03.23.2K7: News flash: COPA is still unconstitutional

A Philadelphia court this week declared that the 1997 Child Online Protection Act is unconstitutional, on the grounds that it limits free speech for Americans. This is not the first time COPA has been declared unconstitutional, and it probably won't be the last.

COPA has been consistently attacked since its introduction by a Congress reacting to the pressure of various conservative groups to protect children from online pornography. Though the idea obviously has merit, the steps Congress proposed to protect children were largely unworkable, due to the state of technology which Congress was clearly not familiar with. Further adjustments to the act proposed draconian fees and extreme steps that each webmaster would have to take to screen children from content, complicated by the fact that "adult" standards varied from locality to locality, but under COPA would be enforced web-wide. The act also did nothing to address websites outside the U.S., over which COPA had no jurisdiction, and which were just as available to minors.

The Philadelphia court stated that protective internet filters would do much more to protect children, and would not limit free speech to adults. Online filters can be set up on the computer, passwords set, and select sites either chosen to be blocked, or only certain sites allowed access to, depending on personal preference.

Filters require more work at the end site (the computer the child accesses), usually the responsibility of the child's parents to set and monitor. Many parents feel that this should not be their job, it should be the job of the government. However, such an opinion denies the real fact that not all Americans think the same, hold the same values, or want to protect their children from the same material. Though it may be more of a parental effort, making parents responsible for their own children's internet access is the only way to deal with child protection in a free United States.

COPA, while it may be a good idea, is simply a bad law. I foresee repeated declarations of its unconstitutionality, until it is finally removed from the books and a more practical, sensible law is put in its place.

03.15.2K7: Movie remakes are taking the wrong tack

The recent release of the Korean movie The Host already has American studios talking about remaking the movie for American audiences. This has become a common practice lately, especially of non-English films. Ostensibly, it gives American studios a new project for American actors and workers, and makes the American studios more money. However, the remakes of most foreign films turn out to be at best mediocre, and at worst insultingly bad, and don't do that well in the box office (with rare exceptions, like Three Men and a Baby). You have to wonder, therefore, why they do it.

It's a fact that the majority of American audiences do not respond so well to foreign language films, either because they can't understand the language spoken, don't like reading subtitles, or they get a disconnect from watching movies with badly-dubbed English dialogue. Even movies like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon can be a mite distracting when redubbed into English. Why? Because the sound and the lips don't match, of course.

But this is the 21st Century. We've seen a little green gnome in a burlap robe spin in the air like a dervish while delivering staccatto lightsaber blows to his enemy. Many of us don't realize it, but studios have taken in recent years to digitally altering actor's expressions, changing the direction of an actor's gaze, and even putting an actor's face digitally on a stand-in or stunt double, in post-production. They have also altered dialogue after filming, then gone to computer post-production to alter the movement of the actor's mouth to accommodate the words.

So, if we can put words in an actor's mouth, and alter lip movements to suit, why can't we redub a foreign film into English, and alter the lip and facial movements for the new dialogue? Sure, it would be involved, but for a completed film, it would be the only work that would need to be done to it to create a well-dubbed version. This should be even easier for animated or computer-generated films, where the lip motions could be isolated during programming, and redone to accommodate new dialogue.

Such a film would be more true to the original, but with well-synced English dialogue that an American audience could watch without distraction and mental disconnection. The redubbed film would cost less than redoing an entire movie, and do better in the box office to-boot!

How long might we have to wait before someone in Hollywood says, "Hey! Why bother to refilm the whole thing? It'll probably do lousy in the box office anyway! Let's just do an English dub and digitally re-sync the mouths to it, and save millions!"

Remember: When they do, you read it here first.

03.8.2K7: CompUSA is downsizing

In just the last year, Tower Records went out of business, a victim of the massive shakeup of the music industry caused by MP3s, political in-fighting and short-sightedness. Now, it seems we are about to lose another commercial icon to the realities of a changing industry.

CompUSA represented the ultimate computer store for most of us, the last of the many computer-devoted franchises to maintain a physical presence as the others moved online. CompUSA was the place to go to see the most computers to buy, talk to the most knowledgeable computer-devoted people, and browse for the most peripherals and accessories. Unfortunately, they had also become endemic of the retail experience in general, being beset by not-so-knowledgeable sales drones, infuriating multiple-rebate non-sales, and a general feeling of malaise and uncaring. Many consumers had begun to shun CompUSA, or worse, go to see a product, then buy elsewhere, in response to the perceived bad shopping experience that had become expected there.

Now, according to a statement, CompUSA is closing 126 of its 225 stores, and undergoing a massive restructuring within 90 days. They claim a change in the consumer retail and electronics market is to blame. They follow on the heels of Circuit City, which is also closing some low-productivity stores due to market difficulties.

In so-called "saturated markets" like Washington DC area, this means the closing of all local CompUSA stores, leaving only general electronics franchises like Circuit City and Radio Shack, and Big Box stores like Best Buy (the ones who are taking over the music void created by the demise of Tower, and the ones who have coincidentally stepped up their computer sales commercials). And, of course, buying online, which has become the most popular way to buy most electronics.

Unfortunately, that won't help the consumer, who has only been victimized by the electronics retail market from the beginning. Faced with a lack of venues to check out and "test-drive" electronics items, especially computers and computer software, the consumer has always felt taken advantage of by the industry. The electronics industry, after all, allows consumers the least amount of exposure to a product before the sale than almost any other market: Many electronics sales are based almost entirely on cosmetic elements rather than features or performance. With the removal of one more place to see and try out hardware and software, the trend towards cosmetics-based purchases will only continue.

Will CompUSA be missed? A lot of people will not be sorry to see them go. But everyone will have to agree that, with their loss, finding, investigating and buying most computer products will only be harder.

03.5.2K7: Conserving energy with light

What may be the smallest, most pervasive, yet most energy-wasteful, technology? It may be the light bulb.

The good old incandescent light bulb, the technology that propelled Edison to fame and fortune, is an incredible waster of energy. Of the electricity that goes into it, only about 5% is used to create light. The other 95% turns into heat, which is largely wasted energy. Standard light bulbs are plugged into the majority of 3 to 4 billion light sockets in the United States, consuming about 10% of the United States' energy each year.

In an age when we have come to realize that we cannot wantonly waste energy (or contribute to global warming), the standard light bulb has been marked for retirement, a technology whose time has come and gone. Compact fluorescent bulbs are making huge inroads across the country, and LED bulbs are coming down in price, almost ready to give the fluorescents a run for their money. California, ever the leader in progress, has begun talks with light bulb manufacturers to phase out the standard bulb, and stop all production within 10 years.

And America is not the only place with light bulbs, nor the only energy waster. In Russia, the government is trying to encourage its citizens to replace their incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescents. Australian and European leaders are considering outright bans on incandescent bulbs. And all this talk is prompting General Electric, one of the world's largest incandescent bulb makers, to re-examine the bulb, whose technology has changed little in 50 years, and work to make it more efficient. GE believes it can make incandescents as efficient as fluorescents by 2010.

Small steps? Perhaps. But in our present energy and climate situation, even small steps help.