valuable views
Dave Winer has rightly and nicely called for the presidential candidates to say something clear and strong about the internet and how they would propose to keep it free. And he's right that we don't yet have clear and strong positions from anyone about issues that are important to preserving the internet's freedom. On this blog, Kucinich, Dean and Edwards have all questioned the media consolidation. But only Kucinich and Edwards have tried to wade into the intellectual property debate (and what both have said is useful and good).
That took some courage. Yet to many in the Democratic party, it showed foolishness. I've had literally scores of people write me to tell me not to push Dean or anyone else to speak clearly about issues related to IP (note to readers: fear not, all my demands of candidates for the presidency are ignored) -- "don't do anything to scare away Hollywood."
This always spins me down. I'm just returning from a conference in Italy where a totally establishment collection of leaders from political parties, and business, were describing the progress to spread open and free software throughout Europe -- not to the exclusion of proprietary software, but as an equal competitor -- and describing the importance of balance in IP. It was a meeting totally unimaginable in the US. Meanwhile, back in the US, the leader of the New Democrats (Adam Smith) is promoting legislation to ban the GPL from government research, and the Democratic party is afraid to say anything balanced and sensible about IP related issues.
What made this campaign fun at the start was the thought that finally, a Democrat would wage a campaign where he said what was right and true, as the only way to win the passion of a generation. Yet apparently, cautious and careful have returned. Maybe that's necessary to win a campaign -- I have no clue about that. But if that is so, I am sorry it is necessary.
| Permalink | technorati
Comments (28)
Remember, the candidate, bar none, seriously, who did the most to encourage positive development of the Internet, was Al Gore. And we know what happened to him!
Is it so surprising the presidential candidates are timid, when they have that experience to instruct them?
I also wish candidates would develop comprehensive IP platforms. I don't think IP is really a partisan issue. It seems to be more of which legislator represents the geographic area where an IP holder's HQ is to be found. So, senators from New Jersey want drug patents to last forever and congressmen from southern California want copyrights never to expire.
The issue of drug patents matters because of generics. (Too bad we cannot rename 'generic' drugs to 'public domain' drugs.) Generics both help seniors get drugs at prices they can afford, and also helps insurance companies and governments save money buying them. An issue that affects big companies, seniors and governments is naturally going to get the attention of candidates (as it has with Sen. Edwards).
But where is the constituency that will either provide votes or money on other IP issues? All I see is lots of money from IP holders vs. 10K signatures on the Edlred Act. We need something like the AARP, but for free culture.
I too would add my call for a clear and comprehensive Internet policy, and a clear and comprehensive intellectual property policy.
I thought months ago that we would finally get some Democrat to stand up and say what is right. Finally. I thought Dean might be the man. Maybe Kucinich.
Alas, it seems that only republicans play to win. We Democrats still seem to play to avoid loosing. I'm getting more discouraged by the day. I must say that I'm ashamed of the DNC in particular. The people want leaders. If only the republicans offer leaders, that's who the people will pick. It's really that simple.
What about Nader? He says what he believes in, he did it before now, he's done something about apparently all the issues you have (except, perhaps, for open spectrum -- but he's probably in favor of that too).
Shouldn't we encourage him to join the Democratic primaries?
That's a very good point, Aaron. I hadn't thought of Nader. He seems just like the kind of guy who'd have a gutsy IP platform.
Yes, we should. Don't worry, I've been reading what you have to say.
Yes, we should. Don't worry, I've been reading what you have to say.
Yes, we should. Don't worry, I've been reading what you have to say.
My apologies for that.
Larry, I'm curious why you state that no candidate is willing to take a stand for truth. On your blog, Kucinich described standing up against Energy companies, at a serious risk to his own life, not to mention his political career. He is firmly standing for public good over corporate interests in health, military, genetically modified foods, free software, free content, free airtime for federal candidates, instant runoff voting, audit trails for election.... The problem that we have is not a problem of the candidates, it's the way voting has been framed in our country. We are conditioned to believe that the public would never vote for a candidate that has the peoples best interest in mind and we only get one vote. So, we end up putting our support behind those who aren't willing to speak our truth. We are the problem. If we just stood up for our beliefs, we might find 50 million more voters at the polls. We the people need to stand up and support the candidates who we believe are speaking the truth, those w
The error that Henri notes has been recycled all over the place recently. Notably in the latest Economist, the article states that Dean is the only candidate to come out unequivocally against the war. That is simply not a true statement. How can Kucinich step beyond of the "idealist candidate" ghetto?
Seth, of course the inventor of the internet made a contribution. j/k
I too find it repellent that a candidate, not to mention his "grass-roots" support, would be so reactionary and beholden to the Holywood establishment while at the same time hostile to the much more relevant beltway establishment.
If the run-up to the Iraq war showed anything, conservatives have utter contempt for Hollywood, and liberals generally don't disagree, but find such criticism pointless.
Paul
I have to make one small correction to Paul's last statement..
If the run-up to the Iraq war showed anything, conservatives have utter contempt for anyone who does not agree with them , and liberals generally don’t disagree, but find such criticism pointless.
It's not just Hollywood.
Honestly, though, won't the next president have more important things on her desk than worrying over the commercial destiny of a communications network. There are bigger issues in the world than TCP/IP.
Ban the GPL from government research? Is this Smith guy kidding? Who does he think paid for the bloody research? THE AMERICAN PEOPLE! Its not his money. Its my money. Its your money.
I wish the Bush Administration would come out with a stance on these issues that LLessig mentions in the post. More competition is better than less. Free markets are better than controlled markets. The best way to balkanize the internet and kill its potential is to tax it, overregulate it, let these professional politicians (liars and thieves on both sides of the aisle) get their grubby little hands on it. Of course the White House wont because silence is better than taking a stand either way.
As an evil republican(we all want to poison the environment, starve kids, end midnight basketball, make old people choose between food and drugs), this drives me nuts.
Hey Larry - they are all whores. You are too smart not to realize that. They all lie. They all steal. Bush is not better or worse than Clinton. Or Regan or Carter.
Well, I am sure you don't really believe all conservatives have contempt for all people that disagree with them, regardless of the way your post sounds when read aloud, the point is that Hollywood for the left, if such a ting exists and when it talks, is the embarassing uncle. They never really felt the need to defend actual members and their ludicrous comments, but rather took a more general defense of "freedom of dissent". This is because, basically, they agreed with the right's, the other blob label, attacks, at least on the level that Hollywood stars are undereducated, overpaid, arrogant, ultra-biased loudmouths, but with one difference: unlike the right, the left gets nice little donation checks from this group.
The irony seems to be that, aside from Bush, Dean is the only candidate that can raise serious money with the new 2K per person system, and that system, which renders huge contributors from the left coast much less relevant, will eventually make cries to "not scare Hollywood" seem utterly ridiculous, if they don't already do so.
Honestly, if they can't give 500K or so, what do these people offer the Democratic party besides ill-informed superficial calls to an inconsistent morality they themselves have no intention of observing?
Paul
People are affraid of the unkown, nobody knows how to control it. Nobody can take a solid stance on it. Maybe the best answer is just to let it evolve entirely unregulated. Maybe they fear if they really try to regulate it, it will openly display the fraud they are. Certainly the rapid feedback loops would have to scare any politician making loud ignorant statemetns on the topic
I'll back my argument with bills I think are relevant to discuss on this blog. Under Clinton/Gore we got: the 1996 Telecommunications Act, the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. A number of Democrats (perhaps a majority) supported each of these pieces of legislation.
The 1996 Telecommunications Act was a big step toward the media homogenization many groups across a broad political spectrum (rightly) rail against today. I don't need to tell any of you the problems with the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act or the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Given these examples, precisely how can I justify supporting the Democrats? Just by saying they're the lesser of the only two parties we are allowed to hear from in televised debates?
Changing the Democrats from within is virtually impossible because they have too many voters who are kept ignorant of alternatives and the Democrats will take corporate campaign cash and favors just like the Republicans.
Dennis Kucinich deserves applause.
I still don't think there is a partisan angle to IP yet. Sure, Clinton was president when a lot of unfortunate IP bills / regs were enacted. But I don't think it had to do with party. Does anyone have evidence it was? Do I think that Bush wouldn't have signed the DMCA? I have no reason to believe he wouldn't have.
And to answer the point brought up by the three blind mice above, who said, "..won’t the next president have more important things on her desk than worrying over the commercial destiny of a communications network. There are bigger issues in the world than TCP/IP."
There might not be many more important issues for her [Ms. Braun?] to deal with! :-) The internet is changing the world - from bringing knowledge and jobs to far-flung places to eating away at totalitarian states. We will probably look back 100 years from now and think, "the 'net really did change everything." It would be nice to have a president who sees that. (To be honest, I think Gore would have.)
Free Software and Open Source are getting support from governments in asia also.in india atleast one state government has decided to use this option for computersing government departments.and there are initiatives to bring computing in regional languages using linux.for example Tamil, my mother tongue is spoken not only in india but also in sri lanka,singapore and malaysia and the tamil disapora is spread all over the world.so as a collaborative exercise a linux that could be used by someone who knows tamil (and
only tamil) is being developed.efforts are onway to build search engines,browesers etc that could support regional languages in india.most of these are using open source/free software model. and the President of India suppots open source. the tamil speaking population is about 7 crores.
I think the above post makes a good point that might be expanded upon...
If China, India, Africa and many other fast emerging computer using cultures continue to keep overhead costs low, ala Texas switching over (if I remember the state right) to open source, eventually many of the major lobbyists against a more open IP policy just might be obsolete, thus rendering this debate moot, at least in the long term.
I've been to China and talked to many Indians/Nepalese people, and they're fluent in Linux, and can't fathom paying millions of dollars for tech. infrastructure. If these countries become fully developed with this type of attitude in place, and codify IP laws along those lines, I see the US potentially deciding to follow suit once the mainstays here are seen as stagnant.
Paul
Ned Ulbricht wrote:
I agree. He doesn't represent the norm on major national issues for the Democratic party (NAFTA, illegal invasion of Iraq, and single-payer universal health care to name a few). I'm not yet sure how he voted on the CTEA, DMCA, and the 1996 Telecommunications Act. I would not mind seeing Nader run if Kucinich isn't the choice of the Democratic party.
Henri, I didn't say no candidate stands for truth. Indeed, Congressman Kucinich did a great deal of that standing on these pages. My only point is that all the pressure now pushes in the opposite way.
Just looking at the field, I think a number of the would-be Dem
nominees could be steered in the right direction on this issue. We just need to mobilize and hit them with a clear message.
Maybe a petition of sorts laying out the facts and key concerns, in simple yet precise terms (representing a push for steps in the right direction as opposed to 'radicalism'), should be set up for whatever pair gets the nod.
Included in the petition could be a "probable/estimated" running total of independent contributions -- a few dollars a head, shall we say, or whatever the signed participants specify -- to be pledged strictly on the condition of the nominee communicating an understanding of the issues and making it a part of their agenda. (All very imprecise and contingent on people's satisfaction w/the response on both sides, blah blah blah, but as an attention grabbing tool it might help underscore the need for consideration.)
Ed Lyons said:
Even if Bush would have, it was Clinton that did it. I don't see how what Bush would or wouldn't have hypothetically done makes Clinton (or the rest of the Democrats that agreed with Clinton) look any better. Let's not get lost in hypothetical arguments.
I still don't see how politicians awash in corporate cash are going to see these issues in favor of the public's interest, but I'm willing to help mobilize effort to bring this issue to the desks of anyone who will listen (which right now I'd say are certain Democrats and virtually any Greens). EndEd has an interesting post along that line.
The Dean campaign has put out a statement of Internet principles that will guide the development of Dean administration policy. Among them:
- 3. The Internet's value comes from its openness
- 4. The Internet’s openness should be promoted
- 5. The Internet is a democracy of voices, not primarily a broadcast medium
- 7. The Internet is just at the beginning -- we need to support the political and technological policies that will help the Internet grow to its true capacity as a force for democracy world-wide.
Whether will Dean will come out and mouth 'the right words' about Internet and IP policy at this stage of the campaign is not as important to me as whether his underlying ... architectural ... shall we say, approaches are sound. Given this statement and his entire approach to the campaign, he does seem to be heading in the right direction.
Does anyone have any information on Howard Dean's legislative history regarding Internet-related issues? I don't put stock in any candidate's declaration of intention. I rely on campaign financing data and legislative history to tell me where a candidate really stands.
I'm willing to give politicans room to change, but they have to show the change by how they vote on bills and where they get their campaign money before I'll believe them.
nice.