Read more of this story at Slashdot.
Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Lobbyists for major tech firms like Cisco and IBM are trying to push through legislation in Colorado that would drastically roll back a groundbreaking right to repair law under the guise of protecting national security and data centers.
The legislation, which passed through a Colorado state senate committee on Thursday, would exempt hardware from the existing right to repair law if that hardware “is considered critical infrastructure.” One of the issues with this is that “critical infrastructure” is very broadly defined, and could include essentially anything. In practice, the law could essentially repeal huge parts of one of the most important right to repair laws in the United States.
“It relies on a broad, vague definition that allows the manufacturer themselves to self-designate whether their equipment is for critical infrastructure,” Louis Rossmann, a right to repair expert and popular YouTuber, testified at a hearing on the bill Thursday. “So if a laptop manufacturer knows the Pentagon buys their laptops, they can declare that line exempt. If a networking company sells a $20 switch to a federal building, they can claim that hardware is critical infrastructure. It’s a blank check for manufacturers to exempt themselves.”
Ever since consumer rights advocates began pushing for right to repair legislation roughly a decade ago, hardware manufacturers have been fear mongering to lawmakers by telling them that right to repair would introduce security threats by requiring them to reveal proprietary information about their products. In practice, the exact opposite has happened, because greater access to repair parts, tools, diagnostic software, and repair guides means that broken equipment that could potentially be more vulnerable to hacking attempts can be fixed more quickly.
“When we talk about critical infrastructure and fixing things, we often do not have time to wait for an official fix from a company that may not be motivated to fix things,” Andrew Brandt, a security researcher and cofounder of the nonprofit Elect More Hackers, testified Thursday. “What ends up happening is that with smaller companies, where they may have spent most of their budget buying some firewall or router that they can no longer afford, they end up in a situation where they’re just going to keep running that device in an unsafe state and leave themselves vulnerable to cyber attack.”
The groups pushing for this legislative rollback appear to be legacy enterprise hardware manufacturers, who highlighted during the hearing the fact that their technology is increasingly being used in data centers, which seem to be one of the only things the current American economy seems capable of building. Lobbyists for the Consumer Technology Association, which represents many large manufacturers, testified in support of the bill, as did Joseph Lee, who works for Cisco.
“While Cisco appreciates the arguments offered in favor of right to repair devices, not all digital technology devices are equal. A router used in a home is fundamentally different from the infrastructure equipment used to manage a power grid or secure confidential state agency data,” Lee said.
Chris Bresee, a lobbyist with the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, also highlighted the fact that, broadly, there is IT equipment that will need repairs at data centers.
“A growing number of products in data centers with connection to our electric grid as well. It is of the utmost importance to safeguard these critical systems,” he said. “This is not an argument against repair or against consumers rights, it is a recognition that fixing a smartphone is not the same as modifying systems that keep the lights on for our country.”
The argument being made by these lobbyists and major tech companies is that only the manufacturers or their authorized representatives should be allowed to fix these types of electronics. But, again, the definition of “critical infrastructure” is so broad that it can be applied to almost any type of electronic, and there is nothing fundamentally different between a router used at a data center and a router used in a school, business, or home.
“You look at who is backing this bill, it is large firms like Cisco and IBM. They sell information technology equipment to tens of thousands of Colorado businesses, and they are looking to create a de facto monopoly on that service, which exists in the states that have denied this business to business right to repair,” Paul Roberts, a cybersecurity expert and founder of SecuRepairs testified. “The big tech companies backing the bill are using a very real concern about cybersecurity and resilience of US critical infrastructure to pad their bottom line, locking in a monopoly on service and repair. Cyber attacks on US critical infrastructure are rampant and have nothing to do with information covered by Colorado’s right to repair law.”

We’ve been hearing for months that Paramount was trying to finance its purchase of Warner Bros. Discovery with money it didn’t actually have, and that sovereign wealth funds from Middle Eastern countries would help make up the difference. Now, we have some confirmed information. That difference is just shy of $24 billion, The Wall Street Journal reports. Yes, that’s “billion” with a “B.” About $10 billion of that is coming from Saudi Arabia, with Qatar and the Emirate of Abu Dhabi providing the rest. All said, Paramount, under the direction of David Ellison, is set to spend $81 million on WBD.

The biggest question following The Super Mario Bros. Galaxy Movie‘s box-office blowout isn’t whether or not it works as a movie, but how its financial haul will affect the future of video game movies. The movie’s record-breaking success—the biggest Wednesday opening in April of all time!—suggests that the audience for AAA video game adaptations like The Super Mario Bros. Movie ($1.36 billion at the global box office) and A Minecraft Movie ($961 million) don’t mind that those movies often feel like narrative-light Easter egg hunts. But the bigger these movies get, the closer they get to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, IP-forward products made by board rooms rather than filmmakers.
Nintendo Executive Fellow Shigeru Miyamoto has said that he’s very interested in using cross-media projects like The Super Mario Bros. Movie to appeal to people who don’t play video games, which may explain why both Mario movies are so impersonal and soulless that they’re only really valuable as brand maintenance. On the flip side, YouTuber-turned-filmmaker Mark Fischbach’s surprising financial success with his claustrophobic indie sci-fi chiller Iron Lung suggests that when it comes to video game adaptations, smaller might be better, both in terms of quality and maybe even profitability.
Fischbach’s detailed and faithful adaptation works as well as it does because he didn’t try to force it to be all things to all people. It went on to gross $50 million on a reported budget of three to four million dollars. Granted, Fischbach’s established online fanbase helped to put his adaptation of David Szymanski’s 2022 Lovecraftian submersible simulator over the top, especially since it didn’t have a traditional advertising budget. But as far as the creative process went, Fischbach was likely helped considerably by the fact that Szymanski was the original game’s solo developer, making him a lot easier to work with than a AAA gaming juggernaut. Szymanski has said that he was happy to give Fischbach direct feedback on his adaptation, personally advising him on the screenplay and giving him support during the movie’s pre-production phase.
So if that’s possible, why do the most prominent AAA game adaptations seem made by a MCU-style committee?
“The fundamental rule that Hollywood operates by is: As budgets approach infinity, the audience’s intelligence required to understand it approaches zero,” screenwriter C. Robert Cargill tells The A.V. Club. Cargill has worked on both video game adaptations—like unproduced films of Deus Ex: Human Revolution and Resident Evil that he co-developed with Black Phone 2 director Scott Derrickson—and comic book movies like Doctor Strange. Cargill argues that there’s now more creative freedom in adapting video games than there is in adapting comic book movies. For writers like Cargill, collaborating with Marvel is like accepting a pair of golden handcuffs. “You absolutely wanna work for them because everyone’s gonna see those movies,” he says. “But at the same time, there’s a lot of limitations to working in a cinematic universe like that. You can’t make a story choice on a whim because that may contradict something that has already been shot for a Disney+ show. You don’t have that problem in a video game movie.”
At the same time, video game writers and developers aren’t recognized by film industry unions like the Writers Guild Of America, making it easier for big companies, those that spend over $300 million to develop a AAA game, to treat movie adaptations like brand extensions instead of self-sufficient works of pop art. Take last year’s Until Dawn adaptation, a generic Cabin-In-The-Woods-meets-Groundhog-Day horror pastiche that had little to do with Supermassive’s popular and BAFTA-winning horror game. The original game’s writers, indie horror filmmakers Larry Fessenden and Graham Reznick, weren’t mentioned in the movie’s end credits, where Until Dawn is said only to be “based on the Playstation Studios video game.” The brand is the most important thing, just like how Marvel and DC Comics adaptations focus more on introducing and showcasing their characters rather than the stories (not to mention writers and artists) that helped to establish those characters in the first place.
When I previously reported on Fessenden and Reznick’s lack of credit for the Until Dawn movie, I was told that a “written by” credit was only guaranteed as part of a union contract with movie studios, according to WGA West Board Of Directors member Rob Foreman. Emailing with me last year, Foreman said that “in video games, that kind of guarantee and protection doesn’t currently exist, so credit can be more arbitrarily determined by individual game companies.”
Read more of this story at Slashdot.

With Podcast Canon, Benjamin Cannon analyzes the history of podcasts and interrogates how we talk about the art form.
In December of 1995, Your Radio Playhouse broadcast its first episode on Chicago’s NPR affiliate station WBEZ. Though it wasn’t long for this world—by the following year, after just 16 episodes, it would disappear with a startling completeness—Your Radio Playhouse would become perhaps the most important show in the history of modern audio storytelling. That’s because, on March 21st of 1996, its host, Ira Glass, changed the program’s name to This American Life.
And so, for this month’s entry into the Podcast Canon, we’re taking a step outside of our usual remit of shining a brighter light on the medium’s unjustly overlooked works and going deep on what is likely the most (justly) recognized work in the world of narrative documentary audio on the event of its 30th anniversary. Or, rather, the 30th anniversary of its renaming.
It might seem a little strange to fixate on something as simple as this change in appellation, but one feels the show wouldn’t exist today without it. Shakespeare may contend that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, but Your Radio Playhouse just wasn’t something suited for longevity. This American Life is a title as bold as the enterprise itself, one almost purpose-built to endure. That small tweak helped the show become like the audio world equivalent to Saturday Night Live: an institution, guided by a charismatic figurehead with an uncanny ability for finding and fostering incredible talent, which singlehandedly reshaped our entire conception of an artform.
If you’re somehow unaware of the program, I’m overwhelmingly excited for you to discover it. This American Life is a work of narrative audio documentary, each episode runs about an hour long, focusing on a single theme. An episode could be devoted to a single story, or composed of a number of shorter ones, designated as acts. Those are the bare facts of the series, but what that misses is the way that the show’s creative team are simply obsessed with stories and storytelling. As a product of terrestrial radio, the program cracked the code on how to capture an audience’s attention and hold them there to the very end, a necessity in waning days of the broadcast monoculture, before the advent of the podcast and on-demand listening behavior.
It was, and still is, the show’s x-factor. The stories heard on TAL are often a masterclass in how to report, write, and edit for audio. They’re focused, fact-based journalism, yet somehow provide room for color and dynamism. More than that, they almost always contain an element of surprise, whether it’s in the choice of topic or some detail which pops up along the way. That this standard hasn’t dipped over the past three decades is more than admirable, it’s evidence of an incredibly committed team working from a place of love and care, for the craft and for each other. How else to explain the collaborative spirit which has endured for these decades?
Like an audio version of Charlamagne, one can trace a staggering amount of the developments of modern podcasting directly back to the program. There are the obvious hits, like producers Sarah Koenig, Dana Chivvis, and Julie Snyder’s landmark series Serial—the 10th anniversary of which served as the impetus for this column. But also, Alix Spiegel co-created NPR’s Invisibilia, Brian Reed took true crime in new directions with the novelistic S-Town, and Alex Blumberg, who first co-created NPR’s Planet Money in 2008 before attempting TAL-level storytelling at scale as the co-founder of Gimlet Media.
Gimlet set the tone for the medium’s mid-2010s boom times before a quiet implosion following its sale to Spotify. The studio functioned in part as a showcase for the voices of TAL’s most ambitious producers, including past Podcast Canon entrants like Jonathan Goldstein’s Heavyweight and Starlee Kine’s Mystery Show. It’s only fitting, then, that a number of the show’s current staff, like Emanuele Berry and Sarah Abdurrahman, came to the show from Gimlet productions. Words fail to encapsulate how somehow soul-nourishing that is to me, to see the way inspiration externalizes itself from the whole, before becoming reabsorbed back into the main body. The principles of energy conservation seemingly extend to creative energies as well. They are neither created nor destroyed, but shared.