Isn´t it interesting how moods have the power to change the view on the world and thus, for all practical reasons, the world itself?
Heideggers writes on this, that a bad mood let a Dasein (person/sentient being) feel the burden of his being in the world, while a good mood relieves from this feelings. A bad mood will veil the world and oneself to a Dasein. Why anyone has one specific mood at one specific time, nobody can tell.
And that´s exactly how I feel sometimes. I find myself to be in a bad mood and I can´t say why. When I think about it, I recall being in a good mood just some hours ago and there wasn´t any specific occurrence I could name as the reason for my mood to change. And what consequences this change has!
If it´s really bad, I will be pissed off by the most insignificant things I come across. I won´t get done anything right because I will make the most stupid mistakes out of negligence. If anything bad happens it seems logical, that´s exactly what I expected to happen. If anything good happens I don´t really care, because there´s always a downside to be found to it.
It´s amazing how such a simple thing as a mood can change everything that used to be setup beforehand by character, philosophy/worldview and intelligent thinking in general.
Of course this doesn´t apply only to bad moods; the exact opposite of the above is true if I happen to be really high-spirited, though that doesn´t happen that much.
The hardest thing for me is trying to actively change a mood I´m in. It really takes effort and isn´t always successful. Up to this point, I found out the best thing to do is to remind myself of a goal I have, something really sweet I´m going to do/have in the future. So the point for me is to never run out of goals and to actively aim for them.
Thursday 26 February 2009
Sunday 22 February 2009
Copyright
Recently there´s been much ado about copyright violations on Youtube as well as a new law that´s in the making in New Zealand. For informations on the latter, click http://creativefreedom.org.nz/
I find most of the stuff that is initiated by the big media- (mostly music-) companies quite excessive. I mean, I can understand that they don´t want to lose money to pirated songs/films etc., but how many of the copyright infringements do actually hurt them ?
On Youtube many songs are used as soundtracks to videos made by Youtubers. Does that mean there´s even one copy of the song less bought because of that? No way! In my opinion it´s rather a chance to bring one song to the attention of many people who may haven´t known it before. They get interested in the song or the band and may actually buy songs/CD´s they would not without watching the video. At least that´s the way it worked for me.
Then there are parts of TV-programs on YT you haven´t the chance of seeing ever again on TV or not in a long long time. Does that hurt anybody? No, because you can´t buy these anyway.
Of course there are also whole music clips on Youtube. You can save money if you watch them there instead of buying the song. But what person that likes a song, would want to listen to it only on the computer? If you like it, you buy it. No harm done. If you don´t have the money to buy it, there´s also no harm done, because you wouldn´t have bought it anyway.
So what is the result of the measures taken against copyright infringements? The media companies just antagonise their (potential) customers. Not a wise thing to do in my opinion. Their lobbying in the rewriting of copyright laws all around the world, of which the New Zealand case is just the most recent and most excessive attempt, should lead to public outrage and I´m curious how this will work out.
To make it clear: I´m all against professional pirates who want to make money out of the work of others. But when no money is involved, the existing principle of fair use should be extended to cover the examples given above.
I find most of the stuff that is initiated by the big media- (mostly music-) companies quite excessive. I mean, I can understand that they don´t want to lose money to pirated songs/films etc., but how many of the copyright infringements do actually hurt them ?
On Youtube many songs are used as soundtracks to videos made by Youtubers. Does that mean there´s even one copy of the song less bought because of that? No way! In my opinion it´s rather a chance to bring one song to the attention of many people who may haven´t known it before. They get interested in the song or the band and may actually buy songs/CD´s they would not without watching the video. At least that´s the way it worked for me.
Then there are parts of TV-programs on YT you haven´t the chance of seeing ever again on TV or not in a long long time. Does that hurt anybody? No, because you can´t buy these anyway.
Of course there are also whole music clips on Youtube. You can save money if you watch them there instead of buying the song. But what person that likes a song, would want to listen to it only on the computer? If you like it, you buy it. No harm done. If you don´t have the money to buy it, there´s also no harm done, because you wouldn´t have bought it anyway.
So what is the result of the measures taken against copyright infringements? The media companies just antagonise their (potential) customers. Not a wise thing to do in my opinion. Their lobbying in the rewriting of copyright laws all around the world, of which the New Zealand case is just the most recent and most excessive attempt, should lead to public outrage and I´m curious how this will work out.
To make it clear: I´m all against professional pirates who want to make money out of the work of others. But when no money is involved, the existing principle of fair use should be extended to cover the examples given above.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
