Month: August 2010

The arts have since time immemorial been somewhat of a peculiar endeavour. They have at times been seen as the herald of a new era, been misunderstood, been seen as rather weird to one generation only to be loved by another. In any case society as a whole (despite the misgivings of some) has always lauded artists whatever the occupation. Since the Renaissance the role of the artist has changed dramatically such that about a hundred years ago the rather antiquated copyright laws were re-written to provide a framework for artistic endeavour, rather than a mechanism for censorship. Apart for some minor revisions they remained more or less the same until the US devised this wonderful thing called the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act). It strikes me that the whole intent of the DMCA was not to encourage artistic endeavour but to prop up the obscene control large corporations had gained over the arts.

I have been reading an interesting paper published by Koleman Strumpf on the effect of unorthorised downloads on music sales. (Warning PDF link.) In it he suggests that not only are the figures quoted on losses by the recording companies exaggerated but in fact it may be the case that music sharing increases the sales of music. It makes a very interesting read and certainly demonstrates that there are many misconceptions being perpetrated by the music companies.

In light of that, the information here makes the recording industries actions not only counter productive but downright idiotic. Not only are they cutting off the head of the golden goose but they are wasting millions of dollars to do it.

So in summary the recording industry are suing the very people who are in fact buying their music and are cutting into their profits by millions of dollars in doing so. Hardly what one would call a smart business decision. The obvious conclusion is that the recording companies are only interested in maintaining their control over the industry and have little or no concern about the artists that they purport to represent.

Since the rise of science and engineering our daily life has become dependant on experts in science and engineering.

Where, for instance would we be without the humble automobile? We own a Prius and not many cars are more packed with technology than the modern Hybrid. Batteries, motors, both internal combustion and electric, regeneration, digital control systems. Without faith in the scientists who put this together I would be terrified to take it onto the road. Even with the issues and recalls the actual failure rate is minuscule.

Look at something as mundane as a bridge. Without the mathematics and materials science they would never stay up. We do not consider that we are taking a risk when we drive over a bridge.

Consider the humble mobile phone. I have had maybe six or seven for over ten years and not once has one failed me except maybe for the odd battery. This is a pretty good record.

The examples are endless. TV, DVD, Radio, Microwave, air conditioner, many many domestic examples of science in action.

Then there are the specialists. Take forensic science. Many court cases are decided on the findings of scientists. Then space flight. If the scientists were wrong then there would have been unmitigated disasters in space. As it was there were a few tragedies but only when systems failed and then analysis demonstrated the cause, by scientists. Geologists are finding new sources of energy and minerals daily.

So with scientist’s record of discovery and inventiveness, of getting us out of and into trouble, of their reliability and expertise why is it that when we come to this extremely importing and world changing discovery we distrust them? Why would we believe a lobby group with a vested interested over dispassionate scientists with a track record of getting things right over and over again?

Either drive over that bridge with confidence and accept global warming or prepare to reject almost everything that your consumerist lifestyle is built on. You cannot have it both ways.