In reporting the British government’s rejection of a 95 year copyright (from the 50 year copyright they have now), Cory Doctorow mentioned something interesting:

Reuters is reporting that the British government has rejected a proposal to extend music recording copyrights from 50 to 95 years. Virtually all music is out of print in at 50 years, and extending copyright for another 45 years would only ensure that the vast majority of British recordings were long vanished and forgotten before they returned to the public domain. Economists calculated the net present value of the 95th year of copyright at less than the net present worth of a lottery ticket — so the government would do more for the average recording artist if they bought her a lotto ticket than if they gave her 45 years more copyright.

That’s ultimately why super-long copyrights are bad. They’re worthless. The vast majority of creativity gets sucked into a black hole for little gain, either to society or the artist. These laws are essentially rackets for record labels, movie studios, and hyper-successful artists (e.g. Paul McCartney). To often, people forget that copyright is only valuable if rights are temporary. The principle is that creativity breeds more creativity which enriches society. Copyright and IP protections are a limiter or throttle on that process to make sure the artists can make a living while enriching society. There’s no argument by which the labels and mega-artists like McCartney are not making enough money on their work. On top of that, they hold back really awesome new work. Copyright terms aren’t the only issue here, obviously, but they’re a big one in the U.S. since the passage of the Disney-tailored Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act.

Too often discussions about extraordinary renditions and torture end up being completely theoretical. You know the arguments: the ticking bombs, “they’re terrorists, screw ‘em”, or that torture may be the only/best way to get information. No matter that these arguments are generally flawed. At the core of all of these ideas is that we somehow know that we’ve got the right people and that they know what we think they know.

Beyond that, though, extraordinary renditions are wrong for other reasons. We cede control over these investigations to authorities of other countries who have their own sense of right and wrong. In the case of some partner nations, this might not be too risky. But in other cases, we destroy any hope of defeating the sort of hate and distrust that drives terrorists in the first place. Say, for example, partnering with a country like Uzbekistan where it seems we and the Brits encouraged the torture of children:

11. The torture record of the Uzbek security services could hardly be more widely known. Plainly there are, at the very least, reasonable grounds for believing the material is obtained under torture. There is helpful guidance at Article 3 of the UN Convention;
“The competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the state concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.” While this article forbids extradition or deportation to Uzbekistan, it is the right test for the present question also.

12. On the usefulness of the material obtained, this is irrelevant. Article 2 of the Convention, to which we are a party, could not be plainer:

“No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.”

13. Nonetheless, I repeat that this material is useless – we are selling our souls for dross. It is in fact positively harmful. It is designed to give the message the Uzbeks want the West to hear. It exaggerates the role, size, organisation and activity of the IMU and its links with Al Qaida. The aim is to convince the West that the Uzbeks are a vital cog against a common foe, that they should keep the assistance, especially military assistance, coming, and that they should mute the international criticism on human rights and economic reform.

14. I was taken aback when Matthew Kydd said this stuff was valuable. Sixteen months ago it was difficult to argue with SIS in the area of intelligence assessment. But post Butler we know, not only that they can get it wrong on even the most vital and high profile issues, but that they have a particular yen for highly coloured material which exaggerates the threat. That is precisely what the Uzbeks give them. Furthermore MI6 have no operative within a thousand miles of me and certainly no expertise that can come close to my own in making this assessment.

15. At the Khuderbegainov trial I met an old man from Andizhan. Two of his children had been tortured in front of him until he signed a confession on the family’s links with Bin Laden. Tears were streaming down his face. I have no doubt they had as much connection with Bin Laden as I do. This is the standard of the Uzbek intelligence services.

Go to the web site and make your own judgement on the integrity of the source. He’s the former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, so he might actually know what he’s talking about. He’s publishing letters he wrote back to the British government in order to highlight problems he saw with the policies of the British government. Lest anyone think this doesn’t necessarily mean Americans are doing this, remember that we’ve been pretty close to the Uzbek government in the past. We may have even done this ourselves.

It’s a sad statement about the conduct of the U.S. government, our own adherence to human rights and international law, and our collective moral compass that we embrace policies that so horribly contradict everything our country stands for. That advocates for torture want to enshrine this behavior into law, well, that just makes me angry and sad.