i just discovered stefan g bucher's 'daily monster' site, and it is premium. read about his involvement in the new 826LA. I'm a big fan of the whole mcsweeny's/826 scene and hope to volunteer at 826MI in ann arbor soon... i encourage everyone to get into this fine writing soon.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
local food politics
its sad how much news there is about local food and how little difference it seems to make... some good articles from the new york times:
The Vegetable-Industrial Complex
My Forbidden Fruits (and Vegetables)
enjoywhy isn't intellectual 'property' taxed?
some intellectual property borrowed from the LA Times:
Copyright This
Intellectual property’s social value may trump copyright law.
By Dallas Weaver
February 20, 2008
Jon Healey correctly points out that the debate over intellectual-property theft is complex because we are often dealing with "non-real properties." These properties cost nearly nothing to produce, and an infinite number of people can use the same property at the same time. And yet, we still want to treat them as if they were "real" property.
Significantly, some of these non-real properties have major effects on human welfare. Take, for example, the formula for "oral rehydration therapy," a mixture of salt, sugar and water. Although it could potentially be copyrighted, it has saved more lives in the Third World than almost anything else. The world is lucky that this formula is in the public domain, not copyrighted and subject to use charges that people who need it couldn't afford.
The present system treats these copyrighted works as a funny kind of real property with no carrying costs, taxes or significant fees. Without carrying costs, copyrights remain in force almost forever - even though, over time, the demand for the copyrighted material can fall to almost nothing. As the demand decreases, the value may remain, but it becomes effectively unavailable to, as the Constitution puts it, "promote the progress of science and useful arts." Witness all the copyrighted books, scientific journals, audio works and visual works that are out of print or otherwise unavailable because copyright law prevents the new, low-cost methods of distribution from being utilized.
In the scientific field, this has devastating effects on the advancement of human knowledge - which is just the opposite of the intent of copyright law.
As a member of a scientific journal's editorial board - and as a senior citizen - I see reams of manuscripts that just reinvent the wheel. Because the whole scientific enterprise has become so complex that non-electronic research is effectively impossible, many young scientists don't know and can't find out what has already been done from older, copyrighted, paper-based literature. This results in a huge waste of resources. The same can be said for copyrights in creative areas such as music and writing, in which older works with limited distribution could be built upon to "promote the progress of science and useful arts."
A solution to determining which works are in the "Mickey Mouse" category of copyrights and which are in the more socially valuable "oral rehydration therapy" class of work is not feasible for a government bureaucracy. However, if all copyrights were taxed at a fixed (but significant) amount per year to maintain the copyright (all registered through the copyright office and searchable), there would be a significant carrying cost and most of the copyrighted material would revert to "public domain" and become available to "promote the progress of science and useful arts." As intellectual property and copyrights become an even more significant part of our economy, and as copyright holders (not necessarily the creators) make claims of "stealing" as though it is real property, it should be taxed. Relative to copyrights' significance in our economy, the amount of revenue from this source should be in the hundreds of billions of dollars per year.
With a proper tax system, publishers like the L.A. Times or scientific journals may maintain a copyright for only a year or so before letting the content revert to public domain and letting Google and everyone else utilize the material for its small, but socially significant, remaining value. The human enterprise could continue to build on itself in these creative, sustainable and non-resource-consuming ways, with copyrights only applying to a small subset of this enterprise.
It should also be noted that some of the most valuable and significant intellectual property and creative works can't be copyrighted. For example, Mickey Mouse is copyrighted, but E=MC2 could not have been. Which was truly the more significant creative work?
Dallas Weaver is a scientist and consultant.
Copyright This
Intellectual property’s social value may trump copyright law.
By Dallas Weaver
February 20, 2008
Jon Healey correctly points out that the debate over intellectual-property theft is complex because we are often dealing with "non-real properties." These properties cost nearly nothing to produce, and an infinite number of people can use the same property at the same time. And yet, we still want to treat them as if they were "real" property.
Significantly, some of these non-real properties have major effects on human welfare. Take, for example, the formula for "oral rehydration therapy," a mixture of salt, sugar and water. Although it could potentially be copyrighted, it has saved more lives in the Third World than almost anything else. The world is lucky that this formula is in the public domain, not copyrighted and subject to use charges that people who need it couldn't afford.
The present system treats these copyrighted works as a funny kind of real property with no carrying costs, taxes or significant fees. Without carrying costs, copyrights remain in force almost forever - even though, over time, the demand for the copyrighted material can fall to almost nothing. As the demand decreases, the value may remain, but it becomes effectively unavailable to, as the Constitution puts it, "promote the progress of science and useful arts." Witness all the copyrighted books, scientific journals, audio works and visual works that are out of print or otherwise unavailable because copyright law prevents the new, low-cost methods of distribution from being utilized.
In the scientific field, this has devastating effects on the advancement of human knowledge - which is just the opposite of the intent of copyright law.
As a member of a scientific journal's editorial board - and as a senior citizen - I see reams of manuscripts that just reinvent the wheel. Because the whole scientific enterprise has become so complex that non-electronic research is effectively impossible, many young scientists don't know and can't find out what has already been done from older, copyrighted, paper-based literature. This results in a huge waste of resources. The same can be said for copyrights in creative areas such as music and writing, in which older works with limited distribution could be built upon to "promote the progress of science and useful arts."
A solution to determining which works are in the "Mickey Mouse" category of copyrights and which are in the more socially valuable "oral rehydration therapy" class of work is not feasible for a government bureaucracy. However, if all copyrights were taxed at a fixed (but significant) amount per year to maintain the copyright (all registered through the copyright office and searchable), there would be a significant carrying cost and most of the copyrighted material would revert to "public domain" and become available to "promote the progress of science and useful arts." As intellectual property and copyrights become an even more significant part of our economy, and as copyright holders (not necessarily the creators) make claims of "stealing" as though it is real property, it should be taxed. Relative to copyrights' significance in our economy, the amount of revenue from this source should be in the hundreds of billions of dollars per year.
With a proper tax system, publishers like the L.A. Times or scientific journals may maintain a copyright for only a year or so before letting the content revert to public domain and letting Google and everyone else utilize the material for its small, but socially significant, remaining value. The human enterprise could continue to build on itself in these creative, sustainable and non-resource-consuming ways, with copyrights only applying to a small subset of this enterprise.
It should also be noted that some of the most valuable and significant intellectual property and creative works can't be copyrighted. For example, Mickey Mouse is copyrighted, but E=MC2 could not have been. Which was truly the more significant creative work?
Dallas Weaver is a scientist and consultant.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Monday, January 21, 2008
renews my interest in putting my sabot where it doesn't belong
I found this through my international law class and i find it amazing the CIA would distribute this. The whole contra thing is amazing... how did these people not get hung as war criminals? How can people still dig Reagan after our involvement in Nicaragua? I mean, I like this pamphlet, but I'm also a radical. But America, this bastion of democracy, would encourage sabotage as a means of political change is disappointing. After all the effort these people put into destroying a non-existent communist threat, how does the public trust them when they talk about the 'threat from islamo-fascists!'? Anywho, more about it on the wiki, and while you're there check out this documentary i have yet to watch but fully plan on doing soon...
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Forget oil, the new global crisis is food
The financial post has an insightful article on the coming food crisis. I personally welcome the change and hope it will drive consumers to be more responsible in their eating. It boggles my mind that so many people "just have to" live in the suburbs and have a yard, just for the pleasure of spraying it in chemicals and mowing it with a dirty two stroke lawnmower. Last year i bought a dirty two stroke rototiller and used it to tear up the lawn and plant vegetables. I had about a hundred and forty plants, many of them growing bigger than i could have imagined. I had to give food away to my friends and have slow food potluck\cookout\dinner parties just to try and use most of it. I do feel bad for people that don't have yards to grow their own produce, but they should look to community gardening. I'm (hopefully) starting a community gardening class soon, so i'm sure i'll have more to say on this...
Exaltation where exlatation is do
I'd like to say, I'm a huge admirer of the European Union and the entire concept of an international bloc of culturally and geographically linked nation-states working together in a world too often dominated by poorly run superpowers (basically the United States, but I do believe more shall join the ranks soon enough i.e. China and India). Furthermore, they're way ahead of all others on establishing legislation is ensure sustainability for themselves. For example, the bloc is on top of encouraging the development of alternative energy sources, for which they have set themselves benchmark goals to achieve implementing. To this end they've held true, with the proposal to pass legislation making sure that bio-fuels that are imported to the EU are created in an ecologically beneficial fashion only. This is in advance of even minimal exploration of this by the American government or the new rising economic players. Seeing a potentially helpful technology in their fight against climate change; they've taken steps to see that it isn't misused or misrepresented as it all too often is by proponents of bio-fuels like BP or farming groups, that are looking for profits over results. This is a laudable objective of governments to take. Even though it still has a way to go, just the mere fact that is considered in the open discourse of the union is fantastically beyond most everywhere else. I truly hope that the laws come to be enforced to their proper ends.
Another awesome feature that has been applied in the EU that I think could be learned from is the Schengen Agreement. This is basically a treaty that allows for citizens of member nations to travel about all member nations more easily, without the need for border checking (though this isn't one hundred percent true, but way more so than other places). This eased the restrictions of trade and economic co-operation of the members, as well as surely reducing the cost of having to maintain border stations. The opposite trend is happening in the United States however, with the move towards requiring passports for even Canadian border stops for American and Canadian citizens. Personally, being born and raised extremely close to the US-Canada border, this is a hassle that many citizens that don't need to cross the border will just not see as necessary, only hurting the mutually beneficial trade of the countries. Not to say many won't get passports that did not own them, but there will be a sizable amount that consider the extra cost a luxury they aren't lining up to spend their money and time on. In addition, this rule as been delay many times, perhaps due to the governments sluggish pace to ready themselves to the conversion or fears of the economic repercussions. Maybe it is the Bush administration's rhetoric to secure the nation that drives this; seeing that they certainly aren't holding to this very well with other ideas (namely Iraq). Yet this can't be the best answer, an alternative plan might be found in strengthening relations with the Canadian government on this issue. Naturally, if the Canadians have a secure border and the US does as well, then it will be a homogeneous unit that shall not necessitate increasingly restrictive policies for traveling between the two. Being the United States' largest trade partner, damaging commercial links with Canada seems generally unhelpful for the declining economy in America. What is most paradoxical to me is the way both presidents of recent times have so strongly supported free trade agreements, yet this seems in staunch opposition to such ideals. I'm no fan of free trade treaties, but this just doesn't add up in my mind.
Another awesome feature that has been applied in the EU that I think could be learned from is the Schengen Agreement. This is basically a treaty that allows for citizens of member nations to travel about all member nations more easily, without the need for border checking (though this isn't one hundred percent true, but way more so than other places). This eased the restrictions of trade and economic co-operation of the members, as well as surely reducing the cost of having to maintain border stations. The opposite trend is happening in the United States however, with the move towards requiring passports for even Canadian border stops for American and Canadian citizens. Personally, being born and raised extremely close to the US-Canada border, this is a hassle that many citizens that don't need to cross the border will just not see as necessary, only hurting the mutually beneficial trade of the countries. Not to say many won't get passports that did not own them, but there will be a sizable amount that consider the extra cost a luxury they aren't lining up to spend their money and time on. In addition, this rule as been delay many times, perhaps due to the governments sluggish pace to ready themselves to the conversion or fears of the economic repercussions. Maybe it is the Bush administration's rhetoric to secure the nation that drives this; seeing that they certainly aren't holding to this very well with other ideas (namely Iraq). Yet this can't be the best answer, an alternative plan might be found in strengthening relations with the Canadian government on this issue. Naturally, if the Canadians have a secure border and the US does as well, then it will be a homogeneous unit that shall not necessitate increasingly restrictive policies for traveling between the two. Being the United States' largest trade partner, damaging commercial links with Canada seems generally unhelpful for the declining economy in America. What is most paradoxical to me is the way both presidents of recent times have so strongly supported free trade agreements, yet this seems in staunch opposition to such ideals. I'm no fan of free trade treaties, but this just doesn't add up in my mind.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Don't end up like Ffirth
Some people might have seen the link on wikipedia to a fella named Stubbins Ffirth. I think his story is a good illustration of many people's fears. Now, this guy thought it was the shit at medical science, moreover he seemed to have a taste for theatrics. To set his stage, this was a time, late 18th and early 19th centuries, when they were none too sure how yellow fever worked in his day, but they sure as hell knew it was killing a bunch of folks. Anyhow, our man Ffirth was only a trainee doctor, but being a hot shot decided he'd test his theory that yellow fever was non-contagious on himself. To this end, Firth did a great many things to himself involving the vomit of diseased patients, as well as their urine, blood and saliva. He went so far as to eat the vomit to show that the disease wasn't able to spread from person to person. Although certianly putting on a flamboyant spectacle for his contemporaries, he was wrong. As a Cuban would prove later, mosquitoes were the cause of the disease's rapid spread in the summer months. So, as funny as it may seem to us, he spent part of his short life (a mere 36 years) eating the vomit of the diseased to prove a something that in the end was false. Luckily the mosquito link wasn't discovered for decades after his death, otherwise that's be really embarrassing.
However, my point is that, even if you or I don't go so far as to eat the bodily fluids of others, not to mention the sick, we still could devote our lives to something that is rather meaningless in the end despite its appearance otherwise in the present. It's a very scary fact to face up to for me at times, but I suppose there is little less anyone can do but try. And Ffirth did plenty of that, we all must admit.
However, my point is that, even if you or I don't go so far as to eat the bodily fluids of others, not to mention the sick, we still could devote our lives to something that is rather meaningless in the end despite its appearance otherwise in the present. It's a very scary fact to face up to for me at times, but I suppose there is little less anyone can do but try. And Ffirth did plenty of that, we all must admit.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
seriously people...
"This chart depicts the public acceptance of evolution theory in 34 countries in 2005. Adults were asked to respond to the statement: "Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals." The percentage of respondents who believed this to be true is marked in blue; those who believed it to be false, in red; and those who were not sure, in yellow.
A study of several such surveys taken since 1985 has found that the United States ranks next to last in acceptance of evolution theory among nations polled. Researchers point out that the number of Americans who are uncertain about the theory's validity has increased over the past 20 years."
the world’s nicest social-housing complex?
deputydog has a nice post on alt-erlaa, a public housing complex in vienna. extra premium. i don't have any clever insights to add, just a renewed hope for the world...
Saturday, January 5, 2008
There are some lucky bastards yet!
Sometimes there is so much bad news aloof that one is amazed to see a fella get a break of luck. Like Voltaire wrote in Candide, everyone thinks they've got the worst lot in life. I feel that I've escaped the worst, and I wish I could say everyone would be able to feel like that, but it simply isn't true. Some people get breaks, others get something horrible. To contrast, one man fell 500 feet to the ground and survived. Unfortunately his brother did not make it, falling as the same time, but I mean his family suffered only half the losses it rightfully could've. Yet I'm also going to recommend a book I'm still in the process of reading, I'm over half way though. It's gripping enough that I believe I should tell people about it as soon as I can. The book is entitled What Is the What and it covers the fictionalized, but reality-based life of a Sudanese refugee. The author, Dave Eggers, using the outline of a man named Valentino Achak Deng's life to create a story to tell of the hardships and complexities of being a child unlucky enough to have been born in a time and place of warfare. It really makes anyone that has half a heart think about how much they've gotten just have birth. Even though events in this book are fictional is nature, they are things that very well could have happened to people, and many times did, just not in the exact order or fashion that Eggers put in. It is like a Candide for children of the Sudan, and compelling and encompassing tale that explains their point of view.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
