Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Monday, March 26, 2007
copyright
EXPLORING CREATIVE COMMONS: A SKEPTICAL VIEW OF A WORTHY PURSUIT
by Niva Elkin-Koren
(quoted here under "fair use" ha ha)
The notion of property is rather intuitive. When something is owned by someone else, we know we must ask for permission to use it. We normally do not think the same way of stories, images or music. Sometimes we might not even be aware that we were using them in creating our own work. When we use such creative works we usually do not have to cross any physical barriers. The barriers are abstract restrictions imposed by social norms. Social norms are therefore particularly significant with respect to informational works that lack physical boundaries. These norms turn songs and stories into commodities. The commodity metaphor creates an abstract ”fence” around (abstract) informational goods. While we may easily build a fence to keep others off our land, we cannot keep others from playing a musical composition hundreds of miles away. We must convince potential users that they should exercise self-restraint and respect the legal restrictions we placed on the use of our works.
Achieving compliance with copyright laws by the general public therefore relies upon internalizing the commodity metaphor. When creative works are treated simply as commodities, we may assume that the basic property intuitions would apply to them.
Treating creative works as commodities protected by property rights strengthens the perception of informational works as commodities. Once we realize that everything we write, draw, or play could be licensed we may start conceiving our own self-expressions as commodities. Our email correspondence, a picture we took of a newsworthy event, and commentary we posted online are all subject to exclusive rights. They all may be viewed as separate, identifiable pieces which are subject to exclusion. We may think of our writings as economic assets, and view our own expression as chips to be traded, rather than ideas to be shared.
Reliance on property rights may weaken the dialogic virtue of information that is a key to individuals’ participation in the creation of culture. The creation process is a complex social phenomenon with conflicting features. Works of art are autonomous, on the one hand, but communal on the other. Creating works at a specific time and place, and using existing artistic language and skills, are part of our social dialogue and the process of socialization. It reflects a shared artistic language, an artistic canon.
It makes use of existing building blocks and state of the art technologies. When a work is created it becomes part of our cultural language. Communicating works contribute to their internalization by integrating them into our social code. Creative expression is shaped by the various audiences46 and the different generations of creators.47 For creativity to thrive, creative works must be shared and individuals must be able to freely engage with them, to create new meanings. Those are the dialogic virtues of information. Engaging with creative works does not consume them. Exchanging ideas is not a transaction. The conceptual framework of property does not capture this complexity. Property rules do not merely define rights and duties. They further carry a normative message, announcing which values deserve protection and how. Therefore, reliance on property rights in creative works is likely to reinforce the belief that sharing these works is always prohibited unless authorized. To the extent this normative framework affects our behavior, it may distort our natural practices related to information.
by Niva Elkin-Koren
(quoted here under "fair use" ha ha)
The notion of property is rather intuitive. When something is owned by someone else, we know we must ask for permission to use it. We normally do not think the same way of stories, images or music. Sometimes we might not even be aware that we were using them in creating our own work. When we use such creative works we usually do not have to cross any physical barriers. The barriers are abstract restrictions imposed by social norms. Social norms are therefore particularly significant with respect to informational works that lack physical boundaries. These norms turn songs and stories into commodities. The commodity metaphor creates an abstract ”fence” around (abstract) informational goods. While we may easily build a fence to keep others off our land, we cannot keep others from playing a musical composition hundreds of miles away. We must convince potential users that they should exercise self-restraint and respect the legal restrictions we placed on the use of our works.
Achieving compliance with copyright laws by the general public therefore relies upon internalizing the commodity metaphor. When creative works are treated simply as commodities, we may assume that the basic property intuitions would apply to them.
Treating creative works as commodities protected by property rights strengthens the perception of informational works as commodities. Once we realize that everything we write, draw, or play could be licensed we may start conceiving our own self-expressions as commodities. Our email correspondence, a picture we took of a newsworthy event, and commentary we posted online are all subject to exclusive rights. They all may be viewed as separate, identifiable pieces which are subject to exclusion. We may think of our writings as economic assets, and view our own expression as chips to be traded, rather than ideas to be shared.
Reliance on property rights may weaken the dialogic virtue of information that is a key to individuals’ participation in the creation of culture. The creation process is a complex social phenomenon with conflicting features. Works of art are autonomous, on the one hand, but communal on the other. Creating works at a specific time and place, and using existing artistic language and skills, are part of our social dialogue and the process of socialization. It reflects a shared artistic language, an artistic canon.
It makes use of existing building blocks and state of the art technologies. When a work is created it becomes part of our cultural language. Communicating works contribute to their internalization by integrating them into our social code. Creative expression is shaped by the various audiences46 and the different generations of creators.47 For creativity to thrive, creative works must be shared and individuals must be able to freely engage with them, to create new meanings. Those are the dialogic virtues of information. Engaging with creative works does not consume them. Exchanging ideas is not a transaction. The conceptual framework of property does not capture this complexity. Property rules do not merely define rights and duties. They further carry a normative message, announcing which values deserve protection and how. Therefore, reliance on property rights in creative works is likely to reinforce the belief that sharing these works is always prohibited unless authorized. To the extent this normative framework affects our behavior, it may distort our natural practices related to information.
CDM 2007 Regulations
CDM 2007 replaces the 1994 regulations (1995 addopted) on 6th April 2007. The new regs look much improved in their focus on actually reducing the risks rather than just producing the paper work that says you reduced the risks...
4
The effort devoted to planning and managing health and safety should be in proportion to the risks and complexity associated with the project. When deciding what you need to do to comply with these Regulations, your focus should always be on action necessary to reduce and manage risks. Any paperwork produced should help with communication and risk management. Paperwork which adds little to the management of risk is a waste of effort, and can be a dangerous distraction from the real business of risk reduction and management.
Reading the document, my house is not notifiable as I am a domestic client:
31
Domestic clients have no client duties under CDM2007, which means that there is no legal requirement for appointment of a CDM co-ordinator or principal contractor when such projects reach the notification threshold. Similarly, there is no need to notify HSE where projects for domestic clients reach the notification threshold. However, designers and contractors still have their normal duties as set out in Parts 2 and 4 of the Regulations, and domestic clients will have duties under Part 4 of the Regulations if they control the way in which construction work is carried out (see paragraph 9).
But of course we still have obligations:
7
Part 2 covers general management duties which apply to all construction
projects, including those which are non-notifiable.
9
Part 4 of the Regulations applies to all construction work carried out on construction sites, and covers physical safeguards which need to be provided to prevent danger. Duties to achieve these standards are held by contractors who actually carry out the work, irrespective of whether they are employers or are selfemployed. Duties are also held by those who do not do construction work themselves, but control the way in which the work is done. In each case, the extent of the duty is in proportion to the degree of control which the individual or organisation has over the work in question.
The key issue will be the demolition part, the doc says this:
20
Although there is no requirement for the formal appointment of a CDM coordinator or principal contractor and for a construction phase plan for non notifiable projects, regulations 5 and 6 do require co-operation and co-ordination between all members of the project team. For low risk projects, a low-key approach will be sufficient. In higher risk projects, for example those involving demolition, a more rigorous approach to co-ordination, co-operation and planning will be needed. Guidance given to CDM co-ordinators and principal contractors in this document gives an indication as to what is needed, but any action taken should be in proportion to the risk which the work creates. The architect, lead designer or contractor who is carrying out the bulk of the design work should normally co-ordinate the health and safety aspects of the design work; the builder or main contractor, if there is one, should normally co-ordinate construction work.
21
It is vital that those doing the work understand the risks involved and what to do about them. If the risks are low and the precautions well understood by those carrying out the work, then there will be no need for a written plan. In other simple cases a brief summary that clearly sets out who does what and in what order will be enough. Where the risks are higher, for example where the work involves:
(a) structural alterations;
(b) deep excavations, and those in unstable or contaminated ground;
(c) unusual working methods or safeguards;
(d) ionising radiation or other significant health hazards;
(e) nearby high voltage powerlines;
(f) a risk of falling into water which is, or may become, fast flowing;
(g) diving;
(h) explosives;
(i) heavy or complex lifting operations;
then something closer to the construction phase plan will be needed.
When carrying out demolition, regulation 29 requires those in control of the work to produce a written plan showing how danger will be prevented.
i.e. so long as we appoint a decent demolitions contractor this whould be their remit.
4
The effort devoted to planning and managing health and safety should be in proportion to the risks and complexity associated with the project. When deciding what you need to do to comply with these Regulations, your focus should always be on action necessary to reduce and manage risks. Any paperwork produced should help with communication and risk management. Paperwork which adds little to the management of risk is a waste of effort, and can be a dangerous distraction from the real business of risk reduction and management.
Reading the document, my house is not notifiable as I am a domestic client:
31
Domestic clients have no client duties under CDM2007, which means that there is no legal requirement for appointment of a CDM co-ordinator or principal contractor when such projects reach the notification threshold. Similarly, there is no need to notify HSE where projects for domestic clients reach the notification threshold. However, designers and contractors still have their normal duties as set out in Parts 2 and 4 of the Regulations, and domestic clients will have duties under Part 4 of the Regulations if they control the way in which construction work is carried out (see paragraph 9).
But of course we still have obligations:
7
Part 2 covers general management duties which apply to all construction
projects, including those which are non-notifiable.
9
Part 4 of the Regulations applies to all construction work carried out on construction sites, and covers physical safeguards which need to be provided to prevent danger. Duties to achieve these standards are held by contractors who actually carry out the work, irrespective of whether they are employers or are selfemployed. Duties are also held by those who do not do construction work themselves, but control the way in which the work is done. In each case, the extent of the duty is in proportion to the degree of control which the individual or organisation has over the work in question.
The key issue will be the demolition part, the doc says this:
20
Although there is no requirement for the formal appointment of a CDM coordinator or principal contractor and for a construction phase plan for non notifiable projects, regulations 5 and 6 do require co-operation and co-ordination between all members of the project team. For low risk projects, a low-key approach will be sufficient. In higher risk projects, for example those involving demolition, a more rigorous approach to co-ordination, co-operation and planning will be needed. Guidance given to CDM co-ordinators and principal contractors in this document gives an indication as to what is needed, but any action taken should be in proportion to the risk which the work creates. The architect, lead designer or contractor who is carrying out the bulk of the design work should normally co-ordinate the health and safety aspects of the design work; the builder or main contractor, if there is one, should normally co-ordinate construction work.
21
It is vital that those doing the work understand the risks involved and what to do about them. If the risks are low and the precautions well understood by those carrying out the work, then there will be no need for a written plan. In other simple cases a brief summary that clearly sets out who does what and in what order will be enough. Where the risks are higher, for example where the work involves:
(a) structural alterations;
(b) deep excavations, and those in unstable or contaminated ground;
(c) unusual working methods or safeguards;
(d) ionising radiation or other significant health hazards;
(e) nearby high voltage powerlines;
(f) a risk of falling into water which is, or may become, fast flowing;
(g) diving;
(h) explosives;
(i) heavy or complex lifting operations;
then something closer to the construction phase plan will be needed.
When carrying out demolition, regulation 29 requires those in control of the work to produce a written plan showing how danger will be prevented.
i.e. so long as we appoint a decent demolitions contractor this whould be their remit.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
NPPG1 planning guidance 2000: sustainability
The Scottish Executive is committed to integrating the principles of sustainable development in its policy agenda. The Scottish Ministers expect the planning system to support and inform this wider policy agenda linking principles and actions to enable sustainable development.
source
source
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Architects Certificates and the NHBC (etc) schemes
The Rias provides guidance on the use of architects certificates as a replcaement for building insurance, such as NHBC or Zurich cover. In short the advice is "do not use architects certificates as a replacement for building insurance"
Guide to architects certificates available here click on left border to dowload pdf
Certificates for Building Societies and Lenders issued by architects and others.
These are intended for reliance upon by the Banks and Building Societies when lending to small developers and self-builders, as evidence that the works have been satisfactorily completed before release of funds.
The RIAS has, for several years, published a standard form of ‘Architects Certificate for Building Societies’. Currently RIAS produce a pro forma required by the Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML). The CML is the watchdog body for the mortgage industry. The new CML form extends the architect’s liability to subsequent owners for a limited number of years.
Unfortunately, many legal and selling agents do not understand the limitations of these architects’ certificates and assume that they are a form of defect guarantee or insurance relating to the builders work similar to the NHBC defect liability insurance.
The RIAS has reproduced the CML form (by permission). It should be stressed that
1 The wording of this form is that of the Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML), extracted from the “CML Lenders Handbook for Solicitors and Independent Qualified Conveyancers Scotland (2002)”
2 Architects are recommended to check that their insurers will provide extension of Professional Indemnity cover in the terms of the form, prior to provision of the service.
3 This form should not be regarded as a substitute for defects liability insurance such as that provided by NHBC, Premier Guarantee, Zurich Insurance or similar. The RIAS recommends that developers make appropriate arrangements for that cover.
4 Developers, sellers and seller’s agents should not promote this form as providing that cover.
5 This certificate is not a design certificate such as might be issued by a structural or other engineer
6 This certificate is not a certificate of work completed and due for payment as would be required under a standard form of construction contract
7 This is not a certificate of compliance with the Building Standards Regulations.
8 It should not be assumed that architects have a duty to sign this form as part of their normal service.
9 Provision of this form should be subject to specific agreement between architects and clients before commencement of the service.
10 A suitable fee and expenses should be agreed.
The forms can be purchased from the RIAS Bookshops at
15 Rutland Square, Edinburgh EH1 2BE - Tel 0131 229 7545
and are available as free downloads for Practice Service Subscribers.
Guide to architects certificates available here click on left border to dowload pdf
Certificates for Building Societies and Lenders issued by architects and others.
These are intended for reliance upon by the Banks and Building Societies when lending to small developers and self-builders, as evidence that the works have been satisfactorily completed before release of funds.
The RIAS has, for several years, published a standard form of ‘Architects Certificate for Building Societies’. Currently RIAS produce a pro forma required by the Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML). The CML is the watchdog body for the mortgage industry. The new CML form extends the architect’s liability to subsequent owners for a limited number of years.
Unfortunately, many legal and selling agents do not understand the limitations of these architects’ certificates and assume that they are a form of defect guarantee or insurance relating to the builders work similar to the NHBC defect liability insurance.
The RIAS has reproduced the CML form (by permission). It should be stressed that
1 The wording of this form is that of the Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML), extracted from the “CML Lenders Handbook for Solicitors and Independent Qualified Conveyancers Scotland (2002)”
2 Architects are recommended to check that their insurers will provide extension of Professional Indemnity cover in the terms of the form, prior to provision of the service.
3 This form should not be regarded as a substitute for defects liability insurance such as that provided by NHBC, Premier Guarantee, Zurich Insurance or similar. The RIAS recommends that developers make appropriate arrangements for that cover.
4 Developers, sellers and seller’s agents should not promote this form as providing that cover.
5 This certificate is not a design certificate such as might be issued by a structural or other engineer
6 This certificate is not a certificate of work completed and due for payment as would be required under a standard form of construction contract
7 This is not a certificate of compliance with the Building Standards Regulations.
8 It should not be assumed that architects have a duty to sign this form as part of their normal service.
9 Provision of this form should be subject to specific agreement between architects and clients before commencement of the service.
10 A suitable fee and expenses should be agreed.
The forms can be purchased from the RIAS Bookshops at
15 Rutland Square, Edinburgh EH1 2BE - Tel 0131 229 7545
and are available as free downloads for Practice Service Subscribers.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Monday, March 19, 2007
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Railway sleeper walls
Instead of using concrete blocks for protection from the road how about railway sleepers
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Joinery in Edinburgh and big sliding doors
In Scape well known and respected Edinburgh Joinery company
http://www.inscape-joinery.co.uk/portfolio/
and large glazed doors from Reynaers
http://www.inscape-joinery.co.uk/portfolio/
and large glazed doors from Reynaers
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Rainwater harvesting
Have decided today to cut the rainwater harvesting system for cost and payback reasons. Having read this article by the environment agency.
One company that does RWH: Rainwater Harvesting Systems
Looking at aluminium gutters by guttercrest good site lots of downloads and prices.
and here to size the gutters.
One company that does RWH: Rainwater Harvesting Systems
Looking at aluminium gutters by guttercrest good site lots of downloads and prices.
and here to size the gutters.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Sink holes
A sink hole in Guatemala news story
February 26, 2007
After rumbling for weeks, part of a poor Guatemala City neighborhood plummeted some 30 stories into the Earth on Friday.
The reportedly 330-foot-deep (100-meter-deep) sinkhole swallowed about a dozen homes and is so far blamed in the deaths of three people—two teenagers, found floating in torrent of sewage, and their father, who was pulled from the chasm.
Rainstorms and a ruptured sewer main may have caused the sinkhole, officials in Guatemala told the Associated Press. After the collapse, the seemingly bottomless depths gave off tremors, sounds of flowing water, and the scent of sewage.
Sinkholes can occur when underground rocks that can be dissolved by water—such as salt, gypsum, and limestone—are inundated. The removal of groundwater can also leave gaps underground that can lead to sinkholes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)