a front runner
So we have a front runner -- a great Senator with an extraordinary career of service. He's found the message -- a "positive" campaign "against special interests." (In the great tradition of Walt Disney creativity, it is a message that builds upon the culture around him. See, e.g. Edwards, Dean). And while I have no doubt the Senator would make a far better president than the current, I worry whether the message ("against special interests") will ring true with a man who has been in DC for so long.
This was the part that came naturally to Dean, and even Edwards. When Edwards describes "the way Washington works," it's like a doctor describing the spread of a virus. But that will be a hard sell for this powerful, if consistently right, senator from Massachusetts.
And as for fighting "special interests": As far as the copyright debate goes, the Senator seems to have heard only from the special interests. His technology discussion twice mentions copyright, only to urge even more IP extremism. And while there's a vague tilt to "WiFi", there doesn't seem to be anything else to signal the Senator has even seen the other side.
E.g.
"...THR: The RIAA recently filed suit against several hundred file sharers. How far should copyright holders be allowed to go to protect their products? And do you think that file sharers should be held liable?Kerry: I think any kind of mass file sharing that goes beyond the normal
college-dorm, room-to-room, person-to-person, friend-to-friend kind of
sharing is a violation of the law. I believe in copyright. I think we would
have complete disorder in the marketplace if you don't enforce copyright.
Copyright is the way you create order out of chaos in the marketplace.
Otherwise, you diminish the value of intellectual property and artistic
property, and you wind up not enforcing the rules by which people are
compensated for their work. I think the U.S. has been very lax in dealing
with China and other countries on intellectual property regulations, and I
have long argued that we ought to be enforcing those measures very, very
strictly. Now, I have worked hard with the industry to try to find some ways
to create an appropriate technology that allows people to share. The
problem, obviously, in a digital world, is that one tap of a button on a Web
site and you can transmit to millions of people a perfect copy. So I think
we have to find a technological fix, and frankly, it has been economic
self-interest that has prevented people at arriving at an appropriate
compromise..."
I've never spoken to a Kerry-ite (except his wife whom I used to campaign with when I was chairman of the Teenage Republicans and she was married to the late-Senator Heinz). So I'd love to be proven wrong about this. Are there pointers to stuff that demonstrates a more charitable read?
| Permalink | technorati
Comments (17)
A more charitable read? Kerry’s remarks seem to be positively rational.
I think any kind of mass file sharing that goes beyond the normal college-dorm, room-to-room, person-to-person, friend-to-friend kind of sharing is a violation of the law.
so does the US Department of Justice.
I believe in copyright.
so does everyone who says they believe in the GPL.
I think we would have complete disorder in the marketplace if you don’t enforce copyright. Copyright is the way you create order out of chaos in the marketplace. Otherwise, you diminish the value of intellectual property and artistic property, and you wind up not enforcing the rules by which people are compensated for their work.
right out of the rudy gulliani zero tolerance playbook, but not unreasonable. the dutch model of turning a blind eye to violations of the law seems to work only in the netherlands.
I think the U.S. has been very lax in dealing with China and other countries on intellectual property regulations, and I have long argued that we ought to be enforcing those measures very, very strictly.
a non sequitor perhaps, but certainly reasonable to an american audience. americans love a boogeyman.
Now, I have worked hard with the industry to try to find some ways to create an appropriate technology that allows people to share.
same thing howard dean said.
The problem, obviously, in a digital world, is that one tap of a button on a Web site and you can transmit to millions of people a perfect copy.
unarguable fact.
So I think we have to find a technological fix,
again, echoes of howard dean.
and frankly, it has been economic self-interest that has prevented people at arriving at an appropriate compromise..
ah ha. here he is telling the open source movement that their emperor wears no clothes.
this guy is looking better all the time!
I think any kind of mass file sharing that goes beyond the normal college-dorm, room-to-room, person-to-person, friend-to-friend kind of sharing is a violation of the law.
I know it's anal, but I hate this kind of generalisation. If I want to put my memoirs on KaZaA, I don't want them lumped in the same boat as copyright-protected music or applications -- the closest they can come to illegal is boring someone to death. People steal, not concepts, or networks.
Unfortunately, Kerry's commitment to any issue is best characterized by the apt nickname that he has earned over the years: "The Human Weathervane."
Then someone needs to tell him how many people are using file trading systems and consider their use to be fair use. More than voted for any President...
I don't see much sign of player pianos killing the music business or VCRs and cable TV killing TV. All these went as far as the Supreme Court, with copyright holders saying they would destroy their business. The same copyright holders who then found them a good new revenue stream once they stopped fighting the future.
More recently, we saw the DVD Copy Control Association saying DeCSS would destroy the DVD business. After years of legal action and very widespread avaialbillity of such tools, it's yet to happen.
In the Britain, use of broadband soared last year. Music sales rose as well. The difference: British copyright holders don't have the RIAA annoying their customers.
It's time for Congress to tell major distributors to stop being consistent in fighting the future every time and to embrace it instead. Or at least to get out of the way so new businesses can do so and replace those which refuse to adapt.
If Kerry were to come out in favor of serious copyright reform, or even make a substantive nod towards compromise, the media would Dean him within minutes. Not that they won't do that in time for the general election, anyway.
Senator John Kerry has ten times the intellect, twelve times the courage, and fifteen times the heart of George Bush. The idea that a man who has spent "a long time in Washington" is by definition bad or corrupt is both wrong and an insult to the hundreds of public servants in Wahsington and their staff.
There are many more lucrative ways to seek fame and power than to do the grinding work of serving in the Senate for decades. The days are long and the work is hard. That special interests have powerful influence over legislation does not mean that every Senator is corrupt or that a lifetime of service in Congress is something that in and of itself is bad. In fact, I would argue that corrupt officials are in the minority.
Regarding the Senator's position and statements on copyright, his statement seems fair. It recognizes that some fair use rights exist but it calls for enforcement of copyright law. Seems reasonable.
This man is the best in the field. He has the talent, experience, and history of service necessary to lead the nation.
It’s time for Congress to tell major distributors to stop being consistent in fighting the future every time and to embrace it instead. Or at least to get out of the way so new businesses can do so and replace those which refuse to adapt.
look, no one is stopping new businesses from embracing the future. when the majority of new bands are sign up with these mythical "download for free buy it later if you like it" companies then your point is made, until then this is fantasy.
the fact remains that successful bands are not signing up with these services because there is no money in it.
stop trying to force onto others your vision of the future. no one is stopping you from doing it yourself and driving these dinosaurs out of business. if what you say is true build your better mousetrap and show the world. depriving others of their rights is not the way to go. you don't like the RIAA, the MPAA don't listen to their music or watch their films. it's as simple as that. your choice.
the fact is that one does not need to change copyright laws AT ALL to create this future. creative commons is out there for anyone who wants to use it. artists are free to release their work with no copyright at all. no one and nothing is stopping them.
so leave mickey mouse alone and create something new and don’t copyright it. give it away for free. knock yourself out.
BUT STOP TRYING TO STEAL PROPERTY FROM OTHER PEOPLE.
/rant
I think that Lessig wishes for a more charitable read because his own views on this are incomprehensibly more refined and academically correct, symmetrical, balanced, and perfect. He's a self-appointed priest of the intellectual-property gospel and, if only the real world was as pristine, frictionless and incomparably generous, clever, penetrating, empathic and magnanimous as the one that exists in the hallways of his mind, he wouldn't be so disappointed when comparative dullards like John Kerry mouth these obtuse, pedestrian opinions. Debating him without recognizing his essential holiness is an exercise in futility. He knows the law better than you do, is a better economist than you are, is better connected politically, is an avatar for Freedom itself, is more well-liked and can discourse at greater length than you can on almost any subject under the stars, he's a cultural bon vivant, and he and his wife produce beautiful, perfect children. He's HOT! Plus he has a great big noggin, which houses more gray matter than you and all your friends put together. Disagreeing with him isn't only silly, it's so ridiculous that it couldn't even be wrong. Resistance is futile. Go invent something, internet, put it on Creative Commons for him to celebrate on his blog whenever he asks for it, and learn your place amongst the Gods, mortal!
"Senator John Kerry has ten times the intellect, twelve times the courage, and fifteen times the heart of George Bush."
Yeah, but that's EASY.
Some rodents wrote:
"the fact remains that successful bands are not signing up with these services because there is no money in it."
Not true. Magnatune is profitable *and* so are its artists. Next!
"artists are free to release their work with no copyright at all. no one and nothing is stopping them. "
Not if their work is a "derivative work". Try again.
"BUT STOP TRYING TO STEAL PROPERTY FROM OTHER PEOPLE. "
First of all, there's no "stealing" in distribution of copies, because everyone still *has* the copies they started out with. If someone entered your house, made a copy of your TV, and left, would you say that they'd "stolen" your TV? "Misappropriation" is the correct term for what you're trying to say. I admit this is a technical point.
That said, I don't misappropriate. What Adam pointed out is very, very important: Kerry assumed in his statement that anyone doing mass file sharing was sharing things they *didn't* have the legal right to distribute. This is a dangerously false assumption; I don't like it when politicians are wooly-headed in that particular way -- it puts the burden of proof in the wrong place.
--
Anyway, how about the governmentally sanctioned theft (and here the word *is* appropriate, because they're taking away the legitimately obtained rights of other people) of formerly public domain works with copyrights "reinstated" by URAA?
What's going on with Golan v. Ashcroft, anyway? The URAA should be crackable based solely on the decision in Eldred ("traditional contours").
Gee, a Democrat who basically echoes big book, music, and movie opinion on copyright? Am I supposed to forget that the DMCA, the Sonny Bono copyright term extension act, and the so-called "free trade" agreements (by which the US strongarms other countries into honoring our copyright and patent regimes) are liked by Democrats just as they are liked by Republicans? Most Democrats are so desperate for a win and yet so unwilling to do anything to earn it. So many people delude themselves into believing that changing the name of the President will change the policies. Such lazy thinking. I haven't seen anything from any of the Democrats to make me think they understand the issues behind copyright law concerns--this includes Kucinich (who I still argue is the most agreeable of the Democrats for those of us who vote on the issues, not voting on apparent popularity or obviously untrustworthy polls).
In response to Nathanael Nerode's inquiry about
Golan v. Ashcroft, according to PACER at
District of Colorado, it is still ongoing. The latest
entry in the docket report is this:
6/11/03 25 REPLY by defendant John Ashcroft to response to motion to
dismiss [pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)] [20-1] (dc)
(I can send anyone the HTML file of the docket report
privately. If interested, send me your e-mail address.)
I could not find any latest documents online unfortunately.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
<riolo@voicenet.com>
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions
in this comment in the public domain.
Kerry's stance that he believes in copyright and copyright enforcement tells me nothing. I believe in copyright also. But I believe in limited copyright, and I also think the patent system is in serious need of reform. Eldred vs. Ashcroft is behind us. These issues are largely in the hands of lawmakers, and the President is the biggest bad-ass lawmaker in the land. I, for one, would really appreciate candor from our candidates, rather than vague hand waving generalizations designed to sound good no matter what side of the issue(s) you are on. I really know little or nothing about Kerry's stance on these issues, and it's not because I haven't been paying attention. That goes for the other candidates also.
Unfortunately, copyright and patent reform aren't hot button get-me-elected popular issues. "Will I have a job", "How will I retire", "Will my kid die in another country", and other such topics understandably have a lot more traction. Sadly, this means a lot of other very important, serious issues get sidelined. It would help if major media would concentrate on news and their duty to educate voters, rather than ratings. To talk to the people, the candidates must address the media. To get media attention, the candidates must identify and focus their attention on the top few big issues.
I believe in Kerry and I think that I'd be happy if he were president, but I think that his stance on copyright and IP is not very surpising, in the least bit. I only say this because I really don't think that the issue is seen by him as very large, and he has bigger fish to fry right now.
What I would LOVE to see is some educating of Kerry on these sorts of issues that we read all about here on this blog, in Lessig's books, and in many other outlets that support limited copyright limits, a change in perception of the commons as it applies to technology and communications, and whatnot. How can that happen ?
Shouldn't there be some sort of (I hate to say it) lobbying on these issues that can educate the president of these issues ?
Further to Kerry's reputation as a "Human Weathervane":
(from The New Republic)
Consider this "Notebook" item from TNR's March 25, 1991 issue, which ran under the headline "Same Senator, Same Constituent":
"Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition ... to the early use of military force by the US against Iraq. I share your concerns. On January 11, I voted in favor of a resolution that would have insisted that economic sanctions be given more time to work and against a resolution giving the president the immediate authority to go to war."
--letter from Senator John Kerry to Wallace Carter of Newton Centre, Massachusetts, dated January 22 [1991]
"Thank you very much for contacting me to express your support for the actions of President Bush in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf."
--Senator Kerry to Wallace Carter, January 31 [1991]
The major music businesses are trying to stop the future with their acts. They did it in part by driving the original Napster out of business instead of offering something like Napster pro, with a guaranteed availability setup and fast downloads of music without copy protection, priced at convenience fee levels, or the less than a penny per complete CD royalty that is around today for copies onto blank music CDs (but not blank computer CDs).
Since the major music companies control most of the current music, they are in a position to, and have, fought hard to prevent competitive, for profit, music downloading happening and have priced it at uncompetitive levels, in part because of high (tens of cents) licensing fees for some copy restriction systems. The result has been the phenomenal popularity of systems which pay those in the music business nothing.
At the moment, the music business is trying to compete using crippled (copy protected, hence self-destructing within a few system changes) works of not so hot quality with lots of hassles to get them, compared to what's available without paying royalties. That's not competition, it's a way to try to fail - no free market rewards inferior products sold at higher prices.
I haven't purchased a musical work for several years now, nor do I have any intention to until I can buy, online, a non-crippled product I'll be able to use through 40 system changes over the next 50 years - and be confident that there's no hidden trap in it to take it from me without notice. MP3 and OGG do that today - formats I can trust because they are completely transparent. If my abstaining from buying is hurting the established companies, that's a shame for them.
I have purchased some DVDs. I was abstaining until DeCSS and like products came out, because I live in different countries and obect to having my players locked up so I can't play works purchased in multiple regions countries freely. Now I can make copies which I will be able to use transparently wherever I am, I've been willing to buy some DVDs. Not as many as I might otherwise, because having players lock to one region is a pain and I don't like rewarding people who make life for me unnecessarily difficult. But still more than when the copy prevention was more seriously getting in the way.
Calling it theft doesn't impress me and shouldn't impress anyone who's looked at what the entertainment copyright business fought and then found it made lots of money from. It's just more of the same short-sightedness we've seen before.
And lest you think I'm hostile to copyright, the creation of copyrighted works is how I've made almost all of the income I've made in my life. I still don't plan to reward uncompetitive businesses.
"I haven?t purchased a musical work for several years now, nor do I have any intention to until I can buy, online, a non-crippled product I?ll be able to use through 40 system changes over the next 50 years - and be confident that there?s no hidden trap in it to take it from me without notice."
Take a peek at Magnatune BTW. Not just MP3 and OGG, also top-quality uncompressed uncrippled WAV.
reply to "three blind mice"
The GPL merely uses copyright as a tool to promote a very different idea, that of copyleft. You see, the supporters of the GPL believe that no software should be copyrighted and that the source code be free for all. However, in a political climate where copyrighting of software is allowed the GPL is required to ensure that the software remains free. If the copyrighting of software was abolished tomorrow, the GPL would no longer be required; that it would no longer work would be of no consequence.
I have no idea why you bought the topic of the GPL up as it has nothing to do with the topic in hand. Moreover, I find it offensive that you choose to lump GPL proponents together with copyright infingers. I would bet good money that the majority of "file-sharers" have never even heard of the GPL.
How on Earth do you arrive at that conclusion from the part of the Kerry speech you quoted? Your logic is quite frankly, bizarre.