Dear Friend,
Today I had an interesting discuss with a friend. It seemed trivial but I think it has some importance because I have never made this fact explicitly known to my consciousness.
So, a fake privacy screen filter. If a privacy filter does not work at all, it cannot be called a fake privacy filter because it is not. A more extreme example is that you can't call a human a fake dog, because a human is not a dog. The notion of "fake" comes to play when someone (a human) insists that something is something else. So, if someone insists a piece of useless plastic is a privacy filter, then it can be called a "fake". Seems trivial doesn't it? But the declaration and intention of the human is crucial, and somehow at least for me, I often neglect that. Just like in scenarios of Common Knowledge, the declaration by a human is significant. Here, the declaration by someone that something is something else is a necessary condition for something to be called a fake.
Okay, then what about "山寨" products? They are copycat, but not fake. In fact, some order of knowledge that is related to common knowledge is applied here. (Pardon me if I use the concepts wrongly, and I am pretty darn sure I did) The consumers of the 山寨 products know that that the producers know that the consumers know the products are 山寨. I think in most cases 山寨 products do not market themselves as the real deal of some known brand. They copy the whole deal, but they may even be marketed as 山寨. So the idea of fake does not apply here, because there is no intention to declare something as something else. However, copyright infringements do apply since essentially, they are not paying for the rights to use the so called "intellectual property".
And I suddenly recall a CGP grey video, which stated that copyright is a contract between society and content producers (artistic, scientific, literary) (content is bad diction on my part) to promote the progress of science and "useful" arts by securing for limited times the exclusive rights to their respective works. This seems reasonable from an economic point of view. For artists, it allows them to earn money directly. For scientists, who spend time and effort in developing new technologies or making new discoveries, this gives them the economic incentive to work too. Since many scientists are funded by corporations, corporations are only willing to fund if they can make profit. Without copyrights, firms will be unwilling to invest in research and development since other firms can used the results of their hard earned research and make more profits, since those firms do not have to bear the initial cost of investing in research.
The key is, copyright has to apply for a limited period of time. In my opinion, it should be within the author's lifetime. CGP grey's video said that there is a life + 70 years copyright extension, and this definitely defeats the purpose of copyrights. The limited period of time should be long enough such that it encourages production of original content from all authors and short enough such that the original author has to produce new content. But that is hard to determine, and given the short sightedness of many, it is probably impossible to remove the copyright extension now, and that's a sad thing.
Mystery Cookie One Day: you come into work and find a cookie mysteriously placed on your desk. Grateful to whoever left this anonymous cookie, you eat it. The next morning you come in and find another cookie. This continues for months until one Day a different object is left—and this time there’s a note.
This is a super cool idea!!!!
Love, horror, mystery, thriller and complete waste of time!!!
A Diary may be a suitable text type.
That's write! (haha the pun!)
I also want to write about prawns.
Emotion reflections? Ha, legs and infats.
Regards,
The Retard.
No comments:
Post a Comment