5 ms·

90 Law Professors sign letter in opposition to Protect IP Act

138 points by d0ne 15y ago

Shenglong 15y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_IP_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_IP_Act 70 year-old senators should not be allowed to influence technological law.
- alayne 15y ago
  That's some blatant ageism.
  - burke 15y ago
    No, it's not. It should be reasonable to have an expectation that the people writing laws have a working understanding of the subjects they're writing them on. Very, very few 70-year-olds have a sufficient understanding of the Internet. It's not ageist to be frustrated by this situation.
    - marshray 15y ago
      Very, very few people of any age have a sufficient understanding of the Internet.
  - nitrogen 15y ago
    Instead of defining things in terms of age, would you be opposed to describing a generational divide? I've argued before in other settings that selecting most of our leaders from two generations back gives too much inertia to the status quo. The current representatives are fighting the reality in which the current generation exists.
  - nhebb 15y ago
    Apparently some people don't realize that it was a bunch of (now) old guys that developed the technology that the internet was built upon. Then again, maybe a group of Google new hires can find it in their hearts to sit down and explain this internet stuff to Vint Cerf. After all, he's almost 70 and clearly wouldn't understand it.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- cstavish 15y ago
  Troll much? Knowledge, not age, is relevant. A 30-year-old senator who knows little or nothing about the internet (yes, it is possible for one to use email and other basic services without concerning himself/herself with political, legal, and technological issues regarding the internet), is arguably more of a threat than a 70-year-old uninformed senator because he or she appears to be more tech-savvy by youth alone.
  - Shenglong 15y ago
    I need to learn to be more explicit in what I say. My comment about 70 year-old senators, did not mean that I believe old people can't make proper laws - that would be ridiculous. However, it is true that the majority of 70 year-olds are not as tech savvy as the majority of 30 year-olds. This isn't opinion. Modern technology is by definition new, and people always learn faster when they're younger. To add to the problem, senators are not picked based on their technological competence. I would assume they're selected because they can contribute some form of sagacity to the majority of issues. Take Buffet for example (although this is a business tangent). He's great at what he does, and stays away from technology, presumably because he realizes his own limitations.
    - lucasjung 15y ago
      If Senators (and Representatives) should not make law, then who? That is, of course, a rhetorical question. The fact is that I don't elect "my Senator on economic policy," and "my Senator on foreign policy," "my Senator on technology policy," etc. I elect "my Senator," period. Because the law touches on almost everything, there is no way for any given legislator to be an expert on all of the subjects involved, or even on more than a handful. That's why legislators have staff: people they trust, who are experts, who help them to reach informed decisions. Of course, some legislators do a better job of selecting and working with their staff than others, but that's what the ballot box is for. Senators should not be picked based on their technological competence, nor their competence in any particular area of policy: they should be picked on their ability to exercise sound judgement in the best interests of their constituents.
- iwwr 15y ago
  There is a 75 yo congressman who actually understands what it's about and is against it. Take a guess :)
  - cheez 15y ago
    Who?
    - kingkilr 15y ago
      I'm guessing it's Ron Paul and I'd be shocked if he has an inkling of an understanding of the technology.
      - cheez 15y ago
        I'm guessing it's his philosophy that conflicts with it. I don't think you need to understand technology necessarily. Most politicians: more control by federal government! Paul: less control by federal government!
    - scrollbar 15y ago
      I can't find any specific mention of his position on the topic, but I'm guessing parent was referring to 75-year-old Ron Paul
- foenix 15y ago
  I went to high school in Utah and one of our teachers (Rob Bishop) actually became a congressman. Using his new role, he invited our class's honour students to a convention where the youth meet Utah politicians. That was the first time I crossed paths with Orrin Hatch. He was a man always short on time, and when it came time for the photoshoot, he maintained a scowl until seconds before the shot was taken. Later, one of my classmates ended up working as his aide. From what I was told, Hatch refuses to use his office computer and still hand-writes all of his manuscripts. What's more, he responds to all of his emails by printing them out and writing a response — a lackey will then type in the response. I don't understand how he's still on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Although this is purported to be Leahy's brain-child, Hatch almost definitely had a hand in the scarier revisions.
  - sliverstorm 15y ago
    A senator can't be totally knowledgeable about everything. Just because he's not up to speed on tech doesn't mean he doesn't have his strengths.
- T_S_ 15y ago
  Ageist statement for sure. Better to argue for term limits and the abolition of gerrymandering. That would probably help with your problem.
rick888 15y ago
so..where are all the free speech advocates when someone willfully violates the GPL?
- drcube 15y ago
  Lacking the privilege to obscure, hide or restrict access to information is not a violation of free speech. Similarly "I'm not allowed to shut people up!" doesn't mean you are persecuted.
  - rick888 15y ago
    yeah, well pirating software, music, and movies isn't free speech either.
    - drcube 15y ago
      Yeah, but having a website IS. If someone is suspected of a crime, they should be formally accused and put on trial (aka "due process") before stripping them of their rights and property. Wild concept, I know.
VanceRefrig 15y ago
Is that enough?
- Create 15y ago
  ...to paraphrase Einstein, if they were right, even one person would be enough. But true, it needs "change", because it is seeding just more trouble. btw Slavoj Žižek argues, that capitalism cannot handle imaginary property, and actually this dichotomy is strong enough to take it down eventually down the road.
  - _delirium 15y ago
    I'm not sure about his prediction, but intellectual property does highlight more than most other issues the split between the individual-rights/libertarian version of capitalism, and corporate/pro-business version of capitalism. Intellectual property requires a particularly high level of intrusive government policing; for example, it can be illegal to copy a book by typing it on a typewriter in your own house, where you own the land, house, typewriter, and paper. It's definitely illegal to screen someone else's film for payment, even if the entire transaction happens in your living room (you project the film, in your house, using your own projector, to people who pay you in cash inside your house). This sits very poorly with the government-out-of-my-house-and-off-my-land version of libertarianism, since it inherently requires agreeing that it's the rightful role of government to police what you do in your own living room. It feels more like social engineering than anything libertarian: the government has decided that, in order to promote the good of society (encourage artistic production, technical innovation, etc.), it must police what you do on your land.
HistoryInAction 15y ago
Sigh This is why you don't wait until the very last stage or after that point in the political process to lobby on an issue.

138 points by d0ne 15y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_IP_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_IP_Act 70 year-old senators should not be allowed to influence technological law.

alayne 15y ago
That's some blatant ageism.
- burke 15y ago
  No, it's not. It should be reasonable to have an expectation that the people writing laws have a working understanding of the subjects they're writing them on. Very, very few 70-year-olds have a sufficient understanding of the Internet. It's not ageist to be frustrated by this situation.
  - marshray 15y ago
    Very, very few people of any age have a sufficient understanding of the Internet.
- nitrogen 15y ago
  Instead of defining things in terms of age, would you be opposed to describing a generational divide? I've argued before in other settings that selecting most of our leaders from two generations back gives too much inertia to the status quo. The current representatives are fighting the reality in which the current generation exists.
- nhebb 15y ago
  Apparently some people don't realize that it was a bunch of (now) old guys that developed the technology that the internet was built upon. Then again, maybe a group of Google new hires can find it in their hearts to sit down and explain this internet stuff to Vint Cerf. After all, he's almost 70 and clearly wouldn't understand it.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
cstavish 15y ago
Troll much? Knowledge, not age, is relevant. A 30-year-old senator who knows little or nothing about the internet (yes, it is possible for one to use email and other basic services without concerning himself/herself with political, legal, and technological issues regarding the internet), is arguably more of a threat than a 70-year-old uninformed senator because he or she appears to be more tech-savvy by youth alone.
- Shenglong 15y ago
  I need to learn to be more explicit in what I say. My comment about 70 year-old senators, did not mean that I believe old people can't make proper laws - that would be ridiculous. However, it is true that the majority of 70 year-olds are not as tech savvy as the majority of 30 year-olds. This isn't opinion. Modern technology is by definition new, and people always learn faster when they're younger. To add to the problem, senators are not picked based on their technological competence. I would assume they're selected because they can contribute some form of sagacity to the majority of issues. Take Buffet for example (although this is a business tangent). He's great at what he does, and stays away from technology, presumably because he realizes his own limitations.
  - lucasjung 15y ago
    If Senators (and Representatives) should not make law, then who? That is, of course, a rhetorical question. The fact is that I don't elect "my Senator on economic policy," and "my Senator on foreign policy," "my Senator on technology policy," etc. I elect "my Senator," period. Because the law touches on almost everything, there is no way for any given legislator to be an expert on all of the subjects involved, or even on more than a handful. That's why legislators have staff: people they trust, who are experts, who help them to reach informed decisions. Of course, some legislators do a better job of selecting and working with their staff than others, but that's what the ballot box is for. Senators should not be picked based on their technological competence, nor their competence in any particular area of policy: they should be picked on their ability to exercise sound judgement in the best interests of their constituents.
iwwr 15y ago
There is a 75 yo congressman who actually understands what it's about and is against it. Take a guess :)
- cheez 15y ago
  Who?
  - kingkilr 15y ago
    I'm guessing it's Ron Paul and I'd be shocked if he has an inkling of an understanding of the technology.
    - cheez 15y ago
      I'm guessing it's his philosophy that conflicts with it. I don't think you need to understand technology necessarily. Most politicians: more control by federal government! Paul: less control by federal government!
  - scrollbar 15y ago
    I can't find any specific mention of his position on the topic, but I'm guessing parent was referring to 75-year-old Ron Paul
foenix 15y ago
I went to high school in Utah and one of our teachers (Rob Bishop) actually became a congressman. Using his new role, he invited our class's honour students to a convention where the youth meet Utah politicians. That was the first time I crossed paths with Orrin Hatch. He was a man always short on time, and when it came time for the photoshoot, he maintained a scowl until seconds before the shot was taken. Later, one of my classmates ended up working as his aide. From what I was told, Hatch refuses to use his office computer and still hand-writes all of his manuscripts. What's more, he responds to all of his emails by printing them out and writing a response — a lackey will then type in the response. I don't understand how he's still on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Although this is purported to be Leahy's brain-child, Hatch almost definitely had a hand in the scarier revisions.
- sliverstorm 15y ago
  A senator can't be totally knowledgeable about everything. Just because he's not up to speed on tech doesn't mean he doesn't have his strengths.
T_S_ 15y ago
Ageist statement for sure. Better to argue for term limits and the abolition of gerrymandering. That would probably help with your problem.

rick888 15y ago

so..where are all the free speech advocates when someone willfully violates the GPL?

drcube 15y ago
Lacking the privilege to obscure, hide or restrict access to information is not a violation of free speech. Similarly "I'm not allowed to shut people up!" doesn't mean you are persecuted.
- rick888 15y ago
  yeah, well pirating software, music, and movies isn't free speech either.
  - drcube 15y ago
    Yeah, but having a website IS. If someone is suspected of a crime, they should be formally accused and put on trial (aka "due process") before stripping them of their rights and property. Wild concept, I know.

VanceRefrig 15y ago

Is that enough?

Create 15y ago
...to paraphrase Einstein, if they were right, even one person would be enough. But true, it needs "change", because it is seeding just more trouble. btw Slavoj Žižek argues, that capitalism cannot handle imaginary property, and actually this dichotomy is strong enough to take it down eventually down the road.
- _delirium 15y ago
  I'm not sure about his prediction, but intellectual property does highlight more than most other issues the split between the individual-rights/libertarian version of capitalism, and corporate/pro-business version of capitalism. Intellectual property requires a particularly high level of intrusive government policing; for example, it can be illegal to copy a book by typing it on a typewriter in your own house, where you own the land, house, typewriter, and paper. It's definitely illegal to screen someone else's film for payment, even if the entire transaction happens in your living room (you project the film, in your house, using your own projector, to people who pay you in cash inside your house). This sits very poorly with the government-out-of-my-house-and-off-my-land version of libertarianism, since it inherently requires agreeing that it's the rightful role of government to police what you do in your own living room. It feels more like social engineering than anything libertarian: the government has decided that, in order to promote the good of society (encourage artistic production, technical innovation, etc.), it must police what you do on your land.

HistoryInAction 15y ago

Sigh This is why you don't wait until the very last stage or after that point in the political process to lobby on an issue.