4 May 2006

O. Quimby Melton

Self-Censorship in Blogs, or Privacy Transmogrification: An Insight into Measuring Twice, Cutting Once 

            “I write for myself and strangers.”  This Gertrude Stein quote has been thrown around the English 206 classroom for a while now.  The statement brings up a question in my mind. Is there a relationship between self-censorship and privacy in the blogosphere?  Certainly!  The blog form of personal diary text is so candid and voyeuristic yet is embraced by blog authors (more affectionately known as “bloggers” in this text) and blog audiences.  It has transmogrified the private journal and/or diary into a heart-song available to any and all users of the World Wide Web.  

So what is the relationship?  Of course, as Americans, we have the freedom of speech.  We can say whatever we want, according to the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights.  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances,” (The Bill of Rights).    Albeit, American citizens have these rights, they are also privileges and should be recognized as such.  It is a privilege to live in a country with a freedom of speech and press.  I am of the mindset that these rights are not to be abused.  Also, self-censorship is much better than someone else censoring the blog and defiling its creative, even artistic, nature.  Self-censorship is needed in this day and age.

Personally, I love to post blogs that allow the reader to act as a peeping tom or make them think long and hard about something.  I am entertained by it due to the fact that my personal postings may or may not be true.  I just do not include that disclaimer, except of course in this paper which will be posted on said blog and ruin my whole master plan and the Universe will collapse upon itself an infinite number of times.  Not all bloggers are like me though.  Seriously, I think that many bloggers’ postings are serious, heartfelt, and provide a very candid view into their personal thoughts and emotions.  Either that or many of them are valuable opinions or political standpoints.  The point is that many blogs are valuable.  These thoughts, opinions and feelings can probably be interpreted positively or negatively by the reader.  The problem with that is the whole Internet community is the potential audience.  This includes President Bush, employers, instructors, Jesus, your friends, and your mom.  Oh boy.

This is where the self-censorship comes in.  I know for a fact that the managers at the retail store I am employed at take a look at my blog from time to time.  I consider these people some sort of a group of peers outside of work.  But I do occasionally have to censor myself, to a point.  I sell books.  There are many other bloggers out there who have much more important professions than my part-time occupation.  An FBI special agent probably should not post a disestablishmentarian style blog such as the ones I have been posting on MySpace.  The Vice President of a Strip hotel-casino probably should not post extremist prejudiced blogs.  Well, no moral person should really do that, but you get the point.  And anyway, that topic is for another time and place far, far away; and you get the idea. 

The weblog is public.  If you say something on your blog then you are, in a sense, saying it to the whole world.  At least there is the plausible potential for it.  If you are in the process of being hired at Barnes & Noble Bookseller and say something to the interviewing manager that is deemed unacceptable, then you are not to be hired.  The same goes for a blog.  If that same manager reads your blog, it technically can be free reign.  Although I do not like the fact that I agree with this, I do since it is the logical thing to agree with.  It is the nature of a weblog.  It is a log kept on the World Wide Web, worldwide.  So the basic idea here is that, in my opinion, a blog can and should be considered as important as something said in a public forum.  It is said in a public forum, the Internet.  Thus, we have the need for a self-censored approach.  At least censor the negative things.  Maybe the positive aspects could get your foot in the door?  This too is another idea for another time.

Self-censorship is important for the blog author’s well being.  Our society is changing.  We are a more paranoid
America.  We’ve been attacked, criticized, ridiculed.  Everyone is up in arms, chaos.  The Patriot Act has even redefined what a domestic terrorist is.  Basically it states that anyone who actively disagrees with the policies of the
United States of America is engaging in domestic terrorism (ACLU).  So, about half of us Americans are terrorists.  You have to be careful.  The NSA is looking for your blog!  The government does not like terrorists and will send them to
Guantanamo.  Dead serious, so it goes.  A blogger in the basement of Grandma’s house does not want to go through the ordeal of having to prove his or her patriotism or innocence in the face of terror.  Again we see a damn good reason for self-censorship on weblogs.

I also located an interesting definition of the word censoring online.  This is in support of the view that blogs should be censored in some way, whether self-censored or by some other means.  The webpage states that censoring is “counter-intelligence achieved by banning or deleting any information of value to the enemy” (Dictionary.com).  The enemy; look at it this way.  The government, the employer, the mother, or the “man,” is the enemy of the racy author.  Deleting his or her information that can be of value to that enemy is censorship.  It is a preventative measure to reduce the ammunition that the enemy has to use on the blogger in question.  Measure twice, cut once. 

Self-censorship is not so bad either.  While my personal filter is admittedly a bit more lenient than most should be, I feel as though a blogger does not necessarily bastardize his or her blog by censoring some racy or risqué material out of it.  You can still make a good point without being an extremist.  You can still have a point of view.  You can still be poetic, artistic, or creative.  You can do all these things and still be careful about what you post online.  Maybe I’ll even try it too.

Anonymity is a strong practice as well.  If a post is truly anonymous to the average computer user then, on average, it will be safer to post the more questionable content that the writer deems fit.  There are several ways to hide your identity, and doing so would definitely protect your legal, professional, and educational well being (Reporters Without Borders). 

I could possibly be wrong about this but the primary argument to my point of view is likely to be something along these lines.  A claim that it is immoral for an employer to read and judge based on a blog, or the point of view is that it is an invasion of privacy for the University to reject me because I posted pictures of myself smoking a blunt on MySpace.  This is my blog, it’s unjustified!  I do what I want!  Freedom!  This is an immorally unjustified creative rape!

Why?

It is not your blog.  Blogs are the fatty, fairly irrelevant, love handles of the Internet and thereby belong to it.  The blog is fleeting.  It is read.  It is ignored.  It is free to post, free to view, and free to comment on.  A blogger who posts a blog posts it for the world, not just Susie Q down the street or their best dorm bud.  It is fallible to believe that it is your property, yet it is the only real recognizable argument against what I am saying and prescribing.

I am not criticizing racy, risqué, or saucy bloggers.  I am one.  It is a lot of fun.  Just do not get upset when the “man” (whoever he or she may be), or the infamous “they,” come breathing down your neck wondering what you are doing with your free time that is spent away from the anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-everything blog you are keeping.  It may even be a fun line to dance back and forth across.  If you are a gambler maybe you will try and locate your limit.  Go ahead Han, see how far the Falcon can go!  But don’t get upset when you destroy the hyperdrive. 

Basically, the idea here is to just be careful what you post online.  The World Wide Web is a public forum that computer users all over the planet can access.  Anyone anywhere may or may not view your blog.  Be careful.  Although it may feel a bit like rape to have your employer or the college you’re applying to or Uncle Sam make decisions with you based on your blog, there is nothing inherently wrong with it.  It is not truly immoral.  Self-censorship is virtually a necessity.  Keep your ideas streaming.  Stay creative.  Be a bit saucy, but do not jeopardize your situation.  You have the Freedom of Speech.  It should be renamed the Privilege of Speech.  Use it, but do not abuse it.  It has the capacity, and will, to abuse you back.

Works Cited 

The Bill of Rights. 2006.
United States of America Department of State. 3 May 2006

<http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm>.

“Blog censorship gains support.”
LeMay, Renai. CNET News.com 13 April 2005. 3 May

2006 <http://news.com.com/Blog+censorship+gains+support/2100-1028_3-5670096.html>.

“Blog censorship handbook released.” BBC News 22 September 2005. 3 May 2006

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4271062.stm>.

Dictionary.com. 3 May 2006 <http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=censoring>.

How the USA Patriot Act redefines “Domestic Terrorism.” ACLU 6 December 2002. 3

May 2006 <http://www.aclu.org/natsec/emergpowers/14444leg20021206.html>.

“How to blog anonymously.” Reporters Without Borders 2006. 3 May 2006

<http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=15012>.

The moment of Truth, ultimate reckoning. Fear. Hate. Pain. Confusion. Apathy. Sympathy. Empathy. Christianity. Atheism. Love. Life. Death.

Do you trust your God, or 'the deity of your choosing,' enough to save your soul after it's been blown out of your body by Hitler's guns? Do you survive to live another day and blow the Jew's soul away, yet sacrifice your own soul to Judgement? That is your dilemma. If you do not choose to respond; if you do not believe in anything then you are an empty, lost soul. Atheism is the ultimate American laziness. If you love Love then you are subject to ridicule, whether founded or not. Are you a good witch or a bad witch? Pay no mind to that man behind the curtain, or do pay mind to Him. It is up to you amigo, you're not in Vegas anymore. You have one shot to get it right. Put yourself in the soldier's combat boots. Kill or be killed. Yet keep in mind morality, mortality, and who you really want to be when you grow up, or die. So it goes.

Feel free to comment back and let me know, or don't, but remember honesty is the best policy. Although if you search, you shall find, this webspace is not one in which you shall find ridicule or judgement from the author. It is a Sociological survey. I love you. I hate you.

————-

I can't wait until the semester is over. I plan to do like last summer, start at A1A in Florida, fly back to Vegas, and drive to California and cruise the Pacific Coast Highway. Maybe we'll hit Colorado sometime inbetween.

I know Jah never let us down.

One thing though, I won't admit it openly but I sure would like to have shared this summer with my hero. He's gone now but I'm remembering him right now and everyone should know that I too have a hero. He was byfar the COOLEST person I have ever known, and I tend to surround myself with very cool people. I dream of Jeannie.

Listen to Jimmy Buffett. Listen to the Wailers. Follow Jah. Love Jesus. Live it up. Salud! Eat, drink, and be merry. And have a great summer. Catch me on MySpace at nimrod313.

In my case I write it for them, and anyone else who wants to read. They've shown their friends some of the racy things I've posted, some cool stories I've had up, things like that. It's spreading.

While I don't think it's going to take over media completely, I think the actual popularity and readership of the blog will increase. They still are predominantly personal diary entries for the world to read. Those aren't very valuable besides for voyeuristic reading value.

I know that I will continue to blog, and read other people's "overheard utterances" for a while here, until I get sick of it. I'm at a peak right now, blogging frequently, sometimes twice a day. But I have a feeling it will drop off soon as well.

Blogs will be popular until the next big thing hits the Internet. Blogs will go the way of the chat-room soon enough. They're fun for now though!

On self-censorship and sauciness:
"I don't live in a prison without walls. I put myself in my own cell or I step entirely out of the cell. F*ck censorship. Hard."

We were discussing the "panopticon" in class the other day, I found it fascinating. It was thought up by Foucault (Discipline and Punish). It is a progressive form of prison. There is an octagonal "cell" with zero walls. But at each point of the octagon stands a tower with a gun mounted on it. The tower may or may not be occupied by a guard at any given time. The prisoners don't know. All the towers, none of the towers, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven of the towers may or may not be occupied. And they won't even try to escape out of fear for of being shot dead. Saucy.

I find the panopticon to represent a symbolism of the self-censorship that goes along with blogging bloggish blogs. If we have a professional life, which most of do, then we need to be sort of careful of what we put on our personal blog due to fear of being shot dead, um, I mean, of having it read by our higher-ups and firing us. Unless you're like me and don't really care if you get fired from your current job. Censorship isn't worth seven and change an hour… but yes, to many people that is important.

So censor yourself if you want to stay in bidness! Obey the conventions, generalizations, and norms of your employers or educators and sacrifice your self-expression! It's just an overheard utterance anyways!

Or um, ya know, find the happy medium.

Ps. B&N, don't fire me. Oh, and UNLV, I was just kidding!

I think people just like making up new words that aren't really new. Why not call a log that is kept on the world wide web a zloksnik instead of a blog? Would it not accomplish the same goal? Eh, probably not.

I feel that this is really a dead issue. I don't have much to blogversate about it.

But I do feel that the lexicon and terminology used online is becoming more and more common. Even my mom knows what a blog and a podcast is now. The times they are a changin'.  It's important to realize how much your own language is changing due just to the new technology you are utilizing.

I thought of myself as a purist, kind of fought the blog thing for a while. Then I decided to try it and now I'm talking about hyperlinks, HTML codes, blogospheres, and things like that. You can only hold out so long, then technology takes over either by necessity or a decision you make. In doing so it takes over your language and the new media is making it more portmanteau-natured. Crazy.

This may or may not make the blogs less reliable or credible.  While the ability to change them makes for instantaneous second editions, it also lends itself to editing that could hurt the original composition.

Would you want to go and read Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown knowing that the version you are reading isn't the original one that everyone else read? How about a remake of a song? Is it better to hear the original first, or even only the original? Much emphasis and importance is placed on the "original" anything.

On my personal blog, if I update something I've written I will put a note letting my adoring virtual audience that this indeed is a second edition and that the original is available if they want it.

_________

 There's also the aspect of blogs (among other Internet pages) being deleted, discontinued, etc. at will.  I believe that only keeping them up for a brief period of time (in comparison to total time ever) hurts the composition.  J.D. Salinger published The Catcher in the Rye in 1945, if they would have had weblogs then I doubt that the material would still be online better than half a decade later. Yet, the book lives on in print. Salinger is immortalized in Holden Caulfield, who exists on the page forever. The Internet's material is not forever. Virtual Holden would be dead after 61 years online, at least probably.

Personally, I like to write. I like to share my writing online sometimes. But I'd much rather put a passage online than the whole story. I think there are many authors who would agree with my method here.

I think blogs are great outlets for compositions. I think they can supplement traditional composition, not replace it. I don't even think the blog will serve as a reformation, let alone a revolution, of composition. It's just a new outlet…

Books rock. Blogs rock. Books were there first. Books will be there last as well. Mark my words, permanently, online. Forever. Well, unless, ya know, Fahrenheit 451 comes true or mainstream Nazism resumes.

Can't get rid of books, otherwise Barnes & Noble won't be able to overcharge you anymore and would lose business to MySpace and WordPress!

¡Viva la revolución!

   "American planes, full of holes and wounded men and corpses took off backwards from an airfield in England. Over France, a few German fighter planes flew at them backwards, sucked bullets and shell fragments from some of the planes and crewmen. They did the same for wrecked American bombers on the ground, and those planes flew up backwards to join the formation.
   The formation flew backwards over a German city that was in flames. The bombers opened their bomb bay doors, exerted a miraculous magnetism which shrunk the fires, gathered them into cylindrical steel containers, and lifted the containers into the bellies of the planes. The containers were stored neatly in racks. The Germans below had miraculous devices of their own, which were long steel tubes. They used them to suck more fragments from the crewmen and planes. But there were still a few wounded Americans, though, and some of the bombers were in bad repair. Over France, though, German fighters came up again, made everything and everybody as good as new.

   When the bombers got back to their base, the steel cylinders were taken from the racks and shipped back to the United States of America, where factories were operating night and day, dismantling the cylinders, seperating the dangerous contents into minerals. Touchingly, it was mainly women who did this work. The minerals were then shipped to specialists in remote areas. It was their business to put them into the ground, to hide them cleverly, so they would never hurt anybody again.
   The American fliers turned in their uniforms, became high school kids. And Hitler turned into a baby, Billy Pilgrim supposed. That wasn't in the movie. Billy was extrapolating. Everybody tuned into a baby, and all humanity, without exception, conspired biologically to produce two perfect people named Adam and Eve, he supposed."

- Kurt Vonnegut

Is that cool or what? Did you actually read it? Well if you liked that at all then I recommend reading that book.  Some more B&N staff recommends: Johnny Got His Gun by Dalton Trumbo, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas: A Savage Journey to the Heart of the American Dream by Hunter S. Thompson.  We've been on a recommending kick at work so I thought I'd join in here.  No I don't work on commission so I'm not gaining financially by posting up a quote from a book. Geez law enforcement, get off my back, I'm just trying to share! Damn copyright Nazis. Wait, am I talking to myself? Shit, I'm not even talking, I'm typing to myself. I'm a madman.

            Personal computers, iPods, CD/DVD-burners and the Internet are all tools of the trade for both file sharing and file stealing.  The simple definitions are as follows.  File sharing is the legal exchange of electronic files that belong to the computer users.  File stealing is the illegal exchange of electronic files that do not belong to the computer users.  It seems as though this idea cannot be overly complicated, but there is a lot of gray area surrounding the concept.  The question of which files do or do not belong to a computer user just seems to be very difficult to answer.  This essay will focus on the mp3 music and feature film video files and the ethical and legal issues concerning their piracy.

Let it be noted that things such as inflated CD or movie prices are irrelevant to this topic.  Price does not rationalize or legalize stealing.  It just creates frustration amongst consumers that drives them to steal, or download illegally.  It is illogical to assume that since music and movies are costing consumers more and more all the time that it is okay to steal them.  Let it also be stated that no, downloading a movie or song is nothing like stealing a car.  That is absurd for reasons that would take an entire philosophical logic discussion to explain.

Back to the topic at hand, my opinion is that unregulated file sharing sites or programs are unethical and should be illegal.  Copying someone else’s DVDs or iTunes mp3 collection should also be illegal.  It is just wrong.  To me, and the record and movie industries, that is stealing.  Same goes for movies.  I personally do not engage in any of these activities.  And no, I am not afraid.  I am not avoiding MPAA persecution by posting this in a blog online.  I just try to be an ethical and moral person.  iTunes songs only cost ninety nine cents a pop and movies are so cheap to rent, there is no need for piracy.  Piracy just takes away from the industry and forces its members to produce a smaller amount of and less creative albums and movies. 

For the most part the majority of the sharing of music and movie files tends to be file stealing, there are few exceptions.  The Motion Picture Association of America determines that any download from any unauthorized source of any film is piracy (MPAA).  It is also inherently wrong.  This leaves for very little room for questions.  For some consolation to my peers who are passionate pathological pirates, the MPAA site does offer links to certain websites that offer free streams of films.  These are authorized sources but also are not allowing the files to truly be downloaded and saved.  There are ways around it, but those are hacks and also happen to be illegal as well.  Following these legal processes help the industry and prevent the user from being charged with piracy.  It is simple here, it is cut and dried.  Unless you are in a movie theater with a paid ticket (and not making bootleg recordings) or are watching a DVD that you or a friend bought from an authorized source you are probably taking part in piracy.  And piracy is wrong.

               I believe that it is the downloading, sharing, or stealing of mp3 music files, rather than movie videos, that really causes all the confusion for people.  For me stealing is stealing, but CDs are cheaper than DVDs.  Songs are cheaper than movies.  Music is more readily available online than feature films.  Music files are smaller than movie files and easier to transfer.  Music is just more commonly and more easily exchanged, and pirated (Loren 2).  It has been for a very long time.  Note, I am not saying movies are not pirated.  It just seems more prevalent in music, and it does not look like it is going to go away.  “Looking back to the present, twenty years from now, any argument against file sharing will seem like trying to stop a hurricane with a tennis racquet” (Jones 88).  People will always be sharing these files, sending illegal mp3s to friends, etc.  It just will not go away.  It is too easy to get away with as it stands.

All the preceding statements add a sense of confusion and some more blurry gray area to the definition of music piracy.  So, I think it is a good idea to quote exactly what the RIAA has to say about music piracy.  All this information can be found on the RIAA website.  It is good to know what activities the industry determines are illegal in the exact words they used to state it.

“Pirate recordings are the unauthorized duplication of only the sound of legitimate recordings, as opposed to all the packaging, i.e. the original art, label, title, sequencing, combination of titles etc. This includes mixed tapes and compilation CDs featuring one or more artists.  Counterfeit recordings are unauthorized recordings of the prerecorded sound as well as the unauthorized duplication of original artwork, label, trademark and packaging.  Bootleg recordings (or underground recordings) are the unauthorized recordings of live concerts, or musical broadcasts on radio or television.  Online piracy is the unauthorized uploading of a copyrighted sound recording and making it available to the public, or downloading a sound recording from an Internet site, even if the recording isn't resold. Online piracy may now also include certain uses of "streaming" technologies from the Internet” (RIAA).  The portion about file streaming in that last bit is very vague and will be ignored for the purposes of this paper because I do not consider streaming to be wrong or unethical and that particular activity is not yet illegal.  Everything else on this list is illegal according to the RIAA.  Quite frankly, there is not much to argue there.  It is illegal, period.  The question to ask is whether or not they are right, whether or not it should be this way. 

While many of my peers do not agree with me, I believe that the RIAA and everyone in the music industry are right.  Unauthorized file sharing is unethical.  It is unethical, but also inevitable.  People are going to share files.  Maybe not you or I, but someone will, always.  That does not make stealing right.  CDs and DVDs cost way too much money.  That does not make stealing right. 

As a musician I can relate with the disgust that other musicians, and moviemakers, hold towards piracy and illegal file sharing.  It is a creation all their own, one of a kind.  It is also their livelihood and it is in jeopardy.  That is a bad situation to be in.  In my personal opinion I think consumers and music fans should just buy the CD at the store or the mp3 off of iTunes.  Then it is theirs to use.  There is no risk for either party involved.  Some artist worked really hard, hopefully, on their song.  They do not need to have someone steal it.  While stealing a song online might not quite be comparable to grand theft auto, it could probably be comparable to something like shoplifting.  Either way it is just as wrong, morally and ethically, to steal a car as it is a candy bar, if you ask me.

Another quick argument to include against file piracy is this.  Is it really worth the fine or imprisonment to steal some songs?  Are they really that valuable or unattainable?  No, I don’t think so.  Getting a few songs for free will not help you when you have to pay a few thousand dollars in fines.  Piracy is not even worth the trouble all these people are going through to do it!  iTunes and other programs like that are simple to operate and very convenient.  I believe that iTunes has helped reduce music piracy, and I am not alone.  “…The majority of consumers will buy music, rather than copy it, if it is easy for them to get the music they want, whenever they want” (Harrower 5). 

Although more common in the music industry, movies and music are pirated so frequently and to such a degree that it is taking away from the quality and quantity.  It is just illegal and wrong.  There are so many other things that are illegal and wrong that most people avoid doing, why not avoid file piracy too?

So in the end it boils down to a pretty simple solution.  As the music and movie industries would have it, all these file sharing methods would be illegal.  There are a few exceptions.  Websites such as iFilm, MySpace Music, or a band’s page which allow you to stream the music or video to be enjoyed on your PC are legal and ethical.  Downloading from an authorized source is legal and ethical, but uncommon apart from the streaming technology.  As it is defined by law, by the MPAA, and by the RIAA, pretty much everything else is illegal and should be.  I agree with the artists who make these great entertaining creations in the fact that they should be bought by consumers and not traded for free.  Ultimately it hurts the industry to pirate the files and takes away from the actual quality of the music and movies that are being stolen.  There are many easy and convenient alternatives to piracy.  In my opinion piracy is not even really worth the trouble anyway.  So, I agree with the record and movie industries ethical, financial, and legal standpoints.  Piracy is wrong. Arr.

I did not try to analyze the actual poetry too much. To me it seemed very random and trying very hard to be that way. I did not have the patience to work it all out. What I did find myself doing was more technical. I was trying to figure out which words were linked together. It was an interesting endeavour and I still don't think I had even that one poem all the way figured out. Maybe I didn't have it figured out at all, maybe it really was random.

One thing I did analyze about it was it's theme of electronics or technology. I think it was fitting since it was a code poem and was centered around hypertext coding. It worked well and kept my attention for quite a while. I was like a chimp pushing buttons on a TV remote, becoming surprised at all the different random outcomes.

Up until recently I didn't even know these existed, I think I'll be browsing through more of them just to see what other people have come up with. I'm convinced, you can make art out of anything.

Is it right? No.

Does anyone truly care? No.

Otherwise people wouldn’t steal cars, or movies, or mp3s, or candy bars or whatever. The fact is it’s illegal but it’s accessible and easy. Joe Shmoe’s insurance will pay for the loss. If he is that attached to his car he doesn’t deserve to drive it in the first place because Mike Shmike is going to wreck him on the freeway tomorrow anyway.

Stealing a car is nothing like stealing a movie. The two are really incomparable. The Motion Picture Association people are engaging in irrational logic. Stealing a movie is like stealing a movie, not a car.

Would I pay for a pirated movie? No. If I’m going to pay for something it will be the real deal. Put your ad up in the theaters before the flick and see who steals your movies out of spite. It will happen. If you tell them not to, they will.

Pirates have always been cool. Look at Captain Jack Sparrow. He’s a pirate who’s got 2 more movies coming out just waiting to be stolen by pirates. Arr!

Let it go. It’s going to happen either way. Tell them not to steal a car and they will. Tell them not to steal a movie and they will. Cars don’t equal movies. Find a new campaign or a new device through which prevention of movie piracy is possible.

‘Til then… ARR!