|
 Saturday, January 18, 2003
Recipes for bioterror: censoring science [New Scientist]
The difficulty here is that censoring this infor will not prevent someone else from figuring it out. It will just prevent us from finding a solution. Understanding some of the 'holes' in the system will make it easier to fill them. If everyone believes there are no holes, we are no better than the Emperor and his New Clothes. 6:39:34 PM 
|
|
Judge to Hear Air ID Challenge. A federal court agrees to decide a case that could determine whether airline passengers should be forced to show an ID before boarding a flight. By Julia Scheeres. [Wired News]
This will be an interesting case to stay on top of. The ability to move about without government interference is historically a very important right on the US. I imagine this case won't get too far, though. 6:19:40 PM
|
|
|
I'm listening to Peter Gabriel's new album, UP. It is great, vintage Gabriel. The original Genesis was one of the most creative and talented lineups of musicians ever in rock. Only Gabriel has continued to use his creative genius all these years. He had some down efforts but always kept expanding his world. This album takes what he has learned the last 10 years and almost seamlessly fits it into everything from 'The Lamb Lies Down' era. Amazing. 5:50:52 PM
|
|
More on the Eldred decision....Jack Balkin, Knight .... More on the Eldred decision....Jack Balkin, Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment at Yale Law School, criticizes the Supreme Court for its shoddy treatment of the First Amendment issues in Eldred. (Thanks to LawMeme.)Excerpt: "Ginsburg argues that there is no conflict between free speech and copyright terms because the 'copyright scheme ... incorporates its own speech-protective purposes and safeguards.' She begins by noting that 'The Copyright Clause and First Amendment were adopted close in time. This proximity indicates that, in the Framers[base '] view, copyright[base ']s limited monopolies are compatible with free speech principles.' This argument proves both too much and too little. It proves too much because the First Amendment was ratified at a time when lots of laws against libel, blasphemy, and indecency (judged by 1791 standards) were thought to be consistent with the First Amendment. Indeed, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts only seven years later. If Ginsburg[base ']s argument is correct, most of contemporary First Amendment law is wrong. The argument proves too little because the length of the copyright monopoly at the time of the Founding was much much shorter than it is today, and the modern doctrines that have expanded the scope of copyright protection did not exist in the 1790's. The fact that some degree of copyright monopoly was thought compatible with the First Amendment does not demonstrate that any degree of monopoly, no matter how large or extensive, would have been thought compatible." [FOS News]
I think that this will be an important case, not because the Court got it right or wrong. It IS up to Congress to deal with copyright. However, the reasoning used here will look so twisted and tortured 10 years from now that students will study it in order to gain a glimpse into just how 'off' so many smart people's perspectives were during this period. 5:47:24 PM
|
|
Excerpt from the New York Times Editorial for Janu .... Excerpt from the New York Times Editorial for January 16: "In effect, the Supreme Court's decision makes it likely that we are seeing the beginning of the end of public domain and the birth of copyright perpetuity. Public domain has been a grand experiment, one that should not be allowed to die. The ability to draw freely on the entire creative output of humanity is one of the reasons we live in a time of such fruitful creative ferment." [FOS News]
I think that moderates and some conservatives will begin to see the danger of the Content Cartel and their hold on copyright. I hope it happens soon. 5:38:15 PM
|
|
The license accompanying Network Associates softwa .... The license accompanying Network Associates software requires that anyone writing a review of the software must get the company's permission in advance. The New York State Supreme Court just ruled that this licensing term is not enforceable. (PS: These days every victory for fair use is worth celebrating, even painfully obvious slam-dunk victories like this one.) [FOS News]
Of course, it had to get to the New York Supreme Court. What a waste of time and money. Of course the company is planning to appeal. See, they did not want to prevent free speech. They just did not want anyone to create a misleading review. Well, if the review is so misleading as to be harmful to the company, THEN I think they could sue. But this sort of prior restraint is hardly ever sustained by the courts. 5:32:06 PM
|
|
Lawrence Lessig has an op-ed on the Eldred case in .... Lawrence Lessig has an op-ed on the Eldred case in today's New York Times, Protecting Mickey Mouse and Art's Expense. He has a constructive suggestion for moving forward. Since the Supreme Court has deferred to Congress on these issues, Lessig proposes a small change to the copyright statute that Congress could adopt without offending the Disneys of the world and that would put perhaps 98% of copyrighted works more than 50 years old into the public domain. Send copies to your Congressional delegation. [FOS News]
Lessig has anice idea. Essentially require copyright holders to pay a small 'tax' after say 50 years to renew their copyright for another term. If they don't do this for 3 years, the work enters the public domain. This does a couple of things. ONe, it would create a central database of older copyrighted items, making it easier to gain permission to use older works. It would alos allowwroks that have no commercial value but great cultural value to enter the public domain. I imagine that there will have to be some sort of vetting to be sure the group that pays the tax actually holds the copyright, but I think it is a workable idea. 5:28:23 PM
|
|
|
|
|
