I'd say that I'm a reformed techno-utopian.
[etc]
I guess I should clarify what the hell that meant. F*tchan whiners.
It's just that many copyright reformers get obsessed with "rights" rather than crafting practical solutions that lead to good outcomes. This is the same thing that the content industry does.
That said, I'm probably as far to the left on IP issues as anyone except for people who think it should be outright abolished. (Which is a silly position, as the GPL and creative commons and the ability to demand attribution depend on copyright law.)
For instance, I'm opposed to anti-circumvention laws, since I think they do more harm than good, particularly when they interfere with fair use. Nor do I think that permission should ever need to be sought to make transformative works or to use samples, that copyrights should ever be retroactively extended, or that technology should adapt to suit the desires of a few moneyed copyright holders. More radically, I doubt that IP should be freely transferrable. But I'm not going to hang my hat on a list of made-up "rights" that I as a user or creator think I ought to have, unless I can justify in practical terms *why* I should have a particular right that relates to the purpose of IP law to begin with (to limit people's freedom to the extent necessary to create incentives that lead to the production of new works).
IP is one of the clearest quid-pro-quo, results-driven areas of the law, yet both sides take up the rhetorical position of moral crusaders enforcing "rights" and "principles." Maybe some of this is necessary on the reforming side to combat the rhetoric of the other side, and I've probably indulged in it myself, but I've tried to
take a more practical stance in the past when dealing with IP issues.
