Oxyfish

These days, I don’t usually re-post links to things I read online, although I used to. This one, however, is worth the exception. This is the single finest exposition of copyright I have ever read (Lessig included, which is saying something, since I’m a huge Lessig fan). And it’s a speech delivered in 1841!

The easiest form of parochialism to fall into is to assume that we are smarter than the past generations, that our thinking is necessarily more sophisticated. This may be true in science and technology, but not necessarily so in wisdom.
…
Be forewarned: this speech is long, and far more intellectually challenging than most modern political speech. But the mind behind it is lively and incisive, and you may be surprised by how little the fundamental issues have changed, and how some of the disingenuous arguments put forth today echo those of the far past. Judge for yourself whether the politicians to day are wiser than those of a hundred and sixty years ago.

Macaulay on Copyright

Once upon a time, there was a merry band of troubadors called the Richter Scales. They enjoyed making music and entertaining people, never trying to make any money at it.

One day they discovered a new country, YouTubeLand. They thought they might entertain some of the residents there. So they produced a video and sent it over, where some people enjoyed it.

Emboldened, they produced another. This one even more people enjoyed. But one person felt the video was rude to her, and started shouting that the Richters had broken the law. Without ever telling the Richters what she wanted, she used a hammer to banish the video from the land.

Confused, the Richters consulted wizards, and learned that even wizards disagreed on the laws of this new land. They felt bad that some people thought they were rude, though they were new to the land, and there were many other loutish people there already.

After much internal consultation, and encouragement from many native denizens, the Richters decided to venture forth into YouTubeLand again. They took out the objectionable parts, and replaced them with funnier ones. And they made up for their unintentional rudeness by giving credit in a new and clever way, which some in the land hailed as a new standard for virtue.

And everyone lived happily ever after. Well, most people, anyway.

I love this article in The Onion, purportedly by Jimmy Carter, not because it’s so funny (although it is pretty funny), but because of how wickedly they send up everybody else in the 2008 race by pointing out how much better Jimmy Carter is on every dimension.

Reminded me a little bit of how rarely people change their opinions – most people seem to think Jimmy Carter was a terrible President. Here’s another example, from the Wall Street Journal a while ago (blogged about here):

Starting 30 years ago, [Julian] Simon (who died in 1998) told anyone who would listen — which wasn’t many people — that the faddish declinism of that era was bunk. He called the “Global 2000″ report “globaloney.” Armed with an arsenal of factual missiles, he showed that life on Earth was getting better, and that the combination of free markets and human ingenuity was the recipe for solving environmental and economic problems. Mr. [Paul] Ehrlich, in response, said Simon proved that the one thing the world isn’t running out of “is lunatics.”

Mr. Ehrlich, whose every prediction turned out wrong, won a MacArthur Foundation “genius award”; Simon, who got the story right, never won so much as a McDonald’s hamburger. But now who looks like the lunatic? This latest survey of the planet is certainly sweet vindication of Simon and others, like Herman Kahn, who in the 1970s dared challenge the “settled science.” (Are you listening, global-warming alarmists?)

I read this article in Wired Magazine about how scientists use the word “theory” when they really mean something they are 99% sure about. Clive suggests that we use “law” instead, as in “the law of evolution” instead of the “the theory of evolution”.

I have a similar suggestion for the word “marriage”. I suggest that marriage be redefined strictly as a religious term, and as such, should be removed from the legal lexicon. I think this would be a great way to resolve the gay marriage debate. Each religion can then choose to allow or disallow marriage between anyone they want. And any one of any sexual persuasion can choose to belong to whatever religion they want, and conform to their requirements.

But when it comes to state sponsored benefits, such as the ability to designate one other person to inherit your estate without paying taxes, or share your health benefits, there should be no relationship to a religious “marriage”, any more than there is a state benefit attached to baptism, confirmation, or other religious rites. Then the state benefits can be applied with no discrimination, and without angering the religious folks. Now, there will likely be some debate around child care statutes, and a we’ll also need a new word for divorce, but these seem like pretty small problems.

Clear definitions make a lot of things easier.

I find it interesting that bad news sells newspapers, but good news is pretty much ignored. Sure there are the major triumphs of humanity, like landing on the moon, but mostly the news is of the “sky is falling” variety. There was column in the WSJ recently that described this perfectly:

Paul Ehrlich’s best-selling book “The Population Bomb” (1968) gave England a 50-50 chance of surviving into the 21st century. In 1980, Jimmy Carter released the “Global 2000 Report,” which declared that life on Earth was getting worse in every measurable way.

So imagine how shocked I was to learn, officially, that we’re not doomed after all. A new United Nations report called “State of the Future” concludes: “People around the world are becoming healthier, wealthier, better educated, more peaceful, more connected, and they are living longer.” …

The media’s collective yawn over “State of the Future” is typical of the reaction to just about any good news. When 2006 was declared the hottest year on record, there were thousands of news stories. But last month’s revised data, indicating that 1934 was actually warmer, barely warranted a paragraph-long correction in most papers.

Read the original article

I find this a particularly sober reminder that we who live in California (particularly the Bay Area) are very lucky. I can’t imagine living near something like this.

So what’s with all the dinosaurs? | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited

I ran across this completely by accident, but I was struck by the idea. The Christian Bible derives much of its power from the timeless ideas and morals that it describes. But a new bible, encompassing the thinking of the grand experiments of the last few hundred years, could potentially have the same power. Click through for the suggested “books” of the Civil Bible.

The Civil Bible, hosted by TnCrimLaw

I read a great quote in the latest issue of Scientific American:

As for healing a social rift, most of the debates that are commonly depicted as religion versus science are really not questions of science at all; they are disagreements among various systems of beliefs and morals. The policy fight over embryonic stem cells, for example, centers on when and how one segment of a pluralistic society should curtail the behaviors of those who hold different values. Our attention should focus not on the illusory fault line between science and religion but on a political system that too often fails to engage with the real issues.

Another related example of a “disagreement among various systems of beliefs and morals” is yesterday’s raiding of the New Remedies Cooperative, a medical marijuana center, by federal DEA agents. Prop 215 was passed in California 10 years ago, and is pretty good evidence that the majority of people in California approve of marijuana for medical use. Now, I understand the need for a federal government to ensure consistency of laws across a nation, but I think the Supreme Court has gone a little too far in this case. I also get the argument that drug use is not just about one individual choice, but a burden on society through increased crime and other societal costs – but once again, why not let the state authorities decide this?

Make no mistake. I do not use marijuana, and I will not allow my kids to use it. But the voters of California have made their wishes clearly known, and I think it is criminal for the federal government to spend our tax money to push a different belief system.

Keith Olbermann eloquently and passionately blasts President Bush and politicians in general. Highly recommended.

YouTube – Olbermann on five year 9/11 anniversary

David Cowan, of Bessemer VC, systematically and lucidly shows how misleading claims can still sucker a huge number of Americans into buying stupid products.

Who Has Time For This?: CREATED BY A SCHOOL TEACHER!!!!!

I love the Economist. They eviscerate the Democrats and Republicans with impunity. The last sentence from the leader of their most recent issue is great:

Two years ago, this newspaper narrowly favoured Mr Kerry’s incoherence over Mr Bush’s incompetence (see article). Since then, Republican incompetence has exceeded even our worst fears. How depressing to report that Democratic incoherence has soared too. America deserves better.

American politics | Taking on George Bush | Economist.com

A very interesting UCLA study on media bias finds that most mainstream media do lean to the left. I think this is true, although I cannot help but question a couple of the methodologies. For example, it looks like there is an implicit assumption in the ADA score that every issue has a liberal side and a conservative side, and that they are equally far from the center. Also, I wonder how closely the scores of the media outlets track with their audiences – i.e. do more liberal people use mainstream media for their news?

Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist… 12/14/2005

A fascinating and courageous post by Baris Karadogan about a potential societal future where harems become more popular than monogamy. Would be a great basis for a science fiction novel, because it explores why the Internet could enable this change in behavior.

From Istanbul To Sand Hill Road: The Big Web 2.0 Harem

A good explanation of what’s wrong with the patent system in the US, and why. Better yet, it includes some real proposals for fixing the problem. Thanks JohnK for the pointer.

Our proposed reforms start with the recognition that much of the information needed to decide if a given application should be approved is in the hands of competitors of the applicant, rather than the USPTO. A review process with multiple levels efficiently balances the need to bring in outside information with the reality that most patents are unimportant. Multilevel review — with barriers to invoking review increasing at higher levels, along with the review’s thoroughness — would naturally focus attention on the most potentially important applications. Most patents would never receive anything other than the most basic examinations. But for those applications that really mattered, parties would have an incentive and opportunities to bring information in their possession before the USPTO, and the USPTO would have more resources to help it make the right decision. (Changes in this direction are at the heart of the patent reform bill currently under consideration in the House Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property.)

WSJ.com – Innovation and Its Discontents

Penn Jillette (of Penn & Teller) on NPR’s show This I Believe. Awesome.

NPR : There Is No God

My cousins are in Kazakhstan right now, in the middle of 5-6 week adoption process. Their emails about their new boy are incredibly heartwarming. Last night I got the email below:

Dear Friends and Family,

We are sending this out to alert everyone about an upcoming Primetime on ABC broadcast on December 1. It is about a girl who was adopted by a single father and was abused by him for years. Pornographic pictures of her were placed on the internet. She was removed from the man several years ago, but the story received new attention this spring when her picture was again seen on the internet and they launched a search for her, not knowing she had been removed years previously.

The information we have is that the show is going to be very negative, equating international adoption with human trafficking. The National Council for Adoption has insisted that they be interviewed to show the positive side of international adoption. After all that has happened these past 8 months, this story could have a very negative impact. (The story did receive publicity in Russia when it surfaced again this spring). The Russian duma is meeting again and this is ammunition for those opposed to international adoption. Russian adoption programs place over a thousand children a year in loving homes and their programs are not the only ones that hang in the balance here.

We need to have ABC news bombarded with emails from the adoption community letting them know the detrimental effect a one-sided story can have and the thousands of families and children that they can harm with an unbalanced story. This child represents only one out of thousands upon thousands of children who have been given a chance at a good life through adoption.

Many pre and post adoptions steps have been taken to address the risk to children(including the prohibition of adoption by single men – unfortunately for those with good intent). Many of you have been aware of the process that we have gone through and know that adopted children have a much greater likelihood of well-screened and supported parents than countless biological and domestically fostered children. This provocative program, if onesided as planned, would not be beneficial- but it is likely to ensure that thousands more children will remain in orphanages every year until they are 16 or 17 years old, then to be cast out into the world after an early life with far too little attention, education or love. Life rarely gets better then. Adoption is their chance at a stable and happy life and we would appreciate your help in defending that chance and speaking out for balanced, responsible reporting.

Please take a moment to write to ABC Primetime by clicking on the following link

Please tell everyone you think might be concerned about this upcoming story and encourage them to take action as well.

Here is the letter that I wrote:

Dear sir/madam:

I am writing with regard to an upcoming Primetime episode due to be aired on Dec 1 about an abusive father who adopted a girl. As I understand it, this is a story that is several years old, and although horrific, most likely an isolated incident.

International adoption agencies have many controls in place to prevent such atrocities. I urge you to present this side of the story completely, starting with an interview with the National Council for Adoption. Better yet, pull the story completely, as publicizing such abuse may actually encourage other criminals to try similar acts.

Thousands of orphaned and homeless children deserve good homes with loving parents who want them in the USA and other countries. Please do not put a damper on this by focusing on one specific failure of the system.

Thank you.

Tom Shields

I have been unable to confirm this information through Google searching, but I did find a couple of other blogs that mention this.

GwenBlog: Need Your Help

To Russia (And Back) With Love: More Help Needed

Louisa and I went to hear Colin Powell speak tonight, and we were pretty impressed. He was witty, articulate, and down to earth. Clearly he hasn’t been a career politician – he doesn’t pull his punches enough.

Going in, we were a little surprised that there were some protesters carrying signs, chanting, and even one with a megaphone. We didn’t realize that his speaking would be controversial, especially since he’s no longer in the administration. Probably 20-40 people carried signs like “2000 Americans dead – for what?”

We had forgotten our tickets, but Louisa sweet-talked our way in based on our season ticket membership. Since we had swapped nights, we didn’t know what seats we were supposed to have, but we got hold of our babysitter, and she eventually found them in the stack of papers that used to be our desk, so we even got the reserved seats near the front.

Colin started out with some very funny stories, and had us laughing early. He talked about his early career, and many of the political figures he worked with. We enjoyed the stories, but wondered when he would get around to the meat of his talk.

About a half hour in, a couple folks stood up in the back, wearing sheets covered with red writing or faux blood, and paper masks, and started chanting “Powell lied, Iraqis died”. Folks tried to ignore them, but they were pretty insistent. Powell handled them well, acknowledging their message, and asking them to respect the fact that he would talk about Iraq later in his talk. They kept chanting, and one yelled “Why did you lie?” at him. He replied directly: “I did not lie. You have no idea what we went through at the State Department during that time.” He then mentioned that he had answered their question, and would they please sit back down. Eventually they made their way to the aisle, still chanting, and were escorted out of the building. Powell asked, “Anybody else?” to get a laugh, then continued. He handled it very well.

Finally he talked about the challenges and opportunities he sees. He thinks Europe and what used to be the Soviet bloc are on the right track to good relations and trade. He thinks China is a great trading partner, and is making rapid strides in all areas. He thinks we are falling down in Africa, not giving enough aid, and failing to address the HIV/AIDS problem.

He finally talked about Iraq. He acknowledged that they were wrong in their assessment of WMD, but insisted that they acted on the information they had. He also thinks we should have finished the job right away, maintaining tight security and putting in place the new government before the insurgents had a chance to take hold. He does not support pulling out, as chaos would reign, and all our effort would be for nothing.

If he had one wish, though, he would wish for an independent Palestinian state living in peace with Israel. He thinks there is an opportunity now, with Arafat gone, and Sharon moving in the right direction.

He concluded his remarks with some comments about America. He thinks we as a people naturally help others, and welcome others into our country, and that we need to keep that up. He thinks our position of power obligates us to help other countries through tough times. And he implored us to teach our children the respect, humility, and “sense of shame” they need to succeed in the world.

I was surprised by his candor – for example, he mentioned that Bush 43 (”W”) could take a strong position and stick with it long after another person might revisit in light of new information. I was delighted by his humor, and his stories were great. We gave him a well-deserved standing ovation. The world needs more people like him – I don’t always agree with him, but I trust him.

Colin Powell – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I was called for Jury Duty last week. The usual drill – call the night before to see if you’re needed. This time I got a slightly different message: call back again at 11:15, to see if you’re needed at 12:45.

So, I went to work, and of course completely forgot to call. At 12:45, in the middle of partner meeting, I looked at my watch, jumped up, and ran out of the room. I bent a few laws getting to South San Francisco in about 15 mins, and ran into the room just as they were finishing the briefing. Fortunately, there were a few nice folks who clued me in to what was going on.

I had also forgotten my paperwork, so I had to fill out some stuff, then it was just the usual waiting. Fortunately, the San Mateo court system has entered the 21st century, and they had free WiFi – hallelujah! I surfed and did email for a couple hours, then got called.

The judge explained that this was a criminal trial expected to last less than a week, so they were going to be tough on the hardship excuses. I thought long and hard before deciding to claim hardship, because I’d really like to serve on a jury someday. In the end, though, with some portfolio company emergencies going on, I made my excuses and convinced the judge to let me go.

Next time jury duty comes up, I’ll probably try to treat it like a vacation week. Basically, I won’t schedule anything critical, and that way, if it’s a reasonable trial period, I’ll have it scheduled. Better yet, I’d love to have more flexibility when they call me – the week you picked isn’t good, but 2 weeks out looks fine, let’s go with that one. I’d be happy to serve, but it needs to fit into my schedule – is that a classic Gen X viewpoint or what?

I love this. Souter voted to take away some homes in New London, so somebody decided to try giving him a taste of his own medicine.

AP Wire | 07/24/2005 | Welcome to Hotel Souter? Eminent domain ruling triggers backlash

An interesting commentary on the other major Supreme Court decision, the one classifying cable companies as information services, and therefore immune from regulations requiring them to allow access for third party internet information providers. If they exercise this new power, it could be ugly.

The Clicker: Was Grokster really the important Supreme Court decision? – Engadget – www.engadget.com