the Freedom Doctrine

the FCC's Commissioner McDowell, already having established himself as the right-wing equivalent of Resident FCC Firebrand Commissioner Copps, has raised the bar a step higher. in his latest escapade, he has suggested that an Obama presidency would lead to a return and expansion of the Fairness Doctrine, and that net neutrality is the first step down this road. let's review, shall we?

the Fairness Doctrine required over-the-air television broadcasters to dedicate a portion of their air time to the presentation of multiple points of view on controversial topics. though a lot of concerns were raised about the constitutionality of such a regulation, the Supreme Court upheld it in Red Lion Broadcasting Co v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969). but it was abandoned by the FCC anyway, and as McDowell admits, it hasn't been suggested (or, i'm sure, even considered) at the FCC, and no one in their right mind would consider extending it to the blogosphere or any other portion of the internet.

more importantly, though, the Fairness Doctrine has nothing to do with net neutrality. there's a difference between regulation and control, at least when the objective of the regulation is to force the control to be in the hands of the people, not the government or any corporations. with the Fairness Doctrine, the FCC decided to force broadcasters to transmit certain types of content whether their listeners wanted to hear it or not, all in the name of fairness; with net neutrality, the FCC is forcing the cable companies (the equivalent of the broadcasters) to allow users of their services to communicate freely, without any restrictions. it's sort of the antithesis of the Fairness Doctrine - in fact, i suggest we call it the 'Freedom Doctrine'. Commissioner Copps, are you listening?

a beverages post

in the spirit of my short-lived beer blog, this is a post about gourmet beverages. over the last week or so, i had the opportunity to try a few nice things, so, here are some brief reviews.

wine:
the highlight of the last week, unquestionably, was the cakebread, or the 2003 Cakebread Cellars Benchland Select, to be precise. cakebread is known for decent chardonnays and world-class cabernet sauvignons, and the benchland select is no exception. complex flavors, incredibly smooth finish, and a ridiculously long and pleasant aftertaste. it's the sort of wine where the term 'sublime' can be used without it being ridiculous.


last night i opened up a bottle of 2006 veritas claret, brought back from a recent VA winery weekend. the claret is a drinkable virginia red wine, with a touch of the smokiness that characterizes most of the Virginia merlots and cabernet francs, in my experience. the Veritas Claret is a blend of mostly those two grapes. it didn't disappoint, but better wine can be had for a lower price. my Virginia wine weekend as a whole was outstanding, though. i saw a lot of fantastic countryside, and i had some surprisingly good wines. the best wines that i tried, hands down, came from Pollak vineyards. Pollak had the only truly great red wines i tried in Virginia - their merlot tasted like good bordeaux, and their cab franc tasted like a good rioja, with flavors of dark chocolate to die for. their white wines were no less impressive. i used to refuse to drink chardonnays, because i hate the over-oak of California wineries. but Virginia wineries do it the right way, and Pollak, in particular, achieves the perfect balance of vanilla/toffee and pure grape. i would drink their estate chardonnay any time of any day and count myself a happy man.

on my last evening visiting my parents, we opened a moderately priced bottle of barbaresco as well, which was my first opportunity to try the renowned Piedmont varietal. i enjoyed it, but i was not blown away, and my parents were not enthralled by it. perhaps it needed to open up more; i'm not sure. i have a cheap ($20) 2003 barbaresco, from a winery with young vines, that i have been holding on to, and my first experience with the type will encourage me to let my bottle age a little longer before consumption.

beer:
my parents brought back a bottle of dark efes beer from their visit to Turkey; they have not been able to find it in the United States since they returned. it's quite good overall, with great up front flavors of coffee hard candies and of chocolate, though it is a bit rough in the finish. but, a tasty and interesting beer which i will keep my eyes out for in the future.

cocktails:
my roommate made a round of Pimm's Cup cocktails over the weekend. the Pimm's Cup is a combination of an herbal-citrus-gin concoction known as Pimm's No. 1 and other non-alcoholic liquids, in this case Sprite. toss in a slice of a citrus fruit, or even grapes or apple slices or almost any other fruit imaginable, and you have made a very refreshing drink. at my suggestion, we added a few drops of angostura bitters to one of the glasses, which i think enriched a lot of the flavors even more. very tasty stuff.

pessimism in copyright law

bill patry, long time copyright law scholar and blogger, has decided to end his personal blog. his many devoted readers will miss him, but his reasons are fair and hard to argue with. [even had bill not given a reason, i wouldn't have blamed him, but i'm not exactly a role model for blogging dedication.] i sympathize with his pessimism over the state of copyright law, in particular. i went to law school to do technology law and policy, and certainly the foremost area i had in mind to work on was copyright law and its extensions, such as the DMCA. but over the first couple years of law school, including writing a paper about the errors of Grokster and taking a summer internship at the EFF, i started to turn away from it. in part that was because i saw a reasonable wealth of copyright law scholars and activists and a shortage of scholars and activists in the telecommunications side of technology law and policy, and i wanted to move into a less crowded field. but in larger part, the progress and momentum of copyright law and policy discouraged and disappointed me too much.

some are not so pessimistic, such as tim lee. he suggests his youth, but i don't buy that, in part because i think i am a year or more younger than him. i think it's more likely the second reason, that tim isn't a lawyer. i don't like the sound of that because i don't feel that it gives tim enough credit; i think he knows the legal background as well as i do. but the difference could be that, as he says, he isn't afraid of the gap between the letter of the law and its enforcement. i am very afraid of that gap, because it imposes a chilling effect on people, at least at the margins. also, i don't think the gap is as big as tim portrays it. i think that the RIAA and MPAA and others aren't letting their efforts wane at all; i perceive it instead as a gradual picking off of victims at the edges. they are starting with the large format uploaders and the universities

regardless of any possible reasons for our difference of opinion in this matter, i'm with bill - in the negative camp. maybe it's going too far to say that the war has been lost, but that's how i have felt before. lessig tried to overturn the CTEA, and it didn't work; challenges to the DMCA through judicial and legislative branches have similarly failed to achieve significant benefits. for every Lexmark there's at least one Blizzard v. BnetD. we can come back, i think; i just don't see the light yet.

[update: it's like the judges were reading! today's 2nd Circuit decision on Cablevision's DVR is a rare and significant victory for balance in copyright law.]