How I would be voting for President if I were a citizen of the USA?

I wouldn't be able to vote for a president in the USA any more than I can vote for the Prime Minister of Canada. These are decisions made within political parties, and as part of that political center that overlaps both parties in the United States and many parties in Canada, I wouldn't be able to sign up to vote in the primaries.

That said, I agree with Lawrence Lessig when he articulates (in 20 minute and 10 minute videos on his BLOG) that there is something exciting about Barack Obama (Yes We Can Song).

The issues I am most interested in are not issues where any of the political parties, whether in the United States or in Canada, have a better direction. It all comes down to individual representatives that are elected, so I largely ignore the party banners when deciding who I would vote for. In Canada I have donated money to Charlie Angus twice already, even though I don't vote in his riding, and have never voted for his party (NDP).

I have spent much of the last decade fighting against the Clinton/Gore policies that sparked the current Copyright, Net Neutrality and related technology and economic debates. Everything I have heard from the Hillary campaign is that she has the same ties to the incumbent telecom, broadcasting, recording, motion picture and software manufacturing special interests I have been fighting against.

Obama is different in that he has even invited people like Lessig to help him on technology law policy. He has endorsed content from the debates should be licensed to allow citizen participation through remixing, something opposed by the Copyright maximalist special interests within the Demorcat party.

As part of the debate about who makes the best Tech President, others like Techcrunch have articulated why it is harder to analyze the potential candidates for the Republicans. There isn't as clear a winner or looser when it comes to new economy and technology policy. Techcrunch endorsed McCain, who even admitted that he was “illiterate” when it comes to computers.

I will be excited about the ongoing US presidential election as long as Obama is in the race, but otherwise won't really care which of the "Republicrats" wins the presidency.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Other forum...

I have also participated in the comments to Declan McCullagh's article: In tech support, Obama bests Clinton.

I think Clinton's attempt to cozy up to members of the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) is part of the problem. Many people realize that the incumbents in the tech industry are what is holding back the tech industry, and is not the future.

I'm a Canadian, so am obviously not a voter.

My first choice for president would be Obama because he talks about a future vision of tech, and isn't accepting lobbying money from the very special interests that Clinton is cozying up to and accepting money from. The fact that he goes to people like Lessig rather than Gates for advise is telling.

My second choice would be John McCain. He seems to be an old fart who doesn't know anything himself about tech, and it is unknown who his advisers would be. Chances are he'd be too distracted on other things to do any harm to tech, both domestically within the US and pushing other countries through USTR/USPTO corruption. My other values don't mirror those of Republicans in the USA, but I've vote for McCain over Clinton.

My last choice of those still in the race is Clinton, and the very idea of her as US president makes me cringe. I feel like I've spent the last decade fighting against bad tech policies initiated under her husband's regime, and it seems her allegiances will be with the same people that are at the root of most of the problems in the tech sector globally (WIPO 1996 treaties, Great firewalls of *, etc).

Also added as reply to another comment:

"For Larry Lessig, the answer has always been, ignore the laws and do what feels best for you. As a result of that, I can go to YouTube and find one of my songs taken without permission or acknowledgement and used in a video. There is another web site selling that song, also without permission and without sharing the profits."

This odd comment has bothered me, so I am going to ask. What are you talking about? The first sentence is completely made up as Lessig has never suggested anything remotely similar to that.

Are you talking about Lessig's work on Creative Commons, which gave authors some very useful license agreements they could choose to use to better express what they want to pre-authorize, and what they do not? There is nothing in Lessig's work at Creative Commons or elsewhere that can cause what you mention.

I have heard some cases of some authors signing up to legal documents without understanding them, and having regret. In the music industry this applies to most label contracts that suck the life out of musicians who are allowed to own little but debt. There have been some musicians who have applied the same lack of interest in contracts, and used Creative Commons licenses without bothering to even read the plain-language commons deed.

Lessig is a law professor that has spent much of his career voluntarily teaching people far beyond law students about the law. This teaching has lead to more respect for the law than any amount of nonsense "tough on crime" rhetoric ever could. Especially around Copyright the core problem causing the disrespect for the law is the excessive complexity of the law and practice.

If you didn't understand a contract you can't legitimately blame Lessig who has done everything humanly possible to help you!

IANAL -- I'm a technical person who became a fan of Lessig's with his book "Code: and other laws of cyberspace" who taught me that the best way to understand and explain software is to compare it to social sciences like political science and law, and not a natural science as far too many people incorrectly do.

As to your comments about "theft", I'll just point you to a more seasoned speaker on this topic: Thomas Jefferson

Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) consultant.