Wow, Businessweek has really gone downhill since they were bought by Bloomberg. Actually, it probably started going to crap when they fired most of the talented people back in 2001 (when they were known by the much less awkward-looking moniker BusinessWeek), but I digress.
Take this article by Joel Stein (mirrored by MSNBC) which asserts that not owning a cellphone is a “power move”, because it “means that the world has to run on your time.” If you don’t have a cellphone, then nobody can call you whenever they want, an occurrence which under all circumstances will cause you to drop everything that you’re doing, right?
Getting off the mobile grid forces others to wait for you to get in touch with them. Afsheen John Radsan, 47, a professor at William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul, Minn., was assistant general counsel at the CIA and an attorney at the Justice Dept. All sans cell. He even refused to get an answering machine until his parents installed one at his apartment behind his back. Radsan began his habit of not answering phones when he was a young lawyer at Sullivan & Cromwell. “If you were called on a Friday, it could only be a partner asking you to work over the weekend,” he remembers. “And we had caller ID. So some of the partners would call from an outside phone and say, ‘We got you!’”
Well, actually, no. This paragraph has demonstrated that it is not, in fact, a violation of general relativity for a human being to ignore a ringing phone. The rest of the article goes on to quote other people who’ve “taken control over their lives” talking about the evils of phone calls, phone calls, phone calls everywhere they go, completely ignoring the fact that cellphones can be set up to do an extraordinary gamut of things, ranging from never ringing or vibrating to sending all incoming calls directly to voicemail, while still retaining the ability to originate outgoing calls. Which, by the way, is a nice thing:
Hanya Yanagihara, 35, traveled the world as a deputy editor for Condé Nast Traveler without any portable communication device. “In India, even the yak herders and rickshaw drivers have cell phones,” she says. Occasionally, when her plans get canceled, she wishes she had one. A few weeks ago her plane schedule got scrambled and she had to tell an associate, so she borrowed a phone from a stranger on her flight. “They give you a sort of pitying look, and assume you’re lying or hitting on them,” she says of cell-phone lenders. “Then they ask for the number and carefully punch it in. They think you’re calling international. They’re very suspicious.”
Elena Kostoglodova, a senior instructor in Russian at the University of Colorado at Boulder…[says that] The only time that she was sorry not to have a mobile phone was when a teenager rammed into her car. She had to ask the kid to call the cops.
The holes in Mr. Stein’s logic aren’t only exemplified by the patent lack of self-control these “control takers” exhibit in not trusting themselves to ignore the damn phone call (save for the aforementioned guy who actually, um, does), nor to the blatant Luddism displayed by these “power brokers” in being unfamiliar with the concept of a “power button”. It’s also illustrated by the fact that only Luddites equate cellphones with making phone calls anymore.
Yes, phone calls are inconvenient, obtrusive, clumsy, and extremely undesirable under almost all circumstances. That’s why text messages were invented.
Nobody uses their cellphone to make phone calls anymore. Especially iPhone owners, because they can’t.
Admittedly, that’s hyperbolic (except for the iPhone part), but any regular cellphone user with half a brain very rarely makes or takes calls. There’s no point. Text messages work fine for 99% of conversations, and they are decidedly not obtrusive or interrupting. Sure, the phone beeps or vibrates at you when you get a new text message, but that doesn’t mean you have to look at or answer it immediately. In fact, the entire point of a text message is asynchronous, non-interrupting communication. This is what contemporary cellphones are built for; the term cellphone is a vestigial misnomer.
So, no, people who don’t own cellphones are not more in control of themselves, and are most definitely Luddites, in almost every case, especially the ones cited by this poorly-thought out article written by a Luddite.
But it was syndicated by MSNBC, so what did I expect?









Chad Love-Liberman’s Art4Love is a Fraudulent Plagiarism Peddler
In case I haven’t made it clear over the years, I’m not a big fan of the copyright-lawsuit model of enforcing artists’ rights. When somebody decides to be a dick and exploit the free availability of culture in bad faith, I feel like it’s much better to try them in the court of public opinion than in a court of law. So let’s do that to Chad Love-Lieberman.
Art4Love.com seems to have been around since March 2010, according to the first tweet on its Twitter account. It’s a store claiming to sell hand-painted canvas art, founded by Love-Lieberman as some kind of social capitalism thing. I have no idea; it’s a press release.
Art4Love and the related MarkYourSpot.com appear to have been taken down as of this writing. So let’s Streisand Effect this shit.
Yesterday, Digger artist Ursula Vernon posted on her LiveJournal a link to an article about Love-Lieberman and his “artwork”. She found it odd that this piece was attributed to him:
'Naked Mole Rat Dreams' by Ursula Vernon
It is, of course, by Ursula Vernon. And all of the other pieces in the article are by other artists from around the Internet as well.
Unsurprisingly, as uncovered by Tumblr user Kittenball, Art4Love was similarly fraudulent.
Screenshot of Art4Love.com, captured by Daunt
This screenshot shows Art4Love allegedly selling “Honeycomb” by Julie Dillon. They claim that it’s “Liquid Oil on canvas”, and was painted in 2009.
'Honeycomb' by Julie Dillon
This seems odd, considering the fact that Dillon uploaded the piece to deviantART in 2010, under the category of “Digital Art”.
Hilariously, Art4Love was offering the “painting” with a Certificate of Authenticity.
Tumblr user Daunt has many more screenshots and videos related to Art4Love on her website. Many show more examples of misappropriated artwork, being sold as “original” for high prices.
It’s likely that Chad Love-Lieberman took down his network of websites because he doesn’t want this information getting out. This is precisely why it must. The threat of a copyright lawsuit does not protect the rights of artists to attribution and reputation; otherwise this never would have happened. The exposure of such exploitation on a massive scale is the best hope that artists have to be protected from it. Please, Internets: spread the fraud of Chad Love-Lieberman as far and wide as you can. Make his name synonymous with his crimes, so that anyone looking to commit such things in the future will think twice.
To the artists affected: don’t call this man an “art thief”. Art thieves are skilled, savvy professionals who bypass state-of-the-art museum security. Chad Love-Lieberman is just a plagiarist. And a dick.