Just out of curiosity, what would a sane copyright policy look like to you, CM?

Well, I pretty much agree with everything in Lessig's Free Culture, which you can read online: http://www.free-culture.cc/freecontent/

So that means: the end of the DMCA; a reasonable process for moving orphaned works into the public domain; and copyright term limits that cannot be extended indefinitely.

But it also means (to me) an embrace of politics as an open process, rather than something that should happen behind closed doors. Clinton's campaign not supporting free presidential debates, her support of lobbyists, and her political history lead me to believe that she's the most secretive and elitist candidate in the Democratic field. That concerns me greatly. I don't think Obama or Edwards would revolutionize the political system, but I do think they have the potential to move it in another direction. Clinton, by her own admission, would bring us back to the 90's, which was good, but not great.

And to go even more off-topic, I also find it interesting that the gay movement is so in support of Hillary. I agree with what Andrew Sullivan said about this today, when writing about Obama's and Clinton's take on gay marriage:

I am quite sure [Obama] will be more supportive of gay equality than Clinton. She will pivot against gay people for her own political advantage at the drop of a hat. We know this already. We saw it happen once before. And yet, like Charlie Brown and the football, the gay movement looks to Lucy once again.

Wait...the gay community is behind Clinton??!??!

http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=37696&TEMPLATE=/C...

I'm not sure that is accurate for two reasons:
1) I don't know of a gay rights organization that has endorsed Clinton;
2) There is no hegemonic gay community.

I agree with your copyright aspirations.

Did you watch that event? They grilled Obama and Edwards heavily for not supporting outright gay marriage, but then when Clinton went on she got the biggest applause, and shrugged the gay marriage question with wit: "I prefer to think of it as being very positive about civil unions." They did not try to get at the heart of her feelings as they did with the others. In general, HRC and HRC have a well-known and long-standing relationship.

Obviously, there is no hegemonic gay community, but I have seen a lot of support from gay individuals that I know personally. Only anecdotal, of course, but it still surprises me.

So Lessig is being snarky about the gay support of Clinton when he says the lobby system "queers good judgment"?

No, but you are.

I wonder how she feels about open access.

I guess it depends on how much money the journal lobby has.

"i think councilman les wynan should do MORE THINKIN' and LESS WHININ'!"

I find it insulting that Clinton thinks we might buy her argument on lobbying. OK, maybe lobbyists aren't evil, but the system is very clearly corrupt and arguing otherwise is an insult to my intelligence (as well as an indication that she's bought into it). I'll be voting for someone else.

snarf, don't forget the little behind-closed-doors invite that HRC extended to her highness to address their Board back in March:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/03/hrc_latest....

certainly, they have cozied up to her more so than other candidates, and if they do indeed endorse her, it seems difficult to interpret as anything other than bald opportunism.

i think the bigger issue, though, is that HRC (a stolidly centrist, shamelessly politicking group with abominable ratings of its non-profit efficiency and expenditures) has come to represent the gay diaspora, which is really a shame. but, really, how does the public interpret group dynamics outside of their lobbying groups (ie, gunowners as NRA positions, pro-choicers as NARAL or PP positions, etc)? - it seems hard to escape that HRC's formal positions WILL come indeed to represent "gay america" to the vast majority of this country. it seems semantic to argue otherwise - not that I'm defending it, but for whatever reason a critical mass of supporters (gay and otherwise) has empowered HRC to speak for the gay community almost to the exclusion of other, smaller glbt interest groups.

Wait a minute, there's no Congressman Les Wynan!

Whoa! Flea...did I hear you just intimate a disgust of her highness? This is a reversal indeed!

On an unrelated note: who is this idiot Matt who runs Scary Shit? http://www.scaryshit.blogspot.com/

Fuckin' loonbag. Does he/she/it know shit about the economy or politics?