Who Will Obama Choose As Copyright Czar?

seanpark writes "Who will President Elect Obama select for the recently established post of Copyright Czar? Biden has a longstanding relationship with Big Content, and he was partly responsible for the PRO-IP Act that created the position. The short list according to the article includes a few lobbyists (who would likely be disqualified by stringent ethical guidelines) and Lawrence Lessig, who was a technology adviser to the Obama Campaign."

Comments

Not the good professor

[symbolset]

He's a wise choice, a rational voice is a sea of stupidity. Picking him would represent a striking change, a sudden outbreak of common sense.

Therefore it ain't gonna happen.

Re:Not the good professor

[symbolset]

erg... "in a sea". Catlike typing detected.

MOTD: I am looking for a honest man. -- Diogenes the Cynic

Re:Not the good professor

[yetijoe]

I feel you have a point. But I feel the first question we need to ask is will this position have any real power. Because if there is no real power then who care who is picked.

I see it going down one of two ways. 1. Obama is able to use the capital that he has gained an push this through rather quickly and having congress act as a rubber stamp.

2. There are bigger priorities than this in the Obama administration (economy, war). As a result this is placed on the back burner. Corporate interests therefore have more time to react and press members of congress to vote against making a copyright czar have any real power. As a result this initiative dies or must be used as a bargaining chip once things get harder to push through congress.

I think we should not be asking who he will chose yet, but rather how large of a priority is he going to make this.

Re:Not the good professor

[Marillion]

I think a real outbreak of common sense would be to give the department a budget of $1 (or less) and fill the position once peace breaks out over the planet.

Re:Not the good professor

[Beardo the Bearded]

Jack Thompson's unemployed. Why not choose him?

Re:Not the good professor

[master5o1]

Come on, be reasonable: Budget of $30, curfew of 10pm.

Re:Not the good professor

[spazdor]

Zombie Jack Valenti is only mildly decomposed by now. I say we use him.

Re:Not the good professor

[Darundal]

IIRC, you have it in reverse: the entertainment industry wants a strong copyright czar.

Re:Not the good professor

[HTH NE1]

IIRC, you have it in reverse: the entertainment industry wants a strong copyright czar.

Strong when in their interests, not against them.

"You should never hand someone a gun unless you're sure where they'll point it. Your mistake." -- Cmdr. Jeffrey Sinclair; Babylon 5: "By Any Means Necessary"

Re:Not the good professor

[Malekin]

He's a wise choice, a rational voice is a sea of stupidity.

Lessig is a very moderate voice. While he generally opposes copyright term extension, he supports DRM. He feels that people who say copyright law is utterly broken are extremist. He seems to think that the current scope of fair use provisions is adequate and just needs to be better respected. He feels that "something like the DMCA that protects adequate space for fair use and doesn't attempt to regulate technology directly is needed." (http://lwn.net/2001/features/LawrenceLessig.php3)

I have a lot of respect for the man but you can't meet the extremism of Big Media with moderates willing to compromise. The DMCA should be dumped and language written into the law the specifically protects reverse engineering. Fair use provisions should be expanded to reflect that way we use media in our lives and to provide better protection for educational use.

We don't need a moderate - we need somebody who will make dramatic changes to re-align the law with common sense.

Re:Not the good professor

[Dan541]

I think we should not be asking who he will chose yet, but rather how large of a priority is he going to make this.

Shouldn't the interests of Hollywood be #1?

Or does Obama actually support change?

Re:Not the good professor

[spazdor]

"Mr. Valenti, what would you say is the most valuable class of intellectual property under your purview?"
"BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAINS"

Re:Not the good professor

[squiggleslash]

How is appointing a lunatic with an opposite bent to Hollywood's going to result in the law being re-aligned with common sense?

What you're proposing will result in no reform whatsoever. It'll result in gridlock, with the current law, warts and all, continuing to rule the land unchanged and unchangeable.

What's needed is a moderate voice. Just because Lessig isn't a lunatic doesn't mean he's going to somehow compromise with lunatics on the other side. It means he'll be a respected voice that can shout down the extremists on the Hollywood end and propose reforms that will be taken seriously.

Re:Not the good professor

[AmberBlackCat]

I think what Malekin is saying is, things have leaned so far in one side's favor that we need somebody to lean things heavily in the other side's favor in order to get back in the middle again.

Re:Not the good professor

[sumdumass]

Why does reasonable have to mean agrees with my point of view?

I mean someone who is for the entertainment and copyright industry's use of copyright can still be reasonable and pragmatic, it just won't be as far to one side as the other.

Re:Not the good professor

[sumdumass]

It won't matter, the DMCA and all copyright laws in the last century or so are represented by international treaties and in order to change them drastically, you will have to change the treaties or withdraw from them. The copyright extensions for instance, they were part of the signing onto and coming into conformance to the Berne Convention, and then later, the Uruguay round table agreements that resulted in the EU's harmonization directive. I know people want to blame Disney and the entertainment business because they actually supported the changes too, but the reality is that we will either have to change the minds of the entire world or pull our of treaties that like it or not, protect our interests in other nations as well as bring us content from those countries.

I say this not to start and argument that always seems to come where someone can't believe that I neglected to look at their foe of the day but to actually make sure people know what they are up against. It isn't just a matter of changing the laws, it's a bigger matter then that and there will be no change until that is addressed. So if change seems to be what someone is after, then they need to address the points that can be changed in order to get the change they want. Otherwise they are blaming the dealership for the color of the car when the factory does the paint job.

Re:Not the good professor

[Malekin]

When somebody is taking away important rights like the right to tinker or freely archive important pieces of information, the correct response is not "How about we compromise and you only take half my rights away?"

Re:Not the good professor

[adavies42]

[Y]ou can't meet the extremism of Big Media with moderates willing to compromise. [...] We don't need a moderate - we need somebody who will make dramatic changes [...] .

Sounds like another vote for RMS to me.

Re:Not the good professor

[Requiem18th]

Gridlock is preferred over movement in the wrong direction.
  But why does (s)he have to be a lunatic? Does believing in freedom of information means you have to be dumb and eccentric?
  A mathematician recently showed a formula to determine optimal copyright terms and it resulted in about 14 years for most situations. And there have been numerous studies that show DRM is not worth it (so much that some corporations are stepping out of it on their own).
  I think it is very possible to be very rational and still in pro of reducing the scope and length of copyrights, in fact it seems inevitable so.

Re:Not the good professor

[hairyfeet]

Uuuuh, you DO know that copyrights are now at 160+ years(Canada) or 170+ years(USA) thanks to those in the copyright "industry" right? I think most would safely say they left reasonable a few miles back there on the highway bud. I think have already moved past obscene and into eternal copyrights from hell myself.

Re:Not the good professor

[sumdumass]

Lol..Copyright is in the US is life plus 70 years. In order to be 170 years, everyone with a copyright would have to live to 100 years of age and produce the copyrighted works within the first year of their life. In the case of works for hire, it is 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shortest.

Canada, I havn't checked in a while but last I heard, they were the life of the author plus 50 years (the original Berne convention requirements). Canada has not become a member of the Uruguay round table agreement that was a response to the EU's directive on harmonization which is why the extra 20 years aren't there. That would mean a Canadian would have to live to 110 years of age and produce all their work within the first year of life.

Perhaps the reasonableness would be looked on differently if you actually had a grasp of what was going on. Lets say a person in his 40's created a copyrighted work, He dies of natural causes when 70 years old, his copyright will have an effective duration of 100 years total in the US and 80 years total in Canada. And you can thank Europe for these lengths that were in place since only 100 years from the beginning of the US (life plus 50 for the Berne convention since 1886).

Re:Not the good professor

[Elektroschock]

But you have to consider the ongoing ACTA process which is about the export of European IPR enforcement measures to the US and other nations.

Re:Not the good professor

[RichiH]

While I may not agree with Lessig in all points, he will be a lot better than any of his precedessors. And it's good not to have an extremist in all cases. That is why there are people who mediate between others. Having a skilled mediatior in a position of power is a Good Thing.

Re:Not the good professor

[jonaskoelker]

we need somebody who will make dramatic changes to re-align the law with common sense.

What's common sense, here?

I think the common-sense thing to do is to repeal and enact a set of laws that will be of maximum benefit to the American People, based on the best available evidence and well-tested economic models.

Basing judgments on evidence and theoretical understanding is how we do software, medicine, aviation and construction, to name a few. I think evidence should play a role in governance as well.

I don't have any hard evidence to back up any particular position. You didn't present any---do you have any?

I have a bit of soft evidence: people have been copying music whenever they had the technology to do it. Back in the old days, it was cassettes. Then it was CDs, and now it's mp3s copied over the internet. The only thing that's changed is that we've all gotten a few billion more friends to copy from.

Dragnet litigation and copyright propaganda video before every movie doesn't seem to have changed peoples' inclination to copy media. No DRM scheme has seemed to be effective in stopping people who really want to copy media.

I suggest that (as an experimental policy) it becomes permitted to do verbatim copying of all copyrighted works for non-commercial purposes.

If big chunks of the "copyright industries" die off and people have a shortage of music on the radio, in the tube and in the tubes, and the shortage persists over a long time as people try out new business models, then this would be evidence that copying is bad when we just let people do it.

If people are happy about the amount and quality of new music coming out and the price of concert tickets in the new model, then that's evidence that we as a society will pay musicians enough money to make them satisfy society's needs while still doing the sharing and copying we want.

Re:Not the good professor

[sumdumass]

Well, that's sort of my point. This isn't just the US doing things because Evil Disney wanted them to. It is the US agreeing to do certain things because of obligations and if anyone expected anything to change, they have to understand those controlling connections. Instead of telling your elected officials that you don't want more copyright regs you need to tell them to no accept it in the ACTA treaties and stuff like that when it comes up because he might be obligated to passing something if he passes the treaties. If you want to repeal the two copyright term extensions, you need to get two treaties either amended or convince the US to withdraw from them. Simply saying quit serving Disney's or big businesses' interest over yours isn't enough because being obligate to doing something beause of a treaty doesn't make big businesses' interest the forefront of the topic.

Re:Not the good professor

[mcvos]

How is appointing a lunatic with an opposite bent to Hollywood's going to result in the law being re-aligned with common sense?

Exactly. If you only have lunatics on either side, what you end up with is bound to be lunacy. What we need is lunatics on both sides who shout extremist positions at each other and a pragmatic moderate in the middle who ignores them both equally.

Re:Not the good professor

[ScrewMaster]

But I feel the first question we need to ask is will this position have any real power.

There's power, and there's power. Whether or not such a person has an real legal authority is an issue, of course, but no matter what they will have influence. They will also have far more of the public's ear than ten million Slashdotters ever could. The right person (and that's the real trick) in this slot could do much to put copyright back on track. I'm not sure who that person would be. Lessig is an excellent choice, looking at his credentials and his stance on the issues. Whether he's the right person from the PR/political perspective I wouldn't know.

Re:Not the good professor

[ScrewMaster]

"You should never hand someone a gun unless you're sure where they'll point it. Your mistake." -- Cmdr. Jeffrey Sinclair; Babylon 5: "By Any Means Necessary"

I agree with you, but a fictional character from a mediocre sci-fi series probably doesn't make the best supporting reference. To be fair though, Commander Sinclair was one of my favorite characters. Never did like Boxleitner in that role: too preachy. Sinclair just went out and did what he had to do.

Re:Not the good professor

[sesshomaru]

Actually, based on some of the other picks (Larry Summers, Hillary Clinton), I'm going to guess it'll be Dr. Evil from the Austin Powers movie.

Re:Not the good professor

[Elektroschock]

Oh, Europe is about to expand the regime to 95 years

Re:Not the good professor

[sumdumass]

You mean life plus 95 years? or 95 years total? Europe has always been ahead of the US in the longer terms for copyright.

Maybe I should look deeper into the counterfieting treaty you mentioned in your earlier post. That is when and where to protest it and how to stop it. The treaty probably contains just enough legit and justifiable stuff to make it appealing to a lot of countries.

I just hope that the people who will ultimately complain about it and protest the extensions actually do so blaming the apparatus responsible for it instead of some connections to some company and make themselves look like disgruntled idiots out to get an unrelated party. I'm all for shorter copyright terms/lengths. I don't think they should be done away with but for the most part adding to them isn't good. We probably should be taking some away. I kind of think life plus 40 years or a maximum of 70 years whichever comes first is more then enough. Of course I pulled the 70 year number out of my ass but it would allow someone to profit from their works for a couple of decades then allow their survivors to benefit after their untimely death too.

Re:Not the good professor

[Elektroschock]

This should be helpful for you:

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2008/october/tradoc_140836.11.08.pdf

Re:Not the good professor

[Trouvist]

The one thing you are forgetting is that corporations can hold copyrights. As such, since they never die, the copyrights don't expire.

Re:Not the good professor

[Raenex]

the correct response is not "How about we compromise and you only take half my rights away?"

How is that his position? He argues for copyright while allowing fair use, and is against restrictions on tinkering or technology.

Re:Not the good professor

[BadOPCode]

Well while what your sayings is true for the likes of you and me. It isn't the same truth for the corporations. THAT is the problem. There is two different code of laws. One for the people and one for the corporations. While the peoples laws make sense and have are rational and have a sense of reason. The corporate law codes are a free-for-all upheld by lawsuits. Which is honky dorry when its between two megacorporations worth over 100 billion and can sit in court rooms paying a dozen high powered lawyers $100 an hour. The whole law system hits a brick wall as soon as the people enter the same court room. We don't stand a chance. Therefor we have become merely slaves to the corporations. They can make up any law they want for us and we can't fight them in court. They can be dead wrong about their interpretations, it doesn't matter. All they need to do is out wait us until we go broke and have to abide by our corporate lord and masters. Politicians concerned for the people? Why? Which lobbyist are you paying for to sit and represent your interests in DC? Sorry, but ultimately this country doesn't need the people. Just the corporations. Corporations want stronger copyright and patent laws. Thats what they will get since all the people running this country are people they helped put there. You expect anything less you are a hopeless romantic IMHO.

Re:Not the good professor

[sumdumass]

Are you guys just making this stuff up as you go along?

Corporations would own works for hire. I already covered that with the "In the case of works for hire, it is 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shortest." Canada which is part of the Berne Convention but not the Uruguay round table agreements would be 20 years less.

Seriously, it isn't that hard to look this shit up. I would say you got wikipedia which might get you close, but then again, that may be the source of your confusion. Every country's government office will have a website giving the details of this out for those countries. It's all there from the source to anyone wanting to know. I'm starting to wonder if everyone who is upset about copyright term lengths don't have some serious misunderstanding of the situation.

Re:Not the good professor

[sumdumass]

Wow.. Do you really believe that? How about providing some links to your information. I'll bet you won't find any. This isn't because your not good at looking or anything, it is because you haven't looked yet. The copyright has not been extended for 20 every 20 years. It has had two extensions in the last century, one was to increase the terms from 28 years with a 28 year one time renewal to life plus 50 or 75 years for corporations as was the requirements of the Berne convention demanded and the other was 20 years longer for each in the 90's after the Uruguay round table agreements which was promoted by the EU's directive on harmonizing copyright.

By the way, your not very empirical, your just crazy. There has only been 3 term increases since 1909.

Re:Not the good professor

[sumdumass]

You need to clean your rose colored glasses an take another look around.

Corporations are subject to the same laws we the people are, what your confusing though is that there are extra and punitive laws directly addressing situations where there is no clear violator.

Being drug through courts and such aren't the big handicapped achilles heal of the people either. Lets take a recent example, the RIAA lawsuits. Ok, in almost everyone of them the defendant was actually guilty of breaking the law. The law provides for outrageous damages and attempts to punish people (which some claim violates due process). Now what we are really seeing here is that there are a set of tools availible to anyone sitting in a tool box, Corporations know which tools to grab that are the most effective at the task they are assigned. But the thing is, you have access to those same tools, if someone violated your copyright, you can do the same. The difference is that you don't have money to waste on a settlement that you will never be able to collect. Corporations have exponentially larger incomes and it doesn't effect them as much as you. But assuming that you have the same funds, you could do everything they have done.

There is nothing different about a corporation then you besides size and money. But a corporation is nothing more then a collections of owners acting in enterprise for themselves. So it makes sense that 10,000 people would have more money then 1 person. It makes sense that 10,000 people would have some influence on a congressman or senator. It makes sense that corporations need the people because they are the people just as much as the people are.

Re:Not the good professor

[ScrewMaster]

He's a wise choice, a rational voice is a sea of stupidity. Picking him would represent a striking change, a sudden outbreak of common sense.

Therefore it ain't gonna happen.

Yes, well, I understand that it's popular to vote for change nowadays.

Re:Not the good professor

[thtrgremlin]

The only respect I WILL give to the parent of your comment is that depending on the perspective, when copyright is longer than your own life, and with the rate of copyright term perpetually getting longer, everything ever created in my life will not ever expire for me. My own culture will never be free to me. So from the way things are, and my culture, and the way things have gone for the last 60+ years regarding change to copyright, they never expire, especially with one of the 4 entertainment corporations watching over everything.

I know that was not at all what Trouvist was saying or meant in any way, but thought worth mentioning.

Re:Not the good professor

[thtrgremlin]

very moderate? I have this picture of Richard Stallman piggyback riding Joseph Utsler through Disneyland with a flamethrower as a modest proposel.

I take some offense at the derogratory use of 'very moderate' to describe him. I will admit I am a bit of a fanatical fan, but I don't see how his 'moderation' could be interpreted as 'soft', as I feel you are implying.

Each side has declared war. Hollywood has gone so F***ing insane with copyright to buy and manipulate our culture and government that many people refuse to acknowledge any respect that copyright could hold. The Pirate Bay is a monument to the damage and hostility created by the content cartel. If there was any 'moderation', aka, embrace of current technology, and respect of the progress clause of the constitution, the Pirate Bay would not exist because there would be no need.

With opinions so violent on both sides, it is amazing Lessig has seen through all the BS, knowing what people want, was creators want, and the beauty of a read/write culture, he has given tools to artists like creative commons to artists that let them do what they always wanted to do. Lessig enables people around the bullshit, not someone going around trying to CONVINCE people things need to be a certain way. I feel he opens peoples hearts to what they already knew.

By contrast, we have FOSS guys like RMS. I respect him and use a lot of his software. I love what he has enabled. But His ideal is one that only respects freedom to consumers. I hate proprietary as much as any other Linux fanboy, but I don't think a developer that wants to keep some part of his project private is evil, so long as it doesn't become some kind of standard or requirement the way Windows is required for most computer purchases. I am reminded every once in awhile that my problem with proprietary is when it is not a choice, and I don't understand why.

and "utterly broken" is extreme. it is a binary opinion that generalizes it as a whole, to say that none of it works at all. That is extreme, and just not true. Lessig gets very technical about the parts that are broken. His focus in Free Culture, IMO, was scope, derivative / remixed works (fair use really wasn't about derivative works), orphaned works, and the hunting down and labeling of children as terrorists work wanting to be a part of their own culture.

One thing I think of in terms of a shorter copyright term is that it would apply to GPL works too. If copyright was, say, back to 14 years, how much of the Linux Kernel would become public domain where derivative works would no longer have the protection of "share-alike"?

I see him as an extremist who is well educated, and rational about about the feelings around copyright law. He is not a man without enemies for his opinions.

There are parts of copyright law that absolutely defy common sense, but there are parts that are technical and common sense does not bring about the right solution. For example, the constitution leaves the power of determining and changing the length of copyright term to best meet the needs of the people to promote science and the useful arts. And as far as common sense goes, Ashcroft WON on the 'common sense' argument of "why shouldn't Disney be able to retain complete control over what THEY made?'. I think what is lacking is some maybe difficult to understand science of what kind of copyright would "promote science and the useful arts", not common sense, because common sense may not be the understanding to most people what it is to you or I.

It is like free market: 'common sense' (of a certain uneducated type) says that the government should be able to come in and fix every little problem with just the right regulations and controls, but for those that have read the works Mesis or Smith would understand how 'economic planning' by a bureaucratic governmental entity doesn't work / can only work in certain ways.

I think common sense has taken over in government, replacing logic and rationality. My common sense says

Re:Not the good professor

[thtrgremlin]

Agreed. As I mentioned before, common sense is not what we want, a kind of 'common sense' is the emo play hollywood has been using for years to convince people IP should retain control by the creator. The opinion is too all over the place. I don't think the progress clause of the constitution was just "common sense", I think that was something painfully, logically, and rationally hashed out after a lot of smart people really took a look at history.

Understanding and putting into law respect for the way artists are part of a commons, that a culture can not be owned in whole by its pieces is difficult. Putting that into words and regulation that people are going to respect and embrace will not be easy.

but I will admit Lessig has an amazing way of putting it into words that sound very 'common sense', or at least like they should be.

Common sense sounds great right up till you find out everyone disagrees with you. I'd rather stand firm on rationality right now.

Re:Not the good professor

[thtrgremlin]

Fair use is burnt. It has been interpreted strongly, and while it should be protected better, fair use does not address free culture in any way. Modern cultural documentaries are virtually illegal with all the necessity to clear rights, even in a not for profit work. This is BAD. a remix freedom should be a different argument from fair use. I want the law to explain the rights people have to express themselves in the era of a digital literacy. It is simply something that has never been addressed. remember "fair use" comes from the copyright act of 1976. The problem is that the speed the law moves at, the issue of software is just such a new beast. Software is just SOOOO different in every way and what it does to everything it touches.

Re:Not the good professor

[sumdumass]

I don't know why you would even have to give respect to the GP, your comment is actually reasonable and soundly based in reality where his was something from way out there.

However, even though I think that is a legitimate point in how anything created in your lifetime will most likely not be free while you still live, I have to question why you would think your own culture would include someone else' works and why you think it would need to be free. You see, your culture is how you influence your life. There are groups of cultures that cover vast areas but those primarily consist of things you do not read or enjoy. So you really do have domain over your culture, you have the last word in it. If you chose to use someone else' works, saying whatever, that is a choice you have made.

As for being free, well, that too is up to you. You can choose to only include free things or you can choose not to. With the advent of the CC licenses, this is really getting easier and easier. In the end though, it all comes down to you. Even with the copyrights perpetually getting longer and such, if you subscribe to it, your only enabling it. If you and a sufficiently large amount of people reject it, then their copyright would be worthless and they will stop spending so much to protect them. Downloading and stuff isn't the answer either, your still enabling it by telling them that there is enough worth for you to swipe it. So seriously, think long and hard about what copyrighted materials your willing to pay for and make the stand. One person isn't going to change everything but it can influence others who will eventually become a sizable force capable of doing many things.

Personally, I think about 70 years is enough. I can already use whatever I want under fair use, I don't mind paying for a book or a video or whatever. And Disney or whoever making stuff and remaking it and whatever just to keep it copyrighted doesn't really bother me. I have never seen an instance where I needed to use someone else' work without paying them for it. Maybe I'm the only one or something, I don't know.

Re:Not the good professor

[Raenex]

fair use does not address free culture in any way

Given the context of the thread, this is a rather amusing comment. Lessig is the author of Free Culture and is very much in tune with your message. He doesn't deserve the bashing he has received.

Re:Not the good professor

[thtrgremlin]

I agree you don't need to pay to be a part of your own culture. There are many free alternatives, but as much as I enjoy embracing free culture, it does feel like a fight in some ways. Embracing free culture hasn't been easy. I do not know a lot of people personally that embrace free culture, so often times it feels like culture is a relationship I have by myself with the computer / Internet.

Something I have tried to do in the last few months is working away from non-free, or what I might call luxury, culture. I have not purchased a CD since the whole Napster thing, but this more recent transition I have been working towards only listening to CC licensed music. The result wasn't what I expected. I find there is a lot more variety, not to mention expression in the work. It started as an anti big media thing, but now I see it as a great way to introduce great new music to friends that have likely not heard it before. The best part is being able to easily contact artists, and when I leave reviews, I frequently get messages back. Those experiences have made it feel much more like a culture than just stuff.

I guess what I have enjoyed has only strengthened my idealism. And to clarify, I don't want everything to be 'free' in a monetary sense, just free in a way that the business model would allow me to do what I want with it as something I paid for. I would ideally like it if an artist would be flattered for me to make copies of their music and give them to my friends to enjoy. I want to listen to a wide variety of music the way it is free in a library or on the radio, but in a way that harnesses digital technology, and pay money to go to concerts where the band is making a good cut of the ticket price, the kind of thing where the supply isn't artificially deflated to ensure optimal revenue at the expense of calling fans pirates. I know this model would not work for all artists, but imho, the artists that would loose in this situation are the ones that completely lack talent. I also think such a model would make record companies obsolete (as if they are not already) or stores that box little units of information and put a sticker on them. It wasn't a bad way to do things, it just seems out dated. Record companies haven't been around for a long time, but music certainly has. I really believe exposure directly relates to opportunity. The issue is that it just isn't the same opportunity of the past.

Also, I think there is an under appreciation / mis representation of what is "other peoples work". All creativity builds on the past and on nature. Nobody today creates anything without the assistance of many other people. People that whittle figurines out of drift wood unlikely smelted the metal for the knife, and who ever did smelt it didn't do so from scratch. I think you know where that can go forever. ALL THINGS build upon and express other things around you. Who gets credit for what is a matter of advertising. People should certainly get paid for their labor and creative expressions of our world, but it is everyone else that as a whole that help provide that world worth expressing. Further, art that is not an expression of our culture, world, or life typically have no worth. Good art, stories, music are those that resonate with people because part of the art is already inside that person that sees it, hears it, or appreciates it in any way.

I just think that to SOME extent, that in the way creators and consumers are all part of the same culture that there bee some shared rights. I further believe Creative Commons, and the voluntary nature of it (maybe even especially its voluntary nature) it a step in the right direction.

People with money have spent money in Washington to help uphold the rights of artists through the digital age. By itself, I think most of it has been good. My issue, with regard to Washington, is that big media has gotten more of an opportunity to share their opinion and 'educated' people about their rights than, say. the historical purpose of public libraries, classical

Re:Not the good professor

[thtrgremlin]

An over simplification is that fair use is an affirmative defense, not a right. There is a big difference between embracing something and tolerating something. There is a certain irony to 'fair use' considering what natural rights existed before. To paraphrase Lessig, much of what is regulated use and 'fair use' today was not very long ago completely unregulated.>br>
That is how "fair use does not [nor ever intended to] address free culture".

Example of how I see fair use in culture today is similar to regulations at an airport if things got a lot worse. Do away with the list of things you can't do or bring on a plane, and replace it with a very specific list of hypothetically acceptable things. Now, if you actually want to bring something onto the plane that may match something on the list, you need to explain where you got it, why you need it with you, and sign a waiver exempting the item from being covered by insurance in case it gets lost (kudos to anyone that understands the insurance part).

Excuse me, but just how can you call that "Rights".

Oh, and just in case it needs to be said, I did not mean to say that Free Culture does not address Fair Use, just that it is mono-directional understanding.

He had the good sense...

[alexborges]

Of having lessig on his team. Lets hope he still has that now that he is heading to The House.

Re:He had the good sense...

[Anonymous Coward]

Man... i remember when slashdot was moderated by its users instead of some sort of politically corrective nutty nun-fucked assholes.

What the fuck is wrong with you people? Yes, you, the idiot paid for by slashdot to moderate inflamatory comments.

yes, its inflamatory to speak about the new color of the "white" house, but if you had two fingers in your forhead youd realize that its a pun on white america's discrimination, and not a racist ploy against the new prez.

But hey, thats where YOUR FUCKING RACISM shines through.

Re:He had the good sense...

[Dan541]

Sorry I'm out of mod points.

Lessig would be fine

[Ralph Spoilsport]

We need a countervailing force against the minions of IP evil like the MAFIAA and the rest of them.

However, I don't know where he would actually do more good - inside the administration which is already compromised with appointments like Rahm Emanuel - or outside fighting the good fight. As a consequence, I'm not certain he would take such a position if asked.

It's quite possible, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

RS

Re:Lessig would be fine

[iluvcapra]

Parent is not a troll. I don't agree that the administration is "compromised" by any of the appointments so far, but it's clear there are things you can do inside and things you can do outside, and there's no guarantee LL's skillset will work on the former.

On the other hand, there's all kinds of jobs the preznit can ask you to do, some policy-administrative-do stuff, like Secretary of Commerce, and some strictly advisory, like the the job Paul Volker got yesterday. In theory, you put "safe" people no one can complain about in the "do stuff" jobs, but you put the hair-burning crazies on the advisory boards to give you perspective. Lessig would be able contribute greatly leading an outside policy board.

Re:Lessig would be fine

[Triv]

True, working inside an organizational system is different than working outside of one, and like you I don't know if Lessig is an inside player.

But let's be realistic, here - all I want, all I think anybody really wants, is a copyright adviser who actually understands the different facets of copyright and hasn't spent the last decade or more working for Sony/BMG, Disney, or some other obvious media conglomerate.

If this were still the Bush administration we were talking about here, I know the choice would be somebody with big business connections and an agenda; I have more faith in Obama to choose somebody with university connections a fucking brain.

Re:Lessig would be fine

[Triv]

...which is not to say I AGREE with any of that, just that that's the logic. I think.

Hey Barack!

[MillionthMonkey]

I recommend Shawn Fanning.

Re:Hey Barack!

[moranar]

Nah. Jon Lech Johansen.

Re:Hey Barack!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, Scarlett Johansson.

It does not matter to me

[bogaboga]

Well, I do not care who he chooses as long as the chosen fella does not propagate policies that get in my way. I frequently download all kinds of stuff in all categories. Emule and Bittorent are my friends.

I just wish I could be a "steam roller" like that [infamous] former New York state top official, even if it can be for a while.

Wrong phasing

[2.7182]

It should be "Who will Obama tap..."

Our new Copyright Czar

[Archiviste]

... I heard that Darl McBride is looking for a new job...

Re:Our new Copyright Czar

[Anonymous Coward]

Was it absolutely necessary for you to make me spit coffee all over my keyboard!? Asshole!

Re:Our new Copyright Czar

[ScrewMaster]

Was it absolutely necessary for you to make me spit coffee all over my keyboard!? Asshole!

I learned years ago not to read Slashdot with coffee up my nose.

Re:Our new Copyright Czar

[freedom_india]

Damn you idiot. My iBook G4 needs to another keyboard to replace my Coke spilled one...

Re:$10 Says Obama Picks a Fucking Jew

[Anonymous Coward]

Only $10? You cheap bastard.

Lessig would be a good choice

[mysidia]

As copyright czar he may be in a position to push for certain changes to rules to introduce some sanity. And give the consumer some protections as well as big recording industry players' freedoms.

The president and his staff may be more likely to listen to the ideas of a copyright czar than to some Stanford professor.

Here's an idea: NO ONE

[LynnwoodRooster]

Seriously, the LAST thing needed is another "somethingorother czar" to supposedly solve problems. What powers will this czar have, other than being the President's lobbyist to Congress to push their own agenda?

Re:Here's an idea: NO ONE

[King_TJ]

Exactly! But again, that smacks of logic and common sense. Don't expect much of either during this administration.

Did you see any big improvements since the "drug czar" was appointed? (I'd say none, unless you're referring to the increased levels of THC found in most marijuana over the last couple decades.)

Re:Here's an idea: NO ONE

[iluvcapra]

What powers will this czar have, other than being the President's lobbyist to Congress to push their own agenda?

Isn't that enough? On the other hand, czars are important for bureaucratic rationalization: drug policy requires a lot of cooperation between federal law enforcement, state/local law enforcement, the medical system, foreign interdiction efforts etc. (assuming you accept drug control policy is rational, which it isn't. I think the idea of the drug tsar gives tsars a bad name. Aside from the original tsars, that is.)

The main problem with interdepartmental plenipotentiaries, or "Tsars" if you will, is they don't really have any authority: they're supposed to be the expert in the field and know more about how to do the job than anyone, but they're beholden to the existing baize cloth routine and can't make people do anything without the president's personal intervention. Even if Larry Lessig was a "Copyright Tsar," all he could do is talk shop with Obama about what should happen and then testify to congress a lot. He might have a voice in the appointment of FCC commissioners, and in copyright office policies, but he can always be overruled by a law.

Re:Here's an idea: NO ONE

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Seriously, the LAST thing needed is another "somethingorother czar" to supposedly solve problems. What powers will this czar have, other than being the President's lobbyist to Congress to push their own agenda?

The position was created by congress in an attempt to institutionalize the MAFIAA's lobbying to the DoJ, congress and the president. Placing Lessig in the post would be about as much of a reversal of the intended purpose of the position as would be possible it would Lessig as Copyright Czar would be like the GPL is to copyright law - an almost perfect hack to use its own strengths against it.

Re:Here's an idea: NO ONE

[alexborges]

Common sense?

I run away from people that claim such a thing exists.

Re:Here's an idea: NO ONE

[spazdor]

You had me at "interdepartmental plenipotentiaries."

Re:Here's an idea: NO ONE

[Anpheus]

When I read the objective C in your signature, I realized why you decided to use such self-aggrandizing language. Not that what you said was wrong, but, eh, tone it down a bit?

I leave the explanation as an exercise to the reader.

Re:Here's an idea: NO ONE

[iluvcapra]

Elaborate "self-aggrandizing language"

Re:Here's an idea: NO ONE

[iluvcapra]

Oh, I get it. But honestly I can't think of a shorter way of expressing the concept of a "baize cloth routine."

Re:Here's an idea: NO ONE

[ScrewMaster]

Common sense?

I run away from people that claim such a thing exists.

Oh, it exists all right, but it's a transient affair at best. Most of the time, it's below the noise level.

Re:Here's an idea: NO ONE

[ScrewMaster]

Oh, I get it. But honestly I can't think of a shorter way of expressing the concept of a "baize cloth routine."

What does that mean anyway? Never mind, I'll Google it.

I think it's between these 3 guys

[syousef]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_II_of_Russia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_the_Great

http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/bios/b2ivanIV.htm

I vote for Peter the Great. His painting looks friendly and we all know how important image is in a copyright Czar.

Re:I think it's between these 3 guys

[Paracelcus]

Lemme put in the good word for Ivan the terrible he used surfs as a convenient way to keep his carriage wheels from sinking into the mud.

Re:I think it's between these 3 guys

[SonicSpike]

Peter The Great has a prom-star mustache to boot!

Re:I think it's between these 3 guys

[TapeCutter]

An imaganitive fellow indeed, he also used a giant frypan to turn up the heat on his enemies.

Re:I think it's between these 3 guys

[Anpheus]

If we elect this Ivan fellow: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_IV_of_Russia

I have a feeling he can get things done. And he may once and for all solve the analog hole, too!

Re:I think it's between these 3 guys

[QuasiEvil]

I too prefer Ivan. I just have a lot more respect (or is that fear?) for anybody with the nickname "Terrible".

After all, why vote for a lesser evil? Er, wait, Cthulhu for Copyright Czar!

Re:I think it's between these 3 guys

[larry bagina]

but catherine the great fucked horses.

Re:I think it's between these 3 guys

[dunkelfalke]

actually, the translation of his nickname into modern english would be something along the lines of "menacing", "grim" or even "gloomy" rather than "terrible"

Lessig Too Sane a Choice

[Blue Stone]

Lessig becomes copyright Czsar.

The 'industry' (parasitic, development-repelling middle-men) howl and tear at their hair and eyes. They take to the streets, shirtless, throwing themselves to the tarmac, flailing themselves with mic stands. With raised arms and tear soaked faces they cry for Moolah's mercy.

Obama is taken in by their deceit, takes pity on them, shelves Lessig and appoints their preferred Cszar; the zombie Jack Valenti.

Re:Lessig Too Sane a Choice

[spazdor]

Weird. I just made a Zombie Valenti joke a sec ago, and then scrolled down half a page and found the exact same idea, timestamped far in advance of my slow-ass idea. Dammit.

I beg to disagree

[mangu]

I vote for Peter the Great. His painting looks friendly

He looks too much like Ron Jeremy to be entirely friendly....

Re:I beg to disagree

[bob.appleyard]

Then it's settled. Ron Jeremy for copyright tsar!

NYCL

[ubercam]

I, despite not being American (but I do live nearby), nominate Ray Beckerman (NewYorkCountryLawyer). He seems to have lots of relevant experience in this field.

Any seconds?

Re:NYCL

[Anpheus]

I wouldn't want to remove him from his current practice when there aren't many others like him.

Re:NYCL

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I, despite not being American (but I do live nearby), nominate Ray Beckerman [blogspot.com] (NewYorkCountryLawyer [slashdot.org]). He seems to have lots of relevant experience in this field. Any seconds?

Thanks, but, being Jewish, I don't really like "czars".

Re:NYCL

[Reziac]

Okay then... instead we'll nominate you for "Copyright Rabbi" ;)

Re:NYCL

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I'll accept "Copyright Voice of Sanity".

Chewing a Lemon

[monkeythug]

I would absolute *love* it if Lessig gets the post.

I can see the faces on the RIAA/MPAA moguls now after they went to all that effort to convince congress to create that post, only to have it backfire on them so badly :-)

Oh, I would laugh so hard ...

RMS

[perlhacker14]

Wouldn't it be apallingly hilarious if RMS was consulted or even appointed? Come on, RMS for Copyright Czar- defender of our freedoms. Seriously though, he does have some good ideas on reform, as seen at (stallman.org).

Re:RMS

[Improv]

On that day, the geeks would crawl out of the basements and university computer labs to dance in the streets.

Re:RMS

[jonbryce]

I'm not so sure about RMS. Yes, I agree with most of what he says, but not how he says it, and he comes across as a nutter to the non-techie public, and most of the techie community as well.

Besides we'll have him refusing to read emails that are sent from an insufficiently free *GNU*/Linux distribution.

Re:RMS

[Anpheus]

He is a nutter, and that's a good thing for rallying a cause. It's not so good once the cause becomes influential--then you need great orators, which AFAIK, neither Linus nor RMS can claim to be.

Re:RMS

[pythonhacker]

Obama, on the phone to RMS...

Obama: Hello Dick
RMS: Stallman here, who is this ?
Obama: Dick, this is Obama, your president-elect. Could I have your resume for a very important post in my administration ?
RMS: Perhaps, what is this post ?
Obama: It is the post of the "Copyright Czar". You will be in charge of making important decisions regarding Copyright and I.P regulations in this country.
RMS: It sure sounds interesting, but I will consider the position only after you rename it to "Copyleft Czar" and release the text of this conversation under GNU GPL.
Obama: Er..., maybe not. Bye Dick. Have a nice day...

Re:RMS

[ScrewMaster]

He is a nutter, and that's a good thing for rallying a cause. It's not so good once the cause becomes influential--then you need great orators, which AFAIK, neither Linus nor RMS can claim to be.

Well, they could take some classes.

Hollywood Obama supporters

[Comboman]

Considering all the actors, musicians, etc. that supported Obama (and contributed to his fund raising efforts), don't expect any positive changes to copyright law under his administration. If anything, Democrats are even more protective of Big Content than the Repulicans (remember; the Copyright Term Extension act and the DCMA came during the Clinton administration).

Re:Hollywood Obama supporters

[tepples]

If anything, Democrats are even more protective of Big Content than the Repulicans (remember; the Copyright Term Extension act and the DCMA came during the Clinton administration).

Bob Dole couldn't have stopped them from becoming law, if that's what you're trying to suggest. Both bills passed both houses through voice vote, which indicates over 80 percent assent. You only need 67 percent to override a veto.

That's Whom

[El Puerco Loco]

Whom, goddammit! Whom will Obama choose?

Re:That's Whom

[Citizen Crom]

"Who will get it?"
"To whom will it go?"

Re:That's Whom

[BlueParrot]

Sorry but even OED recognizes "who" as a valid substitute of "whom" these days. Welcome to the 21st century.

Re:That's Whom

[Reziac]

"It is precisely this sort of pedantry up with which I will not put!" ;)

Cory Doctorow, the only man we could trust.

[Shane A Leslie]

I can think of only one man I'd want in the position - Cory Doctorow.

Re:Cory Doctorow, the only man we could trust.

[bgalbrecht]

I doubt Obama would ever appoint a Canadian citizen to be the US copyright czar.

Re:Cory Doctorow, the only man we could trust.

[Shane A Leslie]

Yeah, sucks don't it. Would be nice though.

Re:Cory Doctorow, the only man we could trust.

[Malekin]

So he can "unpublish" those he disagrees with and use the office to endlessly pimp his books? No thanks.

Re:Cory Doctorow, the only man we could trust.

[larry bagina]

Americans don't care if the President is an Indonesian citizen, why should they care if the copyright czar is Canadian?

Re:Cory Doctorow, the only man we could trust.

[Shane A Leslie]

Boing Boing and his other personal sites are the appropriate placees for him to his book pimping - and I'm sure he would keep it there. As for the 'unpublishing' - to what do you refer? BTW, I am aware that this is a purely hypothetical discussion, him being ineligible for the position and all. I'm just postulating that someone with his background and publicly espoused beliefs would make for a copyright czar that would balance the rights and responsibilities of both media producers, and media consumers.

Re:Cory Doctorow, the only man we could trust.

[that this is not und]

Oh come, now.

It's been widely said, even if Obama refuses to produce proof of birth in Hawaii, that we can believe he is a Natural Born American.

Re:Cory Doctorow, the only man we could trust.

[Malekin]

As for the 'unpublishing' - to what do you refer?

http://www.lolife.com/2008/07/that-boing-boing-thing/

Boing Boing deleted any and all mention of Violet Blue for reasons that remain unexplained but are assumed to be a lovers' spat. When people found out that Boing Boing had retroactively censored one of their contributors they felt that this was hypocritical given the editorial content of the site. Boing Boing tried to diffuse the situation by posting a non-explanation calling their actions "unplublishing". The term as used is an ironically Orwellian neologism for censorship, deepening the public outcry that the actions of Boing Boing editors were being childish and deeply hypocritical.

Re:Cory Doctorow, the only man we could trust.

[Shane A Leslie]

Boing Boing is a collective personal blog, not a news agency. If they don't want to host something that they don't want to host that is their prerogative. The content was not deleted from the internet, they've made a point of letting people know where else it is available. If someone said something in your blog, or home, that you objected to wouldn't it be your right to remove it or them? And besides, Xeni did the removal, not Cory.

hard choice

[DragonTHC]

hopefully he will choose someone who understands the futility of applying copyrights to digital media.

Re:hard choice

[Shane A Leslie]

Like Cory Doctorow?

Worst case

[Frozentech]

I think the worst case ( yet still in the running ) is Hilary Rosen. She's been a big Obama supporter and arguably has copyright 'experience'. Change you *will* believe in !

Re:$10 Says Obama Picks a Fucking Jew

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize, if you ever visit a country under Islamic rule, you'll be beheaded? Who'll chip in with me to buy this AC a one-way ticket to Saudi Arabia?

better laws?

[Neil Strickland]

The current system of law on copyright and other IP issues seems to have many flaws, but it does not seem so easy to design a better system. Does anyone know of any detailed proposals with serious analysis of their expected consequences?

Re:Islam is civilized.

[Hognoxious]

Alexander the Great hired millions of muslims to fight wars on his behalf.

I'd heard he had some interesting theories on topology, but I never knew he was capable of time travel.

But why did he stop in the dark ages? Why not go further forward and get longbowmen, muskets or even tanks?

Re:$10 Says Obama Picks a Fucking Jew

[Hognoxious]

Oy vey, times are hard already!

Here's a question...

[macinit]

I ask who will care about the next copyright Czar when the government grinds to a halt 1st quarter 2009? Everything is important but our failed monetary system.

Nah, should outsource the position to China

[2Bits]

No, I'm not trolling. I'll explain why.

• America's economy is deep shit, you need to save money wherever you can. Outsource that position to China will save you quite a bit of money.
• And don't even say that is a job creation position, a position of "copyright czar" (what kind of idiot came up with that?) actually has negative job multiplicator. Therefore, you should outsource it to countries that you consider a potential competitor, so that it would do damage there, instead of in your country.
• Your copyright system is so FUBAR that you need an external person to fix it. You can't pick another rotten apple from the same basket, can you?
• Chinese people are more open regarding to copyright and IP. We believe that information should be set free. As a matter of fact, we don't give a fuck about IP, what kind of idiotic concept is that? Oh, what sound am I hearing now? Am I hearing a million /.ers standing on their desk, shouting "Go, China, go"?

Oh, BTW, I'm available :)

Re:Nah, should outsource the position to China

[badkarmadayaccount]

Are you male or female?

Richard!

[gacl]

He should choose Richard Stallman. Paint his beard white, dress him in red, present him to the public in a couple of weeks. . .

Merry Christmas RIAA!

I'd like it to go to Lessig

[91degrees]

Although the main reason I'd like to see this is because I want the media cartels to have scored an own goal.

Re:I'd like it to go to Lessig

[ScrewMaster]

Although the main reason I'd like to see this is because I want the media cartels to have scored an own goal.

Well, in the case of the Sony (rootkit) Corporation it would be an pwn goal.

Try Bradley M. Kuhn

[jonaskoelker]

On http://audio-video.gnu.org/audio/ you can find speeches from the FSF. Most of them by RMS, but there are two by Bradley M. Kuhn.

He sells the same message as RMS, more or less, but he sells it with a different tone. Give him a listen in your next one-hour drive to work (and continue on the way back), or whenever you feel like it.

I hope nobody

[Ritchie70]

I, for one, hope that Mr. Obama doesn't appoint ANY Czars.

What a stupid title Czar is for someone to try to pull together disparate government units.

How about "Secretary" or "Director" or "Under-Secretary" or something.

Really, anything that doesn't sound like the entire United States has seen entirely too many James Bond films.

the obvious choice is being overlooked

[viridari]

The candidate for "change" has been stacking his cabinet with Clinton retreads and people who supported him on the campaign trail. The guy who spoke ill of lobbyists has surrounded himself with lobbyists.

Hillary Rosen was all over the cable news networks, singing praise of Obama the Messiah.

The industry would embrace her, and lobby Congress to approve her appointment with all haste.

It sucks, I know. But I think y'all are overlooking how attractive she is going to be to Obama.

William Patry.

[arborlaw]

William Patry comes from the same general compass direction as Lawrence Lessig (he recently ended his blog, partly for reasons that he felt that copyright has become broken). Patry has 26 years of legal practice in the field, has written one of the major treatises, has international copyright chops, and currently is counsel for Google. Not sure that he would let Google go.