League of Legends rap
League of Legends is a team-based RTS game which I've been playing a lot lately. I was contacted by one of the game's voice actors, Adam Harrington, who wanted me to help him with an entry in the LoL Cypher rap series. I gladly obliged and we ended up making two videos. The first features a number of official character voices from the game, and some rap bars from me. The second is an extended version of the rap with some cinematic visuals and on-screen lyrics. Watch one, both, or neither.
If you want to try playing League of Legends - use this link. If enough people click it, I'll get the chance to go to the Riot studios in the USA and help design a new character for the game: http://bit.ly/IUBwwU
Thanks for sharing
During the campaign to get "Sharing Is Caring" into the charts, I said that I'd record a song featuring the names of everybody who bought all ten copies and mailed me a picture to prove it. Ladies, gentlemen, and people who identify as something else, here is that video:
Yes, it was a real bloody headache to make this.
Guest Article – Is CISPA a New SOPA?
Dan says: A lot of people have started bringing CISPA to my attention. I'm about to release a new single which I've been planning for ages, so my mind is focused on that for the next couple of weeks. In the meantime, Imogen Reed drops some facts for you...
Is CISPA a New SOPA?
CISPA is the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, due to be put to Congress at the end of this month. Some campaigners are claiming that CISPA is as bad as SOPA, and are planning a similar day of action to the SOPA internet blackout, that successfully killed that bill. There is lots of rhetoric flying around the internet about CISPA, both from those who support CISPA and claim it is not another SOPA, and those who say it is just as dangerous. Who is right, and what is CISPA actually trying to do?
What is CISPA?
The Case For
Those in favour of CISPA argue that it is essential to prevent hacking. As it stands, the government knows what it needs to do to stop hackers, but it is legally unable to take action, as sharing information about cyber-threats is illegal. They say that there are privacy measures built into the bill, and that it does not pose any threat to ordinary citizens. It is, they say, limited and only allows the sharing of very specific data: that is, data that relates to specific threats. CISPA’s proponents say that is ‘nothing like SOPA’ as has been claimed by many of those against it.
The Case Against
CISPA is nothing like SOPA, in the sense that it is a different bill aimed at a different group of people. The problem with CISPA comes not in what it does say, but in what it does not. That makes it very much like SOPA in some ways. What CISPA does is give the government significant control over the internet. The actual wording of CISPA says that it is aimed at protection against ‘efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network; or theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information.’
The difficulty with that wording is that it is very broad and vague. While it might be aimed at preventing breaches of security, the wording actually used in the bill does not exclude it being used much more broadly. In theory, CISPA would mean that the government could spy on any kind of private data. Private communications including emails could be intercepted if the government could make a claim that they were doing so in order to combat a security threat. Companies could choose to monitor private data wholesale, collect it and give it to the government, provided they claimed that they believed that doing so would help combat a security threat. That is the problem with CISPA: it is just not specific enough.
Implications
To work out exactly how CISPA might affect people and companies, we need to look at how a ‘security threat’ might be defined. The government is not likely to claim that something is a security threat without being able to provide some basis for their claim. However, it is not hard to see how they would be able to make such a claim against a website like Wikileaks for example. File-sharing websites could also be under threat. In other words, it is possible that CISPA could be used in exactly the same way as SOPA had been intended to be used: to target websites that are thought to breach intellectual property rights.
We do not know exactly how CISPA will be used in practice, if it is passed. It does not give the government the extensive powers to shut down domains that SOPA would have done, and it is not specifically targeted at online piracy. However, it does seem to be very flawed. If it is really only intended to allow the government to catch hackers, why is the language it uses so broad? CISPA is certainly one to watch, and one to fight against.
Lazy film review – Brilliantovaya ruka
You know when you think a film requires a second viewing in order to appreciate the plot properly, but you can't be bothered to watch it again? That was this film for me. Therefore I'll hold off from passing judgement on it. If arsed, you can watch the whole film here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjlNAWZ4dVQ
Guest Article – Digging A Grave For Creativity
Dan says: I was contacted by writer Imogen Reed who asked if she could write an article for my site, so here it is...
Digging A Grave For Creativity
SOPA is an act that is built purely on a model of revenue. It is based on an out-of-date way of thinking that simply breaks down in a world that is as connected as ours is today.
It is not – and will not be – possible to stop online media sharing. If passed, this bill would not only be impossible to implement, but would create much confusion, severely limiting what we can and cannot do on the internet. The people behind this bill know this. So, as a result, they are trying to limit the geographical and physical areas in which sharing occurs through punitive legislation.
Destroying, not protecting
Due to the impossibility implanting this bill successfully, its introduction would be somewhat ironic. In trying to preserve an outdated and unworkable business model, this bill runs the risk of simply opening up markets for those members of the internet population that are outside the reach of US legislation; there is no doubt that they will merely create new sites and resources, which will destroy – not protect – the US economy. In times of such severe economic instability, tampering with a source of income as vast as the internet is certainly not a wise move to be making.
Limiting creativity and economic recovery
The effects of this Bill would be disastrous for all internet users, but perhaps most of all for people in the creative industries. Under the proposed SOPA legislation, the government would have the power to blacklist and completely remove websites if they are seen to infringe on intellectual property regulation, or have been found to be distributing copyrighted works. This would be extremely damaging for industries that rely on sharing images, video or audio content.
Creative, entrepreneurial people and industries are the ones that have the capability to drive and steer our economy out of recession. In such economic dire straits, the US government should be doing all it can to encourage creativity – not stifle it. It would appear that, if this Bill was to be approved, the government would be throwing away any chances of economic recovery – literally thousands of businesses would be shut down overnight. The SOPA bill will not only limit creativity, but will limit our changes of rebuilding a stable and healthy economy.
Highly confusing
A huge flaw in the bill is that it is highly confusing – the definition of infringement is so blurred that it will be unclear to sites and their users whether they are in violation of the law. The bill states that violation includes sites that operate with the objective of promoting (or having promoted) their use to carry out acts that constitute a violation of copyright. There is no further definition available. Therefore, this will potentially affect any site that allows its users to post content – photos, text, audio or video. People that rely on the internet as a place to collate, share and distribute creative content will find that their every move becomes at risk of violation. Digital professionals that create works on sites like Flickr, Pinterest, Soundcloud, Tumblr – as well as those that rely on mass feedback – will find their jobs suddenly and severely limited. As a result, SOPA has the potential to ruin businesses, careers, industries and creative expression.
Encouraging criminality
You only have to look at prohibition to know that people always find ways to get what they want. Sharing and use of creative resources is no different. The passing of this Bill would create criminals out of normal, hard working people. And more criminals require more resources and more regulation. However, perhaps the worst (and most frightening) prospect in all this is that SOPA may make some technologies – which are key to freedom of speech – illegal. An example of this would be the proxy servers used during the Arab Spring to cover tracks. While creating criminals from the average Joe on the street, SOPA would send a parcel of opportunities to real hardened criminals, whose actions would go unnoticed. SOPA is dangerous. It will allow a wealth of information – which we currently have access to – to be hidden from our knowledge. It will create a platform for organisations and powers to hide behind, as they have more freedom to choose what the public can and can’t see.
The bill is ill-thought-out, destructive and uncreative – there is no doubt it will cause more harm than good.
Fus Roald Dahl
Roald Dahl's got bars, man. Check out his multi-syllabics and internal rhyme schemes in this extract from George's Marvellous Medicine:
'Fiery broth and witches brew
Foamy froth and riches blue
Fume and spume and spoondrift spray
Fizzle swizzle shout hooray
Watch it sloshing, swashing, sploshing
Hear it hissing, squishing, spissing
Grandma better start to pray.'
Imagine the above being performed by Snoop Dogg. Fo' swizzle.
A flawed defence of Islam
I stumbled across this popular video on YouTube, showing a discussion about whether Islam is a peaceful religion. However, the discussion in this video doesn't address the issue at all. The lecturer claims that Islam preaches peace and compassion, but when one student highlights behaviour by Muslims which directly contradict these teachings, the conversation is suddenly diverted into a criticism of American foreign policy. How does this prove Islam to be a peaceful religion? In an argument defending the peaceful nature of Islam, shouldn't there be some kind of condemnation of violent acts being committed by Muslims? There isn't one here...
DLC PLC
Downloadable content for games is a topic that polarises gaming fans. Some of them think it's great that the lifespan of their favourite games is increased by the introduction of new episodes and expansions. I'm a little more cynical, in that I fucking hate it enough to make this song:
Download the MP3 of "DLC PLC" from iTunes: http://bit.ly/GYpdV3
Republican Rap Battle
I think a lot more people would engage in politics if political discourse was conducted in confrontational rhyme format. To be honest, I don't know why this isn't happening already. So, who won?
Mass Effect
I was hoping to release this much earlier today, but iTunes messed about and didn't get round to publishing the song until this evening. Regardless, here is my new piece - an ode to one of my favourite RPGs. Don't forget to buy the MP3, I'm still determined to get a chart hit. If this video goes down well I might do one for Mass Effect 3. Call me, EA.
iTunes: http://bit.ly/z2N3US
Juno: http://bit.ly/xjUu8z