And often the ones who are most likely to complain about First Amendment rights being infringed upon (though that doesn't really apply to private websites) are those who are least responsible with the use of them. Lessig seems to tolerate dissent and not tolerate disrespect, and that seems a perfectly reasonable line to draw.
Lessig
· 6 years ago
Mr. Bennett, I never deleted any comment of yours, or anyone, on my blog, however disrespectful they may be. And as to my "ignorance," in fact, as Dennis Karjala nicely demonstrates, the CTEA increased, rather than discreased, disharmony.
Richard Bennett
· 6 years ago
So what happened to my comment? It was there a few minutes after I posted it, and gone the next day.
The point about harmonization relates to that part of the world - the EU - with which the CTEA sought to harmonize us, which it did in the major categories. "The rest of the world" is not a monolith, and consistency among bodies of law is generally considered a good thing. See the Commission on Uniform Interstate Law as an example.
Singpore has a history of little or no copyright protections for works of foreign authors. While this is no doubt pleasing to the "information wants to be free" set, it's not a good thing for people who depend on their creative works of music, photography, or software for their livelihood.
Lessig
· 6 years ago
I have no idea what happened to your comment. Neither do you. It might be that you are mistaken -- might -- or it might be that there was a computer problem, I don't know. But you said I removed it, without even the courtesy of an email asking whether I did. That is bad form.
The Sonny Bono Act increased the DISHARMONY with EU law in certain important respects -- ie, works for hire. I'm sure you know that; it would be fair to your readers to make that clear.
And I have no idea what you mean by the "information wants to be free set." If there is such a set, then I am not a member of it. I am totally in favor of copyright protection and have no patience for "pirates" properly defined. But it is possible to be in favor of copyright in general, but be opposed to the corruption of an extension of terms for works that already exist. When Milton Friedman, Ronald Coase, James Buchanan, Ken Arrow, and George Akerlof file a brief against such extensions, is that because they are from the "information wants to be free" set?
Maybe you could put the redbaiting aside and focus a bit more on the "facts."
Seth Finkelstein
· 6 years ago
"So what happened to my comment?"
It is not entirely, inconceivably, beyond precedent, that there is a bug somewhere which caused it to be lost.
Really, "Latent fascism"? I think you were a bit quick on the trigger there.
Richard Bennett
· 6 years ago
As a general rule, comments don't spontaneously combust on Movable Type blogs. I've been using it myself for a year and a half, and it's never been an issue here. But anything is possible - including second thoughts - so I'm willing to chalk it up to the phase of the moon.
As to Sonny Bono and the EU, the operative question is whether it did - or was intended to - increase harmony with the EU in toto, if not in every minute respect. From the chart Lessig's posted, it's apparent that the EU's regulations aren't internally consistent, so it's reasonable that a US law intended to harmonize with it in general would depart from it in certain particulars in order to conform to sound principles of statutory construction. The next phase would be to have the EU make their regulations more internally consistent, which would have the effect of making them even more consistent with ours.
The main point about harmonization with the EU - just to underscore it - is that we are in sync on the major provisions of individual copyright.
Milton Friedman wants to legalize crack, so this particular appeal to authority doesn't move me, and "information wants to be free" was the rallying cry of the anti-copyright/free software movement a few years ago.
There is a tendency to frame the copyright debate as a dualism between individuals and heartless multinationals such as Disney. This does a disservice to the many little guys who depend on copyright works for their livelihood. We certainly aren't going to reduce AOL/Time-Warner's role in the music business as long as consumers feel they're under no obligation to pay for the music they listen to.
mpt
· 6 years ago
Milton Friedman wants to legalize crack, so this particular appeal to authority doesn’t move me,
If we’re going to play hunt-the-logical-fallacy, I can find you a quorum. #1: Do you believe that all, or even most, people opposing CTEA extensions are also in favor of legalizing crack? #2: Even if they were, would that make their opinions on the issue of copyright necessarily misguided? How are the two issues related?
and “information wants to be free” was the rallying cry of the anti-copyright/free software movement a few years ago.
#3: On the contrary, the Free software movement relies heavily on copyright for its own protection (otherwise non-Free software could incorporate Free code at will). #4: I doubt that any of the economists Lessig cited, for example, are members of either movement. #5: Lessig himself already explained that he’s “totally in favor of copyright protection”, so why are you still talking about the “anti-copyright … movement” at all?
It’s worth noting, finally, that “information wants to be free” is only one side of Stewart Brand’s original statement: “On the one hand information wants to be expensive, because it’s so valuable … On the other hand, information wants to be free, because the cost of getting it out is getting lower and lower all the time. So you have these two fighting against each other.”
Richard Bennett
· 6 years ago
In the source you cite, mpt, we read:
"The single dominant ethic in this [digital] community is that information wants to be free". - Jon Katz
"I believe that all generally useful information should be free. By `free' I am not referring to price, but rather to the freedom to copy the information and to adapt it to one's own uses". - Richard Stallman
Do I need to tell you who these folks are, and what they have to do with Free Software?
Lonewacko
· 6 years ago
MT is written in Perl. 'Nuff said.
It could also have been a DB error. MySQL, while it has its charms, is certainly not Oracle.
jerry
· 6 years ago
Jeez, my take away from this? You come off as a nasty and mean spirited guy, you probably don't know the law or copyright the way you think you do, and you apparently fall more into the argument as learned on hate radio than argument as learned from Monty Python crowd(**). And I guess you have the one computer that works great all the time.
(**) "An argument is a connected series of statements intended to support a proposition. It's not the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says." "Yes it is!"
Oh, and for some reason you think that asking people for email addresses that you cannot verify somehow does something for your blog. Go figure.
Ken Keller
· 6 years ago
consistency among bodies of law is generally considered a good thing
Generally considered a good thing doesn't mean that you vigourously do specifically stupid things for the sake of consistency. Find a better excuse (or see Emerson for a fun quote).
By the way, in citing Singapore as an example... who exactly died in Singapore? Nobody. A hysterical reaction was not required. Singapore obviously had no pressing need to implement U.S. law. I don't see the U.S. running to pass laws that mimic those of other countries. Why does copyright induce ostensibly sovereign nations to jump?
Regarding the livelihood of little guys... if your citizenry decides to abolish slavery or capital punishment, should they stop because overseers and hangmen happen to make their livelihood in those trades? Should they just shut up about the whole issue?
For what it's worth, do you think the recording industry is moderating their position after reflecting upon the financial needs of the little guy? Would that be reflected in a typical music contract? Is that reflected in efforts to exempt music contracts from bankruptcies? There is no moral imperative for the recording industry's dominion over the past, the present and the future of music. What they are proposing, and to some extent attaining, is such a legislated right.
You can have copyright laws which serve all members of society but not when you have a single voice preparing those laws. It's fundamentally unhealthy when the entire world is involved in unidimensional argument with one side being represented by full-time, experienced professionals backed by the deepest of pockets and having big stick leverage provided by their own government (a very big stick) and the other side being represented by no one. Who in Singapore argued the other side? Why are there only two sides (i.e. my way or the highway)? I sense that the U.S. is infatuated with the idea of, "You're with us or against us!" but this is not useful when creating laws.
I'm starting to think that if we ever encounter an extra-terrestrial species, the first thing we'll do is coerce them into adopting our copyright laws. Can't have those Antarans listening to Britney.
p.s. For what it's worth, I also believe that I lost a posting in the comments on Lessig's site. Alas, I deleted the bookmark to it last night and can no longer remember the specifics. I did not suspect foul play however. I couldn't imagine the gain.
All Comments
I never deleted any comment of yours, or anyone, on my blog, however disrespectful they may be. And as to my "ignorance," in fact, as Dennis Karjala nicely demonstrates, the CTEA increased, rather than discreased, disharmony.
The point about harmonization relates to that part of the world - the EU - with which the CTEA sought to harmonize us, which it did in the major categories. "The rest of the world" is not a monolith, and consistency among bodies of law is generally considered a good thing. See the Commission on Uniform Interstate Law as an example.
Singpore has a history of little or no copyright protections for works of foreign authors. While this is no doubt pleasing to the "information wants to be free" set, it's not a good thing for people who depend on their creative works of music, photography, or software for their livelihood.
The Sonny Bono Act increased the DISHARMONY with EU law in certain important respects -- ie, works for hire. I'm sure you know that; it would be fair to your readers to make that clear.
And I have no idea what you mean by the "information wants to be free set." If there is such a set, then I am not a member of it. I am totally in favor of copyright protection and have no patience for "pirates" properly defined. But it is possible to be in favor of copyright in general, but be opposed to the corruption of an extension of terms for works that already exist. When Milton Friedman, Ronald Coase, James Buchanan, Ken Arrow, and George Akerlof file a brief against such extensions, is that because they are from the "information wants to be free" set?
Maybe you could put the redbaiting aside and focus a bit more on the "facts."
It is not entirely, inconceivably, beyond
precedent, that there is a bug somewhere
which caused it to be lost.
Really, "Latent fascism"?
I think you were a bit quick on the trigger there.
As to Sonny Bono and the EU, the operative question is whether it did - or was intended to - increase harmony with the EU in toto, if not in every minute respect. From the chart Lessig's posted, it's apparent that the EU's regulations aren't internally consistent, so it's reasonable that a US law intended to harmonize with it in general would depart from it in certain particulars in order to conform to sound principles of statutory construction. The next phase would be to have the EU make their regulations more internally consistent, which would have the effect of making them even more consistent with ours.
The main point about harmonization with the EU - just to underscore it - is that we are in sync on the major provisions of individual copyright.
Milton Friedman wants to legalize crack, so this particular appeal to authority doesn't move me, and "information wants to be free" was the rallying cry of the anti-copyright/free software movement a few years ago.
There is a tendency to frame the copyright debate as a dualism between individuals and heartless multinationals such as Disney. This does a disservice to the many little guys who depend on copyright works for their livelihood. We certainly aren't going to reduce AOL/Time-Warner's role in the music business as long as consumers feel they're under no obligation to pay for the music they listen to.
If we’re going to play hunt-the-logical-fallacy, I can find you a quorum. #1: Do you believe that all, or even most, people opposing CTEA extensions are also in favor of legalizing crack? #2: Even if they were, would that make their opinions on the issue of copyright necessarily misguided? How are the two issues related?
#3: On the contrary, the Free software movement relies heavily on copyright for its own protection (otherwise non-Free software could incorporate Free code at will). #4: I doubt that any of the economists Lessig cited, for example, are members of either movement. #5: Lessig himself already explained that he’s “totally in favor of copyright protection”, so why are you still talking about the “anti-copyright … movement” at all?
It’s worth noting, finally, that “information wants to be free” is only one side of Stewart Brand’s original statement: “On the one hand information wants to be expensive, because it’s so valuable … On the other hand, information wants to be free, because the cost of getting it out is getting lower and lower all the time. So you have these two fighting against each other.”
"The single dominant ethic in this [digital] community is that information wants to be free". - Jon Katz
"I believe that all generally useful information should be free. By `free' I am not referring to price, but rather to the freedom to copy the information and to adapt it to one's own uses". - Richard Stallman
Do I need to tell you who these folks are, and what they have to do with Free Software?
It could also have been a DB error. MySQL, while it has its charms, is certainly not Oracle.
(**) "An argument is a connected series of statements intended to support a proposition. It's not the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says." "Yes it is!"
Oh, and for some reason you think that asking people for email addresses that you cannot verify somehow does something for your blog. Go figure.
Generally considered a good thing doesn't mean that you vigourously do specifically stupid things for the sake of consistency. Find a better excuse (or see Emerson for a fun quote).
By the way, in citing Singapore as an example... who exactly died in Singapore? Nobody. A hysterical reaction was not required. Singapore obviously had no pressing need to implement U.S. law. I don't see the U.S. running to pass laws that mimic those of other countries. Why does copyright induce ostensibly sovereign nations to jump?
Regarding the livelihood of little guys... if your citizenry decides to abolish slavery or capital punishment, should they stop because overseers and hangmen happen to make their livelihood in those trades? Should they just shut up about the whole issue?
For what it's worth, do you think the recording industry is moderating their position after reflecting upon the financial needs of the little guy? Would that be reflected in a typical music contract? Is that reflected in efforts to exempt music contracts from bankruptcies? There is no moral imperative for the recording industry's dominion over the past, the present and the future of music. What they are proposing, and to some extent attaining, is such a legislated right.
You can have copyright laws which serve all members of society but not when you have a single voice preparing those laws. It's fundamentally unhealthy when the entire world is involved in unidimensional argument with one side being represented by full-time, experienced professionals backed by the deepest of pockets and having big stick leverage provided by their own government (a very big stick) and the other side being represented by no one. Who in Singapore argued the other side? Why are there only two sides (i.e. my way or the highway)? I sense that the U.S. is infatuated with the idea of, "You're with us or against us!" but this is not useful when creating laws.
I'm starting to think that if we ever encounter an extra-terrestrial species, the first thing we'll do is coerce them into adopting our copyright laws. Can't have those Antarans listening to Britney.
p.s. For what it's worth, I also believe that I lost a posting in the comments on Lessig's site. Alas, I deleted the bookmark to it last night and can no longer remember the specifics. I did not suspect foul play however. I couldn't imagine the gain.
==========
-- "No one here but us lemmings, boss!"