Had a very laid back birthday. Some yummy dinner, and cheesecake. Mmm….

Otherwise, what caught my eye? Well:

• Liquid Glass. Comes as a spray-on can. Apparently, it’s very very awesome.
• Very, very interesting documentary: “digital nation” on PBS. See it online here. (via BoingBoing) (Anyone have a downloadable link?)
• Kids’ Lingerie? Boy, Disney’s expanding their market to child porn, I guess…

And finally, an interesting article on how computing is moving away from being open-ended and tinkerable. This hit home – I have fond memories of playing around with BASIC on our old PC XT computer, and making all kinds of programs. If you can’t do this sort of thing on newer computers, a lot of the mystery & allure that gets kids to really explore and learn computers will be gone – and we’ll be breeding a generation of nothing but lusers.

When DVD Jon was arrested after breaking the CSS encryption algorithm, he was charged with “unauthorized computer trespassing.” That led his lawyers to ask the obvious question, “On whose computer did he trespass?” The prosecutor’s answer: “his own.”

[...]

Once upon a time, Apple made the machines that made me who I am. I became who I am by tinkering. Now it seems they’re doing everything in their power to stop my kids from finding that sense of wonder. Apple has declared war on the tinkerers of the world. With every software update, the previous generation of “jailbreaks” stop working, and people have to find new ways to break into their own computers.

Possibly related posts:

1. Misc Updates
2. Misc. Updates
3. Larry Lessig on The Colbert Report

Possibly related posts:

1. An interesting essay on free thought
2. Interesting Story
3. Religious/Medical Art

And it looks to me like women in general, and the women whose educations I am responsible for in particular, are often lousy at those kinds of behaviors, even when the situation calls for it. They aren’t just bad at behaving like arrogant self-aggrandizing jerks. They are bad at behaving like self-promoting narcissists, anti-social obsessives, or pompous blowhards, even a little bit, even temporarily, even when it would be in their best interests to do so. Whatever bad things you can say about those behaviors, you can’t say they are underrepresented among people who have changed the world.

Now this is asking women to behave more like men, but so what? We ask people to cross gender lines all the time. We’re in the middle of a generations-long project to encourage men to be better listeners and more sensitive partners, to take more account of others’ feelings and to let out our own feelings more. Similarly, I see colleges spending time and effort teaching women strategies for self-defense, including direct physical aggression. I sometimes wonder what would happen, though, if my college spent as much effort teaching women self-advancement as self-defense.

The comments are very interesting (at least the first few I have read – I’ll have to go back when I am not so pressed for time). danah boyd posts some on her own blog:

Growing up, I loved to debate. With anyone. My debating tone used to drive my mother batty because she thought I was yelling at her. Exasperated, I would often bark back that I was simply debating. Over the years, I realized that my debating tone is one of such confidence that people believe me to be stating facts, not opinions. My mother interpreted it as yelling; my classmates interpreted it as arrogance. I also began to realize that it was the same tone as that of my male peers. I never apologized for my opinions, never deflated them with “I may be wrong but I think…” I asserted. Confidently. And loudly.

Why am I telling you this? Clay Shirky’s “A Rant About Women” has provoked all sorts of conversations in the blogosphere and on Twitter. And Tom Coates rightfully pointed out that one interpretation of Shirky is the problematic encouragement of self-promotion and lies. While a lot has been said on this topic, I feel the need to speak up and say more. Because, as I said, I’m loud.

Possibly related posts:

1. Sad commentary on the state of education
2. The King and Adulterous Women
3. A well written post

Even within any one class of incentive, the effect of money on creativity is rarely a straight line. Mordechai Richler would not have written four times as many books if his advances had been four times larger. The Guess Who might be tempted to release more recycled compilations if you pay them enough money, but their songs would not have gotten 1% better for every 1% their revenues went up. Thus, while copyright may provide a financial incentive that enables many creators to create, stronger copyright that results in more money does not necessarily result in more creativity.

In fact, how long would it take you to list the bands that have gotten worse as they’ve gotten richer?

[...]

Now, there would be no problem with setting up a system of laws that overemphasizes the financial incentives for creators if that system had no other effects. But it does, especially now that culture and economics have slipped the bonds of the old physics. Even if we devised a copyright law that provided the absolutely right amount of incentive for every creator to keep on creating, it takes more than motivated creators to build a creative, innovative culture.

It takes culture. It takes culture to build culture.

Whether it’s Walt Disney recycling the Brothers Grimm, Stephen King doing variations on a theme of Bram Stoker, or James Joyce mashing Homer up with, well, everything, there’s no innovation that isn’t a reworking of what’s already there. An innovative work without cultural roots would be literally unintelligible. So, incentives that require overly-strict restrictions on our use of cultural works directly diminish the innovativeness of that culture.

(via BoingBoing)

Possibly related posts:

1. Canadian Pirate Party…
2. Industry adds its voice to the Copyright Debate
3. Copyright in context

Please send your own comments in – you have another 4 weeks or so!

First of all, I want to thank you for asking for this consultation. It is a big step forward from accepting input only from industry lobbyists and ending up with something like the misguided C-61. My hope is that you will actually listen to the many voices of the public who have made submissions and table a balanced bill in the end.

In response to the five key questions you raise, I will address them in the three themes I read from them: why copyright matters, which particular reforms I feel would best foster innovation, creativity, and competition, and how to ensure that these reforms stay relevant.

Why does copyright matter?

Copyright, in the digital age, touches all of us in multiple ways. For myself, like most of us, I am a prolific consumer of culture – I listen to music, watch movies and shorts, and read blogs and news sites. And like many of us, especially the younger generation, I am also a creator – I blog about life, medicine, and culture as I see it. I write poetry and short stories. I author presentations to educate medical learners and my peers. I am also a bit of a technology afficionado, buying up the latest electronic gadgets from cell phones to media centres for my TV.

Copyright touches on all of these activities in profound ways, some obvious, and some less so. On the positive side, it lets creators profit from their works, or more amateur creators like myself post our products on the public Internet with some assurance that others cannot simply steal them and put their name to it or profit from it without license. Increasingly, however, existing copyright law is becoming more and more of a hindrance to the activities outlined above.  Legally, I cannot transfer a DVD or Blu-Ray movie I purchased to a portable device, or a backup medium to protect it from my children’s curious and inadvertently destructive hands. I cannot record a television program to a DVR for later viewing. Music, I can transfer, but only thanks to a narrow exception that is confusing (does it authorize p2p downloading for private use or not?) – and why should music be treated differently than video, or software, or news?

More insidiously, Canadian law blocks creators I admire from producing the documentary visions they see, thanks to the copyright lock-down of our culture. It blocks them from re-imagining classical tales, or juxtaposing pop culture to create parodies that amuse and enlighten. And when I create presentations, the law’s complexity makes me always uncertain about what I can legally show or distribute to my students, and have to worry about my ISP taking the information down without warning, or worse yet, defending against a copyright infringement suit and fearing thousands in damages.

Furthermore, reforms pushed for by certain groups would restrict things even further. Anti-circumvention measures threaten to eliminate even the limited fair dealing we enjoy in Canada; it threatens to eliminate my ability to tinker with gadgets I purchase and own (for example, unlocking a cellular phone) if my tinkering even threatens to create innovations that might dam some corporate income stream.

Which reforms to implement?

The ultimate purpose of copyright is to encourage the production and dissemination of creative works. It is a testament to the potential of digital technology that despite the threats and limitations of copyright, we are living in an age where there is so much creativity available to the world, and unlike the aberration of the last century, every citizen can easily become a creator and participant in art and culture. Canada needs to preserve and expand this participatory culture, and resist the push by last century’s incumbents to suppress the technology and return to a “professionally” produced consumer culture.

I believe C-61 headed the wrong way in this on a number of levels. C-61 would have made the majority of the population into copyright criminals, and hobbled modern technology and innovation. As other commentators in this consultation have stated, Canada should focus less on ‘copy’ right, since everything we do in the digital space requires ‘copies’ and more on ‘distribution’ rights, and to do this in a way that is fair and just (i.e. no action in unproven cases).

How do I feel the above could be achieved?

• Expanded Fair Dealing – to include activities already done and thought to be appropriate, such as time, format and device-shifting of content, as well as parody and satire. These examples should be demonstrative instead of exhaustive in the legislation to allow flexibility in the future.
• Limited anti-circumvention legislation – ideally, this should not even be implemented, as many have pointed out. They do little to protect the copyright interests of authors and distributors, but are very good at limiting innovation and competition in the marketplace. They are called for by WIPO, but those treaties are already antiquated and we have no legal obligation to ratify. However, if Canada does wish to ratify, then it must be done in a way to link anti-circumvention penalties to actual infringement, and the tools to circumvent must be legal, to avoid the embarrassing catch-22 of the DMCA (Circumvention is legal in certain cases but the tools to do so are illegal no matter what, so for example the disabled cannot cirumvent to read text aloud).
• Reasonable Penalties for Infringement – minimum statutory damages for non-commercial infringement need to be abolished. Why is the penalty for shoplifting a CD (which creates losses for the storeowner, distributor, etc) much, much less than for illegally copying an album online? Additionally, Canada should not implement a ‘three (unproven) strikes and no Internet’ regime. The Internet is essential today for public participation; unproven allegations of infringement carrying any penalty defies ‘innocent until proven guilty’; cutting one off from an essential tool furthermore is cruel and unusual.
• Notice and notice – notice and takedown as in the US has been used as a tool of censorship, and flies in the face of the rights of all people to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. An allegation of copyright infringement should be passed onto the user by the ISPs, and it is up to the user to respond and be liable for their actions.
• Protect the Public Domain – The creative works of today are derived from what came before. Unfortunately, more and more countries are increasing the length of copyright. This creates the ‘orphan works’ problem and really limits the ability of creators to re-imagine classics. Canada should not increase the length of copyright protection. It should also abolish Crown Copyright and put all publicly funded and created works in the public domain for citizens to use freely.

How to remain relevant?

Finally, how can Copyright reforms remain relevant? Primarily by not including technology-specific language in the bill. C-61 was obsolete before it was even drafted, referring to technologies such as the VCR that have been obsolete for years. The legislation should spell out principles (who can distribute works and how, commercial vs. non-commercial use) and not pick specific technologies (DRM, which is falling out of favour, or network PVRs).

As mentioned previously, reforms such as fair dealing need to be flexible – examples written in legislation need to be descriptive, not exhaustive. Any bill should be drafted with the copyright balance in mind – creators’ and distributor’s rights need to be addressed, but user’s rights, and the rights of creators to re-use, and re-imagine others’ material need to be protected also. This was highlighted by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2002.

On a more pragmatic basis, any law written must, in a democratic nation, be thought of as just and proper by the population. Otherwise, the law will be ignored (unless harsh and unreasonable punishments are created – is that a road we wish to go down?).

Over 150 years ago, in the US, Thomas Babington Macaulay gave some speeches in the House of Commons against extending the length of copyright (which at that time was a mere 14 years). One of his arguments was that people in general had respect for authors and publishers; and reviled the ‘pirate publishers’ who stole the author’s livelihood. He warned that with copyright extension, this opinion would shift, and the people would grow to consider the avaricious ‘legal’ publishers as the pirates, and would work against them, benefiting no one – not the authors, not the publishers, and not the ‘pirates’. In the light of public opinion today, it is hard to argue with him.

To promote innovation and the creation of more works, and allow compensation for artists, the answer is not to impose yet more restrictive laws, and further copyright extensions. Canada needs to create a balanced law that acknowledges as legal the fair dealing its citizens are already engaging in, sets clear guidelines for what is and is not an infringement on creator’s rights, and propose just and fair punishments for proven violations.

Sincerely,

DancingSamurai

Possibly related posts:

1. Copyright in Canada – Letter to my MP
2. Copyright Consultation
3. Wow! David Weinberger on copyright

And Swedish Pirate Party spokesperson has an op-ed in the financial times highlighting the problem:

If you search for Elvis Presley in Wikipedia, you will find a lot of text and a few pictures that have been cleared for distribution. But you will find no music and no film clips, due to copyright restrictions. What we think of as our common cultural heritage is not “ours” at all.

On MySpace and YouTube, creative people post audio and video remixes for others to enjoy, until they are replaced by take-down notices handed out by big film and record companies. Technology opens up possibilities; copyright law shuts them down.

This was never the intent. Copyright was meant to encourage culture, not restrict it. This is reason enough for reform. But the current regime has even more damaging effects. In order to uphold copyright laws, governments are beginning to restrict our right to communicate with each other in private, without being monitored.

[...]

Whenever there are ways of communicating in private, they will be used to share copyrighted material. If you want to stop people doing this, you must remove the right to communicate in private. There is no other option. Society has to make a choice.

Possibly related posts:

1. Pirate Party gets 2 seats in the European Parliament
2. Why the Canadian DMCA is bad
3. Canadian Private Copying

• The Oakville Waterfront Festival is this weekend. May be tough to go with my newborn little son… so maybe next year.
• A little story illustrating the point that functional disorders are diagnoses of exclusion.
• A urine test for appendicitis? Would be useful! (via WhiteCoat)
• Steve Novella reviews the history of chiropractic – wow, it’s really just woo, isn’t it?
  

  In the past 100 years, there has been very little research conducted into the basic principles of straight chiropractic. There is no research that indicates the existence of innate intelligence or that such a force plays any role in health and disease. Further, the evidence strongly suggests that chiropractic subluxations are a figment of the chiropractic imagination. And it also seems that spinal manipulation is not capable of realigning the vertebra of the spine.

• And a legal analysis of the recent HIV non-disclosure criminal cases & the public health implications. Waiting for the next article… I don’t necessarily agree with the author but it’s interesting reading.
• And this just disgusts me: Supreme Court declares strip search of 13-year old unconstitutional. You need a Supreme Court to tell you strip searching a 13-year old girl based on a classmate’s accusation that she has IBUPROFEN, without calling her parents, or police, is a bad idea? I’m shocked, but not surprised… sadly…

Possibly related posts:

1. Online sexual predators – a dose of perspective
2. Cory Doctorow on Copyright
3. Miscellaneous Links

The fear about teacher-student interactions also worries me at a broader societal level. A caring teacher (a genuinely well-intended, thoughtful, concerned adult) can often turn a lost teen into a teen with a mission. Many of us are lucky to have parents who helped us at every turn, but this is by no means universal. There are countless youth out there whose parents are absent, distrustful, or otherwise sources of frustration rather than support and encouragement. Teens need to have adults on their side. When I interview teens who have tough family lives (and I’m not talking about abuse here) but are doing OK themselves, I often find that it’s a teacher or pastor that they turn to for advice. All too often, the truly troubled kids that I meet have no adults that they can turn to for support.

Possibly related posts:

1. Misc Updates
2. School bans parents from kids’ sporting events
3. Clay Shirky on self-promotion and gender differences…

• Why we Immunize. No further comment required. (via Orac)
• From the US front, turns out some Democrats are pretty anti-science, too. Senator Tom Harkin was upset NCCAM (the publicly funded research centre tasked with investigating complementary and alternative therapies) has “fallen short” because it failed to “validate alternative approaches”. Maybe it’s because “alternative approaches” don’t work? Of course, bending the facts to fit your conclusions seems like good science to some… (via Orac, PZ, and a couple of articles on Science-Based Medicine)
• Science-Based Medicine blog has a great article regarding a new book about alternative medicine (Healing, Hype, or Harm?: A Critical Analysis of Complementary or Alternative Medicine), and one on a specific essay about healing vs curing.
  

  Leslie B. Rose describes the elaborate stepwise process of testing new drugs, from animal studies to phase I through IV human trials to post-marketing surveillance, and defines CAM as “a treatment which has not gone through this process, and in which we can have very little confidence that it works and is safe.” Other essays cover placebo, vitalism, patient choice, legal issues, politics and regulation, health care funding, homeopathy, chiropractic, and more.

• Vitamins? Apparently pretty useless unless for a specific indication.
• Sita Sings the Blues is out! I think I ran across this on BoingBoing regarding a rights dispute for the music; I guess that got sorted out. Also available on MiniNova in 720p, 1080p downloads. (via PZ Myers)
• Interesting book “No Fear: Growing up in a Risk Averse Society” – available for free – about how we are way over-protective of our children. (via BoingBoing)
• Somewhat along the same lines, an article (summary: Internet not full of pedophiles) and a thesis (about teen sociality online) by danah boyd both highlight the fact about youths’ risky behaviour on the internet – the problem is not that ‘pedophiles’ and other adults online want to lead these kids astray – although they certainly exist – but that the kids themselves are often engaged in risky behaviours without any help/guidance. The media is looking at the wrong end of the equation. But is it any surprise that they treat young adults as being incapaple of responsibility? (via BoingBoing)
• And a step in that direction – Privacy Settings Every Facebook User Should Know. (via Bruce Schneier) [Local cache: facebook-10-privacy-settings]

Attachments:

• danah boyd – Taken Out of Context
• gill-tim-no-fear

Possibly related posts:

1. Great commentary on CAM
2. Teachers, Students, and social networking
3. CAM skepticism – a good starting spot.

In line with Dean Hogge’s observation are Professor Greenberger’s test results. Nearly two-thirds of the students surveyed said that if they explained to a professor that they were trying hard, that should be taken into account in their grade.

Jason Greenwood, a senior kinesiology major at the University of Maryland echoed that view.

“I think putting in a lot of effort should merit a high grade,” Mr. Greenwood said. “What else is there really than the effort that you put in?”

“If you put in all the effort you have and get a C, what is the point?” he added. “If someone goes to every class and reads every chapter in the book and does everything the teacher asks of them and more, then they should be getting an A like their effort deserves. If your maximum effort can only be average in a teacher’s mind, then something is wrong.”

Although the overall tone of the above article is not supportive of this ‘A for effort’ attitude, it doesn’t dissuade it enough. Commentary here and here is much more like it:

Desire, drive, and effort are all necessary for success. But they are not sufficient. And that’s a distinction some students have difficulty grasping.

(via Sandwalk)

Possibly related posts:

1. Teachers, Students, and social networking
2. Chose the rocks in your life…
3. Digital Education Technologies and Copyright