[FYI] (Fwd) FC: Ayn Rand Institute denounces Eldred, Lessig as Marxi

["Axel H Horns" <horns@ipjur.com>]

------- Forwarded message follows -------
Date sent:      	Mon, 07 Oct 2002 22:24:27 -0400
To:             	politech@politechbot.com
From:           	Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Subject:        	FC: Ayn Rand Institute denounces Eldred, Lessig as Marxists
Copies to:      	davidh@aynrand.org
Send reply to:  	declan@well.com

[I read the prohibition on sending this to the media as the Ayn Rand
Institute wish to control the republication as an op-ed piece in
newspapers, a not-unprecedented request. Background:
http://www.politechbot.com/cgi-bin/politech.cgi?name=eldred --Declan]

---

Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 21:49:59 -0400
Subject: Fwd: Ayn Rand Institute on copyright
From: Scott Johnson <viruspublishing@mindspring.com>
To: declan@well.com

I've been an avid "Politechnical" for a while and thought you might
find this "interesting" ...Lawrence Lessig is a Marxist! of note
especially is the prohibition of sending this to the media!? I think
it's notable that the "Randists" (and Rand herself to a certain
extent) have been known to use of copyright law to quell criticism in
a manner similar to the Scientologists.


--------------------------
Begin forwarded message:
--------------------------

From: "Ayn Rand Institute Media" <davidh@aynrand.org>
Date: Mon Oct 7, 2002  8:10:04 PM US/Eastern
To: <Op-ed.list@heroic.aynrand.org>
Subject: WOULD-BE INTELLECTUAL VANDALS GET THEIR DAY IN THE SUPREME
COURT Reply-To: davidh@heroic.aynrand.org (David Holcberg)

Op-Ed from the Ayn Rand Institute

WOULD-BE INTELLECTUAL VANDALS GET THEIR DAY IN THE SUPREME COURT

Those who are spearheading the current legal challenge to the
copyright law favor intellectual cannibalism masquerading as
creativity and free speech.

By Amy Peikoff, J.D.

         In 1998 Congress, pursuant to its Constitutional power to
determine the duration of federal copyright protection, passed a law
extending the term of that protection by 20 years. This law brought
United States copyright protection in line with that already afforded
in Europe. In addition, as the average life expectancy in the United
States now exceeds 70 years, the law brings copyright protection in
line with the legal vehicle for the posthumous control of tangible
property--the law of testamentary trusts, which bases the term of such
control on a human lifespan.

         Despite the reasonableness of this law, Stanford professor
Lawrence Lessig is spearheading a legal challenge to it, culminating
in his argument before the Supreme Court this Wednesday. Lessig, who
seems to have become, in the words of New York Times writer Amy
Harmon, "a rock star for the digital liberties set," is expected to
argue that the law is "overly restrictive of the free-speech rights of
would-be users of copyrighted material that previously would have been
in the public domain."

         In recent decades we have already seen the "right to free
speech" extended to mean the "right" to be provided with a free
platform for one's speech. Anyone who dares to be successful enough to
own a property where the public enjoys gathering--e.g., a shopping
mall--is for that reason compelled to allow people to speak on that
property. "Free" speech thus means: free of any need to earn one's own
physical instrumentalities or audience, or even to pay for the right
to borrow someone else's achievements.

         Lessig would have the Supreme Court extend this perversion of
free speech to mean: free of any need to pay for the borrowing of
someone else's greatest achievement: original thought. Or worse: free
of any need sufficiently to digest that original thought so as to be
able to put it into one's own words. Appropriating and parroting the
creation of others is now, according to Lessig, "free speech."

         Lessig and his allies try to downplay what they are doing by
making it an issue of finances. They say things like, "the copyright
law used to restrict only big business, which is fine--but now it
restricts anyone who has access to the Internet." "Only 2 percent of
works protected by copyright," they go on, "create a regular stream of
income for their creators." Translation: only a small minority of
"non-little" people will be hurt by repealing this law, so why not do
it? This attack on money, success and big business--no doubt another
symptom of the "Enron" era--is shameful and Marxist. How is the Court,
as Lessig demands, to "balance the interests" of original thinkers
against those for whom "creativity" consists of cannibalizing--and
even vandalizing--the products of others' thought?

         The government is expected to argue--properly--that the
         Supreme
Court cannot arbitrarily impose a definition of "limited times." In
other words, the power to set an appropriate time period for copyright
protection lies with Congress. Congress has clearly been reasonable in
its exercise of that power.

         The other main argument offered by supporters of the 1998 law
is that, in the long run, the law will promote creative work, and thus
the national welfare, by offering higher profits to those who invest
in it. This argument--based on the "public good" standard--is
intellectually bankrupt and doomed to failure. Opponents simply
counter that more creativity will be fostered by allowing people to
obtain and build upon existing works. Many "conservatives," such as
Milton Friedman, use the same "public good" standard to argue that the
incremental economic payoff provided by the 1998 law is not
significant enough to encourage creativity.

         Anyone who raises the standard of the "public good" in this
context had better be ready to have his rights in any field
adjudicated according to the latest iteration of Jeremy Bentham's
utilitarian calculus. In practice, this means according to the
premises, preferences, and whims of the judge sitting before him.

         An artist or intellectual is often not only or even primarily
concerned to reap the monetary benefits of his works; in addition, he
wants to be sure that the integrity of the work is protected against
mutilation as long as possible. This is especially true if the work
conveys an important artistic or philosophic message. If those in the
"digital liberties set" plan to have a field day with others' works of
creative genius--bastardizing them into whatever fragments they find
appealing, adding any distorting content they choose, then blasting
the results all over the internet--what is the point of trying to
convey to the world one's own vital viewpoint? What is the reward
offered for trying painstakingly to create one's vision of truth or of
the ideal universe, and to invite readers to share in it, if our
nation's highest court gives Lessig's gang a formal sanction to
practice intellectual vandalism on the finished product?

______________________________________________________________________
_ _ ___________________________________________________ Amy Peikoff,
J.D., is a senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, CA. The
Ayn Rand Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of
Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. Send responses to:
reaction@aynrand.org

------------------------
Unsubscribing
------------------------
You have received this message as a result of submitting your e-mail
address at ARI's Web site. If you would like to unsubscribe, simply
send a blank e-mail message to unsubscribe.op-ed@aynrand.org and you
will be automatically removed from the list.

---------------------------
Redistributing this article
---------------------------
Please feel free to forward this requested press release to friends,
family, associates or interested parties who would want to receive it.
Do not send the piece to media with the view that they might publish
it. All such contact and permissions must come from the Ayn Rand
Institute (ARI).




----------------------------------------------------------------------
--- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing
list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this
notice. To subscribe to Politech:
http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is
archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Declan McCullagh's photographs
are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--- Like Politech? Make a donation here:
http://www.politechbot.com/donate/ Recent CNET News.com articles:
http://news.search.com/search?q=declan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
---

------- End of forwarded message -------


-- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: debate-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: debate-help@lists.fitug.de