Posts Tagged ‘soapbox’

Copyright and you

Monday, April 23rd, 2007

Recently, Scott Adams ((creator of Dilbert)) has begun to raise the issue of online piracy, and generally seems to be against piracy ((

)). Here at The Mill we think that’s a fair stance to take.

Here’s why. Intellectual Property is a funny thing. Not funny ha-ha, but funny in the sense that it’s hard for people to think of ownership over an idea. This problem comes from the ease at which an idea can be transferred much more quickly, through duplication. The creator of the idea hasn’t lost the idea, they still have it, but suddenly they have a competitor that has had no initial production costs, only duplication costs, which are extremely low thanks to the internet and the ease at which digital copies can be made.

That’s not to say we should reduce the ease at which digital copies can be made, or shut down the internet. Let’s say there are two stores next to each other. One sells pirated material and the other sells licensed material, with a portion of the profits going to the original artist. The shop that sells pirated material is able to sell it at a lower cost because their costs per copy are so low. In this case the products are identical. If there was no laws against piracy, the pirated store would clearly be in a better position. Only consumers that are genuinely concerned about the original artist, or who are frightened of pirates are likely to purchase the legitimate copy. Little or no profit makes it back to the artist, so they stop producing the material and get a boring desk job. Pretty soon, it becomes apparent that there is no money in the industry and therefore everything shuts down.

Before attacking this scenario, I admit that I have assumed that the only source of income for the artist is through the sales, which isn’t necessarily always the case, but that doesn’t mean that we can say that the artist isn’t entitled to this source of income. It’s also not supposed to be a real scenario, but simply a tool to show the extreme case of piracy and how it can clearly be detrimental to the original artist.

Some say that licensed material is overpriced. However the price is set by the market and competition needs to come from other artists, not from someone who has no initial production costs. Some would say that the prices are fixed and that collusion between production companies is keeping the price of this material high. It doesn’t change the fact that if you want the material, you need to pay the asking price.Let’s look at this from a different angle. DVDs have compulsory copyright screens and ads that can’t always be skipped to get to the content. As someone who has paid to watch the content, this can get frustrating, especially when the copyright messages are then shown in about a dozen languages. Pirated DVDs are not forced to have these screens. Suddenly pirates are able to produce what is to the end-consumer a better product than that able to be purchased legitimately. As Scott Adams has commented, it is impossible to compete with something that’s free. Surely it must be harder to compete with something that is free and less annoying.

The Internet has torn down the traditional national borders for information. In this context, pirates operate without competition from the original artist. A consumer, eager to see the artist’s latest work may not be able to access it within their country legally, so instead seek out pirates, more than willing to provide the service. In this case, a market exists which is being ignored. Prior to the internet, distributing media worldwide would be costly and stock would often sit in an inventory unsold. With the internet and broadband capabilities, it is now possible to set up a world-wide store without the costs that have been involved previously.

Maybe the author of the original material should have the right to make people in different geographic regions wait. Perhaps this discrimination is okay. However, people are impatient and they will seek out alternatives if they feel they have to.

Whilst I don’t think it should be necessary to compete with pirates on price, it makes business sense to at least compete with them on product functionality and geographic availability. People will continue to get material from pirates, but at least you’ll provide consumers and opportunity to do the right thing, while quenching their information lust.

Carbon Dioxide and you

Friday, April 20th, 2007

Let’s talk more about Carbon Dioxide (CO2) as it is right up there in the leading ingredients for global warming (there are other greenhouse gases such as methane which are even worse). Last weekend I was reading an article in Time discussing how the Academy Awards were offsetting their carbon dioxide emissions by purchasing carbon credits. The author rightfully pointed out that purchasing carbon credits didn’t reduce their individual emissions one bit.

That’s right, purchasing a Carbon Credit will not suddenly make the carbon dioxide you emit disappear. Instead, it guarantees that an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide will not be emitted by providing green power to someone else. Therefore, the net effect worldwide is a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.

Carbon Credits are in no way the final solution to the problem, but rather they act as a catalyst for the change that must occur. They create a market for green power without the complexities of only supplying it to the people willing to pay for it. As this market grows, the green energy companies can take advantage of economies of scale to reduce the overall cost of green power.

Carbon Credits are useful so long as there is energy that can be supplied by renewable sources that would have otherwise have been supplied by carbon dioxide emitting sources. Ideally as renewable power becomes more prevalent, old coal power stations will be closed down.

Anyone can buy a carbon credit. Sites like Climate Friendly (Australian Site) provide tools to help you work out how many carbon credits you need to offset your carbon output. Remember, your carbon output doesn’t change, but you will be sponsoring a reduction of other’s carbon output by the equivalent amount. Virgin Blue has recently announced a plan to allow passengers to offset their carbon dioxide emissions as part of their ticket. Or you can try to go directly to the source with companies like Jack Green which provide power supplied from renewable sources.

The Australian government has unfortunately not yet set targets for carbon dioxide emissions. I can only hope that when the results of the federal task force on carbon emissions are released next month a decision can be made. It is troubling that the government’s plans seems more based on working around the problem, than addressing its root causes with an investment of $170 million being spent on a “Climate Change Adaptation Centre”, tasked with the job of investigating “the effects on coastlines and the atmosphere”. At a guess, recommendations of snorkels for low-lying coastal areas will be the pinnacle of this centre’s achievements. ((PM refuses to set target for carbon emissions – ABC))

Are you a litterbug? Why?

Sunday, March 11th, 2007

Yesterday, The Mill looked into the problem of smoking and possible reasons behind why it is so hard to stop existing smokers and first-time smokers. Today we will into the problem of littering.

This time the problem is caused by a combination of laziness and apathy which continues to plague our society. So I can link this properly with yesterday’s article, let’s discuss the problem of cigarette butt litter. I have recently seen more than one person throw their cigarette butt out of their car window. This made me very angry.

According to Planet Ark 7 billion cigarette butts are littered in Australia each year. That’s just over 2 cigarette butt for every person on the planet. It is also believed that 4,500 bush-fires are started by improper disposal of cigarette butts.

I’m not sure what TV show I heard this from, but I remember hearing that even caged animals are clever enough to do their business in the corner rather than in the middle of their cage. We are living in a much bigger cage and yet we litter our cage with cigarette butts, chip packets and other waste without thought.

The annoying thing about littering is that it is not hard to not do. What is so different about throwing a cigarette butt out the window to dumping toxic waste on the side of the road? Both actions are reckless and in my opinion, border on evil. People should know better, the do know better, but they do it anyway.

Are you a smoker? Why?

Saturday, March 10th, 2007

This is the first in a series of articles on The Mill seeking to investigate the ongoing degradation of human society. Today, we’re targeting smokers and we won’t be holding back.

I can see why people have trouble quitting smoking, and a big kudos to all smokers out there actively trying to quit. An even bigger kudos to smokers who have successfully quit. And the biggest kudos of all to all the non-smokers out there who weren’t stupid enough to start in the first place.

I accept that there was a time when people believed that smoking was safe. There was also a time when people thought the Earth was flat, the Sun orbited the Earth and that left-handed people were evil (the Jury may still be out on that one!). In fact, the people of these times were so stubborn about their beliefs that they would persecute anyone who thought otherwise.

So why wouldn’t people listen to the logic that they were confronted with? Here’s my theory:

Unlike most animals, human beings start with a pretty empty slate. Basically we have to be taught everything. As we are taught we begin to form some strong connections inside our brains. If these connections are not laid down with enough room to move, they become very difficult to change.

I don’t really know much about neuro-psychology (if that is even the term used to describe it), but I think the idea is a start, and I am more that willing to here logical well though out suggestions and feedback regarding this theory. I also acknowledge that someone else might have come up with that theory first. Hopefully it wasn’t totally disproved years ago. (In fact, it is pretty much connected to the expression “You can’t teach an old dog, new tricks”)

Does this mean that there is no hope for anyone as we all become more stubborn over time? Not quite. If the proper initial framework is laid down with room for doubt, original connections may be able to be suitably broken.

Let’s look at the example I started with before I get too far off track. Smokers who started thinking it was safe and who are continuing to smoke have not entirely erased the original thought that smoking is safe (BOCTAOE ((But of course there are obvious exceptions))). Think about it. If you think something is safe, how likely are you to respond when someone tells you it isn’t safe? Particularly if you have been partaking in the “unsafe” activity for a long time.

So why do people start smoking when the dangers are clear and cigarettes even have a big label that says “Smoking Kills” on the packet? The initial framework was laid down by parents and possibly other family members that also smoke ((Jonathan B Bricker, Arthur V Peterson Jr, Irwin G Sarason, M Robyn Anderson, K Bharat Rajan. Addictive Behaviors. Oxford: Apr 2007.Vol.32, Iss. 4; pg. 740)).

To start smoking knowing the risks is idiotic. To allow your children to start smoking is idiotic. They need to be able to learn from your mistakes, so lay the framework.

Of course, I could be dismissing the thought that people aren’t too concerned with dying.

I want to save the world

Saturday, October 14th, 2006

Yesterday while walking home from work a realisation dawned on me. Some might even say I had an epiphany. Others might say that I just wanted to use the word, and what I really had was a mild stroke or case of delirium from inhaling exhaust fumes.Whatever the cause, I came to realise that throughout my life I’ve always wanted to be a super hero. I remember the entirely impractical plans I had as a child of donning a mask and cape and a sword and becoming Zorro (TV Zorro, not Antonio Banderas).

Sure, I know that trying to fight crime in the streets of Brisbane in a black sports car (I wasn’t confident about riding a horse) stopping misdeads with a sword is just plain ridiculous, but this sort of vigilante heroism is what I grew up with.

While working at Pizza Hut I became dissatisfied with the work because I wasn’t doing enough good. Sure, I could throw the odd Garlic Bread freebie out there to the downtrodden and inconvenienced customer, but I just didn’t feel that was enough.

So, what did I do. I decided to sit a giant exam (the GAMSAT) to apply for entry into medicine. Having absolutely no experience in Physics and remembering very little from High School Chemistry I came out with a mediocre score, but not so mediocre that I didn’t get an interview. But presumably mediocre enough to not be accepted.

So, after that failure, and after recognising that perhaps being a doctor wasn’t the best way to save the world, I gave up. Well, I gave up for about 6 months.

After those 6 months I was prepared to save the world in entirely new ways. Attempting to enlist as an Officer in the Royal Australian Navy. All was well up until the Psychologist interview, where I was told that I needed to make more friends, improve my self esteem and talk my problems out with people (think touchy-feely). They did seem pretty interested in me though as I received a phone call yesterday encouraging me to re-activate my application in 12 months time.

However, seeing as I was going to take a minor pay hit for 2 years of training, I’m not sure if I could take the pay hit in a year’s time. But only time will tell. Essentially if I still feel like enlisting in 12 months, I will.

So, stuck in the civilian world (for at least 12 months) I am looking for new ways to save the world and be a hero. That’s what I think my latest plan is about. Instead of fighting off terrorists or demon space monkeys (that just sounded good, I don’t actually believe in demon space monkeys) I could fight for the environment, but not quite like those crazy greenies (the ones with the Shaggin’ wagons that spit out black smoke).

And if logic doesn’t serve as a proper weapon, perhaps it will again be time to don a cape and a mask and take to the streets…