The closure of 146 Canadian Blockbuster stores should not have been a surprise to anyone after Hollywood movie studios called in $70 million in debt securitized by its Canadian operations but racked up by its parent company. In both countries, many good people are now out of work and no one wants that to happen.

In addition to eliminating much needed jobs, the store closures also created a void in the big screen to DVD rental and sales value chain. The formerly lucrative movie rental business had apparently become a money losing proposition. Many people attribute the decline to an increased access movies on-line; downloading a movie is arguably easier than driving to the store plus downloaded movies don't have the dreaded late fees. Undoubtably, access to movies on-demand from cable providers and services like NetFlix also eroded the rental market.

Downloads of pirated movies also contributed to the demise of the stores. Research from the NPD Group in 2006 shows that 8 percent of all U.S. households (6 million)  had broken copyright law and downloaded at least one copyrighted video from a P2P network over a period of three months, whereas only two percent of U.S. households purchased a video legally. 60 percent of the pirated content is adult oriented, however 20 percent is TV show content and five percent percent mainstream movies.

Note that the research is from 2006. In December 2010 The Guardian reported that according to TorrentFreak, Avatar was downloaded 16.6M times, That figure is up 50% on last year's leader, Star Trek, which was downloaded a mere 11M times.

The Guardian article goes on: "Torrent sites are among factors credited with prompting falls in DVD sales, but Cameron's film does not seem to have suffered. It took more than $1B at the global box office and its home video release earlier this year broke sales records.The same cannot, perhaps, be said, for the No 2 film on the list, UK production Kick-Ass, which was self-funded by director Matthew Vaughn. Despite 11.4m illegal torrent downloads, it has yet to break the $100M mark at the global box office, suggesting that more people may have watched it as an illegal download than paid for it." http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/dec/22/avatar-illegal-downloads-torrent-c...

The numbers speak for themselves; millions of people have illegally downloaded movies in the past and will continue to in the future. The same goes for music and software downloads.

The rationale for breaking copyright law with illegal downloads often focuses on how the movie studios or record labels are making too much money, or that copyright laws in Canada and elsewhere are flawed.

We've all broken the law. Whether it's speeding, munching on a few nuts from the bulk food section while wandering the grocery store aisles or photocopying a journal article for your co-workers, we've all stepped over the lawful line at some point in our lives.

Illegal downloads of movies, music and downloads create a perplexing ethical situation. Downloading an illegal copy of the newest album of your favourite artist is somehow completely acceptable, in fact in some circles is the default choice. Yet, if the same artist were to perform live, these same people willingly pay to see the performance.

If it is acceptable to pay to see the artist perform, why deprive the artist of album sales royalties? No matter how bad an artists' contract may be, the artist receives something.

Perhaps a different model is necessary. After the expiry of their recording contract in 2007, Radiohead went directly to their fans. For a minimum price of $1 USD, fans could download the album. The offer of fast, high quality downloads from the band site were expected to lure fans away frm P2P and file-shares.

This is an interesting approach and potentially positive if the band makes more for their artistic efforts. And it certainly cuts the profit to the label, whose lop-sided artists recording contracts are oft cited as a reason P2P file sharing is popular.

Radiohead's approach also has means that everyone associated with making, shipping, and selling the album have less work. Multiply this effect across many artists and there will be a lot of people with less work. Perhaps no work at all.

But is it a sustainable model? For everyone? Because it's not just about the artists.

Last weekend, my wife and I watched "The Book of Eli" starring Denzel Washington. Set in post-apocalypse United States, the protagonist, Eli, played by Denzel, is travelling west across a bleak, sun-baked America, populated by people driven to extremes of survival. Eli stays alive using his wits and impressive skills with a seriously large knife. Eli has a routine at the end of each harrowing day; he reads from a large book and listens to an mp3 player.

One morning Eli wakes and discovers the mp3 player ran all night and drained it’s battery. Fast forward; Eli finds a desperate town where he barters away some mundane goods to have the battery charged. He also encounters a nefarious character named Carnegie played by Gary Oldman. Obsessed with gathering books, Carnegie is very interested in the book Eli is carrying.  Notably, other than Eli, Carnegie is one of four literate people in the movie.

At this point, the significance of the book is revealed. Eli possesses a King James Bible, the only surviving copy following a book burning pogrom carried out by unspecified forces. Much chaos ensues as Carnegie and his henchmen manage to wrest control of the Bible from Eli. Carnegie's victory is hollow because the Bible is in Braille and despite his literacy, Carnegie cannot read Braille.

Fast forward again and Eli and a sidekick arrive on the west coast, or more precisely, San Francisco. They row to Alcatraz Island where they are welcomed with open arms after announcing they have a copy of a Bible. Intent on rebuilding society, the people on the island have amassed many of the raw ingredients necessary to re-populate the planet with a civilized people. They have a nearly complete World Book Encyclopaedia, works by Mozart, Wagner and a printing press. They are missing some significant books however, a Bible being one.

Spoiler Alert: I am about to reveal the end of the movie. Read on at your own peril.

What about the Bible Eli used to gain entrance to the island? 

Eli asks for paper, lots of paper. He proceeds to recite the entire bible to a scribe, who carefully records his words. The movie ends with copies of first page of The Book of Genesis coming off the printing press. Gutenberg would have been proud.

Eli is blind. Was he blind during the entire trip? Very hard to discern, even after watching the movie twice.

So what of the lessons?

Carefully crafted metaphors are woven into the film. Eli's mp3 player represents our dependence on technology that only works if it has electricity. No electricity means he cannot listen to music. The Braille Bible illustrates that information is accessible only with the appropriate knowledge or technology. In the Book of Eli, knowledge is the barrier; Carnegie could read, but he couldn't read Braille. 8-track tapes or Beta video are technology examples from our times.

The recitation of the Bible is a clear reference to the oral tradition of many indigenous peoples around the world where legends and knowledge are passed down verbally. The lesson? The languages are dying so legends and knowledge so we are losing the knowledge from those times. Relying on technology to be the keeper of all knowledge is a dangerous choice.

Technology is integral to our lives in the First World. The question is: will our lives depend on technology? 

This morning I shaved off my beard to support Movember, the national fundraiser to fight prostate cancer. Over the month of November, men grow moustaches to show their support. And people like you donate. Simple enough.

I’ve had a beard since 2004. Shaving it off was a very deliberate act and this is why.

In December 2004 I was hospitalized for three weeks. For the first three long days, we had no diagnosis. Three days is a long time when the doctors say the CT scan indicates a mass in your brain but they don't know what it is.

On Christmas Eve, a man, confused and in pain, was brought to my room. During my three week stay, I came to know my roommate. Ken was  a hulking, Harley driving, hot-rod building, jazz playing, dog loving juxtaposition of a man. He loved chocolate milk and crossword puzzles. We talked late into the nights; about family, life and death. I also grew my beard.

In June 2006, the brain cancer that put  Ken and I together finally took Ken's life. He was a dear friend whose brief presence in my life will never be forgotten. I lived and Ken died. That is as profound as it gets.

I also shaved to support my brother-in-law Reggie, a cancer survivor. A staunch defender of human rights, raiser of awesome kids and husband to my super-sister, Reggie is a source of inspiration in my life. For you Reggie, I am now clean shaven!

Please support the fight against prostrate cancer by donating at my Mo’vember site http://ca.movember.com/mospace/893836/

Earlier this week I debated the notion that Digital is Green. The origin of my argument centred on the evironmental practices of the New York Times and Apple. I chose Apple simply because they hold a large market share and courtesy of Greenpeace, experienced the negative effect of a large and well organized environmental awareness campaign. But the protagonist in my post was the New York Times.

As I noted, the New York Times has a well documented environmental position. A little digging revealed that the New York Times is printed on paper that is manufactured carbon-neutral.  That's right, carbon-neutral paper. Catalyst makes the only carbon-neutral directory, or newprint paper in North America. Like the New York Times and Apple, Catalyst's sustainabilty position is well documented and supported by internationally recogonized organizations.

Are there other dailies that print on paper that isn't carbon-neutral? Absolutely. Could they improve their carbon footprint? Most definitely. The point is that not all paper is created equal and digital is not always green.

The SocialTimes recently reported that the New York Times has more Twitter followers than subscribers. This echoed across the interweb supporting the notion that “print is dead” followed by a refrain of “digital is green”.

Let’s talk about the last point; that digital is green. I’ll address the notion that print is dead in another post.

So digital is green? Really? Unless the computers used to compose, and serve and read all digital content are powered by the sun, wind or water, and readily recycled, digital is most decidedly not green!

Digital needs electricity and lots of it. That means coal-fired generation for most of North America. Natural resource extraction destroys ecosystems and coal fired generation plants are not what anyone would consider carbon neutral. Only our children and their children will truly understand the long-term effects of this reality. Just as the New York Times knows that digital is the future, companies such as Microsoft, Google and Apple also know that sustainable business means addressing their environmental impact. Why? Because people demand green products and industry.

The New York Times apparently takes the environment seriously. Their Environmental Stewardship page clearly outlines their environmental practices. Because the New York Times is a print based company, these statements may appear self-serving. If so, then Apple, a highly-regarded innovator in all things technological is worth a look.

In 2007, Greenpeace led an environmental campaign criticizing Apple and their environmental non-disclosure position. The public pressure forced Apple to reveal the environmental impact of their operations and supply chain. Want proof? Have a look here. Page 23 of their 2010 Supplier Responsibility Report notes that suppliers of tantalum capacitors are required to certify they use only materials produced through a socially and environmentally responsible process. They also recognize that that tracking the tantalum used in their products is difficult and are working toward creating standards for their supply chain.

In contrast, a variety of internationally recognized, forest and paper industry sustainability and environmental certifications have been in place for years. These certifications include sustainable forest management.

Overall, Apple is held in high regard among the digital cognoscenti, many of the same people who are ardent environmentalists. The environmental standard set by Apple is apparently sufficient to assuage the environmental concerns of the tens of millions of people who buy their products; shouldn’t the same principles apply to the New York Times or their suppliers?

Without understanding the paper life-cycle, it is irresponsible to simply claim that by not printing a daily paper, trees are saved. This statement is short-sighted and ignores facts that indicate the paper’s lifecycle has less environmental impact than IT. Virtually everything in a computer comes from non-renewable resources produced by a resource intensive industry with minimal environmental oversight. Yes, paper comes from trees, a renewable resource. To my knowledge there is nothing renewable about anything in the IT world. Many paper mills have co-generation electrical plants that use energy that would otherwise be wasted to help power their operations. Do any IT manufacturers off-set their energy needs using energy generated from their manufacturing waste?

Perhaps recycling offers hope, after all, paper can be recycled up to seven times. But consider this; shifting to recycled paper has unintended consequences. The green trend to photocopier paper with some or all recycled content is worse than using paper without recycled content. Why? Two simple reasons; first, the processes required to make the paper shiney and white reduces the number of times it can be recycled, shortening its useful life. Second, to have recycled paper, new paper must be put into the loop. Without new paper, recycled paper does not exist.

So what about recycling computers and the like? We all feel quite happy when we drop them off at the designated location, but what happens to them after we leave them by the wayside? Some end up in landfills. Worse, large amounts end up on the shores of a Third World country, dismantled by children. We, in our comfortable First World seats, should be outraged that children handle our toxic waste to earn a subsistence living. The plethora of electronic devices available combined with the constant pressure to have the latest and greatest makes a bad situation worse.

Trees are a renewable resource. Managed responsibly, trees will be around long after oil, coal and natural gas are gone.

So, is digital truly green?