Almost a year after Barack Obama ascended to the
White House, many of his supporters are bemused. His health care bill is
a hefty improvement but it still won't provide coverage for all
Americans, and may not provide a public alternative to the
over-charging insurance companies – if it passes at all. His
environmental team is vandalizing the vital Copenhagen conference by
saying the US — the single biggest emitter of warming gases — will not
sign up to any legally binding restrictions there. He has placed the
deregulation-fanatics who caused the New Depression, like Lawrence
Summers, in charge of the recovery. Despite the real improvements on
Bush — such as the end of torture, the resumption of stem-cell
research, and opposition to the coup in Honduras — many people are
asking: why he is delivering so little, so slowly?
A
pair of seemingly small stories about the forces warping American
politics can help us to answer this question. At first glance, they
will seem like preposterous caricatures, but the facts are plain. The
institutions that are blocking progress on all these issues –
Republicans in the Senate, and the mighty corporate lobbying machine
that bankrolls both parties — have rallied over the past few months to
defend two causes with very little popular support in the United
States: rape and slavery. No, really. If we begin to explain how this
came to pass, then we might see why the American political system is
malfunctioning so badly, even after a landslide victory for change.
Let's
start with rape. This story begins in Iraq in 2003. The private
military contractors sent by the Bush administration to guard the oil
pipelines didn't want to get bogged down in expensive legal cases if
anything went wrong. When it came to Iraqis, the Bush team simply
exempted them from all Iraqi law, in a move so sweeping one Senator
called it “a license to kill.” But what about if their employees
attacked each other, or other Americans? The private companies insisted
all their employees sign contracts saying that, whatever happens to
them, they will settle it in in-house, through “arbitration.” Why?
While representing the company at a real legal trial costs hundreds of
thousands of dollars, an arbitration panel costs a few thousand. It
saves cash.
This policy came, however, with a different price
tag. According to her later sworn testimony, Jamie Leigh Jones — a
20-year-old working for the contractor Halliburton/KBR — was hanging
out with co-workers one night in Iraq when her drink was spiked. When
she woke up, she was haemorraging blood from her vagina and her anus.
Her breast implants were ripped. The damage was so severe she later
needed reconstructive surgery on her genitalia. She surmised she had
been gang-raped by the seven men she had been drinking with. When she
approached Halliburton/KBR, she says they locked her in a metal
container with no food or water for 24 hours. A doctor came to see her
wounds and took DNA evidence, although it was later “lost.” A guard
took pity on her and loaned her his cell phone. She called her father,
who called the American embassy — and only then was she released.
In
an Iraq that was collapsing all around her, there was no chance of the
Iraqi police investigating. Halliburton/KBR insisted that her contract
required the alleged gang-rape to be addressed by the company's private
arbitration process, forbidding any claim in the American courts. (If
this was how they treated blonde English-speaking American girls, what
did they do if Iraqis said they had been abused?) After Leigh Jones
went public, many other American women came forward to say they had
similar experiences working in Iraq. Her legal team argues the refusal
to allow rape to be pursued through the courts created a climate where
it was more likely to happen.
The Democratic
Senator Al Franken, when he heard about this, was horrified, and tabled
a simple amendment to the law. It demanded that no company that
prevents rape victims from having their day in court should receive
taxpayers' money any more. Rape is rape. A majority of Republicans in
the Senate — including John McCain — voted against the amendment. Why?
The private contractors are major donors to the Republican Party, but
the Senators claim this didn't affect their judgment. No — they said
that Franken's proposal was a “vendetta” against Halliburton/KBR with
“political motives.” Franken pointed out any company trying to stop
rape victims getting justice would be treated exactly the same by this
law. The Republicans ignored him. They voted to maintain a system where
some rape is not pursuable in a court of law.
At
the same time, a group of Democratic senators have tried to amend the
latest customs bill to ensure that nothing produced by slaves should be
sold in the United States. It sounds uncontroversial — as
uncontroversial as punishing rapists, in fact. Yet corporate lobbyists
are militating behind the scenes to oppose it. As the private
subscription-only newsletter “Inside US Trade” reported: “Business
groups are worried by the potential effects,” and a source tells them
there will be, “a push from lobbyists closer to the Finance Committee
mark-up of the bill … U.S. industry groups and foreign governments [ie
those that use slave labor] could form ad hoc coalitions to help send
a united message.” They will fight for their right to use slave labor.
These
examples are extreme, but they reveal a powerful undertow that is at
work on all political issues (and both main parties) in the United
States. To see how, you have to understand two processes. The first is
the nature of corporate power. Corporations are structured to do one
thing, and one thing only: to maximize profit for their shareholders.
No matter how personally nice or nasty their CEOs are, if they put
anything ahead of profit, they will be sacked, and replaced by somebody
who doesn't. As part of a tightly regulated market, this can be a
useful engine for growth. But if it is not strictly reigned in by the
law and by trade unions, this pressure for profit will extend anywhere
– from trashing the environment to rape and slavery, as these cases
remind us. The second factor is the nature of the American political
process today. If you want to run for elected office in the US, you
have to raise a fortune from corporations or the super-rich to pay for
TV advertising. So before you can appeal to the voters, you have to
appeal to the corporations. You do this by assuring them you will serve
their interests. Once you are in office, you have to keep pleasing them
at every step, or they won't pay for your re-election campaign. This
two-step overwhelms the positive instincts the individual politicians
may have to do good — and drags the US government further and further
from the will of the people.
Obama had to climb
through this system, and he is currently imprisoned by it. It explains
his relative failure so far. Health care is proving so hard because the
insurance companies are paying both Republicans and right-wing
Democrats in Senate to thwart any attempt to provide universal
health care coverage. Yes, it would save the 17,000 Americans who die
every year because they lack insurance but it would depress their
profits. Reducing carbon emissions is proving so hard because the oil,
coal and gas companies are paying Senators across the spectrum to crush
any moves to reduce oil, coal and gas use. And on, and on.
So
far, Obama has tried to co-opt the corporations into his agenda by
ensuring they will profit from any changes, but this inevitably waters
down the proposals, often to the point of uselessness. The cap and
trade legislation before Congress, for example, will barely limit
carbon emissions at all because it has been gutted to please the
polluters.
He will only achieve significant
progressive change if he reforms the political system itself — to make
it accountable to the American people, not the corporations. He needs
to change the rules of the game. Ban big business from making political
donations, and replace it with state funding. Shut down the lobbying
industry. Make a big populist speech announcing you are driving the
money-lenders out of the temple of democracy: it'd be surprisingly
popular in a country where people can see they're being ripped off
every day. The alternative is to become rapidly complicit in a system
where defending rape and slavery is seen as just another day's work in
Washington, D.C.
Johann Hari is a writer for the Independent. To read more of his articles, click here. You can email him at johann -at- johannhari.com
You can watch Johann taking on Hizb ut-Tahrir in a debate on the Islam Channel here.
Johann is also a contributing writer for Slate magazine. To read his latest article for them — about the loon Ayn Rand — click here.
You can follow Johann on Twitter at www.twitter.com/johannhari101
You can support the Republican pro-rape campaign over at www.republicansforrape.com
Lord Mandelson last week finally – it seemed – announced the timetable for legislation that will get tough with illegal downloaders. It's time to take stock – among the creative industries, which is doing well, or badly, from the internet revolution?
Illicit downloading of digital data has become rife in the years since June 1999 when the original Napster introduced the world to music files. It is blamed for millions of pounds of lost revenues by the music, video and games industries. But some say that the solution is not to fight the internet, which has savaged music retailers and forced video games online, while newspapers have noticed people are ignoring paid-for newsprint in favour of free websites.
So does everyone have it bad? MediaGuardian surveys the scene.
UK recorded music
Size of industry in 2000: £2.047bn
Size in 2008: £1.31bn (source: BPI. Measurement changed in 2004)
Breakthrough internet moment: Napster created uproar. Even though most people were still on dial-up connections, the ability to find any song you wanted and get it for free – from some anonymous person's hard drive – created an expectation for a generation just getting used to “online”. Though the record companies managed to close Napster, the toothpaste was out of the tube: filesharing networks grew like hydras.
The second – balancing – moment was the launch of Apple's iTunes Music Store in 2003: a legal, paid-for source of music, track by track. By 2008, it was the biggest music vendor in the US.; though record companies were privately fuming because they felt Apple now had too much power. They managed to institute “variable pricing” so that new songs cost more than old ones; and they removed the digital locks Digital Rights Management (DRM) that prevented iTunes songs playing on anything but iPods. Even so, Apple holds the whip hand in the digital download field.
Biggest casualty: Retailers such as Tower Records, Zavvi, Woolworths.
Buzz company: Spotify, the streaming music company that has more than five million users in Europe. Although it is far from profitable, principally because of the cost of licensing the music, the fact the record companies own 18% of its shares and that its users are less likely to pirate music, means it has industry support.
And none of this, of course, includes live music, which has seen a renaissance in the past few years.
In vogue prophet: Barney Wragg, former head of eLabs at Universal Music and of EMI's digital division. He pushed record labels to go to MP3 in 2007; made the track Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (performed at Live 8 in 2005) the fastest performance-to-digital download song ever (45 minutes from singing to link). Also: Mark Mulligan, music analyst, Forrester; and Gerd Leonard, “media futurist”, who warns book publishers not to try to do what the music industry did by controlling distribution through DRM.
Mandy – friend or foe? Huge, huge, come-aboard-my-yacht friend. The music industry's lobbying has been exceptionally effective with government, though it's had little effect on the public, which still (allegedly) likes an illicit download or million.
MediaGuardian verdict: The recorded music industry has a promising future in ringtones, downloads, and streaming sites – if it can take a smaller cut per song and accept the financial glories of the past are gone.
Film (DVD/video excluding cinema)
Size in 2000: DVDs: £264m; VHS: £840m; rental: £186m; digital: 0 (total£1.1bn)
Size in 2008: DVDs: £2.0bn; VHS: 0; rental: £219m; digital: £80m (total: £2.3bn) Source: British Video Association
Breakthrough internet moment: The launch of the Bittorrent protocol by the programmer Bram Cohen in 2001. It breaks large files into little pieces that can be distributed among many computers on a network, and downloaded from each of them. Each downloader is also an uploader to anyone who wants a piece; though nobody uploads the whole file, except the first person to put it on the network. Add DVD-ripping software, plus broadband, plus the arrival of The Pirate Bay, a Swedish site that hosted torrent “trackers” – little files that told home computers which other machines had the pieces of a particular file, and you had the film industry's “Napster moment”. It hates The Pirate Bay.
Biggest casualty: Distributors' pride (Oscar DVDs have leaked onto The Pirate Bay); Woolworths etc; music industry (which has lost out in the fight for peoples' spending).
Current buzz company: Netflix (US), which has launched online streaming (US-only) and held a competition with a $1m prize to get people to write a better matching system to recommend films and drew a huge response.
In vogue prophet: John Lasseter, the storytelling genius at Pixar who has made animation not just fun but essential, and has now pushed 3D – which is rather hard to pirate – into the mainstream through the Disney-owned company.
Mandy FoF? Very much a friend, in the queue just behind the music industry
MediaGuardian verdict: The sheer size of films and relative complexity of Bittorrent has kept it comparatively safe from widespread piracy. But as connections get faster, film companies can't rely on selling physical disks; Apple already offers near real-time streaming of films, though its Apple TV box hasn't been a success. The saving grace in the UK is the penetration of Sky and Virgin, which offer pay-per-view for films.
Newspapers
Size in 2000: Nationals £4,251m; regionals £3,467m
Size in 2009: Nationals £4,343m; regionals £3,128m (inc online recruitment revenues since 2003.) Source: Advertising Statistics Yearbook
Breakthrough internet moment: The Daily Telegraph setting up the first UK online paper (February 1994); website news coverage of the July 2005 London bombings; internet advertising in the UK exceeding newspaper advertising (2006).
Biggest casualty: Dozens of regional and local newspapers. Newspaper staff, both editorial and commercial.
Buzz company: Amazon, because of its Kindle e-reader; Apple, whose iPhone/iPod Touch handheld computer offers the chance to create free or paid-for “apps” (see: Sky News, the Spectator and, it is rumoured, the Guardian) to get more people reading electronically.
In vogue prophet: Jeff Jarvis, Guardian columnist; Clay Shirky; Steven B Johnson.
Mandy FoF? Would-be friend, but unrequited: calls for more funding for struggling regional and local papers have been cold-shouldered by a government that is happy to prop up the car industry with its car scrappage scheme.
MediaGuardian verdict: Print isn't dead, but it has a nasty cough, and online presence – despite being enormous (the Guardian, Telegraph and Mail passed 30 million readers online in September) – doesn't yet generate as much money as print.
Video games (inc hardware)
Size in 2000: £1.22bn (inc hardware)
Size in 2008: £4.03bn (source: GFK Chart Track)
Breakthrough internet moment: The launch of World of Warcraft on 23 November 2004: it now has more than 11.5 million subscribers paying a monthly fee, and has created an enormous spin-off economy of “gold farmers” in countries such as China who simply play the game to create goods to sell to people in developed countries.
Biggest casualty: The music industry. Kids who used to buy singles and CDs buy Call of Duty 4 and Fifa 10 instead.
Buzz company: Surprisingly, Microsoft, whose Project Natal may apply the Wii's realistic play to your entire body.
In vogue prophet: British games designer and Bafta-winner Peter Molyneux says Natal is “a big, big deal”.
Mandy FoF?: Despite complaints and a vigorous industry lobbying campaign for tax breaks for games publishers and recruiters, Mandelson doesn't seem to know that video games do better business than music in the UK.
MediaGuardian verdict: Games are thriving, though still not accepted as “mainstream” – even though you can judge a music CD on a few hearings or a film on one viewing, while a decent game will require up to 40 hours' play just to become competent. Versatility means they can adapt – and they lead in technological advances.
Television
Size in 2000: £7.7bn advertising revenue (not inflation-adjusted); pay TV subscriptions: £2.2bn
Size in 2008: £11.2bn; pay TV: £4.3bn (source: Ofcom)
Breakthrough internet moment: There have been multiple failed attempts at “internet TV”, including those from Microsoft and Joost. The breakthrough was the “Bus Uncle” video on YouTube in May 2006. It's not TV, but it exploded. It is a short-form video on the internet. From that moment, YouTube has become like TV to a whole generation. The traditional box in the corner has struggled to keep the attention of people often gazing at another box, possibly on their laps.
TV made a comeback with the launch of the BBC iPlayer in June 2008: it brought full-length TV programmes to people's browsers without needing extra software. The effect on viewing has been electric: in May it was believed to be streaming seven petabytes (thousands of gigabytes) every single month, 100 gigabits a second.
Biggest casualty: ITV. Advertisers' flight to the internet, its inability to produce a working iPlayer clone, and ill-advised purchase of the social networking site Friends Reunited left it looking bumbling.
Buzz company: The BBC, which had planned to share the technology – a plan blocked by the BBC Trust.
In vogue prophet: Anthony Rose, the man behind the iPlayer. Formerly at KaZaA – a music/video file-sharing company – he's shown you have to understand the internet to alter it.
Mandy FoF?: The BBC isn't flavour of the month with Labour or the Tories; ITV has been treated with indifference. Mandy has no time for either.
MediaGuardian verdict: ITV's next chair and chief executive have their work cut out protecting the channel from being torn apart by the rise of internet-based viewing. The BBC is safe enough, because its public service remit means the iPlayer is defensible as an alternative to broadcast.
bfurilbtuj ruaway i agree with youf Online Stock Trading business reports Online Stock Trading brute force seo dryer vent cleaning online stock trading Online stock trading internet marketing course
Almost a year after Barack Obama ascended to the
White House, many of his supporters are bemused. His health care bill is
a hefty improvement but it still won't provide coverage for all
Americans, and may not provide a public alternative to the
over-charging insurance companies – if it passes at all. His
environmental team is vandalizing the vital Copenhagen conference by
saying the US — the single biggest emitter of warming gases — will not
sign up to any legally binding restrictions there. He has placed the
deregulation-fanatics who caused the New Depression, like Lawrence
Summers, in charge of the recovery. Despite the real improvements on
Bush — such as the end of torture, the resumption of stem-cell
research, and opposition to the coup in Honduras — many people are
asking: why he is delivering so little, so slowly?
A
pair of seemingly small stories about the forces warping American
politics can help us to answer this question. At first glance, they
will seem like preposterous caricatures, but the facts are plain. The
institutions that are blocking progress on all these issues –
Republicans in the Senate, and the mighty corporate lobbying machine
that bankrolls both parties — have rallied over the past few months to
defend two causes with very little popular support in the United
States: rape and slavery. No, really. If we begin to explain how this
came to pass, then we might see why the American political system is
malfunctioning so badly, even after a landslide victory for change.
Let's
start with rape. This story begins in Iraq in 2003. The private
military contractors sent by the Bush administration to guard the oil
pipelines didn't want to get bogged down in expensive legal cases if
anything went wrong. When it came to Iraqis, the Bush team simply
exempted them from all Iraqi law, in a move so sweeping one Senator
called it “a license to kill.” But what about if their employees
attacked each other, or other Americans? The private companies insisted
all their employees sign contracts saying that, whatever happens to
them, they will settle it in in-house, through “arbitration.” Why?
While representing the company at a real legal trial costs hundreds of
thousands of dollars, an arbitration panel costs a few thousand. It
saves cash.
This policy came, however, with a different price
tag. According to her later sworn testimony, Jamie Leigh Jones — a
20-year-old working for the contractor Halliburton/KBR — was hanging
out with co-workers one night in Iraq when her drink was spiked. When
she woke up, she was haemorraging blood from her vagina and her anus.
Her breast implants were ripped. The damage was so severe she later
needed reconstructive surgery on her genitalia. She surmised she had
been gang-raped by the seven men she had been drinking with. When she
approached Halliburton/KBR, she says they locked her in a metal
container with no food or water for 24 hours. A doctor came to see her
wounds and took DNA evidence, although it was later “lost.” A guard
took pity on her and loaned her his cell phone. She called her father,
who called the American embassy — and only then was she released.
In
an Iraq that was collapsing all around her, there was no chance of the
Iraqi police investigating. Halliburton/KBR insisted that her contract
required the alleged gang-rape to be addressed by the company's private
arbitration process, forbidding any claim in the American courts. (If
this was how they treated blonde English-speaking American girls, what
did they do if Iraqis said they had been abused?) After Leigh Jones
went public, many other American women came forward to say they had
similar experiences working in Iraq. Her legal team argues the refusal
to allow rape to be pursued through the courts created a climate where
it was more likely to happen.
The Democratic
Senator Al Franken, when he heard about this, was horrified, and tabled
a simple amendment to the law. It demanded that no company that
prevents rape victims from having their day in court should receive
taxpayers' money any more. Rape is rape. A majority of Republicans in
the Senate — including John McCain — voted against the amendment. Why?
The private contractors are major donors to the Republican Party, but
the Senators claim this didn't affect their judgment. No — they said
that Franken's proposal was a “vendetta” against Halliburton/KBR with
“political motives.” Franken pointed out any company trying to stop
rape victims getting justice would be treated exactly the same by this
law. The Republicans ignored him. They voted to maintain a system where
some rape is not pursuable in a court of law.
At
the same time, a group of Democratic senators have tried to amend the
latest customs bill to ensure that nothing produced by slaves should be
sold in the United States. It sounds uncontroversial — as
uncontroversial as punishing rapists, in fact. Yet corporate lobbyists
are militating behind the scenes to oppose it. As the private
subscription-only newsletter “Inside US Trade” reported: “Business
groups are worried by the potential effects,” and a source tells them
there will be, “a push from lobbyists closer to the Finance Committee
mark-up of the bill … U.S. industry groups and foreign governments [ie
those that use slave labor] could form ad hoc coalitions to help send
a united message.” They will fight for their right to use slave labor.
These
examples are extreme, but they reveal a powerful undertow that is at
work on all political issues (and both main parties) in the United
States. To see how, you have to understand two processes. The first is
the nature of corporate power. Corporations are structured to do one
thing, and one thing only: to maximize profit for their shareholders.
No matter how personally nice or nasty their CEOs are, if they put
anything ahead of profit, they will be sacked, and replaced by somebody
who doesn't. As part of a tightly regulated market, this can be a
useful engine for growth. But if it is not strictly reigned in by the
law and by trade unions, this pressure for profit will extend anywhere
– from trashing the environment to rape and slavery, as these cases
remind us. The second factor is the nature of the American political
process today. If you want to run for elected office in the US, you
have to raise a fortune from corporations or the super-rich to pay for
TV advertising. So before you can appeal to the voters, you have to
appeal to the corporations. You do this by assuring them you will serve
their interests. Once you are in office, you have to keep pleasing them
at every step, or they won't pay for your re-election campaign. This
two-step overwhelms the positive instincts the individual politicians
may have to do good — and drags the US government further and further
from the will of the people.
Obama had to climb
through this system, and he is currently imprisoned by it. It explains
his relative failure so far. Health care is proving so hard because the
insurance companies are paying both Republicans and right-wing
Democrats in Senate to thwart any attempt to provide universal
health care coverage. Yes, it would save the 17,000 Americans who die
every year because they lack insurance but it would depress their
profits. Reducing carbon emissions is proving so hard because the oil,
coal and gas companies are paying Senators across the spectrum to crush
any moves to reduce oil, coal and gas use. And on, and on.
So
far, Obama has tried to co-opt the corporations into his agenda by
ensuring they will profit from any changes, but this inevitably waters
down the proposals, often to the point of uselessness. The cap and
trade legislation before Congress, for example, will barely limit
carbon emissions at all because it has been gutted to please the
polluters.
He will only achieve significant
progressive change if he reforms the political system itself — to make
it accountable to the American people, not the corporations. He needs
to change the rules of the game. Ban big business from making political
donations, and replace it with state funding. Shut down the lobbying
industry. Make a big populist speech announcing you are driving the
money-lenders out of the temple of democracy: it'd be surprisingly
popular in a country where people can see they're being ripped off
every day. The alternative is to become rapidly complicit in a system
where defending rape and slavery is seen as just another day's work in
Washington, D.C.
Johann Hari is a writer for the Independent. To read more of his articles, click here. You can email him at johann -at- johannhari.com
You can watch Johann taking on Hizb ut-Tahrir in a debate on the Islam Channel here.
Johann is also a contributing writer for Slate magazine. To read his latest article for them — about the loon Ayn Rand — click here.
You can follow Johann on Twitter at www.twitter.com/johannhari101
You can support the Republican pro-rape campaign over at www.republicansforrape.com
Lord Mandelson last week finally – it seemed – announced the timetable for legislation that will get tough with illegal downloaders. It's time to take stock – among the creative industries, which is doing well, or badly, from the internet revolution?
Illicit downloading of digital data has become rife in the years since June 1999 when the original Napster introduced the world to music files. It is blamed for millions of pounds of lost revenues by the music, video and games industries. But some say that the solution is not to fight the internet, which has savaged music retailers and forced video games online, while newspapers have noticed people are ignoring paid-for newsprint in favour of free websites.
So does everyone have it bad? MediaGuardian surveys the scene.
UK recorded music
Size of industry in 2000: £2.047bn
Size in 2008: £1.31bn (source: BPI. Measurement changed in 2004)
Breakthrough internet moment: Napster created uproar. Even though most people were still on dial-up connections, the ability to find any song you wanted and get it for free – from some anonymous person's hard drive – created an expectation for a generation just getting used to “online”. Though the record companies managed to close Napster, the toothpaste was out of the tube: filesharing networks grew like hydras.
The second – balancing – moment was the launch of Apple's iTunes Music Store in 2003: a legal, paid-for source of music, track by track. By 2008, it was the biggest music vendor in the US.; though record companies were privately fuming because they felt Apple now had too much power. They managed to institute “variable pricing” so that new songs cost more than old ones; and they removed the digital locks Digital Rights Management (DRM) that prevented iTunes songs playing on anything but iPods. Even so, Apple holds the whip hand in the digital download field.
Biggest casualty: Retailers such as Tower Records, Zavvi, Woolworths.
Buzz company: Spotify, the streaming music company that has more than five million users in Europe. Although it is far from profitable, principally because of the cost of licensing the music, the fact the record companies own 18% of its shares and that its users are less likely to pirate music, means it has industry support.
And none of this, of course, includes live music, which has seen a renaissance in the past few years.
In vogue prophet: Barney Wragg, former head of eLabs at Universal Music and of EMI's digital division. He pushed record labels to go to MP3 in 2007; made the track Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (performed at Live 8 in 2005) the fastest performance-to-digital download song ever (45 minutes from singing to link). Also: Mark Mulligan, music analyst, Forrester; and Gerd Leonard, “media futurist”, who warns book publishers not to try to do what the music industry did by controlling distribution through DRM.
Mandy – friend or foe? Huge, huge, come-aboard-my-yacht friend. The music industry's lobbying has been exceptionally effective with government, though it's had little effect on the public, which still (allegedly) likes an illicit download or million.
MediaGuardian verdict: The recorded music industry has a promising future in ringtones, downloads, and streaming sites – if it can take a smaller cut per song and accept the financial glories of the past are gone.
Film (DVD/video excluding cinema)
Size in 2000: DVDs: £264m; VHS: £840m; rental: £186m; digital: 0 (total£1.1bn)
Size in 2008: DVDs: £2.0bn; VHS: 0; rental: £219m; digital: £80m (total: £2.3bn) Source: British Video Association
Breakthrough internet moment: The launch of the Bittorrent protocol by the programmer Bram Cohen in 2001. It breaks large files into little pieces that can be distributed among many computers on a network, and downloaded from each of them. Each downloader is also an uploader to anyone who wants a piece; though nobody uploads the whole file, except the first person to put it on the network. Add DVD-ripping software, plus broadband, plus the arrival of The Pirate Bay, a Swedish site that hosted torrent “trackers” – little files that told home computers which other machines had the pieces of a particular file, and you had the film industry's “Napster moment”. It hates The Pirate Bay.
Biggest casualty: Distributors' pride (Oscar DVDs have leaked onto The Pirate Bay); Woolworths etc; music industry (which has lost out in the fight for peoples' spending).
Current buzz company: Netflix (US), which has launched online streaming (US-only) and held a competition with a $1m prize to get people to write a better matching system to recommend films and drew a huge response.
In vogue prophet: John Lasseter, the storytelling genius at Pixar who has made animation not just fun but essential, and has now pushed 3D – which is rather hard to pirate – into the mainstream through the Disney-owned company.
Mandy FoF? Very much a friend, in the queue just behind the music industry
MediaGuardian verdict: The sheer size of films and relative complexity of Bittorrent has kept it comparatively safe from widespread piracy. But as connections get faster, film companies can't rely on selling physical disks; Apple already offers near real-time streaming of films, though its Apple TV box hasn't been a success. The saving grace in the UK is the penetration of Sky and Virgin, which offer pay-per-view for films.
Newspapers
Size in 2000: Nationals £4,251m; regionals £3,467m
Size in 2009: Nationals £4,343m; regionals £3,128m (inc online recruitment revenues since 2003.) Source: Advertising Statistics Yearbook
Breakthrough internet moment: The Daily Telegraph setting up the first UK online paper (February 1994); website news coverage of the July 2005 London bombings; internet advertising in the UK exceeding newspaper advertising (2006).
Biggest casualty: Dozens of regional and local newspapers. Newspaper staff, both editorial and commercial.
Buzz company: Amazon, because of its Kindle e-reader; Apple, whose iPhone/iPod Touch handheld computer offers the chance to create free or paid-for “apps” (see: Sky News, the Spectator and, it is rumoured, the Guardian) to get more people reading electronically.
In vogue prophet: Jeff Jarvis, Guardian columnist; Clay Shirky; Steven B Johnson.
Mandy FoF? Would-be friend, but unrequited: calls for more funding for struggling regional and local papers have been cold-shouldered by a government that is happy to prop up the car industry with its car scrappage scheme.
MediaGuardian verdict: Print isn't dead, but it has a nasty cough, and online presence – despite being enormous (the Guardian, Telegraph and Mail passed 30 million readers online in September) – doesn't yet generate as much money as print.
Video games (inc hardware)
Size in 2000: £1.22bn (inc hardware)
Size in 2008: £4.03bn (source: GFK Chart Track)
Breakthrough internet moment: The launch of World of Warcraft on 23 November 2004: it now has more than 11.5 million subscribers paying a monthly fee, and has created an enormous spin-off economy of “gold farmers” in countries such as China who simply play the game to create goods to sell to people in developed countries.
Biggest casualty: The music industry. Kids who used to buy singles and CDs buy Call of Duty 4 and Fifa 10 instead.
Buzz company: Surprisingly, Microsoft, whose Project Natal may apply the Wii's realistic play to your entire body.
In vogue prophet: British games designer and Bafta-winner Peter Molyneux says Natal is “a big, big deal”.
Mandy FoF?: Despite complaints and a vigorous industry lobbying campaign for tax breaks for games publishers and recruiters, Mandelson doesn't seem to know that video games do better business than music in the UK.
MediaGuardian verdict: Games are thriving, though still not accepted as “mainstream” – even though you can judge a music CD on a few hearings or a film on one viewing, while a decent game will require up to 40 hours' play just to become competent. Versatility means they can adapt – and they lead in technological advances.
Television
Size in 2000: £7.7bn advertising revenue (not inflation-adjusted); pay TV subscriptions: £2.2bn
Size in 2008: £11.2bn; pay TV: £4.3bn (source: Ofcom)
Breakthrough internet moment: There have been multiple failed attempts at “internet TV”, including those from Microsoft and Joost. The breakthrough was the “Bus Uncle” video on YouTube in May 2006. It's not TV, but it exploded. It is a short-form video on the internet. From that moment, YouTube has become like TV to a whole generation. The traditional box in the corner has struggled to keep the attention of people often gazing at another box, possibly on their laps.
TV made a comeback with the launch of the BBC iPlayer in June 2008: it brought full-length TV programmes to people's browsers without needing extra software. The effect on viewing has been electric: in May it was believed to be streaming seven petabytes (thousands of gigabytes) every single month, 100 gigabits a second.
Biggest casualty: ITV. Advertisers' flight to the internet, its inability to produce a working iPlayer clone, and ill-advised purchase of the social networking site Friends Reunited left it looking bumbling.
Buzz company: The BBC, which had planned to share the technology – a plan blocked by the BBC Trust.
In vogue prophet: Anthony Rose, the man behind the iPlayer. Formerly at KaZaA – a music/video file-sharing company – he's shown you have to understand the internet to alter it.
Mandy FoF?: The BBC isn't flavour of the month with Labour or the Tories; ITV has been treated with indifference. Mandy has no time for either.
MediaGuardian verdict: ITV's next chair and chief executive have their work cut out protecting the channel from being torn apart by the rise of internet-based viewing. The BBC is safe enough, because its public service remit means the iPlayer is defensible as an alternative to broadcast.
ShipWatcher News: Cruise ship loses power at sea – UPI.com … Vacation cruise videos from all the major cruise lines. Caribbean Hotels Get information, reviews and news about hotels from around the Caribbean. … Read more: Travel Tips …
How caring of the NoTW to lead with not news of Boyle's hit album but a no-news story that she is NOT mentally ill. Look out for other exclusives that Susan Bouyle is also NOT suffering from cancer, NOT murdered in a car bomb and NOT …
It was some time around then that the White House launched a war on the Murdoch-owned Fox News Channel – or that Fox launched a war on it, depending on who you think threw the first bomb, and when. “War”, in any case, was the White …
