blind mice everywhere
A couple days ago I noted with regret that our front runner, despite everything wonderful that there is to say about him, sounds tone deaf, or only "special interest" tutored, about copyright issues. He sounds like someone in the 1960s, who when asked about the environment, responds with "business is the lifeblood of our economy." Yes, of course it is, and yes of course copyright is the lifeblood of (some forms of) creativity. But if you think that's all there is to the issue(s), then you don't understand the issue.
It is thus not about "corruption" as one comment suggests. I don't think anyone in DC is "corrupt" in Dan Rostenkowski sense of the term. But it is about a corruption in the channels of communication. Again, if you think the issue is as Senator Kerry describes it, then I know who you've been listening to.
Of course, Democrats conventionally don't question the conventional "wisdom" about IP (except a few brave souls like Lofgren and Boucher), and indeed, some of the best questioning about IP has come from the Right (the old Cato, Judge Posner, the economists in the Eldred case). And if conventional wins elections, then more power to the Senator, for I am a strong believer in one term Bush presidencies. But a movement to fight "special interests" of the right, in favor of "special interests" of the left, is not a movement to fight "special interests."
| Permalink | technorati
Comments (4)
I recently heard Kerry speak about how he's against pharmaceutical companies' efforts to keep drugs from going generic - and how harmful that is to America. I wonder if he (and Edwards) even see the inconsistency in fighting to get drugs into the public domain - while fighting to keep creative works out of it. It would be nice if someone could get him to answer just such a question.
But a movement to fight “special interests” of the right, in favor of “special interests” of the left, is not a movement to fight “special interests.”
Very well said (or is the proper verb "put" when it comes to online discussions...interesting).
I've been watching the debates hoping for a hint of how the candidates feel about "intellectual property" (a term I abhor ala RMS but which nevertheless seems to be common). It just doesn't seem to be an issue about which most Americans (left, right, or center) seem to care about. Not surprising, because the majority hasn't been affected yet. IP law seems to be a fringe issue and I can't fault the candidates on either side of the fence for neglecting it. I just wish that we could raise the awareness level of the general public to the point that it would be a contentious issue to the American public.
For example, most of the people I talk to are aware of the RIAA lawsuits but they have no idea that the basis of those lawsuits lie in copyright law extension and they've never even heard of the DMCA. Every attempt I make to explain the issues results in the thousand-yard-stare I've become accustomed to when attempting to explain why their computer randomly crashes. Granted, I have poor communications skills (I tend to get excited and ramble and go off on tangents) but it seems to me that most people want to make sure that they can afford an iPod and don't much care about the legal ramifications said ownership might entail.
--Jason
I don't think it's any surprise most Democrats are with the entertainment industry on copyright issues - money is the lifeblood of politics, and the entertainment industry can supply a lot more of it than advocates of intellectual freedom. A strong grassroots movement in favor of rolling back the current over-restrictive copyright laws would cause politicans of both parties to educate themselves very quickly on the subject.
>I don?t think anyone in DC is ?corrupt? in Dan
>Rostenkowski sense of the term.
OK, you don't *really* mean that, do you? A *few* of them are corrupt, surely! ;-)