Yeah, it wasn't for that long, but for a time there entire aisles were completely bare and the stores as a whole had virtually nothing.
I'm pretty remote.
I'm pretty remote.
Olivia Newton John died last August. She was 74 years old.
I was thinking about that when I was listening to this different rendition of Greensleeves: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g64hauOT6U
The thing that really struck me is that a lot of the stuff she did in her youth is perfectly consumable today. Grease is still a quite popular movie, her songs are recorded in high fidelity, and so she'll live on forever in her creations.
That's fine, it's good. Good for her. Immortality through our works is a dream of many. But John Travolta is 68 now, presumably most of the actors from that movie are in that age range of 68 to 74. some of them might live to 80, but before my son is legally an adult, all the actors from that movie are likely to be dead of old age.
My parents watched it in theatres when it was new, and I, their kid, watched it and it's still in copyright. And my kid can watch it, and it's still in copyright. And his kids can watch it, and it's still in copyright. And his kids kids can watch it, and it's still in copyright. His kids kids kids can likely watch it, and it'll still be in copyright.
We've got a problem of immortal high fidelity media being protected effectively eternally by overly powerful copyright law.
The purpose of copyright is to incentivise the production of new works. What additional incentive did the now dead Olivia Newton John have in 1978 to make that movie by knowing that my kids kids kids will be forced to comply with copyright, a lifetime after she's long dead?
Besides the legal question, there's another thing: Once we're all directly competing artistically with our grandparents, great grandparents, great great grandparents, and great great great grandparents in their prime and with the full backing of the world's governments to enforce that competition, what effect does that have on culture and on the creation of new culture?
I think it's already happened. Culturally, I'd argue we're in a period of intense conservatism.
I know, a lot of people might take issue with that statement, but consider how much culture is just remakes or reimaginings of things that are sometimes decades, sometimes almost a century old. Action Comics #1 is 85, and we're still rehashing new movies -- and by "we", I mean "the copyright holders of this 85 year old property", who are the only people allowed to create derivative works of the property despite everyone originally being involved with its creation being long-dead.
We see companies vying for control of our entire culture going back generations, and that's apparently ok.
I dunno, things can't stay like this for long imo.
I was thinking about that when I was listening to this different rendition of Greensleeves: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g64hauOT6U
The thing that really struck me is that a lot of the stuff she did in her youth is perfectly consumable today. Grease is still a quite popular movie, her songs are recorded in high fidelity, and so she'll live on forever in her creations.
That's fine, it's good. Good for her. Immortality through our works is a dream of many. But John Travolta is 68 now, presumably most of the actors from that movie are in that age range of 68 to 74. some of them might live to 80, but before my son is legally an adult, all the actors from that movie are likely to be dead of old age.
My parents watched it in theatres when it was new, and I, their kid, watched it and it's still in copyright. And my kid can watch it, and it's still in copyright. And his kids can watch it, and it's still in copyright. And his kids kids can watch it, and it's still in copyright. His kids kids kids can likely watch it, and it'll still be in copyright.
We've got a problem of immortal high fidelity media being protected effectively eternally by overly powerful copyright law.
The purpose of copyright is to incentivise the production of new works. What additional incentive did the now dead Olivia Newton John have in 1978 to make that movie by knowing that my kids kids kids will be forced to comply with copyright, a lifetime after she's long dead?
Besides the legal question, there's another thing: Once we're all directly competing artistically with our grandparents, great grandparents, great great grandparents, and great great great grandparents in their prime and with the full backing of the world's governments to enforce that competition, what effect does that have on culture and on the creation of new culture?
I think it's already happened. Culturally, I'd argue we're in a period of intense conservatism.
I know, a lot of people might take issue with that statement, but consider how much culture is just remakes or reimaginings of things that are sometimes decades, sometimes almost a century old. Action Comics #1 is 85, and we're still rehashing new movies -- and by "we", I mean "the copyright holders of this 85 year old property", who are the only people allowed to create derivative works of the property despite everyone originally being involved with its creation being long-dead.
We see companies vying for control of our entire culture going back generations, and that's apparently ok.
I dunno, things can't stay like this for long imo.
True. My grandparents had an entire big pantry filled with food because they lived through rationing during world war 2.
We experienced a slice of it during the earliest days of COVID, when the grocery stores were totally empty.
We experienced a slice of it during the earliest days of COVID, when the grocery stores were totally empty.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twix9KfES9Y
Folk song from England in the 1600s, an absolutely beautiful rendition of it.
Folk song from England in the 1600s, an absolutely beautiful rendition of it.
Our ancient ancestors spent most of their time worried about starving to death at any time, so the genetically ingrained eating habits make sense.
Of course, while our ancient ancestors have given us many important lessons through our DNA, some of those lessons must be tempered by moderation while living in civilization. We're not going to starve in the near future, so we need to act as if we'll eat tomorrow.
Of course, while our ancient ancestors have given us many important lessons through our DNA, some of those lessons must be tempered by moderation while living in civilization. We're not going to starve in the near future, so we need to act as if we'll eat tomorrow.
You gotta admit, one of the reasons Americans are overweight is that there's an abundance of really good food.
My dad told me about having to eat the same meat and potatoes all winter because that's all that was available. I'd be skinny if all I had to eat was meat and potatoes for months at a time too.
My dad told me about having to eat the same meat and potatoes all winter because that's all that was available. I'd be skinny if all I had to eat was meat and potatoes for months at a time too.
One thing we've slowly recognised is that a lot of things we take for granted, such as having an internal monologue or being able to visualize things, isn't universal among human beings. I wouldn't be surprised that feeling for another person isn't universal either, so some people just go through the motions they see other people going through.
Honestly, that would explain way too much.
Honestly, that would explain way too much.
I'm glad I keep on hearing about things that don't sound like they're predicting a massive recession at all.
I apparently got the dates wrong, it wasn't until after the passing of the DMCA that someone tried to use copyright to establish a property right over something they'd already sold, and even my memory of that was a bit flawed because the talk of property rights in the decision appears to be different than I remember it.
Getting old sucks!
Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Skylink Technologies, Inc. (2004) https://web.archive.org/web/20090618100237/http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/381/381.F3d.1178.04-1118.html#
Getting old sucks!
Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Skylink Technologies, Inc. (2004) https://web.archive.org/web/20090618100237/http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/381/381.F3d.1178.04-1118.html#
What's interesting is that it was established long before the DMCA that copyright is NOT supposed to establish new property rights on devices after sale. There was a court case I think in the 1980s with garage door openers, and the supreme court made it pretty clear as I recall that you don't get to use copyright to give yourself property rights to a device you've already sold.
The story I heard, and I don't know how true it is, but it's that Walt Disney the man grew up in the south around many blacks, and that's where he got the ideas that he put in there. Rather than being some hateful attack on blacks, it's a representation of a culture that existed at the time.
Something's been bothering me for a while: when something is represented basically accurately, it's called racist. The only "not racist" thing is to have every person from another culture act like they've been living in Southern California for the past 4 generations.
It seems to me that for all the talk of "white supremacy" in every other facet of all societies around the world, when it comes to mass media centered around Southern California, people of every race, creed, and color are only allowed to act exactly like white Californians or face erasure. Even "ethnic representation" seems to just end up being white people dipped in different strengths of tea. You have to talk like they do, act like they do, think like they do, agree with all their political opinions, and then and only then are you allowed to be "representation" in media.
But hey, I'm just a redneck from northern Canada, so what do I know?
Something's been bothering me for a while: when something is represented basically accurately, it's called racist. The only "not racist" thing is to have every person from another culture act like they've been living in Southern California for the past 4 generations.
It seems to me that for all the talk of "white supremacy" in every other facet of all societies around the world, when it comes to mass media centered around Southern California, people of every race, creed, and color are only allowed to act exactly like white Californians or face erasure. Even "ethnic representation" seems to just end up being white people dipped in different strengths of tea. You have to talk like they do, act like they do, think like they do, agree with all their political opinions, and then and only then are you allowed to be "representation" in media.
But hey, I'm just a redneck from northern Canada, so what do I know?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3On097nE78
When I listen to songs like this, it's hard to escape a conclusion that a lot of american rock and roll is copy pasted right from african music.
The only problem is that this was recorded in the 1960, so was it modified for contemporary mainstream audiences who wanted american rock and roll? If that was the case, then you can't really draw any conclusions.
When I listen to songs like this, it's hard to escape a conclusion that a lot of american rock and roll is copy pasted right from african music.
The only problem is that this was recorded in the 1960, so was it modified for contemporary mainstream audiences who wanted american rock and roll? If that was the case, then you can't really draw any conclusions.
So let's change it around a bit. Instead of "the public", let's say "the other property owners whose enjoyment of a property is harmed by the actions of the one person".
I think of that one property development in New Jersey that ended up being the former location of a company's secret toxic waste dump. Besides the homeowners being harmed by brutal toxic waste, their property is entirely useless after it was discovered. Best of all, the company that dumped the waste had long since gone out of business so it just sucks to be them. I think it was the federal government who picked up the tab ultimately for that, which is no better -- great, people who didn't have anything to do with New Jersey ended up helping pay for a new house for someone because someone else dumped toxic waste in a spot.
I think of that one property development in New Jersey that ended up being the former location of a company's secret toxic waste dump. Besides the homeowners being harmed by brutal toxic waste, their property is entirely useless after it was discovered. Best of all, the company that dumped the waste had long since gone out of business so it just sucks to be them. I think it was the federal government who picked up the tab ultimately for that, which is no better -- great, people who didn't have anything to do with New Jersey ended up helping pay for a new house for someone because someone else dumped toxic waste in a spot.
I want to push back against that a little.
I agree that some elements of the current environmental movement seems more interested in micromanaging your life than doing anything meaningful for the environment, but there's a lot of elements of it which are totally reasonable and good.
If we let some people get their way, the entire continent would look more polluted than Beijing. There was an image posted a while back of a slaughterhouse that turned the river it was next to into a nightmare of fat and entrails and rejected animal carcasses, and it wasn't until someone with the power stepped in to do so and forced them to stop it that the river was recovered for the public's use. That sort of abuse is a liberty issue as well. If companies can just destroy our shared environment and at the end of it just go out of business that's a problem.
This is one of those cases where a balance needs to be found between the rights of the people as a whole to the enjoyment of the waterway in a pristine form and the rights of the individual trying to enjoy their own property by running a factory of some sort. I don't think the question should be "environmentalism: yes or no?", but a more nuanced "where is the line that best balances the rights of the people and the rights of individual property owners?"
And on a completely different tangent, the fact that they lock down our factories but allow products built in factories that are more than happy to destroy the global ecosystem is a problem as well. You just end up with impoverished locals, enriched foreigners, and a country "somewhere else" that slowly dies by being the painting of Dorian Gray for our own environmental sins.
I agree that some elements of the current environmental movement seems more interested in micromanaging your life than doing anything meaningful for the environment, but there's a lot of elements of it which are totally reasonable and good.
If we let some people get their way, the entire continent would look more polluted than Beijing. There was an image posted a while back of a slaughterhouse that turned the river it was next to into a nightmare of fat and entrails and rejected animal carcasses, and it wasn't until someone with the power stepped in to do so and forced them to stop it that the river was recovered for the public's use. That sort of abuse is a liberty issue as well. If companies can just destroy our shared environment and at the end of it just go out of business that's a problem.
This is one of those cases where a balance needs to be found between the rights of the people as a whole to the enjoyment of the waterway in a pristine form and the rights of the individual trying to enjoy their own property by running a factory of some sort. I don't think the question should be "environmentalism: yes or no?", but a more nuanced "where is the line that best balances the rights of the people and the rights of individual property owners?"
And on a completely different tangent, the fact that they lock down our factories but allow products built in factories that are more than happy to destroy the global ecosystem is a problem as well. You just end up with impoverished locals, enriched foreigners, and a country "somewhere else" that slowly dies by being the painting of Dorian Gray for our own environmental sins.
Probably nearly 100% efficient, but not necessarily cost effective, assuming those radiators are being heated with natural gas. Burning a thing to make water hot is pretty hard to improve upon by throwing a generator and a bunch of power lines in between the fire and the thing we want to make hot.