Fox Not As Evil As Previously Thought

Arrested Development Season 3Last month, I wrote an article, The 3 (or 7) Houses of Parliament. It was about a joke in the TV series Arrested Development. For the article, I made a video that used 22.8 seconds from one of their episodes, “The Ocean Walker.” And I uploaded it to YouTube.[1]

Fox, via some robot on YouTube determined that I was using copyrighted material and banned the video instantly. At first, I just bitched. Typical! Fox is evil. You know the script.

Finally, I decided that I would fight it. I filed an appeal. I noted that I was using only one-fiftieth of an episode. I noted that it was part of a larger video and that video was part of a larger article and so my use should be considered fair use. And I noted that my video acted as a commercial for the episode.

Shockingly, today I received email from YouTube:

Dear GBUtests,[2]

FOX has reviewed your dispute and released its copyright claim on your video, “The 3 (or 7) Houses of Parliament“. For more information, please visit your Copyright Notice page[.]

– The YouTube Team

This is great news. It makes me think that the system—at least when it comes to Fox—works. I think the copyright system is completely broken. Until it is fixed, however, I don’t think people should be able to post whole episodes and such. But my video—and now that it’s been approved, I wish it were better—clearly falls under fair use rights. I’m glad that Fox agrees.

Of course, Fox is still evil.

[1] Here is the video:

[2] GBUtests is short for “Good Bad & Uglies Tests,” which are the videos I am trying to make but are still too weak to show in public. It does, however, still have a couple misc videos that don’t involve my face that you can look at. Don’t expect much.

The Bane Also Rises

Rush Limbaugh said today, “Do you think that it is accidental, that the name of the really vicious, fire-breathing, four-eyed, whatever-it-is villain in [The Dark Knight Rises] is named Bane?” Here’s the whole 4 minute bit:

The problem, of course, is that this comment shows a complete lack of familiarity with the facts. You don’t have to be a comic book geek (which I am, but in the amateur category) to look on Wikipedia to find out that Bane first appeared in January 1993, in Batman: Vengeance of Bane #1.

And just from a grammar standpoint: please! Bane is a great name for a supervillain. Bain is just the name of a Scottish philosopher.

Repeat after me, “There is such a thing as a homophone! There is such a thing as a homophone!” After you accept this, we can have such a damned good time together.

Isn’t it pretty to think so?

Update (19 July 2012 12:16 am)

Update (19 July 2012 11:16 am)

Rush Limbaugh now claims he never said the character of Bane was created as an attack on Romney’s experience at Bain Capital, except, you know, he did. He now claims he only said that Democrats would use it in the campaign. But even that is not going to be the case. This whole thing shows Limbaugh in an even more contemptible light than usual. It is really pathetic.

Romney: Do What I Say Not What I Do

Ezra KleinIn a widely quoted passage from The Real Romney, Kranish and Helman explain that when Romney was asked to take over Bain Capital, he first demurred. It was only when he received guarantees that if the Bain Capital venture went bad he would not lose any money and that his reputation would be protected.

Ezra Klein today, uses this story to discuss Romney’s economic policies. He goes on to discuss the careful “no way I can lose” manner that Romney left Bain Capital. And this, to Klein, shows the lie of Romney’s entire argument for cutting the taxes of rich people:

But Romney’s policies seems to reflect the inverse of these lessons: They increase the rewards for taking risks that pay off handsomely while reducing the baseline level of security people need to take those risks. In that way, his platform seems likely to widen the economic gap between the rich and the poor, as it will be even harder for a working class father who can’t count on having health insurance for his family to leave his company and start a new business, but it will be even more profitable for a son of privilege to take a sweetheart deal to start a new business.

There is a sense in the United States that the rich play by different rules than the poor or the middle class — rules that make it easier for them to get even richer. Romney history show he has been aggressive in taking advantage of those rules, which is fine. But his proposed policies would make it even easier for the rich to stay rich and even more difficult for the poor to scrape by, which is not fine. As Romney likes to say, the American people don’t resent success. But they do resent tax cuts for the rich at the cost of health care for the poor.

Let me put this more directly than Klein does: Romney’s wealth does not come from risk taking; it comes from risk avoidance. His argument that the rich need to be rewarded for taking risks is belied by his own story. People need a certain amount of security if they are going to take risks. Romney’s economic ideas will only make the wealthy more so and provide fewer options for everyone else.