so much. I am even typing this article on an iPad (that I was given as a gift). So, I’ve come to like the device for its limited uses.
On the other hand, the device can be completely disgusting in other people’s hands. I’ve seen some people’s iPads just overrun by dirty greasy disgusting fingerprints and muck. This is the part of this device that is completely disgusting. I just don’t understand how people can even see the screen, let alone use their iPad with that much grimy muck all over their screen. And, that’s the downside of the iPad. A really big downside if you ask me. Touching the screen, while seeming to be great idea, isn’t so great after it’s become an unslightly greasy disgusting mess.
So while I like the idea of the iPad, the screen’s tendency to become a filthy disgusting mess is just a horrid design principle. I’d rather just use a keyboard to type with a mouse I can periodically clean and/or throw away and replace. Most people’s mice are equally disgusting, now that grime has been transferred to the viewing surface which is all the more problematic. I’d rather have the mess on the peripheral and not the screen.
Installing the Apple Magic Mouse on Windows 7
Ok, so here’s a topic that you would think would be easy to do. Yet, thanks to Apple, it isn’t and, in fact, took me about 20 minutes to do something that should have taken me 2. Here’s one part of Apple that I hope changes with the new regime stepping in. As much as I admired Steve Jobs, his ideas about an Apple-centric universe were a bit over-the-top. It really makes no sense to create peripherals and tie them to only a tiny fraction of the overall computer market, especially when they’ve already written drivers for the other half of the market! Here’s hoping for some change.
Installing the Magic Mouse
This part is easy. Just turn on the mouse and add a new bluetooth device. Then, select the device and follow the wizard to complete the pairing. It’s not hard at all. The trouble is, it loads a 2006 generic Microsoft mouse driver. This driver doesn’t support any of the touch gestures. Anyway, once you’ve gotten it paired and working, you’ll quickly notice something is missing. Namely, vertical scrolling. Hmm, it makes this mouse less than ideal. So, how do you get scrolling working? Note, if you need specific instructions on setting up a bluetooth device, leave a comment below and I’ll post step-by-step instructions.
Boot Camp
To get the full (or at least as full as you’re going to get with Windows) gestures working (like vertical scrolling) with the Magic Mouse, you need to install Apple’s drivers from Boot Camp. Oh, don’t bother running over to Apple.com and looking for them, you’ll only find a bunch of updates that don’t contain the driver. Instead, you need to locate a copy of the Snow Leopard (or perhaps even a Lion) DVD. Once inserted into Windows, the Boot Camp partition should pop up. This is exactly what you need.
From here (assuming your DVD mounts on M:), go to M:\Boot Camp\Drivers\Apple\x64 or M:\Boot Camp\Drivers\Apple (for 32 bit). In this folder you will find a file called AppleWirelessMouse64.exe / AppleWirelessMouse.exe. Run this file. It will install drivers. When complete, the gestures will be enabled. However, you may have to go to Control Panel->Mouse and readjust the speed and acceleration as it gets reset after the installation.
Simple, easy, fast.. assuming you have a Snow Leopard install disk. Note, I’ve heard the drivers may not persist past a reboot. If you find this is the case, let me know and I will see if I can find a way to make that happen. :)
Update: If you’re using High Sierra and looking for Bootcamp drivers (2018 latest MacOS, visit this article to learn more about Bootcamp drivers).
Mouse won’t connect?
This is a problem I’ve found with the Magic Mouse even on a Mac. However, this has a simple fix (even if not obvious). Click the mouse several times to wake the mouse up to ask it to reconnect to Windows (or Mac) after turning the mouse on.
Drivers
Note, I’ve found the drivers on the net located here. If you find that this link no longer works, please let me know in the comments below and I’ll see if I can find another location.
Good Luck
Fallout 5: This time, it’s not a game.
As Fukushima Daichi continues to spew radiation non-stop, that radiation continues to blanket the world with many different types of radioactive elements including Strontium, Plutonium and Cesium. While the news media has been quite silent on this issue, Fukushima is far from silent. In fact, its melted reactor cores are just as potently spewing radiation as the day the tsunami hit and knocked out the power to containment causing the cores to begin melting.
As of today, three of the cores have now fully melted down and have melted through their protective casings and/or were damaged by the quake. In effect, they are now polluting the environment with their toxic radiation. The Japanese (and corresponding US) media outlets have been releasing reports with blinders on. That is, their tunnel vision reporting has attempted to keep the rest of the world from panicking, but at what price? So, both we and our children and our children’s children can end up slowly dying from radiation poisoning? Yes, this is a very real possibility. Why?
Radiation Plumes
Following the exposure of the cores at Fukushima, these cores are no longer safely contained. That is, these materials are now open to the air and environment. They are now continually spewing radiation into the atmosphere, water and soil. These plumes began blanketing the US (and the rest of the world) within days of the accident. At the same time, the Japanese decided to use seawater to attempt to cool down the cores. It didn’t work. But, what it did do is throw off additional plumes of radioactive sulphur (and other radioactive contaminants) into the air pushing even more radioactive material into the air currents. At the same time, that seawater had to go somewhere, so back into the soil (and ocean) it went. This action alone ensured an environmental disaster of epic proportions. Although, considering lack of containment, it likely would have been equally as bad without the seawater dispersal. So, while they thought they were attempting to cool the core with the seawater, they were simply creating an even more devastating ecological disaster.
Since then, both the ocean currents and the jetstream have moved plumes of radiation around the globe sending radiation over all parts of the globe (starting with the US and Canada) and contaminating sea animals and land animals alike (including people). This further means that our food and water supplies are now contaminated with these radioactive elements. Perhaps minutely, but radiation exposure is cumulative. Once it’s in the human body, it doesn’t come back out.
Not a game
Some have postulated that the Cesium fallout from this event is equivalent to 168 Hiroshima bombs (or more). This is a serious and devastating ecological event. Yet, where is government and the news media discussion? The fallout from this event is likely to kill millions around the globe from tainted food, water and soil. There is no where anyone can go on this Earth to get away from the radiation as it enters the food chain. Contamination is now everywhere (and will continue to build) as the air and water currents ensure the movement of the radiation throughout every part of the food chain (and globe). Even if the cores were to become contained today, the fallout from Fukushima is still enough to contaminate the world for years to come. Some of the isotopes have decay rates for thousands of years, some for millions. Worse, Japanese authorities seem to think it may take 1-3 years to fully contain the melted cores in reactors 1, 2 and 3. That means, the radiation will continue to spew for at least 1-3 years from these melted reactor cores.
What can be done?
Clearly, this shows exactly why deriving electricity from nuclear materials is not a good idea. Well, it is a good idea, but that’s where it should have ended.. as an idea. In practicality, humans cannot be trusted to manage these materials safely as Japan so clearly demonstrates. Lax behaviors patterns, unwillingness to touch, modify or upgrade aging facilities coupled with devastating earthquakes solidify that argument. Humans just cannot be trusted with these levels of radioactive materials. They are, in effect, ticking time bombs waiting for a mistake (Chernobyl) and/or disaster (Fukushima).
Dismantling aging nuclear infrastructures
It’s quite clear that aging nuclear reactors must be turned off and dismantled. Nuclear fuel rods must be safely removed and contained separately. The world can ill afford yet another nuclear disaster. We cannot even afford this one, but here we are. Simply viewing the Radiation Network, it’s quite clear how many radioactive sites may need to be dismantled.
Human nature is unavoidable
Unfortunately, “Out of sight, out of mind” is the optimal phrase here. People do not see what they don’t want to see. Yet, we have many extremely old reactor facilities in operation in the US (and around the world). These sites have been in continuous operation for many many years. Too many, in fact. Unfortunately, these sites were built at a time when construction techniques were less evolved. Now, we’re paying the price for that with these aging nuclear infrastructures. As I said, these old infrastructures are now ticking time bombs. It’s not a matter of if it will happen, it’s now a matter of when.
If companies like PG&E can’t even properly maintain underground gas pipelines, what makes anyone think these companies can properly maintain a nuclear power reactor? It’s clear, they can’t. Some of these aging reactors were built around the same time as the Fukushima reactors. In fact, they may be the same exact reactor at work from the same manufacturer. These Fukushima reactors may have, in fact, already begun decaying long before the quake or the tsunami. It just took those events to push the aging reactors over the edge. So, what will it take to push reactors in the US over the edge? Do we wait for companies like PG&E to conveniently siphon funds away to pay bonuses to their executive staff instead of putting money into maintaining these critical pieces of equipment?
The power of greed
Greed is a factor that invades every part of our lives. From the news media’s lack of reporting on this disaster to what happens with healthcare reforms to Wall Street monetary meltdowns. All of that we can live through. What humanity can’t live through is when greed causes toxic consequences. Did greed cause Japan’s nuclear meltdown? That’s debatable, but it probably played at least some part in this. If Japan had kept these reactors current by either building newer to replace the old or upgrading its current facilities, this might have been avoided. Yes, it takes money, but that’s the issue. We’re so preoccupied with giving the money to the executives that we don’t think twice of trying to avert disasters.
Fundamental thinking of money, money supply and how the world works must change. We cannot continue down the road we are on and expect humanity to survive. Then, people wonder why some civilizations rise and fall. Here’s a prime example of why. Greed drives society to do the wrong things and, in many cases, ignore doing the right things (when it’s too costly even when human life is at stake).
Fukushima: Lessons Learned?
This ongoing nuclear disaster is continuing, yet the US media is conveniently ignoring it. In fact, this is exactly what the US does best. Ignore things it doesn’t want to know about. Fukushima won’t stop spewing radiation merely by ignoring it. It will still continue to silently kill millions for years go come even if we take action today to contain it. In fact, those in Japan are to be the first casualties of this. The rest of the world won’t be far behind thanks to the jetstream and the Pacific and Atlantic currents coupled with our global food supply chain. In fact, you may have already exposed yourself to radiation from Fukushima and not even know it… in that glass of milk you drank or that piece of sushi you ate or that hamburger. Do we need to carry Geiger counters? Perhaps we need an app for that. We definitely need to prevent this from happening again if for no other reason than to save ourselves.
Why was the V TV series (2011) cancelled?
As Randocity had predicted in this earlier Boycott V Series article, V has officially been cancelled by ABC as of May 13, 2011 (Friday the 13th). Let this article serve as a cautionary tale for future producers. This was not a good day for the V series cast and crew as they had just lost their jobs. Oh well, such is life in show business. However, this cancellation goes to prove yet another experiment turns into a failure at the expense of what started as a good TV series. Why was the V series from 2011 cancelled? That’s quite a story story in and of itself. Let’s explore.
Why was the V TV series cancelled?
Since V’s (V stands for Visitor) second season launch in January, the producers and/or ABC had made the insane choice to not allow V back onto Hulu, iTunes, Amazon or any other streaming media service (including ABC’s very own streaming TV web site). That meant that there was no way to watch back episodes or catch up on missed V episodes. This also meant as people began missing episodes, they couldn’t catch up and said, “f-it” and moved on. This choice effectively forced people to watch the series on TV live the night it broadcast or buy a recorder to time shift it.
Lessons Learned?
When your TV series targets the exact age demographic of people who watch their shows via Hulu (or any other streaming site) and then when you decide to cut these exact viewers off from your show, it’s ultimately the kiss of death. Ultimately, this is the reason the series failed. V is, unfortunately, also a perfect example of what not to do with streaming media when promoting a TV series. Don’t shun streaming media, embrace it. Embrace it with open arms and nurture and foster its growth. As a producer you want, no, you need viewers. The more viewers the better. It doesn’t matter if you have to rip the video of each episode and personally seed the file on bitorrent yourself. Do it!
What you don’t want is, well, exactly what the producers did to V. Don’t bite the hand the feeds you. Worse, the show began to feel the effects of its lower and lower viewership (and ratings) and began making more and more desperate, drastic and insane story choices to try and recover that lost viewership. It didn’t work. These “creative” choices saw main characters killed off from the show, yet didn’t do anything to increase viewership. This only made the show worse and more pointless. But, these story choices were simply a side effect of the stupidity of not allowing streaming sites to stream (or store back catalog) this series. You can’t change a story to attempt make up for that poorly conceived ‘no streaming’ decision. To get viewers back, the producers would have had to rescind that decision and allow the show back onto Hulu, iTunes and Amazon. By April, it was already too late to rescind that decision and gain back that lost viewership. Ultimately, the series was doomed.
Cost Per Episode
One must recognize that this TV series was quite costly to produce. While I am unable to find an exact figure to place on the cost per episode, because this series relied almost entirely on CGI to handle the interior shots of the Visitor ships, this only added to the mounting pressure of producing this series. I’m positive that the cost per episode directly contributed to ABC’s decision to pull the plug, but only because of a drastic drop in viewership. The exceedingly questionable decision to remove the series entirely from streaming services left a huge gaping viewership hole that the producers couldn’t fill. In essence, it tied the producer’s hands and simultaneously left the series effectively without an audience. Meaning, the age group who would tune in to watch V wouldn’t be willing to do it solely on an over-the-air broadcast. That meant forcing viewers to sit down at a specific time in front of a TV or buy a device like a recorder to record the series. Both were unpleasant propositions, especially when you could formerly tune in at your leisure on your phone, laptop or tablet device. Thus, the viewership drastically tanked. With that drastic a viewership drop, ABC was left with no choice but to pull the plug on the series.
Back Catalogs & Advertisers
Any show should always allow a back catalog of episodes to be available on streaming sites for even just a few months to allow viewers to keep up with a show in progress. A back catalog of older episodes allows viewers to take their time catching up and feel good about the time when they watch. Sure, these views may not give the immediacy of the Neilsen ratings for over-the-air TV, but so what? That system is so antiquated, it needs to die. Instead, we need a new ratings system that takes into account real viewers from streaming sites and next day views. Skip the ‘night of’ viewership numbers and go with a model that resembles how people are actually consuming TV today. Internet enabled TVs are not going away and neither are mobile devices. Hello advertisers like Proctor and Gamble, get with it. Same day viewership of TV shows is over. That day has passed. The future of TV is through next day viewing or even month later views. That’s where the advertising revenues will be had.
So Long ‘V’
It’s unfortunate that the producers felt the need to make stupid choices like ‘no streaming’. It was a gamble that simply didn’t pay off. It turned the series into a shambles through poor story choices. Oh well, V has had its short-lived day. Tomorrow is another day and with it new TV shows to sink your time slots into. But, let’s just make sure they continue to do it on our, the viewer’s, terms.
To the producers, embrace change or perish. That’s the prime lesson to take away from the ‘V’ experiment. Yes, the V ‘no streaming’ experiment was truly a failure.
↩︎
Random Thoughts - Randocity! 
leave a comment