Look at the co-sponsors. Frist, Hatch, OK, you could argue this fits them ideologically (I don’t think that’s necessarily so but it’s possible). But Daschle? Ah – TV/Movies/Music is his 3rd biggest contributing industry, $385,760. Leahy? Hollywood’s his #2 industry, $221,950. Barbara Boxer (who REALLY should know better) – #4, $520,910. (Data from Open Secrets) And the list is growing. Ernest Miller’s post echoes Andrew Leyden’s here – “Apparently, the copyright industries are doing an excellent bipartisan lobbying job. I’ve yet to hear of a single senator who opposes or even has serious questions about the bill.” Words AND cash.

I still think there must be some group like this (like an EMILY’s List for copyfight, public domain, etc), even if it’s small. But if there really isn’t one, there needs to be.

Heck, even given Prof. Lessig’s political leanings, Creative Commons is a non-partisan organization.

Does such a thing exist? I sure can’t find it. Seems odd – it’s not like we don’t have SOME moneybags on our side. There are some high-tech organizations, but honestly, I am not concerned about whether they can write off stock options as expenses.

And he is winning.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/technology/

http://www.torrentocracy.com/images/screenshot-04.jpg

Unfortunately, I am speaking literally here. Personally I think Ralph Nader is a fraud, but be that as it may he is NOT going to be elected President in 2004. Kucinich, who had some interesting things to say, was not nominated, nor was Dean.

But IMHO four more years of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld could lead to the literal destruction of the USofA. A protest or “change the sytstem” vote in 2004 will be suicide – certainly figurative, possibly literal.

I don’t know how much better Kerry will be, but he CANNOT be worse for the overall health of the country than Bush.

That’s my analysis, anyway. Given that, my point is: what will the Freedom movements do and how WILL they work to influence a Kerry Administration? Not how will they work to influence a Dean/Kucinich Administration in 2012, but what will they (we) do this reality’s January 2005?

Cranky

The only comment on copyright law I�ve seen from Kerry has been this Hollywood Reporter article. It certainly doesn�t deal with INDUCE directly, but it gives me little hope that Kerry will be even remotely vigilant towards a balanced copyright.

Although one would expect Kerry to take a harder stance on unauthorized uses of copyright material an interview with an industry association magazine, his comments still don�t bode well for anyone who wants balanced instead of simply maximal copyright. He is somewhat equivocal in that he acknowledges legitimcay of �the normal college-dorm, room-to-room, person-to-person, friend-to-friend kind of sharing,� he later says that �you�ve got different parties that are resisting doing things that could conceivably make it difficult for people to share or destroy or limit by virtue of technology the capacity for a CD to be recopied any number of times and so forth. There are economic interests out there that lobby against a reasonable compromise to protect the property.�

I�ve read your books, Mr. Lessig, so I know you are willing to assert that copyright is a property right, albiet a very special one. I however think any sort of property right and phrasing can never be really free from the connotations of physical property. There is a full vocabulary that people automatically use and think in when they talk about property–theft, (exclusive) owndership, and so on–that is inimical to balance in copyright.

That Kerry argues for �protecting property� is telling about his general stance towards copyright, even if we can�t extrapolate an INDUCE Act opinion. True, Kerry argues generally for �balance� and �compromise,� but Jessica Litman has shown that such maneuvers during the last hundred years have consistently ended up increasing copyright holder rights at the expense of consumer/social rights because only industry insiders are ever consulted. Kerry appears to decry the groups that question anticopying technology (which goes well beyond the grants of copyright and ‘legislates by technology’ unprecedented changes to unregulated consumer use and regulated fair use) as those arguing against �a reasonable compromise.� This is certainly a telling example of his conception of compromise.

To me, Kerry has a stance like most other US presidents have had–which is to say, no thought-out stance at all. Whatever congress tells him is a compromise is probably what he will sign. Again, with the INDUCE Act in particular, who knows, but he would likely sign the Act if it was pitched to him as “the compromise that congress worked out.”

Although one would expect Kerry to take a harder stance on unauthorized uses of copyright material an interview with an industry association magazine, his comments still don’t bode well for anyone who wants balanced instead of simply maximal copyright. He is somewhat equivocal in that he acknowledges legitimcay of “the normal college-dorm, room-to-room, person-to-person, friend-to-friend kind of sharing,” he later says that “you’ve got different parties that are resisting doing things that could conceivably make it difficult for people to share or destroy or limit by virtue of technology the capacity for a CD to be recopied any number of times and so forth. There are economic interests out there that lobby against a reasonable compromise to protect the property.“

I’ve read your books, Mr. Lessig, so I know you are willing to assert that copyright is a property right, albiet a very special one. I however think any sort of property right and phrasing can never be really free from the connotations of physical property. There is a full vocabulary that people automatically use and think in when they talk about property–theft, (exclusive) owndership, and so on–that is inimical to balance in copyright.

That Kerry argues for ‘protecting property’ is telling about his general stance towards copyright, even if we can’t extrapolate an INDUCE Act opinion. True, Kerry argues generally for ‘balance’ and ‘compromise,’ but the Jessica Litman has shown that such maneuvers during the last hundred years have consistently ended up increasing copyright holder rights at the expense of consumer/social rights because only industry insiders are ever consulted. That Kerry seems to decry the new groups that have sprung up to protect consumer rights as those arguing against “a reasonable compromise.”