the 20% rule
Edwards in CA: around 20%
Khanna in the 12th: around 20%
Free culture in the Supreme Court (Eldred v. Ashcroft): around 20%
| Permalink | technorati
« The Granick Slate | Main | wisdom from the north »
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://lessig.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1202
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference the 20% rule:
» Congrats to Barak from Marc's Voice
Barak breaks the 20% rule . [Read More]
Comments (7)
Anti-Eisner vote Roy Disney aimed for: 20%
Vote he got: 43%
Hi, I've read your article on legalaffairs.org about "Eldred v. Ashcroft". One thing that bothers me is that I recently heard Michael Hart of project Gutenberg saying that he wasn't happy with your proposed way into this affair and that's why he was not on the case. Is there an article or URL on what the dissent was? With your latest writings in mind, was he right?
Thank you in advance,
Laurent
http://www.planetebook.com/mainpage.asp?webpageid=376
"Eldred v. Ashcroft was originally drafted as Hart V. Reno, but the lawyers, Lessig & co, wouldn't include one word of mine in the case, so I fired them."
For of all sad words
of tongue or pen,
the saddest are these,
"It might have been!".
-John Greenleaf Whittier (1807-1892).
In addition to Seth Finkelstein's comment,
here is another URL about the conflict
between Michael Hart and lawyer team:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.10/lessig_pr.html
Search for the name "Hart" to find the
relevant paragraph.
Commenting on the question posed by Laurent
Guerby, personally, I don't think that Michael
Hart would make any difference if he were the
plaintiff. I think that you have to understand
the atmosphere of the society and the Supreme
Court is not immune to it. The current
atmosphere is heavily entrenched in intellectual
property rights. The public domain is not
recognized by the general population (at least
for now) as the most important part of the
freedom of knowledge. As a fine example of this,
take a look at the scientists who resisted
against the House Bill 2613 which would place the
scientific works that are largely supported by
federal tax in the public domain.
Secondly, the general population - I am speaking
about the lay people, not the very minority who
live in ivory tower - easily recognize the
hypocrisy in people who want to eliminate the
copyright term extension. It is like a person
long time ago who said that he opposed slavery
and yet owned slaves. Like the history for
eliminating the slavery in the U.S., it will
take several generations for the society to
have the full appreciation of the public domain
that the population will have the will to
scale down the scope and power of the intellectual
property rights, if they choose that path.
As the saying goes, Rome wasn't built in one
day.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
<riolo@voicenet.com>
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions
in this comment in the public domain.
All you people are crying that you lost the case: Boo hoo. I don't think you realize that the solution is to simply campaign for a law that will reduce copyright length.
After we have that I think the next step would be to amend the constitution (since trying to amending the constitution willy nilly seems to be popular these days ;) ) to put major restrictions on the ability for copyright extentions.
Many would help support this reduction law as well. The cable companies would as it means more profit for them (and any content providers) since they no longer have to pay the content tax. A large majority of the 'illegal' mp3 swappers would also be in favor of this too. People who believe in balance would also want it reduced as it seems copyright law has swung much too far in favor of corporate interests.
Any members of the green party read this blog? Would incorporating a copyright reduction stance be something that your party would do?
I was wondering when Lopez and Morrison would come up in the public domain / copyright issue. They're really cases that should be used in challenging a good deal of Federal power before Rehnquist kicks the bucket.
I remember first reading about them, I glowed for hours, it felt as if I had unlocked a treasure chest. If only I could petition myself. In due time, in due time.
By the way, I just sent in my transfer application to Stanford Undergrad, citing you as one of the reasons I would like to attend.
Perhaps Ro Khanna received less than 20% of the vote because people respect and admire Tom Lantos? Perhaps it's due to the fact that he founded the Congressional Human Rights Caucus and has devoted his life to speaking out against injustice, persecution, and bigotry around the world? Or, just maybe, it's because Tom Lantos is a true progressive whose record on educational opportunity, environmental protection, and tax fairness is second to none? Read the record, Dr. Lessig.