Comments on: Obama in Cyberspace

By: James Boyle

James Boyle — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 12:47:29 +0000

Thanks Mark. Much appreciated and http://fairuselab.net/ is a great initiative. Congratulations!

By: Mark Willis

Mark Willis — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 10:52:33 +0000

I appreciate your ongoing support for accessibility for blind and visually impaired readers. We are a “low incidence” population, as the sociologists say. We’re likely to remain marginalized on most others’ moral horizons, but we may serve here as canaries in the coal mine.

By: 3 Count: Obama in (cyber)Space | PlagiarismToday

3 Count: Obama in (cyber)Space | PlagiarismToday — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:05:04 +0000

[...] 3: Obama in cyberspace [...]

By: PL Hayes

PL Hayes — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 05:37:08 +0000

Thanks for the clarification. I’ve read – with admiration – your FT pieces and watched your google tech. talk video etc. but I’m not surprised the /. readers got hold of the wrong end of the stick. It’s rarely worth reading beyond the /. front page these days.

By: Markus

Markus — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 03:45:06 +0000

“On what do the slashdot comments focus? One single phrase…..”

That is precisely why i never read the comments on /.
I read the post, the referenced articles or blogs, and move on with life.
I thoroughly enjoyed what you had to say here, and fully agree.

By: James Boyle

James Boyle — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 02:36:53 +0000

Thanks for the comment. Since I have spent most of my career being portrayed as a foe of everything the content industry holds dear, I am savouring the experience of /. readers thinking I am an apologist for the same industry ;-> The entire article criticizes the Obama administration for adopting too closely the views of the content industry, for sending signals that they will pick as a copyright czar someone who serves the interests of that industry and, in an act of “moral cowardice”, giving up the interests of blind and visually impaired citizens to serve that agenda. On what do the slashdot comments focus? One single phrase that suggests that the content industry actually has a legitimate point of view. This is perhaps an example of ignoring the forest and focusing on a single twig?
For 20 years I have written at far too great a length the reasons why I think the view of the content industry is mistaken. I think it is profoundly wrong and the legislation that has propounded it is in some cases unconstitutional. But the fact that I disagree with it and think it mistaken does not make it *illegitimate as a view.* That is an important point in, and a defining feature of, a liberal democracy.
Here’s a discussion of my use of the term “intellectual property” http://www.movingtofreedom.org/2008/11/30/james-boyle-the-public-domain/
And as for the “breaking the deal” point — that was actually the title of an earlier article about the shameful practice of retrospective copyright term extension. If you are interested, the book this site is devoted to contains a lengthy explanation of why the Jeffersonian view of copyright is superior to that of the content industry, why the Framers of the constitution might be appalled by the system set up under Article 1 section 8 clause 8, while ignoring that clause’s limitations, and why the path they have taken is precisely the wrong one.
But to return to the main point — I’d at least hope for an equal amount of outrage at what is being done to the interests of visually impaired citizens, or in the appointment of the copyright czar.
(And re PL Hayes’ point on moral cowardice, I agree. And I think it was.)

By: PL Hayes

PL Hayes — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 02:11:08 +0000

For it to be a case of moral cowardice, opposition to the proposal would have to be accompanied by awareness that such opposition is unjustified.

By: David Sugar

David Sugar — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 01:40:58 +0000

Even setting aside for the moment that there is no such thing as “Intellectual Property” in the United States, let alone any so called property rights even involved; there are some limited time privileges that congress MAY choose to grant, there is nothing in article I which even says congress MUST actually do so, I am curious how one constructs the idea of for example copyright cartels seeking exclusive and unlimited rights to cultural artifacts as being legitimate? At best, it seems like arguing that Al Capone had a very legitimate point of view on filing taxes.

Some suggest the U.S. constitution offers the idea as a kind of balanced social contract between the public interest and that of creative producers. This idea does not strike me as abhorrent in itself, and indeed that could be offered as a very legitimate viewpoint. However, the fundimental problem is that middlemen are now choosing to entirely renegotiate the terms of said contract after the fact into a one sided contract of adhesion. Applying the word “legitimate interest” to that seems far more than merely inappropriate, it perpetuates a fraud.