I hardly think starting workshops that only charge for materials is a particularly smart way to run a business.
If other people thought of it, they kept it to themselves. What this guy did was he shared that info... which may be the particularly ingenious thing to do.
So, pray tell, if it was really so obvious, why didn't anyone do it before this as a means of coping with the Chinese air pollution problem?
Even though the implementation is obvious, the application may be not as obvious as people seem to think.
Not that I think that's an excuse to remove anonymity entirely... only that I'm saying I can see the merit behind the reasoning. If somebody comes up with a system that ensures that people can be fairly held legally responsible for everything that they do online, while still being anonymous, I'm sure if they can box that formula, they'd make billions.
In some cities the city employs all its own inspectors. If just one of those inspectors can be bribed, does that really mean the organization (city) is not serious about the codes being followed? That seems a stretch.
It means that the inspector that can be bribed doesn't place much importance on what they are being bribed to ignore... I was assuming, perhaps erroneously, that any agency which is supposedly acting on behalf of the government in granting filming permits would also act in accordance with the governments own rules.
I personally know people who've purchased film permits from cities before and there's a whole crap-ton of paperwork that apparently goes to different departments of the government if the area you want to film in happens to be an ecologically sensitive area... and I think it would take more a whole lot more luck than money to push actually questionable activities through (it's not ever been a problem for the people that I know who do it because they are such a small film crew, and do not have any large equipment that they must bring in large trucks, so they do not generally pose any kind of environmental threat, and have never had any real problem getting filming rights to a location unless the monetary costs for the location are too high)
Anyways, assuming that everbody's playing on the up-and-up, however, I'd be genuinely surprised if anything that is deemed genuinely harmful to the area actually is likely to happen there... I'd be no less surprised, though, if the permits were awarded in the first place when they really shouldn't have been. If they were bribed into awarding the permits when they shouldn't have, the penalty is liable to be pretty damn high. Being fired from their job would be the least of their worries. Again, one would think that a person in that position would realize that their chances of getting away with this kind of thing are not that good, and wouldn't want to do it in the first place.
Not to sound like a mastercard commercial, but in this world there really are things that absolutely no amount of money can buy.
The only reason money would ever be able to buy ignoring legitimate environmental concerns is because somebody isn't actually realizing how important the environment (or that aspect of the environment) might be in the first place, or perhaps putting it another way, they have simply not accurately assessed the environmental risks which may be involved.
Which is my point.
Somebody had to think of the idea first... cut the guy some slack.
A lot of ideas are obvious once somebody announces what the idea actually is. Honestly, I think that people who would criticize the inventor simply because of the idea's apparent simplicity or obviousness are being rather snobbish, if you ask me.
But hey.... some might find it comforting to think that such values, which might otherwise seem outdated in today's word, are still alive and thriving in our society.