03.30.05
Posted in General at 1:17 am by Clay
Those of you who know me are almost certainly aware of my copyright and patent law concerns. You’re probably also aware of Grokster v. MGM, which the Supreme Court has the chance to decide between allowing the existence of technology that pirates use excessively or allowing large(as they have to be able to afford lawyers) content-owning studios to have the right to shut down any technology they believe has heavily used illegal uses.
At this point, I don’t feel inclined to get into exactly why it’s a bad idea to give self-interested parties a veto power over technology(although I would like to point out that the VCR, iPod, most computers, player pianos, video renting a la Blockbuster, and a whole host of other technologies would not be legal(or at least extant) if subjected to the sorts of rules and regulations that the RIAA and MPAA want to be put on P2P software.). I think Lawrence Lessig can do a better job of that than I could(although I’d suggest you ignore his liberal streak, as this is an issue that appeals to all sides for different reasons.).
What I’d like to point out is that the music I listen to most is stuff that I would not have been exposed to without a modem(as I was first exposed when I called BBSs back in the early 90s. Try telnetting stormbbs.thebbs.org for a trip down my memory lane.), would not be able to easily appreciate without the internet(namely Nectarine), could not easily buy CDs of my favorite artists.
What’s my point in all of this? The music I want I’ve been downloading for free for years, with the artists’ blessing. Which means that there will be absolutely, positively, in no way, shape, or form, a world that has less creativity than it had before. It’s already pretty obvious that the Internet has greatly expanded the choices of music that we have. So, all the music studios do is a bit of content sifting by deciding who to sign.
So, please, help a poor musician out by boycotting the RIAA and buying a CD through CD Baby, and entirely ignore shortsighted arguments like those the New York Times makes with statements like, “individual creators of music … who need to keep getting paid if they are going to keep creating.”
Permalink
03.25.05
Posted in General at 10:15 pm by Clay
I’m oftentimes a realist. I believe that policy should be aimed towards what works, rather than what we’d like to have work. Thus my like for Israel’s wall, as it seems to be effective at stopping terrorism. It also explains my dislike of Clinton’s foreign policy towards North Korea, as we continually gave them stuff in exchange for the promise to behave better, while knowing that they’ve continually violated those agreements.
Now, Terri Schiavo. Do I think they should reinsert the feeding tube? Do I think the husband is a screwed-up money-grubbing slimeball? Do I think the parents would have given up long ago if there was such a huge media outcry?
I don’t know. Frankly, I don’t care.
Why? Because, absolute, best-case, miracle scenario is that Terri Schiavo becomes a moderately-retarded person who is able to feed herself. And along with this best-case scenario, we’ve used hundreds of thousands of dollars(just a guess, mind you. It could reasonably be millions, all depending how you count.), sucked Medicare for all it’s worth, caused large protests, held a congressional session(with requisite plane flights back to D.C.), and received, what, in return?
As far as I can tell, it’s a legal dispute about whether or not the wishes of the parents can override the wishes of the husband in a case where the wishes of the disabled are not clear. It’s also a bit of a proxy fight over where life begins and ends, but few are suggesting that we force all people to have feeding tubes inserted if doing so would keep them alive. So the legal ramifications seem to be pretty small.
Considering that, why does anyone care? We don’t care about the Africans, and I’m certain we could spend 50K and likely save a few children from dying from the HIV they contracted from their mothers. Are they undeserving?
We could spend the money and time on the Red Cross, and likely save the life of a person who would not spend the rest of their life needing constant care. Is the Red Cross undeserving?
While helping people who can benefit from help is a good thing, it’s not my point. My point is that if we want to actually help people and save lives, helping Terri Schiavo is not the way to go about doing so.
Can’t we all just go back to arguing about Social Security and Abortion? Couldn’t we just leave Michael Jackson, Terri Schiavo, and the other unimportant but evidently highly-newsworthy people for People magazine?
Permalink