iPac: bravo

Posted on September 30, 2004 by Lessig

A group of good sorts have put together a PAC to frame and push IP-related policies. Here’s the site with the list of candidates they’re supporting. Cool if they could find some marginal sorts who have been totally obtuse about these issues to target as well.

This entry was posted in free culture. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to iPac: bravo

  1. Mark Earnest says:
    September 30, 2004 at 12:18 pm

    What I find interesting about this is that it cuts across party boundries. Some of the most abusive legislation for the concept of fair use and pro fair use legislation comes from both sides of the isles. You really cannot look at this issue and say “damn (democrats|republicans)”.

    This iPac is a great idea and has my support.

  2. Joseph Pietro Riolo says:
    October 2, 2004 at 8:26 am

    Sorry to say but iPac does not deserve our support.

    First, note the word “ideas” in the first principle.
    The present U.S. copyright law does not grant copyright
    on any ideas, no matter how big or little they are.
    Therefore, the ideas are always in the public domain.
    The first principle of iPac is in fact against the
    public domain. (The word “creators” is a myth but that
    does not bother me as much as “ideas”.)

    Second, the purpose behind copyright is not to compensate
    the authors and artists. The purpose is to increase
    the domain and dissemination of the knowledge (science
    means knowledge). iPac’s first and second principles
    are in conflict. If a law is judged that it prompts
    the knowledge but does not fairly compensate authors
    and artists, does that mean that the law is not good?
    On the other side, if a law is judged that it fairly
    compensate authors and artists but does not prompt
    knowledge, does that mean that the law is not good?
    The bottom line is that the first and second principles
    are not in harmony.

    Third principle – I have no strong opinion on it.

    It seems that iPac does not know where its priority is.
    If the public domain is the top priority, iPac should
    carefully word principles to show that the public domain
    is the overriding goal. If the authors and artists should be
    compensated, iPac should change the wording in the
    principles to show that the public domain is less
    important than the authors and artists’ compensation.

    How should common people show their support? Vote with
    money. If you don’t support RIAA, don’t buy their
    products or don’t spend too much money on their products.
    If you don’t support MPAA, don’t buy their products or
    don’t spend too much money on their products. And so on.

    Joseph Pietro Riolo
    <[email protected]>

    Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions
    in this comment in the public domain.

Leave a Reply