Computer Recycling

The word "recycling" has a distinctively positive connotation - when people recycle, they feel as though they're doing something good for the planet and its people, and that they deserve a metaphorical "pat on the back." I learned from the Dell website that all Dell computers, whether laptops or desktops, can be recycled, and that the company encourages such action. There is an entire page on Dell's website devoted to recycling, with the slogan "Free. Easy. Convenient." They outline who to contact to get rid of your old computer and how easy the process is - they will even go to the extent of having someone come to your home to remove and "recycle" your old computer. But what Dell does not touch upon, though, is where the computers go to be recycled and how it happens. We assume that if we recycle, we have automatically done the right thing and do not take the time to question where this seemingly secretive process occurs. It has come to my attention through a video we watched in class today that recycling is not always as carefree as imagined, especially when it comes to recycling computers. With 50% of the world's computers taken to China for recycling, the "e-waste" there is not only unbelievable and outrageous, but dangerous as well. When the screens of computers are smashed to separate the glass, the led inside is released, and contaminates the soil and rivers, thus contaminating the water table and necessitating the shipment of fresh water into the area. This is despicable and should not be tolerated. We must learn to question where and how things are recycled, and not just assume that because they have magically disappeared, we have done the right thing. I am not trying to say that recycling is bad and should be stopped, but it is our responsibility as active citizens to stop and learn more about the recycling process and how it affects others.

Intellectual Property - Creativity

A suitable synonym for intellectual property is creativity. All people have the natural right to be creative according to MacPherson. Now, do all people have the right of protect their works of creativity and benefit from them? The capitalist belief or value defends the creator's right to profit from their works of creativity. And the American laws have been set to protect that value.
Now, the American law also allows pieces of creative works to be used by others as long as the work is cited or the tribute is contributed. Lessig presents "quoting" as a way of payment to the originator. As a student, I benefit from this allowance when writing research papers about topics only experts like Doctors of Philosophy have researched. Do I profit monetarily from this use? No. I do benefit but I do not profit monetarily. It is obvious that companies and profit seeking entities find problems with these 'quoting' issues when profits are being earned. GirlTalk, for example, is an artist that has made money from "quoting" musical artists in order to create new musical products.
If I am to support GirlTalk's position I would use the concept developed by Locke. Locke presented the idea that if value is added to something then improvement has been made and the new property that has been created is owned by the creator. This concept can be applied here. Many listeners are downloading GirlTalk's musical product which proves he has added value and made an improvement to something thus he deserves the monetary profits. Creativity in any form is owned by the creator thus GirlTalk should wreak the benefits.

Intellectual Property and Music

The article entitled “The Problem With Music” by Steve Albini offers a very negative view of the music recording industry from a band’s aspect. Albini is under the impression that new bands are exploited and taken of advantage of in regards to contracts and money, but the simple fact is that every industry employs this strategy and he thinks that the music industry is the only industry that falters because of his specific knowledge of this field. Albini starts the article out by explaining how hard new bands have to work to succeed and how they supposedly have to subject themselves to unpleasant and unfair tasks, but this is a very close minded view of reality. When people break into any field it is very hard to receive recognition and thrive, that is just how American culture works. People are emotional and jealous and the majority of them love to see others fail, whether it’s just to see them fail or for their individual advancement. Some of the arguments Albini makes are completely valid, but at the same point stardom is not an easy thing to achieve and thus bands knowingly subject themselves to this type of treatment by entering the music industry. Record labels earn enormous amounts of money and because it is a business they have no incentive to be accommodating or generous to their clients, they just have to keep them satisfied so that the revenue streams continue. If the music industry has no incentive or mandate to lessen their exploitation of clients, then this trend will continue because money talks and there is much to be made in the current system. That being said, a successful band makes more money than they could spend in multiple lifetimes so they are very capable of beating the system if they are good enough and wise enough to endure a rough rise to fame.

Intellectual Property

Over the past few weeks I have found intellectual property to be one of the most sacred things a human being can embrace and claim as theirs. Intellectual property makes up someone just as much as the physical characteristics that make up their body. So why do people try and steal or copy this intellectual property people have created? Are they not creative enough themselves? Well it seems as Lessig has written, that copy right laws are helping to change this stealing and copying of intellectual property. That’s why I see this idea of intellectual property as a part of someone, because they have taken the time to sit and create this idea that could benefit society in some way. So maybe as people, we shouldn’t try and steal these ideas, but take some time and create our own so that we all can feel a sense of helping each other. Intellectual property also separates and creates every individual in our society. So if people are stealing others ideas then they, in a sense, don’t have an identity, but have stolen someone else’s. So for the better of society wouldn’t it just be better if everyone could create their own identity? The world then would be so much more diverse than the one we have created and live in today.

A Free Society and Intellectual Property - Gretchen

I was very intrigued by the discussion we had last class about what it means to be a part of a free society and what exactly it takes for a society to be characterized as "free." The first thing that comes to my mind when I think of a free society is one in which people are treated equally, regardless of race, gender or sexuality; where people can benefit from the fruits of their labor and have freedom of expression. But as we delved into this discussion in class, I was exposed to new ideas about what it means to be "free," and the concept that in order to be free, we must be prohibited from doing certain things. To someone else, a "free society" might be one where people can do whatever they want, whenever they want, and in this process, they could be taking away others freedom. Thus, a free society must include some sort of order and authority to allow it to be truly free. Though this seems like an oxymoron - regulating people and holding them back in order for them to be free - it really makes sense when you think of it in terms of intellectual property. In a society without law and order, someone could steal a man's original idea or concept and use it as their own, thus taking the freedom of expression and individuality away from someone else. Lessig states in Remix that "a free culture supports and protects creators and innovators," and this is ensured by the laws of intellectual property. Just becasue there are laws of intellectual property does not mean that you cannot learn from and use (with permission) the thoughts of another. For example, as I write this blog, the laws of intellectual property allow me to refer to the words of Lessig as long as it is approprioately quoted.