On a lighter note

After such a lengthy post last time, i figure i'd do something a bit lighter.

I am really enjoying my ipod. To be honest I was always qutie intrigued by the idea of the ipod, but quite surprised at how quickly it became ubiquitous among young people. On buses it's no longer rare to see several people plugged into their ipods, with their distinctive headphones during my morning commute.

With my recent purchase of a sleek and shiny black ipod nano, i now understand why. Unlike my (previously)absolute distain for cell phones, (and of course I now own one )I was always curious about the appeal of the ipod.

It's small, it's intutitive and simple to use and it does exactly what it is supposed to do.

I've also discovered the podcast. I had heard about podcasting and listened to a few stories on the radio about podcasting but until I had my ipod I wasn't really plugged in to that whole universe. Well right now because I haven't yet got an FM adapter for my ipod, i'm missing out on my usual CBC radio fix. There's also the problem that because the computer is not in my bedroom and now my stereo acts as the speakers for my computer we no longer have a stereo in the bedroom.

I've been able to really easily get podcasts of some of my favorite shows easily, downloaded into bite size peices perfect for the bus or other travel.

I'm really happy with my ipod and I now understand the appeal of the podcast. I think CBC radio has done a good job of integrating this new technology into its broadcasting appartus. I really really like CBC radio, and I think this is something the CBC does really really well. I'm not much of a TV person so I don't watch a whole lot of TV anyways but I really don't get much out of CBC TV.

SO i guess my point is CBC radio is good!

Intellectual Property rights

Now this post will be exactly as boring as it sounds..(it's rather long too)

However it's actually a pretty interesting issue. I first approached this in an economics class as a research project, but I found there was very little literature on the subject by economists. Most of it was not very well modeled or it was prety clealy ideological stuff without much research behind it. Now this may have reflected the poor quality of economic journals and research available at Carleton, or it may reflect the fact that a lot of economists assume by definition that property rights are an essential part of capitalism.

Now I remain to be completely convinced on the subject. Despite reading (most of) Hernan de Soto's thte mystery of capitalism, I remain sceptical that IPRs (intellectual property rights, if you haven't figured that one out already) are beneficial. One of my favorite authors, John Ralston Saul mocks the attempt to capture information that is one way of describing IPRs.

I used to think that i was in favour of abolishing intellectual property rights and in many wasy I still am, but I can also see the other side of the issue. I would never ever go as far as those at the Fraser Institute in vancouver who advocate individual(or corporate) ownership of absolutely everything including air and water etc.

Intellectual property rights are essentially an amalgam of different types of property rights. They include copyright, patents as well elements of industrial design protection. The rules on these products have been increasingly tightened over the last decade or so, to the point where they are included in the trade provisions of the WTO.

There has been a lot of talk about copyright protection in the digital age. I see the entire debate framed in terms of power and who has the right to control content. This is one the unlooked at issue when we talk about property rights. Like most questions in the modern economy, the issues do not hinge simply on economics, but are questions about power relations.

Copyright is a fair example of this. Copyrights are designed to ensure that artists get paid for their work. If an author rights a book, you cannot go around and copy it without getting a license or paying a fee to the author for the right to reproduce that material. If a recording artist makes a CD you cannot go around and distribute it for free. There already exists a fee collected by the government on purchases of blank CDs and tapes to give something back to artists whose work may be copied. However the law does not apply strictly there are some provisions for fair use. It's not as if the next time I lend someone a book i'll go to jail for it.

I was thinking about this topic because I saw Carleton's access agreement on copyright while making photocopies for a course at the university. Now Carleton as an academic institution is governed by rules about photocopying. When it makes coursepacks for students, there are very strict rules about the amount of material allowed froma single source as well the school pays a royalty fee in order to use the material. Now I think this seems to be a reasonable thing to do. Many professors use many sources and to imagine that they do not have to pay for it is a bit of a stretch even for one who doesn't approve of strict copyright laws.

However many students are against it because it raises the cost of their books.

With the recording industry's campaign for more stringent copyright laws in Canada, and its attempts to sue people in the US, it is defending the status quo model, which makes record companies lots of money, a few artists more or less rich, but leaves control largely in industry hands. Luckily the supreme court has found more or less that downloading music is legal. I don't see any lawsuits coming in Canada yet anyways.

The issue is whether the companies can get legal protection for thier existing business model. they are trying to prevent a new model which provides more risk for those companies while allowing for much more of a voice for independent music.

The final area where intellectual property is, I think, hardets to defend is when it comes to science. Scientists have for a long time relied on a model in which open debate and publication are essential to the advance of a wel regarded solid body of knowledge. The entire scientific method in which hypotheses are carried out with the intention that they be replicated to prove their strength is being undermined by a reliance on intellectual property rights. If a scientist produced some knowledge which may be useful these days it is immediately protected under some kind of intllectual property right. Universities have become hubs of such practices. Even if they use public money to fund the research, the benefits will be entirely private.

Not only does this mean that the sharing of knowledge which is such an integral part of scientific pratice is undermined, but it also means that research itself is undermined. We need more people researching the same problems to come up with a solution. If each group engaged in this research is unable to share its results with others it means a lot of wasted effort on dead ends, or perhaps breakthroughs take much longer to diffuse among the researchers.

The pharmaceutical companies are the most guilty of the practice of using intellectual property rights to defend their interests. Now they make the claim that they need the available rewards (ie protection) in order to invest the large sums required to develop new drugs. Now there is some merit to this argument. However the truth is that large parts of research that help to develop drugs come from the public sector. These companies also spend much more money on marketing than they do on R&D. If they need more money for R&D they can surely take it from the billions they spend convincing us that we are sick.

There is also the clear need for exceptions to these rules in face of a health crisis, the pandemic of AIDS in Africa in particular. These companies have fought tooth and nail any attempts to give lower cots drugs to these countries.

One last comment is that the way that most countries in the worlds have developed has been through the use of the one advantage thye have lower cost labour to start manufacturing goods and then moving up the value chain. This is what the US did, Japan and Korea did, and most countries that have been able to develop. IPRs have largely destroyed the possibility of other countries following in the footsteps of those who have led the way. It is hypocritical for a country like the US to talk about the need for patents to be protected, when its entire bookpublishing industry was built on the basis of ignoring copyright protection on british books. The US was one of the last countries to develop a more comprehensive IPR regime.

Alas this is still agenda is pushed by the strongest. Those who are at the top need protection against those who are weak. It seems that in an age where information is currency, it needs to be protected against those who would erode its value.

I'm still up in the air a bit, but mostly I just don't see how to develop an alternative set of incentives. I hope we can get there some day, when sharing isn't seen as a crime.

A nice little concert

I just went to go see the Wailin' Jennys live here in Ottawa. It was a good concert and though the crowd was a bit older they were appreciative.

The concert was held at the national library and archives building a nice little venue where many of the folk festival's concerts are held during the year.

It's always nice to see a performer (or group of performers) live and see what they are like, hoe they react to each other, and in this particular case to see all the different instruments they play. Each member of the Jennys played like 3 instruments.

Anyways a good time was had by all. I even picked up some new CDs, I hope they are as good as the last Juno winning CD by the Jenny's

On being a tourist

Well i am now taking a course on the history of tourism in canada. It is a cultural history and should prove pretty interesting. I don't have a topic yet for my main paper but i'm starting to get a sense of what the course is about.

Since I was also thinking a bit about what being a tourist means this weekend, I decided to write about what it means to be a tourist.

How does one become a tourist?

Well I think this is something that often came to my mind over the 12 weeks I was travelling in New Zealand and Australia. I started thinking about it a little bit in my short trip to Europe but this longer trip made me think about it a bit more.

Being a tourist even in a country that at times felt so familiar, is a bit disorienting.

I found myself trying to fit in as well as observe things for myself a lot of the time. Except for the few weeks when I was with my girlfriend and the short times I stayed with family, I was pretty much travelling alone. I was not always alone, and there were a few times when i travelled with a group but I was largely alone.

I actually found it hard to connect with people at times. Even other travellers. There were other times when connecting with other people came easily. I suppose travelling amongst hostels where ready made networks of people to help are easily available makes travelling that much easier. I was also lucky to speak the language.

The hardest thing I think about being a tourist is that the experience is ephemeral. There seems to be this need and desire to try and capture the essence of the experience. That's why people take so many photos (even more so now with digital cameras) and buy postcards and useless things they would never buy if they saw in the store at home. People also seem to try and collect stories, anything that will being the experience to life.

I suppose that is the reason people travel, is to have an experience. I guess that's why some people love to travel and others prefer not to. Some people enjoy those experiences more than others.

I find it interesting that already in the literature there seems to be an attempt to distinguish between the tourist and the more authentic 'traveller'. This is a somewhat artificial distinction, but it does seeem appliable nonetheless. But what is the difference.

I don't know if such a clear distinction can be made, but I think it hinges on the engagement with the environment. Of course anyone travelling toa foreign country by definition is forced to engage with that environment. I would argue that the tourist has largely a superficial engagement. They either aren't there long enough to engage or they have other interests. Now the question becomes whether anyone can actually escape being a tourist. Even a year is not truly long enough to engage deeply with a landscape either cultural or physical.

(On a side note: I think the really interesting thing though, was to meet people who had left one country to make another one their home. I find that decision fascinating and I met one gentleman during my travels and I just find their experiences really ineresting)

So how does one become a tourist? Simple, they leave their home town/region/country/ and go somewhere completely different. What is involved however in that decision is the interesting part, the question isn't so much how does one become a tourist (however one defines it) but why.

I think this course i'm taking will provide all sorts of interesting discussions about these questions.

Well lets try this again.

I wrote a big long nice post which got deleted as i mentioned before. So here's attempt #2.

I want to try and start a specific time aside for writing every day. So let's see how this works. Now just because i'm writing eveyr day doesn't mean it will all be online but here goes..

I was just walking listening to a new dixie chicks song Lubbock or leave it and it made me think about how in the ten commandments the first one is thou shalt not kill. I know it's in there somwhere anyways, it may not be the first.

Well in my philosophy class we talked about whether such a universal law is possible. And the implications of it. For example, if you had to make a choice whether to save lives if doing so would kill one person, would violating this law be ok,. etc.

This relates to the song, because the song talks about religion in the south (of the US) and there being 'more churches than trees". In the US however many people, including many christians (i imagine) support the death penalty. Which means that they support the violation of the principle 'thou shalt not kill', in the specific cases where the death penalty has been awarded.

So there is this internal contradiction there.(I don't necessarily think that it is hypocritical, however many of the opponents of the death penalty use the same arguments ie thou shalt not kill, and the importance of forgiveness as reasons for repealing the death penalty) However I was thinking that that fact alone does not itself undermine the universal applicability of the command 'thou shalt not kill"

I don't think there is anywhere on earth that the rule does not apply.Except in very specific contexts. That is the key to remember. I imaine even in tribes which practiced cannibalism, or sacrificed people, it was only in very specific contexts.

I personally beleive that there are such universals rules such as 'thou shalt not kill'. I don't think they necessarily all belong to the christian doctrine, but I do believe such rules exist.

I think everyone could agree that as a general principle thou shalt not kill is a good one.

That's all for now

Bah

ANGRY!!!

Insert post here....

Mine got deleted... maybe i'll try again tomorrow.

Not too much to say

Well I am almost finished a book on John Kenneth Galbraith.

For anyone who doesn't know me, I hate economists. I distrust almost all economists and I have major problems with how they approach the world.

Anyways it appears to me that John kenneth Galbraith might be the one economist that I know of that I could support. It's funny because it appears that for most economists what he said was anathema. He actually thought that power mattered in economics and I find ti fascinating the degree to which this idea is still treated with hostility among economists.

I am fascinated by the biography and I really think I really want to read his own words to see what he says in his own words.

Go see Bon Cop Bad Cop!

Enuf said! I will post my reaction to it later...

Go see it now!

A musing about the corporate world

About GM.. after watching the movie Who killed the electric car, I went and had a discussion with a friend of mine about the movie, in particular it was about the role of GM as a political actor.

Now my friend criticized me for my lack of understanding of business. But I still strongly believe that you have to understand the modern corporation as a political actor.

A few days ago about a week after my debate I was reading a biography of John Kenneth Galbraith. In his book A new Industrial State, he talks about how the modern corporation has moved beyond the profit maximizing entity described in the economics textbook.

Now JKG was an economist, but it seems to me that he was one of the few who realzied the impact of power on economic relations. Economists still to this day largely ignore the social context in which their theories apply.

Anyways the main thing that my friend kept repeating (which seems to be to be a conservative mantra) is that GM is a profit maximizing entity, if it doesn't make business sense they won't do it. While this is true in the long run, is GM doesn't make a profit it will cease to exist, modern corporations are political actors.

Galbraith seems to understand this implicitly in his work. He suggests that the coporation as an entity can have other goals that the maximization of profit. It might be a steady return on investment (ie they do not take risks that might endanger a steady level of profit) or it might be the return to shareholders , or it might even be that the CEO wants the largest pay possiblewith stock options this has become a more common problem).

Companies as large as GM also have a lot at stake, and thus become risk averse as well. They might simply decide that because of their weight in the market, they can prevent competition and keep making profits out of what they are already doing.

This is the profound failure examined in Who killed the electric car. As mentioned in the film, GM had a 2-3 year lead on its competitors in terms of it work on the electric car. Largely because they deemed the stakes too high, they fought tooth and nail against the imposition of the Zero emmission vehicle regulations that were in place in California rather than exploiting its edge in R&D and product development of the electric car. In other words they chose steady profit doing what they were doing, rather than disrupt their other product lines and face real competition.

In other words they chose certainty over the uncertaitny of developing a new product.
This is the problem with the large corporations, they are no longer innovators.

While it is true that companies need to be a certain size in order to attract capital and create interesting products there becomes a certain point where they are too big and too unwiedly to compete and they start becoming defensive.

The most interesting example in modern times is the degree to which Apple even though it is a small company makes Microsoft shake in its boots. Apple has become the leader through its innovation, and creativity while its competitors defend their positions and copy what Apple does. Microsoft has for years depended on its ability to buy upsart competitors in order to actuially acquire and create new products. Microsoft becaues of its size doesn't seem to need to innovate, it simply buys the innovations of others and repackages them as if they created it themselves. This is why a truly innovative company like Apple scares Microsoft silly.

Imagine a competitve market of small and medium sized companies, this is truy what we should be aiming for rather than the oligopolies and cartels we arebusy constructing now.

Long weekend!

Well I don't have any big plans for the long weekend. Hopefully I can do a bit of cleaning up here, I have lots of newspapers to get rid of among other recycling,.

I am finally done the 3 week training program at work and so next week I will be a regular full time employee which is exciting.

I'm trying to get into a course at Carleton this fall and (winter actually) entitled the cultural history of tourism. It actually looks really really interesting. I was surprised to find out it's a forth year course. It's taught by a professor which I had a few years ago and I like. Right now it's full but I have a feeling I should be able to get in.

I had a look at the course outline and it really does look i'd enjoy it, and of course I'm hoping I can get a good reference out of it as well as sharpen and work on my academic skills.

I just hope i'm not being too ambitious this fall, I'll be playing badminton twice a week and after a testing session at the college here, i'm being tempted to take a french grammar course on saturday mornings.

My girlfriend is taking a course all day saturdays and so I figure I should do something on saturday too.

I'm thinking it'll be fun to be a bit busier and feel like i'm accomplishing things this fall.

Of course the big deadline looms too i'll be applying to do my Masters in january.

Fun times....