Comments on: set free Blog, news, books Mon, 16 Oct 2017 04:05:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: atonnaabimmip Fri, 05 Apr 2013 20:28:13 +0000 online pharmacy

By: Billy Fri, 05 Dec 2008 11:09:25 +0000 @Giacomo: OK. Then I want to register a .gov domain name. Where do I sign up?

By: Kathy Thu, 04 Dec 2008 04:55:58 +0000 Hi, Jim:

This blog (Lessig) is licensed as CC Attribution 3.0. IANAL, but I believe someone could make a reasonable argument that the comments (mine and yours) fall under that same license.

Let me repeat myself: the content created by the Obama transition team as part of the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 is created with taxpayer money and should be public domain upon creation.

User-generated content on is a different animal. Having a CC license for UGC is smart — but it shouldn’t be retroactive and it should be attribution AND non-commercial.

By: Jim Williams Wed, 03 Dec 2008 06:11:51 +0000 Kathy,

Part of the notice was that our comments are posted under the CC. We agree to that by posting there.

This post is copyrighted by the insane current copyright law, and you have no right to copy it except under the very vague fair use exemptions invented by precedent, me explicitly giving you the right, or some right to copy I implicitly gave you by posting this site. Since there is no monetary value exchanged it isn’t clear that any CC provision at this site is enforceable, and since I have not given you the right to copy this post, you may not be allowed to copy it to your computer and read it. You may be breaking the law reading this post.

Obviously, anything which cannot be copyrighted isn’t covered by the CC.


By: Jim Williams Wed, 03 Dec 2008 05:13:36 +0000 Does all this mean that if we petition for a return to the copyright law of 1790 we’ll get a hearing?

It’s nice that he has some sort of sensitivity to the issue, but unless we go back and deal with the questions raise by Thomas Babington Macaulay in in 1841 ( we will be getting nowhere.

By: Kathy Wed, 03 Dec 2008 04:17:21 +0000 Contrary to some of the statements made in comments, the U.S. taxpayer pays salaries as well as office space and equipment for the President-elect’s transition team. Congress has budgeted $8.52 million for the General Services Administration to carry out the Presidential Transition Act of 1963.

The Presidents-elect have also raised money to supplement the taxpayer funds. The most expensive (in 2008 dollars) transition since 1952 was Clinton’s. However, George W. had a short transition period (starting in December, not November), so his would be the most expensive if calculated on a per day rate.


A CC license makes sense for the UGC portion of the website. It does not make sense for any material prepared by the transition team, especially since the site specifically cites the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 as its reason for being. Thus, the site is an official part of the U.S. Government. You don’t get a “.gov” domain name unless your material is for an official government purpose!

Moreover, the more appropriate CC license if they’re not going public domain (and there is a CC Public Domain license) would be attribution + non-commercial!

Oh, and the “you are exiting” popup on outbound links is so annoying.

By: B Klein Wed, 03 Dec 2008 02:00:57 +0000 FreeGovernmentInformation has been following the copyright policy and mounted an email campaign to advocate its change. See discussions at

By: John Stertzbach Tue, 02 Dec 2008 23:48:19 +0000 I have an idea on how to repair the HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.
I proved my idea on myself, after the doctors gave up on me, because I was to full of arthritis, and sent me to the pain clinic. I found I could control the arthritis and return to the work force. I also found I could repair almost anything that was to go wrong with my body, including helping my sister get over pancreatic cancer. I feel if the people do as I am telling them, they will not need to see their doctor near as often and that should save them money, and also save money on what the insurance co. needs to pay. This should lower the healthcare premiums we all need to pay. Go to

I found on March 10th 2008 that our drinking water in the U. S. is unsafe to drink, because of Pharmaceuticals in our drinking water. This study was published in the journal Nature Genetics. By using magnets should slow down some of the Pharmaceuticals that are getting into our drinking water that can make us sick. By using less Pharmaceuticals should slow down the problem with the contamination of our drinking water.

This idea involves Strong Magnets, put into a pad. I make my own magnet pads because there are no companys that make and sell the strong magnet pads that I needed to do the job. The Magnets should take care of both Viral and Bacterial Infections. See my web site . The magnet pads will send a magnetic field five inches into the body that will increase the oxygen level under the pad, to help the body repair itself. The magnets and medicine should be able to be used at the same time to give the body two possible ways to repair itself, although the doctor may need to adjust the medication to a lower amount. The human body was made by our creator to repair itself but sometimes needs a little help. The Lord put almost, if not everything needed on earth to repair the human body.

If you would like to use my suggestion, I would like to be the one to teach the doctors how to use the magnet pads, if the doctors would listen to me, being I am not a doctor. I do feel I am the only person that knows how to use the strong magnet pads like I am telling you about. It would be nice if I could make and sell the magnet pads needed to take care of their Health Problems.

The doctors need to do some preventative maintenance. They need to check everyone’s blood to be sure the calcium, magnesium and vitamin-D levels along with all the other vitamins and minerals are in the safety zone for the body to protect itself from illness. I feel the age of 18 or earlier would be a good time to get this yearly test started, and monitor the older people more often.

I can get over the flu virus in about an hour, which is less time than it takes to make an appointment to see the doctor. I can get over food poisoning in about six hours and my arthritis took about a year, but you need to remember the fact that I was still learning how to use the magnets. I feel it should take less than a month to get the Arthritis under control, if they do as I tell them. Learn more about what I did to repair my body go to

John Stertzbach

P S The American Medical Association (AMA) is not going to like my suggestion because there is no money in using magnets to repair the human body.

By: Ranjit Mathoda Tue, 02 Dec 2008 23:23:10 +0000 If you’re interested in how Obama may use technology as President, you may find my March 2008 essay The Coming Digital Presidency of interest:

By: Willian Galdino Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:46:26 +0000

Good bite!
Eeverybody knows that!

Here in Brazil some guys are smiing and burning fireworks!


By: Alorza Tue, 02 Dec 2008 15:32:35 +0000 That’s great, Larry!

By: gopi Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:29:40 +0000 Agree with your point ! but we need to wait till january 20 ……… !
we all thank god that he has given us a good leader to lead

By: Hampton Tue, 02 Dec 2008 12:52:15 +0000 This must be rewarding for you to see the Creative Commons license mentioned and used in this new federal administration.

Two points: First, it is my understanding that all work created by the US Federal Government is already public domain and can be used for copies and derivative works.

Second, I sincerely hope the high quality format of choice for the Obama Administration is not Apple’s Quicktime. Citizens will be limited in participating in this media, unless they can be provided Quicktime decoder software royalty-free, in perpetuity, with no redistributions restrictions, Since Apple is unlikely to make such a deal, the government should choose an open format for their media distribution, like over-the-air television, radio, and Ogg media formats. We will be heading down a dangerous road if citizens are expected to make agreements with corporations in order to participate in our government.

By: john Tue, 02 Dec 2008 12:06:14 +0000 Obama is a handsome man

By: marvin ball Tue, 02 Dec 2008 10:57:47 +0000 I love the new president

By: Edward Tue, 02 Dec 2008 08:46:06 +0000 Ryan Kaldari: Do you know for sure that this is not a work of the federal government? If so, where did you find that information? The about page on the site seems to say it is an official government site. Specifically, it says:

This site is for the Office of the President-elect and Office of the Vice President-elect, as recognized by the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, as amended (3 USC 102 note). The Presidential Transition Act specifically authorizes the Administrator of GSA to provide services and support to the Office of the President-elect beginning the day after the election until 30 days after the inauguration to support the orderly transfer of executive power after a general election. This site provides information to the public in support of this important public purpose.

By: Prokofy Neva Tue, 02 Dec 2008 08:09:59 +0000 The purpose of this exercise was not to enable the public to have better access to government documents — as other commenters have noted, that could be accomplished merely by noting that the site is in the public domain.

No, the purpose of this exercise was to illustrate that Lessig has influence over Obama, and gets him to do things. THAT is what it is about.

(and yes, it’s wierd that a president-elect is arrogating to himself the .gov domain already — worrisome).

By: Avi Flax Tue, 02 Dec 2008 05:32:23 +0000 Can anyone post the old copyright notice?

By: andrew garton Tue, 02 Dec 2008 05:22:41 +0000 I know how hard it can be to pleas all and sundry, and despite all that ails us the world over, these are indications, or further indications of steps in the right direction in terms of rights management and open governance. All I can say is, we need hope where ever we can find it and here’s a glimmer and no one’s going to take it away from me…

Now, if we can have some vision on spectrum…


By: Ryan Kaldari Tue, 02 Dec 2008 04:28:39 +0000 “.gov” does not equal “work of the federal government”, nor has it ever. is not produced by employees of the federal government in the course of their work for the federal government. Therefore it is not public domain.

By: Dan Tue, 02 Dec 2008 04:00:05 +0000 I don’t know how this got a dot-gov domain, but one interesting aspect of the site is the “open government” section where visitors can upload content to the site (tell your story). That content is subject to DMCA notice-and-takedown (that section follows the CC section at the top of ).

Assuming it is not requested to be taken down, the user-contributed content is nevertheless subject to the CC attribution license, along with content presented by the transition team itself.

Because of this complication with non-governmental origin of some content, it may confuse the pure public domain question. It certainly is simpler for all content on the site to be treated the same, rather than having transition-originating content be treated differently from user-contributed content. Something about that complication seems to me like it’s just asking for trouble (the potential for confusion is ultimately a gray zone), and I can understand why they might have shied away from it.

This circumstance is in fact completely novel, and they are inventing it as they go. Again, this transition is definitely time-limited, and the admin itself will have to figure out something different yet, if it wants to continue the open-government stuff, which I believe they will.

This looks to me like an interesting example of pragmatism in execution while aiming for admirable values.

Let not perfection be the enemy of the good. Democracy is a sausage factory.

By: Rick Tue, 02 Dec 2008 01:07:36 +0000 I don’t think this is a legal matter per se. It’s one of philosophical and political posturing coupled with a perceived need for some protection against unfair or intentionally damaging use of “content”. To my knowledge Obama remains a private citizen with regard to the presidency until he is sworn in. Therefore what’s happening now is not official US government stuff and there’s no public domain stipulation until he takes the oath at inauguration. No doubt, it isn’t nearly that simple since there are so many people involved, some who are presently in a governmental capacity and many who are simply interested in protecting their private work or have obligations with other organizations that have some claim to their work. Can of worms.
In my view has an entitlement to copyright protection (“dot gov” throws a wrinkle in that but I’m assuming it’s “just a server.”) That’s a bit odious for them to claim so they’ve opted for CC to afford some protection.
Protection from what? Well, probably not financial so much. More likely the concern is that some entity would seek to do damage with the works. If that entity is Lessig’s amateur remixer on YouTube, who cares? If that entity is defined by names like Fox, O’Reilly, and Murdock somebody probably does care, a lot.

By: Edward Tue, 02 Dec 2008 00:38:44 +0000 There is some question in my mind if is actually a government site or not, so the copyright may not fall under the laws that make U.S. federal government public domain automatically. At one point the site claimed to be set up by a political transitional organization under some non-profit IRS category. I don’t see that any more so I assume it is now officially a government site (but I am not sure). However, assuming it does fall under the definition of a US government work, the CC license is not more restrictive outside of the US since the copyright exclusion for government works “is not intended to have any impact on protection of these works abroad (S. REP. NO. 473, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 56 (1976)” ( It is, however, more restrictive inside of the USA, and thus I do not see it as open or transparent as it could be. This leads me to agree with John Plato, Mike Abundo, and other commenters above, why not use the same standard as other government documents are used, which is more open then the license they have chosen?

By: Mike Abundo Tue, 02 Dec 2008 00:21:59 +0000 I’m as big an Obama fan as the next guy, but this is really making me scratch my head here. Even if were created by a government contractor, and thus subject to copyright, anything more restrictive than a public domain dedication is simply inconsistent with Obama’s platform of transparent governance.

By: John Plato Tue, 02 Dec 2008 00:07:31 +0000 Even if you provisionally grant the idea that the content on the transition website is not “official government content” and therefore not inherently in the public domain, it still begs the question: Why use a different standard? Why not license it into the public domain, the same as other government-published content?