Hurricane Katrina

2005 is the year of the hurricanes. In USA, all previous records are broken and there have already been more than 23 hurricanes and tropical storms this year. Mother Nature has thrown several powerful storms at us. The most severe so far have been hurricanes Wilma and Rita, which are first and second on the list of most powerful hurricanes.
But the most disastrous storm is without a doubt hurricane Katrina. Even though it was only the third most powerful storm of the year, it is Katrina one that people will remember forever.
Why? Well, Katrina simply trashed large parts of America, and especially Mississippi and Louisiana, and in particular New Orleans.
New Orleans, which is one of the largest cities in USA, was completely overwhelmed and devastated by Katrina’s fierce force. The hurricane put much of the world famous metropolis under water, leaving thousands of people homeless.
What’s worse is that at least 1302 people lost their lives in connection with the storm. On top of that, hurricane Katrina caused damages for between $70 billions and $130 billions!
But Katrina also exposed great flaws which raised some serious questions. For instance, is it worth spending billions of dollars on overseas wars when you can’t even protect and take care of its own people, on home grounds, when in need?
There are as I see it, three serious flaws that made Katrina’s devastation even worse. First, New Orleans. The classic city was far from protected. It has been revealed after the disaster that the city’s defense barriers against flooding and waves were insufficient. Budget constrains are to be blamed. However the cost of rebuilding the city will be much higher than what stronger barriers would’ve cost.
Second, relief efforts were too slow and initially not available. Apparently there was no plan of emergency – it took almost an entire week for help to arrive to affected areas.
Third, politics were unfortunately involved. While people were dying on New Orleans’s streets, politicians couldn’t decide on who should do what. There were questions whether federal or local authorities should be in control. In addition, bureaucracy slowed things down.
The hurricane literary speaking took the US by storm, leaving the powerful nation to its knees. It’s interesting that in these terror frenzy times USA, of all countries, were so unprepared for what turned out to be a complete disaster. After the storm have a lot of people have criticized both local and federal authorities. They feel that not enough efforts and preparations were taken even though Katrina was expected to be a powerful storm. Even though the hurricane was closely monitored several days before reaching US shores, no safety measures were taken. For instance, people weren’t evacuated until the very last moment, and there wasn’t any mandatory evacuation until it was too late.
But more importantly, there didn’t seem to be any plan for relief efforts and after the storm had passed no help came to the many thousands people in need. Why is that? With the facts as we now have them, it’s apparent no such plan existed.
People who had the power to help did nothing. For instance, US President Bush was away partying on Holliday during the storm. For that he has been extremely criticized. Another heavily criticized party is the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which is supposed to take care of disasters in America but failed miserably with Katrina. As a direct consequence, FEMA boss Michael D. Brown was stripped of power.
So, is the whole thing really the Government’s fault? Well, who could have expected such a terrible storm? After all, stormy whether are common in the region.
Maybe no precautions were taken by authorities because people expected to ride out the storm. Maybe that’s why so many decided to stay in their homes. Authorities probably assumed that it would be just another storm and hence underestimated the power of Katrina.
But it’s not the authorities’ job to assume things. One of the main functions is to assure citizens safety. It’s authorities’ job to be on top of things and have the facts. And in this case, they had information and facts. The cards were on the table, they knew well in advance that Katrina was a strong category 5 hurricane (the highest level). They knew it was going to reach land as one of the most powerful hurricanes ever. Yet, they did nothing. Not until it wad too late, anyway.
There was also a power-struggle between federal authorities and Louisiana Governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco which slowed things down. What happened was that federal officials wanted control over Louisiana and New Orleans but Blanco refused. The Government wanted to bring in the US army and restore law and order but Blanco probably assumed that it would be negative for her political career to loose control.
There were also rows between Blanco and New Orleans Mayor Ray Naggin about who was charge of things. Apparently it was Blanco, because Naggin wanted a mandatory evacuation but the Governor refused.
Even though the Naggin early grasped the situation and issued an official warning, telling people to get out of the city, no mass scale evacuation was put in force. As a result, people defied what was going to be one of the most devastating storms ever and parties could be heard in the famous French Quarters the very night that hurricane Katrina surrounded the city.
Even though the Mayor’s hands were tied, he managed to play a big role in the chaos that Katrina left. In the article, “Mayor to feds: 'Get off your asses',” Naggin bashed both President Bush and the Federal authorities in very colorful words.
The aftermaths of the hurricane took an interesting twist: President Bush slammed the world and said that it let America down. As a consequence, countries, organizations, and individuals responded with all kinds of help including cash, equipment, and human resources and more.
In conjunction with this, Bush declared that bureaucracy should not hinder Americans in need from receiving help. But USA didn't accept help from political foe Cuba. Fidel Castro said that no (political) strings were attached and that he had doctors and nurses standing by, ready if needed. Whether or not the Cuban president had ulterior political motives, he offered help. Even though it’s clear that these resources were needed, USA turned the offer down. Apparently, there was no formal offer sent to the US Government. It’s interesting that Bush first explicitly declares that no bureaucracy should hinder Americans in need and then refuse Cuba's help.
It’s also interesting that as the world watched in amazement how New Orleans was totally flooded by dirty seawater, no help came. The world saw how devastated people fought for their lives against polluted water but also against other people. As the chaos deepened, hoodlums and gangsters took control over the city when the local under forced police gave up. We saw all this live on news channels such as CNN. Why didn’t the US authorities see the same thing?
CNN by the way was in New Orleans before Katrina arrived, during the disastrous storm, and was around even when the hurricane eventually left. Only when people were dieing of sickness and starvation help arrived. The US Army came after a week or so and declared Martial Law. Finally then were people a little bit safer.
Even Bush dropped by, however safely watching from the sky. A lot of people blame Bush for not sending help faster and some even call him racist (as the majority in New Orleans is blacks). I shall not discuss whether or not he’s a racist but just an interesting note: When Bush was Governor of Texas he was notoriously known to turn down appeals from death sentenced. The majority of deaths sentenced in Texas are Blacks.
Bush antagonist and filmmaker Michael Moore asked the President in an open letter where the National Guard Troops and military helicopters were as they were obviously needed in New Orleans and other devastated areas. I don’t think he got an answer.
But why wasn’t help offered to USA before Bush explicitly asked for it? Well, probably because most people expected the US to take of itself. USA is without a doubt the richest country in the world and has more recourses than any other country. But it hasn’t got enough resources to help needing citizens?
In conclusion, Hurricane Katrina’s put America to its very knees. Even though its strength was known in advance, no necessary precautions were taken. Apparently there were some confusion between the state and local authorities on what was supposed to do what. So while politicians argued, people died in New Orleans and other places. The city’s protection against flooding weren’t enough, and the cost to rebuild New Orleans will be far more than sufficient protection would’ve cost.
The scandal and tragedy was further increased when USA first asked the world for help but then refused Cuba’s offer. There was no reason for USA not to accept Cuba’s help, whether or not there was a formal offer. In crisis like these, it doesn’t make sense to involve politics.
So, to my question: Is it worth spending billions of dollars on overseas wars when you can’t even protect and take care of its own people, on home grounds, when in need?
Obviously not. Isn’t it reasonable to believe that a country that sends people all over the world to engage in various conflicts and wars also has the resources to protect and help its own people on home grounds when a disaster such as this emerge?
Katrina exposed the worst sides of USA; first, they ignored the obvious (powerful category 5 hurricane); second, they sent no help to Americans in need; three, they asked others for help. Maybe Bush expected the rest of the world to take care of America’s problem.
No, sir. The world didn’t let America down, but maybe it should’ve.

9/11: War in Iraq

The terror attack in USA on September 11, 2001, changed the world forever. People in America and large parts of Europe started viewing all Muslims as terrorists. Consequently people from the Middle East were assaulted and mosques were attacked and even burned down in the Western countries.
As a result, Muslims’ hatred towards especially USA grew in many regions of the world. Radical Muslim terror groups used this anger and created huge armies of ‘sleeping cells’.
However, some people claim that the incident was planned and executed secretly by the Americans themselves. They say that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) masterminded this gruesome attack so that USA could invade Iraq and get their hands on the country’s vast oil supplies. This has never been proven and so I won’t discuss it further. Bear in mind, though, that USA consumes great amounts of oil.
Further more; US President Bush had personal interests to gain in a major conflict. Apart from a ‘world government’ desire, which seem to haunt all American presidents, Bush’s friends in the US weapon industry hauled up millions of dollars in Bush’s president election campaign – which was one of the most expensive ever. Also, there was a harsh feud between the powerful Bush family and Iraqi Dictator Saddam Hussein.
I will talk about whether or not the attack on Iraq was justified. But first a recap of what officially happened on 9/11.
September 11th 2001: A date the world will remember forever.
Islamic terrorists on a suicide mission hijacked two passenger planes and crash them into the World Trade Center, New York. The twin buildings completely collapse. Another hijacked plane crashed into the heart of America’s defense system, the Pentagon (Headquarters of the United States Department of Defense), in Washington DC. Yet an additional hijacked passenger plane was supposedly headed for the Presidential hideout Camp David, escorted by two US jet fighters. However, the plane never reached its target and crashed somewhere in Pennsylvania.
The final death count from 9/11 is 2752.
The rumor goes that the 4th plane was shot down by the following jets. Another rumor says the passengers ‘mutinied’ and crashed the plane. Yet another rumor blames fuel.
What really happened lies in the stars, so to say, and I guess we’ll never know exactly what happened. But if the plane indeed was shot down, was the action justified? Well, who can really judge? It’s certainly not the ‘American way’ to kill Americans. But considering the chaotic that day, it’s safe to assume that Government wouldn’t allow yet another disaster. So, it’s sensible to imagine that if the plane was actually shutdown, then the lives of the people onboard were considered sacrificed, if it meant saving a greater number of lives in a potential big scale crash-attack.
Before 9/11 USA was a relatively safe place to visit, work and to live in. People went to work without thinking about terror. Tourists could safely visit tourist attractions, monuments and buildings like the WTC (once the largest building(s) in the world). Children played peacefully together without worrying that things next to them could explode, etc.
But 9/11 changed all of that. Suddenly regular non-military people realized that they – and their immediate friends and family – were potential victims of terror. Everybody, from the lowest paid employee at McDonalds to the wealthy business elite in Wall Street, understood that terror was all around.
The attack on the World Trade Center was unthinkable and unimaginable, and left the Americans deeply impaired. It was not only a major hit to America’s pride but also so the largest attack on US soil ever.
After 9/11 the whole of USA wanted somebody to blame. Americans demanded retaliation and Bush quickly stated that the US was in war against terrorism.
Bush and his administration immediately focused Osama Bin Ladin’s al-Qaeda, as well as Saddam Hussein. Why Saddam Hussein? Well, Americans are fond of oil and Iraq’s oil supply is one of the largest in the world.
So, America first set its sight on one of the poorest countries in the world: Afghanistan. Most people felt the attack was justified and there wasn’t too much opposition when Bush ordered US troops to invade the country. After all, the notorious Talibans rulers were known terrorist shelters. However, even though USA dropped plenty of state-of-the-art bombs over the war scarred country, Osama Bin Ladin was never found.
Bush then headed for Iraq and Dictator Saddam Hussein. When the Hussein family refused to voluntarily leave Iraq, the US army attacked.
In contrast to the Afghanistan invasion, people all over the globe opposed the war. Because of the large international resistance, USA had to form a coalition with other countries to justify the attack. The coalition was made up of several small and military weak nations, such as Morocco, and more powerful allies, such as Spain and the United Kingdom. But Spain backed out when terror reached its homeland and bombs exploded in a train station in Madrid. Left were the small powerless nations (which offers moral support only), and the United Kingdom. Even though terrorist recently attacked London the UK did not back out of the war.
But what were USA’s real intensions with the Iraq war? Were they honest and trustworthy? Did Bush really want to make the world a better place? Or did they go there with intention to steal oil? Or was it just the ‘World Police’ in action?
We’ll never know of course, as we can't read Bush’s mind. But in his defense, Saddam Hussein was a bad, bad man. Also, oil is running out – it’s a known fact. So, it’s not surprising if America, which is probably the largest consumer of oil in the world, had other thoughts than Iraqis freedom in mind when they invaded the oil-rich Iraq.
Critics say the Iraq conflict was (and still is) all about money, power, and oil. It’s hard to disagree. USA had really no righteous reason to attack and they knew it. So, to make the war appear reasonable they came up with claims that later proved to be pure fabrication. Three of the major reasons they felt an attack was justified: Saddam Hussein was a threat to the US national security; Iraq had access to nuclear and/or biological weapons; and Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator and terrorist shelter. In addition, Bush assumed that Iraqis would welcome USA.
USA made a u-turn about Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Only 7 months before 9/11 CIA Director George Tenet, said that Iraq was not a threat to America. But then, all of the sudden – after 9/11 – minds were changed and Hussein and his sons were “terrorist shelters,” and al-Qaeda associates, even though Iraq’s dictator has never directly or indirectly been connected with Osama Bin Ladin’s terror network.
Iraq has never attacked USA. Actually, the only one time the two nations clashed was in the Kuwait war in 1990, when Bush’s father was the US state head. Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait resulted in that Bush George W SR sent military forces to aid the invaded country. However, many people say USA went there for the oil. Kuwait had oil – lots of oil. The conflict, “Operation Desert Storm”, was eventually won by the US and Saddam Hussein was kicked back to Iraq. Consequently, USA could buy cheap oil. After Kuwait, Iraq’s army was practically wiped out and every move Saddam Hussein made was closely monitored by the United Nations (UN).
Before the latest clash, USA claimed that Iraq had several factories producing biological weapons aimed for terror attacks. After the war these factories have been revealed producing eggs and chickens! The US also stated that Iraq produced nuclear weapons in factories. These factories were allegeable to have been “on-wheels” so that they could operate unspotted. None of these so called factories have been found. No nuclear or biological weapons have been found in Iraq.
Yes, Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator which held his country with an iron glove. And yes, the world is probably better off without him. But is it Bush‘s job to get rid of him? Where will it end, will USA invade every country whose leader is someone they don’t like?
So, why did USA attack Iraq when it’s clear that they had no valid grounds? Well, we can probably thank some powerful men in the military and weapon industry who sponsored Bush’s presidential election campaign. These men contributed with a lot of money and maybe Bush felt he had to repay his debts, so to say. Anyway, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq meant that these individuals laughed all the way to the bank. As Bush’s war against terrorism took off, they received massive amounts of dollars through sales of military equipment, weapons, tanks, etc.
Another reason was probably that the US army expected an easy battle in Iraq with little resistance. What they got was something very different, Iraq these days are in total chaos. USA said they entered Iraq because the people wanted them to, I suggest President Bush ask people in Iraq how they feel about that. In reality, USA troops have occupied Iraq and nobody wants them there. But USA can’t leave; if they do things will probably be even worse.
Yet another reason: Personal differences. As we all know, Bush SR has been in feud with former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein ever since the war in Kuwait. This is where it gets personal, in 2002 Bush JR said about Saddam Hussein: “After all, this is the guy who tired to kill my dad”. Whether he was talking about the Kuwait war or an alleged plot to assassinate the former president by Iraqi intelligence is unknown. Whatever reason, I guess it’s fair to say Bush has created his own hell in Iraq in which some people call “the new Vietnam”. But maybe he says it the best himself: “I’m a war president”.
Let’s look what the Bush administration claimed regarding Iraq and the actual facts as we now have them: Saddam Hussein wasn’t a threat to USA, the CIA supports this claim; Iraq didn’t have any weapons of mass destruction. No nuclear or chemical weapons or factories have been found; and Hussein was a dictator, of course, but he wasn’t a terrorist shelter.
So finally, to the moral twist. Even if Bush’s and USA’s intentions were indeed honest, and they simply wanted to make the world a better place, they totally missed the mark. However, if they went to Iraq with the intention to steal oil, was it really worth the cost?
USA and Bush have become incredible hated throughout the world because of the Iraq war. More US soldiers have died in Iraq after the war than during it. Also, the world has seen several terrorist attacks after the invasion on Iraq, the bombs in a Madrid train station, and the recent London bombings.
In conclusion, I guess it’s fair to say that 9/11 changed the world forever. It’s sad, but 9/11 opened the door for America to go out there and do whatever they want to without anybody stopping them. The “World Police” in action, so to say. My only question is where will it end? Will USA ultimately create World War III?
Saddam Hussein was indeed an infamous dictator with a tight control of his people, but had never attacked USA. In the Kuwait war, USA attacked Iraq. Despite this Bush was convinced Saddam was a real threat to the US, and more importantly; he was an al-Qaeda associate. Although this was never proven and neither were the claims that Iraq had access to nuclear and bio-weapons. After the war, which has become Bush’s very own Vietnam, US companies control Iraq’s oil supply (surprise, surprise). It is somewhat funny that while some American companies are ‘rebuilding Iraq’, others are stealing their oil.
The only thing that President Bush and his people have accomplished in Iraq is making the world an even more dangerous place and USA is now far more unsafe than ever before. USA had no right to attack Iraq. All they wanted was the oil, and oil they got. And the Iraqi’s got an unwanted war. Regrettably have the actions of Bush and USA created a massive hate towards America, a hate that is so some extent deserved and justified.

Sex domains

Pornography, or porn, is nothing new. It has most likely been around for a long time – perhaps as long as the human race itself. Even though it is generally considered dirty and associated with horrible things such as drugs, prostitution, and sex crimes people turn to porn. Why is that? The common answer is probably that people are simply perverted and dirty minded. But it’s probably deeper than that. Porn is of course the natural outcome - or unnatural outcome depending on whom you ask - of people’s lust for sex.
In the old day’s, pornographic material were usually found in magazines, such as the infamous Playboy magazine, and on video tapes. But in the last decade or so, it has gotten more widespread. Today, many television programs, magazines, and movies feature some kind of sexual material. In fact, there’s hardly a movie blockbuster without any sexual content. While many pornographic magazines are still around, VHS (Video Home System) has been abandoned in favor for VCD’s (Video Compact Discs) and DVD (Digital Versatile Disc) and more importantly, the Internet.
This leads us to the point: Internet porn and sex domains.
Porn is nowadays becoming a big social problem and some people fear a total moral breakdown. So, in order to deal with the constantly growing number of porn sites a proposal has been suggested to separate them from the rest of the Internet.
The idea is timely since new domains are to be introduced by ICANN (The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers). In the near future, we will probably see such domains as ‘.travel’ for travel agencies, ‘.news’ for news stations, ‘.shop’ for shops, and more. We’ll most likely also see a red light district develop on the Internet where ‘.xxx’ and ‘.sex’ will be new places for Internet porn. For unfortunately, there is so much porn on the Internet’s original domains that .com, .org, and .net are getting choked.
So, the idea with separate domains for sex domain ought to be well-appreciated by concerned parents. These domains or virtual red light districts, as the article describes them, would undoubtedly ‘clean’ up the Internet once and for all. The moral dilemma is, however, that children could be overwhelmed with porn if they gained access to a sex domain.
But parents don’t have to be worry and it should be relative easy to block out and filter away porn. In fact, it would most likely be much easier than how things work now. For instance, it’s much easier to block a whole domain, say ‘.sex’ than it is to block sex sites on the originals domains. With the current system, it is virtually impossible to filter out and block online porn.
Sex domains have been up for discussion before and ICANN practically decided to give ‘.xxx’ a go before 6,000 upset American parents sent U.S. President Bush angry letters, so the move was temporarily put on ice. However, these efforts just seem to delay the process and sex domains will most likely be introduced. But why are some parents (and other people) so reluctant to the ‘.xxx’ and ‘.sex’ switch? Are they really caring parents or porn addicts in disguise, terrified that sex sites won’t be accessible?
Anyway, as already discussed, concerned parents don’t have to worry. It’s not difficult to block and filter out unwanted porn. The same goes for porn addicts – they don’t have to fear sex sites will disappear. On the contrary, there will probably be even more porn sites around. And truthfully, porn sites and porn in general will probably never disappear.
Separate sex domains would be the best solution for all parts. On the one hand, children won’t be exposed to pornography; on the other hand, sex will sites become easily accessible. The porn industry should welcome this proposal as well. It’s already one of the most lucrative businesses in the world, generating millions (or even billions) of US dollars each year. If all porn is under one roof, directors and producers could easier overlook their material. They could also have better and more direct contact with the audience which will most likely simplify commerce.
Famous porn stars could start websites within the domain and boost the number of fans. Make no mistake, porn stars have many admirers. These sites would also make actors and actresses (if that are the correct terms) easier to find. Theoretically, everyone could have their own site and actors, directors, and producers would all benefit. This might however cause delicate problems in the porn industry, for instance, if two or more individuals (or groups) want to register the same site address there’s obviously a problem since only one party can register a unique internet address.
On the whole, the sex domains would make it easier for people to find what they are looking for. It would boost search for sex sites dramatically and no longer would interested people need to spend hours searching the Internet.
It would also be jackpot for various advertisers. For instance, companies selling sex toys would probably have its target group right at the table. Just like people searching for (sex) products would also know where to look. But advertising wouldn’t necessarily only be for sexual related products (or services). Any company wanting to catch a great audience could place ads on these domains. For instance, car manufacturers, cigarette producers, or even every day products such as milk could be advertised. It’s a dilemma of course and the question is whether a non-porn company would or dare like to engage in these sites and hence being associated with pornography. But nevertheless, advertising on sex domains could be as common as television advertisement in the future.
On the bad side, worried parents may be right. If children somehow get access to ‘.xxx’ or ‘.sex’, all the Internet porn would become instantly available. However, access to a domain alone doesn’t mean that access is provided to all the individual sites. At the moment, many sex sites require users to verify their age before they may enter. This is usually done with credit cards and the same system could be used in the future as well. Overall, this system is safe and proven.
So why not put online pornography on a shelf of its own? Just like pornographic DVD’s and magazines are conveniently located away from ordinary material in shops, boutiques, and rental stores the same could be true online as well.
People’s desire for porn and the big money involved means that there will be more and more porn. Unfortunately this means that children could be exposed to porn. For children, sex domain, or virtual red light districts would function as a shield, it would protect them from unwanted porn. For adults, sex domains could be an absolute heaven where customers and film makers could find each other. Customers would most likely be thrilled in having all porn and sexual related material in a specific location. No more would they have to search the whole of the Internet for desired videos and films.
So, in conclusion, it’s fair to say that sex domains would ’clean’ up the Internet by placing all porn in one place. This means, however, that children could, theoretically speaking, get exposed to all the online porn on a given sex domain. It’s ironically though that kids can ultimately be hurt by that which is supposed to protect them. This is the dilemma of course, but there’s really no alternative. The chance that a child would gain access to the domain is slim and the chance that children gain entry to individual sex sites is even smaller. Sex domains would mean win-win situations for everybody; adults can easily find porn while children can easily stay away from it. In other words: there’s no reason to oppose the introduction of the new sex domains.

Pirated DVDs

I’m going to discuss the problem with pirated DVDs and the MPAA (the Motion Picture Association of America). The piracy phenomena is, of course, closely linked to the maturity and common everyday use of the Internet, but I will not look closely at the ’Net’, but solely focus on the issue of pirate DVDs.
DVD is an acronym for Digital Video Disc or Digital Versatile Disc depending on who you ask. Pirated DVDs are basically illegal copies of original DVDs, but a pirated DVD can also be a copy of the latest Hollywood blockbuster. Even though all discs are physically the same, sources and content differ. The most common variants of pirated DVDs are ‘DVD-Rip’, ‘Screener’, and ‘Telesync’.
A ‘DVD-Rip’ is usually a low to medium quality copy of a DVD movie that lacks extra features such as subtitles and menus. However, it can also be a full copy where all (or most) of the DVDs features are copied. ‘Screeners’ are normally sent to critics, retailers, cinemas, and others in the movie industry before a movie has its premiere, for screening purposes. These copies are purposely often impaired as a precaution against piracy. ‘Telesync’ (or TS) means that the contents of the disc, usually the latest Hollywood movies, are re-recorded from a cinema’s screen.
Even though DVD piracy is a big problem nowadays, this kind of piracy is nothing new. For example, illegal copies of Hollywood blockbusters have been around since as long as I can remember – back to the days of the VHS tapes (Video Home System) days. Prior to the now common DVD standard, illegal copies of the latest movies were often found on these tapes and also on VCD (Video Compact Disc).
In some parts of the world, there are even more illegal copies than originals. Asia and especially Malaysia are, for example, infamous for DVD piracy. Sometimes it seems that there is a DVD shop at every corner.
For this reason, the MPAA has started a major offensive. But there are two sides in this “battle”. In MPAA’s eyes, ordinary people are the ‘bad guys’ with actors and actresses, directors, producers, distributors, retailers, etc, all being the ‘good guys’ who suffer economically because of DVD piracy.
So what’s the big deal about pirated copies? Well, pirated DVDs are often preferred over originals for a number of reasons. First, pirated copies are much cheaper to buy and the price is typically half the price of the original, but can be up to as much as 80%-90% cheaper!
Second, pirated copies are generally easier to find (depending on where in the world you are) and this is especially apparent is some regions. For example, here in Malaysia, pirated DVD copies are sold pretty much everywhere. In contrast, pirated DVDs don’t practically exist in Europe.
A third reason is that pirated DVDs are also often regional free which means the discs can be played in practically all DVD players – independent on country or region.
But pirated copies have also negative sides. The average pirated DVD is typically of low quality – especially the ones with the latest Hollywood movies. Apart from a few good ‘Screeners’ most pirated copies (and this is evident with especially ‘Telesyncs’), have usually blury image and poor sound. Those factors can make any movie unwatchable. And to be honest, movies made for the cinemas is to be watched in the cinemas as well.
People who buy pirated DVDs often defend their actions on the basis that originals are too expensive and it’s no surprise that illegal copies of DVDs are often found in poor countries. This being said, it’s understandable that some people purchase pirated copies. Because these consumers aren’t the targeted group so their purchases shouldn’t affect sales and revenue of originals DVDs. However, the MPAA claims to loose money on these purchases. The MPAA simply state that people buy pirated DVDs instead of buying originals.
This is the real problem: pirated DVDs are simply too cheap. If original DVDs would be cheaper then less income would be hailed in. However, people buy that what is cheap. It’s simply rooted deep down in human bones that free and cheap stuff is desired. It’s a dilemma for Hollywood and MPAA, for they want to earn money.
But the issue here isn’t that the average Joe buys a pirated copy every now and then and hence cheats the MPAA on money. It’s really simple: you can’t loose any money that you haven’t earned. E.g. if a consumer wants to buy an original, and can afford it, but purchases a pirated copy instead, then yes the MPAA probably loose money. But if the consumer never had intention of buying an original but purchases a pirated copy, then how can any money be lost?
The MPAA could however claim that cinemas loose revenue because people buy pirated DVDs instead. But there are those people that never watch films in cinemas. If these people purchases pirated DVDs no money can be considered lost. On the other hand, DVD copies can boost a cinema’s revenue. I mean that, for instance, if someone buys a pirated copy and after watching also see the movie in a cinema, then the pirated copy would obviously have worked as PR for the film. But then again, if there weren’t any pirated copies to begin with, people would have no choice but to go directly to cinemas. So, you never know.
The MPAA is surely loosing money but it’s not because of piracy. In my opinion, they loose (or rather don’t earn better suitable) any money because of three reasons: price, technology, and poor products vs. high wages.
There have generally always been ridiculously high prices on cinema tickets, video cassettes, and discs. But unlike the quality of films, which is and has always been nothing more than average, prices have gone up in a yearly fashion. It’s actually stupid, and almost insulting to consumers, that for example charge RM200 for an original DVD (as prices were in Sweden for a very long time, until people started to download, rip, and burn DVDs at home), when production cost can as low as $2 US.
In terms of technology, unlike consumers, the MPAA has clearly misjudged the potentials and opportunities that the Internet can bring.
I recently read in a Swedish online newspaper (didn’t find any English links) that the movie industry is going to start selling ‘e-movies’ through the Internet in 2006. The principle is that this kind of legal online distribution of movies is going to replace illegal file sharing.
But the MPAA should naturally have taken control of the Internet a long time ago but instead watched with blind eyes as people started downloading movies. This was probably what started the pirated DVD problem to begin with. The movie industry was simply overrun and couldn’t keep up with the advancement in digital technology. Today, thanks to the Internet ‘pirates’ can easily download, distribute, and sell copies of the latest movies. And it’s no coincidence that the movie in the article, Spiderman 2, hit the streets around the world so fast after its release.
A popular method used by the MPAA is to sue all kind of ‘pirates’ – from street vendors to poor souls caught for downloading. And this is pretty funny, the MPAA are suing a lot of people even though it’s virtually impossible to prove that somebody actually downloaded a film (or any other file. Although this isn’t directly associated with pirated DVDs, it’s relevant because it clearly demonstrates the ignorant and bossy attitudes within the movie industry.
Generally, movies produced in Hollywood are usually neither good nor bad. Most films are kind of in a gray zone where quality isn’t really important. It’s those films that you see once and never again. For instance, all these damn comedies and action films that Hollywood spurts out. But there are of course a few really good ones as well.
In contrast to the quality of films, actors and actresses wages are often filthy high. It’s simply not sane that for instance Brad Pitt earns XXX amount of millions US dollars on a single film. Of course if the movie was high-quality and Pitt’s performance was really good, then high wages might be in order. The MPAA’s deficit, if there really is any, is certainly related to high wages.
But that’s another issue all together.
In conclusion, the obvious dilemma here is that many people, and even the one’s that can afford original DVDs, often prefer pirated copies. It’s rooted deep down in human bones (and this is something that various companies and organizations have trouble understanding) that free and or cheap stuff is ‘good’ while expensive things are less ‘good’.
The MPAA has been digging its own grave for a long time. Now, consumers are hammering the coffin and are getting ready for burial.
For many people, terms like ‘DVD-Rip’, ‘Screener’, and ‘Telesync’ may be fairly unfamiliar at the moment, but the terms will probably be well-known in the future. ‘Pirates’ will find more sophisticated methods of copying, distributing, and selling illegal DVD copies. In order to fight this, the MPAA must change a number of things.
For instance, if they really want to kill off the problem cheap Asian copies, prices on original DVDs must drop – preferably by half. This is the only way to get around the problem. I’m sure that a lot of people – even ‘cheap Asians’ would buy original DVDs if prices were reasonable.
An equal important thing is to develop new services, preferably Internet based services, to attract and reach out to new consumers. The online selling of online movies that is to start next year (in 2006) is a smart move, but in truth, this should been done a long time ago. The common expression goes: ‘better late than sorry’. It’s suitable to the current situation.
In addition, we would all appreciate some quality movies every now and then.