He’s planning to write a book.
If you read his issues page he puts “moral rights” at the center of what he wants to talk about, especially because US copyright law doesn’t recognize such a thing. I’m inclined to think US law gets this right, but I guess I’ll have to read the book when he finishes it.
U.S. law makes a mess of ip by claiming absolute and final authority on determining how patterns of information came into being and to whom those patterns “belong.” It’s opinions can’t be appealed (except to, perhaps, another body operating under the same authority) and it’s decisions are backed up with violence.
Morally, it’s an extremely hazardous terrain to be relegated to the state. A just system of ip requires voluntary instruments worked out between freely consenting individuals (the platonic ideal of a “free market”).
I don’t disagree with Clark’s position on Lessig et al. But appealing to the geographical monopolist of force against non-violent people in the name of “moral rights” automatically sets off alarm bells in my head.