don't mind the fine print

I'm not gonna lie, legal issues bore me. Nonetheless, it is crucial to understand them. I've always been interested in freelance work, but before this week, I felt like I didn't have enough of an understanding of how not to get ripped off. I'd still like to know more, but Monday's lecture was definitely helpful. My dad used to be a lawyer, so through him I've learned a lot about the law, but not so much about contracts and copyrights as they apply to intellectual property. The movie we watched was also pretty interesting. As one of my classmates pointed out, it was kind of one-sided, but it made some valid points nonetheless. I have mixed feelings about Girl Talk as an artist. On one hand, I don't think his music has as much value as original (or so-called original) compositions, but I don't really think that what he's doing is wrong. His songs are definitely different than the samples (I don't like AC/DC as much when it's not in one of his songs) and what he's doing is certainly creative, but I can see why people might be pissed at him. Either way, it's pretty ridiculous to see the lengths to which corporations will go to protect creative work, as well as scientific work. I think it would be nice if copyrights didn't exist, but at the same time, I'm sure that there are people out there who would blatantly abuse the system and just rip other people off for profit. Overall, it's a slippery slope, but I think it's pretty easy to judge the difference between an original work and an outright rip-off.

cradle to cradle II

As I said last week, I'm very excited about this book, and it has yet to disappoint. I'm still amazed at how deep the authors' understanding of environmental issues is. So far, this book is both uplifting and depressing. The fact that the Exxon Valdez spill boosted Alaska's GDP was very surprising and pretty scary. It reminded me of an article we read for studio last quarter about H.T. Odum's concept of "emergy" and "emdollars." The idea is that when a consumer buys something, they see not only the amount of currency it costs, they also see the associated costs of energy and environmental affects that went into its production, quantified as a value of currency. In this system, Alaska's GDP would certainly not have gone up. It's an interesting concept, but it seems like it would be too easy for people to just ignore it. I think this concept fits in with much of the book's content, in that it wouldn't make people do less bad, but rather more good. If, for example, someone buys a product or pays for a service that benefits the environment, they will see a positive value of emdollars, despite the fact that they are in fact losing money at the moment in exchange for the product. At any rate, I thinks it's an interesting idea. The ideas of "less bad is no good" and "eco-effectiveness" are also very interesting to me. In the past, I have tried to do less bad and I have put a high value on efficiency, but these chapters made a strong argument against that mentality. I really think that more people should be aware of the ideas in this book, as well as their implications for the future.