Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Lawrence Lessig to Leave Copyright Sphere

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the bring-a-shovel dept.

brandonY writes "The founder of Creative Commons, the Stanford lawyer behind the 'Eldred v. Ashcroft' case, and the author of 'Code' has spent the last 10 years working tirelessly on behalf of limited copyright terms, net neutrality, and the public domain. Tuesday, Lawrence Lessig announced on his blog that he has "decided to shift my academic work, and soon, my activism" from fighting the good fight for the public domain to fighting the good fight against corruption and the influence of big money's effects on legislation in general."

42 of 192 comments (clear)

  1. I hate to be negative... by Kintar1900 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ..but good luck with that. :/

    1. Re:I hate to be negative... by L.+VeGas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In related news:

      Angelina Jolie has vowed to single-handedly adopt every single orphaned African child.

      Tom Cruise has vowed to eliminate mental illness worldwide with vitamins.

      I vow to make every post +5 moderation on Slashdot.

      --
      Best Windows Freeware
    2. Re:I hate to be negative... by rs79 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I met Larry at the ICANN formation meeting at Harvard when he was either still a student or had just finished school. I like Larry. but if you wanted to roll with the "corporate influence over democracy" meme that would have been a great place to start.

      Larry, I love ya babe but, ya know, you've still never won a case, ever.

      Best of luck though. It's better you're around and keep trying. Welcome to "middle age and wtf happened".

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    3. Re:I hate to be negative... by Duhavid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I dont have any links, sorry. Just an idea that flitted thru
      my mind when discussing this issue with a friend of mind.

      I dont know that the nickle and diming away of the money is
      a big deal, they cant spend it on themselves. :-)

      The bigger deal in my mind ( aside from putting it into
      effect in the first place ) is that people are not donating
      money, by and large, from a desire to see the system work,
      but from a desire to influence and control. But I dont think
      we want that money anyway.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    4. Re:I hate to be negative... by veganboyjosh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't think anyone (besides the donors and the recipients, perhaps) would argue that it's not about buying influence. But while a single collective pot to fund campaigns would most likely result in fewer donations overall, I also think it has potential--with the right oversight/management, etc--to get a lot of individuals to donate. Granted, with the right oversight and management, our (US=us in this example) current processes wouldn't have as many problems either.
      It's an interesting idea, I guess I'm not seeing any glaringly obvious negatives to this, from a citizen's perspective, which may answer the question of "why don't we do this already?"

    5. Re:I hate to be negative... by kbielefe · · Score: 4, Informative

      I've yet to see it seriously discussed

      This is a surprising comment to me, given the general political awareness and libertarian leanings on slashdot. Not only has it been seriously discussed, it has been implemented in places. In Arizona, for example, statewide candidates have the option to run publicly funded campaigns due to an initiative that passed a few years ago. They must collect a certain number of $5 donations to qualify, then they get a set amount for the primary, and another set amount for the general election. If someone decides to go the private-funded route, whatever money they raise is matched dollar for dollar in the public fund.

      There are a number of glaring problems with it:

      • Freedom of speech issues. Think of the politician you most despise. Now imagine being forced to contribute to his or her campaign.
      • The amounts were too small to mount effective campaigns, providing barely enough for one mailer and maybe one late-night TV commercial. This gives a huge advantage to candidates with more name recognition. Taxpayers wouldn't support any higher amounts.
      • If you want enough money to actually get your message out, you have to go the private route, with the matching system effectively raising funds for your opponent.
      • It creates all sorts of bizarre conditions on when money can be spent. For example, how to account for resources that are used from pre-announcement through post-election, like a web site.
      • There is no time for violations to be sorted out in the courts before the election happens. Therefore, if someone breaks the rules to gain an unfair advantage, there is no remedy until after the election, and no way to determine if it would have affected the outcome. With the small amount of funds, violations that would otherwise be insignificant play a much bigger part.
      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
    6. Re:I hate to be negative... by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ok, I'll expose all the problems, not that I disagree with the idea. I think it's in our best interests to hold publicly funded campaigns, and if that means candidates have less total money to spend on the campaign, so be it.

      Problem #1: Who qualifies as a candidate? We already have this problem in our current system, so let's consider it. Anybody can be elected if enough people vote for them, right? But the writing on the walls says if you run as a write-in candidate, only an extreme situation (as we recently saw in some state back east where the party candidate on the ballot got ejected due to corruption charges and a write-in won) allows you to win. So to win, you have to be on the ballot. This means you have to qualify to be on the ballot, and there's as much a practical reason as any to limit people on the ballot. To prevent the thing from being nickel and dimed away, and more importantly to ensure that people who do sign up as candidates are serious about running and actually have a chance, it's a guarantee you're going to have to qualify for your share of the money. That's the first place control can be exerted, and we already have this problem without the central pool of money. To get the support of the people necessary to run, you have to have their approval, and this central pool of money won't change that.

      Problem #2: Candidates stealing the money. As many loopholes as they've already found, it's a sure bet they're going to find ways to use the money to their own benefit, or their staff is. This is more like "Well, we needed to meet with [these constituents], so we met them at Disneyland" when they could have had the meeting at a public park, a restaurant that didn't cost $20/plate, or wherever. Yeah, I know, fringe benefits and all, but they're not going to spend the money terribly responsibly. Remember, we're talking about giving money to the people that essentially invented the pork barrel.

      Problem #3: Collecting the money. Where's it going to come from? We've talked about volunteer donations, but the fact is if the voluntary donations aren't enough, candidates are going to go outside to get the money they need, even if it is illegal. I'm in favor of raising taxes and spending public money on it, who else is in favor of this? Of course, after the bill gets passed, it's a fight already won, but this will be a fight, and I'm not anywhere near convinced that volunteer donations will work. I don't object to having the pool filled with corporate donations, but I do object to corporations expecting to "get their money's worth out of the winner". Letting corporations and other rich folk contribute huge amounts to this pool is only going to exacerbate the problem where they contribute to both sides. Now we're inviting them to contribute to all sides, and to attach their strings to the winner.

      Problem #4: Ensuring the money is distributed fairly and spent fairly. Do we give a candidate $10k for every signature they can put on the line saying they want to be elected? Do we give it out evenly to all candidates, equating a radical nazi candidate to a moderate democrat (if there is such a thing)? In our current system, only two candidates have a chance at getting elected. This is because of our voting methods as much as anything else, so it makes sense that the two candidates that are most electable should get the lion's share of the pool, otherwise in a pool of 10 candidates, 80% of the money distributed is waste. Now, you're going to counter with "distributing the money evenly will make at least 2 more candidates in that hypothetical race electable that previously wouldn't have been", and all I can say is that we don't have the data here in the US. Maybe some other country does?

      I'm out of problems, I'm sure there's more. I like the idea a lot, but all I see in the future with this is more campaign finance scandals. Of course, if we really wanted to end campaign finance scandals, we'd just legalize everything and there wouldn't be any more scandal, right? I definitely think it's in the public interest to have publicly funded campaigns with no private funding of campaigns allowed. I'd like to see it work, but I suspect we're going to have to go all nutjob riot crazy to get it.

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    7. Re:I hate to be negative... by kbielefe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think the matching funds thing just sounds like lip service, since those who need the money the least get the most from the general fund.

      I think I explained it wrong. If you are privately funded and you raise $1000, all your publicly funded opponents get $1000 from the general fund, but you get nothing from the general fund.

      Taxpayer support? The money should come from those who want to spend it. The campaign contributions should all go thru one agency/filter. They all put their money in a pot, and they all draw from it equally.

      The point is that no one wants to spend their money to fund candidates they don't agree with, so the only way it works at all is to fund it through taxes. I'm all for people having an equal opportunity to speak. I just don't think I should have to pay for it. There's a huge difference between equal opportunity and enforcing equality.

      Don't know if you want to run yet? You don't get to dip into the pool yet, either.

      The trouble is, when you put this together with the rule about not spending any money outside the fund, what do you do when you want to use a web site that was developed before you became eligible for funding? That web site would be an "extra" expenditure. That's just one example of things that pop up when you actually put it into practice.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
    8. Re:I hate to be negative... by Duhavid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Freedom of speech issues. Think of the politician you most despise. Now imagine being forced to contribute to his or her campaign"

      This always seems to come up.

      You can always envision that your money went to the guy/gal/hermaphrodite that you
      did like ( or that you hated least ). And if you cant get past that, then what
      about the other guys "free speech"? Or is money and economic backing going to
      continue to be the main input?

      And I would propose that there be no "private route", as it seems that when private
      party "X" donates money, they expect influence with the candidates.

      And as long as the bizarre conditions apply to everyone, who cares?

      I would say that the money never goes to the candidate, they request something be
      done with there allotment, and the money is transfered from the pool to the
      publication directly. And if you offer candidate 1 space in your publication at a
      given price, you *have* to offer that price to everyone. And the items must be
      printed together, no putting your favorite on page 1, and the one you dont like
      on page 2.

      Why is this so hard? There is no real speech issue here, except that the "small guy" is
      not heard from. Or do you like that GE has more say over how our "republican government
      with democratic traditions" is run?

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    9. Re:I hate to be negative... by osgeek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Those are some pretty sour grapes you're pedaling there.

      So how many cases do you have to win in order to have truth and wisdom in the books you write?
      How many to be a good and ethical person?
      How many to do noble, important things and not have wannabes in the peanut gallery take "I met him once and he wasn't all that" pot shots at you?

      --
      Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
    10. Re:I hate to be negative... by Hatta · · Score: 2, Informative

      What incentive do I have to do that though? There's going to be an election either way, hell it's probably better that very little money is going to be spent on it. If my donation isn't going to give my candidate a competitive advantage there's just no reason for me to do it.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  2. He's just widening his scope. by paladinwannabe2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    After all, who thinks we'd have the copyright terms we do now if it wasn't for Disney buying off congressmen?

    --
    You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
    1. Re:He's just widening his scope. by nomadic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      After all, who thinks we'd have the copyright terms we do now if it wasn't for Disney buying off congressmen?

      Myself for one. I think lobbying is very destructive in general, but it's never quite as cut-and-dried as "buying off" people. First of all, even with all the loopholes, it's very difficult for one donor to give enough money to a member of congress to severely sway them. I mean, these people are usually start out being comfortably well-off, even with the frequent pay cuts you get when you move from the private sphere to the public one.

      Very few members of congress are going to let themselves be bought for a few thousand dollars. Just not worth it.

      Also, there are a lot of people who are more attracted to politics because they value power over money. Not that it's any more noble a character trait, but for a lot of these people the power they wield is an end in itself. They like being able to call the shots, and a good number of them aren't going to trade that power for a little bit of money. If money was that important, a lot of them would have been better off staying in the private sector, where they would be making a hell of a lot more.

      What happens with the lobbyists is that they're very, very good at their jobs. They're smart. They're friendly. They're likeable. They're charismatic. They can usually give their side of the story without any opposition. If a lobbyist comes into your office to talk about a subject you haven't really given much thought to, and lays a slick, professional presentation on you, cites a bunch of credible-sounding statistics, mentions the support of some industrial association, you're going to be naturally leaning towards their side.

    2. Re:He's just widening his scope. by BoberFett · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Myself for one. I think lobbying is very destructive in general, but it's never quite as cut-and-dried as "buying off" people. First of all, even with all the loopholes, it's very difficult for one donor to give enough money to a member of congress to severely sway them. I mean, these people are usually start out being comfortably well-off, even with the frequent pay cuts you get when you move from the private sphere to the public one.

      Very few members of congress are going to let themselves be bought for a few thousand dollars. Just not worth it.
      They're not being bought for a few thousands dollars during their term in office. They're being given lucrative positions after they leave office. That's the real payout.
    3. Re:He's just widening his scope. by 0p7imu5_P2im3 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here's 50 "donations" to start with:
      http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/topindivs.asp?ID=D 000000128&ContribID=U0000000007&Display=ID

      More:
      http://www.opensecrets.org/softmoney/softcomp2.asp ?txtName=Walt+Disney+Co&txtUltOrg=y&txtCycle=2005& txtSort=name

      http://www.opensecrets.org/ is full of such records of "donations" made on behalf of Disney.
      And that's just one website.

      Now ask for something hard to find.
      ;)

      --
      Resistance is futile. Your technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. You will become one with the morgue
  3. Change of focus? Sorta. by Raindance · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I believe the fundamental reason for Lessig's shift in focus is that he sees systemic money-driven corruption to be the central disabling constraint for implementing enlightened copyright/patent/etc laws.

    He's done a fantastic job and played a central role in promoting a movement toward enlightened legal treatment of intellectual and creative works. Coffee all around. I don't see him as abandoning this movement, just attacking the problems facing the movement at a deeper, more fundamental level.

    1. Re:Change of focus? Sorta. by truthsearch · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Lessig also had a special role in the Microsoft anti-trust case (IIRC he was specially chosen by the judge to submit independent briefs, then let go with no explanation around the time Bush came into office). So he has good knowledge of big business and the interaction with markets and the government.

      --
      Developers: We can use your help.
    2. Re:Change of focus? Sorta. by kebes · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Quite right. Lessig specifically emphasizes this in his post:

      I am someone who believes that a free society -- free of the "corruption" that defines our current society -- is necessary for free culture, and much more. For that reason, I turn my energy elsewhere for now.
      I think he's done tremendous good. However during his work towards "sane copyright" he has seen how the system isn't able to work in the public's best interests. Having identified certain weaknesses in the current implementation of democracy, he's going to try to fix those problems. If those problems are fixed, then things like copyright reform (which is to the public's benefit) will come about naturally. So he's still very much working towards Free Culture. But as he says, a necessary condition for Free Culture is a non-corrupt (or less corrupt) legal system.

      It's strange, though, because he is now tackling a problem that is much bigger and harder to solve. Rather than just get one set of laws fixed (copyright laws), he is now hoping to change all the laws that affect governance. Yet, he is undoubtedly right that without fundamental changes in the way governance occurs, any "wins" in other domains (be it copyright law, privacy, etc.) will be tenuous and short-lived.
    3. Re:Change of focus? Sorta. by Threni · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > I don't see him as abandoning this movement, just attacking the problems facing the movement at a deeper, more fundamental level.

      Corruption is a big problem with more important effects than merely copyright law. If corruption were tackled properly it would result in far-reaching changes from law (including drug law, which is costing billions and imprisoning millions for victimless crime) to foreign policy.

  4. Bravo. by beavis88 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Kudos to Mr. Lessig for realizing that we need smart people to treat the disease, and not just its symptoms. On the other hand, he's just expanded his target by a couple orders of magnitude...

  5. Re:what about the good of the internet by Watson+Ladd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...because big companies can profit off it. I suggest reading Empire by Negri and Hardt. One of their points is that a lot of the separate struggles for freedom have the same enemy, namely the interests of the propertied class.

    --
    Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD
  6. Gore and public domain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Since Lessig admires Gore, it is worth pointing out that the three biggesst setbacks for the public domain (DMCA, 1998 Bono Extension, URAA) were signed by Clinton.

    It does not help my impression of Gore either to get the Inconvinient DVD that says "share" this movie with your friends, while the movie starts with a $250,000 FBI threat against sharing the movie.
    When they said "share", they meant "repurchase". Sales are more important than the message, I guess.

    1. Re:Gore and public domain by MadUndergrad · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To be fair, Clinton signed them; he didn't vote for or write them. It would have been nice had he vetoed them, but I don't know how much good it would have done. You have to remember that the congress Clinton had to work with is the same one that we've had 'til 2006, and largely still do.

    2. Re:Gore and public domain by Nimey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Clinton != Gore. Gore might not have signed it if it'd been his call; we'll never know.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    3. Re:Gore and public domain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Since Lessig admires Gore, it is worth pointing out that the three biggesst setbacks for the public domain (DMCA, 1998 Bono Extension, URAA) were signed by Clinton.

      What does that have to do with Gore? As VP, his only legislative duty was to break ties in the Senate.

      It does not help my impression of Gore either to get the Inconvinient DVD that says "share" this movie with your friends, while the movie starts with a $250,000 FBI threat against sharing the movie.

      Did Gore insert that FBI notice? Was it his responsibility to ensure that it was either present or removed? Of course not. It was included by the distributor, as they all are.

      When they said "share", they meant "repurchase". Sales are more important than the message, I guess.

      Oh please. Go find some real points.

    4. Re:Gore and public domain by ChaosDiscord · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Clinton signed the three bad laws. Okay. This may come as a surprise, but Bill Clinton and Al Gore are different human beings. Our constitution doesn't give vice-presidents any right to veto things. Even if Clinton's actions somehow taint Gore, it's possible to admire someone for the good things they've done, even if they have serious flaws.

      As for sharing Gore's movie, remember that "share" can mean things besides "distribute copies of." You can loan your friends your DVD perfectly legally. You can invite a few friends over and show them your copy of the DVD without breaking any laws.

      As for why it's for profit, there are trade-offs whenever one wants to get a message out. The people who funded the movie probably to make a profit. In exchange the movie got widespread distribution and plenty of media attention. Having the movie available in theaters across the country may have gotten his message out to more people than making a less polished movie freely available would have. Maybe Gore made the wrong trade-off, but it's not an obvious decision.

      --
      Search 2010 Gen Con events
    5. Re:Gore and public domain by pavon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It does not help my impression of Gore either to get the Inconvinient DVD that says "share" this movie with your friends, while the movie starts with a $250,000 FBI threat against sharing the movie.
      When they said "share", they meant "repurchase". Sales are more important than the message, I guess. That is like forming a negative impression of Tobey Maguire because Stan Lee didn't get his cut of the Spiderman films. Gore was an actor and promoter of the film. He doesn't own it and has little say in how it was distributed.
    6. Re:Gore and public domain by icydog · · Score: 4, Funny

      It does not help my impression of Gore either to get the Inconvinient DVD that says "share" this movie with your friends, while the movie starts with a $250,000 FBI threat against sharing the movie.
      What kind of irresponsible site did you get your iso from? Mine just had the movie.
  7. One step beyond by Colin+Smith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One of the reasons big businesses throw money at politicians is because in government they have essentially unlimited money to spend on pet projects... It comes back tenfold. And... That money is borrowed.

    Without the ability to borrow/spend unlimited amounts of cash (8,9,10 trillion is essentially infinite as far as I'm concerned, or at least, it tends to infinity), politicians wouldn't be anything like as powerful and wouldn't be such obvious and attractive targets for big business.

    There you go. Corruption, built into the very basis of our monetary system from the ground up. It took me several years to come to this conclusion, I don't really expect you to accept it.

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:One step beyond by adelord · · Score: 5, Informative

      Are you referring to the fractional reserve banking system as the source of new money? I just recently came across that, thanks to someone's sig line on here, which pointed to the "Money as Debt" instructional animation at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-905047436 2583451279 which is incredibly illuminating. It did take me a few weeks to prove to myself that it isn't bullshit though, and it helped that I have a friend who loan officer at a bank and he believes in the current system. He played a great devil's advocate.

      --
      Eugene Debs: "Money constitutes no proper basis of civilization"
    2. Re:One step beyond by obeythefist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well yes... the USA was founded, whether you consider it noble or not, because rich colonists were being taxed by their government but they were not in control of the government by being part of it (representation).

      So the colonists overthrew the government and established one that fit their ideals, allowing the rich to control their government by forming it themselves. Bear in mind that at the time the only people voting were rich white men.

      --
      I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
    3. Re:One step beyond by dabadab · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Jesus, it's macroeconomics 101, how does a two-level banking system operate.
      I did not sit through the whole video, but it's a well-known mechanism (like, there's a Wikipedia article about it), not some closely guarded secret.

      --
      Real life is overrated.
  8. Bravo! by Bob9113 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Love your work. Completely agreed that the "corruption" you mention is at the root of the IPR problems, and that the latter cannot be solved without addressing the former. It has to take a lot of courage to switch from a field in which you are a (perhaps the) luminary.

    Best wishes, god speed, and I'll be watching and looking for opportunities to help.

    --
    Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
  9. You never know... by DESADE · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Lessig is one of the more brilliant minds of our generation. Don't forget his efforts to bring Microsoft to task when that seemed an insurmountable obstacle. I've read some of his books and whether you agree with him or not, he as a way of attacking an issue and providing deep, insightful arguments. He's also very good at taking complex issues and distilling them down so that the average person can understand them. Don't count him out before he begins. If he manages to get some air time, he might be able to make a real difference. Either way, when one of our best minds announces his intention to take on a real issue in our society I think that's a good thing.

  10. Corruption is inherent in the system by BobMcD · · Score: 4, Interesting


    I think we're too far gone, at this point, to fight corruption in our government.

    Ten years isn't going to be enough. In ten years' time, all of us working together would hardly even make a dent in it. Take down one corrupt politician and there's an entire party's worth to take his or her place.

    We could use a new system. Perhaps if we pushed more of the decisions to the people it would become too expensive to 'buy' support? Or perhaps we could ban parties names from anything printed by/endorsed by the government? Or perhaps merely instituting a 'removal-by-popular-constituant-vote' system would do...

    I do not have an answer, but repairing the current system just doesn't seem like a good use of time and effort to me.

  11. Re:Best of luck by mike2R · · Score: 3, Insightful

    While it is a noble undertaking, I find such a statement somewhat humorous, as fighting the influence of big money on legislation is a futile endeavor.

    Removing completely, yes. But cutting it down by 95% in the US is easy. Just stop the complete abuse of political funding that goes on at present; this really isn't hard. Nowhere else in the first world are corporations allowed to buy politicians in the way that happens quite normally in the US. Eliminate that and you're just left with real corruption (politicians selling out for personal gain, rather than as a necessary part of getting elected). This happens everywhere of course, and I'm sure the US is no exception, but it's a fart in a jacuzzi compared to the current situation.

    Personal opinion (this is thinking of the UK more than the US): public funding of political parties. A few million per annum out of general taxation is a tiny price to pay for the sanctity of the political process.

    --
    This sig all sigs devours
  12. The wrong enemy by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." -- Benjamin Franklin (maybe)

    Lessig is attacking the wrong enemy. I'm not saying that moneyed interest aren't often a problem -- but put all the laws and effects that the government passes for them on one side of the ledger. Now take all the money that is spent to influence the masses on the other: welfare, social security, health care, and god knows how many pork barrel projects at the local level (Alaskan bridge, anyone?). It's not even close.

    I have met the enemy and he is YOU. The modern sense of entitlement is what's pulling us down.

    (I will resist the urge to tie entitlement to the desire for all music for free)

    --
    Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
  13. One way by BCW2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Collect a database of all contributions and fees collected by Congresscritters. Then correlate it to each ones voting record. If the voters saw the tie in for why their Rep voted for that (insert idiotic bill) piece of crap. This could be a way to remove the incumbants. Personally I vote against all office holders in every election, it's the only chance to change things. This would also work at the state level.

    --
    Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
  14. election process by mathfeel · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'll be a damn proud taxes payer when instead of spending so much on war and weapon, we'll have:

    1) publicly financed and spend-capped election
    1.5) free equal TV air time for all legitimate candidate: at LEAST those who also get secret service protection.
    2) make election a holiday, heck, we should even spend tax $$ to get people to the polls.

    Wanna fix corruption? Fix the election.

    --
    The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the 'social sciences' is: some do, some don't
  15. Welfare, social security, health care by Tony · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The difference is, it doesn't take a lot of money to buy a politician. A few hundred thousand is sufficient, not the billions that are spent on health care, or welfare.

    Social security and welfare *benefit* society. Sure, there are those who take advantage of the system, but I can promise you, they are the minority. For most folks on welfare, it's a short-term thing, a stop-gap to fill in while they figure out their financial life since their ex-corporate masters outsourced their job to India or China.

    As far as the Alaska bridge: it is often brought up, but what *isn't* mentioned is that it would've done the community of Ketchikan some good. And it would've been nice for the tens of thousands of tourists who visit Alaska each year. No, I don't think it would've been worth the federal moneys. Hell, that's what the $4 fee to use the ferry was for in the first place. (I was born in Ketchikan, grew up in Thorne Bay, a logging camp not far for Ketchikan. I'm not just guessing at this.) It would've been worth the money, in the long run, as it would've connected Ketchikan with its airport, which is on an island a stone's throw away.

    Anyway.

    These aren't just "pork." But really, they pale in comparison to what the government is spending on foreign aggression these days. And I submit that the war in Iraq feeds nothing back to the economy, whereas welfare and social security most certainly do.

    As far as the topic goes:

    Corporations of money are finding they get much better return on investment when they purchase themselves a politician or two. The best thing we could do would be to prohibit corporate influence in the political sphere. Of course, it won't happen, as the corporations have their tenterhooks in too deep.

    In any event, I wish Mr. Lessig well. He's right, the corruption runs too deep to fight just copyright.

    God help us all.

    --
    Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
  16. ask Mary Bono by mojoNYC · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Bono voted for a pay raise for members of Congress in 2005. In May 2006, she stated in a subcomittee hearing on the extension of copyright law that her regular $165,200 congressional salary was not enough to pay for her son Chesare's college expenses. She said that were it not for her late husband Sonny's royalties, she "could not afford college for [her] son." Along with college expenses, she had to pay for new cars for both her and Chesare. Chesare, Chez for short, planned to attend USC in the fall of 2006; the school estimates yearly expenses to be $46,966.[6] In 2006, it was reported that she had received $30,000 from the later-indicted Jack Abaramoff.[7][8] In her official 2005 filing, Bono stated that her income from royalties and dividends was between US$402,000 and US$3.3 million. [9]

    Bono was a leading proponent of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act or so-called "Mickey Mouse Law", which extended the terms of copyright, a bill which the Church of Scientology supported so that they could keep access to their scriptures and OTIII documents.[10] Giving a speech on the floor of Congress in favor of the bill, Bono said: Actually, Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution. . . . As you know, there is also [Motion Picture Association of America president] Jack Valenti's proposal for the term to last forever less one day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress.[11]

    source: Wikipedia: Mary Bono

    That Jack Abramoff, such a smart, friendly, likeable man--I'm sure she really didn't even *want* the 30k, but she felt like she *had* to take it, lest she risk offending him!

  17. It's the Hacker's Quest by CarpetShark · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I hate to be negative...but good luck with that. :/


    Well, yeah, it's a tough fight to take on. On the other hand though, it's a good thing. Most developers think that you shouldn't work around bugs, or fix surface problems, but should instead drill right down to the fundamental causes of things, and fix those. This way, you solve many problems in one go, and produce more elegant, lasting, maintainable solutions. You might say that this is what hackers are all about: finding ever more elegant solutions to problems that bug them.

    The same thing really applies to the copyright vs. corruption issue. Take the stuff that happened over ODF in Boston, for instance: lots of great strides were made in copyright, education, human rights, civil liberties, etc. However, corruption meant that a man lost his job for doing those good things. We could try to fight harder and smarter at the high-level of copyright, but in the end, corruption will undermine any good efforts. I'm glad to hear that Lessig, who I greatly respect (from what I know of him, which is mostly his Free Culture book, and his involvement with FSF) will be tackling this.