Copyright law and me ... and you

As many of you know, I am in the process of publishing my book Governing Ourselves. Respecting the copyrights of others has been one of the most challenging tasks I have faced as part of that process, because I have used several brief quotations from copyrighted sources.

Being a first time author, I am learning what is, and is not reasonable. One author and one publisher have been very gracious, and state that my use falls within "fair use" under the Copyright Act, thus no royalty is due them. On the other hand, I requested permission to use a brief quotation from a 1972 interview with Richard Nixon that was published in a newspaper that has been defunct since the 1980s. Another newspaper owns the copyright and wants a $390 royalty for the first 25,000 copies printed. If I knew that I would sell 25,000 copies of the book, that would seem reasonable, but if I only sell a few hundred...! (I have since removed that quotation and replaced it with a story that was posted in this blog about two years ago -- which turned out to be an improvement in content).


Existing copyright law is intended to protect artists and writers from those who would simply copy the work and sell it for themselves. It relies on what I call "passive regulation" (a concept on which I will elaborate in my book) -- you find that someone is stealing your work, you can sue for damages. The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) relies on "active regulation," meaning that a corporation can ask the federal government to shut down sites that use copyrighted material. In other words, certain major content providers (such as New York publishers and Hollywood film companies) want to shut down all competition by taking control of the Internet. To give you an idea just how far-reaching this bill is, it seems that the Congressman who introduced the bill was himself a violator by illegally using a copyright image as background on his site (since removed).

In about a month, I will be adding a commercial element to The Ohio Republic (to sell my book, of course). In so doing, I will have to take much greater care about my use of copyrighted material on my site, because it then will be considered "for profit." I understand that, and am preparing for it. However, under SOPA, The Ohio Republic would be strictly limited to the content I generate myself. I could not even link to a copyrighted source, lest that source put me at risk by infringing on someone else's copyright.

My primary purpose in writing Governing Ourselves is to share with the public insights that I have gained over the last twenty years. I admit that I would also like the book to be profitable enough to substantially increase my retirement fund; and appreciate now, more than ever, the importance of protecting the rights of the author. However, I feel that existing law does that well enough. I have no desire to go against the blogger who quotes a couple of paragraphs of my book, as long as that blogger gives me credit for it (and a link to a site that sells it would be nice, too :) ).

Government has an obligation to protect the people from force and fraud. Reasonable copyright protection is a necessary function of our legal system. However, it should not be used to encourage the greedy to trample on the rights of everyone else.

In yesterday's post, I suggested an easy way to contact your Congressman and Senators in opposition to SOPA. If you have not registered your opposition to SOPA yet, please do so now.

We're back -- but keep up the fight

If you did not do so yesterday, please let your Congressmen and Senators know that you oppose the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). An easy way to do this, and comment on other legislation, is to join DownsizeDC (www.downsizedc.org), managed by Jim Babka, a resident of Cuyahoga Falls. The site includes an automated e-mail generator that will direct your message to your federal legislators. Membership is free, and with membership, you will receive e-mail alerts of legislation that affects your liberties, on which you can comment. With each alert, DownsizeDC provides some background information, and suggestions on how you can write your own personalized e-mail message tailored to the issue.

War fever is building again

... judging from last night's Republican candidate debate in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. I am specifically referring to audience reaction to the exchange about war policy, at 10:17 in the New York Times live blog:

The question was familiar -- virtually the same one that was famously asked of Democratic candidates for president in 2008: If there was actionable intelligence about Mullah Muhammad Omar, the Taliban leader, in Pakistan, would you go in?

Newt Gingrich took a while to get to the answer, but it was unmistakable.

"Andrew Jackson had a pretty clear idea about America's enemies," he said. "Kill them." *

Audience reaction: "USA! USA! USA!"

Mr. Romney had a pretty clear answer as well.
"We go anywhere they are, and we kill 'em," Mr. Romney said.

Same reaction.

That, of course, was not Mr. Paul's answer. His answer prompted loud boos from the audience.

"Maybe we ought to consider a golden rule," Mr. Paul said. "Don't do to other nations what we don't want them to do to us." [Emphasis added.]

Ron Paul later drew a distinction between defense spending and military spending. He argued that spending what we do on defense spending would ensure that our borders and our people are well protected (concurring opinion); but that military spending on "nation building" is, in fact, waste. 

Hearing this exchange on the radio frankly made me sick to my stomach. Following my post Dec. 1 drawing parallels between the Reichstag fire and 9-11, the audience reactions to Messrs. Gingrich and Romney, on the one hand, and Dr. Paul, on the other, reminded me of the hysteria the Nazis whipped up among the Germans during the Third Reich, with the help of the party song Horst Wessel Lied, the lyrics to which are: 

The banner high! The ranks are tightly closed!

The SA march with calm, firm step.

Comrades shot by the Reds and reactionaries

March in spirit within our ranks.

Clear the streets for the brown battalions,

Clear the streets for the stormtrooper!

Millions are inspired when they see the swastika,

The day of freedom and of bread dawns!

For the last time, the call to arms is sounded!

For the fight, we all stand prepared!

Soon Hitler's banners will fly over all streets.

Our time of bondage is nearly over!

Substitute our troops for the SA, Jihadists and terrorists for Reds and reactionaries, and the U.S. flag for swastika and Hitler's banners, and you get a pretty good picture of the pro-war, any war, mindset; one that apparently has taken over one audience in South Carolina against the teachings of the Christ many of them would so proudly proclaim (Matthew 7:12), and against the warnings of Washington and Eisenhower.

* It should be noted that when Andrew Jackson said that, he was referring to the British invasions of the United States during the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812.

Champion of Liberty

This is the third year that I have awarded the Champion of Liberty designation on Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday to honor African-Americans who have outspokenly supported liberty (2010 winners, 2011 winners). This support tends to run against the grain of those who claim to carry on the work of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., but who in my opinion distort his message. The award is nothing more than recognition in this space. There are no certificates, no medals, no public ceremony. Only the recognition that the black community includes men and women who have intelligently and courageously bucked the notion that individual freedom is somehow "racist."

David Webb

This year, there is only one honoree. I have long admired his courageous commitment to liberty, expressed on his radio talk show Saturdays 10 am-1 pm on Sirius/XM Patriot Channel 125. He knows his Constitution, and he articulately speaks out on behalf of free enterprise. He has a deep admiration for the military, which to me unfortunately seems to cloud his judgment where national security is concerned. He is by far the most civilized talk show host I have ever heard. He eschews namecalling, treats everyone, including his opponents, with respect, and researches his positions carefully. He does not wear his race on his sleeve -- in fact, I have listened to him for over a year, and did not know he was black until I recently visited his site "on the wwwebb."

David Webb is in a class by himself, and therefore stands alone as the 2012 Champion of Liberty.

Now on the front burner: Ohio Workplace Freedom Amendment

It takes courage -- even chutzpah, in the wake of Issue 2's defeat, to introduce a Right to Work amendment in one of America's most heavily unionized states. But that is exactly what the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law and a group being organized as the Ohio Workplace Freedom Amendment. The group is presenting language to the Ohio Attorney General for an amendment to the Ohio Constitution that would become Article I, Section 22 (full text here).
As the American Thinker argued in its call for a national Right to Work Act, the right to associate must logically include the right not to associate. Americans have the inherent right to form a union whenever they may deem it necessary -- and the right not to join one. The economic benefits of Right to Work are obvious. The states with growing economies have it. The states with stagnant economies generally do not.

What happens when a state enacts a Right to Work law? Employees of businesses still have the right to form a union, providing that no one is forced to join or compelled to pay dues. Members of the union can still strike, but they cannot prevent other employees from still working. The union can still negotiate contract terms for their own members, but they cannot bind employees who do not belong to the union.

So unions do not vanish in states with Right to Work laws. In Alabama, which has Right to Work, more than 10% of the workforce belongs voluntarily to unions. What Right to Work does do is place unionized labor in the free market, competing with non-unionized labor. Free labor, like free business [or free enterprise], is good in the long run for everyone.

I have written earlier about the convoluted procedure that unions put those of us through who object to paying the political portion of union dues. State employees have no choice, but to pay the collective bargaining portion. Forced unionism benefits one political party and philosophy against the interest of many of its members, and leads to leadership that is not accountable to its members, as I wrote October 20.


In the same post, I answered the usual union objection that without "fair share" fees (which are anything but fair to those who have to pay them), nonmembers would become "freeloaders" benefitting from collective bargaining without sharing its cost. This is bunk. The objection can easily be answered by placing nonmembers outside the protection of the union. This means that non-union employees may end up with the same arrangements as managers, or even contract for work as individuals. In other words, Right to Work enables labor to function as a free market -- just what the labor bosses abhor. Just what we need to empower individuals to achieve all they can without facing artificial barriers erected by socialist ideology.


So why is Workplace Freedom being introduced now? I suggest it is because Ohioans strongly objected to certain provisions of Issue 2 that clearly were designed to strip public employee unions of their legitimate functions to protect their members. However, it is also clear that Ohioans did not buy the entire package that the unions wanted to sell. Since workplace freedom does not interfere with the legitimate functioning of unions with respect to their own members, it should win the support of a majority of Ohioans in this November's election.

Mitt Romney for smaller government? His record says otherwise

Mitt Romney

Carla Howell is Executive Director of the national Libertarian Party. She also happens to know a thing or two about Mitt Romney, having opposed him for Governor of Massachusetts in 2002. In her weekly message to Libertarians, Ms. Howell lays out the case against Mr. Romney:

• He ran in 2002 as a "no new taxes" governor; but even during the campaign, he proposed three new taxes (on vehicles, on campaign donations, and on building construction). Ms. Howell's comment: "They didn't get much fanfare in the media and were quickly forgotten."
• He raised taxes each of the four years he was Governor by calling them "fees." He also enabled collection of an Internet sales tax, approved legislation to allow local governments to raise business property taxes, and approved a new tax penalty that raised income taxes on both individuals and small businesses.
• In 2008, Mr. Romney boasted that he was the first candidate to sign a "taxpayer protection pledge." Ms. Howell's comment:

So he’ll call his tax increases “government fees” or “closing loopholes” or “penalties” or something else. But if Romney is president, the IRS will collect this money from you, your family, your friends, and millions of Americans just like you.

• So, okay, how about spending?  

The Massachusetts state budget was $22.7 billion a year when he took office in January of 2003.
When he left office four years later, it was over $25.7 billion – plus another $2.2 billion in spending that the legislature took “off budget.” (Romney never reminds us of this fact.) 

• As Governor, Mr. Romney claimed that his hands were tied by the Democrat legislature. But each of the four years he served as Governor, he started budget negotiations by proposing a $1 billion increase. Before the legislature had said anything.
• Then there is "RomneyCare," said to be the model for Obamacare. Who was the biggest fan of RomneyCare? Ted Kennedy. He and Mitt Romney had an alliance going to get this bill passed. And, participation is mandatory. Those who refuse face stiff fines and income tax penalties.

Carla Howell knows what she is talking about, so when Mitt Romney, supported by a compliant media, tries to pull the wool over your eyes, or those of someone you know, you have some facts. Any other Republican Presidential candidate would be more fiscally conservative than Mitt Romney.

Pre-Constitutional Rights

Jim Babka is a Cuyahoga Falls resident who runs the DownsizeDC Foundation, which runs DownsizeDC.org, a site which helps individuals generate e-mails to members of the Congress. He has come up with an idea that deserves being spread.

There is no such thing as "Constitutional" rights.

Why? Because our Founding Fathers made it clear that our human rights come from God (or if you prefer, "the state of nature."). The Constitution does not; and as the Ninth and Tenth Amendments make clear, cannot enumerate our rights. It does, however, list all of the powers of the federal government.

If our rights were based on the Constitution, they could be erased by court decisions or by replacement of this Constitution with something else. The same rights, by the way, apply to everyone else who sets foot in this country. Everyone else, including alleged jihadists -- because they are rights applicable to all humanity. It has to be this way, because we do not want to punish innocent people, and the only way we can avoid punishing innocent people is to ensure that all people receive due process of law.

With this in mind, we need to talk about pre-Constitutional, or natural rights. Mr. Babka concludes:

Pre-constitutional rights are necessary to a natural law viewpoint; the philosophy held by the signers of the Declaration of Independence, the framers of the Constitution, the ratifiers of the Bill of Rights, AND Downsize DC. We shout it loud and proud -- "Pre-constitutional rights precede and are superior to Constitutional rights."

Obviously, we're still grateful that our pre-Constitutional rights are acknowledged in the Constitution. It's important that the requirement for The State to protect these rights is the law of the land, because those who covet State power constantly seek to harm humanity. But . . . 

If we're depending on the whims of the employees of The State to protect us, simply because we're all Americans, then our faith is misplaced. The Constitution cannot protect a people who fail to vigilantly understand from where it is their rights derive. Neither can the protection of those rights be honestly maintained if we're unwilling to acknowledge that everyone else has these rights too, NOT JUST CITIZENS. Remember the Golden Rule!

To deny that human rights are inalienable in any one case, it to deny them in every case, including your own. 

If you are not registered with DownsizeDC.org, I encourage you to join.


And I will encourage all of my readers henceforth to act in support of our pre-Constitutional rights!

What Ohio stands for

I was in the Ohio Statehouse yesterday, when I encountered the following quotation, which to me represents the high political ideals that Ohioans have represented through the ages. We would all do well to remember them as we work to rebuild our state and our society:

Let Ohio speak for human rights, for universal manhood suffrage, for fair and honest elections, for economy and purity in public affairs, for honest money and stable government.

-- George Washington Williams (1849-1891)

Mr. Williams was the first African-American to serve in the Ohio House of Representatives, representing Cincinnati 1880-1881. In his brief life (he died at 41), he was a veteran of the War between the States (having enlisted at 14!), and was a minister, historian, and diplomat. He wrote the first history of African-Americans, and at the end of his life, launched an investigation of the mistreatment of the people of the Congo at the hands of agents of King Leopold II of Belgium. He contracted tuberculosis and pleurisy, and died in England returning from Africa. He is buried in England.

He spoke for human rights, which are enshrined in our Ohio Constitution, adopted in 1851. The Bill of Rights has expanded since then, most recently last year with the adoption of Issue 3, nullifying mandatory health care.

He spoke for universal manhood suffrage, which Ohio, unfortunately, was slow to embrace -- but finally did so with our ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870. However, Ohio redeemed itself in 1919 by becoming the sixth state to ratify the Nineteenth Amendment, extending suffrage to women.

He spoke for fair and honest elections. For most of Ohio's history, particularly during the service of Secretary of State Ted W. Brown (in office 1950-1978) and his successor Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr (1979-1983), Ohio has had an exemplary elections process. More recently, it has been tainted by scandals involving a Secretary of State (Ken Blackwell) who actively participated in the 2004 Presidential campaign while in office, and with problems involving voting machines made by Diebold.  However, his successors Jennifer Brunner and Jon Husted have gradually restored credibility to the office.

He spoke for economy and purity in public affairs. For most of Ohio's history, the state was run economically. As recently as 1991, Ohio ranked very near the bottom of the 50 states in state tax burden. While the continuing recession has resulted in much higher taxes (to maintain steady revenues), efforts of Gov. Kasich and the Ohio General Assembly are managing the budget without further tax increases. When their efforts bear fruit, Ohio will again be working toward economy in public office. Purity in public affairs, however, is one of those ideals that can never be attained, but must always be striven for.

He spoke for honest money. In our history, Ohio has been a leader for a currency that represents value. In 1819, State Auditor Ralph Osborn attempted to enforce a tax on the Bank of the United States, in part because that bank issued currency without backing. "Sound money" is the issue that propelled Ohio's William McKinley to the Presidency. Today, many in the Ohio freedom movement are pressing for a way to protect Ohioans from a future hyperinflation by facilitating the use of gold and silver in payment of taxes and as a currency.

Finally, he spoke for stable government. To me, stable government should be boring. It consistently, day after day, enforces a small number of easily-understood laws to protect the lives, liberties, and property of Ohioans. All things considered, and particularly in comparison to other industrialized states, Ohio has done this reasonably well; but like purity in public affairs, it is a continuing struggle to maintain.

George Washington Williams's ideals are a statement of the fundamental principles of political life in Ohio, principles which we have generally applied well; but of which we must continually remind ourselves as we move forward.

So Presidents don't need to know the Constitution now?

I heard this exchange Saturday during the Republican candidate debate in New Hampshire (Los Angeles Times report):

George Stephanopoulos: Governor Romney, so you think that states have the right to ban contraception or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?

Mitt Romney: George, this is an unusual topic that you're raising... states have a right to ban contraception, could it constitutionally be done? We could ask our Constitutionalist here, (motioning over to Ron Paul) uh...

George Stephanopoulos: I'm sure Paul could answer the question, but I'm asking you, do the states have that right or not?

Mr. Stephanopoulos and Mr. Romney went back and forth for several minutes. Mr. Romney eventually made a grudging admission that yes, the states do have that right, but of course, no state is considering it.

So what kind of President do you want? One that is attractive and says what you want to hear (with the risk that he will make a contrary statement that someone else will want to hear), or a President who will obey his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution?

Virtual buckeye to Sherry Mann.

Is the Tea Party dead?

Kevin McCullough at Townhall thinks so. He compares the energy and enthusiasm of the Tea Parties going into the 2010 Congressional elections with the apparent willingness of Tea Partiers (at least the ones he knows) to accept non-conservative Mitt Romney as the Presidential candidate.

We all know that the Tea Party is not a monolithic national movement. It is divided between three major organizations, in which thousands of local Tea Parties enjoy considerable autonomy. It is difficult to get such a diverse movement to coalesce nationally around a single platform or candidate (though it is possible at the state level, as Ohio's Tea Parties, through the Ohio Liberty Council, demonstrated with Issue 3's nullification of mandatory health insurance last November).

Two years ago, I warned the Tea Party movement about getting into bed with the Republican Party. In the first post, I asserted that the Tennessee Tea Party was committing suicide by inviting Sarah Palin to be a keynote speaker. In the second, I quoted Chuck Baldwin, whose warning has proven to be prophetic, right down to the personalities:

You are being infiltrated. You are being compromised. You are being neutered. Stick to your principles. Stick with the Constitution. Keep opposing unconstitutional, preemptive wars. Keep calling for the abolition of the Federal Reserve. Keep fighting for less taxes, reduced federal spending, and states' rights...

Be wary of people such as Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. You don't need "big name" celebrities to give you credibility. As Samson's strength depended on keeping his hair uncut, your strength lies in keeping your principles intact. And unless you want to wind up like the Republican freshmen in 1994, avoid Newt Gingrich like the plague!

At the time, people worried about Tea Parties being too narrow and ideological. They proclaimed that their basic issue was restoring a federal government that obeyed the Constitution. Constitutional government can allow a wide diversity of opinion on policy issues. But no movement can survive a compromise of principle.

From the beginning the Tea Parties have been divided on the issue of American military involvement abroad. Given the militaristic spirit that pervades our country, it is possible that a strong antiwar position, following the examples of George Washington and Dwight Eisenhower, would greatly marginalize the Tea Parties. However as the Jesus said (long before Abraham Lincoln), "A house divided against itself cannot stand." (Mark 3:25)

It is hypocritical to support limited federal government while calling for military adventures around the world. If the Tea Parties cannot reconcile this conflict, they will not have any impact in this year's elections.