NYC is not bike friendly

Since I’ve started biking around the city this spring, I’ve been struck by the abject inadequacy of NYC’s bike lanes. There are two main problems:
1. Bike lanes are not physically separated from the street. Generally, the bike lanes are between parked cars and moving traffic and are frequently obstructed by cars or trucks double-parked across the bike lane. Cars are free to wander into the bike lane. Additionally, car doors may be opening into the bike lane with little or no warning.
There is a better way. Streets Blog has some photos of how some more cyclist-friendly cities offer bike lanes: This is What a Bike-Friendly City Looks Like. Bicycle lanes should be physically separated from the street by standard height curbs.
2. There is no network of bike lanes. Even though there are a few separated bicycle paths (Greenways), such as the overcrowded path along the Hudson River in Manhattan and on the Manhattan Bridge, these greenways and bike lanes are not connected with each other. Coming into Manhattan, the Manhattan Bridge just dumps cyclists out on Canal St. (The Brooklyn side does have better access to/from bike lanes.) It is not uncommon for cyclists to just end up cycling with traffic after a bike lane ends.

DRM and Copyright’s fuzzy bounds

Last week, Wendy Seltzer (Brooklyn Law) and Fritz Attaway (MPAA) debate DRM at the WSJ: ‘DRM’ Protects Downloads, But Does It Stifle Innovation?. The difference in opinions is about how end users relate to copyrightable works. The strong copyright/pro-DRM view is that once is a work is fixed, it is inviolably fixed in that particular arrangement unless the copyright owner decides to offer a different version. The argument against DRM is that copyright law allows individuals to use a particular copy of a work in any manner they want– such as cutting up a book and stapling the pages together out of order– but DRM makes it impossible to engage in these uses that are permissible under copyright.
The copyright maximalists are concerned about indiscriminate redistribution. The anti-copyright advocates are concerned with restrictions on lawful use. It is difficult to distinguish between the uses necessary for each end result, so to prevent indiscriminate redistribution constricts the ability to use lawfully acquired material. But the digital formats that allow users to remix and repurpose lawfully acquired copies in non-infringing manners also allow for indiscriminate redistribution.
A technological system can restrict the ability to make copies. The law can be fuzzier, because the boundaries between infringement, fair use, and non-infringing use are not clearly delineated– context is crucial.