Comcast's Revolting Tactics

Yesterday a really important meeting was held at Harvard to discuss net neutrality. Among the speakers were FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, US Rep. Markey, Yochai Benkler and David Cohen, EVP of Comcast.

Comcast's throttling of BitTorrent traffic was the impetus for this meeting and they were obviously under fire from a lot of powerful critics. At this open meeting, Comcast did something so despicable that I would cancel any money I pay them, did I actually pay them for anything.

After rumors swirled throughout the meeting that Comcast had paid disinterested people as seat-fillers, they finally came out an confirmed that, in fact, they did. Truly interested individuals were blocked from entering as these paid seat-warmers slept through the important meeting. See here and here.

Head over here to contact Comcast and let them know how ridiculous their tactics are.

Draft Lessig

Lawrence Lessig is my intellectual hero. His books opened my eyes to this topic of copyright reform and have shaped my interests for the past 4 years. Last year, he announced that he would be shifting his focus of study away from copyright to political corruption. This was a great loss for the community, but terribly important for the country.

Now, following the death of Lessig's Congressman Tom Lantos, a movement has started to "Draft Lessig" into the special election being held April 8th. The Facebook group already has 1,000 members.

In an age when Congress is making wrongheaded decisions involving Constitutional matters, it is of the utmost importance to have someone of Lessig's intellect, honesty and knowledge in Congress. Let's hope he runs.

Meanwhile Across the Pond

The Guardian reports that in the UK,

"The government has devised an electronic database to track every teenager from the age of 14, recording their personal details, every exam result and exclusions. The database will be accessible to employers, teachers and training agencies, and will include an online CV. The record will be permanent."

Obviously this is contingent to their ability to gather that information. Luckily most of it is already given to the government and that which isn't, I'm sure their US colleagues would love to give it to them.

So much for youthful indiscretion remaining in youth...

The Senate Surrenders Its Duty to America

I think now, after the Senate has voted to immunize the telecom companies from judiciary oversight, is the time to recall the words of Yale Law Professor Jack Balkin:

"Do not be mistaken: We are not hurtling toward the Gulag or anything that we have seen before. It will be nothing so dramatic as that. Rather, we are slowly inching, through each act of fear mongering and fecklessness, pandering and political compromise, toward a world in which Americans have increasingly little say over how they are actually governed, and increasingly little control over how the government collects information on them to regulate and control them. Slowly, secretly and imperceptibly, the mechanisms of government surveillance are being freed from methods of political control and accountability; and the liberties of ordinary citizens are being surgically removed under a potent anesthesia concocted from propaganda, fear, ignorance and apathy."

I Have a Dream

I am a constitutionalist. Specifically, I think the American Constitution is an awe-inspiring document of magisterial purpose and effect. More generally, I think thoughtful political and philosophical understanding can lead to foundations for governance which will lead to more just and peaceful societies.

In the American Constitution, as many know, resides the cornerstone of intellectual property law. Article I, Section 8 includes the uniquely specific clause allowing Congress to "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

Though statutory updates have diluted the purpose, it remains clear: copyrights and patents exist to provide incentives for creators.

Today, while watching Lewis Hyde's presentation on the cultural commons, I learned that Martin Luther King, Jr.'s creative works are under copyright. While this isn't surprising in itself, apparently the King family aggressively protects the copyrights to such works as the Reverend's famed "I Have a Dream" speech. In fact, it has gone so far in the past as to sue USA Today for reproducing the speech.

This isn't because they don't want people to hear the content or the important message, it is because they want to monetize it. This older Washington Post article covers the past uses of MLK, Jr.'s work for enrichment of the family. In 1997, they raised the ire of a number of people when they struck a multi-million dollar deal with Time Warner to sell audio tapes and books of his work.

Insofar as the family is acting within the law, I have no problem. However, the law which allows them to do so is at serious odds with the Constitution and common sense. For one, they claim that deals such as the Time Warner one "would... bring King's message to a wider audience." This is dishonest and wrong. MLK needs no distribution that the Internet cannot provide. Making his work commercial does nothing more than raise the cost of accessing his historic work and thus disenfranchising those who want to learn about the struggle to which he devoted his life.

Secondly, this serves to show how overtly at-odds with the Constitution our current copyright regime is. Martin Luther King, Jr. did not need a monetary incentive to write his speeches. Like all humans, he was diversely motivated. The inequity of America and his desire to change it, his dream, as it were, was motivation enough. The fact that his heirs, who did not create the work, are able to limit access is infuriating.

The "I Have a Dream" speech and other creative, political expressions of MLK, Jr. are indisputably the "useful arts" that the Framers wanted to encourage. Yet it is the tragedy of our day that those same Framers who wanted limited intellectual monopoly rights have seen their dream turn into today's copyright nightmare.

Ben Franklin on Intellectual Property

In his Autobiography, Ben Franklin writes,

"As we enjoy great Advantages from the Invention of Others, we should be glad of an Opportunity to serve others by any Invention of ours, and this we should do freely and generously."

It doesn't get more clear than that.

Privacy vs. Security

Are privacy and security at odds as this cartoon depicts? Security guru Bruce Schneier doesn't think so.

EFF Profile

I can think of no organization for which I have more respect than the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Since its inception 18 years ago, the EFF has protected the rights of Americans in the digital age. Their expertise and foresight allows them to take cases that will have radical implications in the future. I highly recommend becoming a member to support their efforts.

In recent months, the EFF has risen to national prominence as they sue ATT for collaborating in the illegal warrantless wiretapping of American citizens. This is a topic I've discussed before, but now California Lawyer has a profile of both the case and the EFF as an organization. It is well worth a read.

Keith Olbermann on Telecom Immunity