The International House of Bacon

Preface: I do not consider myself an expert on all library systems, or even everything that’s out there and available for libraries to use. I’m speaking more from experience and knowledge than any sort of all-encompassing position, so keep that in mind.

Apparently, an anti-DRM protest against the Boston Public Library is scheduled for this weekend. DRM, for those who aren’t aware, is shorthand for Digital Rights Management, which is the system most major companies use to restrict content access of digital media. It’s what keeps you from installing the same disc of Windows on two computers, what keeps you from playing songs from iTunes on a SanDisk, etc. I’m not a huge fan of DRM, but the simple reality is that many companies are, and thus we’re stuck with it for the time being.

The protest we’re seeing is one mostly out of ignorance, unfortunately. Should DRM-enabled material be used at a library? Maybe that’s your position, but consider this - it’s ultimately not your library’s decision:

* If your library lends DVDs, the copy-protection scheme is not optional. Studios install those.

* If your library allows for downloadable audiobooks (probably through the Overdrive system), the DRM there is solely so the major publishers can get on board without having to worry that their audiobooks will be posted up all over the internet.

* If your library has music CDs or books on CD, any DRM you encounter is, again, at the behest of those producing the media, not those lending it.

If you’re going after your public library for having DRM-enabled materials, you’re essentially telling the library that you want them to be on the cutting edge of technology for materials, but you don’t want them to allow you to access it. The reason your library has downloadable audiobooks and DVDs is because people want them, period. Get rid of the DRM-enabled materials, and you’re essentially getting rid of a lot of the materials that the library is offering.

A better protest would be to start harassing the publishers about it - those groups are the ones that are looking for DRM on their audiobooks. Harass the movie studios - they’re the ones that insist that DVDs remain encypted. Harrass OverDrive - they have the oomph to get them on board, and they’re making the decision to offer DRM to get more materials in your hands. Don’t protest the library - they’re offering you a newer service that may be imperfect, but is better than not having it at all at this stage.

Again, this may not apply at every library, but think before you act.

Yes, I know, you all want to kick me in the nuts at this point. Feel free (I did say I was essentially done, after all - I should really stop doing that), but I happened to find two pieces that I think at least show that I’m not just pulling this stuff out of thin air.

1) The first is a video. Yes, it’s from Hannity and Colmes, no I’m not a regular or even sometimes watcher/listener of Hannity, and no, I don’t 100% know the context of this piece, but I was encouraged by two separate people - one sympathetic to me and one not - to post it anyway. If it were any of you folk reading this who were on this panel, I’m sure you’d be up to the challenge, I’m not saying that you’re equivalent to the dozen or so on the tube. What I am saying is that this is a good example of the problem that Obama’s electorate is causing here:

The closest thing we get to an accomplishment is that he has strength as a “community leader,” which I suppose is somewhat specific. Maybe wonk doesn’t win elections, but is this really that forgivable? More to the point, is Obama willing to rectify this? My answer to both questions is likely no, which really doesn’t bode well.

2) My complaint about Obama’s campaign tactics are assailed as well, but The American Thinker blog really takes the next step in the discussion, and vocalizes what I’ve been trying and failing to say:

With Obama it appears at least in part to be a matter of strategy. His campaign persona is so vague, and slogans such as “the audacity of hope” and “the politics of unity” so generic that they could mean anything, which is exactly what they’ve been taken to mean.

Commentators, pundits, and voters look at Obama and see what they want see — a “healer”, an “agent of change”, the “new JFK” — a new persona each week. It follows directly that everyone also believes that Obama’s ideas on policy and the issues are the same as that of the beholder, that the issue dearest to the candidate’s heart happens to be the one that’s most important to the individual voter. No matter what the constituency or what their concern, no doubt exists that Obama will get straight to work on their particular issue as soon as his shoes hit the oval office carpet.

The second half of the piece goes into the race issue and identity politics, which have a place in the discussion but isn’t an issue I’m very compelled by (it’s tantamount to single-issue voting for me, which is a different problem not exclusive to any candidate), but the first half is what really got me, and why I’m so bothered by his campaign. Yes, I’m obsessed, but this guy could be President, and a lot of people could be in for a rude awakening.

3) Finally, some praise for Obama, as faint as it may be. The slow, infuriating march toward socialized health care continues, and Clinton is acting as the standard-bearer for the style of incrementalism that will need to occur in order to fool people into getting on board, but Obama gets the problem with Romney and Hillary-style care, and it has to do with a) choice, and b) essentially screwing the poor. Obama’s 100% correct when he notes that the Hillary version will ultimately make those who actually can’t afford health insurance have to deal with another compulsory expenditure, and, while he’s not actually addressing that problem, he is right in leaving that choice aspect open as well as trying to deal with more important issues with health care first. I don’t agree with his proposal at all, but the government consensus view at the moment is that health care for children is worth spending money on, and Obama’s proposal falls in line with that consensus. Kudos for him for, at the moment, standing up for the right thing.

Willie Nelson - “Gravedigger”: This was found on the Paste sampler for this month, a pleasant surprise. While I’m a little disenchanted with Willie since he’s decided to be a Truther, I have to say that this song impresses me on a number of levels. For one, it’s the first Dave Matthews-penned song that’s really spoken to me in close to 10 years, and if someone told me that Matthews could write a song like this, I would have never believed them. For another, Nelson’s got the perfect voice for this - he’s never had a great singing voice, and his delivery has always been the selling point for me, and this song fits right in. Third, it really reminds me of Johnny Cash’s “Hurt” in the sense that you’ve got a guy who’s at the end of his career and, in a way, his life, and it works as a good reflection. Cash’s “Hurt” was perfect because the imagery and narrative was almost the perfect finale to a man’s perfect career but imperfect life, while Nelson’s “Gravedigger” kind of sticks to that rootsy, down-home persona that he’s cultivated for himself. I’m sure Nelson, who’s typically prolific, will have stuff after this, but if this ends up being one of his last popular tunes, it’ll be for good reason. I don’t have an mp3, but it’s at MySpace.

Kathleen Edwards - “The Cheapest Key”: I’m not a lyrics guy, which means that when I hear a song, I may go months (or years) singing along with a song completely blind to what it means. With that said, there are more than a couple lyricists that get me to listen right away, and when it comes to the angry at your significant other song, there are only a couple modern songwriters who I feel really get it right: Elizabeth Elmore (may her Gibson rest in peace) and Kathleen Edwards. Her latest kiss-off of sorts is this song, which is up at her MySpace right now, is just another great tune. It rocks harder than I’m used to, and while her voice isn’t entirely suited for such a rollicking effort, the somewhat jarring vocals match up quite well with the urgency. Plus, I think my new favorite lyric may exist in the bridge: “But don’t get me wrong/Here comes my softer side/And there it goes.” A nice little pause there for good measure. I’m excited about the new R.E.M. album in April, but Asking for Flowers is a very close number two.

Tift Merritt - “Broken: “Broken” (currently up as a track at her website) is like most other Tift Merritt songs for me - a pleasant, yet engaging diversion. I have her first two albums and I don’t know a single other human being who knows her (even though Tambourine was nominated for a Grammy), and it’s a shame. Maybe she’s too polished, maybe she’s too corporate, maybe she’s too popular for the indie crowd and too indie for mainstream country. I don’t know, but “Broken” is another song in what’s becoming a long line of great songs from her. It really just steps right up to the plate and gets it done, which is sometimes all you need.

R.E.M. - “Supernatural Superserious”: I posted a bit about this yesterday, and it’s up at Pitchfork, and it’s getting better. As I said before, it falls somewhere between my expectations and what it actually sounds like for me, but I’ve figured out why it’s taken me this long to get into it - a number of people who have heard more of the album than myself have compared it to Lifes Rich Pageant-era R.E.M. in terms of sound, and while I get that now to a point (I still feel like this has an “Ignoreland” feel without the angst), the problem I’m having is that it’s clean. VERY clean. Granted, Jacknife Lee did the same thing to Snow Patrol’s sound for Final Straw, and has the same sharpened polish for Editors, but in terms of what’s hurt R.E.M. for the last two albums is how incredibly clean and shiny they’ve been. The shine still stays on with this tune, but it doesn’t work 100% because you can tell that they’re actively trying to shake things up a bit. I mean, we’re not going to get back to the grit of Monster and New Adventures in Hi-Fi, but at least hearing the live version of “I’m Gonna DJ” (both in person and on the live album) gave me the hope that perhaps it would be a dirtier record than this. Does that make sense?