Reasonably Logical

One of the strengths/weakness (depending on whom you ask) of copyright law has long been that the government had no real roll in enforcing it. If someone was misusing your copyright, it’s your job to find them, sue them, and prove your case. The only real help the government provides is the court room.

However, this may soon change. There is a bill being introduced in the Senate that would grant the US Attorney General the ability to file civil law suits and the responsibility to enforce copyright. While there are some pluses to the bill (mostly to copyright holders like music labels and movie studios) the consequences of the bill are quite scary.

First, the government has significantly more resources than even the richest company. And since the government is not out to make a profit, there’s no “it’s not worth it financially” incentive to restrict suits. As a result, were likely to find the number of enforcement suits going way up. Personally, I don’t like that idea much at all.

More importantly though, this is breaking into some significant new legal ground. Traditionally, the government has been (in theory at least) a neutral party in the battle* between consumer rights and corporate profits. This bill would bring the government down strongly on the “wrong” side of that battle. It sets the government up as the enforcer of corporate policy and profits. Equally importantly, the government has traditionally had no roll in the enforcement of civil law. This bill will be opening a while new legal arena in terms of government involvement and possible prosecution. Do you really want the government suing you for libel? (Say of George W Bush or Hillary Clinton?) We’re heading in that direction folks.

* Yes “battle” is a slightly inflammatory term, but can you truthfully tell me its become anything less?

Further Reading:

Senators Announce New Intellectual Property Enforcement Bill
Posted by Richard Esguerra of the Electronic Frontier Foundation

Some of the articles best quotes are:

The real “problem” may be that some so-called “offenses” can’t be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the standard for any crime. This new provision would allow the AG to sidestep that high burden of proof — a burden that gives the average citizen an important measure of protection from the overwhelming power of the government.

If the bill is passed, something as simple as taking your iPod to Mexico could be considered an infringement of the copyright owners’ distribution right.

Civil law (legal system)
From Wikipedia

Lawsuit
From Wikipedia

A few days ago, the folks over at the Business of Software blog posted an article on how the human minds tends to jump to conclusions. For me, this turned out to be a fairly timely article that I kept coming back to over the last couple of days.

This artificial experiment is an interesting illustration of a couple of human tendencies. First of all, we jump to conclusions. Secondly - more important, but also far more subtle - we tend to seek out evidence that confirms our hasty conclusions, rather than evidence that might contradict them.

At work, I often find myself trying to make educated guesses from very little information while trying to debug issues found in either QA or released code. One of the things I’ve gotten burnt by several times now is exactly the type of failure to test my initial conclusions that this article describes. I’ll be fairly convinced of my initial conclusion, mention it to someone else, and have them shoot (what were in retrospect) very obvious holes in my theory. As a result, I’ve been trying to apply a much more systemic approach to confirming my initial theories before taking them to anyone else. It’s been helping so far; at least when I remember it that is! Overall, I highly recommend this one for anyone who has to solve problems with insufficient information.

As for the Business of Software conference itself, man do I wish I could afford to attend. Sounds like it’ll be a blast, but at “only” $1495, that’s not going to happen anytime soon.

In just about every election I’ve voted in, its been a fair struggle just to get information about the issues on the ballot. Last fall, it wasn’t ’till I actually got to the polling place that I found out about one of the offices I was voting for. And this was after spending several *hours* the night before doing research and deciding my votes!

I don’t know about anyone else, but I consider that pretty damn ridiculous. I ran across this post from the blogger at the Open House Project who talks about his experiences in the recent PA primaries and pretty much came to the same conclusion.

The Open House Project is a site devoted to transparent government. (On in other words, we the citizens should know what sh*t our leaders are up to.) The guy who runs it often has some interesting blog posts, though its somewhat hit or miss. A lot of them I read and ignore, but others really make you think.

My first reaction to the article below was somewhere between “Are you kidding me?” and “Oy vey!”, but once I started thinking about I realized there’s more to it. This - and as much as I hate to say it the American Idol like shows of the last few years - have really starting changing how ‘talent’ is recognized. It used to be a studio would go out and recruit talent. Anyone who didn’t make the cut, didn’t make it. It didn’t matter how good you were, if you pissed off the studio you were sh*t out of luck. With this new style of porn the studio has no real say. If the audience thinks someone is good, they get paid. That totally changes the power dynamic and puts control in the hands of the consumers and actors. Now take the fact that the porn industry has historically led the rest of the economy by three to five years, then think about the implications of *that*.

Do It Yourself! Amateur Porn Stars Make Bank
Web Site Offers Real People Chance to Make Real Money by Making Pornography
By RUSSELL GOLDMAN, ABC News
Jan. 22, 2008

Just got done reading the article below. On one level, cool - it’ll be nice to be able to settle *that* argument conclusively. On the other hand, I couldn’t help dreading the idea of a gay/anti-gay drug. Am I the only one flashing back to the 3rd X-Men movie? You know someone is going to propose it for real at some point. Why do I think I know what radically anti-gay fundies are going to be proposing in a few years?

One question for those of you who actually read my blog: (there are some) Would you take an anti-gay drug? Or for that matter a gay-for-a-day drug? If so, why? Why not?

Study finds gay gene in fruit flies
SUMMARY: Scientists have found that a gene can turn on and off homosexual impulses in fruit flies.
12/11/07, YahooNews

I received the article quoted below by email and it reminded me of a long running debate I’ve had with myself. When do a parent’s rights to control their parents education override the states right to see that child brought up in a manner that will likely lead him/her to be a successful citizen? I generally tend towards the parent rights side of the argument. The concept of our children being raised under government control is so scary that I’m reluctant to take *any* steps in that direction. Having said that, I feel that parents do not have a right to deny their children access to facts upon which to make their own decisions. Getting back to the article below, if the schools were only mentioning the existence of gay families, I don’t feel the parents have any right to protest at all. If the teachers were arguing that gay families were moral, I might actually be supporting the parents, despite my own beliefs on the issue. Or at the very least, I’d be a lot more torn. Since, to my knowledge they weren’t, the parents have no ground to stand on as far as I’m concerned.

Updated (2-28-07): If anyone knows where I can find an exact copy of this AP article, please let me know. I would rather link to the source than quote it here. I am not interest in reprinting that does not use this exact text. I responded to the text below, so I want to make sure any link is to the text below.

Update (2-26-07): I had someone from Lexington Cares - a group which supports the school systems right to teach diversity - contact me yesterday with regard to the article below. He didn’t provide me with the source for this article, but he did point out that their website has quite a few similar news links.

Judge tosses lawsuit over talk of same-sex marriage in classroom

A federal judge in Boston Friday threw out a lawsuit filed by parents who wanted to keep their children from learning about same-sex marriage in school.

U.S. district judge Mark Wolf said federal courts have decided in other cases that parents’ rights to exercise their religious beliefs are not violated when their children are exposed to contrary ideas.

The case attracted attention in part because Massachusetts is the only state that allows same-sex marriage.

”In essence under the Constitution public schools are entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy,” Wolf said in his ruling.

Toni and David Parker of Lexington, Mass., sued after their 5-year-old son brought home a book from kindergarten that depicted a gay family. Another Lexington couple joined the suit after a second-grade teacher read the class a fairy tale about two princes falling in love.

Both couples claimed Lexington school officials violated their parental rights to teach their own morals to their children and said they have religious beliefs that homosexuality is immoral. They said they did not want to dictate curriculum but wanted to be notified before gay couples were discussed so they could remove their children from classrooms.

”It boils down to this simple thing: The parents have a fundamental right to be the primary directors of their children’s upbringing and moral education,” David Parker said Friday.

Jeffrey Denner, an attorney for the parents, said they would appeal the ruling to the first U.S. circuit court of appeals and refile the claims in state court.

John Davis, an attorney for the school officials, said the books did not focus on sex education but merely depicted various families, including those headed by same-sex couples.

Forty-five states ban same-sex marriage, most of them through voter-approved amendments. New Jersey, Vermont, and Connecticut offer civil unions, which offer the protections and benefits of marriage without the title, and California offers domestic partnerships with similar benefits.The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, which supported the school officials, praised the ruling

”This is not a case about teaching about homosexuality. This is a case where Lexington sought to teach about diversity and about having respect,” said Sarah Wunsch, ACLU staff attorney. (Denise Lavoie, AP)