One of the exciting thing about the early days of the Democratic primary was that there was at least some debate about whether the Democratic Party would continue to be led by IP extremists. Some of the worst in IP came, after all, from the Clinton administration. Reflecting on that, many were hopeful we’d see some new thinking. Many of the most passionate Deaniacs were eager to see new thinking on this issue. Senator Edwards addressed some of this on this blog.
Word now is that Bruce Lehman, former Assistant Secretary of Commerce, and Commissioner of Patents, is spreading the word that he is running IP policy on the Kerry campaign. In the scheme of extremists, few are more extreme. Of all the government “Czars” in our form of government, he proved himself to be most to be feared.
Yet another bit of depressing news, if true, from this extraordinarily important campaign.
I think that the American people should consider more options than the major party candidates who are standing in the way.
osierra.com: So long as people consistently buy into the “this is the most important campaign” talk, this will never happen. Americans who vote (a decreasing pool of registered voters, probably a minority real soon now) will consistently prioritize fighting the fire in front of them ahead of either restructuring elections so they don’t have fires to put out, or investigating alternative candidates to send a message to the corporate-funded duopoly. Desperation places one in a poor position to make important decisions.
Come on… Ashcroft is far more extreme.
The very idea of IP is extreme in the first place. If all of the compromises suggested by Professor Lessig were implemented the resulting framework would still be overly restrictive. IP is unnatural and must be carefully implemented. Copyright should last no longer than a few years, five at the most. Anything longer is extreme and doomed to failure.
Here is an excellant URL for those interested in 3rd part candidates. It lists all of the presidential candidates along with an optional list pf answers to many policy issues that are in the news today. It is a little light on technology issues and electronic cultre issues, still it gives a pretty good amount of information for those candidates who have participated (note of course the big 2 did not)
http://www.vote-smart.org/election_president_party.php?party_name=All
If you’ve got any cred. with Edwards, (which you must) send him a line telling him how this choice is bad, and who a proper choice would be.
Just goes to show that you can find IP extremists in both major parties. Hollywood contributes, er, liberally to both sides so they can have influence no matter which party comes out on top.
I just don’t see how there is any way to justify a wasted vote on a 3rd part in this election. I’m as much of a Lessig-head as anyone, but i’m convinced there are more smarter and more fruitful ways to fight for IP sensibility than throwing it all away on a Nader vote. You mine as well give up.
The democratic party is ripe for drastic reform. The party is in pathetic shape. All the old infrastructure is faltering – it’s been rotting on the inside for decades while the republicans have honed their power. It’s taken four years of those crazy neo-cons’ getting away with trying their horrible ideas to wake the party up to just how desperate things have become. It’s time for something very new and very different. Something much more powerful.
Just be careful you don’t get a group of right-wing wannabes taking over the Democrats like we got with Labour in the UK. New Labour make our old right-wing Tory Party look moderate in what they’re doing to the infrastructure and how they give aid to failing business.
Don’t let the Democrats draw the same mistaken conclusions that Labour did: it’s not that the left needs to be more like the right (that liberals need to be more like conservatives), it’s that they need to make their own case and believe in their own strengths.
If anyone starts talking about “New Democrats”, think New Coke and give them a wide berth…
I have moved to Canada, at least temporarily, to get myself away from the political situation in the US, which was really beginning to trouble me circa July 2002 (introduction of pre-emptive war doctrine) to circa October 2003. I did this despite the fact that the move entailed large economic sacrifice.
I still have a vote in the US and, after thinking about it for months, have decided to follow a safe state strategy: that is, decide if the outcome in my state is known at a high level of confidence (that is, a safe state) and to vote for a third party if and only if my vote is being counted in a safe state.
One nice thing about coming to Canada: as any Lessig blog regular knows, they are taking a more balanced approach on IP issues.
No, just normal news from this we-don’t-really-give-a-shit-because-they’re-the-same-on-any-important-issue campaign.
Face it – with IP law, elect the Republicans, and you get fucked. Elect the Democrats, and you get fucked.
“By the People, for the People” doesn’t exist any more.
Depressing news on the two sides of the 2004 presidential elections abound and are not limited to IP policy. See Gabriel Kolko‘s recent essay at Counterpunch.
I apologize for my deviation from the main thread, and I will swear to write this point as not-trollish as I can.
Put simply, though, those who purport to support third parties and then vote for Nader confuse me.
The argument usually starts as “The two main parties suck and are owned by corporate interest and don’t disagree radically on enough stuff.”
I agree.
However, it seems like, at least, this time around everyone conflates Ralph Nader wtih third parties. If Ralph Nader had a nationally-viable party backing him, I might buy that talk, but the fact is, he went out and ran for president with blatant disregard for those third parties.
No maverick running solo, save a very very rich maverick at a politically opportune time (cf., Perot) will have a huge effect on an election, and no maverick period will singlehandedly undo the foundations of the political duopoly in our country. That maverick simply has to have a party behind him to play ball on the federal level.
Instead of assisting a third party by being a high-profile candidate bringing awareness to the party and coattails to local elections, Nader’s running in many states will probably impact the votes given to real third-party candidates even more than for Bush / Kerry — rather than effect change in the long-term by further improving the viability of another political party.
I wouldn’t vote for Nader if I could, but I live in Indiana, so I can’t.
That said, my vote will not affect the outcome of the presidential election in any way, as Kerry will lose by no fewer than 10% in this state.
I’ll vote libertarian. The only honest-to-God third party on our ballot.
Just some food for thought (and a challenge to those of you who just can’t vote for Kerry, even if your vote actually matters in your state).
(I was successfull in not trolling too terribly much, eh?)
While I have to admit I would like Democrats voting for Nader, it is necessary to point out that multi-party systems just don’t work well in practice. Well, at least not in Latin America, where they are most popular. Generally, you get one big, powerful party (the conservative one, in Mexico its PRI, in Brazil its PSDB), and a million smaller parties that fight with each other so much they rarely get anything done, and rarely threaten the major party.
Then again, the Mexican President is from a rival party (PAN), and so is the Brazilian President (PT). Maybe they have a chance of doing things once in a while.
A better way to influence politics is by bringing up the issue whenever possible. Today neither party believes I will actually vote for a President or Congressman because of his view on copyright. While that will probably never change, letting politicians know our beliefs can have an influence on the positions they take — especially since they know an unusual copyright stance won’t hurt them in the election.
Well, it may hurt those beholden to Hollywood for campaign contributions (mainly Democrats), and those beholden to Microsoft for funding (mainly Republicans), but that is a campaign finance reform issue.
As an english major I can appreciate the sentiment but as a Firefighter I have to tell you, you never walk past fire to fight deeper fire. If you extinguish the fire that’s in front/above you it just comes down and traps you later.
Politically I think it’s a bummer that Bush has taken such a hard stance on several issues where I diametrically oppose his viewpoint, I think many of his national policies are good. It’s the “Protect marriage” and stem cell stuff that essentially forces me to vote for Kerry….
-Dan
Still voting for Kerry. But I left a disappointed message in his Pennsylvania office.
That tears it! I certainly WILL throw away my vote now. (Heck, I’ll just write in Lawrence Lessig!)
Shmoo, of Electric Gypsy
Support Local and Independent Music!
Regarding my just-made post: Actually I see that Virginia now has open primaries, meaning that independents can help choose Democratic Presidential candidates. I’m going to have to think this through after a lifetime as a registered Democratic who normally wouldn’t pay attention to such matters. That is how corrupt I believe the party now is, as shown by copyright issues. Not that the Republics are role models for me. I may well continue to be a Democrat for another reason, however–so I can be among those picking up the pieces after voters at last catch on, via the now-ignored issues that the media downplay. Democratic corruption and media cowardice–more interest in old Vietnam-era issues than in meaningful ones of the moment–go hand in hand.
Meanwhile, methinks it’s time to work for an NRA-size group for all digital media users, not just hardcore techies or activists and mixes thereof. I agree with my Libertarian friend Jon Noring, the originator of the idea, that the white hats need to reel in the couch potatoes and include membership perks, just as the AARP does. People won’t act out of idealism alone. I’m very thankful that the EFF is around, but I believe that its vision is a tad too romantic. And perhaps Larry Lessig’s, too. Brilliant legal work by itself isn’t enough, not when the black hats–as shown by Bono–keep changing the laws. I hope he’ll show an open mind on these strategy-related matters, even if the Lehman rumors don’t pan out. Current strategies against the Lehmans just are not working.
David Hayes: For Nader, check out Nader and Love’s Tunney Act letter in the Microsoft case — it’s not what you’re looking for (and that’s sad for the Nader/Camejo campaign not to say anything) but it’s the closest I could find in a brief search.
As for the Greens, I would like to think that they would be interested in these matters and pushing themselves as a viable alternative to the Democrats. I don’t see either going on.
“Neither the term �copyright� nor the term �intellectual property� appear in the Libertarian platform.” (posted by David Hayes)
This is true; however, the LP tends to stand for less regulation and corporate welfare laws. The DMCA is a law which benefits corporations at the expense of freedom.
I wish they would take a more definitive stance, but for now, I have to believe the ideals of the LP are against draconian and restrictive laws like the DMCA.
I think the democratice party is up to the whole thing. think about it, these Ip extremists works for them. they will do anything to win this election
Tired of hearing about the past…. focus on what each candidate will do for our coutry, such as JOBS, RETIREDMENT FUNDS, HEALTHCARE INSURANCES, MEDICATIONS, AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS, INCREASE MIN. WAGE.
The Senators and Congressmen`s pay MUST go down, not increncremts, and have their retiredment be just as much as any other US citizens.