This past week we learned that not only did Hope Hicks, President Donald Trump’s former trusted advisor contract COVID-19, but so did Trump and many of the people whom he closely associated with during a recent Rose Garden ceremony.
Predictably lots of people from the drunk at the end of the bar, to the army of pundits appearing on our major cable networks are talking about this situation.
Some are scolding Trump about his failure to seriously heed the advice of trusted medical professionals about preventing the transmission of COVID-19 including downplaying and mocking the evidence about the virus, and mask wearing. Others have joined the chorus of people who are basically saying that he got what was coming to him.
Then there have been a succession of scenarios spun about when, where, and to whom he has spread the virus.
Numerous predictions are floating around about the veracity of all these claims, and if true what this means for the near term. Some pundits like Michael Moore, have taken the conspiracy theory route, and have suggested that Trump’s contracting COVID-19 is just a ruse, a sort of October Surprise, and it was designed all along to create sympathy from selected members of the American public that will assist Trump win the election. Others have suggested that Trump’s contracting of COVID-19, is a way for him to save face if he loses the election.
In the background questions have been raised about what happens if Trump is incapacitated and Pence becomes the president? Will the Republicans temporarily hault their attempts to get Judge Amy Barrett installed to replace the vacancy left by Ruth Bader Ginsberg?
So what? What does this all mean? Have we really gotten closer to the truth? Probably not.
We are a news and gossip obsessed nation, suffering from collective attention deficit disorder, waiting for and hanging on to every small tidbit or morsel of information selectively released and creatively spun by those with vested interests or nothing else plausible to say.
Unless you work for the White House, and want to know whether to come into work tomorrow, all this speculation, like sports talk about the likelihood of a team winning the next big game, is one big distraction.
This distraction prevents us from doing our work, meaningful pursuits such as attending to and spending time with our loved ones, and following our goals and our passions. Whatever happens to Trump will have consequences for our country, but in the short term, in the day to day living we must do, is will have little effect on the progress we make on working towards our goals. And thus, we must put Trumps’ current bout with COVID-19 into perspective, see it as another distraction, and move forward with more meaningful work including but not limited to putting into putting in to place and ensuring a better and stronger democracy.
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Shot-2020-10-08-at-11.14.32-AM.png376589Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2020-10-08 15:21:542022-12-05 12:53:18Trump gets COVID-19 and the world goes crazy
Last week, Banksy, the elusive British street artist, or more specifically Pest Control, the company that represents him, lost a trademark case in the European Union Intellectual Property Office. They argued that because Pest Control had not used the image that Banksy created in order to generate income, during a specific period in time, then others (in this case a greeting card company) were free to exploit its use. Although the circumstances surrounding this case are both complicated and interesting, there are a handful of important takeaways from this series of events.
With few exceptions, graffiti and street art fascinates many people because of the way subjects and objects are depicted, the creator’s boldness and originality, and the considerable thought, care and skill that many writers and artists take in crafting their work.
There’s also a transgressive aspect to a lot of graffiti and street art. This work can confront large powerful interests without the necessity of engaging in violent protest that can be so destructive in terms of physical injuries and loss of human lives and property. That is why graffiti and street art are understood to be weapons of the weak.
This does not mean that graffiti and street art can’t be criticized. There are numerous context specific places where the application of graffiti and street art is generally frowned upon even by practitioners. This usually includes hate graffiti and when national parks and places of religious worship become littered with graffiti and street art. (I’m told, however that in Budapest, churches are hit because of their close association with the Communist past). I also find some of the rationales that some graffiti writers and street artists use to justify their work (e.g., like they are simply beautifying an ugly city or neighborhood, unlike museums that charge an admission, they are creating free art, etc.) to be a little hollow.
I find it a strange, almost hypocritical, when graffiti writers and street artists who choose to place their work on surfaces without the consent of the owner yet claim copyright or trademark infringement when the image is used by others to make a profit. I know there is a growing and significant body of law (such as The Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 in the United States) that has developed in this area, and it attempts to protect the rights of both the artist and the property owner. But the recent Banksy case is different.
I understand that a considerable amount of thought, planning, and labor may have been invested into the creation of many of the pieces, but to my mind it seems disingenuous to simultaneously transgress against a person or that entities’ property and then later claim that the owner or a third party (like a corporation) has now transgressed against them by making a buck and now not playing fair.
To me this would be equivalent to starting a fist fight with someone, the person who you hit ends up kicking your butt, and then you go to the police to complain that the fight was not fair. It seems hypocritical. Either accept the outcome or don’t pick fights with people who may whoop you. And by all means don’t appeal to a higher authority for justice in these situations.
This brings us back to Banksy, and other similar graffiti and street art practitioners. If you place graffiti and street art on a surface without the express permission of the owner of the property, no matter its importance or quality, you give up most rights to that work. And it should not come as a surprise when the person transgressed against is able to profit from the work you did.
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/IMG_4599.jpg431750Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2020-09-23 19:31:442024-09-22 12:23:47Rebel without a clause: The trouble with copyright and trademarks in connection with graffiti and street art
Over the past four years, numerous high-profile national political dramas have unfolded, some with international implications. One of them has been the United States government’s attempt to extradite Julian Assange, the head of WikiLeaks, from the United Kingdom to the United States, primarily for computer security violations.
Assange, who until recently overstayed his welcome as a house guest at the Ecuadorean embassy in London, appears to love the spotlight. He has been embroiled in numerous controversies, including a rape accusation, but mostly connected to WikiLeaks release of hacked and controversial information that is stored on private and governmental computers. Extradition efforts date back to 2010 as a response to WikiLeaks public release of classified information from the United States military, e-mails from Hillary Clinton when she was Secretary of State, and later from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) server in 2016.
According to respected sources, the e-mails from the DNC were originally secured by Russian intelligence who weaponized them by turning them over to WikiLeaks. It is also argued that these e-mails contributed to Clinton losing the 2016 election to Donald Trump. If this is true, then Assange, despite his negative public statements about Trump, was one of his major enablers. If WikiLeaks was the bastion of democracy, that Assange has offered as an explanation for his crimes and that so many people believe, why have they not been able to get access to embarrassing information about the Trump organization? They don’t need to look far or deep as this president is a treasure trove of cheating, scandals, corruption, and ostensibly linked to the death of close to 183,000 Americans (and counting) by his admission that “he downplayed the seriousness of the virus.” And if WikiLeaks has information linking Trump to Russia’s Putin, for example, why have they not yet released it?
Over the years a handful of documentaries about or including references to Assange have been produced including The Fifth Estate and We Steal Secrets: The WikiLeaks Story. Most of them paint a sympathetic portrait of a misunderstood man, a champion of freedom of information, speaking truth to power. That is why many of Assange’s fans, particularly those on the left, believe that all or most classified information should be open to the public, and have readily come to his defense. But this blind faith in this man demonstrates how many of his supporters (and casual observers) don’t properly understand the dynamics of open access, freedom of information, and the importance of computer security, domestic and national security and the like.
Some of Assange’s supporters similar to a whistleblower defense, believe that the importance of the revelations he brought to public attention should overweigh the fact that his actions were illegal, and that he should be absolved of his crimes. Moreover, many people go so far as to believe that Assange’s actions demonstrate that he is a true patriot (for which country, only lord knows), and a champion for open access.
I’m not saying that Assange shouldn’t be properly charged, nor stand for trial, nor be afforded all the constitutional protections that we give people who are charged with a crime. But we need to take a more critical approach to Assange, WikiLeaks and their actions. Although the information that WikiLeaks has made public, over its storied existence, lead us to be better informed citizens, to learn more about crimes of the powerful, where does one draw the line? When it comes to public and governmental access to confidential information nuance is needed. That is why democracies such as the United States have established privacy laws and those concerning access and release of confidential and domestic and national security information, including what should be released, when it should it be released, and to whom. Governments must balance secrecy, domestic and national security, and the privacy of individuals.
Each democratic government establishes these hotly debated rules and legislation. We may not like these protocols. We may contest them, but they exist for sound reasons.
Assange did not single handedly help with the election of Trump, but the release of both Clinton’s and the DNC’s e-mails was reckless and appear to have played into the hands of the Russians who helped to elect Trump, a totally non-democratic effort. By extension, Assange is not really a champion of freedom of the press. His supporters should be well advised to brush up on the concepts of privacy, freedom of information, and domestic and national security before branding Assange a champion.
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/5410419665_54192a99cb_o-scaled.jpg17072560Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2020-09-14 23:18:062024-09-22 12:23:47Progressives need to be more critical of Assange
Trump gets COVID-19 and the world goes crazy
/by Jeffrey Ian RossThis past week we learned that not only did Hope Hicks, President Donald Trump’s former trusted advisor contract COVID-19, but so did Trump and many of the people whom he closely associated with during a recent Rose Garden ceremony.
Predictably lots of people from the drunk at the end of the bar, to the army of pundits appearing on our major cable networks are talking about this situation.
Some are scolding Trump about his failure to seriously heed the advice of trusted medical professionals about preventing the transmission of COVID-19 including downplaying and mocking the evidence about the virus, and mask wearing. Others have joined the chorus of people who are basically saying that he got what was coming to him.
Then there have been a succession of scenarios spun about when, where, and to whom he has spread the virus.
Numerous predictions are floating around about the veracity of all these claims, and if true what this means for the near term. Some pundits like Michael Moore, have taken the conspiracy theory route, and have suggested that Trump’s contracting COVID-19 is just a ruse, a sort of October Surprise, and it was designed all along to create sympathy from selected members of the American public that will assist Trump win the election. Others have suggested that Trump’s contracting of COVID-19, is a way for him to save face if he loses the election.
In the background questions have been raised about what happens if Trump is incapacitated and Pence becomes the president? Will the Republicans temporarily hault their attempts to get Judge Amy Barrett installed to replace the vacancy left by Ruth Bader Ginsberg?
So what? What does this all mean? Have we really gotten closer to the truth? Probably not.
We are a news and gossip obsessed nation, suffering from collective attention deficit disorder, waiting for and hanging on to every small tidbit or morsel of information selectively released and creatively spun by those with vested interests or nothing else plausible to say.
Unless you work for the White House, and want to know whether to come into work tomorrow, all this speculation, like sports talk about the likelihood of a team winning the next big game, is one big distraction.
This distraction prevents us from doing our work, meaningful pursuits such as attending to and spending time with our loved ones, and following our goals and our passions. Whatever happens to Trump will have consequences for our country, but in the short term, in the day to day living we must do, is will have little effect on the progress we make on working towards our goals. And thus, we must put Trumps’ current bout with COVID-19 into perspective, see it as another distraction, and move forward with more meaningful work including but not limited to putting into putting in to place and ensuring a better and stronger democracy.
Rebel without a clause: The trouble with copyright and trademarks in connection with graffiti and street art
/by Jeffrey Ian RossLast week, Banksy, the elusive British street artist, or more specifically Pest Control, the company that represents him, lost a trademark case in the European Union Intellectual Property Office. They argued that because Pest Control had not used the image that Banksy created in order to generate income, during a specific period in time, then others (in this case a greeting card company) were free to exploit its use. Although the circumstances surrounding this case are both complicated and interesting, there are a handful of important takeaways from this series of events.
With few exceptions, graffiti and street art fascinates many people because of the way subjects and objects are depicted, the creator’s boldness and originality, and the considerable thought, care and skill that many writers and artists take in crafting their work.
There’s also a transgressive aspect to a lot of graffiti and street art. This work can confront large powerful interests without the necessity of engaging in violent protest that can be so destructive in terms of physical injuries and loss of human lives and property. That is why graffiti and street art are understood to be weapons of the weak.
This does not mean that graffiti and street art can’t be criticized. There are numerous context specific places where the application of graffiti and street art is generally frowned upon even by practitioners. This usually includes hate graffiti and when national parks and places of religious worship become littered with graffiti and street art. (I’m told, however that in Budapest, churches are hit because of their close association with the Communist past). I also find some of the rationales that some graffiti writers and street artists use to justify their work (e.g., like they are simply beautifying an ugly city or neighborhood, unlike museums that charge an admission, they are creating free art, etc.) to be a little hollow.
I find it a strange, almost hypocritical, when graffiti writers and street artists who choose to place their work on surfaces without the consent of the owner yet claim copyright or trademark infringement when the image is used by others to make a profit. I know there is a growing and significant body of law (such as The Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 in the United States) that has developed in this area, and it attempts to protect the rights of both the artist and the property owner. But the recent Banksy case is different.
I understand that a considerable amount of thought, planning, and labor may have been invested into the creation of many of the pieces, but to my mind it seems disingenuous to simultaneously transgress against a person or that entities’ property and then later claim that the owner or a third party (like a corporation) has now transgressed against them by making a buck and now not playing fair.
To me this would be equivalent to starting a fist fight with someone, the person who you hit ends up kicking your butt, and then you go to the police to complain that the fight was not fair. It seems hypocritical. Either accept the outcome or don’t pick fights with people who may whoop you. And by all means don’t appeal to a higher authority for justice in these situations.
This brings us back to Banksy, and other similar graffiti and street art practitioners. If you place graffiti and street art on a surface without the express permission of the owner of the property, no matter its importance or quality, you give up most rights to that work. And it should not come as a surprise when the person transgressed against is able to profit from the work you did.
Progressives need to be more critical of Assange
/by Jeffrey Ian RossOver the past four years, numerous high-profile national political dramas have unfolded, some with international implications. One of them has been the United States government’s attempt to extradite Julian Assange, the head of WikiLeaks, from the United Kingdom to the United States, primarily for computer security violations.
Assange, who until recently overstayed his welcome as a house guest at the Ecuadorean embassy in London, appears to love the spotlight. He has been embroiled in numerous controversies, including a rape accusation, but mostly connected to WikiLeaks release of hacked and controversial information that is stored on private and governmental computers. Extradition efforts date back to 2010 as a response to WikiLeaks public release of classified information from the United States military, e-mails from Hillary Clinton when she was Secretary of State, and later from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) server in 2016.
According to respected sources, the e-mails from the DNC were originally secured by Russian intelligence who weaponized them by turning them over to WikiLeaks. It is also argued that these e-mails contributed to Clinton losing the 2016 election to Donald Trump. If this is true, then Assange, despite his negative public statements about Trump, was one of his major enablers. If WikiLeaks was the bastion of democracy, that Assange has offered as an explanation for his crimes and that so many people believe, why have they not been able to get access to embarrassing information about the Trump organization? They don’t need to look far or deep as this president is a treasure trove of cheating, scandals, corruption, and ostensibly linked to the death of close to 183,000 Americans (and counting) by his admission that “he downplayed the seriousness of the virus.” And if WikiLeaks has information linking Trump to Russia’s Putin, for example, why have they not yet released it?
Over the years a handful of documentaries about or including references to Assange have been produced including The Fifth Estate and We Steal Secrets: The WikiLeaks Story. Most of them paint a sympathetic portrait of a misunderstood man, a champion of freedom of information, speaking truth to power. That is why many of Assange’s fans, particularly those on the left, believe that all or most classified information should be open to the public, and have readily come to his defense. But this blind faith in this man demonstrates how many of his supporters (and casual observers) don’t properly understand the dynamics of open access, freedom of information, and the importance of computer security, domestic and national security and the like.
Some of Assange’s supporters similar to a whistleblower defense, believe that the importance of the revelations he brought to public attention should overweigh the fact that his actions were illegal, and that he should be absolved of his crimes. Moreover, many people go so far as to believe that Assange’s actions demonstrate that he is a true patriot (for which country, only lord knows), and a champion for open access.
I’m not saying that Assange shouldn’t be properly charged, nor stand for trial, nor be afforded all the constitutional protections that we give people who are charged with a crime. But we need to take a more critical approach to Assange, WikiLeaks and their actions. Although the information that WikiLeaks has made public, over its storied existence, lead us to be better informed citizens, to learn more about crimes of the powerful, where does one draw the line? When it comes to public and governmental access to confidential information nuance is needed. That is why democracies such as the United States have established privacy laws and those concerning access and release of confidential and domestic and national security information, including what should be released, when it should it be released, and to whom. Governments must balance secrecy, domestic and national security, and the privacy of individuals.
Each democratic government establishes these hotly debated rules and legislation. We may not like these protocols. We may contest them, but they exist for sound reasons.
Assange did not single handedly help with the election of Trump, but the release of both Clinton’s and the DNC’s e-mails was reckless and appear to have played into the hands of the Russians who helped to elect Trump, a totally non-democratic effort. By extension, Assange is not really a champion of freedom of the press. His supporters should be well advised to brush up on the concepts of privacy, freedom of information, and domestic and national security before branding Assange a champion.