WorstPlans.com updates every Monday!

Your weekly source for terrible plans and ideas!

Month: September, 2018

Help fund and preserve the arts by extending copyright FOREVER! Additionally, auction off all old historical works to be re-copyrighted by the highest bidder. It’s good for the economy, too!

Background:

Copyright laws are generally over 100 years from the creation of a work. For example, a book written in 2020 will not be part of the public domain until after the year 2120.

The issue:

But if extending copyright so long is good, why is it that we allow it to expire at all?

In fact, why not “re-copyright” old works and take them out of the public domain? This will supply the financial incentive to preserve these works so that they will be preserved for future generations.

Proposal:

  1. Copyright will no longer expire ever.
  2. All currently-existing creative works will be auctioned off, internationally, to the highest bidder.

So if you ever wanted to own the exclusive rights to publish The Canterbury Tales, Dante’s Inferno, the plays of Shakespeare, or any classic mythology, now’s your chance! Previously, you did not have the freedom to exclusively own a work of history and culture, but now you do!

(You could also buy the copyright and then just sit on it, preventing anyone else from enjoying the work you now own, if you were so inclined.)

The money raised from this auction could be divvied up by the countries with the most copyright enforcement and/or largest militaries. Or it could be split “equitably” by GDP or population.

For example, if Dante’s Inferno raised a total of 10 million dollars for the copyright, then the money could be divided by total population as follows:

  • Italy (0.8% of world population) –> $80,000
  • Indonesia (3.5% of world population):  $350,000
  • Monaco (0.00051% of world population): $51
  • (And more to other countries)

 

copyright.png

Fig. 1: The new “infinite copyright” term (black, at right) is even longer than the previous terms. The bars indicate how long a copyright would last for a work created at a specific year under American copyright law.

 

Of course, this copyright extension would also include visual art and sculptures (e.g. the Mona Lisa, the Easter Island Moai, ancient cave paintings), historical music (e.g. Beethoven, Bach), and even architecture (the Eiffel Tower, the Great Pyramids of Giza, etc.).

So if you wanted to play “Ode To Joy” on a piano, you’d need to buy an official licensed set of sheet music and performance rights from whoever the top bidder was.

It would, naturally, be illegal to take a picture of a famous building or sculpture without paying a licensing fee. This is already partially implemented in today’s laws: for example, if you want to film a scene of a movie with the Chicago “Reflective Giant Bean” sculpture in the background, you may have to cough up hundreds or thousands of dollars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_Gate).

Conclusion:

Don’t let copyright expire, and don’t let it only apply to current works! It needs to be retroactively applied to all historical cultural artifacts and works of art.

PROS: Provide a financial incentive for the copyright holders to continue preserving and updating the works in question, thus ensuring their continuation for future generations. Keeps lowlifes and degenerates from cheapening art or music by appreciating it without paying for it.

CONS: None!

 

Cure “distracted movie-watching” with a horrendous trick for directors who hate their audiences and want to punish them for insufficient cinematic dedication! Netflix must add this feature NOW.

Background:

People often don’t pay much attention to movies, preferring to play on their cell phones while the movie runs in the background.

(After all, if you miss an important scene, you’ll can always rewind and watch it again.)

The issue:

This lack of dedication to the cinematic arts is a phenomenon that movie directors surely despise!

What if directors could punish the insufficiently-dedicated movie fans by making their movies unwatchable (or at least incredibly confusing) to the cell-phone-game-playing-while-watching-a-movie audience?

Proposal:

In order to sabotage the enjoyment of those who don’t put enough dedication into the movie-watching experience, the following system is devised:

  1. The movie plays normally, at first.
  2. If you rewind the movie, it cuts to a different, specially-filmed scene that does not belong in the narrative. This scene is crafted by the director to make the rest of the movie as confusing as possible.

The director could film several of these intentionally-confusing “deleted scenes,” to be shown in various points of the movie. Below, and in Figure 1, are a few suggestions:

Movie Examples:

  • The Godfather: if you rewind, a scene is shown where Michael plots to kill his own father so that he can take over the family business.
  • The Empire Strikes Back: Darth Vader uses The Force to inform Luke that Obi-Wan Kenobi was actually his father.
  • Rocky: a scene shows Rocky putting heavy metal objects in his boxing gloves to allow him to cheat his way to victory.
  • The Matrix: Morpheus talks with Agent Smith, who is complimenting him for being a double-agent.
  • The Lion King: Mufasa falls into a canyon and hits a rock, splitting in the middle and revealing that he was actually not a lion after all, but instead a warthog and a meerkat operating a two-“person” lion costume.
  • Game of Thrones: a bizarre extended scene is added in which a king is sent on a commando raid and/or suicide mission.
  • Westworld Season 2: unaltered, as it is impossible to confuse the viewer any further.
  • Star Wars Episode VIII: The Last Jedi: unaltered, as it is impossible to punish the viewer any further.

A malicious director could also reveal a real plot twist early, or put in an incredibly annoying jump scare.

 

1-betamax.png

Fig. 1: Pulp Fiction (1994) involves a briefcase with valuable (but unseen) contents. A scene-rewind could reveal the contents as a Betamax tape of the infamous unreleased film “The Day the Clown Cried.” Whether this would actually undermine the stakes of the film (or improve it!) is up for debate.

Observation:

Almost any movie can be made totally misleading with minimal effort by adding a scene in which a protagonist is (falsely) shown to be colluding with the enemy.

PROS: Directors will be able to torment any insufficiently-dedicated fans of cinema who dare to watch their films.

CONS: Sometimes, an intentionally-misleading twist might actually improve a movie.

Get exercise and improve your self-control with this new eco-friendly hand-crank-powered cell phone!

The issue:

It is frequently asserted that people are addicted to cell phones. If only there were a technical solution to this problem!

Proposal:

Here’s a simple solution to discourage casual cell phone use: a cell phone with two features:

  1. A strict limit on the amount of time you can use each program. (This feature already exists.)
  2. A hand crank on the side of the phone (Figure 1) that lets you circumvent the limit while you turn the crank.
    • (Turning the crank also charges the phone battery, which makes this an eco-friendly idea as well.)
1-phone-plus-crank.png

Fig. 1: The crank-powered phone at left has reached its daily limit of unmetered browsing. In order to keep using it, its owner must turn the charger crank (shown at right). Note that the manufacturer of this phone has slavishly copied the 2017 iPhone X notch.

Alternatives to the crank could also be employed: foot pedals, a bellows, or The Wheel of Pain from the 1982 Conan the Barbarian movie.

The crank could also be useful in other situations (Figure 2).

2-slot-machine-option.png

Fig. 2: The charger crank would add verisimilitude to this slot machine app.

Conclusion:

This eco-friendly idea is guaranteed to be a staple of future phone / tablet / laptop design.

Alternative Version:

An alternative formulation of this idea would be to not meter usage by time, but just require a user to turn the crank 50 times before an app will launch or a web page will load.

PROS: Discourages casual phone use out of boredom / habit. Provides a good arm workout, especially if you remember to flip it 180º occasionally to work out both arms.

CONS: Might not actually reduce phone use, but now there would be an annoying grinding sound of people turning cell phone cranks everywhere. Would increase the frequency of dropped phones.

Easily win the Tour de France every year thanks to this bicycle secret: there’s no law that says you CAN’T enter the race with multiple people on a bike! [*]

[*] But you would be disqualified from the race.

Background:

Bicycle races have stagnated due to their archaic one-rider-per-bike format.

Proposal:

To usher in a new era of bicycle-based excitement add variety to bicycle races, an “entrant” to the race could be re-defined as a single bicycle, rather than a single person.

Then, participants would be able to use any style of bike (and number of riders) that they felt was suitable for a specific stage of the race. Figure 1 shows a couple of relatively conservative options.

Although this may sound like a radical change, it is based on sound historical precedent:

  1. Olympic rowing has a category for eight people in a boat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_(rowing)), so there is no reason that something similar couldn’t work for bicycling as well.
  2. There are existing tandem bicycles for six (or more) people: https://www.google.com/search?q=6+person+tandem+bike . You could order one today!
2-regular-vs-tandem.png

Fig. 1: The tandem bike on the right has a similar rolling resistance and wind profile as the single-occupant bicycle, but double the power output from the riders.

It might turn out a “single-bike peloton” made up of a dozen or more riders would be the best race strategy.

Or perhaps the ideal bike would be able to pivot in the middle (like an accordion bus), with more than one steer-able wheel, as shown in Figure 2.

3-4x-and-8x-bikes.png

Fig. 2: Top: a four-seater tandem bike. Bottom: An eight-person articulated bike that can bend around corners, which would help on especially winding roads.

Conclusion:

This is clearly the future of bicycle-related sports. You should lobby some extremely-corrupt sports regulatory organization and get this change implemented! (You will probably need a lot of money and/or incriminating evidence in order to succeed.)

PROS: Re-invigorates a hundred-plus-year-old sport.

CONS: Greatly increases the options for catastrophic bike collisions. May make passing nearly impossible.

Prevent the UNWASHED MASSES from sharing their stupidity on your top-tier Internet forum with this new insane life-saving trick that you owe it to yourself to know! Don’t hike in the wilderness without this one weird tip!!!

Background:

Online discussion forums often have posts that look like this:

Air pollution actually SAVES 10,000 lives per day worldwide

>109 Comments

[Upvote] [Downvote] [View Comments]

Or:

Futuristic economic model allows Swedes to make $200,000 a year without having jobs

>274 Comments

[Upvote] [Downvote] [View Comments]

The issue:

Crucially, the comment page is usually completely separate from the original article, so readers can post their gut reactions to the headline without reading the associated article (example headline in Figure 1).

1-horsehaters.png

Fig. 1: An example Reddit-style headline. Better comment on it! In order to comment quickly, I’d better only read the text of the headline!

Proposal #1:

In order to be allowed to comment on an article, you have to show that you have actually read the article.

This works as follows:

  • The person who posted the original article also writes a couple of quiz questions that would be easily answered by anyone who had read the article.
  • In the comment box, the submit button is replaced by a question and several buttons with possible answers. (Figure 1.)
    • For example, “What country is the article about?”
      • With the possible response buttons:
        • “Submit comment: JAPAN
        • and “Submit comment: INDIA.”
    • If you click the wrong button, your comment is sent to the server and appears (to you) as if it has been posted, but it doesn’t show up to anyone else (this is also referred to as “shadow banning”).

 

2-buttons.png

Fig. 2: If you wanted to comment on the article in Figure 1, you’d need to click on one of the buttons here. If you click on the wrong one, your comment is deleted.

Proposal #2:

One problem with the first proposal is that it makes it slightly more annoying to post an article (since the original poster has to write a few quiz questions).

In proposal #2, the questions are generated automatically, and are extremely basic, like “What is the last word in the article?” or “What is the first word in the second paragraph of the article?”

(This is a method that was used in 1980s and 1990s computer game copy protection.)

Although this method would not prevent a user from just clicking the article, letting it load, finding the relevant word, and closing the article, it would probably increase the likelihood that the commenter would read at least a portion of the article, since it would have to at least be loaded in their browser.

Conclusion:

Figure 3 shows how the user interface might be implemented.

 

3-comment-example.png

Fig. 3: An example of how this might work in an actual Internet post.

PROS: Might improve the quality of Internet comments. Also a great way to annoy your users.

CONS: None! It’s the pinnacle of Internet commenting technology.