Anti-copyright – Anti-copyright fully embraces the notion that ideas themselves cannot be owned. It is NOT permission to plagiarize (to understand the difference, please see http://blog.ninapaley.com/2011/06/27/credit-is-due/). For more information and a complete definition of Anti-copyright, see http://anticopyright.com/
Why would any of this matter in a society where established publishing firms go to great lengths to get well written, edited and printed material on the market? Why wouldn’t it? Ours is a country that believes so much in the importance of free speech that it was the very first amendment to the Constitution of the United States, whose ratification was delayed because it didn’t specifically protect liberties. The very first amendment of the Bill of Rights states:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The Bill of Rights strived to accomplish naming the liberties that were natural-born rights to be protected (as opposed to “rights” only granted by man or paper) and one of the most important was the freedom of speech and press. “Press” refers to the printing press and not only newspapers and journalists. The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Lovell v. City of Griffin, GA, 303 U.S. 444 (1938) agrees that it includes anything published. So, the appearance of a lot of new authors that are self-publishing is a huge boost to the idea of “Freedom of the Press” and very much a boost to the American lifestyle and culture.
In conclusion, authors have a lot more resources available to help them self-publish, even more than is initially seen on the surface. Be open to new avenues and ideas, take a deep breath, and embrace the leap of faith that it can be done!
Breaking the Two Party Two-step
Andrew “K'tetch” Norton
The first Tuesday in November is election day. It is a day when people all over the country go out, and exercise democracy. In some countries, the very act of voting is seen as a triumph, something worthwhile to be attained. The US sees it as so important, that several countries have been invaded in the past century for the purposes of restoring democracy, yet the US does not have a functioning democracy itself, instead there is a pseudo-democracy, where only two parties are allowed to participate, much like in the most restrictive countries; China, Algeria, North Korea.
There are several myths about elections and voting, and I'm going to try and dispel them, or at least explain why what seems like such a good theory, doesn't work out in practice. I'm going to focus on US politics, but much of this holds true for other countries using a first-past-the-post (FPTP) system, such as the UK. In addition, I'll use the term “Major Parties” or “Major Party” to collectively describe the Republicans and Democrats. It's not an ideal choice of term, but it is one in common use in state laws across the country when talking about ballot access, to refer to those parties.
There is a never ending stream of partisan rhetoric when it comes to third parties. One of the most common claims is that voting for a 3rd party candidate is 'a wasted vote'. It has led to the rise of tactical voting in the US, where instead of voting for the person they want (if they are not one of the big two parties) we have people voting for the'big 2' representative they dislike least. This was best exemplified in the 2004 US Presidential elections, when people who hated Bush voted for Kerry, and those that hated Kerry voted for Bush. What went completely unnoticed was the third choice in almost every state — that of the Libertarian Party and Michael Badnarik (he was not on the ballot in New Hampshire, or Oklahoma), or for that matter, the Green Party, who were on the ballot in about half the states.
This 'tactical voting' is the waste of a vote. Instead of voting for the person you wish to represent you, you are voting to try and deny someone else from doing so, by supporting the opponent who is believed to be the greatest challenge. This then leads to the two major parties producing candidates who are at odds with each other, to get this dichotomy, and play people into an 'us or them' situation. There is another cost. The elected representatives in Congress are universally distrusted, and often thought of as corrupt. Why? Well, they don't actually represent the views of their constituents. What they represent is the views of the political party of the candidate that was not as disliked as the other. The other result is the rise in negative campaign adverts. Why spend money saying “vote for me, I'm better,” when you can spend the money pointing out how bad your major opponent is, and get the tactical vote as a response. The additional bonus from this method is if you lose, you've got your adverts to say “I told you so,” and if you win you've got very few promises to be held accountable for.All this from tactical voting. What a sham!
There is no reason why they are a waste of time. The main reason they won't win is not because people don't support them, but due to tactical voting (see above) people are too afraid to be on the losing side. In addition, there are other elements to supporting the party that matches your views most closely, even if it's a 3rd party. Aside from winning the election, there are other goals that can be achieved, such as federal funding if the party reached 5% in the previous election. This can be a substantial benefit to many candidates. Major parties are also scared of third parties. In 2004, when the Libertarian party sued the Commission for Presidential Debates (the organization that runs the presidential campaign debates), the Republican party, and the Democratic Party, over being unfairly excluded from the debates (they had a nationally available candidate, and the debate was paid for using state funds, and held in a state venue (Arizona State university for the 3rd debate), the debate could have gone ahead if the two candidates had agreed to allow Badnarik to participate. Both refused. The Presidential Debates are a substantial piece of advertising, rather than actual debate when it excludes significant candidates. Ninety minutes of prime time television and radio is expensive, and when you add in the news coverage and analysis of it, it's a major chunk.
One estimate is that the debates work out to be worth at least $40 million in advertising. That's a substantial sum, and would be more than the total campaign budgets of the minor parties, much less the independents. Of course, $40 million is a drop in the bucket compared to the spending nationally on Major Party candidates, but the desire to control is one that tends to override any mere cost. And costs aresomething the 2010 election has in spades. In 2008, $2.5 billion was spent. For 2010, a mid-term election (which is traditionally less costly than a presidential election year), it's estimated that between $3 billion and $4 billion was spent on campaign advertising, almost certainly focused on the two main parties. On the other side of the fence, minor party candidates are often asked why they even bother. Again, in 2004, at the Libertarian Party Conference, Michael Badnarik addressed this very issue, saying
“As a Libertarian candidate, I frequently face the 'wasted vote' syndrome. People tell me that I'm a good candidate. They believe in what I stand for, but they can't bring themselves to vote for me because they don't want to waste their vote. If you were in prison, and you had a 50% chance of lethal injection, a 45% chance of going to the electric chair, and only a 5% chance of escape, are you likely to vote for lethal injection because that is your most likely outcome? Your survival depends on voting for escape even if that's only a 5% chance.”