The Extraordinary Tourist
Corporate (Copying Rights) Theft - The Orphan Works Bill
Saturday, April 26, 2008
The Orphan Works Bill consists of some new US laws around Copyright issues that could potentially cause you to loose your Copying Rights on anything you create from the very moment you make it. The Bill is currently on it's way for consideration by US congress and hopefully will be rejected and put to death with your support.
This bill will affect copyright holders world wide if passed so even if you're somewhere other than the US it's worth keeping yourself informed.
I'm certainly no expert on this bill so my limited understanding is this. Should someone wish to use your creation for commercial gain and they can't identify or find you as being the copyright holder (after taking reasonable steps to locate you) then your creation could be deemed an 'orphan work' and therefore 'fair game' for anyone to use as they please.
The implications are much worse for copyright holders if you research this issue further - which I encourage you to do so you get the facts rather than my understanding of them.
Please Digg and go to the main website linked below if you want to help fight this bill. Audio link to full interview here: Orphan Works
read more | digg storyLabels: issues, money
Alternative Energy doesn't mean Nuclear Energy.
Monday, October 29, 2007
 Recently in Australia there has been much debate about the need to find alternative energy sources to fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas. In terms of generating electricity the so called environmentally friendly Nuclear Power is often put forward as the one, clear and sensible alternative energy choice.
However I've always maintained that Nuclear Energy isn't environmentally friendly because no company has found a viable use for the nuclear waste it produces. Nuclear waste is usually to stored which, given its radioactive nature and inability to biodegrade safely within a time period of less than before Armageddon, doesn't seem all that friendly to me.
People like me usually look towards the obvious solar and wind energy as a better alternative but that's largely because I'm not a scientist. I lack the knowledge to look beyond the main stream options.
Thankfully the children's science show, Scope, presented a highly informative show on Alternative Energy giving hope that there really are alternatives to Nuclear energy. To be honest this particular episode should be required viewing for anyone wanting a heads up on where science is taking us with regard to environmentally sustainable/friendly energy sources.
What really impressed me during this episode was an alternative energy source known as Hot Rocks being developed by Australian company Geodynamics Limited.
In layman's terms this energy source sends water 5-6 kilometres below the earth's surface where it uses the heat stored in a naturally occurring, special kind of granite rock to heat the water. The water is then bought to the surface where it can be converted to steam. This steam is used to drive a turbine that produces electricity. The best part is that the water is reused meaning that this system is not a great burden on water supplies.
For a more detailed explanation read Geodynamics FAQs page.
Geodynamics makes the following claims about this energy source which I think puts the lid on Nuclear Energy once an for all:
One cubic kilometre of hot granite at 250 degrees Celsius has the stored energy equivalent of 40 million barrels of oil when the heat is extracted to a temperature of 150 degrees Celsius.
Australia is known to have several thousand cubic kilometres of identified high heat producing granites and these have the potential to meet the total electricity demand of the country for hundreds of years.
The only thing Hot Rocks has against it is that it is still in development. This is why I believe Nuclear is often touted as the way forward. Nuclear is ready to go. It's an established power source with powerful investors driving it forward. These investors have a real vested interest in establishing Nuclear energy in new markets so they can make more profit.
Governments often look towards established businesses willing to pay big money to install technology that will ultimately return a profit for everyone. It's economically cheaper than backing an in development, concept that won't return a dollar for several years. Even if that concept is a better alternative in the long term.
Having seen Scope's show on Alternative Energy I'm totally convinced that Nuclear Energy is not the way to go. Anyone supporting such a venture must have a vested interested in the companies involved. Nuclear is not an alternative and it is even less environmentally friendly than non biodegradable plastic shopping bags.Labels: issues, television
Sucking the moisture out of the air...Island Sky.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
In my recent post A Tax on Rainwater I made the following statement:
"A tax on rainwater might be valid if we were literally sucking the moisture out of the air. Farming clouds."
 Watching my local evening news broadcast tonight I was interested in a story about Australian owned company Island Sky who manufacture machines capable of extracting the moisture from the air and turning it into drinking water.
Island Sky's technology can be scaled depending on intended usage. From a 'water cooler' style model for the home or office through to being able to adapt the technology for commercial and industrial uses.
As much as the concept of Island Sky's technology is fantastic it does make me wonder if this kind of machine could affect weather patterns if implemented on a large and concentrated scale? For example could we see coastal cities sucking a larger proportion of moisture from the air to the detriment of inland towns?
The reason why I wonder leads back to my original quote above. Sucking the moisture out of the air. That's a much different proposition to collecting water as it flies. It's no longer random, it's calculated. It may have repercussions for the natural movement of water vapor through the air. If that happens then we surely may see a tax on rainwater.
At this point its all a little unknown but the whole Island Sky concept is one that seems well worth backing. Especially if it can bring clean water to developing countries that really need it.Labels: ideas, issues, news
Britney Spears, Going Down the Hard Road
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Photo: Sun-Sentinal.com
I'm not one to follow the trials of drugged out celebrities but when someone like Britney Spears is getting so much media attention it's hard not to notice. So, here's a post with a lesson.
It seems that not even Britney can get away with doing whatever the hell she likes. According tho this article on E! News, Britney Comes Clean on Drug Test, Britney is finally complying with a court ruling in order to regain access to her children after the courts gave temporary, primary custody to their father Kevin Federline.
The lesson here kids is that no matter how much money and fame you have you still can't get away with doing exactly as you please if your actions are illegal or potentially dangerous to those around you. Sooner or later the law will catch up with you and bite you on the... well, if you're Britney it'll take away your children.
Because that is one of the reasons why we have laws. They're there to protect you from yourself and, if you won't listen, they're there to protect others from your stupidity.
Don't take the hard road like Britney. The truth is that you can get away with doing so much more of what you want simply by doing the right thing by the people around you.Labels: issues, music, people
A Tax on Rainwater?
Saturday, October 06, 2007
 Over the past year there has been much debate in Australia over the idea of a rainwater tax for residential properties. It all seems to have started over a leaked Federal Government email by National Water Commission chief, Ken Matthews, suggesting that "Legally, all water in Australia is vested in governments."
Mr Mathews goes on to say:
"Governments have not yet considered the capture of water from roofs in rainwater tanks to be of sufficient magnitude to warrant the issuing of specific entitlements to use this class of water.
"However, if rainwater tanks were to be adopted on a large scale such that their existence impacts significantly on the integrated water cycle, consideration could be given to setting an entitlement regime for this class of water."
You can read the full article about the email and its subsequent discussion in this report by the Herald Sun dated January 14, 2007.
I can certainly understand the logic of Government ownership of rainwater and how, if residential properties were all to start collecting rainwater in greater quantities, it would affect storm water run off and ground water levels. However the idea to put a tax on rainwater is counter productive.
Many Australian state governments have been encouraging the use of rainwater tanks, even offering rebates to have them installed and plumbed into the water supply of residential properties. To put a tax on the collection of rainwater would be like having to pay back the rebate and then keep on paying for doing the environmentally sound thing of installing a rainwater tank.
To think that we might have to pay extra could be argument enough for uninstalling the tank and relying entirely on mains water. Next stop - increase the price of mains water usage?
In a country like Australia rain water isn't a reliable service. The whole point of capturing rain water is to take the pressure off our dams and other water supplies when they don't receive enough rain. Is the government likely to tax us on the actual amount of rain water we collect or are they likely to tax us on the size of our rainwater tanks regardless of whether the rain comes or not. The latter could be argument two for uninstalling the tank.
A tax on rainwater might be valid if we were literally sucking the moisture out of the air. Farming clouds. However we're not. We're simply collecting water as it falls from the sky. It's almost as silly as taxing people for using solar power. The more solar panels you have the more tax you pay.
If you're going to tax people for being environmentally responsible in a way that the government has encouraged then ultimately you are taking a step backwards. A tax is not a benefit for doing the right thing. A tax is something that should be applied to people and industries that persist in being environmentally irresponsible.
I did read that the current Federal Government had moved to assure people that tax on rainwater wasn't likely to occur in the foreseeable future but just lately I've heard some politician on the news raise the issue again, warning that it could happen?
I can tell you that any government that thinks this is a good idea had better make a really good case for it because, on the face of it, they would lose my vote entirely.Labels: issues, news
Copyright Laws - Time to Evolve!
Sunday, April 29, 2007
There is a real need for copyright laws to evolve and move with the times. At the very least there needs to be a new kind of licensing arrangement that encourages free use of copyrighted material but still taps into a share of revenue earnings should such free use begin to generate a substantial level of income.
The obvious case in point is the user generated content medium, online viral video. Many backyard video creators could have far greater earning potential with access to their favorite artist's latest music tracks.
Imagine being able to create your own music video clip for your favorite artist's latest single. For arguments sake, say you produce a clip that is better than the artist's original video clip. It goes 'viral' when you post it on a video site that pays, such as Revver or Metacafe. In the space of a day it's had 50,000 views with no sign of slowing down.
Suddenly you've earned a great deal of money by combining your talent with your favorite artist's music. It's at this point your work comes to the attention of the artist and, quite rightly, they want their share of the profits.
In today's market the artist usually demands you remove the clip from the internet and may even sue you for breach of copyright plus a slice of whatever income you've made but what if there was another option?
What if there was a licensing arrangement where you could use any kind of copyrighted material free of charge but make an agreement to pay the creator a negotiated royalty from any income generated over a specified amount (so as not waste everyone's time on trying to distribute minuscule amounts). How much more could everyone earn (and save in court fees) with this type of licensing? How much wider audience could a professional artist reach by allowing this kind of creative freedom with their work?
Admittedly it would be very hard to keep track of when content begins to earn substantial amounts of money but the sites that pay for user generated content must keep some kind of record of who has earned what in order to pay their creators. Logically it should be these sites that act as a go between and assist with artists being paid a royalty for the use of their music on user generated content.
For example, the video sharing site, YouTube, currently has a policy of not removing copyrighted content until the owner of that material makes a complaint and demands it be removed. What if a similar policy was adopted where by the owner of the copyright could claim their right to a percentage of the earnings?
It's all a bit messy I know but then the present copyright laws are messy too. However these laws need to evolve. It is currently impossible to keep track of how copyrighted material is used. It would be impossible to ensure that everyone who used copyrighted material signed a licensing agreement prior. There needs to be a middle ground.
Consumers are demanding the use of copyrighted material for their own creations. The owners of that material should be compensated if their work assists in generating substantial revenue.
User generated content is the future and it's here now. Copyright laws and professional creators need to embrace amateur creativity whilst still protecting income streams for all content creators whether they be amateur or professional.Labels: issues, money, video
Net Neutrality - why you should care...
Friday, January 05, 2007
Have you heard the term 'Net Neutrality' and wondered what all the fuss is about? This documentary by four eyed monsters explains it in everyday language and draws parallels with newspaper and radio for how the every day person lost access to open, mass media communication in those mediums. Essentially it's about Phone companies in the USA wanting to control the Internet through charging for different types of media as it is uploaded and/or downloaded to and from the net. For example it might cost you an additional fee to upload a video file to share with your friends. Currently you can upload as many videos as you like for whatever it costs you to be connected to the Internet but think of this cost for uploading each video file as an additional cost to being connected. These additional costs could be applied to all manner of files from email, pdf files, mp3 songs etc. etc. Remember how it's said that it costs virtually nothing to send an email? Potentially the phone companies could make you buy virtual stamps for every email you send. That might slow down the spammers but if you look at the real world postal service...it hasn't stopped the over supply of junk mail. There's always someone who can afford to send junkmail. What the phone companies want will reduce your ability to broadcast and communicate on a level playing field with big corporations because you'll be priced out of the market. Why is that good for big corporations? Well they'll no longer have to compete with people like me, making no budget content that's only watched by a minority of people who don't return enough income to pay for my lunch...forget about paying for my living expenses. The Corporations will get to feed you a selection of media based on market research, focus groups, cross sections and results that indicate which media is going to be the most profitable...there by killing minority media. Sound familiar? It should... that's what Television is. If you actually enjoy what I do...you won't see it again until I find a way to go main stream and be financially viable or can get a look in on a community broadcasting network. How likely is that? You might think this is only an issue for the USA but you'd be wrong. If the phone companies get their way in the States how long will it be before your communication provider and government wants a piece of the action? The whole war on net neutrality needs to be fought and won in the USA. If they lose to the phone companies there then it will be next to impossible to stop the transformation of the Internet as we know it to a closed media platform. Net Neutrality is the online issue for 2007. Keep yourself informed and don't support those who would take it away from you and I. Labels: corporations, internet, issues, media, neutrality
Your Outlook on Life.
Sunday, November 12, 2006
My partner and I went to a local pub for a nice lunch time meal. As we were finalising our order an elderly lady, just preparing to leave with her husband, suddenly became overcome with some ailment causing her temperature to soar. She appeared to be in pain. The thought that she may even be having a heart attack crossed my mind.
Her husband was quick to act, flagging down restaurant staff for some assistance with cold cloths and things. Several people on nearby tables offered their assistance but he didn't seem overly concerned saying this was something that had happened before and that she would 'come right again' in a little while.
The staff were great in offering assistance, keeping the ladies arms and neck cool with their cloths, trying to determine exactly what was wrong and whether the lady required an ambulance (she did seem to be in a lot of pain from what I observed). She initially refused an ambulance as she was of the same opinion as her partner about 'coming right' eventually. But the staff decided an ambulance was probably a good idea because she didn't seem to be getting better.
The women really did appear to be struggling. I'm not sure if she tried to get up or whether it was just that someone suggested lying down might help, as staff helped her to lie down on the floor next to the table (it was carpeted so not too hard).
By the time the ambulance arrived she was actually coming good again, sitting up and even joking a little with concerned onlookers. All in all a good outcome.
My partner joked that it wasn't a good look for the restaurant, a customer leaving in an ambulance. I thought perhaps they should give her a sign saying 'It wasn't the food' just to ease the mind of passers by.
After lunch my partner and I went over to a local park to take photos of flowers with her digital camera. We'd only just arrived when we were approached by a women and a girl (possibly mother and daughter). They greeted us friendly enough by explaining that they wanted to give us an invitation to a function they were attending.
In that second, what little open personality I display, was violently sucked into the metaphorical bomb shelter of my inner being as the realisation hit - we were under attack by messengers from God. Well, more precisely, messengers of The Revival Fellowship. From the moment their first sentence hit I limited my responses to 'uh-huh' and not much else.
This did not seem to deter them any. My partner, who knew of my previous experience with the fear of God, wouldn't look at me because I knew she was ready to burst out laughing if she did.
I'm not going to detail this conversation either because, just as before, I was only half listening. The rest of my thoughts were preoccupied with with the hope that the two of them would stop talking soon and move on.
What struck me though, was that these two were trying to convince me that the world is a terrible place, with everyone out for themselves, not thinking of others and with little hope. The usual doomsday kind of thing that many pro-active campaigners for religion preach in order to convince you of the need to follow Jesus or to accept God into your life.
It's an argument that pales when you consider the experience of the elderly lady in the pub earlier that day. Many people around her were very concerned, despite not knowing her at all. Many of them offered assistance, as did many additional restaurant staff, even though the situation was well under control with the two staff that were assisting her.
The world is not on the decline. It's always been this way. It all depends on which events you choose to focus on and what kind of out look you have on life. In this day and age more things are possible than ever before.
Perhaps I would be more open to religion if they didn't preach that the world needs saving from all the bad things. Why don't they preach about all the good things and encourage you to join in and help to make them better?Labels: issues, life, observation, social
|  Subscribe to
my blog feed.
|
