|
 Saturday, January 11, 2003
Crime and responsibility, corporate and individual. In a free society, there is no possible justification for privileges granted to corporations over individuals. This is a modern battle that ranges across many issues, from copyright control to investment methods. We need major revisions of the legal status of corporate activity, such as holding executives (and employees) fully liable for their actions (even if shareholders have limited responsibility) as well as ensuring that accountants, lawyers, analysts, and consultants in general do not commit fraud or other crimes while hiding behind nebulous contracts or professional codes. The concept of the corporation is crucial to the development of free markets and modern capitalism, but we should always remember that only individuals have rights and deserve protection. Corporations are useful social structures, within limits. Let's make sure we have the proper limits, and enforce them.
Brad DeLong:
The SEC has freaked out the assembled corporate lawyers of America by
pointing out that there is a difference between maintaining
attorney-client privilege so you can provide your client with a fair
defense on the [Jinn of Quality and Risk]
Boy, there are going to be some sweating corporate lawyers if this goes through. Keep an eye on its progression. 6:25:23 PM 
|
|
What Lawyers Can Learn From Comic Books. Larry Lessig is at it again. He's being brilliant, while making his point in a clear, concise way. In his latest opinion piece for the Red Herring he's made a point that I've been trying to make for years, and does it many times better than I've ever been able to articulate it. His point is that lawyers understand law, not business - and sometimes (perhaps often) try to enforce laws even though it's a bad decision for business. As an example, he talks about the comic industry in Japan. There's a huge thriving industry of amateur "copycat" comics, where fans create their own comics based on popular characters. There are even huge conventions for these types of comics. In the US, the lawyers would go after these copycats for copyright infringement. Even though the laws are similar there, the publishers realize that these amateur comics help build demand for their own product. It's a good business decision to let them stay, even if it goes against the law. Lessig suggests that management at American content companies realize that their lawyers don't have business or economics degrees - and instead are only good at explaining the law. The managers need to make good business decisions - which might mean not enforcing the law.
[Techdirt]
Companies like Warners have gone after ANYONE who puts up a site disucssing Harry Potter, even going after 12 year old fans. Not the smartest business plans. If you have a product that fans are so enamored of that they try to create their own copies, you need to encourage them. Otherwise, those fans will just go somewhere else. Lawyers do not make good business leaders. SImply because it is illegal does not mean it is extremely useful. 6:16:36 PM
|
|
Come Together. Richard Koman has a nice first-hand account of our license release party on the O'Reilly Network. (This slipped past our radar last week.) Koman describes the event as an Eldred v. Ashcroft "reunion night," which is somewhat accurate, though we'll take the opportunity to remind folks that Creative Commons has no official ties to the Supreme Court case.
Oh, and -- another fine distinction -- this time Jack Valenti is on the same side as Lessig. Read Koman for the details. [Creative Commons: weblog]
Read the article. It very cogently discusses the issues in a non-divisive way. Lessig tells a nice story about his father saying 'Some people do; other people sue.' Lessig has been involved on the sue side. Now he wants to be involved on the do side. And even Jack Valenti agrees with him. As a side note, I believe that O'Reilly books has implimented the Founder's Copyright, releasing its books to the public domain not 70 years after the copyright holder dies, as it could do currently but after 14 years (with an option for another 14 years). This is the copyright envisioned by the framers of the constitution and should be enough for any human being. It is corporations that need the money for such a huge time. By the time Mickey Mouse enters the public domain (assuming Disney does not get the copyright extended even further) he will have been protected under copyright for over 90 years. Explain to me how this really benefits society, which is the reason that a copyright is provided for a limited time. 12:29:51 AM
|
|
|
|
|
