Can you tie a bowtie?
I can. I managed to do it on my first try, too. I like to credit my success at the competition to my bowtie. Not only does it make me look dashing (see exhibit #1 below), but it instills fear in the other competitors. Its a tradition for the competitors who represent my university to wear a bowtie at the competition... in honour of our Professor who heads the organising committee. Aunty M thought that I should just've painted a bullseye on my back for all the attention it attracted. Other people at the competition suggested I take it off, but I know that they were just jealous... My other teammates were embarassed by it - I loved it. Not only did I wear it at the competition, but unlike my colleagues, I wore it to and from the event also. Some think I look stupid wearing it - I don't care. Unfortunately, I don't know when I'll be able to wear it again, so it'll probably stay locked away in my cupboard...------------------------Exhibit #1-----------------------
-------------------The tie is slightly uneven----------------The long hair is a different matter, though. I didn't get time to get it cut, but I plan on getting it done next week sometime. It'll be much shorter.
posted by KJ at
6:22 PM
18 Comments:
Most disturbing of all, young kallun wore a coordinating dark blue shirt for the saturday events...
By
Anonymous, at 3:28 AM
Do I see dimples in that picture? If so then you are definitely going to get some.
By
Scarlet Hip, at 6:22 AM
It was not a dark blue shirt. It was a light-dark blue shirt, and although it did coordinate, it got plenty of compliments from da ladies... 'nuff said.
By
KJ, at 12:08 PM
[Brooke] They're probably just smile lines... sigh...
By
KJ, at 12:10 PM
Kal, Very nice... You do look slighty like a gay homosexual with your hair pushed forward, otherwise you are very dashing.... Take care, hope to see you over christmas.
By
Anonymous, at 6:04 PM
Thanks mate. Much appreciated... In fact, I appreciate it so much, I was thinking I might post some photos of my friends with their (questionable) hair styles... remember your 'Hanson' days, for example?
Smart arse.
By
KJ, at 6:08 PM
Hanson rock.
By
Loz, at 7:41 PM
Have you ever seen a TV idiot called Tucker Carlson? I see quite a resemblance. Especially the gay haircut and self-satisfied smile.
By
Anonymous, at 9:13 PM
I do know who you're talking about, actually. The guy is a moron. Sadly, I'll have to agree with you... there is a slight resemblance in the bowtie/hairstyle aspect. I am definitely going to cut my hair now...
By
KJ, at 9:19 PM
I have question about that IP thing we were discussing. If IP is just like any other property right, how come it has a time limit? Shouldn't the copyright be eternal if the creators rights are to be properly recognised?
By
Anonymous, at 2:26 PM
First, your use of the word Intellectual Property is too broad. There are a number of different categories of IP, not all of which come with protection after the death of the author/creator/inventor.
For example, patents. Patents protect an invention from the time it is registered for a specified number of years - notwithstanding the death of the inventor. In some places, its 20 years, for others, its 12 or 15. Its generally in that area.
What I know you're talking about is Copyright. Copyright 'subsists' in a work (artistic, musical, etc) for 70 years in Australia (s33 of the Copyright Act). Why 70 years and not 100, or 200, or 500, or eternity?
Probably to provide the benefit of the hard work to the kin of the author/creator. As I said the other night, IP is designed to recognise the effort expended by the author/creator, and this is deemed to continue to his/her children/family or whoever they transfer it to.
Why not for all eternity? There would be a practical problem, I'm guessing, because while you can say with certainty who the children/grandchildren of the author is, if you continue protection for all eternity, then the number of people who can authorise the usage of the work grows exponentially (maybe), and it becomes a redundant right.
Plus, like most things in law, it is a balancing act. There is a general belief that most things - works of art/technological developments - belong to all humanity. But if there is no protection, it is supposed that people won't put in so much effort if it turns out that some large multi-national corporation can just come along and ripoff their research/turn-of-phrase and make millions of dollars out of it. So its a balancing act... you're work is protected for your life, and the life of your children/grandchildren, and they can benefit from it, but after that, too bad...
That is why the time limits on patents is more stringent than copyright, because whilst copyrighted work may benefit us spiritually/intellectually, the arguments re: patents tend to centre around pharmaceuticals, which can affect us in a very real sense.
While I've heard alot of debates regarding how patents are inhumane (ie: AIDs vaccines), you are still the only person I've ever heard to argue that copyright should not extend beyond the death of the author. I HAVE NEVER HEARD IT BEFORE.
By
KJ, at 2:53 PM
What I don't understand is if copyright is meant to just protect intellectual invention for a certain time (to provided the inventor a decent amount of time to profit from it) or is it analagous to normal property rights (which is what I recall you said last time). If it is just a normal property right, then why don't the decendents have a right to profit from it eternity, as they would if the right was to real estate or stocks? (Your argument that an eternal copyright would be unweildy is a bit fallacious.)
If on the other hand, the point of copyright is not to hand over all rights to the use of the invention in eternity, but merely to allow the creator to profit from them temporarily (as this theoretically encourages other people to create) then it seems a bit of a jump to then say that that right can be passed down as an inheritable right. The point of copyright seems to be to encourage invention/creation. Gradually extending it (from its original 20 years to 70 or more) seems to me to be nothing but a brake on creativity.
Also, patents apply to a lot of other things besides medicines. I am not too sure of the links betweens patent and copyright law, but I am sure that it is not as clear as the tangible/intangible good dichotomy your propose.
By
Anonymous, at 6:29 PM
Oops. That last sentence should end "you propose"
By
Anonymous, at 6:29 PM
Well, intellectual property is not like a normal property right. I don't recall ever saying that.
Also, another explanation for gradual extension of copyright protection from 20 to 70 years may have something to do with people living longer these days than the original 20 years you spoke of (where did you get that?)... I have no idea, but that might have something to do with it.
I don't know that my eternity argument is fallacious - do you know how many descendants there are of Thomas Jefferson for example? But I don't think that would be the prime reason for the protection (see my point on the 'balancing act').
Also, its not a jump to say that it can be passed on as an inheritable right. It can, and is. Its a fact that intellectual property rights are inherited, so I fail to understand your argument. Take the Elvis estate, for example...
The arguments surrounding patents follow the whole "break on creativity/innovation" point that you raised, but never has it been mentioned with regard to copyright. I can't think of anyone who has said that because "To Kill a Mockinbird" is still protected by copyright, that the entire literary world is at a standstill... that the literature cannot progress. Can you think of an example where copyright protection has stifled creativity? I can't. The argument may well hold for patents, but not copyright.
Copyright may be used to protect a work for reasons other than an exclusive right to make a profit... who knows. But the protection remains.
Also, as to your last comment, I don't understand it at all. Patents apply to dozens of things. Beyond that, I have no idea what you're saying.
And allow me to stress this again... never have I heard of someone being opposed to copyright protection. Never ever. Can you give me an example of how you feel society would be better off without it?
By
KJ, at 6:47 PM
I think you can make an excellent case that extending copyright on books or music can act as a brake on creativity. Think of sampling in hip-hop music for example. If copyright on music is in effect for such a long time, then it could (and probably does) prevent people from reusing, changing, mixing or redoing it. As I said last week, the whole history of the development of Western Music is based on the wholesale theft/development of other composer's work.
My last comment was related to your comment about patents basically being only concerned with phamaceuticals. You argued that because they concerned a tangible good with real consequences to people's lives the time limit on patents is limited; as opposed to the intangible qualites of copyright protected works which don't have any real effects. I just meant that I felt this dichotomy to be a false one.
Anyway, I don't know enough about the subject to say anything more than that, and I think we might be talking at cross-purposes, so I'll leave it at that.
By
Anonymous, at 7:03 PM
As if I would let you have the last word.... AS IF!
First, I never said that patents only apply to medicines. I said that "the arguments re: patents tend to centre around pharmaceuticals, which can affect us in a very real sense." Meaning that pharmaceuticals can affect us in very real ways, and people debate that patents for AIDS vaccines should not be protected.
Second, re: the music. You may well be correct that Western music (and as you conceded the other night, all music, possibly) is based on the wholesale theft of a composers work. In fact, do you want a recent example? I believe Madonna's new song, Hung Up (I think?), was found to be an infringement of the work of a Belgian composer because it uses 4 bars from it. Is anyone going to cry for her (note the Evita reference... its rather clever) now that she's being rapped across the knuckles? Mostly, people are happy to let people use bars from their music, and this is where people get insanely rich from royalties...
But equally, why shouldn't artists have their work protected from being, what they believe, corrupted by people such as Britney Spears. You'll often hear of remakes being done... take Michael Buble, for example. He sings the songs of dead men. Songs that are still protected by copyright, and yet, there he is, singing away. That's because he pays royalties. It happens alot.
I had another brilliant point to make, but I've forgotten it... dammit.
By
KJ, at 7:22 PM
Ahem, hate to see a good nerd fight end without me...
I admit to barely scanning over what you two are going on about so I may be off track here, but Art 51 of the Amended Copyright Law of japan states that copyright exists for 50 years after the death of the author (then we can assume that there is a free-for-all). (Before that in Japan it was 50 years after the work was made public - which is manifestly unfair if you happen to be a child genius who lives to a ripe old age - though such lucky persons probably shouldn't be complaining). This is based on the Berne Convention, Article 7, but every country seems to be happily doing its own thing. So... you are both right, it does and doesnt end on the death of the author. (as far as I understand this is only for literary and cinemagraphic etc, works. Patents is beyond my comprehension)
I haven't studied IP Law at all, so, like I said, I may be off track, but I am kind of well aquainted with the Ritsumeikan Law Review International Edition of 2004 (ha ha ha ha! only Kallun will get this one.)
But I certainly can't agree with the idea that copyright infringes other people's creative processes. Of course there is quality appropriation in both art and music, which by nature becomes a new artpiece (though NOT original) but anyone who does so must pay their dues. Intellectual Property is just that - Property - and stealing is stealing just the same.
At any rate, it explains how they can sell penguin paperbacks at sydney central for 5 bucks... they are all oldies but goodies and therefore are only the price of the paper plus some.
By
Anonymous, at 11:52 PM
Kallun assumes that you mean edition 2005 of the Ritsumeikan Law Review... in any case, you're right. I don't think there was much dispute about the length or conditions for the commencement of copyright protection, but it is interesting to see how each country approaches the issue.
Another thing that I wanted to say (though it isn't the brilliant point I was boasting about earlier) is that there are exceptions on copyright... notably, for academic purposes. So at the very least, it doesn't affect 'access to information' per se, but mostly reproduction of content.
That said, though, there is debate about copyright over software code - specifically, Microsoft software. It is argued that Microsofts actions are anti-competitive, but rather than stifling ingenuity, it has actually helped it. This is where the 'open source' movement comes into play, and is how very popular programs such as 'linux' and 'firefox' (which I use) came about, and present strong competition to MS Windows and Internet Explorer.
I love a good nerd fight...
By
KJ, at 12:12 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home