Lawyers rarely test their power, or the power they promote, against this simple pragmatic question: "Will it do good?" When challenged about the expanding reach of the law, the lawyer answers, "Why not?

We established a regime that left creativity unregulated. Now it was unregulated because copyright law only covered "printing." Copyright law did not control derivative work. And copyright law granted this protection for the limited time of 14 years.

Before the monopoly should be permitted, there must be reason to believe it will do some good - for society, and not just for monopoly holders.

I'm all for experimenting with sortition - randomly selected representative bodies of citizens. But I don't favor direct democracy. We're busy. We have lives. There is reddit. Who has time to work out the right answer to the thousand policy choices a gov't must make all the time?

You and I both know that as long as our representatives are held hostage to their funders - and their funders are not all of us - our system will not work

While appropriation art is critical to art, it's an ambiguous art form in the world of the Supreme Court.

Code plus law is combining to reduce rights consumers used to have.