On Boobs, Music and patents. Also, did I mention boobs?

Let’s talk about boobs. Oh and also idiots.

So I’m sure I’m not the only one to have noticed that music videos are often very sexy. Shockingly so, when you consider the Disney or Nickelodeon origins of many of the young stars gyrating sexually on screen.

As a young man at university I often found myself pondering the strange disconnect between the enticing, erotic promises of music videos and the mechanical pounding of pornography. Was there no way to meet in the middle, as it were?

So imagine my delight when I discovered that many major hip hop artists were in the habit of making two versions of their music videos. A clean version for your daylight hours, and then a naughty version for your seedier moments. By naughty, I mean a few nipples and whatnot. I thought it was brilliant.

Move on to 2013, and I found myself surprised by the internet rumblings against the perfectly decent “Blurred Lines” by Robin Thicke (but maybe really by Pharell Williams?). People were upset with the song because it was presumably creepy and “rapey”.

This already struck me as strange seeing as music is hardly a stranger to “rapey” lyrics. A lot of hip hop, and basically all of Reggaeton is eye-wateringly misogynistic.

Furthermore, Shock! Horror! The song had two music videos made. A safe version, and (I know my parents read this blog, so parents, do not click this link!) a nipple version. It’s true that it’s a bit creepy to have three fully dressed guys hanging around naked ladies. In fact, there’s a part of the video where they’re dancing in front of a wall festooned with the words “Robin Thicke has a big dick”. Maybe the video would have been less offensive if he’d gone ahead and proved it?

A still from the offending video. I've censored it with the only thing more exciting than boobs.

But I think back to those sexy music videos I discovered. For example: 50 cent’s “P.I.M.P”, N.E.R.D’s (Pharell Williams again) “Lapdance”, or Ludacris’s “P*ssy poppin’”. Want to talk about “rapey”? The first song is about a man who makes money from managing prostitutes, the second is about a man so tough that all women, including “professionals”, can’t get enough of his manly charms. And the last song… well I had to censor its title, didn’t I?

What’s more, these songs also had dirty versions of their video. Again, parents! Do NOT click these links! (God bless Vimeo).

Those are the boobs. Here come the idiots.

Self-righteous, preachy arses around university campuses rose up in arms, decrying the lyrics and even getting the song banned from university bars. I thought that in a liberal society we should combat ideas we disagree with through spirited debate, not through shrieking and prohibition?

But I know a man who expresses that idea better than I can. Podcast fans, enjoy a five-part series of essays on Analysis, presented by Timothy Garton Ash, about the future of freedom of speech and why these uptight twits need to stop trying to ban everybody who doesn’t quite agree with their ideas (which are perfectly correct and, above all, defendable). He also grapples with other attacks on free speech from Islamists, the media and the need for privacy. I also like the fact that TGA has trouble, like me, pronouncing the letter R.

Part 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5.

But besides all that, why was Blurred Lines such a problem when hip hop artists had been doing it long before? Well here’s my theory: Robin Thicke, and two of the topless models in the video, are white. There’s the difference. It’s OK when the boobs are black or Latina, but white boobs can not be degraded so.

Well I’m here to say: Black Boobs Matter.

But my real point, lovely though boobs are, is that what really upset me, more than the lazy band-wagon-jumping reaction Blurred Lines originally got, is what happened next.

The descendents of Marvin Gaye sued Robin Thicke, and also the tremendously talented Pharrell Williams, who probably really wrote blurred lines, and is responsible for so much great music beyond the asinine “Happy”.

Pharrell Williams. Proof positive of the old adage: "You can't judge a musician by his silly hat"

They were sued because apparently Blurred Lines had copied Marvin Gaye's "Got to give it up":

The two songs certainly resemble each other, having the same beats per minute, with minimal instrumentation and a cowbell. Apparently this is copyright infringement.

As it turned out, the Gaye’s won 7.4 million dollars (though recently reduced by 2 million). People jumped at the opportunity to pour yet more scorn on Thicke, but frankly, anybody with an ounce of musical ability or common sense would have been horrified at the result. First of all, the songs are not the same. Second, if this constitutes plagiarism, what happens to every other music artist? Songs sound similar. Deal with it.

Here's a youtube video that plays the songs back to back. Though the uploader clearly thinks this proves how similar they are, I completely disagree, especially when they start singing:

The only reason the Gaye’s won is because Thicke is unpopular, and that’s thanks to the afore-mentioned frantic bleating of self-important social belligerents drunk on their successful, vacuous moralising. I'm pretty sure this isn't a sign of things to come in the music industry, or at least I hope so.

Because if I’m wrong, bands setting up in garages today, inspired by this rock band or that, will have infringement claims slapped on them as soon as they make any money, by the law firms who hold the rights to whatever, vague, musical riffs that have come before them. The whole thing is breathtakingly stupid.

And this is the problem with copyright and patenting. The spirit of the law is to reward innovation and creative thinking. Surely, it is only right that if an artist or an inventor comes up with something that benefits society, they should benefit from the fruits of their labour? Sadly, the spirit is often crushed by the letter.

Now calm down, dear readers. I’m sure you’re all starting to get a little concerned because I’ve been rambling on about music for ages and haven’t mentioned computer games once. Well brace yourselves.

I’m currently engrossed with Dark Souls 3. The “Souls” series of games are role-playing action games set in a world of permanent decay. Everything is imbued with melancholy, as you fight your way through the ruins of long-dead empires, still populated by the mindless denizens that can never die. The game is mysterious, beautiful and punishingly difficult. You will die.

Dark souls 3. Such a wonderful game. In this shot, the character is about to go kill a great, animated tree. It's weak point is its balls (no, really!)

So it’s upsetting that the load times are so damn long! This was particularly a problem with the second game, and often you have to sit there, looking at tooltips cycling across the screen as the game takes its sweet time getting its act together.

Maybe the edge could be taken off the wait if there was a mini-game you could play as the larger assets were loaded. Maybe the mini-game could be equally mysterious and obtuse, with subtle effects on the main game. That would be awesome.

This is not a new idea; it turns out that back in 1995 Namco (now Namco Bandai) took out a patent on the idea of mini-games in loading screens. The patent office really dropped the ball on this one.

Patents are supposed to protect inventors, but should only be awarded if the idea 1- benefits society, 2- is non-obvious and 3- has not been done before. The mini-games idea fails on points 2 and 3, but the patent was awarded regardless. This has benefited nobody, certainly not the customer. If you're interested, you should read more about this.

Stupid patent application

And you know the worst part? Dark souls is produced by Namco Bandai. They’re not even taking advantage of their own patent, the halfwits.

Luckily, that patent has recently expired, so we’ll see if developers start to make their loading screens more interesting. Similarly, we now have functional “D-pads” on our controller after Nintendo’s patent ran out a few years ago. Because a cross-like button is non-obvious. Idiots.

These are the controllers for the xbox 360 on the left, then the xbox one (which came later) on the right. Notice that the xbox one gamepad has a sensible D-pad rather than the shapeless atrocity on the 360 pad. The 360 rubbish is thanks to Nintendo and the doofuses at the patent office.

This problem extends beyond computer games, and is especially rife in Technology. All large tech firms have to buy up thousands of patents to both protect themselves and attack the competition. Look at the constant back and forth between Apple and Samsung, for example.

Even podcasts are at risk. Though there are many trolls trying to prey on podcasts, perhaps the most ludicrous is a guy called Jim Logan, who made a patent back in the 80s for a service that would send cassette tapes with radio programmes to your home. He claims that podcasts today are infringing his patent. Oh God the dumb! It hurts!

Don’t believe me? Have a podcast:

The situation has led to the arrival of “Patent Trolls”, companies whose only business is to buy up patents then sue people who infringe them. These companies don’t actually use the patents themselves, or produce useful technology. Their only raison d’être is to be parasites on other people's creativity. In this case, patents are an obstacle to innovation, and achieve the exact opposite of what they’re intended for.

This is not a new problem. There’s even the suggestion that the inventor James Watt, along with his business colleague Mathew Boulton (an 18^th century technological partnership to rival Jobs and Wozniak), actually slowed advances on the steam engine by rigorously defending their patents. Have yet another podcast on the very subject:

James Watt and Steam Power.

And this brings me back to the old issue of inequality (remember my Azmodan post?). I feel that the function of government regulation should be to lower barriers to entry, so that we all have an equal opportunity to make it. This is already achieved to a great degree through state-provided education, healthcare and subsidies, but more can be done to unlock the potential of society. Too much power is hoarded by powerful families and corporations, and they use every tool at their disposal to do so, including those originally intended to help out the little guy.

Regulation sounds good, and some of it certainly is. I agree that we need anti-trust laws to break up monopolies, for example. The problem is that the government often lacks the time, funds and expertise to regulate specific industries, so they pass the task on to the industries themselves.

The business interests will draw up regulation, couched in terms like “consumer protection” or “sustainability” which assuage most people, but their real agenda is to make it so long and expensive to enter the market that they keep competition at bay. This hurts all of us, as low competition means higher prices and less pressure to innovate. Patents often end up serving the same purpose. Though those on the left hate the idea of “deregulation”, sometimes that might be just what is needed to combat inequality.

Have two more planet money podcasts. The first is about how regulation is exploited by companies to keep out competition, and the second is about how some people, including tech baron Elon Musk, believe that patents should be done away with altogether.

Why it's illegal to braid hair without a license:

The case against patents:

And what about Robin Thicke two years after all those shenanigans? Well, he’s lost his mojo, having put out a universally-panned album about how much he wants to get back with his now estranged wife Paula Patton.

Maybe you shouldn’t have been cavorting around with a delightfully topless Emily Ratajkowski, eh Robin?