In 1997, General Motors released the car of the future – a sleek, electrically powered car that drivers loved – the EV1. Twelve years later, nothing of the sort seems to exist. What happened?
This is the question posed by the 2006 documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?" The film celebrates the creation of the EV 1, a zero-emissions two-seater sedan that could run for 125 miles on a single charge and was enjoyed by the likes of Tom Hanks and Mel Gibson during its test run in California. More importantly though, this documentary raises the question of just why, after spending over a billion dollars on development, GM had its prototypes recalled from drivers and literally smashed to pieces in secluded locations. While the company claims to have pulled them from roads to ensure driver safety, many believe that its true motive was to appease big oil companies while attempting to keep anyone else from using their design. Helicopter footage of the crushed and well-hidden EV1 corpses in the movie (played to sentimental music) certainly seems to suggest that there is some truth to this "conspiracy theory."
GM's justification for discontinuing the project, according to company spokesman Dave Barthmuss, is that the car only appealed to a small number of drivers. He says that GM needs "extremely large numbers" to survive, and that after California repealed their zero-emissions standards, the company had no choice but to cut their losses on the project.
In class, we discussed the fact that in order to see widespread popularity, the electric car would need extensive infrastructure comparable to the vast number of locations at which fossil fuels are currently available. Oil companies and their buyers, however, simply aren't interested in cutting their profits by providing a cheaper fuel solution for drivers. Furthermore, other alternative fuels such as corn-based ethanol have failed due to their extreme inefficiency of production (in terms of energy) as well as the fact that they actually pollute the air more than do conventional fossil fuels.
After seeing an excerpt of the documentary in class, I am tempted say that electric cars are or should be the future and that all it will take is a society willing to pull it through. This may not be true, however, because there are other problems associated with battery-powered cars that could prove difficult to solve. For example, it could take hours to charge a battery at a filling station; for some of us Americans, the five minutes it takes to get gas can seem like an inconvenience as it is. One possible alternative, which I saw proposed on a Yahoo! Answers forum, would be to swap used batteries for fully charged ones at the station. This, however, does not take into account that any used battery will have a lower capacity than a new one based on how old it is or how many charge cycles it has been through. Also, different battery types may not be compatible between cars. Perhaps multiple batteries could be privately owned and alternated between charges, but such a task could prove daunting due to the sheer size and weight of the batteries involved. Even with all of these problems, though, I would feel better if I thought anyone was really working on solving them!
-JMA
[source article]
Friday, February 27, 2009
Should we really recycle?
Should we really recycle?
Everyone raves about the benefits of recycling but what are the hidden costs. Do the benefits of recycling outweigh the costs? Recycling paper, plastic, and metal products have a very complex process to separate the non-recyclable components. Many components that went into making the products must be separated in order to get the paper, plastic, or metal back in its original form to use, some of which can be quite toxic. Many water and air pollutants are emitted during these processes and the plants do not sometimes monitor these emissions levels. There have been two instances where recycling plants have been fined for not properly monitoring the emissions that are harmful to the environment. Environmental officials found that a battery recycling plant in California was leaking lead from processing batteries. Then another plant in New Jersey was fined for not continuously monitoring the emissions levels. If these plants keep running in this manner then it would not be worth it to recycle these items if the costs are so high. Also the process to remove the inks from paper to recycle it can also be quite harmful to the environment. Pollutants called effluents are emitted. Thus, there are also risks associated with recycling.
Some people also argue that new trees are planted when old ones are cut down to produce the paper. Tree farms are created for the sole purpose to be cut down for paper. Thus, tree population is replenished. Thus, we must look at both sides before jumping to conclusions that recycling is the best method to help save the environment. Reduction of consumption is the best way so less is produced and less pollution is emitted.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2007/10/recycling_plant_fined_for_not.html
http://www.letsrecycle.com/do/ecco.py/view_item?listid=37&listcatid=217&listitemid=9414
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/paper_recycling.html
http://www.ecology.com/features/paperchase/
Everyone raves about the benefits of recycling but what are the hidden costs. Do the benefits of recycling outweigh the costs? Recycling paper, plastic, and metal products have a very complex process to separate the non-recyclable components. Many components that went into making the products must be separated in order to get the paper, plastic, or metal back in its original form to use, some of which can be quite toxic. Many water and air pollutants are emitted during these processes and the plants do not sometimes monitor these emissions levels. There have been two instances where recycling plants have been fined for not properly monitoring the emissions that are harmful to the environment. Environmental officials found that a battery recycling plant in California was leaking lead from processing batteries. Then another plant in New Jersey was fined for not continuously monitoring the emissions levels. If these plants keep running in this manner then it would not be worth it to recycle these items if the costs are so high. Also the process to remove the inks from paper to recycle it can also be quite harmful to the environment. Pollutants called effluents are emitted. Thus, there are also risks associated with recycling.
Some people also argue that new trees are planted when old ones are cut down to produce the paper. Tree farms are created for the sole purpose to be cut down for paper. Thus, tree population is replenished. Thus, we must look at both sides before jumping to conclusions that recycling is the best method to help save the environment. Reduction of consumption is the best way so less is produced and less pollution is emitted.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2007/10/recycling_plant_fined_for_not.html
http://www.letsrecycle.com/do/ecco.py/view_item?listid=37&listcatid=217&listitemid=9414
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/paper_recycling.html
http://www.ecology.com/features/paperchase/
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
INFINITE APPROPRIATION
The “The Story of Stuff” with Annie Leonard describes the capitalist system of production and consumption. Although it seemed as though much of the class did not like this film, I did enjoy it. The film was broad and simplified the reality of the capitalist process, yet for someone like me, with minimal previous knowledge of how the system works, I found it helpful as an introduction to the ethics/politics/economics unit.
In “The Story of Stuff” Annie Leonard discusses how within the capitalist system there are things called perceived obsolescence and planned obsolescence. Perceived obsolescence is basically (at least as described in the film as) “what’s in”, like fashion. In America and other capitalist systems, as Leonard suggests, citizens are extremely obsessed with “what’s in” or “what’s hot”. I am definitely a victim of perceived obsolescence in that every year I go though my closet and throw out clothing that I would no longer wear, yet realistically and physically still could. Planned obsolescence, on the other hand, is when companies and businesses, such as computer companies, purposefully produce their computers to have short life expectancies or to be unreliable to ensure that their customers will continue to rely on them (kind of ironic). These forms of obsolescence contribute to what Professor Perry termed in class as “infinite appropriation by capitalism”, in which money produces commodities which in turn create more money (M --> C --> M’). The discussion in class was whether or not this infinite appropriation which defines America occurs by capitalism or by human nature. It definitely appears as though the economic cycle within we are trapped contributes to this infinite appropriation, but perhaps “infinite appropriation by capitalism” and “infinite appropriation by nature” do not have to be completely exclusive. Perhaps it is our human nature to continuously consume, and thus our economic system, which we created and “bought into”, is just evidence of this tendency. AND/ OR our economic dependency on consumption is slowly beginning to define our culture, and thus our human nature (which could be continuously changing).
In “The Story of Stuff” Annie Leonard discusses how within the capitalist system there are things called perceived obsolescence and planned obsolescence. Perceived obsolescence is basically (at least as described in the film as) “what’s in”, like fashion. In America and other capitalist systems, as Leonard suggests, citizens are extremely obsessed with “what’s in” or “what’s hot”. I am definitely a victim of perceived obsolescence in that every year I go though my closet and throw out clothing that I would no longer wear, yet realistically and physically still could. Planned obsolescence, on the other hand, is when companies and businesses, such as computer companies, purposefully produce their computers to have short life expectancies or to be unreliable to ensure that their customers will continue to rely on them (kind of ironic). These forms of obsolescence contribute to what Professor Perry termed in class as “infinite appropriation by capitalism”, in which money produces commodities which in turn create more money (M --> C --> M’). The discussion in class was whether or not this infinite appropriation which defines America occurs by capitalism or by human nature. It definitely appears as though the economic cycle within we are trapped contributes to this infinite appropriation, but perhaps “infinite appropriation by capitalism” and “infinite appropriation by nature” do not have to be completely exclusive. Perhaps it is our human nature to continuously consume, and thus our economic system, which we created and “bought into”, is just evidence of this tendency. AND/ OR our economic dependency on consumption is slowly beginning to define our culture, and thus our human nature (which could be continuously changing).
Monday, February 16, 2009
"Intrinsic Goods"
In Hull’s Chapter II: Philosophical Ethics, he discusses something called an “intrinsic good”, something that is good in itself, good for all people at all times, and that does not require justification by other things. Hull’s example of an “intrinsic good” in the reading was sleep. In class, it was thoroughly discussed what other “intrinsic goods” might be (i.e. happiness and love). It was determined however that neither of these goods are intrinsic because they are emotions are thus are not always good for all people. For instance, what is good for me and what makes me happy may be hurtful or harmful to others. My interpretation of an “intrinsic good”, based on Hull’s example of sleep, is something which is physically necessary for the survival of an individual, for instance physical health.
In the handout we received on Thursday, Professor Perry writes, “Those who claim to have access to the one and only ‘intrinsic good’ are simply denying the fact of pluralism.” But, if one interprets “intrinsic goods”, like I have, as “the things we have in common”, which are also discussed in the handout, then perhaps pluralism and “intrinsic goods” can go hand in hand. With this argument, I would say that there is not one and only “intrinsic good” but many. They are the things we have in common (like food, shelter, and physical health as discussed). But what is necessary to acknowledge is that the means of obtaining an “intrinsic good” is still based on ethical judgments – the “instrumental goods”. No one can argue that a physical need isn’t a positive thing (the act of needing is not necessarily good, but the actual necessities are), and thus those “intrinsic goods” are positive for all people at all times. The means of obtaining that good, that necessity is, what I would argue is, the “instrumental good”, and it is not necessarily good at all times. That is where ethical judgment comes into play. For example getting “hot and heavy” (as put in the handout) is an “intrinsic good”. Rape, the “instrumental good”, however is not ethically justifiable.
In the handout we received on Thursday, Professor Perry writes, “Those who claim to have access to the one and only ‘intrinsic good’ are simply denying the fact of pluralism.” But, if one interprets “intrinsic goods”, like I have, as “the things we have in common”, which are also discussed in the handout, then perhaps pluralism and “intrinsic goods” can go hand in hand. With this argument, I would say that there is not one and only “intrinsic good” but many. They are the things we have in common (like food, shelter, and physical health as discussed). But what is necessary to acknowledge is that the means of obtaining an “intrinsic good” is still based on ethical judgments – the “instrumental goods”. No one can argue that a physical need isn’t a positive thing (the act of needing is not necessarily good, but the actual necessities are), and thus those “intrinsic goods” are positive for all people at all times. The means of obtaining that good, that necessity is, what I would argue is, the “instrumental good”, and it is not necessarily good at all times. That is where ethical judgment comes into play. For example getting “hot and heavy” (as put in the handout) is an “intrinsic good”. Rape, the “instrumental good”, however is not ethically justifiable.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Rights vs Ethics
Rights vs Ethics
This country is built upon the idea of freedom and protection of the rights that we have established through the bill of rights and constitution that our founding fathers drafted. However, how far should we go to protect these rights if they interfere with the beliefs of others? The most important right that some believe we have is the freedom of speech, which also includes expression. Some people wish to express themselves in a pornographic manner or write hateful things on the internet through personal websites or blogs. These people have the right to express themselves in this manner, but how much censorship is needed to protect others’ values without affecting the rights of those who produce this material. If measures are taken to remove these sites then it is an infringement on the rights. Even though there are age restrictions, children are just one click away from accessing these sites. It is not hard to click on the button that says you are 18. There are a wide variety of these sites and so many of them that if one is shut down 20 more will open up under a different name. There really seems like there is no way to control this expression while protecting the rights of expression even if this expression may be unethical. Even though some people may think that it is unethical to put up these website people do have a right to have these sites.
-TBC
This country is built upon the idea of freedom and protection of the rights that we have established through the bill of rights and constitution that our founding fathers drafted. However, how far should we go to protect these rights if they interfere with the beliefs of others? The most important right that some believe we have is the freedom of speech, which also includes expression. Some people wish to express themselves in a pornographic manner or write hateful things on the internet through personal websites or blogs. These people have the right to express themselves in this manner, but how much censorship is needed to protect others’ values without affecting the rights of those who produce this material. If measures are taken to remove these sites then it is an infringement on the rights. Even though there are age restrictions, children are just one click away from accessing these sites. It is not hard to click on the button that says you are 18. There are a wide variety of these sites and so many of them that if one is shut down 20 more will open up under a different name. There really seems like there is no way to control this expression while protecting the rights of expression even if this expression may be unethical. Even though some people may think that it is unethical to put up these website people do have a right to have these sites.
-TBC
Personal Responsibility
In recent class discussions, and according to recent class materials, there are a plethora of issues associated with American consumerism. Charges against America include exploitation of resources, externalized costs, and blatant disregard for the well-being of foreign peoples harmed b the creation or disposal of American goods.
These may be legitimate problems, yet I take issue with such sensationalist reporting as Annie Leonard’s video. When Leonard leveled her charges, she pointed the finger of blame at the government. While the government may have some harmful policies, Leonard fails to apply blame where it would have done the most good.
Leonard paints the American government as an evil capitalist machine that is taking advantage of the American people. Leonard depicts a vicious cycle in which advertisers force the American people to buy more products by making them think that their stuff is inferior. However, no one is forcing Americans to buy. Leonard turns the American public into victims, but are we really?
Leonard’s video is just another step in the quest to take personal responsibility away from the American public. But here, personal responsibility would probably be more constructive than victimization. Leonard should have charged the American public to be more careful in their consumption. Rather than relying on the government to fix everything, Americans should research the products they buy, and only buy those that were made ethically, thereby reducing demand for mass produced exploitative products. Americans have the power to force corporations to be more ethical in their treatment of foreign commodities. Frankly, Leonard’s victimization of Americans is insulting and pointless.
-JB
These may be legitimate problems, yet I take issue with such sensationalist reporting as Annie Leonard’s video. When Leonard leveled her charges, she pointed the finger of blame at the government. While the government may have some harmful policies, Leonard fails to apply blame where it would have done the most good.
Leonard paints the American government as an evil capitalist machine that is taking advantage of the American people. Leonard depicts a vicious cycle in which advertisers force the American people to buy more products by making them think that their stuff is inferior. However, no one is forcing Americans to buy. Leonard turns the American public into victims, but are we really?
Leonard’s video is just another step in the quest to take personal responsibility away from the American public. But here, personal responsibility would probably be more constructive than victimization. Leonard should have charged the American public to be more careful in their consumption. Rather than relying on the government to fix everything, Americans should research the products they buy, and only buy those that were made ethically, thereby reducing demand for mass produced exploitative products. Americans have the power to force corporations to be more ethical in their treatment of foreign commodities. Frankly, Leonard’s victimization of Americans is insulting and pointless.
-JB
The Future of the Internet
Jonathan Zittrain is a professor of Internet Governance at Oxford University. Recently he wrote a book, The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It, describing the uncertain future of the internet. In April, he sat down for an interesting and entertaining interview with Brooke Gladstone.
In the interview, Zittrain explains his apprehension towards the future of the internet. He believes that the wicked use of the internet over the past decade has drastically threatened the internet’s fate. In other words, people who are using the internet for malicious intent could cause a chain reaction that would create over protective security measures that stifle the internet. This stifling would result in an impediment on the way people use the internet to create and invent. Zittrain also believe we are at a crossroads of sorts, “One is tethered to a central brain and barricaded, like the IBM mainframes of old. The other path is the unbounded Internet we have now… that allows everyone to tinker… unimpeded.”
Like Zittrain, I think that the openness of internet should be preserved in order to uphold its beneficial properties that promote the creativity of the everyday person. And although this openness could result in more identity thefts and computer viruses, it is worth it. Not only is it worth it, but there are many ways to help prevent malicious intent in a manner which would not “stifle” the internet in any means. For instance, in the interview Zittrain discusses Butler Lamson’s red machine and green machine idea. Lamson has created a system where 2 virtual pc’s sit inside one computer. One of the virtual pc's inside of the computer, the green zone could be used for all of one’s important data like financials and term papers. And with a flip of a switch, the computer could change to the red zone where one could “preserve the experimental spirit” of the internet. If the red zone becomes compromised, it can be erased and rebooted with no harm done to anything involved with the green zone. It is important that this idea and others like it be promoted and developed to ensure the everlasting openness of the internet. Without them, we could end up with overprotective measures which lead us down the wrong path of the crossroads we now face.
In the interview, Zittrain explains his apprehension towards the future of the internet. He believes that the wicked use of the internet over the past decade has drastically threatened the internet’s fate. In other words, people who are using the internet for malicious intent could cause a chain reaction that would create over protective security measures that stifle the internet. This stifling would result in an impediment on the way people use the internet to create and invent. Zittrain also believe we are at a crossroads of sorts, “One is tethered to a central brain and barricaded, like the IBM mainframes of old. The other path is the unbounded Internet we have now… that allows everyone to tinker… unimpeded.”
Like Zittrain, I think that the openness of internet should be preserved in order to uphold its beneficial properties that promote the creativity of the everyday person. And although this openness could result in more identity thefts and computer viruses, it is worth it. Not only is it worth it, but there are many ways to help prevent malicious intent in a manner which would not “stifle” the internet in any means. For instance, in the interview Zittrain discusses Butler Lamson’s red machine and green machine idea. Lamson has created a system where 2 virtual pc’s sit inside one computer. One of the virtual pc's inside of the computer, the green zone could be used for all of one’s important data like financials and term papers. And with a flip of a switch, the computer could change to the red zone where one could “preserve the experimental spirit” of the internet. If the red zone becomes compromised, it can be erased and rebooted with no harm done to anything involved with the green zone. It is important that this idea and others like it be promoted and developed to ensure the everlasting openness of the internet. Without them, we could end up with overprotective measures which lead us down the wrong path of the crossroads we now face.
A Questionable Story of Stuff
After recently viewing Annie Leonard’s video on consumption, entitled “The Story of Stuff,” I was left with mixed emotions. On the one hand, Leonard is working towards a great cause and her central message of changing the way we produce and consume is an important issue. However, her presentation was too over the top and was full of exaggerations and inaccuracies presented as facts.
Although I found several major problems in Leonard’s video, there were two which really stood out to me. The first was the description of her encounter at Radio Shack. She explains that she found a green radio at Radio Shack for $4.99. She then discusses how there was no way $4.99 could represent the costs of all of the materials, transportation, and labor that goes into making a single radio and that the reason the radio was so cheap was that it reflected “externalized costs.” Basically, the radio was cheap because other people were paying for it in various external costs such as the loss of natural resources and children in sweat shop’s loss of their childhood. Forgetting that the cheapest radio available at radio shack stores is $17.59 according to their website, I believe the real reason the supposed $4.99 radio from her story cost so little was because of basic economic principles such as Economies of Scale. More specifically, when you produce millions of a product at once, it is much less expensive than if you produce one at a time, like Leonard made it seem in her video.
The second major issue I had with her video was her idea that the media and advertisements were some sort of “bad guy” out to trick the world into throwing away old products and polluting the earth. According to Leonard, “Commercials say ‘You Suck.’” I personally have never been verbally abused by my television, and in my opinion advertising is a tool used to help market a product and create brand value. This perhaps reflects my underlying problem with “The Story of Stuff.” On multiple occasions Leonard lists her opinions, but never prefaces them with the statement “in my opinion.” Instead she presents them in a way which would make them seem like facts. While I appreciate her efforts to better the world, I wish she would go about it in a different manner.
Although I found several major problems in Leonard’s video, there were two which really stood out to me. The first was the description of her encounter at Radio Shack. She explains that she found a green radio at Radio Shack for $4.99. She then discusses how there was no way $4.99 could represent the costs of all of the materials, transportation, and labor that goes into making a single radio and that the reason the radio was so cheap was that it reflected “externalized costs.” Basically, the radio was cheap because other people were paying for it in various external costs such as the loss of natural resources and children in sweat shop’s loss of their childhood. Forgetting that the cheapest radio available at radio shack stores is $17.59 according to their website, I believe the real reason the supposed $4.99 radio from her story cost so little was because of basic economic principles such as Economies of Scale. More specifically, when you produce millions of a product at once, it is much less expensive than if you produce one at a time, like Leonard made it seem in her video.
The second major issue I had with her video was her idea that the media and advertisements were some sort of “bad guy” out to trick the world into throwing away old products and polluting the earth. According to Leonard, “Commercials say ‘You Suck.’” I personally have never been verbally abused by my television, and in my opinion advertising is a tool used to help market a product and create brand value. This perhaps reflects my underlying problem with “The Story of Stuff.” On multiple occasions Leonard lists her opinions, but never prefaces them with the statement “in my opinion.” Instead she presents them in a way which would make them seem like facts. While I appreciate her efforts to better the world, I wish she would go about it in a different manner.
World Recycling
Only within the past year or so has my family actually been recycling – not very long ago we simply through everything in the dumpster indiscriminately, certainly causing a good deal more waste than we needed to. Why would we do such a thing? Well, because it's more convenient. To toss stuff into a landfill really doesn't cost a thing as far as my parents' checkbook could tell, and it certainly didn't require any additional effort on their part. Perhaps the government could help by giving people incentive to recycle and produce less waste; in many places, this is just what's happening.
In Roncade, Italy, the local government has begun to facilitate recycling to providing each household with five different garbage bins, color-coded for the type of material they are used to dispose of. Most of these bins are for various types of recycling – glass, paper, garden waste, food – but there is one for non-recyclable waste. There is a catch to this fifth container: every time non-recyclable waste is put out, the owner of the bin incurs an additional fee. This system has proven very effective in encouraging recycling, improving recycling rates in the area from 14% to 80% in five years.
A similar system exists in Flanders, Belgium, where each non-recyclable waste bin is equipped with a chip that weighs the garbage and charges its owner accordingly. If the owner has not put forth sufficient funds to pay, the garage bin will not be emptied. Here's another thing: the garbage bin is TINY compared with what most of us have in the US! The "dumpster" actually looks more like a large briefcase. According to Agnus Meeus, a local, "it's a fair system" and has worked better than expected.
In Seoul, South Korea, citizens must purchase each trash bag separately in order to dispose of non-recyclable waste. This has caused recycling rates to double since 1995.
According to recent BBC polls, more than 70% of British men and women believe they should be rewarded financially for wasting less and recycling more, and a smaller majority agrees that those who throw away more should be forced to pay more. Unfortunately, pilot programs for a "pay-as-you throw" scheme have been relatively unsuccessful. Furthermore, as a Conservative party spokesman points out, the loss of weekly garbage collections had led to £213 million rise in "fly-tipping" (illegal trash dumping).
In the US, the city of Seattle has begun to make progress toward sustainability by giving each household three bins for recycling, garden waste, and landfill-bound trash. The size of the third container is optional, however; families save money by producing less garbage and ordering a "small" or "medium" service. Although recycling is free, the other services come together at around $40/mo for a family of four.
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7746001.stm
In Roncade, Italy, the local government has begun to facilitate recycling to providing each household with five different garbage bins, color-coded for the type of material they are used to dispose of. Most of these bins are for various types of recycling – glass, paper, garden waste, food – but there is one for non-recyclable waste. There is a catch to this fifth container: every time non-recyclable waste is put out, the owner of the bin incurs an additional fee. This system has proven very effective in encouraging recycling, improving recycling rates in the area from 14% to 80% in five years.
A similar system exists in Flanders, Belgium, where each non-recyclable waste bin is equipped with a chip that weighs the garbage and charges its owner accordingly. If the owner has not put forth sufficient funds to pay, the garage bin will not be emptied. Here's another thing: the garbage bin is TINY compared with what most of us have in the US! The "dumpster" actually looks more like a large briefcase. According to Agnus Meeus, a local, "it's a fair system" and has worked better than expected.
In Seoul, South Korea, citizens must purchase each trash bag separately in order to dispose of non-recyclable waste. This has caused recycling rates to double since 1995.
According to recent BBC polls, more than 70% of British men and women believe they should be rewarded financially for wasting less and recycling more, and a smaller majority agrees that those who throw away more should be forced to pay more. Unfortunately, pilot programs for a "pay-as-you throw" scheme have been relatively unsuccessful. Furthermore, as a Conservative party spokesman points out, the loss of weekly garbage collections had led to £213 million rise in "fly-tipping" (illegal trash dumping).
In the US, the city of Seattle has begun to make progress toward sustainability by giving each household three bins for recycling, garden waste, and landfill-bound trash. The size of the third container is optional, however; families save money by producing less garbage and ordering a "small" or "medium" service. Although recycling is free, the other services come together at around $40/mo for a family of four.
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7746001.stm
Sunday, February 1, 2009
A Common Theme
A common theme in previous postings on this blog, whether stated explicitly or not, has been the idea we as a society are pretty well trapped in a corrupt, biased, monopolistic and creativity-destroying system held invincible by copyright law. I would like to propose, though, that this is not the case. In class last week, just when we thought all hope was lost, A RAY OF LIGHT SHONE THROUGH THE DARKNESS!
I am speaking of course about the Creative Commons (CC) license. Developed by a nonprofit organization (check it out) as an alternative to standard copyright, creative commons offers at least a partial solution for the problems posed by intellectual property and modern lawmaking practices as has been discussed previously. To put it simply, where copyright (c) says "All Rights Reserved," a Creative Commons (cc) license says "Some Rights Reserved." What does this mean? It means that the author, not the government, is responsible for defining what can or cannot be done with his work. By choosing from a selection of pre-prepared licenses available free of charge from the Creative Commons website, a person may choose (for example) to reserve only the right to profit. This means that anyone can share and distribute and rework the material he has produced as long as that person does not make money off of it.
Some people seem to be under the impression that this sort of license would prevent the artist from making any money off of his work. Basically, there is a nasty rumor going around that once something is marked (cc) the author cannot sell it for profit. This is simply not true, and I would recommend that anyone who has bought into such claims check out what the organization has to say about the stuff they wrote: (click here).
Remember, the (cc) licenses are lawyer friendly AND human friendly. ;)
-JMA
I am speaking of course about the Creative Commons (CC) license. Developed by a nonprofit organization (check it out) as an alternative to standard copyright, creative commons offers at least a partial solution for the problems posed by intellectual property and modern lawmaking practices as has been discussed previously. To put it simply, where copyright (c) says "All Rights Reserved," a Creative Commons (cc) license says "Some Rights Reserved." What does this mean? It means that the author, not the government, is responsible for defining what can or cannot be done with his work. By choosing from a selection of pre-prepared licenses available free of charge from the Creative Commons website, a person may choose (for example) to reserve only the right to profit. This means that anyone can share and distribute and rework the material he has produced as long as that person does not make money off of it.
Some people seem to be under the impression that this sort of license would prevent the artist from making any money off of his work. Basically, there is a nasty rumor going around that once something is marked (cc) the author cannot sell it for profit. This is simply not true, and I would recommend that anyone who has bought into such claims check out what the organization has to say about the stuff they wrote: (click here).
Remember, the (cc) licenses are lawyer friendly AND human friendly. ;)
-JMA
The purpose of record companies
In a previous post, I posed a question. I had wondered why record companies would bother to prosecute individuals who are using their material in such a way that would not detract from their profits. Many who remix or reuse an artist’s work do not provide a suitable alternative to the original work, and should not be considered a threat to the artist. Furthermore, they spend huge amounts of money on legal fees with small hope of return.
I have decided that record companies are focusing on locking up intellectual property in a desperate attempt to keep from becoming obsolete. With the advent of the internet and digital file sharing, the need for and uses of production companies are becoming less. In their struggle to keep control, the record companies must assert their dominance at every chance.
Given internet sites such as facebook and myspace, artists are beginning to promote their work on their own, and can even distribute it using such sites as iTunes. In order to keep their artists, record companies must do things to remind artists of why they exist. The concept of a production company is that they promote and distribute an artist’s work for a cut of the profit. Indeed, they even have rights to the artist’s work. But should artists decide to keep rights to their work, production companies would be out of a job. In order to stay in business, production companies must perform tasks that most artists would not bother with, such as prosecution of every fragmented use of a work.
-JB
I have decided that record companies are focusing on locking up intellectual property in a desperate attempt to keep from becoming obsolete. With the advent of the internet and digital file sharing, the need for and uses of production companies are becoming less. In their struggle to keep control, the record companies must assert their dominance at every chance.
Given internet sites such as facebook and myspace, artists are beginning to promote their work on their own, and can even distribute it using such sites as iTunes. In order to keep their artists, record companies must do things to remind artists of why they exist. The concept of a production company is that they promote and distribute an artist’s work for a cut of the profit. Indeed, they even have rights to the artist’s work. But should artists decide to keep rights to their work, production companies would be out of a job. In order to stay in business, production companies must perform tasks that most artists would not bother with, such as prosecution of every fragmented use of a work.
-JB
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
