Lessig

So I didn't make many friends in the Obama campaign when I suggested his campaign was Self-Swiftboating Obama -- acting in a way that undercut his most important character. But (as an Obama supporter), I am really pleased (if as one-time admirer of McCain, saddened) to see that McCain is out-doing Obama in this respect, big time.

Below are a brace of ads by Brave New Film (on whose board I sit) and MoveOn.org that make the substance of the point well. Here's the Self-Swiftboating analysis:

McCain's strongest feature as a candidate was the perception that he was a no bullshitting, straight talking, truth speaking maverick. Though I was an admirer, I never quite saw the image as true. (I wrote about an extraordinary exchange I saw with him and Zittrain last year.) But that's certainly what makes people like and respect him -- and what distinguished him so completely from Mitt "I'm running so I need to be a Rightwinger" Romney, and Rudy "I'm running so I need to be a Rightwinger" Giuliani.

But now, McCain's acting in a way that will turn off this base completely. The absurdity of the flip-flop on off-shore drilling, and the shameful suggestion that this is a solution to the problem of high gas prices (all after he had met with oil execs, and then received a huge influx of campaign cash from the same), and the totally baseless charge that Obama's decision not to visit troops was motivated by the unavailability of the press coverage: Shame on you, Senator. But please, don't stop now!

On the Change-Congress.org blog, I've got a piece about the absurdity in this prosecution of Senator Ted Stevens:

On Tuesday, Senator Ted Stevens was indicted by federal prosecutors for failing to report gifts he had received from an oil company to help him renovate his Alaskan home. The charges were not a surprise, though official Washington mustered its collective, and requisite outrage. Senators Dole and Sununu were quick to return campaign contributions from the now-tainted Stevens. Editorials across the nation were quick to condemn the obvious graft targeted by the government.

But I confess, I don't get it. Not that I don't see the wrong in what Stevens has done. That's obvious. What's not obvious to me is why this wrong is so different from everything else that DC thinks is right.

Thanks to Theo Armour for cleaning up the html version of my Declaration for Independence. You can see his version here.

I posted the last post thanking Theo Armour for his html version of A Declaration for Independence just before getting on the plane in Tokyo. When I arrived back in the states, I received two revisions of his revision.

The first, by Ben Kerney, corrects some character encoding problems, and places the text is a clearer outline frame.

The second, by Matthew Levine, also corrects the character encoding problem, and very nicely fits the typography of the pdf version.

Both version also cleaned up a problem with the notes. But upon my return, I found another version from Theo Armour fixing the problem with the notes. (I've replaced the original version in the original post with this version as well).

Ok, so first, thank you to all for the help. But now let's move the revisions to the wiki. I have used a simple html2wiki conversion tool to create a draft on wiki.lessig.org. The wiki's spam filter choked on the notes, so the first major fix would be a fix for the notes. But then I'm eager to see how the substance develops.

The link on the wiki is wiki.lessig.org/Declaration4Independence.

Meanwhile, I'll probably build a v2.0 of this Declaration, building on the ideas of the wiki and other ideas I've collection. But for now, thank you again to everyone who helped seed this for the web.

Update: Here also is a LaTeX version. (Thanks, Valentin!)

Just returning from the iCommons Summit in Sapporo, Japan. The Free Beer project made a showing, with a locally brewed version. But this ad caught my eye: "Free Beer" for "500 yen."

We're now at the stage where (at least some) the RMS conception of "free" is clear enough so that even "free beer" is "free as in free speech" such that a price running with the free beer seems (again, to a select set no doubt) perfectly natural.

This is (I expect) the last book I'll write in this field. Dedicated to Lyman Ray Patterson and Jack Valenti, it pushes three ideas -- (1) that this war on our kids has got to stop, (2) that we need to celebrate (and support) the rebirth of a remix culture, and (3) that a new form of business (what I call the "hybrid") will flourish as we better enable this remix creativity.

I wrote this book last year. Many of the themes were described in 18 minutes in my TED talk. I am very eager to have it out.

You can get notified when it is out on Amazon.

Readers of these pages will have been burdened with version after version of my talks about corruption and the Change Congress movement. This Wednesday, in San Jose, I'll give a final 20+ minute spin on this, and then release the source material at Change-Congress.org for others to take and build upon.

The live event will be at the Commonwealth Club, San Jose. Here's the link for information.

Here's a talk I gave at the iCommons Summit in Sapporo Japan on July 30, 2008. Nothing new to readers here, but reframed a bit for the context.

So for non-lawgeeks, this won't seem important. But trust me, this is huge.

I am very proud to report today that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (THE "IP" court in the US) has upheld a free (ok, they call them "open source") copyright license, explicitly pointing to the work of Creative Commons and others. (The specific license at issue was the Artistic License.) This is a very important victory, and I am very very happy that the Stanford Center for Internet and Society played a key role in securing it. Congratulations especially to Chris Ridder and Anthony Falzone at the Center.

In non-technical terms, the Court has held that free licenses such as the CC licenses set conditions (rather than covenants) on the use of copyrighted work. When you violate the condition, the license disappears, meaning you're simply a copyright infringer. This is the theory of the GPL and all CC licenses. Put precisely, whether or not they are also contracts, they are copyright licenses which expire if you fail to abide by the terms of the license.

Important clarity and certainty by a critically important US Court.

As if the decision upholding free licenses wasn't enough for one day, a New York Supreme Court (the highest trial court in New York) has denied Yoko Ono an injunction to stop the distribution of a film that uses a clip of Lennon's Imagine. Wonderfully, the Court explicitly refuses to follow the 6th Circuit's "no de minimis" rule sound recordings, and holds that there is fair use under New York's common law copyright regime. Read the more good news here.

A reaction to McCain's recently announced technology policy. (Stupidly unclear in the video: the initial graph is U.S.'s global ranking in broadband penetration -- so starting high (#5) in 2000, and declining to #22 by 2008. The rankings are based on OECD data.)

There's also a version at YouTube (but please watch in "high quality").

(I resisted the cheap shot "[sic]" at "and free to chose among broadband service providers." Will someone please get them to fix this?)

[Update: Here's a slightly edited transcript of the video (which steals Michael McDaniel's brilliant title)

My contribution to the "Free the Airwaves" campaign, a push to free spectrum "whitespaces."

Free Press (and others) alleged that Comcast was blocking the BitTorrent application. We've known for sometime the result in this case (because of the weird practice of the FCC to release the results of an order without necessarily releasing the order). But at the crack of dawn (California time) today, the Commission released its 34 page order.

It is fantastically well done. So much so that I felt compelled (in that weird lawyer like way) to blather my own 5 pages of thanks in a letter to the Commission that will be mailed today.

As I said about my McCain on Technology video, the opening graph is not well defined. Others said the same thing. Neither are the data provided. If I had all the time in the world, I would correct both in the video. I don't. So here's a clarification:

I am using a hybrid of the ITU data (2000-2007) and OECD data (1997-1999) in my analysis, but only the latter in the chart. You can see a spreadsheet with both here. The numbers (#5, #22) refer to the U.S. ranking for broadband penetration over that period. OECD doesn't have exactly the same analysis, but because there are relatively few countries with broadband penetration of any significance, it is easy to calculate that broadband penetration for the US goes from #2 to #22 from 1997 through 2007.

The Communication Workers of America have a new site and study to bolster the embarrassing state of US broadband quality. You can download their 50 state survey here. Far as I can tell, the simplest explanation for broadband speed is this: How close are you to DC regulators. The closer you are, the better your broadband. Not a perfect predictor, but pretty good.

The Democrats have a HD broadcast of their convention, but only on some platforms, through a Microsoft product. Those fortunate enough to own the most modern technology (and (contrary to the norm) fortunate enough to have fast broadband) can get full convention coverage.

The rest of America (to the extent they care, and the point may be related) are stuck with broadcasters coverage. From NPR to the networks, "coverage" means some ridiculous unprepared interview with a party has-been, while a prepared speech by someone currently significant is being given in the background. (e.g., Jim Leach, former GOP Congressman from Iowa, speaking in the background as NPR interviews Walter Mondale. Leach's speech was fantastic. Mondale's, well, you get the point.)

Please, networks, and especially, NPR, can you please just cover the convention -- both the Democratic and Republican. Obviously, it is party propaganda. But it is also American politics. It is ridiculous that the only people who actually get to see what each party believes it should say are those who are at the Convention, or those with powerful computers and fast technology.

A FreeSoul by Joi

Caterina Fake, co-founder of Flickr, has joined the Creative Commons board. News at CC.

Obama has famously (and rightfully) refused money from lobbyists and PACs. After he became the presumptive nominee, the DNC did the same. But both the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee still accept money from lobbyists and PACs.

As this issue of reform is (sadly) increasingly invisible in this campaign, we at Change Congress are launching a campaign to get the Dems to be consistent about this.

Ideally, the DSCC and DCCC should follow Obama's lead, and swear off lobbyists & PAC money. Or at the very least, both should promise to do so if the Republicans do.

We've started a petition. Please help spread it.

On your way to legal academics? Need some time to write, as you do some good? The Stanford CIS (fresh off of a string of incredible victories) needs a new fellow with a particular fondness for the First Amendment and IP. Specs in the extended entry below.