Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Blogging at Blogger
I will no longer be blogging on this platform. If you are interested in my blog please visit the alternate locations at blog.ojb.co.nz and ojb42.wordpress.com. Thanks.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
In Support of Piracy
Is it OK to break the law in a situation you consider unjust? That is a question which I have covered a few times in the past and my conclusion has been that people should do what they consider is the right thing whether that agrees with the law or not. It's a philosophy I follow and it can be controversial, of course.
There are two considerations which need to be applied here though. The first is that most laws are reasonably fair and because we have to peacefully co-exist with other people we should usually follow them just so that society works smoothly. And the second is that if an individual does choose to ignore the law they should expect there to be consequences. So breaking a law might lead to a person being punished but that doesn't necessarily make them a bad person.
In fact breaking the law is sometimes the only moral thing to do, and those people who do it should be admired rather than vilified. A recent local case involving a doctor helping his terminally ill mother to die peacefully (at her own request) lead to him being found guilty of a crime, but most people (although certainly not all) admired him for his courage instead of condemning him for breaking the law.
The same applies to many legal issues associated with the internet. To many people piracy is a reaction to a perceived injustice, and while some activities of this sort are possibly illegal (the actual legal status of some of them is uncertain) they aren't always necessarily wrong.
The recent situation where New Zealand police attacked the mansion of internet "entrepreneur" Kim Dotcom - jumping out of helicopters and brandishing automatic weapons like a bunch of crazed ninjas who have watched too many American crime movies - is a classic case. If there was ever a case of an over-reaction and a huge waste of police time and money, this was it.
It seems certain there was pirated material on Megaupload's servers but there is similar material on many other servers around the world. And why do people feel the need to pirate material of this sort anyway? Because the way things work now is unfair and set up almost entirely for the benefit of big corporations. I think most people would prefer to buy movies and music at a reasonable price, in a reasonable way, and knowing that a reasonable proportion of the price goes back to the original artist, but none of this happens with the existing model.
The recording industry, instead of trying to use the internet to give the consumer a fair deal, simply tries to block the inevitable changes by lobbying governments (mainly in the US but even here in New Zealand too) to make laws which support their antiquated business model.
But attempts at blocking piracy haven't been conspicuously successful anyway. When a law of that type was introduced here the amount of peer to peer traffic on the internet in New Zealand dropped significantly but the amount of secure proxy traffic increased, showing people just bypassed detection by using different technologies.
The evidence is that people will buy material if it is priced and distributed fairly. Apple's music and app stores are a classic example but there are even better models where large corporations are bypassed completely. An American comedian recently made a million dollars by distributing his work on the internet. The file was available for free but he appealed to peoples' sense of fairness and asked for a $5 payment. It obviously worked!
Try buying a DVD and compare the experience. First, you must find a store stocking it, then you need to find one which is the right region (is that region system the stupidest idea ever or what?), then you have to pay a price which means only a small fraction goes to the orignal artist, then you must sit through some tedious message about piracy before watching the movie.
Do the corporations not realise that the only people seeing those anti-piracy messages are legitimate buyers because the pirates always strip them out! How unbelievably stupid can they be? But that's the problem: these people are both clueless and immoral. They sort of deserve to have their business destroyed.
The argument that artists, such as musicians and movie makers, lose because of piracy is partly true because there will be some material not being purchased that they would get payment for otherwise. But it's not really that simple.
Assuming that every pirated movie represents a loss of income - as the industry has suggested - is dishonest. Most of those pirated movies would never have been bought by the person who pirated them so they represent no real loss.
And most of the material is mainstream stuff from commercially successful artists. Losing a little bit of income isn't really going to harm them too much because they have so much already.
And finally, if the big media corporations can be destroyed by internet distribution then the artists will win in the end because they will be free from their control.
So piracy is often illegal and it certainly has doubtful moral value, but pretending it is the greatest threat to modern culture is just a self-serving myth invented by the big corporations growing rich from the current model without really contributing anything. Kim Dotcom is certainly no model for good ethical behaviour but that he's not the ultimate example of evil either.
There are two considerations which need to be applied here though. The first is that most laws are reasonably fair and because we have to peacefully co-exist with other people we should usually follow them just so that society works smoothly. And the second is that if an individual does choose to ignore the law they should expect there to be consequences. So breaking a law might lead to a person being punished but that doesn't necessarily make them a bad person.
In fact breaking the law is sometimes the only moral thing to do, and those people who do it should be admired rather than vilified. A recent local case involving a doctor helping his terminally ill mother to die peacefully (at her own request) lead to him being found guilty of a crime, but most people (although certainly not all) admired him for his courage instead of condemning him for breaking the law.
The same applies to many legal issues associated with the internet. To many people piracy is a reaction to a perceived injustice, and while some activities of this sort are possibly illegal (the actual legal status of some of them is uncertain) they aren't always necessarily wrong.
The recent situation where New Zealand police attacked the mansion of internet "entrepreneur" Kim Dotcom - jumping out of helicopters and brandishing automatic weapons like a bunch of crazed ninjas who have watched too many American crime movies - is a classic case. If there was ever a case of an over-reaction and a huge waste of police time and money, this was it.
It seems certain there was pirated material on Megaupload's servers but there is similar material on many other servers around the world. And why do people feel the need to pirate material of this sort anyway? Because the way things work now is unfair and set up almost entirely for the benefit of big corporations. I think most people would prefer to buy movies and music at a reasonable price, in a reasonable way, and knowing that a reasonable proportion of the price goes back to the original artist, but none of this happens with the existing model.
The recording industry, instead of trying to use the internet to give the consumer a fair deal, simply tries to block the inevitable changes by lobbying governments (mainly in the US but even here in New Zealand too) to make laws which support their antiquated business model.
But attempts at blocking piracy haven't been conspicuously successful anyway. When a law of that type was introduced here the amount of peer to peer traffic on the internet in New Zealand dropped significantly but the amount of secure proxy traffic increased, showing people just bypassed detection by using different technologies.
The evidence is that people will buy material if it is priced and distributed fairly. Apple's music and app stores are a classic example but there are even better models where large corporations are bypassed completely. An American comedian recently made a million dollars by distributing his work on the internet. The file was available for free but he appealed to peoples' sense of fairness and asked for a $5 payment. It obviously worked!
Try buying a DVD and compare the experience. First, you must find a store stocking it, then you need to find one which is the right region (is that region system the stupidest idea ever or what?), then you have to pay a price which means only a small fraction goes to the orignal artist, then you must sit through some tedious message about piracy before watching the movie.
Do the corporations not realise that the only people seeing those anti-piracy messages are legitimate buyers because the pirates always strip them out! How unbelievably stupid can they be? But that's the problem: these people are both clueless and immoral. They sort of deserve to have their business destroyed.
The argument that artists, such as musicians and movie makers, lose because of piracy is partly true because there will be some material not being purchased that they would get payment for otherwise. But it's not really that simple.
Assuming that every pirated movie represents a loss of income - as the industry has suggested - is dishonest. Most of those pirated movies would never have been bought by the person who pirated them so they represent no real loss.
And most of the material is mainstream stuff from commercially successful artists. Losing a little bit of income isn't really going to harm them too much because they have so much already.
And finally, if the big media corporations can be destroyed by internet distribution then the artists will win in the end because they will be free from their control.
So piracy is often illegal and it certainly has doubtful moral value, but pretending it is the greatest threat to modern culture is just a self-serving myth invented by the big corporations growing rich from the current model without really contributing anything. Kim Dotcom is certainly no model for good ethical behaviour but that he's not the ultimate example of evil either.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
New Zealand Identity
New Zealanders are often accused of having no national identity and after experiencing (or more accurately, not experiencing) our national day (at least I I think it is) I can see why. We have no national identity because we refuse to allow anything unusual about our country to be celebrated. We originally spent our time trying to emulate England and now that this is no longer fashionable we are trying to assimilate Maori beliefs.
There is nothing wrong with English or Maori culture (beyond the sort of things which are wrong with every culture) but they are just not relevant to the majority of the people living here. Our national day is a classic example. Actually things are so bad that I'm not even sure it is our national day. Do we actually have one or is this just a day for Maori to celebrate the Treaty? I genuinely don't know.
In addition to these factors there is the overwhelming American "culture" we get from TV and movies and that significantly affects us as well. Plus there are the effects from globalisation where successive governments seem intent on selling the country to foreign corporations.
Is it any wonder we have no identity? The same doesn't seem to have happened in Australia, a country with a very similar background to us. I hope the poor treatment of Aborigines in Australia isn't a significant reason for this, but I suspect the politically correct pro-Maori nonsense we have here hasn't happened in Australia and that has helped them to create their own identity.
I have commented on Waitangi Day in this blog many times in the past and my impressions of the occasion don't seem to be changing much. Almost 10 years ago I said it was a total irrelevance to most and it still is.
We do get a day off work and an opportunity to complain about the day itself but why not? The major news each Waitangi Day seems to be about Maori complaints and the disrespectful treatment of politicians at the Treaty Grounds. Not that I'm complaining about rough treatment of politicians because most of them deserve it. Still it's unfortunate that the stand-out feature of the day is protest.
The stats demonstrate the reality. In a Herald poll 15% saw the day as a day of protest, 28% saw it as day off from work, 21% thought it was just another day, and just 36% thought it was a day to celebrate New Zealand. How many other countries have a national day which only a third of the population see as a day of celebration?
But apart from that day off what is there? Some tedious coverage of Maori groups complaining about perceived injustices and equally tedious responses from politicians trying unsuccessfully to placate their concerns. Morning prayers in a country which has basically abandoned religion. And nothing much else. It's irrelevant, embarrassing, and boring. No wonder the majority of us just choose to ignore it.
There is an easy solution to the problem. We probably need to keep Waitangi Day, for two reasons: first it is a commemoration of a significant even in our history; and second, it would be too difficult politically to discontinue its observance. But we need another day which will be for all New Zealanders. We could call this New Zealand day and I suggest, to avoid complaints about too many holidays, we use it to replace Queen's Birthday. That would give us a new day and symbolise our freedom (not fully realised until we eventually become a republic) from the meaningless influence of England.
There is nothing wrong with English or Maori culture (beyond the sort of things which are wrong with every culture) but they are just not relevant to the majority of the people living here. Our national day is a classic example. Actually things are so bad that I'm not even sure it is our national day. Do we actually have one or is this just a day for Maori to celebrate the Treaty? I genuinely don't know.
In addition to these factors there is the overwhelming American "culture" we get from TV and movies and that significantly affects us as well. Plus there are the effects from globalisation where successive governments seem intent on selling the country to foreign corporations.
Is it any wonder we have no identity? The same doesn't seem to have happened in Australia, a country with a very similar background to us. I hope the poor treatment of Aborigines in Australia isn't a significant reason for this, but I suspect the politically correct pro-Maori nonsense we have here hasn't happened in Australia and that has helped them to create their own identity.
I have commented on Waitangi Day in this blog many times in the past and my impressions of the occasion don't seem to be changing much. Almost 10 years ago I said it was a total irrelevance to most and it still is.
We do get a day off work and an opportunity to complain about the day itself but why not? The major news each Waitangi Day seems to be about Maori complaints and the disrespectful treatment of politicians at the Treaty Grounds. Not that I'm complaining about rough treatment of politicians because most of them deserve it. Still it's unfortunate that the stand-out feature of the day is protest.
The stats demonstrate the reality. In a Herald poll 15% saw the day as a day of protest, 28% saw it as day off from work, 21% thought it was just another day, and just 36% thought it was a day to celebrate New Zealand. How many other countries have a national day which only a third of the population see as a day of celebration?
But apart from that day off what is there? Some tedious coverage of Maori groups complaining about perceived injustices and equally tedious responses from politicians trying unsuccessfully to placate their concerns. Morning prayers in a country which has basically abandoned religion. And nothing much else. It's irrelevant, embarrassing, and boring. No wonder the majority of us just choose to ignore it.
There is an easy solution to the problem. We probably need to keep Waitangi Day, for two reasons: first it is a commemoration of a significant even in our history; and second, it would be too difficult politically to discontinue its observance. But we need another day which will be for all New Zealanders. We could call this New Zealand day and I suggest, to avoid complaints about too many holidays, we use it to replace Queen's Birthday. That would give us a new day and symbolise our freedom (not fully realised until we eventually become a republic) from the meaningless influence of England.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Back to Work
Note: This blog entry was written in mid January but somehow failed to get posted. Since I went to all the trouble of writing it I thought it was still worth presenting here, even if it is a bit late...
After a break of about three weeks over Christmas I am back at work today. That is always a challenge but today has been particularly interesting! Before I even arrived I got a cell phone call from someone experiencing problems with Microsoft Word hanging - I know, that hardly ever happens! (sarcasm)
And now I have just finished setting up a PC (I am a Mac specialist and hate PCs) which was hideously slow and yes, Internet Explorer (which I only ran for 30 seconds) crashed, followed by the printer installation program hanging. So it's got to get better from here.
One positive note is that I spending the last three days of the week in Auckland working on some computers up there, so that will be a nice break (although still work).
I do find that, even though I am a Mac consultant and programmer, most of my problems are caused by Microsoft products. In all the time I have used Pages it has never crashed on me where I almost expect Word to crash several times if I'm working on a document of any complexity. Of course, I don't use Word myself unless I really have to, but I do support a lot of people who do.
And I get more issues with Exchange based email than any other type. Again Microsoft products destroy the elegance and reliability of the Mac experience. I do avoid using Exchange for email as much as possible but that isn't always totally practical.
I often wonder how much better the world would be if Microsoft hadn't wormed its way into the dominant position it is in now. What would have happened if we had genuine innovation going on? Look at the progress in areas not dominated by Microsoft (tablets, cell phones, etc) and they seem a lot better than the world of PCs.
Not that I should complain too much because, as I intimated above, I refuse to use Microsoft junk unless I am really backed into a corner. Generally that means I am helping out a client who has to use a Microsoft program for some reason.
The most common reasons for using Microsoft software are interesting. In my experience the most common is "that's what everyone else uses", closely followed by "that's what I was given" and "I didn't know there was an alternative".
Licensing agreements sometimes make using Office almost compulsory. If an organisation pays a large sum every year for a site license it makes sense to use that licensed software even though it might be better economy if there was a choice.
There are genuine reasons to use it too. The "everyone else uses it" argument is valid because sharing documents with someone using a different program does introduce an extra layer of complexity. And I will admit that Microsoft programs do tend to be fairly feature rich (they do a lot of things very badly) which is an important factor for some people.
So it is a tough one. I am convinced that if Microsoft hadn't reached the monopoly situation it is now in we would all be better off, but now that it is there in many ways it is just easier for most people to accept the inevitable and use its products, despite how frustrating an experience that is, especially for someone who has seen how much better similar software from other companies usually is.
After a break of about three weeks over Christmas I am back at work today. That is always a challenge but today has been particularly interesting! Before I even arrived I got a cell phone call from someone experiencing problems with Microsoft Word hanging - I know, that hardly ever happens! (sarcasm)
And now I have just finished setting up a PC (I am a Mac specialist and hate PCs) which was hideously slow and yes, Internet Explorer (which I only ran for 30 seconds) crashed, followed by the printer installation program hanging. So it's got to get better from here.
One positive note is that I spending the last three days of the week in Auckland working on some computers up there, so that will be a nice break (although still work).
I do find that, even though I am a Mac consultant and programmer, most of my problems are caused by Microsoft products. In all the time I have used Pages it has never crashed on me where I almost expect Word to crash several times if I'm working on a document of any complexity. Of course, I don't use Word myself unless I really have to, but I do support a lot of people who do.
And I get more issues with Exchange based email than any other type. Again Microsoft products destroy the elegance and reliability of the Mac experience. I do avoid using Exchange for email as much as possible but that isn't always totally practical.
I often wonder how much better the world would be if Microsoft hadn't wormed its way into the dominant position it is in now. What would have happened if we had genuine innovation going on? Look at the progress in areas not dominated by Microsoft (tablets, cell phones, etc) and they seem a lot better than the world of PCs.
Not that I should complain too much because, as I intimated above, I refuse to use Microsoft junk unless I am really backed into a corner. Generally that means I am helping out a client who has to use a Microsoft program for some reason.
The most common reasons for using Microsoft software are interesting. In my experience the most common is "that's what everyone else uses", closely followed by "that's what I was given" and "I didn't know there was an alternative".
Licensing agreements sometimes make using Office almost compulsory. If an organisation pays a large sum every year for a site license it makes sense to use that licensed software even though it might be better economy if there was a choice.
There are genuine reasons to use it too. The "everyone else uses it" argument is valid because sharing documents with someone using a different program does introduce an extra layer of complexity. And I will admit that Microsoft programs do tend to be fairly feature rich (they do a lot of things very badly) which is an important factor for some people.
So it is a tough one. I am convinced that if Microsoft hadn't reached the monopoly situation it is now in we would all be better off, but now that it is there in many ways it is just easier for most people to accept the inevitable and use its products, despite how frustrating an experience that is, especially for someone who has seen how much better similar software from other companies usually is.
Things Could be Worse
Things could be worse, apparently. According to some people almost every complaint can easily be dismissed because whatever is being complained about is trivial compared with certain other similar situations.
For example, they say you shouldn't complain about your conditions of work because there are other people with no job at all. And similarly there are people who do have jobs but are working in much poorer conditions than you.
And complaining about the government is pointless because at least it's not as corrupt and dysfunctional as the governments of some some African states such as Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. And the same applies to complaining about the management at your place of work because at least you're not a slave on a plantation, or something similar.
But these are really silly arguments put forward by people who are either too lazy to argue the real points or genuinely have some extreme feeling of entitlement which makes them think that they are so superior that they are above criticism.
No matter how bad things are elsewhere there should always be the opportunity to make things better here and now, and criticising existing conditions has got to be a significant way to initiate change. Or at least it should be because it seems to me that in most situations where there is one group in a position of power and another in some form of subjugation that criticism of one by the other is always seen as a personal attack to be repelled without any thought about its validity.
The "things could be worse" argument is effective because it puts the person complaining on the defensive and possibly even introduces an element of guilt. After all, if you wanted an increase in your salary wouldn't you feel guilty when your relative affluence is compared with the situation of the poor working in a factory in China or India?
The natural endpoint of these arguments is that we should all be working for a subsistence wage apparently, which in turn will make us more competitive and force other countries to reduce their wages and conditions even more. It's a classic "race to the bottom" scenario and it's commonly advocated by modern right-wing governments such as New Zealand's.
Of course it's no surprise to anyone that this idea does seem to be applied evenly. According to the same people who encourage us to make sacrifices for the greater good of the economy the same logic doesn't apply to the rich. If an executive, politician, or some other useless bureaucrat wants a pay rise they deserve it, even if there are people in similar jobs elsewhere making much less.
Apparently for these people things could be worse, but thanks to the immorality of the economic system we live in, in their case it won't be!
For example, they say you shouldn't complain about your conditions of work because there are other people with no job at all. And similarly there are people who do have jobs but are working in much poorer conditions than you.
And complaining about the government is pointless because at least it's not as corrupt and dysfunctional as the governments of some some African states such as Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. And the same applies to complaining about the management at your place of work because at least you're not a slave on a plantation, or something similar.
But these are really silly arguments put forward by people who are either too lazy to argue the real points or genuinely have some extreme feeling of entitlement which makes them think that they are so superior that they are above criticism.
No matter how bad things are elsewhere there should always be the opportunity to make things better here and now, and criticising existing conditions has got to be a significant way to initiate change. Or at least it should be because it seems to me that in most situations where there is one group in a position of power and another in some form of subjugation that criticism of one by the other is always seen as a personal attack to be repelled without any thought about its validity.
The "things could be worse" argument is effective because it puts the person complaining on the defensive and possibly even introduces an element of guilt. After all, if you wanted an increase in your salary wouldn't you feel guilty when your relative affluence is compared with the situation of the poor working in a factory in China or India?
The natural endpoint of these arguments is that we should all be working for a subsistence wage apparently, which in turn will make us more competitive and force other countries to reduce their wages and conditions even more. It's a classic "race to the bottom" scenario and it's commonly advocated by modern right-wing governments such as New Zealand's.
Of course it's no surprise to anyone that this idea does seem to be applied evenly. According to the same people who encourage us to make sacrifices for the greater good of the economy the same logic doesn't apply to the rich. If an executive, politician, or some other useless bureaucrat wants a pay rise they deserve it, even if there are people in similar jobs elsewhere making much less.
Apparently for these people things could be worse, but thanks to the immorality of the economic system we live in, in their case it won't be!
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Those Foreigners!
A current debate here in New Zealand involves foreign ownership of our land and other assets. In reality it isn't a "current" debate because it is something which has never really gone away. Foreign ownership of key assets has been a point of contention especially since the economic revolution of 1984 when New Zealand started the privatisation process.
The two sides of the debate both have good points. Favouring it is the idea that foreign ownership brings in foreign investment and expertise. Against it is the idea that foreign ownership means lack of control and loss of income as profits go to overseas owners.
As you will probably have guessed, I am generally against the idea. In fact I am against the idea of even local private ownership of key assets. I'm not going to go to an extreme communist or socialist position and say the state should own and manage everything, but I would like to see the basics, such as electricity, communications, health, and education, managed by a central non-profit driven organisation, maybe something like the state owned enterprise system we have now (which I realise must return a profit but actually shouldn't need to).
Private companies, in areas such as retailing, could build on top of these knowing that the basics are safely in local control and being run for the greater good of the community rather than for pure profit.
A current example of the ownership debate is over the sale of some significant dairy farms to Chinese investors. The majority of New Zealanders (according to surveys) don't want these sales to proceed. Whether this is specifically because the buyers are Chinese or whether the same would apply to Australians or Americans (for example) is unclear. I suspect the degree of resistance would depend on the country involved but I have no supporting evidence for this.
The prime minister has indicated he wants the sales to proceed and has defended this with two points. The first is that opposing these sales is illegal and the second is that the previous Labour lead government were also responsible for land sales.
On the first point I would say that it is irrelevant. It is up to the government to set the laws for the greatest good of the country. That doesn't seem to be an issue when it comes to creating new laws to favour big corporations and disadvantage workers so why should it be in this instance?
On the second point I would say, yes the previous government did many things that we disagree with. Do two wrongs make a right? And I've never heard the PM justify actions (or lack of action) based on what his opponents did anyway. Does that really make any political sense?
So really it gets back to ideology again. The PM and his government are dogmatically dedicated to free markets, laissez-faire economics, and all the other standard right wing methodology. The fact that these have so often failed in the past and that they make no sense when examined logically is of no interest to them at all because, like all ideologues, the facts (while of a certain academic interest) are not part of the decision making process.
The two sides of the debate both have good points. Favouring it is the idea that foreign ownership brings in foreign investment and expertise. Against it is the idea that foreign ownership means lack of control and loss of income as profits go to overseas owners.
As you will probably have guessed, I am generally against the idea. In fact I am against the idea of even local private ownership of key assets. I'm not going to go to an extreme communist or socialist position and say the state should own and manage everything, but I would like to see the basics, such as electricity, communications, health, and education, managed by a central non-profit driven organisation, maybe something like the state owned enterprise system we have now (which I realise must return a profit but actually shouldn't need to).
Private companies, in areas such as retailing, could build on top of these knowing that the basics are safely in local control and being run for the greater good of the community rather than for pure profit.
A current example of the ownership debate is over the sale of some significant dairy farms to Chinese investors. The majority of New Zealanders (according to surveys) don't want these sales to proceed. Whether this is specifically because the buyers are Chinese or whether the same would apply to Australians or Americans (for example) is unclear. I suspect the degree of resistance would depend on the country involved but I have no supporting evidence for this.
The prime minister has indicated he wants the sales to proceed and has defended this with two points. The first is that opposing these sales is illegal and the second is that the previous Labour lead government were also responsible for land sales.
On the first point I would say that it is irrelevant. It is up to the government to set the laws for the greatest good of the country. That doesn't seem to be an issue when it comes to creating new laws to favour big corporations and disadvantage workers so why should it be in this instance?
On the second point I would say, yes the previous government did many things that we disagree with. Do two wrongs make a right? And I've never heard the PM justify actions (or lack of action) based on what his opponents did anyway. Does that really make any political sense?
So really it gets back to ideology again. The PM and his government are dogmatically dedicated to free markets, laissez-faire economics, and all the other standard right wing methodology. The fact that these have so often failed in the past and that they make no sense when examined logically is of no interest to them at all because, like all ideologues, the facts (while of a certain academic interest) are not part of the decision making process.
Monday, January 23, 2012
MegaUpload
I'm not a great fan of draconian laws intended to strengthen copyright restrictions and to combat piracy. I think it's important that people should be rewarded for their creative work, but I don't think that's what so-called intellectual property protection, copyright enforcement, or anti-piracy laws are really all about. What they are primarily about is protecting the immoral and antiquated business model which media (movies, music, books, etc) companies currently enjoy.
The greatest part of the price the consumer pays for these items goes to individuals and companies other than the artists who originally created the work. In many cases the actual creator could do a lot better if they could bypass the publisher or distributor. And that's what the internet allows which is why these corporations are so enthusiastic about shutting it down.
I recently saw a graphic which divided up where the money goes from the price we pay for a CD. It showed the record company making about 70%, the artist about 1% and the producer, manager, and studio, etc making the rest. I suspect this isn't accurate but according to other sources the artist gets at most about 16%.
So yet again we have a case of worthless parasites (business people, lawyers, accountants) exploiting both the artists and the consumer (you and me) so you can see why some people feel justified in bypassing the corrupt system and acquiring their music and movies by other means.
I don't support piracy in most cases but I would rather have piracy than restrictive laws which cripple the freedom of the internet. So if I was a person charged with enforcing the law I would ignore most of what currently goes on but I wouldn't extend that to people who are professional pirates.
I'm usually hesitant to criticise sites which encourage file sharing, but the alleged piracy site, MegaUpload, which has recently been raided by the New Zealand police, is an interesting case. The rather suspicious seeming founder of the site, Kim Dotcom, was allowed into New Zealand despite his rather dubious background. That was an interesting decision and there are now allegations he "bought" his way into the country - something which seems entirely possible.
I think everyone agrees that swapping of copyright material does happen at this site but that doesn't mean the owners are responsible for that activity and it doesn't mean that they technically broke any laws. After all, whether something is immoral or ethical has little to do with whether it is legal or not.
There is also the consideration that Dotcom has made a fortune from this site plus his mansion contained many weapons: both legal and illegal. The police assault on the place, with a helicopter and armed defenders, did seem a bit over the top though. Are there not more important crime-related problems we can spend this sort of money on?
Another interesting event related to this whole sorry story is the attacks by the "Anonymous" movement who retaliated against the organisations who originated the charges by attacking several sites, including the Universal Music Group and the US Justice Department.
Some people have labelled Anonymous as terrorists, criminals, or hackers. Well according to some definitions they are, but they could also be labelled as activists who are doing what they think is right. Sure, they are using illegal tactics but when the laws exist almost solely for the benefit of big corporations who can blame them? Again, I don't want to see laws broken without good cause but at the same time people must do what they think is right.
The internet is currently under attack. Sure, in some ways it is the "wild west" but do we really want it subdued and turned into yet another tool for making the corporations even richer and more powerful? If a corporation can use the internet in a positive way then that's fine. I buy stuff at the iTunes and app stores because they work well, have reasonable prices, and return most of what I pay to the actual developer (70% to the developers of iPhone apps). That's reasonable and if the traditional media companies gave us what we wanted at a fair price I think people would avoid piracy. But they're too ignorant and arrogant to do that. Who are the real criminals here?
The greatest part of the price the consumer pays for these items goes to individuals and companies other than the artists who originally created the work. In many cases the actual creator could do a lot better if they could bypass the publisher or distributor. And that's what the internet allows which is why these corporations are so enthusiastic about shutting it down.
I recently saw a graphic which divided up where the money goes from the price we pay for a CD. It showed the record company making about 70%, the artist about 1% and the producer, manager, and studio, etc making the rest. I suspect this isn't accurate but according to other sources the artist gets at most about 16%.
So yet again we have a case of worthless parasites (business people, lawyers, accountants) exploiting both the artists and the consumer (you and me) so you can see why some people feel justified in bypassing the corrupt system and acquiring their music and movies by other means.
I don't support piracy in most cases but I would rather have piracy than restrictive laws which cripple the freedom of the internet. So if I was a person charged with enforcing the law I would ignore most of what currently goes on but I wouldn't extend that to people who are professional pirates.
I'm usually hesitant to criticise sites which encourage file sharing, but the alleged piracy site, MegaUpload, which has recently been raided by the New Zealand police, is an interesting case. The rather suspicious seeming founder of the site, Kim Dotcom, was allowed into New Zealand despite his rather dubious background. That was an interesting decision and there are now allegations he "bought" his way into the country - something which seems entirely possible.
I think everyone agrees that swapping of copyright material does happen at this site but that doesn't mean the owners are responsible for that activity and it doesn't mean that they technically broke any laws. After all, whether something is immoral or ethical has little to do with whether it is legal or not.
There is also the consideration that Dotcom has made a fortune from this site plus his mansion contained many weapons: both legal and illegal. The police assault on the place, with a helicopter and armed defenders, did seem a bit over the top though. Are there not more important crime-related problems we can spend this sort of money on?
Another interesting event related to this whole sorry story is the attacks by the "Anonymous" movement who retaliated against the organisations who originated the charges by attacking several sites, including the Universal Music Group and the US Justice Department.
Some people have labelled Anonymous as terrorists, criminals, or hackers. Well according to some definitions they are, but they could also be labelled as activists who are doing what they think is right. Sure, they are using illegal tactics but when the laws exist almost solely for the benefit of big corporations who can blame them? Again, I don't want to see laws broken without good cause but at the same time people must do what they think is right.
The internet is currently under attack. Sure, in some ways it is the "wild west" but do we really want it subdued and turned into yet another tool for making the corporations even richer and more powerful? If a corporation can use the internet in a positive way then that's fine. I buy stuff at the iTunes and app stores because they work well, have reasonable prices, and return most of what I pay to the actual developer (70% to the developers of iPhone apps). That's reasonable and if the traditional media companies gave us what we wanted at a fair price I think people would avoid piracy. But they're too ignorant and arrogant to do that. Who are the real criminals here?
Thursday, January 19, 2012
A Few Days in Auckland
As I write this I am flying at about 10,000 meters on my way to Auckland (there’s my traditional opening for travel related blog entries, although the destination is not always Auckland of course). Yes, I have been back at work for a total of two days and I am away again already. Well, unfortunately, that isn't quite true. The fact is that I am spending the next three days in Auckland doing some work on the computers at the Auckland Centre of the University of Otago, so it's still work I'm afraid.
Interestingly I have spent a lot less time in New Zealand's main city than I have in some similar places in other countries. For example, since I spent any time in Auckland last I have been to Brisbane, Melbourne, Sydney (several times), and San Francisco. I hope that I might have a few hours to look around between the time time spent sorting out computer issues, but that will have to wait to see just how dire the problems actually are!
It sounds sort of unpatriotic but I can't see a lot of point in spending time in Auckland because anything it has Sydney also has, but more. And the travel time and cost to get to Sydney isn't that much greater. But they say a change is as good as a holiday and Auckland's weather has finally improved so it should be quite pleasant.
On the subject of the weather, I will be in a good position on that front during my visit. Generally our friends from the more northern parts of New Zealand like to make subtle (and not so subtle) comments regarding the superiority of their weather in comparison to ours near the more southern, cooler part of the country. But this year the south has got great weather over the holiday period so I can reverse the trend on them this time.
This second part of the entry is being typed from my hotel room on the second day of my visit. There has certainly been plenty to do here and I could probably stay a week to get everything sorted out properly but instead it has turned into a frenetic burst of activity to get as much done as possible.
I have also had a chance after work to have a bit of a walk around the city and down to the harbour and I have actually enjoyed being here more than I thought, although I still think Sydney's better!
I'm flying out early tomorrow afternoon so I have about 3 hours in the morning to get a few tasks finished. I also hope I have configured enough remote access services so that I can administer some of the servers, computers, and other devices by "remote control" from back in Dunedin. Or maybe I should avoid that technique and aim for another trip here in the future!
Interestingly I have spent a lot less time in New Zealand's main city than I have in some similar places in other countries. For example, since I spent any time in Auckland last I have been to Brisbane, Melbourne, Sydney (several times), and San Francisco. I hope that I might have a few hours to look around between the time time spent sorting out computer issues, but that will have to wait to see just how dire the problems actually are!
It sounds sort of unpatriotic but I can't see a lot of point in spending time in Auckland because anything it has Sydney also has, but more. And the travel time and cost to get to Sydney isn't that much greater. But they say a change is as good as a holiday and Auckland's weather has finally improved so it should be quite pleasant.
On the subject of the weather, I will be in a good position on that front during my visit. Generally our friends from the more northern parts of New Zealand like to make subtle (and not so subtle) comments regarding the superiority of their weather in comparison to ours near the more southern, cooler part of the country. But this year the south has got great weather over the holiday period so I can reverse the trend on them this time.
This second part of the entry is being typed from my hotel room on the second day of my visit. There has certainly been plenty to do here and I could probably stay a week to get everything sorted out properly but instead it has turned into a frenetic burst of activity to get as much done as possible.
I have also had a chance after work to have a bit of a walk around the city and down to the harbour and I have actually enjoyed being here more than I thought, although I still think Sydney's better!
I'm flying out early tomorrow afternoon so I have about 3 hours in the morning to get a few tasks finished. I also hope I have configured enough remote access services so that I can administer some of the servers, computers, and other devices by "remote control" from back in Dunedin. Or maybe I should avoid that technique and aim for another trip here in the future!
Sunday, January 15, 2012
One More Thing
Today I finished the (600 page) biography of Steve Jobs. I should have spent more time working on my programming projects but I found the book so well written and so full of interesting details that I couldn't stop reading it. And an ironic aspect of this was that it was a real, paper book. This is the first "real" book I have read for a while. Most of my reading now is in the form of audio books on my iPhone and eBooks on my iPad (two of Steve Jobs' last great creations).
Most people agree that Jobs was a genius. He wasn't a genius in the same way that Einstein was - having exceptional intelligence - but he had a unique combination of artistic and engineering skill, amazing intuition about how his devices should work, and an unstoppable ambition to make Apple the greatest technology company ever.
His professional life seemed to have two stages: the early years which were full of disasters, ridiculous fiascos, and crazy decisions which made Apple a huge success story and then almost destroyed it a few years later; and the later years when he returned to Apple when the company just produced one exceptional product after another: the iMac, Mac OS X, the iPod, the iPhone, the iPad, the iTunes store, and the Apple stores.
How did he do it? I don't know, but there were elements of genius, elements of luck, and maybe most important: elements of pure determination and persistence. Apple became the world's most important and biggest (by some measures) technology company under his leadership. Could anyone else have done it? I doubt it. Will Apple be able to continue succeeding now that Jobs is gone? Only if they remember the lessons he has given them.
There was one big reason Apple did so well when other great technology companies gradually sunk into oblivion (I'm thinking about HP, IBM, Microsoft, and RIM, but I'm sure there are many others). That reason was that Apple did not follow the standard corporate business model. It was better than that.
I guess the number one edict of the standard model is: profits first. Given the huge profits Apple makes you might think that philosophy applies there too, but I don't think it does. Jobs himself said so and I think his actions showed that. Jobs' philosophy was "products first". He created products people wanted and were prepared to pay for. Because of the success of the products, profit naturally followed.
Another unusual aspect of Apple's strategy was that it didn't give its customers what they asked for. Jobs said that if Henry Ford had given his customers what they asked for he would have given them a a faster horse, instead he gave them what they really wanted (even though they didn't know it). Of course it's easy to create something you think people might want but only Jobs has consistently created new products which genuinely are so highly loved by their users.
Apple does no product testing, it does no focus groups, it doesn't do PowerPoint presentations, and it's very suspicious of the advice and opinions of experts in business, management and marketing. Many of these are contrary to "best practice" and that's why other companies don't succeed like Apple does: they just follow the crowd. And many of them have the audacity to claim they are innovators or entrepreneurs. What a joke!
For Apple to continue to succeed it must continue valuing the opinion of the engineers and artists (people like Jony Ive) who have the real talent. The CEO is currently Tim Cook who has a degree in industrial engineering (that has to be good) and an MBA (that is very, very bad). Let's just hope he forgets all the crap he learnt when he did that MBA!
Most people agree that Jobs was a genius. He wasn't a genius in the same way that Einstein was - having exceptional intelligence - but he had a unique combination of artistic and engineering skill, amazing intuition about how his devices should work, and an unstoppable ambition to make Apple the greatest technology company ever.
His professional life seemed to have two stages: the early years which were full of disasters, ridiculous fiascos, and crazy decisions which made Apple a huge success story and then almost destroyed it a few years later; and the later years when he returned to Apple when the company just produced one exceptional product after another: the iMac, Mac OS X, the iPod, the iPhone, the iPad, the iTunes store, and the Apple stores.
How did he do it? I don't know, but there were elements of genius, elements of luck, and maybe most important: elements of pure determination and persistence. Apple became the world's most important and biggest (by some measures) technology company under his leadership. Could anyone else have done it? I doubt it. Will Apple be able to continue succeeding now that Jobs is gone? Only if they remember the lessons he has given them.
There was one big reason Apple did so well when other great technology companies gradually sunk into oblivion (I'm thinking about HP, IBM, Microsoft, and RIM, but I'm sure there are many others). That reason was that Apple did not follow the standard corporate business model. It was better than that.
I guess the number one edict of the standard model is: profits first. Given the huge profits Apple makes you might think that philosophy applies there too, but I don't think it does. Jobs himself said so and I think his actions showed that. Jobs' philosophy was "products first". He created products people wanted and were prepared to pay for. Because of the success of the products, profit naturally followed.
Another unusual aspect of Apple's strategy was that it didn't give its customers what they asked for. Jobs said that if Henry Ford had given his customers what they asked for he would have given them a a faster horse, instead he gave them what they really wanted (even though they didn't know it). Of course it's easy to create something you think people might want but only Jobs has consistently created new products which genuinely are so highly loved by their users.
Apple does no product testing, it does no focus groups, it doesn't do PowerPoint presentations, and it's very suspicious of the advice and opinions of experts in business, management and marketing. Many of these are contrary to "best practice" and that's why other companies don't succeed like Apple does: they just follow the crowd. And many of them have the audacity to claim they are innovators or entrepreneurs. What a joke!
For Apple to continue to succeed it must continue valuing the opinion of the engineers and artists (people like Jony Ive) who have the real talent. The CEO is currently Tim Cook who has a degree in industrial engineering (that has to be good) and an MBA (that is very, very bad). Let's just hope he forgets all the crap he learnt when he did that MBA!
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Thank You Hitch
Last year two people I really admired died. They were Apple founder and technology leader, Steve Jobs, and well-known essayist and political commentator, Christopher Hitchens. Both had been diagnosed with cancer and were not expected to live long but their death was still a bit of a shock.
I'm not pretending these people were perfect because they clearly weren't. Steve Jobs really was often totally unreasonable and arrogant. Hitchens had some odd political views which many people would disagree with. But they were both also geniuses and that makes it easier to overlook their deficiencies.
I've already talked about Steve Jobs (in an entry titled "Think Different" on 2011-10-07) so this time I should say something about "The Hitch". If you have never experienced Hitchens speaking search for a video of him on YouTube and you will see what I mean. He generally destroys those who dare to debate him with a combination of excellent recall of information and vicious wit (some titles include "Hitchens vs God (god loses by the way)", "Al Sharpton Gets Hitchslapped", "Christopher Hitchens Destroys Biblical miracle", and "A Big HitchSlap!"). His victims are often described as being "Hitch slapped"!
In this entry I want to discuss some of his best quotes. As I have said before, quotes don't necessarily mean much but they are often a good starting point for discussion and sometimes a concise description of a philosophical position.
My first quote is this short and simple one: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
That is a very compact definition of many skeptics' views and I think it's true. Anyone who has a theory based on no evidence can have that theory rejected without the need to present evidence against it, because a theory with no evidence isn't a theory, it's an opinion. So anyone who believes something "on faith" can never have that belief taken seriously simply because there's just no need to, it's simply irrelevant.
Here's another: "The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species. It may be a long farewell, but it has begun and, like all farewells, should not be protracted."
So not only should the religious faithful not be taken seriously but they are also infantile and their way of thinking belongs in the past. Again I agree: one of my objections to religion is that it's embarrassing. People who really believe the world is 6000 years old and that those who don't believe the same thing as them are evil are stupid and embarrassing to our species.
Finally here is the ultimate quote (of life, the universe, and everything): "Beware the irrational, however seductive. Shun the 'transcendent' and all who invite you to subordinate or annihilate yourself. Distrust compassion; prefer dignity for yourself and others. Don't be afraid to be thought arrogant or selfish. Picture all experts as if they were mammals. Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence. Suspect your own motives, and all excuses. Do not live for others any more than you would expect others to live for you."
I will analyse this point by point. First: "Beware the irrational, however seductive." Many religious fundamentalists ask me why I won't believe what they do because if I did I would get eternal life. That idea is irrational but the idea of banishing death is certainly seductive. But believing something doesn't make it true. If I believed in Santa should I expect lots of expensive gifts next Christmas? Believing something doesn't make it true, it just makes the believer deluded.
Next: "Shun the 'transcendent' and all who invite you to subordinate or annihilate yourself. Distrust compassion; prefer dignity for yourself and others." We should not enslave ourselves to any god, real or imagined. If a god actually existed and required humans to fully submit to his will I still wouldn't be interested in worshipping him. The poor Christians who let their imaginary god and their churches think for them are truly pitiful.
Then: "Don't be afraid to be thought arrogant or selfish." I think many people in the skeptical and atheist communities have been too "nice" in the past. They have been so careful when discussing their views that they have failed to say what they really believe. The new atheists, including Hitchens, have been far more open in what they say and this has, of course, lead to conflict.
I'm occasionally accused of being arrogant myself! I remember on one occasion discussing religion with an Anglican minister and being accused of being arrogant simply because I didn't believe the same thing he did. I think we need to say what we really think without any regard for how it will be perceived - at least in most situations although I admit sometimes a more subtle strategy might be more effective.
Then: "Picture all experts as if they were mammals." That one short sentence is important but can be easily misused. All experts are prone to errors. But this shouldn't be extended and used as an excuse to reject facts. Even though the experts who support evolution and climate change are mammals they should still be believed because those mammals also have plenty of facts on their side!
Then: "Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity." We can't all spend our lives protesting or occupying Wall Street or being arrested over environmental activism but we should do what we can. We should always be prepared to do what's right because there's plenty of unfairness and stupidity out there.
Then: "Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence." I love arguing (or to put it more politely debating) with people over the big issues even though many people think it's a waste of time. But I agree that argument is good for it's own sake, as long as it is about things that really matter.
Then: "Suspect your own motives, and all excuses." If everyone followed this one rule most of the world's problems would be solved. I so often see people criticise others for doing exactly what they do. And yes, I know I probably do this myself occasionally and I am aware of which of my beliefs are weakest. One of the reason I engage in debates is to test them and I have changed my mind on some subjects in the past - a phenomenon I have never seen in a fundamentalist of conservative.
Finally: "Do not live for others any more than you would expect others to live for you." We do live in connected social communities and we do need to consider other people in how we live but in the end we need to do what we think is personally right, not what anyone else tells us.
That's it. One of the greatest quotes of all time, in my opinion. I think anyone who follows the deeper meaning behind this will be a good and worthwhile person. Thank you Hitch.
I'm not pretending these people were perfect because they clearly weren't. Steve Jobs really was often totally unreasonable and arrogant. Hitchens had some odd political views which many people would disagree with. But they were both also geniuses and that makes it easier to overlook their deficiencies.
I've already talked about Steve Jobs (in an entry titled "Think Different" on 2011-10-07) so this time I should say something about "The Hitch". If you have never experienced Hitchens speaking search for a video of him on YouTube and you will see what I mean. He generally destroys those who dare to debate him with a combination of excellent recall of information and vicious wit (some titles include "Hitchens vs God (god loses by the way)", "Al Sharpton Gets Hitchslapped", "Christopher Hitchens Destroys Biblical miracle", and "A Big HitchSlap!"). His victims are often described as being "Hitch slapped"!
In this entry I want to discuss some of his best quotes. As I have said before, quotes don't necessarily mean much but they are often a good starting point for discussion and sometimes a concise description of a philosophical position.
My first quote is this short and simple one: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
That is a very compact definition of many skeptics' views and I think it's true. Anyone who has a theory based on no evidence can have that theory rejected without the need to present evidence against it, because a theory with no evidence isn't a theory, it's an opinion. So anyone who believes something "on faith" can never have that belief taken seriously simply because there's just no need to, it's simply irrelevant.
Here's another: "The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species. It may be a long farewell, but it has begun and, like all farewells, should not be protracted."
So not only should the religious faithful not be taken seriously but they are also infantile and their way of thinking belongs in the past. Again I agree: one of my objections to religion is that it's embarrassing. People who really believe the world is 6000 years old and that those who don't believe the same thing as them are evil are stupid and embarrassing to our species.
Finally here is the ultimate quote (of life, the universe, and everything): "Beware the irrational, however seductive. Shun the 'transcendent' and all who invite you to subordinate or annihilate yourself. Distrust compassion; prefer dignity for yourself and others. Don't be afraid to be thought arrogant or selfish. Picture all experts as if they were mammals. Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence. Suspect your own motives, and all excuses. Do not live for others any more than you would expect others to live for you."
I will analyse this point by point. First: "Beware the irrational, however seductive." Many religious fundamentalists ask me why I won't believe what they do because if I did I would get eternal life. That idea is irrational but the idea of banishing death is certainly seductive. But believing something doesn't make it true. If I believed in Santa should I expect lots of expensive gifts next Christmas? Believing something doesn't make it true, it just makes the believer deluded.
Next: "Shun the 'transcendent' and all who invite you to subordinate or annihilate yourself. Distrust compassion; prefer dignity for yourself and others." We should not enslave ourselves to any god, real or imagined. If a god actually existed and required humans to fully submit to his will I still wouldn't be interested in worshipping him. The poor Christians who let their imaginary god and their churches think for them are truly pitiful.
Then: "Don't be afraid to be thought arrogant or selfish." I think many people in the skeptical and atheist communities have been too "nice" in the past. They have been so careful when discussing their views that they have failed to say what they really believe. The new atheists, including Hitchens, have been far more open in what they say and this has, of course, lead to conflict.
I'm occasionally accused of being arrogant myself! I remember on one occasion discussing religion with an Anglican minister and being accused of being arrogant simply because I didn't believe the same thing he did. I think we need to say what we really think without any regard for how it will be perceived - at least in most situations although I admit sometimes a more subtle strategy might be more effective.
Then: "Picture all experts as if they were mammals." That one short sentence is important but can be easily misused. All experts are prone to errors. But this shouldn't be extended and used as an excuse to reject facts. Even though the experts who support evolution and climate change are mammals they should still be believed because those mammals also have plenty of facts on their side!
Then: "Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity." We can't all spend our lives protesting or occupying Wall Street or being arrested over environmental activism but we should do what we can. We should always be prepared to do what's right because there's plenty of unfairness and stupidity out there.
Then: "Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence." I love arguing (or to put it more politely debating) with people over the big issues even though many people think it's a waste of time. But I agree that argument is good for it's own sake, as long as it is about things that really matter.
Then: "Suspect your own motives, and all excuses." If everyone followed this one rule most of the world's problems would be solved. I so often see people criticise others for doing exactly what they do. And yes, I know I probably do this myself occasionally and I am aware of which of my beliefs are weakest. One of the reason I engage in debates is to test them and I have changed my mind on some subjects in the past - a phenomenon I have never seen in a fundamentalist of conservative.
Finally: "Do not live for others any more than you would expect others to live for you." We do live in connected social communities and we do need to consider other people in how we live but in the end we need to do what we think is personally right, not what anyone else tells us.
That's it. One of the greatest quotes of all time, in my opinion. I think anyone who follows the deeper meaning behind this will be a good and worthwhile person. Thank you Hitch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
