Silly Girls In Dresses

god i love maureen dowd.

I never thought I would say this.

I love John McCain a lot right now.

The news broke this morning that McCain picked Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska to be his running mate. McCain, you rock. I wanna send out a big THANK YOU for handicapping yourself and making it more likely that Obama will win the election!

We all know why he picked Palin. He felt he needed the woman factor to appeal to Hillary voters. Apparently he thinks all women are mindless automatons who merely follow the nearest female leader, regardless of viewpoints (except for Ann Coulter, who hates women).

Unfortunately for Mr. McCain, he picked a gun-toting, pro-life, self-proclaimed “soccer mom”. I don’t really think a lot of Hillary suporters are going to go for that. In fact, Palin might end up alienating many woman who were on the fence between McCain and Obama. 

Additionally, Palin is even more inexperienced than Obama. She has been Governer for only 2 years, and before that was the mayor of an Alaskan town with a population smaller than my undergraduate university. So, McCain completely gave up the right to attack Obama for his inexperience. After all, if you think about it, there is a high probability that McCain will die in office if elected (he’s just that old). By picking Palin, he entrusted her with the Presidency in the case of his death. If he now argues Obama is too inexperienced, it would be utterly ridiculous. 

So, thanks McCain. Also, for more an why Sarah Palin is the dumbest choice in recent history (maybe excluding Dan Quayle, but probably not, since they won), read this excellent blog entry about an Alaskan’s perspective on the Republican’s VP choice.

(written on August 14th)

On Wednesday I start law school. I’ve got less than a week before I commence on my path to becoming an intellectual property law scholar. My stomach feels like a too-big ball of peanut butter that was swallowed too hurridly, and now is condemned to sit there and be slowly, uncomfortably digested for all eternity. I’m also excited.

However, despite the fact that my formal IP education doesn’t begin for a few days, I’ve been informally educating myself on the issues for a while now. Learning about something on your own takes a long time, and for a while in the beginning, you feel like a complete moron as you clumsily try to decipher concepts, articles, ideas. However, after 4 years, I think I’m finally starting to be able to understand the major issues and positions, and how they all intricately fit together.

The fight over copyright seems to have come down to a battle between the copyRIGHT and the copyLEFT: the former emphasizes protection of private property, while the latter is desperately fighting to protect the public domain. One of the things I find so thrilling about this fight is that, at least for me, there is not clear right or wrong. Both sides are correct, and both sides are wrong. Finding a balance between them is a mind-twisiting, vicious, petty cat-fight that kinda turns me on (ow ow!). The most recent example of this battle is the debate over orphan works. 

Orphan works are, simply speaking, creative works (such as a song, a picture, a movie), where the copyright owner is hard or impossible to find. If you want to use a work, you need the permission of the copyright owner. If you cannot find the owner, and you decide to use the work anyway, you might be liable for up to $150,000 in damages per use of the work if the copyright owner somehow surfaces and decides to sue you. The orphan works bill is a response this situation.

Basically, the Orphan Works Bill of 2008 (at least the Senate version), would make it easier for orphan works to be used. The bill requires those who use the copyrighted work to prove they have conducted an exhaustive search, ad even provides them with search guidelines. The bill is also intended to spur the creation of private copyright registries, which would hopefully be more effective than the current painfully inadequate Copyright Office registry. Artists could register their works with these private registries to ensure that their works would be easy to find. If a work is used without permission, and a copyright owner finds out, the bill provides remedy in the form of compensation.

There are two versions of this bill up for consideration – one in the House and one in the Senate. The Senate’s is more benign, while the House’s has some issues, but right now, I’m just going to deal with the basics and not go into details.

The facts are this: there has been an enormous outcry from artists AGAINST the bill. Frankly, while I understand their point of view, I don’t really agree with it 100%.

Artists have been claiming since 2006 (when the issue of orphan works first really came to the table in the government)  that this bill is out to “steal” their works, that major corporations will use it to gather up works for their own use, and that all of your creative works will be stripped of rights unless you pay (by paying a registration fee) to protect it.

BUt is it really that bad?

If the Senate version of the bill passes, and there are extensive guidelines concerning a search for the copyright owner as well as provisions for liability and damages if you do mistakenly use a copyrighted work, then maybe this is not so bad. Many artists, especially in modern culture, have ridden the wave to success through another artist’s use of their work. Just take a look at Dido (I don’t know if anyone heard of her before Eminem sampled one of her songs) or the soundtrack to Grey’s Anatomy. Granted, these examples are not completely relevant because all of those artists got paid for those uses. However, we must remember that many of these works are ORPHANS – their copyright owners have abandoned them! If, in fact, the work begins to see some measure of success through exposure in another medium, then they copyright owner will only benefit. Subsequent uses will not be considered orphan works, because, hopefully, the copyright owner will make him or herself known!

This also brings me to another issue: the responsibility of owning a copyright. I understand that the Copyright Office and the whole system are a ungodly mess, but really, if you are are artist, and you have even a slight desire to have your work used commercially, or even publicly, by you or others, than you should pay attention to what you need to do to protect your rights. The systems are there, however hard they are to use. I don’t think whining about how “its too hard” is an excuse. You create this work . . . it is like giving birth! You need to protect it! A new mother wouldn’t be excused for not taking care of her newborn because it was too hard, and she was confused.

Frankly, I also recognize that in the event you make a good effort to register your copyright, and somewhere down the road someone uses it without your permission after searching for you and failing to find you, adn you don’t get paid a $10,000 licensing fee…that sucks. Something should be done to protect you from that event. However, I don’t think the Orphan Works Bill will create a free-for-all when it comes to using works. 

Please let me know if you disagree, but only if you tell me WHY. I hate when people just yell at me, and don’t give me reasons. I LIKE reasons. I WANT to hear the other side. So go for it.

Yes, this is an actual street in New York City

I was in the gym the other day, in an incredible amount of pain after trying a new level of difficulty on the stair step, when I was distracted by a rather interesting story on the television. The TV, of course, was turned to Fox News – I go to the gym at the Penn Club, and since that place seems, so far, to basically be a country club for investment bankers and Wall Streeters (thanks, Wharton!), I wasn’t really surprised someone had flipped the channel to Fox. 

Basically, the article focused on a website called “Climate Cops“, a British site that aims to teach children about energy waste. As the site says, “The children’s section of this site introduces them to the important concept of saving energy through three exciting, interactive games that are designed to teach: 1. What is energy waste? 2. How can you prevent energy waste? 3. Why are we saving energy?” The site also has a section for teachers to guide them in teaching children about global warming and energy waste. This site has lesson plans that teach the following (following is quote from the website):

• We use lots of electricity in our daily lives but how is it generated?
• What electricity can be generated in ways that do not produce carbon dioxide by using renewable energy such as wind, hydro and solar
• How we must all try to use electricity and energy in our daily lives more efficiently by trying not to waste it
• To have a wider appreciation of how our actions influence climate change

Overall, this approach will ensure that children use energy efficiently in their everyday lives, now and in the future, because the greenest energy is the energy we don’t use.”

Fox News viciously attacked this website. The commentators repeatedly claimed the site was an example of the “greenies” trying to “brainwash our children”. They said how much they “hate liberal tree-huggers” and claimed that teaching this in our school would be tantamount to the government trying to brainwash our children into “spying” on their parents. They claimed they did not was to be watched by their kids to make sure they turn off all the lights, and that since their taxpayer dollars were going to public schools, they didn’t want their kids being taught something that was the opposite of what they were being taught at home. 

Then, they took it further. The commentators claimed they, instead, want to teach their children that using energy is a good thing because it energy use promotes productivity and progress. Instead of learning about climate change, the kids should open up a lemonade stand to learn business skills.

At least I didn’t hear anyone claim global warming just didn’t exist.

Alright, first I’m gonna concede some points:

It is a little creepy that the Climate Cops website gives these kids “Climate Cards” that instruct them to go around their house, find energy violations, (like leaving the TV on or not drying clothes outside when its a nice day out), and then instruct them to write down the “person responsible”. The instructions also say “Grown-up are often just too busy to realise how much energy they are wasting and thats where you come in…”. I admit, its weird the site puts blame on adults and makes them seem like bad guys instead of encouraging kids to work with parents to cut down on energy waste. Instead of having kids accuse parents of not unplugging a cell phone after its done charging, maybe they could have encouraged kids to walk around WITH the parent to find ways the whole family can reduce energy waste.

Also, although I personally believe the phrase “the greenest energy is the energy we don’t use” is fine, I can see how it would put people on guard. Plus, solar energy use is pretty damn green, and I think that counts as “using” energy.

But seriously, viciously attacking this site for teaching kids values that are counterproductive to economic prosperity is taking it over the edge. I personally think that energy efficiency and diversification in the energy industry are the keys to economic growth! New industries in the fields of solar and wind energy will reduce our dependence on foreign imports of oil, as instead introduce a new industry with tons of growth potential into our domestic market. Using less energy in our homes will decrease waste, and put less pressure on energy production in general. 

Teaching kids to conserve energy also teaches them to have respect for others by helping them think about consequences of their actions on a national and global scale. Plus, having kids use less energy will probably reduce the parents’ monthly energy bills. Both good things, in my opinion.

And see? I didn’t even mention the environment once in the above paragraph.