NCMR keynote

The June 6 keynote at FreePress’s National Conference for Media Reform. Here’s the link to a video of the event, with the slides somtimes mixed in. Here’s a YouTube version — quality much better than I’ve seen with other conversions.

This entry was posted in ChangeCongress. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to NCMR keynote

  1. By the way, I’ve just fixed that bug in the US constitution. Here’s a patch:

    Article 1, Section 8, clause 81 of the US Constitution says,
    “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”

    Let’s see how, whilst still tightly adhering to the US constitution, the people’s liberty need not be unethically suspended, as it is by copyright and patent, when securing their natural intellectual property rights:

    1. Authors and inventors, being human beings have a natural, exclusive right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
    2. This natural right should be secured by the state – to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.
    3. The natural right can last no longer than the lifetime of the author or inventor.
    4. The natural right should be secured for a limited time equal to the limited lifetime of the author or inventor, except in the event of unnatural death, when this limited time should be extended to secure a now unnatural exclusive right by a further quarter of the normal lifespan.
    5. The natural right ceases to be exclusive when the author or inventor voluntarily communicates (or permits the communication of) their writings and discoveries to other parties, whether by gift or exchange.
    6. An author’s or inventor’s writings and discoveries naturally remain exclusive to all natural parties to whom they have been voluntarily communicated (by any such party).
    7. All such communicated parties may, as a collective, be treated as if a single author or inventor and should have secured (by the state) their natural, exclusive right for as long as they each shall live.
    8. No communicated party may as a consequence submit to the abridgement of their freedom of speech, which includes the freedom to further communicate (the writings and discoveries voluntarily communicated to them) to whomsoever they choose. NB This doesn’t preclude a communicant’s commercial exchange of their continued silence (confidentiality).
    9. Those who are not voluntarily communicated parties, who view, remove, copy, or otherwise communicate a party’s writings or discoveries to themselves (or any other) without that party’s permission shall be penalised statutorily (for the violation of privacy) and additionally in proportion to the market value of the publication of those writings or discoveries (where publication is their exchange for money with members of the public at large), and further required to restore any removal and destroy any copies manufactured. All who have been further illegitimately communicated may also be similarly liable in so far as they are complicit, but must at least also cease and reverse any communication in so far as it is practicable.


  2. lilalia says:

    Thank you very much for posting this speech. Even though I live far away, I find your work inspiring. I especially am inspired that your ideas hold as much interest to my 17-year-old son, as they do to me, his 50-year-old mother. We both sat and watched your presentation and it led to a discussion between us that makes me proud of my son’s independent thinking, as well as, gives me hope at his generation’s willingness to become socially engaged.

  3. David Orban says:

    Re: syncing

    I have started using a new tool called Omnisio with great satisfaction. It lets you leave the audio/video recording on one site, and pulls the slides from an other. You only have to click a few times to put them in sync. It is really quick, and very useful.

  4. “1. Authors and inventors, being human beings have a natural, exclusive right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” Is there a legal presumption that authors and inventors may not necessary be human beings? Number 8 should be removed; the federal government should secure liberty from itself against its citizens. Number 9 is plainly a lawyers’ full-employment bill!

    I have created an edition of the Constitution where the amendments are included within the seven articles. U.S. Constitution 2.27. I made this version because I believe too many of our fellow citizens think amendments have a life outside of the original seven articles. Incorporation doctrine is a strange walk through the dark regions of constitutional law in order to create law. I await to add numbers 1 to 7 to my pdf.

  5. Thanks Dean, it’s good to have the benefit of your constitutionally experienced eye.

    In answer to you question, corporations are not human, and have no natural rights. I felt it was necessary to emphasise where natural rights come from – it is not self-evident these days.

    I take it that you consider my points 8 and 9 are redundant, as opposed to disagreeable or unworkable? I’d be interested in further explanation of your reasoning.

    If you consider 1-7 worthy then it at least appears promising that this ‘patch’ might be refined.

  6. FYI, on the manufacture of doubt, take a look at this, it might make a good addition to “corruption” resources:

    The Denial Industrial Complex

    “A new study by a team of political scientists and sociologists at the journal Environmental Politics concludes that 9 out of 10 books published since 1972 that have disputed the seriousness of environmental problems and mainstream science can be linked to a conservative think tank (CTT). Following on earlier work by co-author Riley Dunlap and colleagues, the study examines the ability of conservative think tanks to use the media and other communication strategies to successfully challenge mainstream expert agreement on environmental problems.”

    “(Clarification: A couple of readers thought Nisbet was saying that one particular CTT was linked to 90% of the books. Nisbet means that 90% of books can be linked to CTTs.)”

  7. James Morris says:

    This talk was even more compelling than Larry’s other talks!

    Regarding public financing: Does Obama’s success in raising small amounts from the masses give anyone second thoughts? Certainly, the evils of rich donors are avoided. Dan Gillmor’s reaction to my question was “Obama is special. The average candidate for the house can’t match his netroots methods.”

  8. why is it i couldn’t see the video? i installed flash player already. I can see its loading but its stucked. any help? thanks!

  9. I have watched you work with great interest, and I think this Change Congress movement is critical. Being from Canada, I can see that there are fundamental problems with how our government is functioning. While we do not have precisely the same circumstances it is obvious that some of the same forces are at work.

    The idea of corruption as “the first problem” really resonates, and it seems to me someone has to step back and look at exactly what the “first problem” of Canadian government is (because there is one…and perhaps it too is corruption). I’ll definitely be thinking about that in the next while and following the successes of your campaign.

    Good luck!

  10. SEO says:

    The idea of corruption as “the first problem” really resonates, and it seems to me someone has to step back and look at exactly what the “first problem” of Canadian government is (because there is one…

    I ARGEE…

  11. Mehdi Ansari says:

    Is this video available for download? It would be great if it were.

  12. Oliver says:

    By explaining corruption as “dependence” you seem to deny the role of greed. Sure, one’s got to pay the rent, but perhaps one doesn’t have to live in the toniest of neighborhoods–not if it would take compromising one’s principles to afford it. That would be what we call “selling out” Meanwhile, the influence of special interests also has something to do with voter greed. Those interests are a source of free research and informed opinion. Voters would have to pay higher taxes to afford Congress the staff to substitute or supplement that information–and/or spend time learning about and talking about policy with each other and their representatives, when they could either be out making money to pay for cable or at home watching the ball game.

  13. Robby says:

    Is there an embed code?

  14. I agree with Stuart Croall for the idea of “first problem”, .

    To Mehdi Ansari,
    You will not be able to download the video as it is streaming media.

    To Did you know?,
    You should open this with firefox browser, it will guide you for the required plug in 🙂

  15. Much better quality than some of the links I’ve seen on youtube.
    Thanks for uploading

  16. Edwin says:

    Mehdi Ansari, you can download the video using firefox addons.

Leave a Reply