Category: Life

The diplomatic relationship between Canada and China are at the moment rather in poor shape. Stephen Harper, in a speech made last week, criticized the extent to which businesses and governments were able to dispose of their ethics for the sake of “the almighty dollar.” The current conservative government maintains that an increased emphasis on human rights violations is of the essence. This is contrary to the stance of the Liberals, who maintain that advancing China’s economy will invariably lead to a quasi-trickling-down effect, inducing greater freedom for its people.

In this week’s Maclean’s, a story was featured that was heavily critical of that Liberal perspective. The author interviewed a professor of politics that stated that that seemed a very likely evolution in the 80s. However, the professor went on to say, that that has turned out not to be the reality. Whatever the case may be, it is accurate to report that China has managed to create a robust economic platform, while sustaining the controlling nature of its regime.

However, the oppressiveness that’s associated with that control is seemingly overlooked by the media. Perhaps this is because China is so untypical of other oppressive regimes. For one, the Chinese are in large part not on the brink of any social disaster – be it famine, disease, or whatnot. For another, China embraces new technology, albeit manipulates it to its ends. The Westerners see those technological advancements, and thus assume a satisfied population. The truth is that only a small fraction of the Chinese are actually enjoying the benefits of new technologies, and of those that do have access – the technologies tend to only reinforce the government’s control. The Internet is heavily censored, and citizens are unable to view pro-democratic websites. Blogs have facilitated locating and jailing/killing political dissidents, thanks in large part to the cooperation afforded to the Chinese by the American blogging companies. Televisions/Radios only broadcast what the government wants its people to hear.

China is indisputably in the hands of an oppressive regime. Perhaps not so for Western capitalists, but that’s certainly the case for its general populace. This leads to a duality of treatment, and the video below displays just how these two opposing dynamics interact in such an environment.
Underground Video taken in China

You’ll see me talking alot about China. This is mostly because I am of the belief that it is inexcusable to promote governments that kills *peaceful* pro-rights protesters, single-handedly prevents UN action in Darfur, and carries out its own acts of cultural genocide. If China weren’t the economic goldmine it is today, Western nations would have a foreign policy that’s 180° of what they are now.

Naturally, bettering economies is an integral component of all government policy. However, one has to wonder as to the ultimate legacy that that will leave unto the world. If governments don’t coerce change, who will?

NGOs certainly don’t have any wielding power with self-sufficient China, and corporations are already going so far as to have Chinese citizens executed for more money. The Chinese government has found economic grandeur without the need to prop up rights further, and its citizens are powerless to express their discontent on a grand scale. It is up to the foreign governments then to stand up. If they won’t, no one will.

I’m not so naive as to believe that Canada’s actions could single-handedly instill change with concepts deeply entrenched in the Chinese political monoculture. However, the ball needs to get rolling somewhere, and inaction certainly won’t accumulate the momentum necessary to create tangible pressure for change.

Nor am I gullible enough to believe that the Western nations haven’t spent incredible resources into improving the conditions in China over the last decades. However, I am naive enough to believe that the current policies need a drastic change in direction.

China, one of the 5 members on the UN security council, has vetoed UN deployment in Darfur to stop the genocide. Their reason is quite simple: they want cheap Sudanese oil. We, the Westerners, consider this appaling. And yet, we hypocritically allow China to commit its own atrocities, because it satisfies our own economic gain. Tell me: how are we better?

The most consistent argument that I hear against the use of DRMs, and my personal frustrations against the technology, is that they impede legitimate use by the real purchasers. It is well known that the content that the pirates share and trade is not restricted by these technologies. Meanwhile, users such as my self face compatibility issues, which due to corporate financial interests will remain as such for perpetuity.

Meanwhile, it is no secret that Apple is purposefully using its legal arm to hinder the development of products that would increase the compatibility of iTunes with portable players other than the iPod. This is a self-preservation tactic, as Apple is in the business of selling hardware. iTunes in itself, Apple’s executives maintain, is barely profitable due to the disproportionate fees placed upon their service by the labels et. al.

I was once told that in a few years, the technology will finally be smoothed out, and things will work the way they were meant to. I beg to differ. The issues that stand today do not stem from technological immaturity so much as a lack of cooperation between rivaling corporations. Fueled by financial interests, it is unlikely that these companies are to resolve the issue anytime soon. Apple is a good example on why this expectancy of cooperation is naive. While pacts may eventually form between companies, the going is simply too good at present time to promote such a development. It would be naive to think that corporations would sacrifice short-term profits for a more meaningful long term. In the mean time, customers are forced to stand idly by, legally prohibited from implementing technological solutions of their own.

Nevertheless, this critique does not mean that DRMs are useless. However, their validity does ride on two fundamental conditions:

• The pirates don’t use mainstream file-transfer networks, and are unable to strip the DRM.

• The profits garnered from such an implementation outweigh the losses due to piracy.

Reguardless of the complexity of a DRM system, the validity of implementing such a technology is completely undermined if individuals are simply able to download an un-DRMed version off of the Internet. In short: If pirates aren’t stopped by the presence of DRMs, then there is no reason to maintain that presence. Therefore, for the implementation of DRMs to be effective, a significant amount of the population must be unable to obtain un-DRMed copies. While the industry hopes to eliminate such illicit file-transfer networks all-together, it is but a pipe dream given the fundamental technical resiliences these networks have displayed.

Likewise, the population of those able to strip the DRM has to be insignificant. If DRMs can simply be removed all-together, their purpose of implementation is again defeated.

This brings us to the second condition: that the losses due to piracy incurred by legitimate music purchasers is significant enough to warrant all these troubles. This is as opposed to losses due to corporate competition. If these losses due to piracy are beyond the marginal, then I would then support the presence of DRMs, despite my internal reservations. I just hope that the implementation of DRMs was based upon sound data on sources of piracy, and that these are not manipulative corporate tactics for which we are the pawns.

Time is flying, and I’m feeling like I’m not grasping it enough.

I feel like the days are slipping between my fingers as the weeks wear on. Unfortunately, little can be done – there’s only one way about going university reports really. Nevertheless, I regret so very much loosing this precious time.

If I feel like this now, it’s all the more reason for me wishing to avoid the drudgery of cubicle life once I hit the work market. If only this idea of making films pans out. At least that would see interesting and ever-changing work dynamics from week to week. Only the future will tell what ultimately ends up being.

The Massey Lectures are revered in Canada as being a focal point for sharing some of the most forward thinking insights into socioeconomic issues. The speaker for the 2005 Massey Lectures was Stephen Lewis, UN special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa.

Throughout these lectures, Lewis discusses AIDS, women, children, and education in Africa; and challenges the traditional mindset that has gone into policy making. These are not simple libertarian claims, but well founded thoughts into the realities of modern Africa. No matter what your background, if you have any interest in the global world, you owe it to yourself to listen to last year’s lecture.

Fortunately, for this month of November, the CBC is giving free access to those lectures in the form of MP3 downloads. Otherwise, they are only accessible through direct purchase here. You may download the lectures from here:

2005 Massey Lectures – Part 1 (51MB)
2005 Massey Lectures – Part 2 (47MB)
2005 Massey Lectures – Part 3 (24MB)
2005 Massey Lectures – Part 4 (24MB)
2005 Massey Lectures – Part 5 (23MB)

At the very least, listen to the first lecture. I could nearly guarantee that you will feel compelled to listen further.

Intellectual property is a funny thing. The way I interpret it, it is there as a mechanism to protect profits from its rightful owners. I see corporations as using it to protect their revenue stream/interests. Therefore, I was somewhat surprised when I got wind that Linen ‘n Things had sent a “cease and desist” letter to Black Friday Ads. Under what pretext? For hosting copies of Linen’s flyer on its website.

Naturally, Linen ‘n Things are fully entitled to such actions. But the way I see it: FREE ADVERTISING! I mean, it’s not like actual content was hosted, but advertisements for content. Though they were in the right to have sent that desist letter, I just consider it stupid business conduct. Sort of like the lawyers that sue for reasons no other than to simply justify their existence.

Why turn down free advertising? Let’s think of all the pros of letting this go unfettered: more advertising. Now let’s think of all the cons: …. can’t think of anything huh? Thought so.