Quoting Simon Willard: Thanks to Henry for his very lucid explanation of what's wrong with copyright law. I am in total agreement. I'm convinced that copyright law is hindering creativity and protecting the wrong people. The biggest problem is that we rarely discuss the issue at all.

Yes, good comment. There are two major problems with copyright law. First, the absurd length, what possible PUBLIC interest is served by having 75 year copyright laws? None. The Constitution states the sole purpose of Copyrights is to "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Given that any artist can make massive amounts of $$$ within 5 years of having a hit record or book, what is the need for 75 year copyrights? The US Supreme Court refused to overrule congress but that was solely because it wanted to defer to congressional authority. Secondly, the "artists" in fact get very little of the money earned from copyright protection. Most of it goes to the corporations and "suits" who by clever contracts get most of the money. I really hope the EU tells Hollywood the & their USA lackeys to go stuff it.

More Judah Please! I like this guy. As far as plotting Iran's idiosyncratic system along the continuum of regime types is concerned, I think the most useful is probably "competitive authoritarianism".

i can see why big corporations would want a 75 year copyright law but i just think it's hilarious when pirate bay and boingboing go crazy over this stuff. i'd love to see copyright law abolished and then have 16 exact replicas of boingboing pop up....literally just copy and paste. i'm sure they'd say "i don't care" but they'd immediately see how annoying all their harping is. pirate bay: "yeah! we're fighting for the right to....steal everything immediately after it comes out! yeah! that's our creed!"

Nearly everyone can agree that the Iranian election results were falsified to one degree or another and that the regime is acting with typical repression. But I'm struck by how much media coverage in the U.S. serves mainly as a proxy for ideological battles there. (Mossavi as the "Hope and Change," Persian version of Barack Obama, "Conservative" Ahmenidjad as a bearded mirror image of GWB). This Washington-centric worldview, to say the least, tells us little about what's actually going on in Iran, or what the implications of the election might be for the West generally, or for the Obama administration's goals in the region in particular. My own view (for what it's worth) is that very little will change in Iran, particularly with respect to its foreign policy, regardless of who is elected. Tehran's nuclear efforts will continue; its rejection of Israel's right to exist will continue; and it will continue to look for ways to increase its influence over Iraq, trying to deligitamize the idea of a "Western-style" democracy in the Middle East. Not exactly groundbreaking analysis, I know. We may hope the opposition to Ahmadinejad is the first stirring of a movement

Quoting rfrobison: and it will continue to look for ways to increase its influence over Iraq, trying to deligitamize the idea of a "Western-style" democracy in the Middle East.

Good thing Khamene'i hasn't left Iran since the Revolution...

Quoting Stapler Malone: Good thing Khamene'i hasn't left Iran since the Revolution...

Point taken. I would simply say, though, that Turkey is sort of half in and half out of the Middle East. Its traditional (and not all that democratic) elite, going back to Attaturk, has seen Turkey as part of Europe. Most Europeans may not, but that's another question.

Quoting rfrobison: Nearly everyone can agree that the Iranian election results were falsified to one degree or another and that the regime is acting with typical repression. But I'm struck by how much media coverage in the U.S. serves mainly as a proxy for ideological battles there. (Mossavi as the "Hope and Change," Persian version of Barack Obama, "Conservative" Ahmenidjad as a bearded mirror image of GWB).

This Washington-centric worldview, to say the least, tells us little about what's actually going on in Iran, or what the implications of the election might be for the West generally, or for the Obama administration's goals in the region in particular.

My own view (for what it's worth) is that very little will change either in Iran, particularly with respect to its foreign policy, regardless of who is elected. Tehran's nuclear efforts will continue; its rejection of Israel's right to exist will continue; and it will continue to look for ways to increase its influence over Iraq, trying to deligitamize the idea of a "Western-style" democracy in the Middle East.

Not exactly groundbreaking analysis, I know. We may hope the opposition to Ahmadinejad is the first stirring of a

Just started watching, but I did want to correct one thing Judah touched on starting at about 11:40 -- the now-famous survey purporting to show strong support for Ahmadinejad. I have posted some links to strong disputes with the analysis of those results in another thread, here and here, if anyone is interested. May be a moot point by now, but still, for the record ... I'm also in strong agreement with the views that Henry and Judah expressed early on, about this situation being very hard for the typical online American/Westerner to understand.* I applaud our instinct to root for the Iranian people looking to break free from the totalitarian aspects of their rulers, but there is a lot of uninformed cheerleading and opining going on, in both directions. (Like that never happens on the Internet, I know.) [Added: I see now that rfrobison made similar points.] One more minor pushback: Henry started with a complaint about the MSM's poor job of coverage, especially over the last weekend. I think it's important to distinguish between cable TV and print journalism, and I'm not the only one. The NYT's Lede blog has been good, as have some of the NYT's articles, just to name one good

Quoting bjkeefe: I applaud our instinct to root for the Iranian people looking to break free from the totalitarian aspects of their rulers...

Either Henry or Judah preferred authoritarian to totalitarian in this sense. Sounds like a good choice to me; the latter is probably hyperbolic and is in any case overused these days.

Quoting kidneystones: The obvious question is: when exactly do the lights go on for all the dreamy folks convinced that 'dialogue' is possible with a regime this defensive, this dishonest, this dangerous, and this corrupt. Imagine that these mullahs and their hizbollah and hamas minions are firing rockets into your back yard.

The obvious rejoinder is: when exactly do the lights go on for all the paranoid "folks" convinced that the leaders of Iran are suicidal and that the only thing to do is preemptive bombing? I'm not saying talking to them is going to be easy, but I have yet to hear a better idea, and not talking to them certainly isn't it.

Quoting piscivorous: There are one or two voices out there that don't discount the possibility that the Iranian election actually is the true voiced of the Iranians. (via rightwingnuthouse.com)

Pretty good piece from Amjad Atallah and B'head Daniel Levy. Shorter version is in the title: "Too Early to Call," but there are some interesting subtleties involved with why that claim is made. One telling rhetorical question that pushes back against the thinking that your Abbas Barzegar quote represents is this:

In addition, we ourselves would ask if there were such broad public support for Ahmadinejad, why has there been such a concerted government attempt to shut down media and communications networks? The government isn't acting with the assurance of one that has two-thirds of the public behind it.

I'd add that trying to make a claim about the popularity of a political figure in a country of the size of Iran (~70 million people) based on the crowd size at one rally is a bit iffy. (cf. Sarah Palin)

While I agree that the copyright law needs to be completely rethought given the reality of the internet and new distribution models, both Henry and Judah are mistaken. The current US copyright law already allows any musical performer to create a "cover version" of another artist's song, provided that the performer complies with certain easy-to-follow copyright prerequisites, mostly notably, paying legislatively-determined "statutory" publishing royalties to the original composer. (This is why Britney Spears can re-interpret "Satisfaction" without even getting permission, as long as she essentially pays the statutory royalty rate per copy sold of the re-recording due the Rolling Stones for their publishing rights.) This is quite different from allowing companies (self-proclaimed pirates) to build businesses by simply giving away the intellectual property of others without paying any royalties to artists or rights holders whatsoever. This is really a question of the distinction between two different rights afforded artists under copyright (among others): the right to control reproduction (copying previous recordings, e.g., download distribution) and the right to create derivative works (re-interpretation).

Some spectacularly dumb statements from Eric Cantor and Bill Kristol. Well, given the sources, perhaps the adjective is redundant and the adverb flat-out wrong. But still ... is there anything guys like these two won't try to spin into an attempt to make Obama look bad? [Added] Also. [Added2] Always "good" to hear from Dana Rohrbacher and Michael Ledeen, too. [Added3] Wrap-up of the neocons, from HTML Mencken. [Added4] There is no discernible bottom to the dumb.

Andrew Sullivan's blogging on Iran since the protests started has been exemplary, but he can't help himself at times and has at least twice already made reference to Ahmadinejad tactics as being those of Rove and Cheney. Such a foolish man. God bless him though.

Quoting syrupico: This is quite different from allowing companies (self-proclaimed pirates) to build businesses by simply giving away the intellectual property of others without paying any royalties to artists or rights holders whatsoever.

Last I heard, the Pirate Bay sells T-Shirts. Not much of a business, really. And shutting them down wouldn't even put a momentary dent in the amount of piracy. Truth be told, technology is going to effectively push down the cost of a digital copy (of newspapers, books, music, movies, games) to near zero. Happily, it's also effectively pushing the creation costs down to zero as well.

Quoting Lyle: Andrew Sullivan's blogging on Iran since the protests started has been exemplary, but he can't help himself at times and has at least twice already made reference to Ahmadinejad tactics as being those of Rove and Cheney.

Such a foolish man. God bless him though.

Yep. I pretty much agree. Major cringe when he finished one of his exhortations with "Yes we can." As the man sang, he's just an excitable boy. But, like you, I think he deserves a standing O for his overall blogging effort on this story.

Quoting DoctorMoney: Last I heard, the Pirate Bay sells T-Shirts. Not much of a business, really. And shutting them down wouldn't even put a momentary dent in the amount of piracy.

Truth be told, technology is going to effectively push down the cost of a digital copy (of newspapers, books, music, movies, games) to near zero. Happily, it's also effectively pushing the creation costs down to zero as well.

Eh... the creation cost of books isn't really changing, ink and paper and a typewriter were negligible costs anyway and the rest is just human creativity (well, and a spellchecker). The cost of games has exploded as it became possible to do more than have a square bounce between two rectangles. It's true that the bare minimum cost of making a game has gone down, from thousands of dollars to a couple hundred, but in terms of meeting expectations it's become a thousand times more expensive. Movies are sort of similar to games, but there's always a market for low budget talkie movies and documentaries, as well as really expensive flicks: Cleopatra (1963) cost, accounting for inflation, $290 million. So movies are a mixed bag. You might be right about music though, I dunno anything about that. Grunstein's

I feel the need to voice my opposition to pretty much everything Judah said about copyright and sampling. I wonder what amazing hiphop he is thinking of which benefited by the legal decisions on sampling. I can think of lots of crap that came about because of those decisions (think of Puff Daddy's use of Police songs here). I feel he made the case for the opposition (which side I would be on). Good discussion nonetheless, Henry is always worth listening to.

A bad blog about Iran, frankly. Blogs are rumor mills, and so blogging about other blogs as a source of enlightenment is nothing more than pursuing truth through silly gossip. I canīt decide if Henry goes on like this to educate listeners about the dangers of bloginfo or he actually sees some validity in it. But either way, nothing new or valuable is learned. It is like saying thoughful analysis can`t clear the fog a bit about what is going on in Iran.

This was a refreshing change from the usual relentlessly Americanocentric view of international relations on bhtv. I have always found Henry Farrell enlightening, and I hope Judah Grunstein will return in future episodes. Though the European Union might not interest most Americans, it is, despite the understandable apathy of many Europeans, a truly novel historical experiment that may be more important for the future than the United States. Of course, no one knows yet if it will succeed, but then it was by no means obvious two hundred years ago that the United States, half free and half slave, would succeed either.

Quoting Francoamerican: I have always found Henry Farrell enlightening, and I hope Judah Grunstein will return in future episodes.

I agree. I really enjoyed this diavlog. The discussion about Iran was already a little out of date, but it seems unfair to criticize them for not knowing what no one else does either, and the meta discussion about the coverage and how to analyze the blog/Twitter information was interesting. Henry's take on European Union affairs is always appreciated by me, and it was good to have someone else with knowledge and a slightly different take. (I took a class on the European Union once and it was the most boring class I have ever taken, so I'm always happy to have Henry confirm that it wasn't just me, but part of the design.)

Quoting pampl: Grunstein's argument really irritates me, but it irritates me too much for me to think clearly about what specifically I disagree with, so I don't really have any response to him.

Heh, that's exactly my reaction, except that I'm not sure he really had an argument. Something about if he were Disney, he'd like the 75 year copyright, so feels that he can't question it.

There is no such thing as "Intellectual Property". Pirate Bay doesn't charge people by "giving away" property, they provide a site where people can exchange copies of TV shows and movies. It should be noted the "Industry" and all the popular musicians have already made millions and in the case of the Beatles - Billions - of dollars on their artistic endeavors. How much money does the Disney family currently get? How much are the Disney employees of the 30s and 40s who helped create Mickey Mouse getting? As stated, the only reason in the USA we give copyrights is the promote the public interest. Of course, as shown again & again if you bribe enough congressmen and Senators you can pass *any* legislation - no matter how stupid, or harmful to the majority.

Quoting rcocean: There is no such thing as "Intellectual Property". Pirate Bay doesn't charge people by "giving away" property, they provide a site where people can exchange copies of TV shows and movies.

It should be noted the "Industry" and all the popular musicians have already made millions and in the case of the Beatles - Billions - of dollars on their artistic endeavors. How much money does the Disney family currently get? How much are the Disney employees of the 30s and 40s who helped create Mickey Mouse getting?

As stated, the only reason in the USA we give copyrights is the promote the public interest.

Of course, as shown again & again if you bribe enough congressmen and Senators you can pass *any* legislation - no matter how stupid, or harmful to the majority.

So, I guess Microsoft should only have been paid for its first, what, 10 copies of Windows? Ridiculous.

Quoting rcocean: Yes, good comment. There are two major problems with copyright law. First, the absurd length, what possible PUBLIC interest is served by having 75 year copyright laws? None. The Constitution states the sole purpose of Copyrights is to "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Given that any artist can make massive amounts of $$$ within 5 years of having a hit record or book, what is the need for 75 year copyrights?

The US Supreme Court refused to overrule congress but that was solely because it wanted to defer to congressional authority.

Secondly, the "artists" in fact get very little of the money earned from copyright protection. Most of it goes to the corporations and "suits" who by clever contracts get most of the money.

I really hope the EU tells Hollywood the & their USA lackeys to go stuff it.

I agree with rc completely, in this instance. Look for signs of Armageddon.

Quoting AemJeff: I agree with rc completely, in this instance. Look for signs of Armageddon.

Heh. Hate to spoil the New Unity, but I don't completely agree. I do think 75 years is crazy, and I usually adopt the other side in this debate in general, since I find most IP shenanigans the worst form of parasitism and the way the music and movie businesses are run to be comically bad, but I think it's wrong to think about this in terms of Walt Disney and the Beatles. Or even one-hit wonders. Virtually no one makes a killing by doing art, be it music, animation, or any other form. Only a small fraction can even make a decent, long-term living at it. I sometimes think that maybe art should be for amateurs -- in the old sense of the word -- maybe there's no reason for anyone to expect to make a living this way and whoever wants to do it should do it as a hobby. But ultimately, I have the view that society is better off by having as much art as possible, and I would like to be able to support creative people to that end. In other times, we used patronage systems. To some

Quoting bjkeefe: Heh. Hate to spoil the New Unity, but I don't completely agree.

I do think 75 years is crazy, and I usually adopt the other side in this debate in general, since I find most IP shenanigans the worst form of parasitism and the way the music and movie businesses are run to be comically bad, but I think it's wrong to think about this in terms of Walt Disney and the Beatles. Or even one-hit wonders.

Virtually no one makes a killing by doing art, be it music, animation, or any other form. Only a small fraction can even make a decent, long-term living at it. I sometimes think that maybe art should be for amateurs -- in the old sense of the word -- maybe there's no reason for anyone to expect to make a living this way and whoever wants to do it should do it as a hobby. But ultimately, I have the view that society is better off by having as much art as possible, and I would like to be able to support creative people to that end.

In other times, we used patronage systems. To some degree, we still do, what with grants and all, and some other

Quoting AemJeff: You're right: rc did say five years. I'm for more like twenty, so I guess "completely in agreement" was an overstatement. I think separatng Disney and its ilk from nearly perpetual revenue streams based on decades old work will create a strong force for the creation of new work, or force them out of business to make room for somebody with a newer idea - I'd see either of those as a Good Thing. To be sure, this isn't the only problem with the economics of being an artist, but I think current law empowers the corporations and the middle men - the leeches - at the expense of both those doing and those consuming creative work. There's no reason (not to pick Disney specifically, but...) for Mickey Mouse not to be in the public domain by now. Not to mention the output of the Beatles.

I think Stevens in his SCOTUS opinion quoted a study that showed that for films/recorded music/books, etc. 90 percent of the revenue is USUALLY (yes, there are exceptions) earned in the first 5 years. Even in the age of DVD's this makes sense. Most artists have a hit or two and then fade away. Further, I would guess

This column in The New Republic - Clerical Error by Abbas Milani - is a good example of thoughful and illuminating analysis I was expecting from Henry and Judah. Judge for yourselves how far away "them both is" from punditry on this issue. http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.ht...d-c8e1729284a5

Quoting rcocean: I think Stevens in his SCOTUS opinion quoted a study that showed that for films/recorded music/books, etc. 90 percent of the revenue is USUALLY (yes, there are exceptions) earned in the first 5 years.

Actually, I'm surprised it's that low. I guess that "long tail" phenomenon is real. If nothing else, this makes me think a little more strongly that five years isn't long enough.

Even in the age of DVD's this makes sense. Most artists have a hit or two and then fade away. Further, I would guess 90 percent of copyright violations revolved around stuff put out by Hollywood and the Big Record companies.

That sounds ballpark-right, and certainly, a non-trivial fraction of those "violations" are ridiculous complaints about things that ought to be seen as fair use filed by companies that can afford fleets of lawyers

Most artists aren't helped or hurt copyright infringement - no one cares enough to copy it

This doesn't sound like a good argument to me. "Most people" do the right thing in just about all circumstances. Laws are needed for the few. Ask The Chiffons and Willie Dixon, for example. Also, I'm not sure what your basis is for saying no one cares enough to copy