Home Page
01. 4.2007 (previous | next)
Department of Huh?

Instapundit, one of the most-read conservative blogs, has a link to a recent Larry Lessig presentation, and follows it up with a strange comment:

UPDATE: Lessig's pretty hard on the Democrats and Howard Berman over intellectual property, which makes me wonder -- yet again -- why the Republican Congress never took the opportunity to expand fair use rights, gut the DMCA, and generally stick it to the entertainment industries, which are a crucial source of funding for the Democratic Party and the left generally. It's not like this tactic wasn't obvious. (I wrote in 2002: "Will Republicans take advantage of this opportunity? That depends on whether they want to be a majority party - or history." Well. . . .) Plus, it was the right thing to do.

And read this, too.

The first strangeness lies in his assumption that virtue lies in destroying IP rights by expanding fair use and eliminating DRM. The conclusion is devoid of analytical support in either the immediate post or in the linked material, which, aside from making some trivial points that IP is a complex area, difficult to get right, demonizes Big Hollywood in terms usually associated with leftist blogs and their assault on Big Oil, Big Pharma, Corporate Greed and other bete noirs of the world’s depressingly large population of sophomores.

A fundamental problem with the analysis (?) is the lack of recognition that any artists who want to create a career without relying on property rights or DRM are absolutely free to do so, and the existing media companies are powerless to stop them. So if openness is a better model, then how can these companies “suppress competition” by not adopting it? Instead, they would be creating an opportunity for others.

Second, the Republican Congress abandoned many principles in the last five years. One of the bright spots was its refusal to abandon its dedication to property rights as applied to intellectual creations, despite what must have been tremendous temptation to do so. Instead, principled conservatives have gone the other way, linking IP rights and other property rights, viz. the Property Rights Alliance. Good for them.

posted by James DeLong @ 11:53 AM | Academia, Access: Commons, Fair Use, Orphan Works, Public Domain, Big Tent, DRM & Watermarks, etc., Free Culture Movement, Physical Property

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment(2)


Comments

the lack of recognition that any artists who want to create a career without relying on property rights or DRM are absolutely free to do so, and the existing media companies are powerless to stop them.

And when slavery existed, people were perfectly free to start ethical businesses competing with those who kept indentured servants.

Patents constitute unfair advantage granted to those MOST WILLING to restrict others. We're fed up humouring the psychopathic bastards who would use patents to prevent us computing.

And actually, with software patents and legal support for DRM like the DMCA, no, we're not "perfectly free": we can't legally compete (all patents are monopolies and prevent free market competition, by definition. This is undeniable, and no amount of circumlocution can change it).

Ultimately, ownership of information patternsd will go the way of ownership of people, society won't stand for corporatist nonsense like this propaganda website forever.


Posted by: A. Programmer at January 7, 2007 6:45 PM

"why the Republican Congress never took the opportunity to expand fair use rights, gut the DMCA, and generally stick it to the entertainment industries, which are a crucial source of funding for the Democratic Party and the left generally."

This is just the naked display of power, without principle.

"Second, the Republican Congress abandoned many principles in the last five years..."

No. You have to have some principles before you can abandon them. See Eisenhower's article on why he voted for Kerry, at www.truthout.org

Posted by: enigma_foundry at January 9, 2007 11:42 PM








 
IPcentral WebLog

Blog Main

IPcentral Blogosphere Archives

Search the Blog

Recent Posts
  - IP and Marginal Cost
- Academics and Copyright
- More on Jammie Thomas from DOJ
- More Studies of Downloading
- Facebook, MySpace, and Network Externalities
- Copyright and the University: An Academic Symposium
- Tyler Cowan on Chinese Movie Piracy
- More WHO Antics--Roger Bate Reports
- Patents, Meds, and the Developing World: Clips & Links
- Jermaine Dupri's Gripe with iTunes
Archives by Month
  - December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
  - (see all)
Archives by Subject
  - Academia
- Access: Commons, Fair Use, Orphan Works, Public Domain
- Accounting
- Analog Holes
- Antitrust
- Art
- Aspen
- Big Tent
- Biotech
- Books
- Comments from Readers
- Counterfeit
- Digital Americas
- Digital Europe
- Digital Europe 2006
- DMCA
- DRM & Watermarks, etc.
- Economics, Game Theory & Public Choice
- Enforcement & Remedies
- Free Culture Movement
- Games
- General
- Infrastructure
- International
- Internet: P2P, Search Engines...
- Legislation and Legislators
- Liberty and IP
- Markets: Business, Investment & Innovation
- Media: Video, Music...
- Patents
- Pharma
- Physical Property
- Prices, Terms, and Licensing
- Privacy and Security
- Radio
- Software
- Spectrum & Wireless
- Standards
- Supreme Court
- Tax-Funded IP
- Telecom
- Theft of Service
- Universities
Links
 

Site Feed

  - Atom
- RSS 1.0
- RSS 2.0
We welcome comments by email - look for a link to the author's email address in the byline of each post. Please let us know if we may publish your remarks.


 
Home Page