Comments on: Kerry and the IP extremists

By: Rosio

Rosio — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 17:57:52 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 23 Sep 2004 21:09:59 +0000

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

By: Mike R

Mike R — Fri, 17 Sep 2004 16:22:04 +0000

"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.

By: J.B. Nicholson-Owens

J.B. Nicholson-Owens — Fri, 17 Sep 2004 01:03:26 +0000

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.

By: David H. Rothman

David H. Rothman — Wed, 15 Sep 2004 16:40:37 +0000

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.

By: independentmusician

independentmusician — Wed, 15 Sep 2004 12:23:14 +0000

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!

By: jc

jc — Wed, 15 Sep 2004 09:09:21 +0000

Still voting for Kerry. But I left a disappointed message in his Pennsylvania office.

By: Dan Farmer

Dan Farmer — Wed, 15 Sep 2004 03:16:51 +0000

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

By: Max Lybbert

Max Lybbert — Tue, 14 Sep 2004 23:09:19 +0000

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.

By: Chuck Smith

Chuck Smith — Tue, 14 Sep 2004 21:40:20 +0000

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?)