i-sako.com

I mentioned Larry Lessig’s ideas about copyrights right around this time last month, then more recently the Supreme Court upheld the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, which was a big blow to Lessig. Even more recently still Joi Ito’s weblog pointed me to a NYT article by Lessig that challenges Congress to revise its stance on copyright extensions. 

As I wrote before, this seems like a very reasonable way to handle copyrights. A similar system is already in place for patents, after all.

I applaud Lessig’s drive and hope that Congress will look into this matter more seriously (though the cynic in me doubts that it will).

I also can understand why the Supreme Court ruled the way it did. It is not the Court’s job to strike down laws that are wrong, but only those that are manifestly unconstitutional. In order to strike this extension act down, it would need to be clear that all previous copyright extensions were unconstitutional as well. 

I am quite curious, however, how the Court would regard something like the USA PATRIOT Act, which I view as more than merely unconstitutional—it’s just downright sinister!

Upon reading the ACLU’s technology and privacy report, ”Bigger Monster, Weaker Chains: The Growth of an American Surveillance Society,” I couldn’t help but make the following observations.

Why Us?

Perhaps I am just dense, but I have yet to understand why anti-terrorism measures like the ones the proposed in this report are directed at American citizens in the first place. Why does the government feel that it needs greater surveillance powers over us?

If it’s gonna happen, do it right for a change!

Many of the things included in this report will probably come about; I think that’s inevitable. The important thing is that the government implement these things sensibly, with adequate checks and balances to prevent the abuse of authority (something noticeably absent in the Bush administration’s view of government: “Trust us, we’re your leaders! We would never do anything bad.")

If these things are going to be done in the name of making the country a safer place, there needs to be more light and less heat coming from Congress. The issue should not be politicized for the benefit of one party’s election strategy. It should not be wrapped in terms of false patriotism. It should be discussed with all the care and deliberation that went into the crafting of the Constitution itself. Anything less should be considered a treasonous offense!

Wouldn’t this be a big setback for modern civilization?

Once people began to realize exactly how closely their every transaction was being watched, I bet a lot of people would start using cash—or even barter!—to prevent their day-to-day activities from being held against them someday. Isn’t that exactly the opposite of where we would like society to go?

The Supreme Court upheld the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, which brings us one step closer to the complete and total corporate domination of everyday life in the United States.

This was an unfortunate loss for Larry Lessig, whose opinions on the matter strike me as extraordinarily reasonable. Unfortunately, America has no place for reason these days. Let corporate interests prevail—to hell with the public domain!

This is just one of many things that should, but doesn’t, provoke massive protests in the U.S. these days (the regular erosion of fundamental liberties being another). What’s wrong with my compatriots? Lack of awareness?

An article at Wired reports that nearly two dozen municipalities around the country are taking steps to counter the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act, a piece of legislation that I feel should never have even been presented to Congress, much less passed.

Very glad to see that communities are making attempts to alert citizens to the fact that freedom itself is coming under attack--not by Al Qaeda, but by the Bush administration!

Will citizens remember come 2004? I hope so.

I wonder this a lot these days. It seems to me that all decisions about matters of U.S. policy are now being determined exclusively by political interests. Sound, principled leadership is conspicuous only in its absence. 

Examples of this behavior can be found in the administration’s limp economic policy, its milking of the “war on terror” for political gain, and, most recently, with the coy manner in which it has dodged the Lott Issue. Clinton says that the Republican agenda is inimical to everything America stands for. Although some of that can be dismissed as partisan opportunism, I don’t think he is too far off the mark. 

I feel very strongly that the nature of U.S. politics these days are more about appealing to a very narrow range of special interests than it is about doing what is best for our country. Because of this, narrow-minded groups that can mobilize voters during elections are poised to benefit from the greatest kickback of all: complete control of America, forever. These groups rarely represent mainstream American thinking, but you wouldn’t know that from looking at current U.S. policy.

It is for this reason that I sincerely hope that everyone who is entitled to vote in the 2004 elections actually does so. It’s time to take control of our government back from these special interests, but we can only do it if we all do it.