We are on the cusp of this time where I can say, "I speak as a citizen of the world" without others saying, "God, what a nut."

The popular choice is not elected as president.

Technology means you can now do amazing things easily; but you couldn't easily do them legally.

Legislation needs a better reason than that lawyers like it, and that America does it.

So uncritically do we accept the idea of property in culture that we don't even question when the control of that property removes our ability, as a people, to develop our culture democratically.

I think the reality is that copyright law has for a very long time been a tiny little part of American jurisprudence, far removed from traditional First Amendment jurisprudence, and that made sense before the Internet. Now there is an unavoidable link between First Amendment interests and the scope of copyright law. The legal system is recognizing for the first time the extraordinary expanse of copyright regulation and its regulation of ordinary free-speech activities.

So uncritically do we accept the idea of property in ideas that we don't even notice how monstrous it is to deny ideas to a people who are dying without them.