A great idea should live forever. Copyrights, on the other hand...

Mark Helprin makes the pitch for permanent copyrights in the NYT. His case primarily rests on arguing that not only are copyrights a form of property, but that "No good case exists for the inequality of real and intellectual property", consequently, an indefinite copyright should be viewed as real property arising from the act of creating the work just as much as the physical products of any process.

The first obstacle Helprin's interpretation runs into is that the language of the constitution tends to indicate that copyright is a subsidy which congress is granted the power to use "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries" rather than a property right which congress is authorized to tax by limiting its duration. While lavishing praise on the founders for deciding to include copyright at all, Helprin never really makes a good argument why we should radically change the legal status of copyrights.

He raises the point that intellectual property production now accounts for the larger fraction of labor usage than when the constitution was written, but never demonstrates why this matters on any other level than a perpetual copyright would be good for the producers of copyrighted material, which is no more persuasive than arguing that a steel tariff is a good idea because it will be good for the steel industry.

He tries to dismiss Jefferson's objection to copyright on the grounds that ideas are immaterial on the grounds that copyrighted material isn't ideas. This example doesn't really make anything clearer.

Mozart and Neil Diamond may have begun with the same idea, but that a work of art is more than an idea is confirmed by the difference between the “Soave sia il vento” and “Kentucky Woman.”

The argument that art and idea are different things doesn't really help either, since copyright is commonly understood as not only covering a particular work (which itself is a piece of real property independent of any copyright), but also a range of reproductions and derivative works.

Of course, it does not follow when Helprin endorses the 1998 extensions based on arguments about a version of copyright that is entirely different than the actual law.

Besides failing to make much of an argument that "the right of property is natural and becoming" when it comes to copyright, Helprin also doesn't bother to address some predictable arguements that copyright is distinct from real property. He's silent on the requirement for copyright to be enforced by restricting the usage of the real property of others and how the usage of the real property of others in violation of the copyright does not do anything that would be considered harm to the real property of the copyright holder.

While, it's easy to dismiss Helprin on the grounds that as a potential author "the great American novel (again?)" (parenthetical Helprin's) of he has a vested interest in the matter, it's even easier to dismiss Helprin on the grounds that any op-ed piece containing the claim that Neil Diamond and Mozart are all about the same ideas is unlikely to make sense on any other matter, so I'm going to go with that.

The more I think about Mitt Romney, the more I think he will be the John Kerry of 2008. Despite being assailed as a flip-flopper and lacking strong convictions on hot button issues, Romney will win the GOP nomination due to various parts of the Republican base disliking McCain and Giuliani more than him. He will lose the general election.

So in other words, the Pew Internet & American Life Project is calling me a geek.

Friday WTF?!: Homosexual incest is My Anti-Drug

I honestly have no idea exactly what this PSA was going for. Apparently somebody in the employ of MTV Canada has decided that the best way to scare Canadian stoners straight was to point out that marijuana makes you want to make out with your brother, or that making out with your brother is a better idea than driving while you're high, or that pot makes you gay, or that getting high on pot is nothing compared to the buzz you get from breaking deep-seated social taboos. Or maybe the guy in the back is just hallucinating and the point of the ad is that it's going to be really awkward when he tries to explain why he was talking about them making out with each other when he was high and that its why you shouldn't smoke pot. Your guess is as good as mine.

(Via Julian Sanchez)

Daniel Davies likes Budweiser. So does Matt Yglesias.

I've never really cared for Bud, but perhaps it may be time for a critical reapprasal of the King of Beers.

Davies provides an extensive defense of Budweiser's authenticity and points out that Budweiser does indeed have a different chemicial composition than urine. And both take their swings at microbrews. But one topic remains unaddressed - what Budweiser actually tastes like, and I don't meant the crude metaphors about piss.

It had been a while since I had drank Budweiser, so I stopped on the way home from work to pick up a 6-pack (cans) of it to refresh my memory and see if Bud has been unjustly maligned.

Observations and underinformed opinions:

-Works well with cans. Most beers I'd rather drink out of a bottle, including many in the same price range as Bud (ex Labatts, the various Miller beers), but Bud tastes better out of a can.

-Finely filtered. This isn't unique to Bud or either good or bad in and of itself; it affects the mouth-feel, contributing to the crispness of the beer.

-Mildly hopped, but you knew that.

-Tastes somewhat bland, although it's crisp when cold, but also kind of sweet, which I don't like, and the sweetness persists in the aftertaste. I though it would taste better if it were more acidic, so I added a bit of lemon juice to it, which improved the flavor by offsetting the sweetness. Groundless speculation: This may be related to why the aluminum can works well, since aluminum is a Lewis acid.

Conclusion:

Bud isn't horrible, but it is bland and the sweet aftertaste isn't very appealling. It's certainly drinkable, but beyond its alcohol content, there really isn't much of a reason to drink it. The combination of mild flavor and light body makes the beer unobjectionable, but minimizes the taste. The scorning of Bud may have taken on a social significance beyond what the flaws of the beer itself merit, but it simply isn't very good beer.

Eugene Volokh has a great piece on why the slippery slope matters with regards to the Second amendment.

"I think we're dying," he said in the 5-minute tape, obtained under the Michigan Freedom of Information Act.

"We made brownies and I think we're dead, I really do," [Cpl.]Sanchez [of the Dearborn Police Department]continued.

He told the dispatcher he had never made marijuana brownies before, but had previously used marijuana.

Then, he asked the score of the Red Wings game on television that night, explaining, "I just want to make sure this isn't some type of, like, hallucination that I'm having."

The Freep has the story, including charming local commentary and audio from the 911 call. Via The Agitator.