sk2ko on Xanga

Weblog

Sunday, 13 December 2009

A l'oest amb la nit, em surten. Adéu Estan, adéu.

In the world today,
Words kill souls just as dead as bullets do,
And incidental collisions crush hearts without remorse, two by two,

Yet amid the hours steeped in travesty, apathy, arrogance, desire and despair,
I watched breathless as true love set two earnest lives white hot and blue all afire.

Time draws nigh,
The minutes spent, all but these final few,
And soon what had been ours will end and what is to be yours will begin.

I take all the days now past, they belong me.
Those hence forth will belong to thee,
And only this shall I leave,

My solemn hope that happiness is yours, together, forever.

Saturday, 28 February 2009

The implications of web and digital technology on copyright law.

The web and digital technology has changed the fundamental basis of the recording and broadcast industries, challenging the perspicacity of harsh criminal copyright law.

♦ ♦ ♦

Unlike the recording technologies that have come before, digital technology has strained jurisprudence’s capacity to enforce copyright laws, while it undermines an older widely-accepted paradigm and throws into question the very legitimacy of the traditional recording company as a viable business model. In the face of change brought about by the power of the world wide web, the same can be said of the broadcasting industry as well.

Ask yourself this question, “In pure economic terms, what is it that makes a recording company important—what special service does it provide to the open market?”

Before the current state of digital technology and the web, that question was easier to answer. In a world where commercial entertainment was overwhelmingly one-way, generated from a central point and delivered outward to customers, a recording company provided the essential capital investment required to pay for studio recording, editing, marketing, duplication and distribution. The resources to do this were well beyond the vast majority of recording artists, particularly by those new to the music game, and it was the professional recording company that filled this important niche.

Though this processes is still prevalent today, digital technology and software has been able to replace each of these extraordinary services that were once the exclusive providence of the recording company. On the production side, professional recording and editing software are now within the reach of the average person and the cost to book time at a professional recording studio is not unreasonable. The same story can be found on the duplication side. Recording companies were once in the unique position of being able to cost effectively duplicate and distribute copies of a musical recording by virtue the economy of scale–until the advent of burnable optical discs and digital music compression technology such as MP3.

Bluntly speaking, digital software and web technological today has, in effect, rendered the services traditionally provided by a recording company a convenience rather than a necessity. Not only does that distinction place the recording business (as an economic model) into a different light, it has important implications for lawmakers and jurisprudence as well. The question becomes, is the continuing push towards making copyright infringement more and more severe, enacting criminal statues for some cases, a legally legitimate enterprise—particular when it is being done in the name of a business that plays no demonstratively critical role in classic capital market economics? If this is the case, then it would inescapably connote that government is enacting both contract and criminal law in contradiction to sound economic theory and in conflict with the very objective copyright law (intellectual property law) was originally meant to do—which was to promote trade and the useful arts.

Sunday, 08 February 2009

Why the Mormon church should loose its tax-exempt status

♦ ♦ ♦

Maybe I'm still a naïve sap. The country that I grew up in was proud of who it was, proud of the things it stood for, proud of its diversity and proud of the principles of equality and liberty that it was founded on. But I'm all grown up now and I know a lot more about the way things really are. I know that the truth is sometimes ugly. I know that for some, at different times throughout our entire history and for different reasons, America wasn't the land of opportunity and freedom as described in the Bill of Rights.

Some might say, “So what? It happens. Life isn't always fair. Besides, that's all in the past. There's nothing anyone can do about it, so what's the point?”

And sure, that's one way to look at it. But it's just one of the two choices you have when faced with serious social issues like this. Either you decide it's not worth the effort, so you do nothing. Or you decide that it is, and you do. Those are your options.

From time to time, I can be a sarcastic, jaded, caustic, godless gay douche, and yet as corny as it sounds I still believe in the core American values of equality and personal freedom. You can say whatever you want, and in fact, the 1st Amendment gives you that right, but the US is still a country where everyone is free to be themselves, free to do, say, and believe what they want - so long as it doesn't prevent anyone else from doing, saying, or believing what they want. That's pretty much how it works, this whole notion of “free but equal.” Yet, I'm continually surprised by how many people don't seem to get that.

America believes in freedom of religion but religions often do not.

We, Americans, take our religious freedom for granted; that every one of us is free to believe what we choose to. But it is here, isn't it, where the whole entire issue, this controversy, begins to jump the rails? Because even though we believe in our own right to believe in whatever we want, there are some who don't believe that this freedom should be universally, that everyone should be entitled to this right, do they? In fact, there are some people who believe that their beliefs are the “only true and acceptable beliefs” and everyone else should believe exactly what they believe, and frankly, many of them also believe that it is their "mission" to do something about it.

It's one thing to believe that your beliefs are the “only correct beliefs” and everyone else's are not; it's quite another to believe that you have both the authority and duty to active go about trying impose your beliefs on others, regardless of what they want.

I begin to loose it when one American thinks that it is perfectly all right to trample on another American's right to believe what he wants to believe! How the fuck does that work, exactly, because I really want to know? You bet your ass, this kind of unconstitutional unrepentant arrogance makes me just a little less charming and amenable than I am, ordinarily, during the rest of the God damn week!!!

In a nutshell, this is why stripping religious organizations who advocate this activity of their tax-exempt privileges is not only fair, it's a necessity. When religious organizations believe that they have the authority to disregard the civil liberties and freedoms of other American citizens, then their own privileges and legal rights need to be countermanded with equal zeal.

But the sad fact is, none of this should be happening. Why we can't let each other believe differently, I'll never know - especially when it entails such silly trivial things? Regrettably, I am all too aware that we have a long and consistent history of having to learn these social lessons the hard way.

And if you want to know, I feel bad for the Mormons who disagreed with what their own church was doing, for its deliberate political assault on another group of Americans. Prop 8 and other state referendums like it, have set off firestorm of hatred and resentment in the gay community. I understand it, but I don't agree with it. It's not only wrong, but serves to only increases the level of animosity on all sides. The “friendly” Mormons (depending on what side you are on) have been caught in middle unfortunately—reviled by both sides, and for what? For sticking to their own beliefs in opposition to the will of their church, and for exercising that freedom all Americans are supposed to have, that's what. Please don't take this analogy any further than I intend it, but I can't help but think that they must feel a little like how the Japanese Americans must have, right after the attack on Pearl Harbor, who were treated like the enemy in their own country, even though you're not. Nice, huh?

♦ ♦ ♦

MEDIA REFERENCES: YouTube: ANP - Did Mormons go too far: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWCum9yQhTg

Monday, 02 February 2009

US $$ stimulus package: I want details and explanations

I read President Obama's January 8, 2009 remarks on the White House site, “American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan”, the economic strategy to correct the country's current economic woes. When the dust settles, I want to see each individual item in the plan listed and explained in detail. For direct spending I want to see: X amount will be used in X ways with expected X results based on X reasons.

I cede being “left in the dark” as the process is executed for the sake of expediency, but for me, the “why” is as important as the “what.” Pres. Obama says:

"... We should have an open and honest discussion about this recovery plan in the days ahead, but I urge Congress to move as quickly as possible on behalf of the American people. For every day we wait or point fingers or drag our feet, more Americans will lose their jobs. ..."

And I concur. Here's my two cents towards the discussion.

I want details and supporting data, not because I have reason to distrust the Obama administration or Congress in particular, but because “trust” has nothing to do with it. I agree with both the expanse and general outlined provisions of the plan, but in the empirical world, what works, works for a reason. What doesn't, doesn't for a reason. Either way, the final results will have had nothing to do with party fidelity, tallied consensus, or level of righteousness of conviction.

Anyone who would suggest that somethings are such that they cannot be adequately quantified or predicted with any amount of reasonable certainty, first, should not be enacting law, and second, should learn something from compitent insurance actuaries.

It is encouraging that the White House's web site says it will show the “what” and the “how”.

“… Every American will be able to hold Washington accountable for these decisions by going online to see how and where their tax dollars are being spent. …”

Though no stranger to political rhetoric, it is still good to hear that “accountability” is mentioned as well.

A lack of accountability plagued the last administration but “incompetence” was no stranger either. Incompetence has a direct correlation to the “why” of a decision. You can never fix a problem that you don't really understand, so when it comes to somethng superfulous and trivial like playing with the funds of the US Treasury and governing the country, I'll go with the "know-how" crew over the power-whores everytime. But that's just me....

Thursday, 22 January 2009

Toys for a more secure world.

I laughed so hard snot flew out my nose reading the user comments at Amazon.com's page for Playmobil Security Check Point.

“Thank you Playmobil for allowing me to teach my 5-year old the importance of recognizing what a failing bureaucracy in a ever growing fascist state looks like. …

… I also highly recommend the Playmobil "farm fencing" so you can take your escorted airline passenger away and fence him behind bars as if he were in Guantanamo Bay.”

♦ ♦ ♦

LINK: Amazon.com: http://tinyurl.com/bez2vc