« Just How Much Trouble Are Google/Motorola/Samsung In? |
| We Are (the Net| the Media | the People) Winning »
February 20, 2012
More "Post" SOPA
(apologies to Professor Post for punning thus on his name)
David Post took his Justia piece I mentioned last week and expanded on it for his regular venue, the Volokh Conspiracy.
In the expanded piece he both broadens and deepens his critique of SOPA and what has gone on around and since it. He continues to write for a largely legal-oriented readership, but don't let that discourage you. His analysis is thorough and worth keeping in mind as we move into the next phase of this war.
I wanted to pick one thought from his conclusion for my own comment. He writes:
Copyrighted works are important, culturally and economically, and they are worth protecting. They are not, however, sacred objects that we should protect at any cost.
I wanted to pull-quote this because it highlights a problem in the rhetoric that I've experienced in my own talks on these topics. If I say that I'm opposed to this or that regulation, or to a particular form of enforcement, or to a campaign of mass lawsuits, or whatever, then people leap to the conclusion that I must therefore be in favor of unfettered theft or denial of all rights and remuneration to artists. This is not true - I've tried in this blog to show a third way, to celebrate people and organizations/businesses that are crafting it. I think Post would agree that there are reasonable and appropriate ways to regulate, but SOPA wasn't even close to it.
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Laws and Regulations
POST A COMMENT
- RELATED ENTRIES
- Music Business for 21st Century Independent Artists
- Net Neutrality? Still Could Be Kept
- Hey, Look, E-Books Still Suck
- Makers, Fan Art, Making it Pay
- IP Analogy to Physical Property (in Architecture)
- That Sound You Hear is the Anti-Neutrality Dam Breaking
- Having (Mostly) Failed with Authors, Amazon Makes a Pitch for the Readers
- And No Kill Switches, Either