[ga] Re: FC: Ayn Rand Institute denounces Eldred, Lessig as Marxists

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Declan, all stakeholders or other interested parties and
icannatlarge.org
members,

  Interesting stuff here Declan.  Our [INEGroup] members have been
following
this tuff for some time now, along with your articles ect. in the area
of
copyright.  Having some experience with Prof. Lessig, it is not
surprising
to hear such a denouncement from some sectors and SIG's.  But Prof.
Lessig
is certainly not a Marxist.  As a very strong activist and supporter
free
speech
on the internet and elsewhere, Prof. Lessig has been certainly
controversial
in some sectors and amongst a number of SIG's that are anti-freespeach
to be sure!  EFF for instance has a very good overview of some of the
actual history of this ongoing struggle to protect free speech and not
use copyright's to thwart free speech.  See: http://www.eff.org/br/
Blue Ribbon campaign for instance.

  We at INEGroup have been long engaged in stamping out CENSORSHIP
wherever we may find it at some great risk to a small number of our
members
in China for instance, where such efforts are quite risky.  Our STAMP
OUT
CENSORSHIP campaign has met with some stiff resistance amongst
copyright proponents even in the US, but less so in the EU.  None the
less
our members are not daunted or dissuaded, in fact are only more resolved
to bringing free speech and no censorship to all freedom and democratic
principal loving peoples all over the world, and especially on the
internet
despite the skewed efforts and destructive tactics or over zealous
copyright
proponents.

Declan McCullagh wrote:

> [I read the prohibition on sending this to the media as the Ayn Rand
> Institute wish to control the republication as an op-ed piece in
> newspapers, a not-unprecedented request. Background:
> http://www.politechbot.com/cgi-bin/politech.cgi?name=eldred --Declan]
>
> ---
>
> Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 21:49:59 -0400
> Subject: Fwd: Ayn Rand Institute on copyright
> From: Scott Johnson <viruspublishing@mindspring.com>
> To: declan@well.com
>
> I've been an avid "Politechnical" for a while and thought you might
> find this "interesting" ...Lawrence Lessig is a Marxist!
> of note especially is the prohibition of sending this to the media!? I
> think it's notable that the "Randists" (and Rand herself to a certain
> extent) have been known to use of copyright law to quell criticism in a
> manner similar to the Scientologists.
>
> --------------------------
> Begin forwarded message:
> --------------------------
>
> From: "Ayn Rand Institute Media" <davidh@aynrand.org>
> Date: Mon Oct 7, 2002  8:10:04 PM US/Eastern
> To: <Op-ed.list@heroic.aynrand.org>
> Subject: WOULD-BE INTELLECTUAL VANDALS GET THEIR DAY IN THE SUPREME
> COURT
> Reply-To: davidh@heroic.aynrand.org (David Holcberg)
>
> Op-Ed from the Ayn Rand Institute
>
> WOULD-BE INTELLECTUAL VANDALS GET THEIR DAY IN THE SUPREME COURT
>
> Those who are spearheading the current legal challenge to the copyright
> law favor intellectual cannibalism masquerading as creativity and free
> speech.
>
> By Amy Peikoff, J.D.
>
>          In 1998 Congress, pursuant to its Constitutional power to
> determine the duration of federal copyright protection, passed a law
> extending the term of that protection by 20 years. This law brought
> United States copyright protection in line with that already afforded
> in
> Europe. In addition, as the average life expectancy in the United
> States
> now exceeds 70 years, the law brings copyright protection in line with
> the legal vehicle for the posthumous control of tangible property--the
> law of testamentary trusts, which bases the term of such control on a
> human lifespan.
>
>          Despite the reasonableness of this law, Stanford professor
> Lawrence Lessig is spearheading a legal challenge to it, culminating in
> his argument before the Supreme Court this Wednesday. Lessig, who seems
> to have become, in the words of New York Times writer Amy Harmon, "a
> rock star for the digital liberties set," is expected to argue that the
> law is "overly restrictive of the free-speech rights of would-be users
> of copyrighted material that previously would have been in the public
> domain."
>
>          In recent decades we have already seen the "right to free
> speech" extended to mean the "right" to be provided with a free
> platform
> for one's speech. Anyone who dares to be successful enough to own a
> property where the public enjoys gathering--e.g., a shopping mall--is
> for that reason compelled to allow people to speak on that property.
> "Free" speech thus means: free of any need to earn one's own physical
> instrumentalities or audience, or even to pay for the right to borrow
> someone else's achievements.
>
>          Lessig would have the Supreme Court extend this perversion of
> free speech to mean: free of any need to pay for the borrowing of
> someone else's greatest achievement: original thought. Or worse: free
> of
> any need sufficiently to digest that original thought so as to be able
> to put it into one's own words. Appropriating and parroting the
> creation
> of others is now, according to Lessig, "free speech."
>
>          Lessig and his allies try to downplay what they are doing by
> making it an issue of finances. They say things like, "the copyright
> law
> used to restrict only big business, which is fine--but now it restricts
> anyone who has access to the Internet." "Only 2 percent of works
> protected by copyright," they go on, "create a regular stream of income
> for their creators." Translation: only a small minority of "non-little"
> people will be hurt by repealing this law, so why not do it? This
> attack
> on money, success and big business--no doubt another symptom of the
> "Enron" era--is shameful and Marxist. How is the Court, as Lessig
> demands, to "balance the interests" of original thinkers against those
> for whom "creativity" consists of cannibalizing--and even
> vandalizing--the products of others' thought?
>
>          The government is expected to argue--properly--that the Supreme
> Court cannot arbitrarily impose a definition of "limited times." In
> other words, the power to set an appropriate time period for copyright
> protection lies with Congress. Congress has clearly been reasonable in
> its exercise of that power.
>
>          The other main argument offered by supporters of the 1998 law
> is
> that, in the long run, the law will promote creative work, and thus the
> national welfare, by offering higher profits to those who invest in it.
> This argument--based on the "public good" standard--is intellectually
> bankrupt and doomed to failure. Opponents simply counter that more
> creativity will be fostered by allowing people to obtain and build upon
> existing works. Many "conservatives," such as Milton Friedman, use the
> same "public good" standard to argue that the incremental economic
> payoff provided by the 1998 law is not significant enough to encourage
> creativity.
>
>          Anyone who raises the standard of the "public good" in this
> context had better be ready to have his rights in any field adjudicated
> according to the latest iteration of Jeremy Bentham's utilitarian
> calculus. In practice, this means according to the premises,
> preferences, and whims of the judge sitting before him.
>
>          An artist or intellectual is often not only or even primarily
> concerned to reap the monetary benefits of his works; in addition, he
> wants to be sure that the integrity of the work is protected against
> mutilation as long as possible. This is especially true if the work
> conveys an important artistic or philosophic message. If those in the
> "digital liberties set" plan to have a field day with others' works of
> creative genius--bastardizing them into whatever fragments they find
> appealing, adding any distorting content they choose, then blasting the
> results all over the internet--what is the point of trying to convey to
> the world one's own vital viewpoint? What is the reward offered for
> trying painstakingly to create one's vision of truth or of the ideal
> universe, and to invite readers to share in it, if our nation's highest
> court gives Lessig's gang a formal sanction to practice intellectual
> vandalism on the finished product?
>
> _______________________________________________________________________ _
> ___________________________________________________
> Amy Peikoff, J.D., is a senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute in
> Irvine, CA. The Ayn Rand Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand,
> author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. Send responses to:
> reaction@aynrand.org
>
> ------------------------
> Unsubscribing
> ------------------------
> You have received this message as a result of submitting your e-mail
> address at ARI's Web site. If you would like to unsubscribe, simply
> send
> a blank e-mail message to unsubscribe.op-ed@aynrand.org and you will be
> automatically removed from the list.
>
> ---------------------------
> Redistributing this article
> ---------------------------
> Please feel free to forward this requested press release to friends,
> family, associates or interested parties who would want to receive it.
> Do not send the piece to media with the view that they might publish
> it.
> All such contact and permissions must come from the Ayn Rand Institute
> (ARI).
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
> You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
> To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
> This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
> Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/
> Recent CNET News.com articles: http://news.search.com/search?q=declan
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html