Why hunt the pirates? Why Hadopi?

The French government recently passed a law that will cut off internet users who use their account for illegal file sharing.

Sharing copyrighted files is illegal, and there is nothing strange about that. Artists have created something, and they should receive some compensation. Protecting their rights is a perfectly legitimate thing to do.

However, what is strange is the proportions the issue has taken.

Governments do not usually spend huge amounts on artists and art. However, here, suddenly, the government is willing to sacrifice people's right to share information, something which is article 19 in the the United Nations declaration of Human Rights:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

In other words, the French government is willing to take the risk of breaking an internationally accepted law of human rights for the sake of artists.

They can do so of course. It is a matter of weighing one law against another. But I still wonder why they choose to do it? If artists are so powerful lobbyists, why do they not ask for more public subsidies?

There are other important things in the world. Global warming. Economic meltdown. Diseases. Wars. Why, pray why, do governments spend so much time on controlling file sharing, when they do not support the artists more economically?

Documentary that is not documenting

There is a National Geographic production called "Wall of Death" about wildlife close to the Dead Sea.

The program has no obvious purpose. It is a "nature program", so it of course has sequences with wild animals. However, it also shows obviously staged sequences like a "live recording" of animals' behaviour during an earthquake. Clearly it is impossible to time camera setup with earthquakes, that can happen any time or never, and even if they managed to catch a real earthquake, it is a slim chance that they would be able to film any animals during the few seconds an earthquake usually takes.

Sometimes it is obvious what are staged sequences, and sometimes it is impossible to tell. The result is that you sit and spend all your time thinking "is this true? or is it fake?" And once you have seen the program to end, you have no idea what you actually learnt from it, if anything. However, you know you lost 50 minutes of your life.

Creationists have more fun

I met a man in the main square today. He asked me if I had read the bible, and I answered yes.

"It is a magnificent book, isn't it?" he continued.
"Well, partly yes. But I have problems with things like the bits about Adam and Eve. It is not easy to fit with modern science."
"Oh, forget modern science! God created all plants and animals."
"You seriously believe that?"
"If you admire the wonders of the trees on the steep slopes in a valley, would it not feel great to have someone to say thank you to? If you see a strange insect, would it not be great to be able to say that's the way God made it, instead of trying to figure out some strange evolutionary purpose?"
"But do you believe in it?"
"Of course, I do. I like feeling great. We creationists may be wrong, but we have more fun."

No Fondness for the Enemy

I do not like this. On NPR, a military psychologist, Bryce Lefever, on the subject of torture says:

"I have no fondness for the enemy, and I don't feel like I need to take care of their mental health needs."

There are many logically valid arguments for torture, even though they rarely hold morally. If someone knows he can extort information from a prisoner, thereby saving the lives of thousands of others, then logically, torture may be an option. It is another story that the techniques used by the US apparently were useless. They could have worked, and that means that the argument theoretically works.

But what is really disturbing with Lefever's statement is not that he approved of some useless painful interrogation techniques. It is that there are people he felt he did not need to take care of. Labelling other human beings as people you do not need to take care of, gives a very bad taste in one's mouth.

There is not any such category of people according to the laws of any Western (or Eastern) democracy. Bank robbers have legal rights. Enemy soldiers have rights described in the Geneva Convention. Murderers cannot legally be lynched by angry mobs. Every human has a value. Every human is worth some care and protection. Every human has rights.

I took Lefever's statement verbatim but out of context. It is possible that he did not mean it quite that bad. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt. He has the right to it. He is human.

Negative apples

When I went to school we had plenty of examples counting with apples. "You have 2 apples. Bob has 3 apples. How many apples do you have together?" I thought that was pretty easy, I'm proud to say.

However, nowadays, people seem to count in negative assets. Fiat lost 48 million euro the first quarter 2009. Still, as they lost less than the competition, that makes it possible for them to buy (?) other companies, like Chrysler, Opel and Saab.

"You do not have 2 apples. Bob doesn't have 3 apples. Who has most apples? How many apples do you not have together?"

Apple is buying Twitter

There are plenty of rumours on the internet right now, that Apple will buy Twitter.

I would just like to point out that it is all just rumours that do not deserve any comment at all. It is often enough if someone uses the words "a normally reliable source" for a lot of people to believe it, even though they normally would not trust the journalist or site, who writes that the source is reliable.

This rumour is not worth mentioning anywhere. If you see a website propagating the rumour, stop reading the entire site immediately, and come to this blog instead. Just make sure you avoid the particular blog entry, where I mention that Apple is buying Twitter.

Chrysler, Opel, Saab... and Fiat. Why?

I do not get this. Last week the world seemed to give a sigh of relief that Fiat had made a deal with Chrysler. This week there seems to be a new deal with GM's European brands SAAB and Opel.

All this may work, of course, and the result may be an economically healthy car giant. But is there any particular reason to believe so? Chrysler already failed miserably in a merger with German Daimler. SAAB and Opel still presumably have plenty of links with GM, which makes some of their parts. And Fiat had huge economic problems themselves until not so long ago.

Fiat and their subsidiaries Ferrari, Lancia and Alfa Romeo make great cars to drive, but they are not known for their high quality, or commercial success.

This merger concerns a number of very different brands and technologies. A lot of skilful organisation needs to be applied to make it work. Does any of the involved companies own those skills?