Free To Be You and Me? Copyright and Constraint

Joseph P. Fishman’s Creating Around Copyright advances a provocative thesis: some restrictions on creativity can spur the development of additional creative solutions, and (some level of) copyright might be one of those restrictions. If Picasso was right that “forcing yourself to use restricted means is the sort of restraint that liberates invention,” then being forced by law to use restricted means might do the same thing, ultimately leading to more varied and thus more valuable works. At the outset, it’s important to know the baseline against which we ought to evaluate Fishman’s claims. Most copyright restrictionists, of whom I count myself one, don’t want to eliminate all copyright law. Fishman’s argument is directed at creators who want to take an existing work and do something with it — incorporate parts of it into a new creative work or make a derivative work based on it. Because the question is the proper scope of copyright as applied to these works, the comparison should not be to a world without copyright, but should instead focus on the marginal effects of expanding or contracting copyright’s definitions of substantial similarity and derivative works. Once the question is properly framed, I have concerns about the major analogies Fishman uses — patent law and experimental evidence about other types of constraints on creativity — as well as his model of the rational creator

Free To Be You and Me

The playbill for Taylor University’s Fall 1979 performance of Free to Be… You and Me by Marlo Thomas and Friends. Free to Be…You and Me is a collection of stories, songs and poems, designed to teach children interdependence, mutual respect, and personal dignity. Presented by the Advanced Oral Interpretation Class.https://pillars.taylor.edu/playbills/1313/thumbnail.jp

Summum and the Establishment Clause

Chief Justice Roberts: [T]he more you say that the monument is Government speech to get out of the first, free speech—the Free Speech Clause, the more it seems to me you’re walking into a trap under the Establishment Clause. If it’s Government speech, it may not present a free speech problem, but what is the Government doing speaking—supporting the Ten Commandments? Justice Kennedy: [I]t does seem to me that if you say it’s Government speech that in later cases, including the case of the existing monument, you’re going to say it’s Government speech and you have an Establishment Clause problem. I don’t know if—I’m not saying it would necessarily be resolved one way or the other, but it certainly raises . . . an Establishment Clause problem. Justice Souter: But . . . [t]he Government isn’t disclaiming [the Ten Commandments monument]. And the difference[,] it seems to me[,] between you and your friends on the other side is you want this clear statement [that the city has adopted the monument]. You want a statement—for example if you took Justice Scalia’s statement, that would satisfy you, and it would also be the poison pill in the Establishment Clause. Isn’t that what’s—I mean, that’s okay with me. I don’t see that as an illegitimate object. I was a Van Orden dissenter . . . . I. A Ghostly Dialogue A specter haunts Pleasant Grove City v. Summum—the specter of religion. Although both sides insistently litigated the case under the Free Speech Clause, the prospect of an Establishment Clause violation continually emerged during oral argument, slightly beyond the Supreme Court’s purview. The written statements that the Court ultimately produced conjured a similar ghostly apparition located just outside the boundaries of the holding. Whereas Justice Alito’s majority opinion simply determined that the display of the Ten Commandments monument constituted government speech, a circumstance that precluded the possibility of a free speech-based challenge, the concurring opinions of Justices Scalia (joined by Justice Thomas) and Souter again raised the Establishment Clause specter

Summum and the Establishment Clause

Chief Justice Roberts: [T]he more you say that the monument is Government speech to get out of the first, free speech—the Free Speech Clause, the more it seems to me you’re walking into a trap under the Establishment Clause. If it’s Government speech, it may not present a free speech problem, but what is the Government doing speaking—supporting the Ten Commandments? Justice Kennedy: [I]t does seem to me that if you say it’s Government speech that in later cases, including the case of the existing monument, you’re going to say it’s Government speech and you have an Establishment Clause problem. I don’t know if—I’m not saying it would necessarily be resolved one way or the other, but it certainly raises . . . an Establishment Clause problem. Justice Souter: But . . . [t]he Government isn’t disclaiming [the Ten Commandments monument]. And the difference[,] it seems to me[,] between you and your friends on the other side is you want this clear statement [that the city has adopted the monument]. You want a statement—for example if you took Justice Scalia’s statement, that would satisfy you, and it would also be the poison pill in the Establishment Clause. Isn’t that what’s—I mean, that’s okay with me. I don’t see that as an illegitimate object. I was a Van Orden dissenter . . . . I. A Ghostly Dialogue A specter haunts Pleasant Grove City v. Summum—the specter of religion. Although both sides insistently litigated the case under the Free Speech Clause, the prospect of an Establishment Clause violation continually emerged during oral argument, slightly beyond the Supreme Court’s purview. The written statements that the Court ultimately produced conjured a similar ghostly apparition located just outside the boundaries of the holding. Whereas Justice Alito’s majority opinion simply determined that the display of the Ten Commandments monument constituted government speech, a circumstance that precluded the possibility of a free speech-based challenge, the concurring opinions of Justices Scalia (joined by Justice Thomas) and Souter again raised the Establishment Clause specter

Letter from Irving Fisher to John Muir, 1905 Nov 10 .

[illegible]UniversityDepartment of political Economy[illegible]Conn.Nov.10, 1905.Mr. JohnMartinez, Cal.My dear I.Ir. Muir:-I hope you will not think me unduly pertinacious if I write you again to ask whether you can aid me by contributing some data from your personal experience on the relation of diet to fatigue. My point of view is not that of a vegetarian, but simply of a truth-seeker and hygienist, and your own experience as it has been related to me would seem to be particularly valuable, because you also apparently have no vegetarian or other bias, and have made free use of whatever diet suited your purpose. In other words, you have alternated. I am told, between a diet without meat on your walking excursions, and the ordinary diet, including meat, at other times. Whether your motives had anything to do with endurance I do not know, but you can enlighten me.Hoping that you will consent to drop me a line in regard to this matter, I amVery truly yours,[illegible]P.S. I make only impersonal use of all my information, and the names of correspondents will be withheld from any publication

Meet Me by Moonlight

Meet me by moonlight aloneAnd then I will tell you a taleMust be told by the moonlight alonein the grove at the end of the valeYou must come for I said I would shew the night flowers their QueenNay turn not away thy sweet head\u27This the loveliest ever was seenoh! meet me by the moonlight aloneMeet me by the moonlight alone. [Verse 2]day light may do for the gay,The thoughtless, the heartless, the free,But there\u27s something about the moon\u27s raysThat is sweeter to you and to meOh! remember be sure to be thereFor tho\u27 dearly a moonlight I prize,I care not for all in the airIf I want the sweet light of your eyes,So meet me by moonlight aloneMeet me by moonlight alone

The minimum description length principle

The pdf file in the repository consists only if the preface, foreword and chapter 1; I am not allowed by the publisher to put the remainder of this book on the web. If you are a member of the CWI evaluation committee and yu read this: you are of course entitled to access the full book. If you would like to see it, please contact CWI (or, even easier, contact me directly), and we will be happy to give you a copy of the book for free

With Liberty and Justice for Some

Yes, I said it. Cue the USSR anthem and call up the retired McCarthyites to put me away for good. I think there’s a maximum amount of money you should be legally allowed to make. Try your best to swallow my words. Remain skeptical; don’t trust me yet. But, I beg you to keep an open mind. Remember, I am no politician; I’m not trying to trick you with some underhanded rhetoric. I have a bona fide, genuine concern for the majority of Americans who are fighting an uphill battle in their “pursuit of happiness,” and I will use the principles of Macroeconomics to fortify my argument and fight for you—the little guy. Emanuel Grant: Greetings, fellow Americans. Like most of you (I’m assuming), I am an American college student—a 3rd year Italian major at the University of Virginia. “The University of Virginia?” you might ask, “this is a James Madison University journal.” I have had the great pleasure of attending both universities, although I wrote With Liberty and Justice for Some while a student in one of my favorite classes at JMU—good ole’ GWRTC 103. In my essay, I write for social justice when it comes to wages in America. If you like what I have to say, feel free to contact me and discuss it more! If not, please feel free to contact me and tell me how much you hate it! Either way, it has been an honor and a pleasure to work through GWRTC and to produce something I am truly proud of—and to get recognized in e-Vision is the icing on the cake. With Liberty and Justice for Some explores my inner, socioeconomic beliefs. I’ve been raised Red, yet for the last eight years of my life, I’ve been socially Blue. Unfortunately for my psyche, these two separate ideologies dictate completely different societal structures. By today’s standards, the more Republican your worldview, the more you embrace the free-market; the more Democratic your worldview, the more you embrace government intervention in order to help the common man. I try to (only) see the positives on both sides of the spectrum. But, when it comes to wages, I think there is a time when the government needs to step in. Though by some social standards—civil rights, women’s suffrage... you name it—we (society as a whole) have progressed over time, when you take a look at our income gap, we haven’t come too far. It’s medieval. I propose a way to use elementary economic principles to try to convince you, my fellow Americans, that there might be some societal benefit behind a maximum wage—or at least, as you will find, something like it. In the end, it’s all hypothetical. But, I have spent countless hours in and out of class, in books and with professors, researching the topic. And, I think my idea holds water; maybe you will think the same

Letter from Kate Glessner Carrithers to John Muir, [ca. 1902] May 21.

My dear Mr Muir.Will you kindly inform me as to the exact title of Clarence King\u27s work on geology (as I understand it) relative to the geology of the Yosemite. If his book would not be helpful perhaps you will suggest something in it\u27s stead, not too technical. Since coming to California03006 your name has grown so familiar and your books have given so much pleasure to me and some friends of mine who are lovers of nature and the free untramelled life you enjoy. We are contemplating a journey to the Yosemite [to?] remain perhaps thru\u27 the summer and wish to enjoy it in the most intelligent way, at least to get a clear idea of its beauty. Mr Lukens, whom we know, has spoken of you so often that I felt not the least fear in asking your assistance.My friends have four new [illegible] and I have [illegible] Mountains of California. We would be delighted if you would suggest others you like.With very great respectKate Glessner Carrithers408 Kensington PlacePasadena Calif.May 21