Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Anyway, I digressed...

and promised more later.

Here is the more.

I mentioned the corporate zombie of a famous American Nazi. One well ridiculed by The Simpsons on many occasions.

This corporation buys senators and has them vote to extend copyright to protect their fucking mouse. They claim that allowing copyright to expire will harm their ability to make money and cause plagues, floods, famine and increased unemployment.

Odd then that the two most recent movie releases from this corporation are stories upon which copyright has expired and exist in the public domain, *cough*chickenlittle*cough*. Clearly, then, the expiration of copyright does NOT do the damage claimed, as they seem to make quite good money out of it.

It doesnt seem to me that you can argue for copyright extention on the one hand and take advantage of its expiration on the other, not and maintain ethics and integrity. ah!


Friday, July 15, 2005

That fucking wizard

Look, I love books. Really love them; not so keen on the aforementioned wizard, but books are good.

However, the wizard and his publisher are not good. Dont buy it. Really.

Some poor canadians who bought this book were taken to court by the publisher. They were forced to return it, not read it (unless they had already done so, such a reasonable compromise...) and were not allowed to discuss it under pain of some kind of legal ramification.

There is, apparently, no human right to read; according the the wizards publishers anyway.

Sure, the bookstore sold them before the embargo was lifted (a pointless marketron action, IMHO, but reasonable) and deserved a wrist slapping. But to attack unknown fans because they wanted the book and then claim there is no right to read.

Not right. I rarely agree with Mr. Stallman so completely as I do when it comes to his call for a boycott of the books. People should not stand idle and allow a publisher to exercise such control over our posessions. Clearly we should see the future that rms predicted is a future they dream of.

So, whatever you do dont buy Harry Potter.


Wednesday, July 13, 2005

A friend said, six people a day is all I ask

I understand the concept of this statement so very clearly now.

Just when you think that the background count of corporate idiocy and general civil law foolishness is stabilising, you have a day like today.

First, the French. No, no jokes coming about food, wine or surrendering rampantly; except, perhaps, that one. No, this is even worse. There is a story about a French Bus Company, but not referring to strikes or lateness as you might expect. No, they are suing some EU cleaning ladies for carpooling. Yep, no twilight zone music, no hidden cameras to leap out and note that the joke is on you. No, a corporation is suing people for NOT USING THEIR SERVICE! Apologies for the shouting, but FUCK! how stupid is this world.

First, its not right to sue people for driving themselves to work because it is cheaper than a bus to Brussels. Its made worse that the above story refers not to the original case, but to the companies APPEAL against a verdict dismissing the case. The world is a sad, sad place. Wrong and broken.

At this, I would have settled down and played good corporate monkey for the rest of the day; I might have even resisted deriding the managoids and marketrons as they walked the corridors due to my abject depression over the state of the world.

But then the British, not to be outdone by the French, went one step further.

Linking to slashdot, now there is a turn about. Anyway, I digress.

The BBC is by any measure a fine establishment that wisely uses the funds of the British people to produce a surprising volume of high quality media. Considering the effluvium that spews from the media machines in general, this is surprising alone. Anyway, their equally fine Orchestra played some Beethoven. His 9 symphonies in fact. These works are in the public domain being that said musician is long dead and there was a time in the distant past that copyright actually expired. A time before a certain nazi invented a mouse character and then the corporate shell of his extreme right wing ideals stumbled on like some zombie buying US senators and making them extend copyright everytime it risks expiring. Anyway, I digress again, more on this later.

So, the BBC have these recordings of some fine classical music. The BBC likes to engage the public in fine classical music. The BBC has a web presence and is rather technologically savvy. So, they make these recordings available for a limited time as MP3 downloads for the world to enjoy. A good thing, a fine endevour that could actually introduce new ears to this most excellent music. Or so you would think. A british classical music record company took offence to this. How dare they release for free to the public the performances of their own orchestra of public domain music, an orchestra paid for by that same British public. How dare they, as they are illegally competeing and reducing the pervieved value of classical music. I could go on, and would as I have issues with corporate positions on copyright in any case. However, I wont. This is blindingly and self evidently stupid. What the fuck gives them the right to demand a completely separate organisation not make available their own product for whatever price they see fit; regardless of the other issues involved.

I wonder if corporate idiocy is a gene which could be edited out of society. This crap makes me so angry I cant even find a humerous viewpoint from which to observe it.


Monday, July 11, 2005

teh luddites, fl33!

I couldn't help but laugh when I read this article

I accept people have concerns about GM food that bears rational discussion. Really I do. Ok, I think they are luddites, particularly if we arent talking genes taken across species or from animals to plants. I firmly believe the source of the genes and the actual modification should be included on labelling to allow informed judgement and mitigate risks of litigation.

This is all besides the point. In the article, the arguement is to say that "GM crops need more water and do not perform well in dry conditions". This is at best specious as arguements go. The whole bloody POINT of Genetic Modification is to change how a plant performs.

In my occasionally less than humble opinion, they are actually making an arguement for MORE GM. Particularly if previous attempts to make low water requirements or hardier plants have failed, clearly more research is required.

What I understand even less is that it is farmers complaining. Fucking hell, it was farmers that started genetic modification of crops and livestock several thousand years ago, I dont understand why they have suddenly decided they dont think it is a good thing??

Such a funny world, so many folks with knee jerk opposition to advancement that involves self conflicting or spurious arguements. Hell, even the Amish are more rational at judging technology and its impact; if fact, we could all learn a thing or two about rationally considering the impact of a technology from them.