I found Furey's lecture on genetic information quite interesting for several reasons. One thing that struck me as interesting was the fact that companies are trying to make a profit out of sequencing a person's genome. In my mind, as Furey explained it, this is ridiculous because these reports do not really reveal any significant information. For example, if the test tells the person that he has a 10% more chance of getting a certain disease, but the disease is only found in 2% of the population, then the chance the person gets the disease is 2.2%. This information (the 10%) is misleading especially because the people who receive these reports do not really understand it. Further, the reports do not really come with any kind of analysis that reveals the truth. Furthermore, I found it really strange that companies are trying to patent different parts of the human genome. In my opinion, this should not be allowed becuase it might significantly destroy the prospects of the advancement of technology. For example, I believe that a certain company patented part of the genome that may help in curing breast cancer; however, this means that other companies can not use this to further science. This could be a major problem in the future when companies figure out different ways to cure diseases but they are unable to use what they find because it is patented.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Hippo Technologies
Recently, while playing Second Life, I visited a store called Hippo Technologies (the slurl is: http://slurl.com/secondlife/Hippo%20Technologies/95/169/44). Upon visiting the store for the first time, I was intrigued by the architecture of the building, which was covered with black glass and a logo for the store. Hippo Technologies is a very complex business in that it offers a variety of quite advanced services and products. For example, some of the services they sell are home security services and delivery services. It seems rather ridiculous that one would need home security in Second Life, but there must be some kind of demand for it considering the store was packed with avatars. Furthermore, their delivery service seems realistic; for example, if a person, for some reason, is unable to pick up something he purchased, or if the person's computer crashes, Hippo Technologies will pick up the product you purchased and deliver it to your inventory. This business also sells products, such as various scripts that sell for hundreds of Linden dollars.
This business is very different than most other businesses that I saw in that it is very, very complicated. The services and products that it sells is certainly not for the average Second Life player. Though the business does not attract these type of players, there is no doubt that there will always be customers in the store because it caters to a more advanced Second Life audience that spends a large amount of resources on the game.
This business is very different than most other businesses that I saw in that it is very, very complicated. The services and products that it sells is certainly not for the average Second Life player. Though the business does not attract these type of players, there is no doubt that there will always be customers in the store because it caters to a more advanced Second Life audience that spends a large amount of resources on the game.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Copyright Laws: Smith and Jenkins Lectures
In my opinion, both Kevin Smith's and Jennifer Jenkins's lectures on copyright laws and how the laws are colliding with new means of intellectual property were very interesting. Kevin Smith, naturally being a lawyer and librarian, discussed the fight between Google and authors and publishers around the world. Many authors believe that it is copyright infringement when Google, through Google books, allows people to see previews of their books. Because of the copyright laws, Smith explained to us that Google had to reach an agreement. Now, there are strict rules on which books people can preview and how many pages or paragraphs or sentences that can be previewed. One thing about the copyright law that Smith mentioned that I found strange was the length of copyright. Originally, it was for 14 years, after which the owner of the intellectual property could renew the copyright. But after years of progression, the copyright law is now the life of the author plus 70 years. Though I understand the need for copyright, in that it fosters creativity and innovation, it does not make much sense to put such a long time constraint on it. For example, if a person needs to use something, which has not been touched in years and something no one cares about, but is still protected by copyright law, that person is not allowed to use it without the consent of the owner. Even though there is a good chance that this person will never find the owner, the government still claims that it should be protected by copyright. This does not make much sense, and, in a way, may, as a direct result of governmental policy, cause a deadweight loss. This is detrimental to our society. I believe that copyright law should be a certain number of years, after which the owner can choose to renew it. This way, if no one renews the copyright of a tangible item, it is free to use in the public domain.
One topic that Jenkins talked about that I found interesting was the fact that the copyright law has been written in such ambiguous and arbitrary terms that it is almost impossible for anyone, without legal training, to understand the document. This means, according to Jenkins, that often times, in cases where copyright law is not clearly defined, judges usually rule based on their own gut feeling, and not strictly according to governmental law. Thus, many of the recent cases with copyright law and its collision with the new medium that displays intellectual creativity (ie. the Internet) will be decided by the will of the judges. This seems dangerous considering that many present judges, being relatively old and perhaps being not technologically savvy, may not see the importance in loosening copyright law so that creativity will be encouraged and promoted through this new medium.
Furthermore, after hearing both of the lectures, I concluded that there is a serious battle underway between copyright laws and digital creativity. It seems that much of what random people are creating online is, in the eyes of the United States Government, copyright infringement. However, in my opinion, these outdated, antiquated copyright laws are indeed stifling digital creativity. If you look at much of the material online, such as videos, pictures, sound clips, etc., a lot of this seems that it would be copyright infringement. In my opinion, if the government goes after those who created this items, or even becomes stricter with sites that facilitate these items, such as YouTube, there will be a great loss in digital creativity. For example, many of the popular mashups on YouTube, such as this song, which is a mashup of six popular songs, would not be shared with millions of people around the world. After listening to songs such as this one, and viewing videos that use copyrighted material, it is evident that these new items are very creative and don't have any intent to profit from the original material. I believe that if the government becomes increasingly strict about imposing copyright law on the Internet, digital creativity will soon be lost.
One topic that Jenkins talked about that I found interesting was the fact that the copyright law has been written in such ambiguous and arbitrary terms that it is almost impossible for anyone, without legal training, to understand the document. This means, according to Jenkins, that often times, in cases where copyright law is not clearly defined, judges usually rule based on their own gut feeling, and not strictly according to governmental law. Thus, many of the recent cases with copyright law and its collision with the new medium that displays intellectual creativity (ie. the Internet) will be decided by the will of the judges. This seems dangerous considering that many present judges, being relatively old and perhaps being not technologically savvy, may not see the importance in loosening copyright law so that creativity will be encouraged and promoted through this new medium.
Furthermore, after hearing both of the lectures, I concluded that there is a serious battle underway between copyright laws and digital creativity. It seems that much of what random people are creating online is, in the eyes of the United States Government, copyright infringement. However, in my opinion, these outdated, antiquated copyright laws are indeed stifling digital creativity. If you look at much of the material online, such as videos, pictures, sound clips, etc., a lot of this seems that it would be copyright infringement. In my opinion, if the government goes after those who created this items, or even becomes stricter with sites that facilitate these items, such as YouTube, there will be a great loss in digital creativity. For example, many of the popular mashups on YouTube, such as this song, which is a mashup of six popular songs, would not be shared with millions of people around the world. After listening to songs such as this one, and viewing videos that use copyrighted material, it is evident that these new items are very creative and don't have any intent to profit from the original material. I believe that if the government becomes increasingly strict about imposing copyright law on the Internet, digital creativity will soon be lost.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)