An explosion in online piracy has forced New Zealand’s free-to-air TV networks to fast-track the screening of top international shows.

Superhero drama Heroes and British car series Top Gear topped the list of the most illegally downloaded TV shows in New Zealand last year, with millions of copies hitting cyberspace as soon as they were made available overseas.

As a result, those shows and others including House, Private Practice and Survivor are aired within days of their international release.

And that is the logical response. We live in a borderless world and if people can read online the latest Heroes episode is out, they want to see it now - now in six months. If NZ is only a few days behind few will pirate it, but if it is a choice of waiting for months or downloading a copy of something that will be free to air  anyway, people download.

As a matter of principle I will not download movies, as they are distributed in NZ within days of overseas release, and you have to pay to see them.

I have occassionally downloaded a TV show if it either does not show in NZ at all, or the wait to see it will be too long. I always watch it again on the TV once they do show here also. At present I haven’t downloaded a TV show for months - partly too busy, but partly because TV networks here are screening them faster.

Tony Eaton, the executive director of the Federation Against Copyright Theft, says that the authorities in New Zealand had yet to conduct extensive research into illegal downloads.

“Our primary focus has been the film industry but in saying that we have turned our attention to television more,” he said.

“It makes sense for networks to make shows available as soon as possible on television here.”

Good to see FACT agreeing.

The trend may explain why the big two free-to-air networks offer legal downloads of top shows for a limited period after they screen on TV.

“It may be that online availability of programming is actually having the effect of boosting television viewing - that is certainly the case with `catch up’ television,” said Richards.

I have no doubt this is the case.

And we’ll kick off with this gem of a picture gallery from The Guardian:

(Thanks to John Q for the link.)

Case in point: China.

Peter Brookes reports for the China Post:

In the last few weeks, the media has been filled with reports of Chinese cyber spies penetrating the computer networks of both presidential campaigns and even the White House, reading unclassified, but clearly privileged, e-mails.

Unfortunately, that’s only the beginning of it.

No surprise that the Chinese would be interested in what’s being said in the White House, even the non-secret stuff. White House staffers have access to plenty of information that would be of interest to the chaps in Zhongnanhai (the Chinese leadership compound)…

China’s hacker army is also targeting American industry for espionage, especially the defense industry, where new weapons systems and top-of-the-line defense technology are at the center of the bull’s eye…

The same is true with the civilian side of private industry. Beijing is pilfering the technology of U.S. and other foreign firms that set up shop on Chinese soil. In fact, some firms resist putting cutting-edge research and development there for exactly that reason.

Since traditional espionage can be tough in a foreign country (recruiting a spy to pinch information can be expensive, difficult and politically risky), the Chinese have turned to cyberspace. This makes it difficult, if not impossible, to determine who’s picked your pocket, providing plausible deniability to the cyber spook. Spies cover their electronic tracks by routing their penetration through any number of surrogate servers around the world, making finger-pointing difficult.

Not surprisingly, the amount of industrial cyber espionage is grossly underreported, as firms fret over acknowledging that their intellectual property — the crown-jewels of their efforts — has been “exfiltrated.”

And then the key point:

In the end, the Chinese aren’t only stealing our industrial and defense secrets, but something more important: Our ability to compete globally.

America’s great strength has been its ability to innovate — to develop new ideas and concepts. Arguably, no country in history has been as ground-breaking in as many fields as Uncle Sam. It’s something we’ve a right to be proud of.

The theft of our intellectual property — by anyone — means we’ll be less able to compete in international markets as well as protect our security interests, including against the likes of a rising China, destined to be a peer competitor.

What China is doing is this: it is stealing America’s knowledge and innovative ideas. It then uses it for itself, causing the U.S. to suffer in a world in which innovation is key to success. The U.S. will have to guard itself against China’s cyber attacks. Companies and the government can pretend publicly that the problem does not exist, but they will need to do something about this major issue behind closed doors; the best minds in the U.S. should work on it - in the end, the U.S. has tremendous knowledge in this respect, with some of the best computerminds more than willing to help out.

As long as the pay is OK.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

Here’s the story behind this doodle:

Starting this Saturday, Barack Obama is going to be broadcasting to the nation - nay, the world - via the medium of this here new-fangled computer thingy. Every week. Think of him as a 21st century FDR, if you will.

Obama’s weekly video addresses are an example of the promised a) transparency and b) new-fangledness (also known as ‘technology’) that the Obama campaign said it would bring to the presidency.

They’ll go out on both YouTube and change.gov - and in fact, his team have already got the ball rolling with this video below.

Are you sitting comfortably? Then he’ll begin. Or rather: transition chief Valerie Jarrett will begin:

And isn’t Obama aware that, “the American elite has grown adept at using the black middle and management class.” After all, the guy couldn’t have done it on his own back and defeated two of the most powerful campaign machines. It’s all a Zionist plot see, there’s too many Jews hanging around Obama. Jeez. Bring back George Bush, at least Pilger was happy then.

Good to see the far-left hasn’t lost any of its stupidity. I think what really annoys the hell out of Pilger is that Obama has built the largest grass-roots movement in modern American political history, one more led by the people than the far left has ever managed to create. Marxists claim to speak for the masses but it must surely be a bit annoying that they’ve never managed to find so many volunteers or be so democratic as political movements.

Barack Obama's election victory may have been good for the country, but it's been awful for comedians. Just ask poor Don Rickles.

He was absolutely killing the audience on David Letterman's show the other night with his trademark scorched-earth put-downs. Rickles seemed at the top of his game -- until he tried to tell a joke about the new president-elect. Not even a well-timed rimshot from the band could have saved him.

It was just a quick bit in which he imagined Obama, faced with his first international crisis, telling his advisers he couldn't be interrupted because he was busy playing basketball. The joke bombed.

...As I said, poor Don Rickles. After all, he practically invented the in-your-face, politically incorrect style of humor that is so many comedians' meal tickets these days. It must have been galling to have to sheepishly disavow a joke that was so inoffensive compared with the rest of his oeuvre.

And what was wrong with the joke, anyway?

"Wrong" is too strong a word; "anachronistic" and "off-center" might be closer to the mark. It is a fact that Obama (like George W. Bush) is something of a gym rat, and it is a fact that Obama (unlike Bush) likes to spend his time in the gym playing basketball. His sinking a three-pointer during his trip to Kuwait was one of the indelible moments of the long campaign.

So why didn't the audience laugh? The main reason, I think, is that "black men playing basketball" is a stereotype, and the audience probably felt this was an inappropriate way to talk about the first black president-elect. Even though, as I noted, he does love to play basketball. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

Interview part one -

Interview part two -

Sarah Palin held a 3 minute press conference today at the Republican Governors Association meeting. It was…fun.

I know, I know. The election is over. But apparently a wing of the Republican party believes this trainwreck is their future leader. Others don’t. Either way, this trainwreck aims to entertain us for as long as she can.

Writing for Pajamas Media, Neo-neocon argues that conservatives are better than reacting in a knee-jerk fashion:

Yes, there are reasons to fear that Obama has a far left agenda, based on his history, some of his own statements, and his associations. There are even reasons to believe that whether he does or doesn’t have such an agenda himself, he will lack the inclination (or perhaps the backbone) to stop the far left agenda of those with the power to pass bills — in other words, the hugely Democratic Congress and its leaders Reid and Pelosi.

But I suggest that everyone stand back, take a deep breath, and wait. Wait, and observe. It will become clear enough as Obama chooses a Cabinet and advisers. And then it will become even more clear as he takes office and begins the work of government. More clarity will come as he handles the inevitable crises and tests that will occur on his watch.

That seem to me to be a conservative argument.  Go on what you see happen, not what you think will happen.  Once we see how Obama is going to lead this country, then we can determine whether or not he’s taking it in the right or wrong direction.  But until he does something, be patient.

Neo-neocon says that conservatives should use their heads going forward, and not base their actions on emotions:

In addition, those on the right have always taken pride in the fact that in their political decisions they are driven more by reason, in contrast to the left’s emotion. Whether or not this is true is not the issue here; the point is that, if conservatives believe it is true, they should act in accordance.

I have some quibbles with the blanketing of all liberals as knee-jerk reactionaries.  One of my favorite professors in college was certainly liberal, but very analytical in his style.  Yet, the core argument is a good one all the same.  It’s this style of thinking that I try to employ in life.  And it would probably be best if everyone followed this style.  It would certainly make debate much more intellectually stimulating rather than the squabbling it often devolves into.

The problem of course is not simple things like disagreeing on an issue.  The problem is demonizing a person, as Neo-neocon explains:

Once again, I want to emphasize that we are not talking about mere policy disagreements here. We’re talking about demonizing and trashing a person, ascribing to him the worst motivations possible and imagining conspiracy theories everywhere.

We saw a lot of this (and continue to see it) with Bush Derangement Syndrome.  “He’s the worst President ever!”  “He a fascist.”  “He’s a dictator.”  That kind of thing.  Of course, it doesn’t help political discourse any when some people are already using some of these same arguments against Obama as Michael wrote about a few days ago.

Now, I don’t agree with a lot of what Bush has done in regards to foreign policy (and especially detainee treatment), but I don’t think he’s a bad man.  He’s done a lot of good as well on the foreign front, especially with help on AIDS and foreign relief.  He’s also done a lot of good domestically.  I believe NCLB was a well-intentioned effort at improving education, even if it didn’t come off as well as hoped.

Any “derangement syndrome” is a bad thing, whether it’d BDS or ODS.  Those conservatives who would employ in it should remember that they didn’t like such tactics used on Bush.  So, there’s no need for a return volley.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

He also makes the argument that if the media is so utterly liberal, then how was George W. Bush able to win two elections?  It is a good argument, I think.  There is a bias there, though I have to agree with Smith that the media isn’t all powerful as some think.

So, is Smith doing the journalism job right or was he also in the tank for Obama like Bill O’Reilly apparently was?  You decide.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.