Eldred Loses

A middle way
There is an obvious middle way around the copyright problem that should satisfy both the owners of valuable copyrights, such as Mickey Mouse, and the those who wish to put as many overlooked works in the public domain as possible, in order that they may be rediscovered.

Congress should simply mandate that, beyond as certain point, copyrights will be subject to maintenance fees in order to remain in force.

That way, Disney could pay $5 per year to keep Mickey Mouse, and the 99% of material that is under copyright, but no longer in print, would soon pass into the public domain.

This system is commonly used for patents outside the United States.

Dave Todd

re: Responsibility
Hm. Having read your latest post, I find myself wanting to respond. Keep in mind that I'm viewing this not as a nascent flame war, but rather as a timje-shifted conversation. With that in mind, on to the meat. I'll respond in more or less the same order of your last post.

I find the recent SCOTUS ruling as abhorrent as I think you do. I understand your point that some good may come of it: I think Lessig makes a somewhat similar point in his recent blog post. It's probably safe to say that it's either indefatigable optimism or whistling past the graveyard depending on whether you're a half-full or half-empty type of person, but maybe it will galvanize "the public" into some sort of action. I'm not hopeful, but I certainly no longer have the same respect for copyrights as I did 3 days ago.

As government being responsible for its own transparency - I think we've fallen into a trap that catches a lot of internet and meatspace conversations: that of the actual versus the ideal. While I agree that - in an ideal world - capital G Government should assume responsibility for its own transparency, the reality is that what we think of as Government doesn't actually exist. Rather, it's a collection of individuals and organizations, all of which have their own agendas. One overriding truth is that it is in none of their best interests to implement transparency, and an even slightly cynical reading of US history as far back as the founding of this country would show that this has always been the case: most of our Founding Fathers felt that government was a job best left to wealthy landowners and certainly not to be trusted to the "rabble".

The upshot (as I see it) is that the only way we will get transparency, or more importantly, accountability, in our government is through our own direct action. The same tools that you say the Government could be using to implement its own transparency can be used by we the people to force that transparency on them. It is my belief that they absolutely will not do it on their own. They simply have too much to lose. I think the blogspace is a great first step in that direction: memes spread rapidly in that environment, and they enjoy the peer review process you speak so highly of (witness the rapid responses to the misinformation spread by Paul Festa in his recent Safari/Mozilla article and the immediate debunking of his position by the principals in the story via their weblogs). I hope that once the blogspace wakes up to its true potential, it will truly become a non-mediated source of information, perhaps on the very government we?re now discussing.

Given their/its predilection, and given that we have the tools to implement this idea, I feel that we can?t and shouldn?t expect or wait for the Government to provide, for example the exact system of stands on issues and campaign promises vs. voting records that you mention. We can and should do this ourselves, and first steps have already been taken (eg: http://www.vote-smart.org/). The information you seek is out there. You may have to work to find it, but it?s there. Certainly, the fact that it?s not packaged in an easy-to-use format shouldn?t be used as an excuse for not educating yourself and then voting, which was specifically what I too issue with in your pervious post.

The next point I want to address is the one concerning ?trustworthy information?. This is a slippery concept, as the concept of ?trustworthy? is entirely subjective. If you?ll bear with me for a few sentences, I?ll explain why. I feel confident in the assertion that every single piece of information ever committed to any medium ? from the first Mesopotamian scrolls through Gutenberg?s Bible to modern weblogs ? carries a slant put there by its author, wittingly or unwittingly. I know that last sentence is hard to swallow initially, but I also feel that a bit of reflection reveals its inevitability. Even the scientific peer-review process you value has its obvious subjective faults, which are being widely revealed. Witness the uproar over the Bogdanovs and the previous success of the Alan Sokal hoax. And on a related note there is the everyday manipulation of medical journal publishing by drug companies pushing a new drug for a non-approved use. The bottom line is that when power, professional reputations or large amounts of money are on the line, objectivity in reporting ? be it in a scientific journal or on the evening news ? is the first casualty. I suspect that this is not a recent development, but rather something that?s been with us since the that first Mesopotamian scribe put reed to papyrus to describe how a priest had to be present to bless a crop in order to ensure success. Ultimately, the only absolutely trustworthy information is that which you develop yourself. In our current situation, gathering information while considering the disseminators? agenda ? both in what is included and what is omitted ? is the best we can do.

I understand that, being an engineering student, you demand reliable data to base decisions on. That is both an admirable and necessary trait in that particular field. However, politics is not engineering, and trying to apply the same rules to both is a serious mistake, sort of like trying to apply quantum physics on a macro scale. The reality is that Politics is created by people, and people are inherently nonlinear. Even so, we can generally glean some idea of their motivations from the things they say, the way they act, the things that are important to them, and - perhaps most importantly ? the things they don?t say, either by accident or design. Quick example: Donald Rumsfeld was in 1983 Reagan?s Middle East envoy, and met regularly with Saddam Hussein. At the same time, the US was shipping cultures of Botulism, Anthrax, and several other biological agents suitable for weaponization directly to Iraq with the intent of supplying them with weapons for their war against Iran, which we (or rather, the US government) supported at the time. It would be silly to claim that, as envoy to the Middle East engaged in direct talks with Saddam Hussein, Rumsfeld had no knowledge of this event. However, that particular fact is omitted from current Defense Secretary Rumsfeld?s increasingly strident calls for Iraqi disarmament, even though his personal knowledge of Iraqi biological weapons capability would certainly seem pertinent. The omission of this information, as well as the fact that American ?news? outlets have ignored this information both seem to me a significant data point.

The upshot? Well, it seems to me that whatever your decision is, you need reliable information to base it on. Unfortunately, there is no absolutely reliable information in the real world. The best we can do is avoid the dual traps of inaction and unconditional acceptance. And relating specifically to the Eldred case, perhaps it?s time we begin doing the research on our candidates and their voting history on copyright before we go to the polls.

M-I-C, K-E-Y, L-O-U-S-E
While we can't use a likeness of Mickey Mouse, we can still talk about him. To celebrate this public right (no doubt next up for abolishing) I quote from Father George:

"I hope Mickey dies...I hope he gets ahold of some tainted cheese and dies lonely and forgotten behind the baseboard of a soiled bathroom in a poor neighborhood with his hand in Goofy's pants..."

And Minnie Mouse is a crack whore who doesn't pay income tax :)

re: Responsibility
thanks for the response, i honestly appreciate it. :)

i think i was a bit too vague in my post.

i wasn't really praising the ruling so much as admitting that despite my distaste for it, it might have some positive effects regarding how active people get in politics and voting.

what i meant to convey by the rest of the post was my desire to see information about politicians placed in an easy to access and understand format. in my view it is the responsibility of the government to do this. i know the info already exists in large part, but it is *not* organized and made accessible in the manner i spoke of. i am fully aware that if i really wanted to i could look up the voting records and other activity of any member of Congress. that's why they keep records. but...

what those records lack is a strong link to each Congress-person (or official in the Executive or Judicial branch). if Joe Blow Senator makes a promise to his constituents to do something, there is no widely accessible means by which to follow the Senators' progress. all i'm asking for is essentially an official government 'blog' of the official life of public officials.

if you are a public official you are responsible for acting as the voice of a large number of individuals, so i don't see it as unreasonable to expect that official to make sure his or her efforts are visible to all those spoken for. before the internet, you pretty much had to just trust the person you elected. now it's so easy to publish information that it's stupid not to make government nearly transparent. there are simply no reasons for it not to be.

when election time rolls around, i want to be able to go to one place and find the complete record of what a particular candidate has done and have each event briefly commented on by the candidate. the comments are so that if he or she promised in an election speech (those would also be available, to as great an extent as possible) to act on an issue in a certain fashion and yet ended up doing something else he or she has an opportunity to explain him/herself.

what is available now in these regards? Public records that are hard to find and not clearly linked to the potential candidate, and what amounts to political propaganda, or as some like to call it, Campaign media.

i feel i must rebuke your assertion that there is no 'trustworthy information'. you would be correct in saying that there is no 100% guarantee on information, but to say that there isn't such a thing as a trusted source is nuts. i point you to academia. i had suggested that these government 'blogs' would be peer reviewed much as research papers are today. do i trust papers submitted and accepted for publication in academic journals? yes. why? because people with knowledge in that field have objectively reviewed the paper and deemed it to be 'trustworthy'.

you're right that it's my job as a citizen to make up my own mind, but it's also the job of the government i pay for to make any information i need readily available. that information is currently not up to my standards of accessibility. i suppose that's my whole point. :P

if there exists something like that which i've described above, feel free to point it out.

i honestly don't think i'm being unreasonable. i'm an engineering student, so i tend to want data that is reasonable accurate when i make design decisions. i don't see that as being impossible to expect from those who write the laws i agree to live by.

that, and it doesn't help that elections are held only a precious few weeks away from finals during any given fall semester. :)

re: Responsibility
I find it amazingly ironic that you on the one hand praise the ruling as a tool for forcing the Public to take responsibility for its own destiny and sticking to their ideals, but one paragraph later are saying that you don't vote because noone else has yet conveniently packaged the information you need to make an informed decision.
I'd watch out making claims about people your age as a group, but I suspect that the reason *you* don't vote has more to do with being lazy about informing yourself than a lack of information. No single group/organization out there will ever present "trustworthy information" - it's your job as a member of the public to make up your own mind.

Responsibility
As much as this decision really pisses me off, in the long run it's probably a good thing.

America as a society must take responsibility for it's own destiny. we can't hide behind the Supreme Court for all the really tough decisions. The only way we'll win back our rights is to vote people into office who have the ideals we want and the courage to stick with them.

i'm in my early twenties and i'll admit to having never voted. but it's not because i don't want to, or even that i've never found someone who appears to be worth voting for. it's a simple matter of accountability. there is no simple, complete, and peer reviewed place for me to review a candidates merits. do you really think i believe what some politician tells me he/she will do? no. trust must be earned.

being a public servant should require that you keep an official and absolutly complete record of what you've done. it should be easy to find, easy to navigate, peer reviewed for accuracy, and include a comment system by which the person whom the record belongs to may provide explanation for his or her actions. no other comments should be allowed. it's not a debate record. simply a record of actions and votes and a short entry for each stating a thought behind each.

maybe it's just me, but i think maybe one reason people my age don't vote is not a lack of opinion or lack of desire, but a lack of trustworthy evidence on which to base the decision.

jtm