COPY WRONGS: Actually found myself agreeing with something Newt the Coot said, when he championed the Internet and other "new media" for "many-to-many" communication rather than "few-to-many" corporate entertainment. Newt saw the rise of right-wing media (talk radio, religious TV, "upscale" magazines, et al.) become a counterforce to the "objective" corporate media, and thinks the new telecommunications could further strengthen his favorite voices. (Let's not tell him his favorite media's just the same few-to-many syndrome without the old-school bureaucratic propriety Newt mistakenly calls "liberal." Real many-to-many communication would encourage real empowerment, not submission to the rich and the PACs.)

Anyhow, another reason Newt wants to keep the new media (the Internet, umpteen-channel cable, video dialtone, et al.) out of the claws of the established media industry's 'cuz the latter has been in bed with the Clinton/ Gore crowd. Of course, the media biz also loved Reagan, and any politician who supports its expansionist agenda.

One example: the way Reagan, Bush and Clinton-era FCC officials kept rewriting the broadcast rules to favor ever bigger radio-TV station ownership groups, to the point where broadcast properties are increasingly held by out-of-town financiers bent less toward serving the stations' communities than toward speculation and empire-building.

Another example: the Clinton administration's proposed copyright law rewrite. Clinton's National Information Infrastructure Task Force has drafted legislation to drastically limit what folks can do with information. Among other nasty provisions, it'd trash the "First Sale Right" that lets an info buyer do whatever she wishes with the copy she bought -- the right that allows the video-rental industry to exist. In addition, the "fair use" provision (allowing authors to use brief relevant quotes from copyrighted works) would be greatly restricted; devices that could undermine electronic anti-copying systems would be outlawed; and "browsing" a copyrighted work, in a store or online, would be technically illegal.

As the online service GNN NetNews quotes Univ. of Pittsburgh Prof. Pamela Samuelson, "Not since the King of England in the 16th century gave a group of printers exclusive rights to print books...has a government copyright policy been so skewed in favor of publisher interests and so detrimental to the public interest." NetNews also quotes Wayne State Prof. Jessica Litman as saying the proposals would "give the copyright owner the exclusive right to control reading, viewing or listening to any work."

The punk/DIY decentralization aesthetic isn't just a cute idea. It's vital if the "info age" isn't going to be a globally-centralized thought empire. Newt, despite his rhetoric of "empowerment," wants a thought empire controlled by the Limbaughs and Robertsons; Clinton wants one controlled by the Viacoms and Time Warners. It's up to us to demand None Of The Above.