Janus Films has spent the last 50 years bringing classic foreign films to American audiences, exposing them to the works of Ingmar Bergman, Federico Fellini, Jean-Luc Godard, Akira Kurosawa, and François Truffaut, among others. To celebrate its half-century anniversary, the film distribution company has done something pretty remarkable. It has released on DVD a collection of 50 classic films, which include Black Orpheus (Camus), M (Fritz Lang), The 400 Blows (Truffaut), Grand Illusion (Renoir), Seven Samurai (Kurosawa), The Seventh Seal (Bergman), La Strada (Fellini), and The 39 Steps (Hitchcock). You’ll love the Essential Art House: 50 Years of Janus Films if you’re a diehard film buff, but not if you’re light in the wallet. Even when bought at a discount of $650, the collection still runs a hefty hunk of change. But it’s nothing that a home equity loan can’t fix.
When we wake up tomorrow morning, a new political era will have begun. The Democrats will have taken control of the House of Representatives and perhaps amazingly the Senate, suddenly finding themselves politically relevant for the first time in six very long years. And they’ll have the unusual luxury of deciding how they will exercise political power. The President, on the other hand, will now find himself operating in a difficult political environment. At best, he can no longer expect Congress to rubber stamp his policies. At worst, by Wednesday afternoon, after his post-election news conference, he might find himself a full-blown lame duck.
How the President and the Democrats move forward is a theoretically open question. However, in practice, the question of what the Democrats will do is a far more interesting one, partly because Bush will realistically be constrained by a difficult war and his general inability to adapt, and partly because the Democrat slate is clean, and the possibilities for defining their direction are very real.
Moving into power, the Democrats will have three choices before them. Obstructing reflexively (a very real possibility); accommodating (a very unlikely possibility); and developing a well reasoned, defined and positive position somewhere in between obstruction and accommodation (a smart but not necessarily inevitable possibility). Obstruction seems most likely because it’s the easiest thing to do, and because the Bush administration’s style of ruling invites thoughts of revenge. But it’s not the best way to go. The Democrats came back to relevance not on the strength of their ideas, but on the weakness of their opponents. And if they hope to convince America that they genuinely deserve this power, they’ll need to develop a substantive platform and a smart approach to governance in general, and the Iraq war in particular.
Barack Obama is emerging as a very realistic candidate for the presidency because, unlike so many of others, he’s developing a convincing argument that our nation should come before politics, and ideas before party. Right now, his new book, The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream, is #5 on the Amazon top seller list, when most politicians’ books come and go with very little notice. (The New York Times actually just ran a story on this.) And what makes Obama stand out, beyond his charisma, is his willingness to find a thinking center. When asked “How do you make people passionate about moderate and complex ideas?” Obama answers:
I think the country recognizes that the challenges we face aren’t amenable to sound-bite solutions. People are looking for serious solutions to complex problems. I don’t think we need more moderation per se… We just need to understand that actually solving these problems won’t be easy, and that whatever solutions we come up with will require consensus among groups with divergent interests. That means everybody has to listen, and everybody has to give a little. That’s not easy to do.
That kind of moderate, pragmatic, and not reflexively ideological approach is more of what the Democrats need. They need more substance and, even more than that, some more magnanimity. It gets back, I think, to how Richard Rorty, one of America’s leading philosophers, starts out his short book, Achieving Our Country. There, he talks about how “national pride,” an “emotional involvement with one’s country,” is “necessary if political deliberation is to be imaginative and productive.” At this point, the Democrats badly need to put the country before partisanship and genuinely deal with the important issues that face it. That’s the only way that they will take this opportunity — one that is perhaps undeserved — and do something with it that will build a sustainable future for the party and our nation.
Listen here to New Yorker editor, David Remnick, recently interviewing Barak Obama
The Google Book Search project ran into another roadblock last week when a group representing 400 French publishers joined another lawsuit brought earlier this year in French courts. The upshot of the lawsuit is essentially the same as the suit brought by a consortium of American publishers last year: They’re looking to put a quick end to Google’s bid to make the book universe as searchable as it has made the worldwide web. Actually, to be clear, it’s not the project itself that’s making publishers run to the courts. Rather, it’s Google’s assumption that it can scan and index millions of copyrighted books — just as it has cached billions of web pages — without first getting permission. That,
the lawsuit claims, is clear copyright infringement.
Google’s defense raises a series of fascinating (and complicated) legal questions about copyright in the digital age. The company’s first line of defense is to argue that the program falls under the fair use doctrine. Here’s the basic logic: Although Google Book Search must index complete copies of books to make the print universe searchable, users only get small snippets of copyrighted text in their search results, which fall under “fair use.” The key assumption here is that there’s a critical distinction between what happens on the back end and the front end. It doesn’t matter that Google has indexed full digitial copies of text on its servers. The only thing that counts is what users see, and if users only see small snippets, fair use applies and no publisher permission is required. But, just to be safe, Google will honor explicit publisher requests not to include content in the book search program.
Alongside the fair use defense, Google has also put forward a larger argument that gets to issues we discussed in the Lawrence Lessig piece. After being hit with the first major lawsuit, Google took the PR offensive, and Eric Schmidt, the company’s CEO, wrote an Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal, which concluded with this:
“Imagine the cultural impact of putting tens of millions of previously
inaccessible volumes into one vast index, every word of which is
searchable by anyone, rich and poor, urban and rural, First World and
Third, en toute langue — and all, of course, entirely for free. … This egalitarianism
of information dispersal is precisely what the Web is best at;
… precisely what copyright law is ultimately intended to
support.”
Here, Schmidt offers the reminder that copyright law exists for the benefit of society first and foremost. Yes, copyright law protects the rights
of authors and publishers. But only as a means to another end — that is, promoting cultural development and the growth of the creative
commons. Schmidt’s passage gives some insight into the very large benefits that Google Book Search can deliver. But, there is obviously
much more to it, and I’d highly recommend reading this lengthy feature story — Scan This Book! — that appeared earlier this year in the New York Times Magazine.
Somewhere in the legal process, it seems, a judge will need to look at how things net out. Does it matter that Google makes full digital
copies without permission if it shows only snippets to users? (In other words, does the traditional taboo against making full copies of texts get overridden by the practical fact that full copies won’t be given away to users?) And does this unconventional move get trumped by the fact that Google’s project offers so much social promise? The judge will take a look at this, but somewhere along the way, I suspect, he might focus on this one issue: Amazon already has a similar program under way. It indexes book content to allow customers to review books
before making a purchase decison. The only difference is that it gets publisher permission first. Given that Amazon has rolled out its
“Search Inside” program fairly successfully, the obvious question gets raised: Why can’t Google also get permission first and simply avoid putting a judge in a position to make a ruling that risks fully opening up Pandora’s box? One of Google’s secondary arguments for its program
is that, with its huge market share, Google Book Search will bring attention to publishers’ books and help them generate new sales. If
that’s true (and it almost surely is), it seems no less true that publishers will have every incentive to contribute their works to Book
Search and get on board with the project. Meanwhile, Google Book Search will gradually fulfill most of its promise. Under this scenario,
publishers and authors win, as does Google and society. It seems like a compromise position that makes a lot of sense.
Finally, I would definitely check out Lawrence Lessig’s 30-minute presentation on the Google Book Search controversy. This will get you more than up to speed.
What do sleeping and computing have in common? Not a whole lot (nor really should they), except for this. We sleep and use computers a good chunk of our lives, and yet we generally have no idea how either works. Sleep is the 33% of our lives that we hardly give a thought to. And computing, well, few of us know what’s going on inside that box when we turn it on, open a program, surf the web or, alas, get a virus.
As usual, Harvard has answers, at least for the techies among us. But instead of asking students to go into hock to get them, this time the university is giving the answers away. (Consider it a gift from the school’s $29.2 billion endowment.) Courtesy of the Harvard Extension School, any student who can’t make it to Cambridge can freely access the online course Understanding Computers and the Internet. The course, which revolves around a series of 14 lectures, is conveniently delivered in several formats — one version that downloads to your computer, another that downloads to the Ipod/iTunes, and finally one that streams over the web, which you can find at Google Video and Youtube. To get started, to get your little piece of Harvard for free, click here.
Alan Watts helped interpret and popularize Asian philosophies/religions for Western audiences. These podcasts give you access to his archived talks/public lectures.
Big Ideas offers lectures on a variety of thought-provoking topics which range across politics, culture, economics, art history, science. The program is produced by TVO, Canada’s largest educational broadcaster.
Veteran journalist Bill Moyers returns to PBS with Bill Moyers Journal, a weekly program that takes a deep look at a wide range of subjects, including politics, arts and culture, the media, the economy, and important issues facing democracy.
A blend of audio commentary and news analysis by one of the leading thinkers among today’s politically independent crowd. A fiscally conservative, socially liberal approach to solving problems.
The oldest radio program in the country — dating back to 1924 — this weekly program features some of the most prominent speakers in the country.
Hosted by Robert Harrison, a Stanford professor, this podcast is a weekly literary talk show that ranges broadly on issues related to literature, ideas, and lived experience.
In French, this podcast, led by the well known philosopher Alain Finkielkraut, features a panel discussion on a different cultural topic each week.France Culture: RépliquesiTunesFeedWeb Site
Coming out of WNYC in New York City, this public radio podcast offers daily interviews with a diverse collection of great thinkers and talkers.
Exactly what it sounds like; it puts current political events in a historical perspective and analyzes the history to allow us to understand our politics.
Intelligence Squared U.S. brings Oxford-style debating to America– one motion, one moderator, three panelists for the motion and three against. Past topics have included religion in America, Hamas, and Hollywood.
A British podcast featuring interviews of top philosophers and that delves into some essential philosophical questions — what is the meaning of life? what is the nature of reality? what is evil?, etc.
Comfortable surroundings for vibrant street level discussions on burning issues of the day. No formal philosophy training required; real life experience desired. Come early, stay late. Presented by Simon Fraser University.
Salon has a nice collection of audio conversations with figures from the higher echelons of the pop culture world. David Lynch, Pedro Almodóvar, Amy Sedaris, the list goes on.
An award winning monthly speaking series hosted by Stewart Brand and organized by the Long Now Foundation, which hopes to provide a counterpoint to today’s “faster/cheaper” mind set and promote “slower/better” thinking. The podcasts features many well known thinkers.
A BBC production, Start The Week “sets the cultural agenda for the week ahead, with high-profile guests discussing the ideas behind their work in the fields of art, literature, film, science, history, society and politics.”
“Yesterday Is Gone” is Charles Binder’s personal perspective about politics, art, science, health, the past, the present, and what will probably happen…now that Yesterday Is Gone.
Aired on KQED in San Francisco, this weekly reading series featuring writers and performers of all stripes reading the latest short fiction, non-fiction, theater and poetry.
World Book Club invites the globe’s great authors to discuss their best known novel. This monthly programme, presented by Harriett Gilbert, includes questions by World Service listeners.
Film critic Elvis Mitchell turns the tables and gives the “treatment” to some of the most influential and innovative forces creating movies and popular art and entertainment.
Offers recordings of artists, critics, scholars and writers sharing their knowledge of the museum’s art collections as well as their views on comtemporary art issues.
We're hoping to rely on loyal readers, rather than erratic ads. Please click the Donate button and support Open Culture. You can use Paypal, Venmo, Patreon, even Crypto! We thank you!
Open Culture scours the web for the best educational media. We find the free courses and audio books you need, the language lessons & educational videos you want, and plenty of enlightenment in between.