The procedure involves putting a frog in a pan of water - with room for the frog to jump. Then, you put the water to boil. As temperature speedily rises, of course, the frog jumps out.
But, if the water temperature rises slowly, really slowly... the frog keeps sitting. In fact it doesn't budge way beyond the temperatures that it had sanely jumped out of earlier, and lo and behold, it actually lets itself get boiled to death!*
Naturally, as in most science experiments that involve non-humans, researchers wonder - would humans do the same? Fortunately, so far as I know, they haven't tried to boil a man alive yet since Hitler's days.
But as far as social life goes, this conjecture is readily answered - Yes. When changes are gradual, mankind takes them in its stride; we end up accepting situations that would have been unacceptable say, just a year ago, because they've been creeping steadily into our lives.
It's the reason why Indian news channels have become as crappy as they are today. Ten years ago, they would have been spit at had they run stories such as Murgi main maan ki aatma (Mom's spirit now in my cock, uh I mean, chicken) [Star News ran that by the way, though without this translation, coz they probably couldn't think of it.]
But after years of steadily declining news standards incorporating Page 3s, Lakme Fashion Weeks, what-Ashwarya-Rai-wore-to-Cannes-and-why-and-what-can-we-say-to-bitch-about-it, etc, anything goes, doesn't it?
The Frog Experiment also explains why there's so much sex and violence in TV today. I remember when I came home for holiday after 3 months of TV-less existence from XLRI. Me, the target market for [V] and a fan-just-3-months-ago was appalled at what I saw at my return. Had everyone always been so publicly naked? Or had I forgotten what I used to see? I wondered as my sister cheered along and my mom allowed it. I suppose I had missed the three-month prepping they'd been through.
********
But the reason I write today is because of a copyright news item that my friend Bajaj forwarded me.
It says:
The UK-based Performing Rights Society (PRS) has filed a £200,000 suit against a car repair chain named Kwik-Fit for copyright infringement because mechanics were regularly found to play their radios loud enough for others to overhear the music.
It seems playing music loud enough for other to overhear amounts to a public performance of music - which cannot be done without at £30,000 per year license!
The judge refused to dismiss the lawsuit as frivolous, and said evidence was adequate for a hearing.
In other words, if you live in UK, you had better think twice before playing a background score when guests come over for dinner. It is suable!
What's more, being the Melodrama queen I am, let me make this comparison:
Do you remember what made us aghast about the Taliban? Yes, the worst was perhaps the oppression of women, and in addition - they didn't let you dress up, see cinema, hear film music... In the name of religion, they simply clamped your life.
Now, in the name of copyright, it is an acceptable debate to do it to ourselves!!!???
If ultimately this claim is upheld I can imagine you would be installing sound-proof windows and drawing your curtains close so that the cops don't catch you. Think I'm joking? Well, let's just wait for five years!
You think this claim is too absurd to be finally upheld?
Technically, as PRS will insist in court, they're aren't screwing your life: you can pay for license and blare your radio all you want at your office, in your house, at the picnic, wherever! Just pay, and the choice is yours!
And what about the choice for people who don't have that kind of money to pay - why, who cares! After all, we already have pharma companies fighting to make money from AIDS drugs in Africa. They believe that a country's status as an AIDS-ridden and poverty-ridden nation is not sufficient to allow other companies to manufacture their drugs without copyright at a lower price!
How long before this demand seems reasonable?
And, what's next?
*A note before you weep for the frogs: The experiment may have never happened, suggests Wikipedia
6 comments:
I am back!
well on the TV part; no cable; only a home theater because
a. I always wanted to for hte music quality
b. love rock and the bass brings it out
c. dont want cable ever if i can make do with that; hate that hting and as you correctly pointed out who wants to see reel after reel about Prince being saved on all channels to whats the latest fashion in Israel to whatever.
I am hooked onto the net and that feeds me wiht what I want when I want it; youtube helping the idiocity hunger.
about your remaining blog; agreed with everything but hte pharma compnaies; its not their job to give medicines for me; if it were then they should be allowed to access money from the markets and everywhere for free as well in order to invest into drug research.
Its only logical right... and if thats thee case then no hospitals should chage a bomb for any healthcare practise.
Capitalism is the only answer to society's well-being; it may not make sense in the immediate but hey both you and I are in HK and with the freedom and ability to express our views right?
Sorry for the long comments; but your blogs do get me thinking; so THANKS! in a way!
Cheers!
Hmm, don't agree that capitalism is the only answer to society's well-being - though I am not anti-capitalism by the way. Markets are efficient - but they do not always provide the best / most efficient solution [incidentally, last week's winners of Nobel's economic prize have won it for studying the conditions in which markets work for the best solution]
On the pharma thing, I am not against the idea of copyright. But there has to be a limit. Currently the only limit is the number of years it is allowed to last and special situations such as the Africa-AIDS drugs situation. (it is legally permissible for those drugs to be sold without copyright in Africa today). Pharma companies are making enough money to cover their R&D within these constrains - their further greedy thrusts is what I cannot stomach.
Glad to have a discussion with you here!
Mkts alwways price it right; like I said it may not be so in the immediate but in the long term you would ALWAYS look back and say well yup; thats right.
what is a market; where you buy and sell; so you may have the Tulip disaster or hte spices trade from India; BUT when it was happening SOMEHOW it made sense from a social or an eatery point of view; but it DID make sense
By the way the % of drugs which are ACTUALLY successful is only 0.01% so even if Pfizer or Teva comes out with a succesful dug once in 4 yrs they have to factor in what is spent thruout; so why is that bad?
Its like you saying ok I wanted to write one big article which would change the world; but when you do that how many others will you quote and say well I DID say that previously as well; because ou dont want to be knon only for one thing but for all the effort you put into others. And as we often know, we get recognised for things lesser important than more; so you factor that in as well right?
Hope you are getting my drift?
Well I am going thru that daily; some of my ideas would have made lots of money but clients pay me for somethign whichmade only a 1/10th of the ogther ideas; but they DO pay me!
Cheers!
and the feelings mutual.
when I said how many will you quote; it meant how many other articles of yours will you quote and say "I did say that as well"
anyways, I do have a habit of bringing out the debate so please dont mind!
apologies if it did rub you the wrong way!
Nah, don't get offended so easily!
Add won't agree with you so easily either!
BTW, the copyright situation in Pharma is actually anti-market, isn't it? The company who can produce the drug at the same quality at the best price shd be allowed to manufacture and sell it. Isn't copyright - by restricting who can produce - actually creating an artificial monopoly and an artificially high price?
Is your answer that copyright is necessary to protect creativity and research, so it is all right to subvert market force in this case (and I'll agree)? Then why is it not okay to create an exception for copyright laws for the greater good of public health?
[just to reiterate - I am not anti-copyright, but anti-blanket-use-of-copyrights]
you are not subverting market forces at all; you are USING the market forces because if the drug is successful; markets will price you that.
well a way out could be differential pricing; ie charge developed naitons more; but that will only lead to hoarding and a black market.
anywhich ways; whats up?
Post a Comment