What we don’t agree on is the right of last year’s concessionaire to be this year’s gatekeeper. Certainly a graceful segue into a different business model is the proper solution, but at whose expense? If the bill and the sponsor view it as a first step in a series of negotiations, that’s an issue for another politician as the previous poster, Rick pointed out. But as a step in the negotiation process, it is more like a tantrum and deserves to be treated as such.

As we see in the courts, it will be many years before we see a political body that is prepared and knowledgeable in issues of advancing science and technology. Perhaps it is naive of me to think people who are afraid of the future and unwilling to adapt should admit it. But there is no reason to kick LL in the crotch and pretend what they are doing is normal. Understandable, yes. Politically appropriate? Frankly it only looks like a delaying tactic.

I don’t want to draw inappropriate parallels, but look at the way Al Gore was treated publicly over his advocacy on global climate change. You have a situation where a long-term trend is recognized by people you pay to research stuff you don’t have the inclination to learn, then ignore what they have to say – or – “Decide for Yourself” the immortal motto at Fox News. Obviously the journal publishing industry has a long way to go before they throw money to the think tank prostitution industry the way ExxonMobil does but it’s worth considering. Are we indulging in self-destructive acts?

There is evidence that humans will need every single minute available to them in order to learn to deal with earth’s changing systems. Delay in this (global warming) case may end up causing irreparable damage to civilization. Delay in the case of open access holds the potential of hindering the movement of information to places we never foresaw, preventing developments we never imagined.

Some of this perspective comes from attending the open access symposium at the 2005 AAAS meeting in Washington, some from watching what the Department of Energy and others (ad ex Deep Web Technologies) think about the future of collaborative research over the last few years, and some from observing the evolution of knowledge systems online.

As to Conyers rethinking. It would seem that he’s had more than ample time to do so before now. Yet he persists with a bill virtually identical to the original. Okay, if it isn’t suspicious contributions then what is driving him? Surely such a position, perverse in the face of logic, might be explained. If it isn’t we’re driven right back to our suspicions. The Lessig/Eison tactic was to draw Conyers out. A lesser effort would simply have left him entrenched.

As to your notion that this may be a strategic blunder, I don’t buy that either. I don’t see any “negotiated settlements” happening with progressive issues. We may well have an ally in the White House but that remains to be fully seen; so far so good. Congress is another matter. There is a Democratic edge, and that’s a good thing, but we have a Congress elected though traditional politics, fully expectant that after this bumpy spell things will settle down. They’ll address a few issues superficially, people will forget the rest, and they’ll get back to business as usual.

Progressives and sympathetic moderates have spent the last eight years or so building information, data gathering, and interactive communities that give them an edge for the moment in the information war. Are you suggesting that they don’t use those assets? Or are you suggesting that they be used selectively according to the percieved “value” of the the congressman in question?

And anyway, time is short. This is not an 8-year or even a 4-year window. It’s a one-year window of opportunity before the 2010 primaries. Bush will be ancient history, the economy will belong exclusively to Obama, and accommodation of the Right will begin. Bettting-on-the-come and living-to-fight-another-day are not viable strategies. Fight each battle hard. Then move on to the next one.

We seem to disagree on whether the original criticism is a “baseless smear”. There is no way to disagree however, that that was exactly the impression John Conyers got, since that were his exact words in the last line of his reply.

My point is that you don’t get anywhere with your opposition to that particular bill by throwing around accusations like that. Any influence this had on John Conyers would be highly unlikely to be in favor of rethinking his position on Open Access legislation.

And if you believe that reforming the way Congress works is the most important question right now, it might not be the smartest move ever to effectively remove most chances of influencing or even talkiing to John Conyers, who would seem to have some power when deciding over these matters.

We seem to disagree on whether the original criticism is a “baseless smear”. There is no way to disagree however, that that was exactly the impression John Conyers got, since that were his exact words in the last line of his reply.

My point is that you don’t get anywhere with your opposition to that particular bill by throwing around accusations like that. Any influence this had on John Conyers would be highly unlikely to be in favor of rethinking his position on Open Access legislation.

And if you believe that reforming the way Congress works is the most important question right now, it might not be the smartest move ever to effectively remove most chances of influencing or even talkiing to John Conyers, who would seem to have some power when deciding over these matters.

Likely people will miss the same about Lessig when he starts his articles with “Embarrassment of a Bill” – nobody expects more than insults calling people corrupt.

Also people with different views on copyright or people who supported Clinton, McCain or one of the others are not going to help Lessig’s “reform” organization.

@Baba
You’re out to lunch on McEnroe. Yes, he had the bad boy rep. But he’s gone on to be one of the best expert TV commentators in the game. He’s also made a TV commercial with the linesman from the famous screaming incident.
More importantly, though, he was a key factor in making tennis realize that with TV and instant replay it needed to improve accuracy or lose credibility with fans. Hence we have electronic devices that are extremely accurate. Perhaps the better metaphor is that government, like tennis, needs to eliminate or minimize “bad calls”……. or lose credibility.

But back on point….

I’ll admit to having had some ignorance of this issue so I’ve spent the past few days trying to understand it. The bottom line is pretty obvious. Conyers and the publishers simply don’t have a case on merit. Indeed, they don’t seem to even offer one apart from misleading facts, distortions, fear of the supposed unknown, or “status quo has served us well.” We see this pointedly in Conyer’s Huffington rebuttal in which he offers no tangible arguments for his position. He welcomes debate which he (and they) never intend to have. It’s abundantly clear that his intention was/is to slip this bill through as quietly as possible.

As to the contentious nature of the “discussion”….. so what? This nation is built and has prospered on open debate, often virulent if not outright violent. Indeed, it’s arguable that the left bears some responsibility for the state of the country today by choosing to remain academic, intellectual, the “bleeding-heart left”;….. possessive of all the righteous concepts but perceived by the general public as lacking the balls to actually govern…….famous for showing up with knives at a gun fight. Perhaps Conyers, knowing all this, was startled at the Lessig/Eisner directness. A couple of guys show up suitably armed for battle so he cries “foul”?
The respect that he requires was shown in the previous itterations of his efforts toward this bill yet he lumbered on, ignoring facts, figures, and testimony like a tank through light infantry. Now he’s incensed that someone shows up with a bazooka.

Still the nagging question remains: What IS going on here? On the whole we can’t label Conyers a “bad guy.” The publisher contributions are significant but, still, they are only circumstantial evidence, not of major significance to him financially. There’s no clear merit to the bill yet he persists doggedly. He alludes to complex issues…… these issues?….. or perhaps other issues? Are there larger issues at play here that aren’t part of the conversation?

Don’t know. But ACTA comes to mind. Clearly ACTA seeks to provide protection for intellectual property, much of which is American wealth, existing and potential. Is Conyer’s bill a “sweetener” to help get foreign interests on board?

1) you can get members from all political parties, 2) people will take you seriously and not as a shill and 3) tax advantages 4) you can deal with all politicians …

Here in Washington DC the vast majority of groups of all types – Save the Whales, Cannibals, Rich… all CLAIM to be non-partisan, even the ones that aren’t.

Also try not to piss off members by taking issues on non-core issues to your group.

I don’t know what he said about himself, but would it matter?

and the current and former head of the NIH against it

P.S. There’s no current head of the NIH. Dr. Zerhouni resigned last year; Obama has yet to nominate a new director. But both Zerhouni and his predecessor, Dr. Varmus, are against it.