Amongst my personal network, one thing is glaringly obvious: creativity and financial success are inversely correlated. The most creative people I know are the poorest. And the least creative people I know are the wealthiest. I'm not suggesting that the correlation is perfect - there are definitely some major outliers - but the overall trend is undeniable.
The internet plays a role. Obviously. But I'm not convinced that the phenomenon is entirely new. In other words, I think it's always been this way.
I definitely need to read “Fair Use and the Fairer Sex,” because I can't fathom how “copyright laws are written and enforced to help certain groups of people, largely male, assert and retain control over the resources generated by creative productivity."
I recognize that systems run by men and/or white people end up producing more favorable outcomes for men and/or white people. But I think it's because of the biases of individual people. A white male judge would probably find it easier to rule in favor of a white male - whether he's aware that it's happening or not. But this author seems to suggest that the law itself is biased? Not just the implementation? I'd love to better understand the evidence for that line of thinking.
Great read.
Amongst my personal network, one thing is glaringly obvious: creativity and financial success are inversely correlated. The most creative people I know are the poorest. And the least creative people I know are the wealthiest. I'm not suggesting that the correlation is perfect - there are definitely some major outliers - but the overall trend is undeniable.
The internet plays a role. Obviously. But I'm not convinced that the phenomenon is entirely new. In other words, I think it's always been this way.
I definitely need to read “Fair Use and the Fairer Sex,” because I can't fathom how “copyright laws are written and enforced to help certain groups of people, largely male, assert and retain control over the resources generated by creative productivity."
I recognize that systems run by men and/or white people end up producing more favorable outcomes for men and/or white people. But I think it's because of the biases of individual people. A white male judge would probably find it easier to rule in favor of a white male - whether he's aware that it's happening or not. But this author seems to suggest that the law itself is biased? Not just the implementation? I'd love to better understand the evidence for that line of thinking.