(**) “An argument is a connected series of statements intended to support a proposition. It’s not the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.” “Yes it is!”

Oh, and for some reason you think that asking people for email addresses that you cannot verify somehow does something for your blog. Go figure.

consistency among bodies of law is generally considered a good thing

Generally considered a good thing doesn’t mean that you vigourously do specifically stupid things for the sake of consistency. Find a better excuse (or see Emerson for a fun quote).

By the way, in citing Singapore as an example… who exactly died in Singapore? Nobody. A hysterical reaction was not required. Singapore obviously had no pressing need to implement U.S. law. I don’t see the U.S. running to pass laws that mimic those of other countries. Why does copyright induce ostensibly sovereign nations to jump?

Regarding the livelihood of little guys… if your citizenry decides to abolish slavery or capital punishment, should they stop because overseers and hangmen happen to make their livelihood in those trades? Should they just shut up about the whole issue?

For what it’s worth, do you think the recording industry is moderating their position after reflecting upon the financial needs of the little guy? Would that be reflected in a typical music contract? Is that reflected in efforts to exempt music contracts from bankruptcies? There is no moral imperative for the recording industry’s dominion over the past, the present and the future of music. What they are proposing, and to some extent attaining, is such a legislated right.

You can have copyright laws which serve all members of society but not when you have a single voice preparing those laws. It’s fundamentally unhealthy when the entire world is involved in unidimensional argument with one side being represented by full-time, experienced professionals backed by the deepest of pockets and having big stick leverage provided by their own government (a very big stick) and the other side being represented by no one. Who in Singapore argued the other side? Why are there only two sides (i.e. my way or the highway)? I sense that the U.S. is infatuated with the idea of, “You’re with us or against us!” but this is not useful when creating laws.

I’m starting to think that if we ever encounter an extra-terrestrial species, the first thing we’ll do is coerce them into adopting our copyright laws. Can’t have those Antarans listening to Britney.

p.s. For what it’s worth, I also believe that I lost a posting in the comments on Lessig’s site. Alas, I deleted the bookmark to it last night and can no longer remember the specifics. I did not suspect foul play however. I couldn’t imagine the gain.

==========

– “No one here but us lemmings, boss!”

It could also have been a DB error. MySQL, while it has its charms, is certainly not Oracle.

“The single dominant ethic in this [digital] community is that information wants to be free”. – Jon Katz

“I believe that all generally useful information should be free. By `free’ I am not referring to price, but rather to the freedom to copy the information and to adapt it to one’s own uses”. – Richard Stallman

Do I need to tell you who these folks are, and what they have to do with Free Software?

Milton Friedman wants to legalize crack, so this particular appeal to authority doesn’t move me,

If we’re going to play hunt-the-logical-fallacy, I can find you a quorum. #1: Do you believe that all, or even most, people opposing CTEA extensions are also in favor of legalizing crack? #2: Even if they were, would that make their opinions on the issue of copyright necessarily misguided? How are the two issues related?

and “information wants to be free” was the rallying cry of the anti-copyright/free software movement a few years ago.

#3: On the contrary, the Free software movement relies heavily on copyright for its own protection (otherwise non-Free software could incorporate Free code at will). #4: I doubt that any of the economists Lessig cited, for example, are members of either movement. #5: Lessig himself already explained that he’s “totally in favor of copyright protection”, so why are you still talking about the “anti-copyright … movement” at all?

It’s worth noting, finally, that “information wants to be free” is only one side of Stewart Brand’s original statement: “On the one hand information wants to be expensive, because it’s so valuable … On the other hand, information wants to be free, because the cost of getting it out is getting lower and lower all the time. So you have these two fighting against each other.”