No, Klinger was trying to get a section 8. Section 108 is the part of U.S. Copyright law that

Among other things, ... provides limited exceptions for libraries and archives to make copies in specified instances for preservation, replacement and patron access.

Needless to say the committee that is reexamining the "exceptions and limitations applicable to libraries and archives" has such experts as Troy Dow, Vice President of Government Relations, The Walt Disney Company. (hattip: Slashdot)

An interesting set of facts from Mother Jones (hattip: Larry Lessig). They don't seem to understand the distinction between intellectual property which is about controlling ideas, and trademark which is about controlling your identity. While there are excesses in trademark law as enforced by the courts, the basic idea is sound, and any court system is bound to have imperfections.

In the war on thought thieves thought police must be the logical next step.

Brad DeLong seems to have gotten this backwards. There is an important difference between keeping your data on someone else's computer/using someone else's domain, and using open source software. If the person storing your data or controlling your domain disappears - you are in trouble.

Brad seems to think this is a problem with open source software: if the programmer disappears the you are in trouble. But there are two kinds of open source software: software which simply makes the source available, and free software, as in the GNU, BSD or MIT licenses. In the case of free software, anyone, without permission of the owner, can pick up the project. This provides some insurance against the disappearance of the original owner. In the case of software that is nonfree - whether or not it is open source - if rights for further development cannot be negotiated with the original owner, either because he/she is unwilling, or simply can't be found, there is no legal modification of the software that can take place - and then you really are in trouble.

The most widely used open source software - Linux, Apache and Mysql - are free software. The widely used PHP program is (in its current version) open source but not free. Java is neither open source nor free.

One of the goals of the Creative Commons License is to make sure that copyrighted material does not become unavailable or unusable if the owner abandons it; Larry Lessig's proposal to once again require copyright renewal is designed to serve the same purpose. Changes in copyright law that have made copyright automatic and eliminated renewal create an enormous problem with abandoment, because unless the owner makes explicit provisions, abandoned creations become unusable by anyone. Unfortunately, these modifications of the copyright law serve no useful economic purpose - it appears in fact that they are designed to protect large businesses which can cover the fixed cost of finding and negotiating copyrights from competition from small businesses that cannot.

One of the problems with copyrighted software is that if the copyright holder disappears no one can legally take over maintenance of the software - potentially leaving the paying customers with unusable data. One of the competitive advantages that open source software [more precisely free software as in GNU, BSD license] has, particularly for small firms, is that it provides the customer with a guaranteee that they can take over maintenance of the software. The abandonment problem is a real one.

In a different context it is in the news today that a complex series of events resulted in the disappearance of 3000 websites, including in some cases, years of data. Even if the data is eventually returned, they will return to a different web address, meaning that any readership accumulated at the old address will be lost. A similar event took place when CNET purchased mp3.com and dumped years of accumulated music. The bottom line is - for the individual protection of "intellectual property" does not take place through copyright - it takes place by making sure that you keep copies of your own data and that you own your own web addresses.

Why copyright extension is a bad idea, and why economic growth reduces the social benefits of patents

A lawyers view of intellectual property. Including some interesting observations about industries that do not have recourse to intellectual "property."

An author's view: Just the facts ma'am.

A performer's view: "when someone writes and tells me they came to my show because they'd downloaded a song and gotten curious, I am thrilled!"

A producer's view There are pirates out there...