Slashdot Mirror
Lessig's Thoughts On Eldred v. Ashcroft Arguments
yokem_55 writes "Lawrence Lessig has updated his blog giving his thoughts on how the oral arguments for Eldred vs. Ashcroft went before the Supreme Court on Wednesday. He discusses the goals and methods he used in framing his arguments to convince the court to overturn the Sony Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, how he felt he did in presenting his arguments, and also provides some analysis on how he thinks the court might rule."
In reality, Lessig could publish all of his notes from the case and let the opposition interview him for a week to get all the juicy tidbits and it wouldn't matter a hill of beans -- it's like asking a coach about his superbowl strategy the day after the game is played.
All said, I think that Lessig played a pretty good game here and gave "us" (as in "we the people") pretty much our best possible shot here. People who think he "lost" the Supreme Court arguement just because the justices gave him a hard time are obviously not framiliar with the Court in general.
That said, I'm not sure that the Court will side with Lessig simply because, IMO, Congress isn't really in violation of the Constitution. Really, this is a fight that needs to be taken to the Congress, which just won't happen until the American people (again, "we the people") take some interest in the machinations of their government.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
So the framers specifically state their intent in giving Congress this power. A trillion years may be a limited time, but it cannot be reasonably seen as a promotion of the "Progress of Science and useful Arts".
The idea here is that even the stuff before that first comma is important. Lessig et al. argue that, by extending copyright over too long a time, you're actually doing more harm (aka, arresting spin-offs and adaptations) than good (convincing creators to create by making it financially attractive).
So it's not black and white. You absolutely cannot cimply ignore any of the words or phrases in the Constitution.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
I'm sorry, I hate perpetual copyrights as much as you do, but I completely disagree that they are the problem. Imagine a world without copyrights. A movie is created, and instantly people with professional equipment are in there getting cam copies of the movie. They sell it in legitimate stores. More copies are made. A DVD is released, and since it is very easy to make a perfect copy, these are made. There are sold in legitimate stores, as this is perfectly legal. A CD is released, and perfect copies are made and sold for $1 each in stores. Software is made and immediately sold for the cost of the media in stores.
See the dilemna here? While you may argue that the RIAA and MPAA are evil (as they are), and that a lot of CDs these days are made according to a formula and forced down are throats (as many are), the fact is that there is much quality content created as books, audio CDs, movies, and software, that takes a large initial investment in order to create. If some company spends $8 million creating a piece of software then how are they going to recoup their profits if OfficeMax is selling $1 copies in the store in three days?
This is my argument for why limited copyrights are needed. But, it would be very nice if they only existed for perhaps 20 or 30 years.
If congress can 'extend' those protections as often as they like, is it really limited? If so, what is the limit?
ie: if you say it's 10 yeras, but 8 years from now extend it to 20, then 2 yeras before it's up extend it to 30, and before that is up, extend it to 75, etcetera, is it really limited? Could you not do this indefinately and still technically say "there is a limit"?
Maybe cause a very very small fraction of these copyrights *are* used and profit Disney? The vast majority of work from this long ago is barely making any profit, but there is a very tiny percentage making a positive amount of money for companies such as Disney. Meanwhile, the public domain is a public good and doesn't give Disney any benefit.
Most corporations would completely disregard the environment since it costs them money to keep it clean (but anti environmental practices give them bad PR, so they only mostly disregard it). Disney and co disregard the public domain because instead of a nice fuzzy feeling they'd rather have their cold hard cash, even if it's just a bit. Remember that scene in Fight Club where Cornelius is on the airplane telling some woman about how auto companies measure the cost of settlements to keep quiet a problem with their cars that kills people versus the price that fixing them all would cost? That doesn't seem so far off (remember Firestone?).
My point is that companies don't care squat about the public good. If anything gives them an additional cent, they won't care about the side effects. Since Disney stands to gain an extra couple of cents based on these laws they don't mind about us losing some works forever that won't be preserved.
I see what you're saying here, but the simple fact is we shouldn't all half to suffer restrictions because they want to force a particular paradigm. The success of Linux proves that the software industry would be fine without copyrights. And infact your delmia points out part of the problem, if a DVD contained an educational movie than the value of society making millions of copys would far outweigh the incentive to the creator, who would likely become famous in himself if he was good. However in a copyright society, entertainment that contains no educational value is hoisted on high, while real value information is burried in the hype.
No, that's not my point. With copyright terms allowed, things like Photoshop, 3D Studio Max, Blade Runner, The Matrix, and Dr. Strangelove get produced. GPL software is good in addition but this will get produced either way. You can argue that there is GPL software that does the same things as many other goods, but without copyright virtually all movies created in the last century would not have been created, or at least not as well. They wouldn't have the money to support the budgets they have, to buy their expensive SteadyCams to shoot them with and the film (which is very expensive), and their video editing studios. The educational videos wouldn't be made without public money since companies wouldn't make a profit on them.
My argument is that without copyrights, goods that cost money won't get produced to begin with. How can you free a DVD that doesn't exist? Without copyrights you'd force material to be free and thus keep lots from being created. With copyrights, creators have a financial incentive to create, and so their work will be created. How would you like if all the movies we had to watch were GPLed videos? All TV stations would be financed by public donations, and with public goods there is no way of excluding freeloaders.
Ok, then explain this to me - if there were no copyrights, how would authors/musicians/artists/etc make money?
Perhaps through concerts or public display. But this point is part of the problem, the end goal is not to make money for XYZ, but rather to maximize benefit to society. It is an unfair question like in the past how do the poor cotton farm owners make money without slavery? Well, stop trying to exercise rights you don't have and we can discuss it.
The founders had envisioned a world were copyrights are a tradeoff - for a particular works, certain freedoms allowed under other parts of the constitution (suich as the 1st ammendment) do not apply, in order to encourage them to create. But after a time, they go into the public domain. It might be old, but it sounds like solid reasoning to me.
It might have looked reasonable at a time where an encyclopedia of knowledge couldn't be transfered and coppied to every point on the planet in less than 30 seconds, but not today
Now, I agree that it has since been distorted. What we need (IMO) is repeal of those unconstituional retroactive copyright extensions, a shorter term for future copyrights, and (similiar to Russia) a law on the books making it illegal to create fair-use proof works
Oh and another thing about slavery, is that it started out as short term indentured servitude for blacks and whites that could not be inherited. After the term you got freedom and your own property. Sounded like a good deal, accept there was one problem, it planted the seed for a system that was outright evil and caused a lot of damage in the long run for America.
the level of ignorence that exists in the general public.
they see the public domain as a system the steal works legaly fromt he creators....
they just don't get it.
and part of the problem is that hollywood has mushed that idea into there heads.
it is a very sad situation
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Until I started following this issue I had never considered the 'length of copyright' laws, but did always wonder who had the 'rights' to classical music and Shakespeare, etc.
I have lived my entire life in a period where termination of a copyright is a non-existent thing. This situation is 'normal' to us because we have never experienced life without it. We never think to check up on if a copyright has expired so that we can make a derivative work... we just assume that we can't use it because it hasn't expired. The very idea of making a derivative work has simply become unthinkable... in a very literal sense.
We all know that tomorrow's ideas build on yesterday's. Since the wording of the constitution is apparently open to interpretation in this case, I hope the court considers the potential benefits to the populous of freeing these works. I hope the court does not find the idea 'unthinkable' just because it is the familiar status quo.
No, that's not my point. With copyright terms allowed, things like Photoshop, 3D Studio Max, Blade Runner, The Matrix, and Dr. Strangelove get produced.
How do you know? My understanding is what motivated most the people in these ventures wasn't a guaranteed monopoly, but rather it's own value?
GPL software is good in addition but this will get produced either way. You can argue that there is GPL software that does the same things as many other goods, but without copyright virtually all movies created in the last century would not have been created, or at least not as well. They wouldn't have the money to support the budgets they have, to buy their expensive SteadyCams to shoot them with and the film (which is very expensive), and their video editing studios. The educational videos wouldn't be made without public money since companies wouldn't make a profit on them.
I like many of these movies too, and I honestly don't know what would happen, but I do know that movies are for the benefit of society. If the movies really did go away, your rent, cost of living, technology used, would likely be the same. But copyright impositions in the information age could affect all of these.
My argument is that without copyrights, goods that cost money won't get produced to begin with. How can you free a DVD that doesn't exist?
Look, your argument is based off a false premise: that people won't create without copyright monopolies, bullshit - the entire renissance happend without copyrights.
Without copyrights you'd force material to be free and thus keep lots from being created. With copyrights, creators have a financial incentive to create, and so their work will be created. How would you like if all the movies we had to watch were GPLed videos? All TV stations would be financed by public donations, and with public goods there is no way of excluding freeloaders.
Information and art has it's own value without a government granted monopoly, thats why it will happen either way. Freeloading with information isn't inherently harmfull, but inherently good. It doesn't doesn't deprive the maker of their original creation, but only of market share monopoly. Well market share monopoly isn't a right, and loosing it isn't a depravation but only a percieved depervation.
Ok, then explain this to me - if there were no copyrights, how would authors/musicians/artists/etc make money?
Perhaps through concerts or public display. But this point is part of the problem, the end goal is not to make money for XYZ, but rather to maximize benefit to society. It is an unfair question like in the past how do the poor cotton farm owners make money without slavery? Well, stop trying to exercise rights you don't have and we can discuss it.
I hate to burst your bubble, but having people do their job for the benefit of society is a hallmark of socialism, and has been conclusively proven not to work, except under very special conditions. If there was no money to be made from writing books, very few would write them.
The founders had envisioned a world were copyrights are a tradeoff - for a particular work, certain freedoms allowed under other parts of the constitution (such as the 1st ammendment) do not apply, in order to encourage them to create. But after a time, they go into the public domain. It might be old, but it sounds like solid reasoning to me.
It might have looked reasonable at a time where an encyclopedia of knowledge couldn't be transfered and coppied to every point on the planet in less than 30 seconds, but not today
As one of today's articles pointed out, works hold their value for a shorter period of time nowadays. So I guess the simple solution is to shorten the length for which their copyright apply. That not withstanding, the founders' theory still holds.
Now, I agree that it has since been distorted. What we need (IMO) is repeal of those unconstituional retroactive copyright extensions, a shorter term for future copyrights, and (similiar to Russia) a law on the books making it illegal to create fair-use proof works
Oh and another thing about slavery, is that it started out as short term indentured servitude for blacks and whites that could not be inherited. After the term you got freedom and your own property. Sounded like a good deal, accept there was one problem, it planted the seed for a system that was outright evil and caused a lot of damage in the long run for America.
You make a valid point. Indentured servitude (a valid, morally-neutral arragement), while helping to bring early settlers to America, decayed into something more evil. However, abolishing copyrights is like killing the patient to cure the disease. If you do it, you kill off 98% of the industries that depend on copyrights. [Please, please, prove me and show how the *AA can continue to make anywhere near it's current money without copyrights] In this case, the way to prevent decay is to take the money out of congress, so that commercial interests like the *AA can't exert undue influence.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Actually, it is you whom we ought to thank, firstly for all the work you are doing with the library and also for pressing the case and having the tenacity to take it all the way to the Supremes.
:-)]) to music in a modern setting, bringing the great works to a whole new audience. If you win, and I sincerely hope you do, then it benefits not just you, not me, but everybody.
Regardless of the outcome, you have raised this issue in the media and finally people are starting to become aware of the awesome power of the copyright holders and the great potential of the public domain that may be lost if it weren't for you.
I do have a vested interest: I put a lot of poetry (Dickinson, Poe, St. Vincent Millay [if you win
Thanks.
Karma: Excellent Birds (mostly as a result of listening to Laurie Anderson)
The problem with Disney's views is that they're shortsighted- even for Disney. As people have routinely pointed out, Disney has been very aggressive about using public domain as a source for its works- i.e. Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, etc. That means that they could probably profit more than anyone else if the public domain was expanded. Yes, they'd lose the rights to Steamboat Willy, but how much money are they actually making from that? OTOH, Winnie the Pooh would be out of copyright pretty soon, so they wouldn't have to pay royalties to A.A. Milne's heirs for the use of Pooh. How many great movies could be made based on the works of Faulkner, Hemmingway, and the like that are currently being kept under copyright by the term extensions? How great would it be to be able to use Gershwin's music as a background score without having to pay his heirs for it? Why can't Disney see the advantages to them of being able to take advantage of the new works that would be going into the public domain?
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
...the entire renissance happend without copyrights.
This is true as far as it goes; however, it ignores the other mechanism in existence which guaranteed the livelihood of those renaissance artists whom we remember today: patronage.
Respected artists and philosophers of the renaissance didn't have to work, because some rich noble or institution supported them, or because they were already independently wealthy. I know that this doesn't apply to all artists of that era, but to a significant minority.
This also ignores another issue. Let's suppose that the RIAA, etc. didn't exist. That I produced a work of art accompanied by a license of my own composition in which I requested that you didn't distribute my creation, and deleted it from your HD after 24 hours unless you paid me $5.
Wouldn't I have the right to do that? Does an artist who chooses a digital medium automatically forfeit rights that a sculpture in bronze or clay doesn't?
I we expect the GPL to be honored, then what about the rights of artists who choose to be protected by copyright law? I mean, the RIAA aside, doesn't Metalicca have the right to choose which license they distribute their wares (not warez) under?
Neopets - the best free game on the Int
...it would be very nice if they only existed for perhaps 20 or 30 years.
I think Lessig did a great job, but I'm a little worried that the case will fail for being too conservative by limiting the challenge to the CTEA alone. The constitution can easily be read to be even more restrictive if you understand "...securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right..." to mean that the time is to be limited from the relative perspective of the creator, not an absolute term.
This is in keeping with the original limits which were well within an average lifespan (granted, a work produced less than 14 years before an authors death might seem unlimited but in most practical cases copyright would expire during their lifetime). Today, copyright is extended exclusively (and transferably) to an author for an unlimited time from their perspective (as long as they live), to their children for a nearly unlimited time (most if not their entire life) and, barring further extensions, only their grandchildren are likely to hold copyright for long but limited time. From another perspective, anything produced during my lifetime will never enter the public domain before I die. As far as I'm concerned, to me this is an unlimited term.
Now I highly doubt that the supreme court would role back all of the earlier laws, even if they prove to be unconstitutional, but Lessig's argument can be thought of as providing a welcome compromise that limits the need to meddle with the less recent past. My worry is that they will accept the Lessig argument as the most extreme case and seek a lesser comprimise such as limiting future extensions without repealing CTEA.
My next sig will be ready soon, but friends can beat the rush!
What people are forgetting here is that Congress represents the people of the United States. Representatives and Senators serve at the pleasure of their constituents. If they consistently pass laws which the people of the United States hate, they will lose their jobs.
This is why the Supreme Court is hesitant to overturn such laws, because there is another check on unjust laws, namely the ballot box. It is only when Congress is overstepping its bounds in a matter where the people support them that the Court is really needed to step in. When the majority takes on too much power and infringes on the rights of the minority, the Supreme Court can act to limit these excesses.
But this does not seem to be what is happening in the case of copyright extensions. It's not like there's a powerless minority whose rights are being infringed by policies supported by the majority of the American people. Rather, these copyright extensions are technical matters that most people simply don't care about. They aren't important enough to make or break a Congressman's career.
What needs to happen is that this has to be solved in the political arena. People who think that copyright policy should be changed need to convince others of that fact, to get them interested in the dispute, to attract supporters and political power. Then they can convince Congress to change its policies.
This issue is a simply and fundamentally a matter of politics. The dispute needs to be resolved in the political arena. It may seem easier to convince 9 members of the Supreme Court than the American people. But ultimately it will be more just and more fair to effect change by convincing people, the American people, that these changes are worthwhile.
We have a representative government, but that doesn't mean that everything they do is what you personally would want. What it does mean is that you can try to convince people that your ideas are good, and if you get enough support, the government will go along. That is the proper course for political change in a representative democracy.
I think the example of the use of the word limited as in 'limited print edition' is a good one.
To spell it out
someone produces 100 prints in a 'limited edition'
sometime later they say this is still a limited edition but we are going to produce another 100 prints - now it is a limited edition of only 200 prints
again, further down the road they produce another 100 prints but maintain it is still a 'limited edition'
seen in this way their use of 'limited' is obviously bogus - and the analogy carries directly to how the congress is interpreting the use of the term 'limited' in the copyright clause
I don't think this is a 'maybe' at all. Disney wants to own the art of bringing classic works to new audiences. This is the core of their business.
Everything they do comes from that. Great works are great works. Given a little honesty on Disney Corporations part, I would be willing to bet that the economics of creating great works to build their business on is just a bit tougher than building on those works already created.
Sure, there are the occasional original works, but by and large, the really good stories, and I mean ones that people can identify with, are those that lie just far enough in the past that they can be used a source material while being just familiar enough that people are interested by name alone.
Everyone knows about the stories that Disney likes to retell. This is where the power is for them. Early in school you were told about Pocahontas right? So was I and everyone else that has gone to school which basically means everyone. Now think back to those early years... Do you recall any of your imaginative images of that story? I can, though not well. Now combine that imagery with your young impressionable mind and the importance and intrigue generated by your teacher.
Now forward 30 years or so and see the name again attached to a new attractive movie. You are already sold!
Disney would profit from additional works, but so would others. Right now there are almost *zero* names associated with this particular form of entertainment. Should others begin the art, the Disney name would be diluted. Given how much investment and profit is tied to that, they will do anything to prevent that from happening...
Clearly not a 'maybe' but a must! (From the Disney point of view.)
Blogging because I can...
Dear Mr. Lessig:
Thanks for all your work in helping to provide a better future America, by trying to right (some of) the wrongs that Congress has recently committed. Even if we lose, you have forever changed my impression of lawyers with your two popular books and your work on this case.
As an engineer, I thought lawyers could only be a heinous lecherous drain on society; after seeing your work, I now admit that I was wrong. I'm happy to learn that there is some good in everybody (and quite a bit in you!), even in lawyers.
Keep on fighting the good fight! Don't despair if we lose this battle. There are many more battles ahead (such as the DMCA) for which we desperately need your help. Please stay in the game. Until the last liberty-loving American has given up and emmigrated to a more free society, and while there are many who are too poor to escape the tyranny, we still need you!
Thank you from the bottom of my heart,
Name Withheld (because there are no benefits to associating my name with this noble cause, and many liabilities.)
Look, your argument is based off a false premise: that people won't create without copyright monopolies
Not really. Artists and others may still create works, that's pretty much a given. It would just never make it to the general viewing public to be exploited by anyone who wants to make a buck off it.
Your comparison to the Rennaisance is a bad one. At that time people didn't have the means to make unlimited and exact copies of the works being created. The work had the value it did because it was severely limited to a quantity of one. It didn't need copyright protection because it couldn't be copied the way works can be today.
I guess I don't really know, but I'm assuming that the supreme court justices aren't treated like jurors and are allowed to keep up in the world. If that's true, and any of them happen upon Mr. Lessig's blog, I can't imagine them finishing it unswayed: not only are his arguments logical and convincing (as I'm sure they were in court, which is why this point is redundant from the POV of a justice), his writing is CONSTANTLY complimenting the court for it's treatment of the issues, from any angle possible. When the court refuses to go along with his ideas, they're exercising "rare and valuable restraint" about deciding when they can exercise their powers. When they agree with him on a point they're demonstrating understanding of his case.
If I didn't agree with Lessig about most everything he's arguing, I'd call him a hopeless sophist, using flattery and reciporical(sp?) reasoning to draw the court into his camp. As it stands, I'm glad we have such a great speaker and convincing logician taking _our_ side for once.
-- Nerds on toast in the new millenium
Imagine a world without copyrights.
You mean like Earth? People lived 100,000 years without no stinking copyrights. Imagine human history governed by copyrights. Stories, jokes, riddles, proverbs, words themselves are no longer free but treated as property. Writing and, according to some linguistic theories, tertiary manifestations of literacy such as the DVD are all technologies predicated upon language. Remove the freedom to speak the words of others and the whole shebang collapses. This argument applies to music and graphic representations as well, and culture as a whole.
But without that guarantee, the value of those works is drastically reduced. It's not at all unlikely that that without this protection, the projected returns from any of these undertakings would not have been sufficient to get any of them off the ground in the first place.
Look, your argument is based off a false premise: that people won't create without copyright monopolies, bullshit - the entire renissance happend without copyrights.
And of course the very information age we're trying to protect here is what makes copyrights more significant now than during the Renaissance - there were no tools of mass reproduction at the time beyond the printing press. Thus the potential loss of value was, therefore, much less. How worried do you think da Vinci was that an army of forgers would devote themselves to repainting copies of the Mona Lisa? Getting paid for the original was more than enough
And as for the argument that GPL software shows that software will get written with or without copyrights... time to risk the Ire Of Slashdot:
How much really innovative software has been produced under some form of copyleft? That is to say, software filling or even creating a previously unoccupied niche? Linux is a UNIX-alike; Gimp is a Photoshop-alike; etc. The real innovation open source is usually credited with is the licensing model itself, and its strength is that of many eyes looking at a known problem. Since the stated purpose of copyright is to encourage innovation, I'd love to be able to come up with such an example, but I am personally at a loss. Anyone got any suggestions?
I'm sorry, I hate perpetual copyrights as much as you do, but I completely disagree that they are the problem. Imagine a world without copyrights.
You're indulging in extremes where there is plenty of middle ground (as Congress has mapped out in its periodic lengthening of the copyright term). The topic of Eldred vs. Ashcroft is not concerned with abolishing copyright, it's taking the Sonny Bono/Disney Act (CTEA) to task for defining Congress' power over copyright extensions as being effectively unlimited where the Constitution specifically states that Congress' powers are to be, in fact, limited.
You go on an on about evil and bootlegs and then recant your thesis with a statement on your preference for copyright terms. There is no dilemma as you state it here, except in Constitutional terms. Try to stay on topic, this isn't Usenet.
When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
My worry is that they will accept the Lessig argument as the most extreme case and seek a lesser comprimise such as limiting future extensions without repealing CTEA.
More likely, they'll just say that Congress can pass all the extensions they like, but they can't make them retrospective.
I think this was Lessig's exact point in his explanation of the term "limited" as in "limited edition print". The "limited" in "limited edition print" means that a specific limit on the number of prints was made when the prints were created, and that no more will ever be made. Similarly, Lessig is saying that copyright should be given to an author (and heirs, etc.) for a specific period of time, defined when the work is published, and that no extensions for that work should ever be allowed.
In this way, the Court doesn't set a maximum on the length of copyright terms (that being Congress' prerogative), but does insure that there are defined limits to copyright duration.
What will this mean in practice? IMO, it means that the CTEA's copyright durations will stand forever, barring some legislative action to reduce them. Why? Because no corporation has long enough vision to bother pushing for terms longer than we already have. It would be effort that would only help some guy 100 years from now, and would have zero effect on the company or the stock price today or next year.
No, the only reason the big entertainment industry dollars were pushing for the CTEA extensions was because they wanted that retrospective extension. If the Court strikes down Congress' ability to do that, then there will be no interest in lengthening the terms further.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Walt Disney, creator of those early Mickey Mouse works, has no individual rights left. He's dead. You're promoting the "rights" of a huge corporation to use government power to grant themselves a continued monopoly on the use of 75-year-old cartoons. Some "rights."
Authors have no inherent "individual right" to the use of their ideas. Copyright is not a right like the right to free speech and physical property. Copyright is a bargain: to promote the progress of science and the useful arts, government grants short, limited monopolies for the commercial uses of certain types of art. To claim that perpetual, posthumous control over your ideas is a natural right is absurd.
I would disagree with the "not even immoral" part. A single person with sufficient funds or a corporation can EMPLOY a lobbyist to talk all day to congressmen. While you and I are out doing our jobs, they are doing theirs. Their JOB gives them a larger voice than hundreds of regular, voting citizens.
To put it another way: Would it be fair if Police couldn't be prosecuted for crimes simply because it was a perk of their job? (Ignoring if this sometimes happens in reality) Why does the fact that this one person is employed as a lobbyist give them SIGNIFICANTLY more say in how my life is run than any 100 people like me put together.
It would cost me thousands of dollars to be nearly as influential as the most inefficient lobbyist, and during that time I wouldn't be working, my wife and cats would be going hungry, the house would be getting reposessed, etc, etc.
IMHO the extra influence that lobbyists have in DC is just another indication of the badly flawed idea that money == speech. In a democracy/republic, the fundamental idea is that all citizens have equal influence on the government. Big money political campaigns, PACs and lobbyists strike at this concept.
-- IANAEG - I am not an elder god.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
Heh.
The irony is, in a world with indefinate copyright, Rand could have been sued for making unauthorised use of Atlas.