What A Job: Making Sure No Brands Appear In A Movie

from the holy-waste-of-resources dept

Rob Hyndman alerts us to a column from an entertainment industry lawyer, explaining his job in "errors and omissions clearance procedures." Basically, the job is watching movies to make sure nothing gets on the screen that doesn't have permission:

Every single character's name in the script must be checked to ensure there isn't someone out there with that exact name who may think they are being portrayed without their permission. All the proposed signage for stores, institutions and other locations must be researched to ensure the names and logos are not subject to copyright or trademark restrictions. If the characters and locations are real, permission must be granted and consents signed. Only certain phone and license plate numbers may be used.

Once the script is written and production begins, all props on set must be checked to ensure no copyright or trademark infringement exists. Fictional cereal being eaten in the fictional restaurant by the fictional family must be cleared before the box can be put on the table.

A rough version of the finished production is then reviewed to ensure nothing was missed and no golden arches appear in the background of the outdoor shot at an intersection in a busy downtown location.

What a stupendous waste of time, money and resources. But it shows what a ridiculous society we've created, where intellectual property law means that you can't have a McDonald's appear anywhere in the background in a movie. I'm sure that's exactly what our founding fathers were concerned about when they put in place the constitutional clause about "promoting the progress."

52 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Can Your Slashdot Comments Get You A Job?

from the in-some-places,-apparently... dept

It always amuses me when people insist that no one would create content without getting paid for it, since that's clearly not true. Plenty of people produce all sorts of valuable content for a variety of other reasons -- and even if they don't get paid for it directly, down the road, it can lead to opportunities to get paid. A good example of that, obviously, is the open source community, where there are plenty of stories of active contributors leveraging their success in the community to find jobs. But can it apply to blog comments as well? Perhaps. Ian alerted us to the fact that the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) is looking to hire people on the PR side, and one of the things they're asking for (even before a resume) is a link to your Slashdot profile (or other similar "comment histories"). Who knew all those "first!" posts could be worth something...?

23 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Wait, Wasn't The Internet Killing Journalism?

from the apparently-not... dept

Yet another data point to suggest the predicted "death of journalism" that we keep hearing from the old school newspaper guys is a bit overblown, online news publisher Talking Points Memo has just announced that it's hiring seven new editorial staff. No, of course that doesn't replace all of the jobs lost at newspapers, but it does suggest that online news organizations are figuring out ways to make money and to grow.

12 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Wall Street Quants Not Interested In Startups

from the pay-cut dept

With Wall Street firms crashing left and right, some tech startup investors thought there would be plenty of smart and available talent in NYC looking for work, who might be persuaded to join startups. Turns out that it hasn't worked that way. Laid off Wall St. quants seem to want to stay on Wall Street, and don't seem particularly interested in joining startups at a greatly reduced salary and a small chance for eventual stock option wealth. This actually might be for the best. It helps to really believe in what a startup is doing before committing to it -- and a lot (certainly not all) of the Wall St. folks are simply focused on making lots of money as quickly as possible. That doesn't always mix well in a tech startup.

8 Comments | Leave a Comment..

The Brain Drain: US Is Losing Immigrants Who Create The Jobs We Need

from the very-dangerous-situation dept

Discussing immigration policy around here is something of a "third rail" item. No matter how many times we explain the importance of bringing smart, educated immigrants into the US, we end up getting a long stream of ignorant comments from people who mistakenly claim that these foreign workers "steal jobs." This is not true. In fact, the opposite is true. Jobs are not a zero sum game. A smart, highly skilled worker helps create new jobs. And... if we hinder them from getting jobs in this country, they end up going to (or staying in) another country, where they compete with American companies, often causing a much greater job loss, as business moves to that foreign company rather than the American company. And yet too many people who can't see past the first move in the chain of events insist that bringing highly skilled foreigners into this country is bad.

Well, they should celebrate, because a growing number of those highly skilled foreigners are going back to their home countries from the US. Despite the fact that these are the folks most likely to create jobs by making companies more successful and starting their own companies, some seem to think it's a good thing that these folks are, instead, creating those jobs and those successful companies elsewhere. If they thought about it, they would realize that by keeping these highly skilled individuals out (or pushing them to leave when they're here) that we're actually destroying American jobs. We're encouraging job creation to happen elsewhere rather than in the US, just because some short-sighted individuals think only about a single job opening, rather than about how job creation and economic growth occurs.

101 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Researcher Claims His Study Is Being Misused To Pitch Broadband Stimulus

from the won't-create-jobs dept

We're certainly on the record as being quite skeptical of the proposed broadband stimulus, which seems like it's mistargeted and a bit of a gift to incumbents, rather than stimulating much needed competition in the space. Of course, the Obama administration has made it clear that the short-term focus of the plan is less about dealing with the big broadband issues, and more about creating jobs.

Turns out there's a problem there too: the guy whose research the administration is using to claim that the broadband stimulus will create 300,000 jobs is now claiming that his research has been taken out of context. Shocking. It turns out that the study in question was talking about adding broadband to non-rural areas in 2005, helping to create a ton of new jobs. However, since then, plenty of broadband services have been deployed, meaning that the job creation impact is greatly diminished. And, even worse, much of the focus of the stimulus plan is on those rural communities that were excluded from the report, and which would have a much lower impact on job creation.

11 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Some Thoughts On Saving The Economy

from the that-interest-isn't-special dept

The NY Times Magazine is running a well worth reading (if long) article on the question of what sort of efforts are needed by the government to help "save" the economy. While almost anyone (myself included) will find points worth quibbling about in the article, there's a lot of good points made that are worth reflecting on in more detail. The key point is understanding the difference between just creating more jobs in the short term and actually creating sustainable economic growth that will make it possible to pay off our debts in the future (and more).

As the article notes, if you just want to create jobs, you put people to work digging useless ditches. That creates jobs, but it does little else to stimulate the economy -- and, in fact, can do plenty to hinder future economic growth by inefficiently allocating resources. It's Bastiat's old Broken Window's Fallacy of inefficiently allocated resources. The problem, though, is that the folks who are most interested in making sure those resources are allocated inefficiently, are in the best position to make that happen. And that's incredibly dangerous. The article refers to Mancur Olson's theory of how stable and affluent nations decline and fall. The NY Time's summary is a good one:

Successful countries give rise to interest groups that accumulate more and more influence over time. Eventually, the groups become powerful enough to win government favors, in the form of new laws or friendly regulators. These favors allow the groups to benefit at the expense of everyone else; not only do they end up with a larger piece of the economy's pie, but they do so in a way that keeps the pie from growing as much as it otherwise would. Trade barriers and tariffs are the classic example. They help the domestic manufacturer of a product at the expense of millions of consumers, who must pay high prices and choose from a limited selection of goods.

While the article is right about trade barriers and tariffs, don't get hung up on just those. It applies in numerous other ways as well. The healthcare system (which the article discusses in great detail) is a disaster based on a series of rules and regulations that have inefficiently allocated healthcare resources. Our entire healthcare system is a ponzi scheme, of sorts, based on ignoring the very basic lessons of moral hazard -- where we've totally separated the actual costs from the actual payment for healthcare, and created a massively inefficient bubble that encourages bad spending on the wrong things, rather than work towards keeping people healthy. Pile on top of that a bad patent policy that diverts massive funds from actual healthcare into drugs without recognizing that the two are not the same thing, and you have a massive problem that doesn't get solved overnight. And, of course, we're not even discussing policies that work hard to actually artificially limit healthcare providers...

But, while the article paints some positive pictures of some of what the new administration is doing (and saying) -- and I'm thrilled with what some of the administration folks are talking about, there are way too many examples of things going in the other direction. We've already covered the broadband stimulus plan -- which really does look like a huge gift to incumbent players. When pushed on that, Obama's transition guy, Blair Levin, defended it in exactly the way you'd worry about based on the above, saying that the short term focus was on creating jobs, not solving the wider broadband question. The problem is that in creating those jobs in the short-run, they're likely harming overall economic growth in the long run.

Then there are additional things that are troubling, such as the decision to include "buy American" clauses in the stimulus. This is the sort of thing that is often demanded by folks who have little understanding of economics, but plenty of understanding about how things appear politically. Buy American sounds good, but in this case it actually does plenty to harm the American economy -- as it did in the last Great Depression. When the American producers are a lot less efficient, the end result is that we end up spending more and getting a lot less for our taxpayer dollars. That hinders growth (significantly, in some cases) and actually does plenty to damage the American economy. It also falsely boosts the incumbent providers bottom line (see above, again, about those special interests) and doesn't get them to adjust and adapt to the changing market in a timely fashion. Even worse, it often pushes other countries to retaliate in ways that make our economy even worse off. It's a terrible policy and it does significant harm to our economy.

I still remain unconvinced that a massive government spending plan is necessary, but given that's the route we're clearly going down, all our focus should be on making sure that the choices made within that stimulus package are not focused on protecting any particular industry or company, but in creating platforms and infrastructure that allow anyone to compete and contribute to economic growth. To date, there's little evidence that this is actually happening, and that's scary.

59 Comments | Leave a Comment..

If Washington Wants To Create Jobs, It Should Get Out Of The Way In Silicon Valley

from the lead,-follow-or-get-out-of-the-way dept

It's already quite clear that Sarbanes-Oxley has done very little to actually prevent fraud of any kind, but it has been a tremendous burden, especially on smaller, innovative companies that help grow the economy and create new jobs. It's basically become a huge tax on tapping into public financial markets for growth. Michael S. Malone is now making the argument that if the incoming presidential administration is serious about creating jobs, it's time to roll back SarbOx and other accounting rules that have acted more for theatrical purposes rather than any legitimate reason. Basically, all they've done is create new reporting requirements that do little to nothing to either prevent fraud or clarify a company's actual financial position (its intended purpose). Regulators love these sorts of bogus rules because it makes it look like they've done something, when really all they've done is put up huge hurdles for actually doing anything. I'm all for radical transparency in financial info, but that's not what has been done. Instead, we've made it burdensome to actually grow a company -- and that doesn't help create jobs. It helps kill them.

18 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Is McCain Really Saying eBay Will Save The Economy?

from the not-quite... dept

First off, before we get into the details here, I'll state upfront that I have not yet decided who to support in this year's Presidential election. I'm neither a Democrat nor a Republican. I've seen plans from both sides that I find problematic. Still, it bugs me when I see plans from either side mischaracterized, and I believe that's the case with this somewhat mocking criticism of McCain's "jobs plan" as being "the eBay model" (sent in by reader Rose M. Welch). At issue, is the fact that McCain has repeatedly referred to the 1.3 million people around the globe who "make a living off EBay."

As the article notes, the figure is clearly exaggerated. However, many of the other criticisms of what McCain says seems misguided. It seems like a stretch for anyone to think that McCain is suggesting that people will find jobs selling on eBay. Rather, he's using the example of eBay to note that innovation leads to new ways for people to make money -- using the rise of the ecosystem around eBay as an example -- not as the definitive method for creating jobs. And, on that, he's correct. Continued innovation does tend to lead to job growth.

The second part of the criticism that seems incredibly unfounded, is the assertion by a few economists that eBay is just a business model for moving junk around, and that it doesn't add anything to the GDP. This is simply incorrect, and it's really strange that prominent economists would make such an assertion. eBay is about making an efficient market. Plenty of people use it to sell new products, rather than just "junk." And, many of the people who use eBay to "make a living" do so by adding value to products which they then resell. That does add to GDP. eBay is about a lot more than just moving around junk. In fact, a rather large percentage of our GDP is based on taking already built goods, adding value to them and reselling them. To pretend this doesn't happen on eBay is simply incorrect.

Now, before anyone thinks that this means I support McCain's economic positions, I don't. I think his continued disdain for basic economics, and his seeming assumption that economics can be handled by someone else is problematic. And, of course, his proposed gas tax holiday is just downright nutty.

32 Comments | Leave a Comment..

The Battle Over H-1B Visas Heats Up With Conflicting Reports

from the take-your-pick dept

Last year, the supply of H-1B visas given to skilled foreign workers to work in the US, was exhausted after a single day, leading to many calls for the program to be expanded. As we get closer to this year's eligibility period, the expectation is for a similarly quick exhaustion of visas, so it's no surprise to see people rushing out studies that are both pro- and anti- H-1B extension plans. First, comes the controversy over newly released data pointing out that many of the companies who received the most H-1B visas happen to either be headquartered or have much of their operations based in India. Of course, the whole point of the H1-B is that these workers are in the US, so it's not entirely clear why it matters who the firm is. However, it does suggest that this may involve a situation where these firms are abusing the program and are not, as is required, first looking for qualified Americans to fill the jobs. Yet, just because some firms are abusing the program, it does not mean the program itself is a bad idea.

Meanwhile, Slashdot points us to an article claiming that there is no IT worker shortage, as some have claimed. The article is fairly balanced, looking at a few different recent studies that suggest there isn't a shortage -- though, there isn't much of a surplus either. It tries to reconcile the fact that companies are having difficulty hiring workers (which is undeniable) by suggesting that the problem is more with the hiring process than with the labor supply. Of course, that's just one interpretation. Another might be that many of these studies are counting all "IT workers" as equal, meaning that someone with obsolete skills or who is not particularly good, is considered the equivalent of a programming hotshot. The problem many firms are finding these days isn't that it can't find techies, but that the techies they're finding just aren't that good or qualified.

Finally, on the flip side of the coin, a study has come out dismantling the claims that H-1B visas tend to cost Americans jobs. Instead, it found the opposite was true: H-1B visas tend to create more American jobs. This is only counterintuitive if you believe that the labor market is a zero-sum game. However, as we recently noted, it is not. Bringing good workers into the US helps create more jobs here, because successful local companies help grow the economy and require even more workers. This is supported by the study, which found that for each H-1B visa issued by companies, five additional hires were made as well. With smaller companies, it was even more drastic, showing seven new hires. Furthermore, the study dispels the notion that H-1Bs are only used by companies looking to save money. It notes that when companies are facing hard times, they reduce the number of H-1B applications, suggesting that they're not being used to save money. If you've ever gone through all the paperwork (and lawyers fees) needed to hire an H-1B, you'd recognize that it's hardly a cheap or efficient process.

In the end, though, it's not hard to figure out the best path forward. The key is recognizing the simple fact that the labor market is not a zero-sum game. Bringing strong workers into the US, rather than having them compete from overseas, is much more likely to create more new jobs in the US. It shouldn't be difficult to understand this fact, though we always get angry comments from people who have trouble grasping it. It shouldn't be that complex however: if a company is doing well, it will need to hire more people. A company doesn't do well by letting the best available people (the ones who help them do well) work in other countries. This doesn't mean that it's okay for firms to abuse the H-1B process, but we need to separate the abuses (no matter how widespread) from the program itself. The goal should be to get as many smart, qualified workers working in the US, helping to expand our own economy, rather than working against it.

56 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Stop Hating Foreigners, Start Hating AJAX

from the automation-moves-on dept

Whenever we talk about offshoring around here it seems to generate a lot of controversy, as a group of folks show up insisting that offshoring "costs" the US jobs -- despite tons of evidence that that's not true at all. It does change the nature of jobs and may emphasize different skills, but more efficient production tends to create more new jobs. In fact, we've tried to point out in the past that offshoring is really no different than automation, though it's less efficient. So we wonder if people who are against offshoring are also against automation (or, well, any kind of productivity enhancement). Perhaps they should be. Slashdot points us to a recent article saying that more modern "web 2.0" technologies are allowing firms to cut IT staff more significantly than offshoring. Yet, don't be fooled. This is unlikely to mean fewer jobs in the long run -- but it will change the types of skills that companies are looking for. But, in the meantime, pure unadulterated luddism is a lot more socially acceptable (if equally as pointless) than the garden-variety racism that comes out of people when talking about offshoring. It's just equally as pointless.

51 Comments | Leave a Comment..