4A = THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
OPINION
/
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 22, 2003
TALKTOUS
Kristi Henderson
editor
864-4854 or khenderson@kansan.com
Jenna Gooefert and Justin Henning managing editors
864-4854 or jgooefert@kansan.com and ihengn@kansan.com
Leah Shaffer
readers' representative
864-4810 or lshaffer@kansan.com
Amanda Sears and Lindsay Hanson opinion editors
864-4924 or opinion@kansan.com
Eric Kelting business manager 864-4358 or adsales.kansan.com
Sarah Jantz
retail sales manager
864-4358 or adsales@kansan.com
Malcolm Gibson
general manager and news adviser
864-7667 or mgibson@kansan.com
Matt Fisher
Matt Fisher sales and marketing adviser 864-7666 or mfishers@kansan.com
EDITORIAL BOARD
Copyright law chokes creativity
At Applebee's, the staff comes out, forms a conga line, starts clapping and sings some obnoxious song to celebrate a customer's birthday. But they never sing "Happy Birthday."
The reason: "Happy Birthday," which was first published in 1893, is still under copyright.
The ability to sing "Happy Birthday" at a restaurant may seem trivial, but the copyright on the song is only one example of a larger shift in control from the consumer to the creator.
College campuses may well be at the epicenter of this trend, as the legal battle over Napster demonstrated.
This fall, webcasters, including the University of Kansas' own KJHK, fought a battle over fees. The new fees have forced many college stations to shut down for merely broadcasting over the Internet what was already going out over FM radio. Students are some of the heaviest users of Internet technology, and as a group, we consume a tremendous amount of copyrighted material.
"Happy Birthday" would have entered the public domain in 1991 according to laws at the time of its publication. But because of retroactive copyright extensions, the latest being the Copyright Term Extension Act, the popular song won't pass into public domain until 2030.
It won't likely happen then, either. Lawrence Lessig, Stanford law professor, said copyright terms have expanded 11 times in the past 40 years, "not just for new works that are going to be created, but existing works."
This continuous and unrelenting destruction of the public domain drove Lessig to sue to overturn the 1998 CTEA, for which Disney, among others, lobbied for heavily. The case, Eldred v Ashcroft, was decided Jan. 15 by the Supreme Court — Mickey Mouse won 7-2. Had the act been overturned, the original Mickey Mouse cartoon "Steamboat Willie" and "Happy Birthday" might well be in the public domain.
College students are in the position to not only understand this dangerous trend, but also to hold it back.
At a crucial time in deciding the future of copyright law, understanding the importance of innovation for students in the sciences, arts, business and every other major imaginable area is crucial to the battle. The passage of legislation has demonstrated the consequence of idly sitting by and letting Disney and the record companies decide the future.
As Bill Gates once wrote, "if people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today."
Engineering, computer science and the arts all thrive by building on the past. If the past cannot be improved upon because copyright blocks it innovation ends.
The public domain is crucial to the progress of our economy, our culture and our creativity.
Greg Holmgust for the editorial board.
WADE'S VIEW
Jennifer Wade for The University Daily Kansan
PERSPECTIVE
Cloning creates ethical concerns
Human cloning is a bad idea whose time has come.
Well, almost.
Three weeks ago, Clonald, a scientific subsidiary of the Raelian religious sect, announced to the press that its research had led to the birth of a cloned baby.
The announcement was like an answer to a bored reporter's prayer. Raeliens believe that life on earth was created by visiting aliens and that one of humanity's duties as their creation is to make clones. The founder of the religion, a French former race car driver who calls himself Rael, wore a garment culled from the Star Trek convention bargain bin in his numerous television appearances. Brigitte Boisselier, the wild-haired director of Clonaid, said proof of its cloning claim would be forthcoming.
It wasn't. Clonaid has since refused to submit the baby and mother to genetic tests to prove its claim or even reveal the identity of the pair.
The company's failure to demonstrably produce a cloned infant does not mean the technique has no future. But it does have serious implications for the future of humanity.
COMMENTARY
Human cloning comes in two varieties: reproductive and therapeutic. The aim of reproductive cloning is a baby with the exact same genetic material as its parent. Thus, such a child would be the identical
Rachel Robson opinion@kansan.com
own or its mom or dad, although born decades later. Therapeutic cloning aims only to produce embryos genetically identical to their adult human parents. Those clumps of cells would then be chemically convinced to turn into tissues the parent needs to treat an ailment. A new liver, for instance, could theoretically be grown this way and transplanted into the donor of its DNA.
so many embryos in pursuit of just one child to be wrong.
Both types of human cloning pose ethical problems.
When reproductive cloning is successful, the resulting children might suffer psychological damage from a lack of genetic individuality as they are compared to their earlier-born identical twins.
Cloning begins with the removal of the nucleus from a mature human egg cell and replacing it with the genetic material of the person or animal being cloned. Some fear that this would create a huge market for egg donors and turn women's reproductive organs into a commodity. Most reproductive clonings are unsuccessful. 277 cloned sheep embryos were needed to produce one lamb, Dolly, the first cloned mammal, and some find the willful destruction of
"What will happen when the adolescent clone of Mommy becomes the spitting image of the woman with whom Daddy once fell in love?" National Bioethics Advisory Commission Chair Leon Kass wondered in a 2001 essay.
Widespread reproductive cloning would be bad for the human species as it would reduce our genetic diversity. Like inbreeding, cloning would make our species more prone to disease by making us more homogeneous.
But even with all these downsides, human cloning is certain to become a reality. Testifying against a bill to ban human cloning two years ago, Boisselier said, "If it becomes impossible to [clone] in this country, we will go elsewhere. And if no country on this planet allows it, we will do it on a boat in international waters."
Like other bad ideas, cloning is bound to haunt us for years to come.
Robson is a Baldwin City medical student at the University of Kansas Medical Center.
Free for All
Call 864-0500
Free for All callers have 20 seconds to speak about any topic they wish. Kansan editors reserve the right to omit comments. Slanderous and obscene statements will not be printed. Phone numbers of all incoming calls are recorded.
For more comments, go to www.kansan.com.
器
Should the American people have to pay for a Bush family vendetta? I don't think so.
喜
American children cry at night thinking about Osama bin Laden the same way that Iraqi children cry at night thinking about the tyrann George Bush.
To Megan Kelleher, first of all, where did you see this crazy commercial, and second of all, why didn't you get upset when they did the same thing with the anti-drug campaign?
Hey, we're in a king executive suite in Memphis, Tennessee down on the boardwalk and where the freak are all the people to party with?
beasts ("An SUV does not a terrorist make." Kansan, Jan. 17).
beasts ("An SUV does not a terrorist make." Kansan, Jan. 17).
I just wanted to congratulate my roommate Spencer on his engagement to Malora and I hope they have an incredible, wonderful life together. Peace out both of you, keep up the great work. You both are perfect for each other.
beasts ("An SUV does not a terrorist make." Kansan, Jan. 17).
图
Where are the pants? The pants are all gone. My friend is in the hoodie and he's trying to get some footie.
Hey, us Sig Ep buddies are hangin' out at The Hawk, and we can't wait to see the hawks pound the pussycats tomorrow.
图
beasts ("An SUV does not a terrorist make." Kansan, Jan. 17).
Hey, I was up at the Union and this chick put me on hold. I don't get put on hold by nobody! 'Yall remember that!
I was at the Union tonight and my friend hit on this girl and she was like, "Hang on a second, I've got to watch my friends do karaoke," and he got pissed off and pressed out. What a little whiny baby.
2
--beasts ("An SUV does not a terrorist make." Kansan, Jan. 17).
Propaganda. The anti-drug.
Call the Free for All and tell us about your New Year's resolutions. Have you kept them? Have you crashed and burned?
We will print your responses Friday
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Editor's note: The following is a collection of letters submitted between Dec. 12 and Jan. 21.
Dear editor:
Right on, Joe!
Smoking pot does indeed hurt others. It financially supports organized crime. It screws up the lives of the friends and family of the smoker, not just the user. You can rarely find a cocaine, meth or heroin addict who did not begin with pot.
I am 54 years old. The drug use that began in the free-for-all time of the 1960s has resulted in great devastation to families everywhere. Many of my contemporaries are dead, their marriages failed and their children's lives ruined.
The amazing thing is that fools still debate the harm done by personal choices regarding drugs. Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison, Elvis Presley and many others are not here to tell us the truth. But the fools playing around with it today are only too ready to spread their ignorance.
The 30-year experiment with drugs has long since reached its conclusion. Drugs screw up your ability to reason, control yourself and your life!
Warren Bainter, Oberlin, Kan.
I'm writing in response to Ryan Wood's column, "Rowing gives glory to females." As a former walk-on rower and basketball player, as well as a colleague of Mr. Wood's on the Kansan, I couldn't be more disappointed in his choosing the women's rowing team as his latest whipping boy.
Dear editor:
While there are obviously problems in collegiate athletics, the rowing team is the antithesis of all those negative headlines. The rowers represent the best qualities of student athletes. The team is consistently ranked in the top 25 in the nation and has one of the top three grade point averages for teams at Kansas. And coach Cattloth's team always has the greatest number of 4.0 student athletes. No one ever questions our graduation rate. And isn't that what college athletics should be all about?
I also take extreme offense to the belief that my teammates were merely decent athletes in high school. I invite Mr. Wood to attempt one rowing work-out and then decide how "athletic" these women are. Rowers at Kansas have never been "given" any glory—they've worked hard for everything they've ever received.
Finally, Mr. Wood, I can only hope your daughter is lucky enough to participate in college athletics. It was the greatest experience of my life. But I guess it really isn't about luck, is it? It's about hard work, dedication and determination. And you will never find a more determined group of women than the rowing team. The fact of the matter is that misinformed people like you will not deter these women, it will only cause them to work harder.
Ali Brox, class of 2002
Dear editor:
While watching an SUV search for a parking place to accommodate its girth, I thought of Ms. Kelleher and her recent paean of praise for these four-wheeled
Instead of trying to rationally connect the dots behind what occurred on Sept. 11 (and what will likely occur in the future), she refuses to look at facts and merely resorts to hyperbole and exaggeration.
It takes some effort for a journalist to be so willfully blind, and the only explanation must be that Ms. Kelleher is looking for a job selling cars.
She ridicules those who would dare question the link between this country's growing addiction for foreign oil, a screwed-up foreign policy, and terrorism.
Ray Finch, Instructor, Applied English Center
Dear editor:
I am writing in regards to the articles written during this past semester by Eric Borja. I just wanted to let him know that his articles, especially "Senior remembers early years, ponders looming graduation," were some of the most entertaining Kansan pieces I had read in my four years at KU.
somewhat bitter chuckle – best not to be too emotional about the editorial board.
I did not read them all, but I know I enjoyed the ones I did have time to read. I know opinion columnists usually get shot down by the masses, but I just wanted to let him know he did a great job.
Chance Jay Smart
Dear editor:
Matt Pirotte's Jan. 17 article for the editorial board, "Potential scholars shafted by policy," left me uncertain whether to scream, laugh or cry. I chose a
It still strikes me as an odd piece, moaning about the University's budget-based decision not to give full-ride scholarships automatically to out-of-state National Merit Scholars. For years now, the Kansan has blasted KU for recruiting National Merit Scholars so heavily in the first place, as a quick search of the online archive reveals. Chancellor Hemenway was sometimes derided — sometimes simply mocked — for his National Merit recruitment goal.
KU's various policies relating to National Merit scholars were attacked on all sorts of grounds, from sour-grapes whining to charges of elitism. And now the editorial board thinks it's terrible that KU is reducing National-Merit expenditures! I recognize that membership on the editorial board changes, but suddenly to reverse a position held fairly consistently for several years strikes me as more deeply rooted than changing membership. I think perhaps the editorial board understands its role as simply to criticize whatever decisions the University makes. "KU's recruiting National Merit scholars? How awful! What? KU's not recruiting as National Merit scholars as heavily? How awful!"
Perhaps the editorial board should consider taking informed, reasoned positions, not simply engage in juvenile contrarianism. It's easy to fault everything KU does until, of course, one tries to think of alternatives or make positive contributions to the University community.
Aaron D. Profitt, Lawrence graduate student
K