The Future of Ideas 170
| The Future of Ideas | |
| author | Lawrence Lessig |
| pages | 352 |
| publisher | Random House |
| rating | 9/10 |
| reviewer | Michael Sims |
| ISBN | 0-375-50578-4 |
| summary | Suppressive efforts by entrenched industries threaten innovation in cyberspace |
Ideas has been reviewed in Salon and in the Washington Monthly; the book has a promotional website as well.
Lessig starts off by looking at the idea of a "commons," a community resource of some sort. The traditional commons is a public park or piece of land, but Lessig is more interested in looking at less-traditional commons on the 'Net and other communications systems. He moves on to examining some of the innovations that have been spurred by the recent growth of the Net -- typically startup companies that have taken advantage of the commons represented by TCP/IP and HTTP to provide a new service or product. If you follow Slashdot religiously, you probably read about most of these companies at least twice -- once when they started offering their innovative new whizbang, and again when they were sued by Megacorp, Inc., and shut down. The final part of Ideas covers the lawsuits, or more precisely the efforts by entrenched players to keep anyone else from playing. The distinction is important, because lawsuits are not the only way to keep upstarts from being able to participate: control of the code is also an important tool. For every control through lawsuits story that Slashdot runs, there's an equivalent story about control through code.
Just as in Code, Lessig is not optimistic about the future. Why should he be? So far, despite every warning, every attempt to sound the alarm, the forces trying to shut down innovation are winning in an utterly convincing fashion. A blurb compares the book to Silent Spring, the famous book about the environmental effects of DDT. Silent Spring was more or less successful -- DDT is now banned for most uses in the U.S., and the book had great effect in raising environmental awareness, but overall, environmental quality has continued to suffer. Lessig's book is not likely to be as successful. Attacking DDT was relatively easy compared to attacking the unlimited expansion of intellectual property, which has many multi-billion dollar companies willing to fight to defend their continued erosion of the public commons.This should suffice to summarize Lessig's book. The ideas in it should not be unfamiliar -- Lessig is hardly the only one espousing this point of view today, though he is one of the most articulate. The final chapters have Lessig's suggestions for ways to reverse this trend of quashing innovation -- different ways of managing the electromagnetic spectrum to produce a better wireless commons (it's worth noting that the unlicensed 2.4 Ghz band has been the source of most recent wireless innovation), ways to create an Internet commons on the wired network (some municipalities are already doing this, laying municipal fiber to the home and following an open access policy), changing copyright law and patent law to put more code in the public domain, changing contract law so that end-users can't be forced to sign away their rights. All are good suggestions. Despite the hopeful notes in parentheses just above, most of these suggestions stand little chance of being adopted any time soon. But perhaps Rachel Carson was looking at much the same uphill battle against DDT.
Ideas is most comparable to The Control Revolution by Andrew Shapiro, an earlier effort to explore the changing dynamics of control on the net. Shapiro was much more optimistic, and writing without much of the recent evidence that Lessig uses to make his point that innovation is being squashed thoroughly. If you will, there is an optimism scale -- John Perry Barlow defines one end of the scale, Shapiro is in the middle, and Lessig occupies the pessimistic side. Smart money is on Lessig.
All in all, it's a fine book. I think I prefer Code though, for a variety of reasons -- I find the central premise of Code to be less obvious, more ground-breaking. Or perhaps I've just read so much about "innovation" during the Microsoft trials that I can never again read the word without wincing. As with Code, Lessig has extensive footnotes, making this a scholarly work (for the scholars) but a perfectly readable book even for non-scholars. In any case, it's strongly recommended.
You can purchase this book at Fatbrain. Want to see your own review here? Read the book review guidelines, then submit using Slashdot's web-submission page :)
Squelching Freedom and innovation. (Score:2, Troll)
1) Suing anyone who replies and quotes my copyrighted message.
2) Suing anyone who moderates this message down for attacking my character.
3) Sue any banner ad companies whose ads appear above my comment unless they have text within the ad saying "The comments of the advertiser are not meant to be related to LordOfYourPants."
4) Sue thinkgeek for giving me a hernia with their "Codito, Ergo, Summ" shirts.
Mae West is the best... (Score:2)
1) Suing anyone who replies and quotes my copyrighted message.
Is that a god in your pocket, or are you just glad to sue me?
One code to rule them all (Score:1)
I think this is where the influence of open-source comes into play. If open-source technology is based on the people having their say in the code, and the code makes the laws, then I'd imagine once the online community gets large enough this would make for the only true online democracy
cool.
DDT? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, yeah, Silent Spring *did* raise the problem of DDT and it's gone now. But there had to be *something* to fill in those gaps. Now they are spraying for West Nile Virus mosquitoes up here in the Northeast US and doing far more damage with the pesticides than they are helping. After all, WNV has killed what.. three? five? people. Is it really worth destroying generations of birds and their offspring to save five lives? How many millions die of malpractice?
But back to the topic at hand.. until we get judges who know computers are better for something than product placement in televised courtrooms, or understand something about intellectual copyright itself, there wont be a change. If you dont think that large companies are stealing ideas left right and center, well, wake up. 3m bought the idea for post-it notes for like, 1.99 from the guy who came up with it, due to contractual obligations that almost all of us sign. If you develop code, and use your work computer for even one line of said code, it probably falls under your blanket contract that says your company now owns it, and owns j00 as well.
Until laws like that get challenged, and beaten, companies squelching free development, or the furthering of technology outside their-own pockets are going to continue to be the status quo.
What is the solution? I dont pretend to know.. but getting more technologically savvy people into the courts in judge, jury, and lawyer roles could be a start. Face it, M$ is going to send in the best 10 lawyers they can find, and what does a Mitnick get? Whatever the PD's office can spare.
Maeryk
West Nile (Score:2, Insightful)
The guy who invented post-it notes did it while he was on the job at 3M. All the work was done at work, using 3M's equipment and supplies. He's never complained.
You seem to be complaining that companies own the products that we are producing for them and for which we are paid.
Re:West Nile (Score:2)
I said the "new stuff" they are spraying. I didnt say it was DDT. My concern is that Malathion turns out in 20 years to be far worse than DDT ever was. I have no faith whatsoever in a 2 year controlled test that says "well, its safe enough" when we have a lot of evidence to prove that in the last five times it was "safe enough" it wasnt. (Dioxins, DDT, Asbestos, Fiberglass, Carbon Tet, etc)
You seem to be complaining that companies own the products that we are producing for them and for which we are paid.
Actually, I'm more complaining that a company makes billions of dollars of of one employees hard work and inspiration, and that employee doesnt see squat. Or that in this day and age of code, it becomes a lot more blurred. When does plagiarism occur? When one line matches another? In these new days of coding, what is the likelihood that someone somewhere will get sued because their line of code (standard) matches someone elses line of code (standard) which existed first?
Maeryk
Re:DDT? (Score:1, Insightful)
The problem with DDT use in the 50's was that it was used in huge quantities and without proper oversight. It was seen as a chemical cure-all. There are appropriate uses of DDT for mosquito control. The fact that it's outright banned instead of properly controlled has resulted in thousands of unnecessary malaria deaths throughout the world.
Confusing tech knowledge with politics (Score:3, Interesting)
Always bear in mind the other possibility: that they might actually know the facts but honestly disagree with your conclusions. Whatever you and I may think of the DeCSS decisions recently, there is no denying that Kaplan and the appeal court knew and understood the technology and the law that was relevant to the case.
The idea that artists and inventors should be granted limited monopolies on their works is a very old and respectable idea (e.g. the US constitution). It takes a bit more than arm-waving to cast it all aside.
Also, bear in mind that the judges in the DeCSS case have very properly had to defer to Congress except where Congress exceeds its constitutional powers. The system was designed that way for good reason. Believe me, you really don't want judges making up the law as they go along.
I have a lower opinion of Congress as a venue for getting these things right though. For a variety of reasons they get a clearer view of the arguments to increase IPR than to limit them. Most of these come down to a combination of money and the tendency of focussed interests (e.g. 5 movie studios) to over-ride diffuse interests (e.g. 500e6 movie fans). But thats about par for the course. Congress has made some stunningly bad decisions over the past couple of centuries, and will no doubt make more. If you want to improve it, you know what to do.
Paul.
Kaplan is an idiot (Score:2)
No, Kaplan's just doing his job (Score:2)
If the defense's strongest argument can be creditably dismissed by hand-waving, then the defense needed stronger arguments.
I seriously doubt that the RIAA will press civil charges against anyone who cannot be construed to be a threat to society (ie: pirate, terrorist, hacket, etc.). As for criminal charges, that's the DoJ's turf, and the case against Dmitri Sklyarov is the best example of how they'll work. In both arenas, they'll pick the ugliest targets, and try them for who they are, not what they've done, merrily building up precedents here and case law there.
Regardless of your feelings about DeCSS (I'm for it), the RIAA did a very good job of picking a target when they picked 2600 Magazine. It's right up there with Hustler for content and editorial integrity, and 2600 came into court with a serious negative image problem. The rest of the case went about as well as could be expected. That earned the RIAA a legal precedent, and set up additional hurtles for the next target.
The only way that the DMCA will get overturned is if someone manages to do something that obviously violates the DMCA, but is also easily recognizable as something that is socially acceptable and/or necessary. At this time, I can't think of anything that matches these criteria -- the right to download Star Wars movies off the 'net doesn't qualify, and neither does anything else I can think of. Anyone got any suggestions?
Re:No, Kaplan's just doing his job (Score:2)
Regardless of your feelings about DeCSS (I'm for it), the RIAA did a very good job of picking a target when they picked 2600 Magazine.
It's starting to scare the hell out of me, frankly, that even those of us who have insightful, reasoned, well-thought-out things to say (and sub-five-digit UIDs) can't keep the RIAA and the MPAA straight. I mean, sure they're all the same evil mega-corporate enemies of freedom and everything, but I don't recall the Recording Industry suing 2600 over the copy-protection of Motion Pictures.
What makes it so scary is wondering, if we can't even remember the names of the organizations that we're talking about, then do we really understand what's going on as well as we'd like to think we do?
Yeah, I know it's just a silly mistake, but come on.
That said, I'm totally with you on the point about how "they'll pick the ugliest targets, and try them for who they are, not what they've done, merrily building up precedents here and case law there." Very nicely worded, and an important point to which more attention needs to be drawn -- I thought the implicit acceptance of this way of doing things was the most mystifying thing about the rejection of Felten's case.
Re:No, Kaplan's just doing his job (Score:2)
Ba-a-a-a-d Llama. What can I say -- I was at work, I was focusing on the comment I was replying to, instead of trying to remember whether I was talking about the left hand or the right hand.
Re:No, Kaplan's just doing his job (Score:2)
Ba-a-a-a-d Llama.
Can I assume that those responsible have been sacked?
Again, like I said, of course it's kind of nitpicky, but I do think it's pretty important to keep things straight when arguing a position and this one is sort of a pet peeve (like the local crypto experts who keep talking about factoring prime numbers); I didn't mean to pick on you, but I've seen it enough times that it was getting embarrassing.
Re:No, Kaplan's just doing his job (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyone got any suggestions?
Yeah, I'd like to be able to play the DVDs I've legally purchased on my BSD (or insert your favorite OS) box. Reverse engineering has traditionally been a legitimate method for making things work when the original owner of a technology isn't interested in pursuing some particular market or use of the technology.
Re:No, Kaplan's just doing his job (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice argument (and I agree with you), but they're going to come right back and point out that you can play DVDs on DVD players, and that DVD players aren't pirate tools, but Linux and BSD are hacker tools, so you must really want to pirate that DVD. No, that isn't a logical argument if you pick it apart, but you don't get to cross-examine the MPAA lawyers -- just their witnesses.
Re:No, Kaplan's just doing his job (Score:2)
No, that isn't a logical argument if you pick it apart, but you don't get to cross-examine the MPAA lawyers -- just their witnesses.
You could, of course, bring a witness to pick apart their claims. Preferably someone in academia, who can cite good examples and make the judge understand what's at stake.
Re:No, Kaplan's just doing his job (Score:2)
I wrote: No, that isn't a logical argument if you pick it apart, but you don't get to cross-examine the MPAA lawyers -- just their witnesses.
You replied: You could, of course, bring a witness to pick apart their claims. Preferably someone in academia, who can cite good examples and make the judge understand what's at stake.
You misunderstood my point -- when it comes to the courtroom, each side will bring the best witnesses they can, and each side will place all of the testimony into a context that best suits their needs. So far the MPAA and RIAA lawyers are much better at casting their opponents in a bad light. They stand up and tell the court how much money they've spent on these technologies, and how much money they stand to lose from pirates, while pointing across the room at the defendent. Meanwhile, the defendent's lawyer has to argue that liberty and freedom are more important than the minor indiscretions of their defendent. And there will have been indiscretions -- a skilled lawyer can make Snow White look like a common hooker (after all, she shared a home with *7* men, all of them *dwarves* and she was mixed up with *evil* witches).
The worst of their innuendos will be saved for their summary arguments, which can't be interrupted, and can only be rebutted in summary arguments -- they can't be objected to during the argument itself. You can't put the lawyers themselves on the stand, no matter how much you'd prefer.
BTW, academics generally don't make good witnesses, since they tend to be too honest, and too disconnected from everyday life. They talk about abstract things that might never happen, while the judge knows that none of their academic research means a damn thing in the real world.
Re:No, Kaplan's just doing his job (Score:2)
Re:No, Kaplan's just doing his job (Score:2)
It would to *me*, but I'm not a judge. Censorware authors would certainly disagree, as would too many self-appointed, holier-than-thou guardians of community values (like Virginia State Delegate Richard Black, who recently tried to force this cr*p into the Loudoun County Public Libraries, only to lose on First Amendment grounds in US Federal Court).
IANAL, but I suspect that it wouldn't pass muster because blocking software is typically deployed in as an "opt-in" measure -- it's on computers because someone who's responsible for that computer wants it there. If you don't want to use a computer with blocking software, you can go elsewhere, or sue to have it removed (in the case of computers in libraries). Breaking the encryption on URL lists wouldn't help in court, since you can always sue the software vendor and get their lists via deposition or subponea.
Re:No, Kaplan's just doing his job (Score:2)
Re:No, Kaplan's just doing his job (Score:2)
If you're a customer, that's between you and the company that's supplying the software, but my guess is that in order to install the software, you'll have to agree to a license that says you won't get to know that answer. If you didn't agree to the license, you shouldn't have installed it, yada, yada, UCITA, you gave up your rights.
In any event, when this case did come to court a few years ago, the complaining company bought the company that wrote the cracking software and killed the software.That was pre-DMCA; in the post-DMCA era, the offending company and all of their employees (or at least the officers and programmers) could be indicted for violating the criminal provisions of the DMCA.
Re:Confusing tech knowledge with politics (Score:2, Insightful)
An idea that existed before the internet, an idea that was not liked by everyone (Thomas Jefferson is one who didnt like it but was willing to compromise). An idea that is just that, an idea, and the proof of which is not evident even to this day. And you are right it does take more then arm-waving to cast it all aside, but so should it take more then arm-waving to keep it in modern times.
Other solutions are, a natural capitalist one. Where information is sold from distributor to distributor (like black markets). Something that would have been harder to do in a way that benefits the creator in the time copyrights were created, but in modern times is becoming more and more possible and even the internet can aid in people selling information to each other, as oposed to giving it away for free.
Re:Confusing tech knowledge with politics (Score:1)
Re:Confusing tech knowledge with politics (Score:2)
I was more going on the transcripts I read and the reports I had read of some of the goings-on in courts when these things were being decided. THe characterizations of some of these judges who heard the cases seemed to me that they wouldnt know a computer if it fell on them. I just dont think that is a competent review board to decide something as landmark as these decisions. Not all judges are clueless, obviously, but not all of them fully understand what they are deciding either.. law of averages.
M
Re:DDT? (Score:1)
With spraying there have been only 5 deaths (so far). How many deaths would be acceptable before we can spray???
I am for protecting the environment only in so much as we live in it. If killing off every bird as a side effect in New Jersey would save even one human life, I would be for it, but these spraying programs don't even come close to having that kind of impact. Protecting animal life is a noble cause, only when it does not interfere with protecting Human life.
Re:DDT? (Score:1)
Re:DDT? (Score:2)
First off, dont put words in my mouth. Never did I say human life was less important than a birds life. However, I think you will find that without birds (plural) Humans wont be around all that long. Ecologically there is an *extremely* delicate balance we are dealing with here.. and we keep messing with it hard. THe Earth is a huge
ecological entity, and much like your body generating a fever to rid itself of disease, so can "nature" rid itself of parasites.. and in the words of Pogo.. 'i have seen the enemy.. and they is us".
Now.. my *main* point, (which I guess you missed) is that 5 lives is nothing. Medical Malpractice kills many more people a year. Tylenol kills many more people a year. And they do nothing (or very little) about it. Those are acceptable losses in the multi-billion industry that medicine has become.
This ties into my statements about corporate lawyers versus true innovators. Do you really think the RIAA, MPAA, or Microsoft give a rats ass about this tiny little group here on SlashDot? No.. they could care less. THey know that even if every one of us gets every one of our friends to clearly not-support them, or even to boycott their products, it wont amount to a hill of beans, because joe sixpack will A) not care, and B) want to see The Perfect Storm in Dolby at his house.
Acceptable losses.
Maeryk
Without Air You Cannot Breath (Score:4, Insightful)
Yet intellectual monopoly marketing by companies has been so successful, it is not ridiculous to write a book that makes the point that the patent system as we have it today is the tool [used] by entrenched players to keep anyone else from playing.
I'm glad to see this book. Maybe it will wake a few more folks up. I hope so.
Re:Without Air You Cannot Breath (Score:1)
Re:Without Air You Cannot Breathe (Score:1, Offtopic)
Typos happen to the best of us don't they?
The Domain Name in IP Law (Score:3, Informative)
Arbitration of domain name disputes will be one of the major threads of Intellectual Property law in the 21st century. It's unfortunate that Lessig gave such short shrift to this important area.
Supression through lawsuit/code (Score:3, Troll)
The distinction between supression through code and supression through lawsuit is important, though. For example, Michael is supressing the parent comment through the use of code, by abusing his power and moderating it so that no one can see it. I believe supression through code is the more dangerous of the two. With supression through lawsuit, the courts at least have to okay it. Sure, you can argue that the courts are corrupt, but that's not the point. We can always clean up the courts. With supression through code, corporations and individuals like Michael can play Judge, Jury, and Executioner to maintain their positions and technologically shout down people who bring up inconvenient facts or provide competition.
Free vs. Corporate Net? (Score:3, Insightful)
In all honesty, I don't see any way around it. When non-Microsoft, non-FBI-bugged operating systems are outlawed, only outlaws will run Linux/BSD/etc.
Re:Free vs. Corporate Net? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Free vs. Corporate Net? (Score:4, Insightful)
Just to play devil's advocate here.
The closest thing I can think of that approximates a GeekNet would be Internet2 and even that has corporate and government ties to it.
FreeNet, the program, might be of use but again...
IMO, the fight is for a fair Internet not one for a select technically elite few and not one owned by corporations. How we get there I don't know. But I do know that I'm interested in how the issue is shaping up and it's a big reason why I asked for this book for Xmas.
Internet2 as GeekNet? (Score:1)
It was designed and is primarily used as a government and academic research tool, just as the Internet was in days before the popularity of the WWW brought useful data transfer to its knees. At the Abilene/Internet 2 NOC (which is in the building next to mine) they're actually the Operations Center for several other nets that show promise as the "replacement" for the Internet, but Internet2 is probably not it.
Re:Free vs. Corporate Net? (Score:3, Interesting)
So what do you do? I've also looked at freenet, and I'm not running a server for exactly the same reason you aren't - there's no way I'll donate my hard disk space and bandwidth to a system that people can use for swapping child porn.
But heck, we need something - something where there's a little space, some gaps in the system where people can do innovative stuff, but also where people who do seriously illegal stuff can be tracked down and prosecuted. The ideal medium seems to be a system where tracking people down is difficult enough that no one will bother to do it for friends sharing music.
Personally, my hopes are on "grid" style networking - if a few dozen people in a neighborhood set up wireless LAN access points, wired them all together with some nice routing, and run the whole thing on worthlessly out of date Pentium 200's running Linux... well, there's a network where people can have some fun. In some ways, it would be like the old BBS days before everyone had Internet.
People could put servers on the neighborhood grid, people could connect multiple gateways to the internet, local stores and services could find ways to advertise on it... a local neighborhood chat room could maybe be a useful thing...
And just firewall out the big, boring, commercial, controlled, corporate-sponsor-pop-up-ad-no-servers-allowed-mi
Maybe. Or maybe we are all just doomed, and Internet will turn into TV.
Re:Free vs. Corporate Net? (Score:2)
Good idea, but misdirected. What we need is an entirely geek-run, open-IP company to develop a revolutionary and truly innovative communication device / network / etc. that everyone will want to use simply because it is so superior to anything else out there. Envision the following:
- Cost $300 for a residential base station / relay / router / LAN uplink with far more powerful transceiver, enabling wider community networks. (~5 mile range)
- Cost $200-300 for basic portable device
- long range wireless communication on unlicensed freq. (at least 1/2 mile range) and at least 1Mbps bandwidth with a good signal
- short range (10m) wireless communication at 10Mbps or higher
- P2P network protocol, somewhat like Bluetooth but with extensive load sharing, secure routing, and full encryption and authentication at the protocol level.
- 2Gb or more solid state or optical storage, preferably removable. Filesystem is encrypted.
- modular user interface (ie. could be PDA, could be a fairly dumb communications device)
That's a huge goal and it would mean a large amount of R&D and thinking outside the box of commodity components, but imagine the ramifications if it could be pulled off. The power to change lies in numbers and markets, not hiding and complaining.
back to Feudalism (Score:1, Insightful)
So, if intellectual property and free speech are the ground of the new commons, I guess it won't belong until we have to pay our local Lords for the right to make a living on their turf. Oh!, right... too late. :(
Re:back to Feudalism (Score:2, Informative)
The "commons" is the standard word to use in economics (and in law) when referring to public goods. It comes from a 1968 article called "Tragedy of the Commons", by Garrett Hardin, which described a common grazing green that everyone can and has a right to use. Because everyone wants to maximize their gain, the commons quickly gets overused such that everyone loses out; that's the tragedy. It's used as a reason why we have property rules in general, and especially public goods-type property, like intellectual property.
More on the subject. (Score:4, Interesting)
Barriers to Knowledge, and Business Models (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Barriers to Knowledge, and Business Models (Score:4, Interesting)
Why?
The government, nor the people, are responsible for maintaing the viability of business. Others have used the example of buggy-whip manufacterers at the beginning of the 20th century - a doomed business. The Statute of Anne in 1710 was not about keeping the Stationers' Guild in business - it was about changing the way the English looked at literature. No longer was it something owned forever by a single printer; it became something the printer and author could make money from for a limited time, but was destined for a place in the public commons, where anyone could use it without prejudice.
To paraphrase Lessig - from where we stand today we have two choices. 1) we can move forward into a world where everyone can be creative, limited only by a sensible return to original authors or 2) we can move backward into a new dark ages, where a few people control the intellectual wealth and share it only for an ever higher price and ever more restrictive rules of use.
Like Lessig, I can see which way we are moving, and I don't like the view. The technology is nearly here that would allow ordinary people to create animated movies from their own stories, or favorite books. I would like to see people able to share these works, but copyright law, as currently practised, will stand in the way, might even prevent the technology from becoming available to the public.
I believe copyright to be a necessary evil, but it has gone far beyond any sensible limitations. It's time Americans got together and insisted on a change.
Help out - http://www.amfcc.org
http://www.eff.org
Re:Barriers to Knowledge, and Business Models (Score:1)
And he's right on this one
>> Why?
It all boils down to a very basic mentality issue we all suffer from. It's the very same issue as why currently capitalism - although not the most elegant IMHO - is the only form of organising society that has a chance to stay on its feet.
I could come up with a whole host of arguments, though instead I'd like one to consider the following;
It's highly likely that in a not-so-far future we [as humanity] reach a state in which we can foresee in all our needs without requiring the labour of each individual (in fact we already can up to some level). However, the way (most of) society is organised nowadays, there is no way at all to deal with this condition. If you don't work you get a penalty. Not because your labour is strictly required, but because of the model we use [to create, measure and deal with wealth].
Why? Because it matters that my car is bigger then yours. To you, to me and to most around us.
Re: Barriers to Knowledge, and Business Models (Score:3, Insightful)
There's also the fact that many of the resource which universities provide are scarce physical or human resources, which have a cost. So the barriers you refer to at least in part (and probably in large part) exist for pure economic reasons - regulating access to a relatively scarce resource. As you point out, other extra-economic barriers are imposed, such as requiring good high school grades - but the primary reason for this is an attempt, albeit imperfect, to ensure the most productive use of a university's resources.
As some of the knowledege resources become available electronically, some aspect of this equation will change (e.g. the web-based MIT OpenCourseWare [mit.edu]). As always with economics in a reasonably free market, things tend to move towards lower cost as they become cheaper to duplicate and therefore less scarce, and certain aspects of educational knowledge are no different.
But the fact is that barriers to accessing information create wealth.
An arguable point, I believe. The question which Lessig addresses centers around the artificial scarcity which is imposed on intellectual "property" by the law. An interesting question is to what extent imposing such artificial scarcity generates real wealth, as opposed to simply redistributing wealth from the consumers to the creators.
The only reason this is not considered a fundamentally unhealthy redistribution of wealth (of the kind that has occasionally occurred in non-capitalist countries), is that an exchange is considered to take place - exchanging licenses to intellectual property, for some other type of asset. One of the main questions at issue is what kinds of rights such an exchange should grant to the licensee, regardless of an individual creator's wishes.
Fair use doctrine was intended to address this, and did so quite successfully, at least from the consumer's perspective. Now, fair use is being undermined both legally and technologically, and consumers are being, or will be, screwed (technical economic term).
The most obvious battle here has nothing to do with destroying wealth - it has to do with maintaining a sensible balance between creators and consumers, that allows both sides to thrive, and neither side to be at the complete mercy of the other. The DMCA and other recent events have shifted the balance too far in favor of the creators, or rather, their agents. This is certainly beyond a workable compromise position, and if that isn't obvious to most people yet, it will become so soon enough.
Re:Barriers to Knowledge, and Business Models (Score:1)
The very problem is that the change is not *to* supporting an intellectual commons, the change is *from* supporting an intellectual commons. Laws like the Sunny Bono act et al extend copyright terms to works that came before the laws were even conceived and extend those terms beyond anything even remotely reasonable. This essentially invalidates the original contract between author's and the government to release the works after a fixed period. (When Steamboat Willie enters the public domain I'll begin to feel some reasonableness has returned to copyright law)
The fact we are moving away from commons (and freedom) instead contemplating moving towards them should put the burden on businesses and copyright holders to show that viable business models CANNOT BE SUSTAINED without stricter copyright laws. (Yes, I realize the arguemnt for stronger laws comes from enforcement ie: stop piracy, but this would be better accomplished with more policing and some kind of punishment for those caught actually infringing! Neither of which we currently have.)
What's been established so far is that with copyright law circa 1985 strong monopolies and billion dollar companies could be created quite easily. I believe we've also shown that the same is much more difficult using open source, or absolutely no copyright law.
What I haven't seen is evidence that stronger copyright than what was available in 1985 will create bigger profits, or that bigger profits are even necessary. (I thought the MS antitrust case was all about too vigirous growth and stifling of competition through corporate and copyright law... This would seem to be an arguement in favor of weaker intellectual property laws. )
Re:Barriers to Knowledge, and Business Models (Score:2)
Actually the business side of the matter is easy. A more difficult part is to design a law/license that supports "Can" based methodologies (as opposed to the "Cannot" based IP laws we have now.)
The GPL is such a "can" based license but does nothing in providing some sort of option for creator/improver financial flow. On the other hand there is no reason the GPL works can't be used in the right model to generate monitary flow towards those responsible.
But the hard part is to present the consumer, the typical user, a part in the process of helping to create and a share in the rewards. Of course these positions would be optional, but should be available to the user. But the thing is, the way things are currently done in software development don't really allow the user such a position.
Lets' face it, open source code is of little value to the consumer and that makes linux more a programmers OS than a commercial one. Include the user and it becomes everybodies OS. To some point linux is doing this in giving the user the easy ability to recompile the kernal to suite their needs. But it needs to go alot further by making it easy for the user to do more at the code and integration levels.
What makes GNU/Linux stand out is it's openness. And that means alot to those who can program or want to learn current methodologies of programming. But for the typical user, they generally don't have the interest in learning the current methodology and need something simpler.
Considering that programming is an act of automation, it shouldn't be difficult to build a system that openly supports automation of coding and compiling.
I can either buy windows and get trapped into it's closed system but application software is plentiful (now) or I can get linux for it's openness and ability to allow me to do, to apply my creativity and ideas, if only it was easier to do these things...
But let's say it is, that such a system friendly to the users creativity and integration choices exists, what sorts of business models can you then create around such ability?
Something that can include the user in all aspects of moving the platform forward, from sales, to support to creation and custom integration, and certainly including training.
The sort of system that as it grows in popularity, so does it's value in being made better and with more and more applications, but a system that evolves in the direction of what the users want, not what the corporation wants the user to have and be entrapped by.
The business model is easy, the hard part is making development easy enough for the user to participate in.
And I know with certainty this can be done!
.
history parallels, and a new war (Score:3, Interesting)
We can see parallels in history by other institutions that embraced false property rights. How many of you have herd that freeing slaves was stealing, or that there was no incentive to grow cotton without them, or that the great wealth of America's plantations was proof of slavery's justification. Some people think it's unfair to make this compairison to slavery, but I think it is - for example look at what almost happened in Africa, there millions and millions of people risked death because American pharmacuticals wanted to sue over intellectual property rights.
However, we should consider ourselvs fortunate - because unlike our predacessors I think we can win this war without one bit of violence. It will first be done with copyrights where enforceing copy controlls will become nearly impossible without stirring up massive unpopularity, and imposing massive intrusions into millions of corporations and peoples private lives. Eventually something will half to give because we do live in a democracy. It will later come with patents where the ability to create and manufacture will come to the home. In non democratic countries, both of these will pose a serious problem because the government will likely not be as restrained before things really get out of hand.
Other approaches like the GPL, and public encyclopedias will also seriously relieve the pressure. (thank you RMS)
Re:history parallels, and a new war (Score:2, Insightful)
We need a "free culture" movement.
Re:history parallels, and a new war (Score:1)
Copywrite (Score:1, Redundant)
I wonder how they would feel if someone published it on the web?
Re:Copywrite (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Copywrite (Score:2)
Look here. [thestandard.com] The entire episode was more of a case of bad UI design than wicked digital rights management.
Re:Copywrite (Score:1)
I'm not misinformed about the capabilities enabled on my own book. I'm not saying Adobe is restricting your right to "read aloud" the book; I'm saying my published disabled the capability to "read aloud" my book. (And if you try to evade that limitation, watch out for the DMCA prosecution).
Re:Copywrite (Score:1)
Re:Copywrite (Score:1)
Then Self Publish. Find a distributor. Market it. All it takes is time and money.
Re:Copywrite (Score:1)
"all it takes is time and money" ?!? True enough. All it takes is this. But is El_Che Bill Gates? What's the matter with you? "All it takes" is all the restraint in the world.
Re:Copywrite (Score:1)
What's the matter with you?
At the moment, I'm sitting in the office, stuffing several hundred envelopes with tipsheets, a cover letter and other marketing errata to generate some interest and sales in a book our little publishing company [marspub.com] put out last spring. It's a good book. The author is a nice person. I hope this mail stuffing works out so we and she can make some money.
Your previous comment about "publisher's rules" to explain why your book isn't Open Source looked like a cop out. It is publisher's rules; without some limited exclusive rights to the material, why should a publisher spend their time and money to spread your ideas?
We probably agree on IP ('probably' because I haven't read your work), if, as you comment elsewhere, you consider the Founder's balance of Freedom and Private Property to be a reasonable compromise. The accelerating drive to carve up the Commons is discouraging, and dangerous, even for publishers.
Anyway, sorry for the previous troll; noxious fumes rising up from the envelope glue have made me a little testy this afternoon.
Silent Spring comparison (Score:4, Insightful)
The point is, these battles are always hard. The only thing this particular fight has going for it as that creators of content (coders, musicians, filmmakers) also have a vested interest in keeping their products from obscurity.
"code as law" is not a new idea (Score:2, Interesting)
Lessig's work cited by Bruce Sterling (Score:1)
If he cares so much about ideas... (Score:1)
Re:If he cares so much about ideas... (Score:2, Insightful)
Hey, but wait. I am pro-IP, where IP is the balanced set of rights that the framers of our constituiton embraced. To be anti-Valenti is not to be pro-zero protection.
Re:If he cares so much about ideas... (Score:3, Insightful)
Probably because he wouldn't be able to find a publisher with the kind of distribution he would want for his book. I talked with Jessica Litman a little bit about "Digital Copyright" and her choices when it came to publishing. She'd be perfectly happy to see the entire work available online, but her publisher wouldn't allow it.
I find it unlikely that Lessig would feel that much differently. He's a lawyer - can't be in too much need of the income. I'd think he would be trying to get the widest distribution possible, to have the greatest number of people exposed to the ideas he's presenting. GNU license for documents (or BSD) would be too limiting for most publishers who deal with mass publications.
Re:If he cares so much about ideas... (Score:1)
Putting commons in context (Score:3, Interesting)
The "commons" was originally often found as part of a system in which people were property. At that time, the commons was for the use of those who were bound to the local fiefholder. As more and more autonomy was granted to individuals, this system no longer worked and the commons system morphed into one in which the "owner class" began to seek compensation for the resource in the form of rents or other consideration.
I cannot help but think that Lessig's "intellectual commons" is part of a system in which the ideas that populate them are already bound through other less obvious means to entities such as universities and corporations. The proposition that these ideas be "set free" will lead to exactly the kinds of DCMA shenanigans that Lessig seems to passionately want to avoid??
Is it possible that the concept of an intellectual commons is already becoming an anachronism in the same way that the concept of a common pasture became unusable as the system changed? As our society is driven towards a different notion of property, driven by Disney, RIAA, and other content owners, will fair use of ideas even exist as a tenable mechanism?
Perhaps there will become "free ideas" just as there were "freemen." These ideas would be certified as free, and could be combined with other free ideas... Wait a minute, I've heard this idea before; RMS, where are you when I need an overcharged rant about freedom?
Re:Putting commons in context (Score:1)
I disagree with this. Just as freedom for humans (when people we no longer property) came with the birth of the free-labor movement. This battle is now about the same movement with respect to ideas: free culture, just as they freed people.
Re:Putting commons in context (Score:1)
You are proposing the commons as part of a solution, but I am claiming that this may not work due to the structural changes that are taking root in patent/copyright-based society. (In the face of your own good fight, I might add.) A commons may not be the appropriate mechanism to achieve the end that you seek.
One thing that the GPL has taught us is that other kinds of hacks are possible!?
Re:Putting commons in context (Score:1)
Re:Putting commons in context (Score:2, Interesting)
You ask for a reason to limit what currently exists, and what seems so promising. What about the simplest of all possible reasons, that is to say social cost and stability? I have personally participated in the serendipity that can occur on the net, but I also am very aware of the hidden costs, risks, and the limited capabilities which caused the dotcom implosion. Does society get enough value out of this commons to justify the significant subsidy being provided? This is an open question in my mind; the historical impact of network technologies has seldom been all good, and these technologies have almost always been imposed by the interested parties in the name of social good.
There is a non-trivial cost to providing a fabric for end to end communication and innovation. This cost must be born by either government or the private sector. My own social liberal leanings cause me to agree with your position, but this doesn't mean that our current social obsession with "free markets" won't cause society as a whole to move towards favoring "markets of ideas," at which point the innovation commons may easily become a useless white elephant, while the Hardin fallacy may become the institutionalized norm.
Isn't this happening now?
Convincing corporate overlords to halt what they see as forward motion will be difficult. I am glad to see you trying to do this, but I am also wondering how the new system, should IP law become "harmonized" and protected by measures such as DMCA, will adapt. Do you have opinions here? This is why I am interested in alternatives to a commons-based approach.
(Thanks to lessig for participating in the /. fray today, by the way!)
Re:Putting commons in context (Score:1)
Tragedy of the Commons (Score:3, Interesting)
The 400 lb gorillas of IP are trying to maximise their utility gains from the internet while impacting the utility to others negatively. Good old utilitarianism.
Hardin goes on from there, but it has been a few years since I read the paper so I'm going to breeze through it again. I'm looking forward to picking up this book to see what new thinking it might bring to the analysis.
I'd be interested to hear from Mr. Lessig (as he seems to be posting here) how much his thesis was influenced by Hardin.
Re:Tragedy of the Commons (Score:1)
The book is motivated by a desire to respond to a mistaken inference drawn from Hardin's work. Hardin was talking about (what economists call) rivalous goods -- goods, like apples, where if you consume it, I can't. Therein is the tragedy. But with ideas (and culture generally), your use of my idea doesn't make it any less possible for me to use the idea.
Re:Tragedy of the Commons (Score:1)
Sorry but I haven't read the book yet.
It seems to me that since ideas actually shape the physical architecture of the brain and the relationships between its parts, learning itself is a kind of copyright violation...
It's only because so many copyrights are violated that learning is possible... its too difficult to enforce the infringement.
But concentration of ownership... (imagine Mircrosoft owned private school systems.... teaching a Microsoft curriculum...) seems very dangerous... more so than concentration of ownership of physical assets.
Re:Tragedy of the Commons (Score:1)
glad you asked (and it's not Dr., just Lessig): I've answered it in your other post. But point is: you're right. Here is the core problem: a concentration of wildly overextended IP rights.
Re:Tragedy of the Commons (Score:1)
If programming a computer is equivalent to teaching it, isn't that exactly what any proprietary software vendor aims to do? Imagine a world where any computer running corporate-produced software is at least partially engaged in making the corporation more profitable?
And would that corporation's shareholders demand anything less?
Can a person's thoughts be owned? A whole culture? (Score:1)
And in that case does their intellectual output not become a wholly or partially owned product of the company that provided the great bulk of the words, patterns and ideas that shaped their brain?
The idea of "idea" ownership is terribly insidious, but it is wholly consistent with the logic of capitalism.
The best argument for a strong state capable of resisting the encroachment of the private sector on culture, history, and ideas is that a strong counterweight is needed to resist the tendency of private parties to own what "should" be the collective property of peoples and of humanity.
message is being ignored (Score:3, Interesting)
in order for his message concerning the future of ideas to be effective it must be received and adopted by the techies. it is only after the techies take up the cause that they are being threaten will his message will have some true meat to it. the people who are the most influence, i.e. congress and courts, are being inundate with anti-lessigism and are blind to the alternative (will we ever see mickey mouse in the public domain? No). the lobbies and the lawyers are drowning out whatever counter arguments exist against the extenuation of copyright controls.
until some of the 'leaders' of the techies take note and start supporting this platform we all will just end up watching our rome burn like nero. eric raymond thinks the message in code and most likely his new book are false. he feels that no matter what happens the techies will be able to adapt, overcome and conquer anything that washington throws at the techies. wired news on aug 29, 2001 says "linus torvalds... wasn't quite so pessimistic. 'a lot of people are wasting time over disagreements,' he said, referring to legendary sectarian squabbles within the open-source community. 'but i think people will get their act together,' torvalds said. ' within the last six months, there has been a lot more (political) activity.'" However as long as Prof Felton isn't publishing, the DCMA is up held and Dmitry Sklyarov is being prosecuted... then there isn't enough support for open source and more must be done.
once the techies, the geeks, the open sourcers and those who are most affected by copyright controls (DMCA), then perhaps the public will take note. without the techies support then the message lessig is telling us is ineffective and the internet will be lost.
there are hundreds of lawyers and millions of dollars against us, why aren't we doing something about it?
Re:message is being ignored (Score:1)
this is completely right. unless techies do something, nothing will happen. I've been flinging myself everywhere every week to deliver exactly this message to techies wherever I can. but the pathetic and honest truth is that you are all captured by this apoliticalism bovinity. you think it is a virtue if you let DC screw you, and you do nothing to resist it. this will be the sad story they (we) tell years from now: coders built Eden, and slept while DC took it away.
Re:message is being ignored (Score:2)
Yes, but does anyone care enough to do anything? (Score:1)
No one has the political power to overcome the MPAA or RIAA. You can be assured that congress will bend over backwards to meet their "needs" to gobble up ideas for public consumption. That's all ideas are anyway, right? Just goods, like bananas, Windex, and rubber tires that are good for nothing but getting consumed.
I'm sorry. We're fucked. Get pissed.
Re:Yes, but does anyone care enough to do anything (Score:2, Funny)
hey, I'm a twerpy looking Stanford lawyer, not a twerpy looking Harvard lawyer.
now I am pissed.
Better jurisprudence, not fewer laws (Score:1)
On the other hand, I will concede that many of the recent copyright-protection rulings and laws (including the DMCA) have been ridiculous. However, the solution here is not to get rid of the laws entirely, but rather to encourage better jurisprudence. That is, judges should be encouraged to exercise their judgement in interpreting copyright law in accord with the spirit it was written in - to ensure that lawful producers of a piece of work are paid fairly for their work, rather than to prevent a multinational corporation from stifling anyone who designs a marginally similar word-processor to their own. More of these cases should be thrown out of court, not entertained by our legal system.
Re:Better jurisprudence, not fewer laws (Score:2, Insightful)
That limits the concentration of original ideas to the a density equivalent to the number of original ideas a person can come up with in his/her lifetime.
Corporate ownership on the other hand, or the resale or inheritance of owned ideas seems to be the real problem. If ideas are freely transferable property, concentration becomes inevitable...
Concentrate enough of them and you can easily own culture and political thought itself.
The idea of a corporation as a legal person seems to me, in my innocence, to be the root of much evil.
Individual IP ownership is a potentially "humanizing" and just construct... group ownership, corporate ownership, inheritance of ideas... these things seem to be fatal trends....
Re:Better jurisprudence, not fewer laws (Score:2, Informative)
this is rightly the core of the problem. the American constitution gives congress the power to grant copyrights to "Authors"; the framers were anti-publisher. Our problem over the years is we've not resisted the tendency to encourage assignment of copyrights, such that highly concentrated holders (hoarders) of IP get to veto the future.
Re:Better jurisprudence, not fewer laws (Score:1)
For me the fundamental issue that libertarians and "techies" miss consistently is the sheer power in a financial sense to be sure, but also in a structural sense (which I take to be the focus of your book) of technological innovation.
When you write the language of communication you own culture... and the more levels of language you write, from compiler to web browser standards, the more of it you own.
In my old fashioned democratic socialist way of thinking only a strong central state has the possibility of resisting that kind of power... and only if elections and democracy can be structured to provide a power base independent of the primary benificiaries of the structural power of technical standards and languages....
This implies campaign financing by the public, free media access time... all sorts of things to enable individual voice to be heard over the structurally overwhelming power of corporate voice.
Currently of course not only is the country being overrun by the structural control exerted by big technology players, but in a very traditional way Washington DC is being controlled by their dollars and agenda setting capacity.
I find it amusing or sad when libertarians want to further reduce the power of DC and turn it into a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate America... yet this is seriously proposed as a solution. They are fighting the wrong battle.
The battle should be for a strong central government capable of taking on corporate interests because it better reflects the voice of the public (the "unhegemonized" public we hope... if it still exists). However I fear the hour is very late.
In the support for the tech industry and the disdain for DC I see the new corporate fascism rapidly rising... OF COURSE it is not the old fascism. It will be new, but it will share the absolutely dominant power of business interests in all aspects of policy, including new ways of controlling political culture that make not only resistance, but the idea of resistance, all but unthinkable.
I don't mean to be appocolypitc (however you spell it...) but I just don't see the power base that can resist corporate power.... and I don't know how to build it. The Nader effort demonstrated if anything people already believe in and accept the hegemonization of their political lives by the corporations who employ them (and fire them at will.)
Is there a place to stand and rebuild a counterbalance to corporatism? An open question I think.
Irony (Score:2)
'Every man dies. Not every man really lives.'
Re:Irony (Score:2, Insightful)
Accident or not, social skills and social relationships (Clinton skill based version or W. Bush inherited version.. they both work) are the source of all power, and the only talent that really matters in life. To be a geek is to live in ignorance or disbelief of this fundamental truth.
Re:Irony (Score:2)
Well that's partly what I was getting at, but you've taken it way too far by assuming the stereotype that "to be a geek" is to lack both social skills and the ability to discover those which are latent. The point is, geeks need to throw away their own lies about themselves and realize their potential as both technical elite and highly relational entrepreneurs. There's this ugly myth that people are either one or the other that needs demolished. Of course, those maintaining the status quo don't really want it to change. They're quite happy treating engineers and programmers like dogs who all their dirty work.
Reward but not thru exclusive use. (Score:2)
But to be rewarded with the ability to then tell others they cannot make use of what good you have done is for others worse then you never having done it.
Do you see the inherent contridiction of giving exclusive use as a reward?
Change the IP laws from "cannot" based to "CAN" based and the forward moving force to advance will have a great deal less friction against it.
Who is to say that being rewarded with exclusive use that you will use such exclusive use to it fullest benefit to you and society? There is no magic intelligence that you somehow receive upon getting exclusive use granted you, that insure you will do the best thing.
However, to have "CAN" based laws such that anyone can use what good you have done, so long as they give you proper credit and reward. Perhaps based upon a relative percentage of the profits one makes in using your good. Or perhas this is a probelm area the public can better solve? see below!
This way, it's not up to just the do gooder to then figure out the best way to impliment the good, but rather up to any and everyone who wants to make use of it. Consider the following quote!
One of the papers from the Duke university Public domain conference didn't make it into the "download all papers" archive on that site: Coase's Penguin [duke.edu]
"At the heart of the economic engine of the world's most advanced economies, and
in particular that of the United States, we are beginning to take notice of a hardy,
persistent, and quite amazing phenomenon--a new model of production has taken root,
one that should not be there, at least according to our most widely held beliefs
about economic behavior. It should not, the intuitions of the late 20th century
American would say, be the case that thousands of volunteers will come together
to collaborate on a complex economic project. It certainly should not be that these
volunteers will beat the largest and best financed business enterprises in the world
at their own game. And yet, this is precisely what is happening in the software
world." - Yochai Benkler
BTW, my home page is relative to this matter.
.
Re:Reward but not thru exclusive use. (Score:2)
Certainly you would NOT want the following law to vanish.
The Universal Law
Preamble
The purpose of human life is to prosper and live happily. The function of society is to guarantee those conditions that allow all individuals to fulfill their purpose. Those conditions can be guaranteed through a constitution that forbids the use of initiatory force or coercion by any person or group against any individual:
The Constitution
Article 1: No person, group of persons, or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual's self or property.
Article 2: Force may be morally and legally used only in defense against those who violate Article 1.
Article 3: No exceptions shall ever exist to Articles 1 and 2.
neo-tech.
Re:Newsflash--Lessig Hates IP (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Newsflash--Lessig Hates IP (Score:1)
lessig loves the balance between protection
Either Lessig is related to Bob Dole, or you are an imposter. :)
Re:Newsflash--Lessig Hates IP (Score:1)
... and the fact that that is politically unthinkable tells you a lot about how late the hour is.
Re:Newsflash--Lessig Hates IP (Score:2)
If corporate personhood is the real problem, why don't they address it? I could sign on to that. After all, why should we cater to the desires of fictitious people?
The AIP movement does not address corporate personhood, neither does it distinguish between corporate and individual IP. Instead, they attack all IP which implies to me that they don't care a single bit about individual IP.
I don't know what you mean about it being "unthinkable" to attack corporate personhood. Has anybody tried? And no, I'm not talking about throwing dumpsters through the front window of your local Starbucks. I'm talking about oh... for example, restricting and ultimately eliminating donations to political parties made on behalf of corporations. After all, corporations aren't real citizens so it makes little sense to afford them full rights as citizens. OTOH, such an approach has ominious implications for freedom of association.
Might I suggest a different course of action? How about common sense. The nice thing about common sense is that it makes... umm.. common sense. Common sense tells us that you can't found a business based on taking somebody else's work (Napster) it also tells us that you can't take away somebody's domain name just because some corporate weenie doesn't like it (*sucks.com). The nice thing about common sense is that it's neither AIP or unduly pro IP. Most people have an inate sense of what copyrights, patents, and trademarks are supposed to do, and what they are not supposed to do. How about bringing judgement back into the judiciary? If we did that, maybe some of these judges would look at some of these cases (Skylarov) and say "egad! They can't do that to this guy" instead of writing 50 page anesthesia documents full of precedent and rigid beurocratic formality. Then again, have any of the people under the gun of unfair IP practices even bothered to ask for a jury trial? Perhaps the elitist crowd who purport to defend these people have sold the public short, as they are wont to do.
Re:Newsflash--Lessig Hates IP (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you have any idea what kind of revolution would be required to eliminate "corporate personhood"?
Such an idea would die laughing on the floor of the Judiciary committee. Because limited liability corporations are persons you have to sue them... their board members and officers are not personally liable for their actions by and large.
If you say the corporations are not the legally responsible party, you are restoring a world of direct personal ownership and business partnerships in which owners become personally liable for what is done by the company.....
Needless to say there isn't a chance in hell that that will ever come to pass.... For one thing, in extremis, it would mean that every stock owner could be sued for the actions of the company he held stock in!!!!
Common sense didn't help you understand this issue... so I'd suggest that you need a little more than common sense to deal with IP issues.
Corporations have "personhood" and their officers limited liability in theory to spur business... in practice it enables all sorts of venal things to be done by people who are not themselves held personally responsible.... its the core of modern capitalism. To destroy it you would need a revolution.
So yes, as a practical matter, it is unthinkable that it would really happen.... that battle is already over and lost.
"restricting and ultimately eliminating donations to political parties made on behalf of corporations. After all, corporations aren't real citizens so it makes little sense to afford them full rights as citizens"
You must be kidding? I'm telling you the system is already bought and sold. The fact that it makes "little sense" is quite irrelevant. Exxon and Microsoft OWN the Senate already... who is going to vote against that cozy relationship? And Exxon and Microsoft and many others want corporations to own intellectual property.... and they will.
And the monopoly concentration of power will continue.... look what happened to the effort to break up Microsoft? The corporations got their man in the office, and the "penalty" is now going to be that lots of poor children have to learn to use Microsoft software!
Microsoft must be saying.... please! penalize us again!
Re:Newsflash--Lessig Hates IP (Score:2)
Dear Rev'd. King,
Do you have any idea what kind of revolution it would take to eliminate Jim Crow?
Re:Newsflash--Lessig Hates IP (Score:2)
I don't know why you are such a pessimist. The corporate system thrives to the extent that it benefits the majority. At this point in time, it has begun to impact the rights of a minority--legitimate hackers and consumers engaging in unusual types of fair use practices (e.g., DVD on Linux). NOTICE: I am not endorsing piracy or black-hatting here. The legitimate hacker and unusual fair-use community is a tiny special interest at this point.
If you are a pessimist because you fear that this minority will continue to be oppressed, then that is understandable. The "fashionable left" that holds itself out as the defenders of their rights has done these people a disservice in a number of ways. Positioning themselves as hostile to the entire system certainly doesn't endear them to most people. Too many people benefit from the status quo. Instead, they should be attacking the ridiculous extremes that are currently finding their way into the law. Most Americans hate extremism be it Left or Right wing. The problem is that too many of these people, Lessig included, are themselves extremists. This is only leading to polarization, which is bad.
If you are a pessimist because you are strongly AIP, then I have little sympathy for you. In most cases, IP law benefits the majority and does not harm the rights of the minority. Too many people on /. are under the impression that the creation of a technical or artistic work conveys rights to people who have nothing to do with the creation. This leads to the falacy that you can somehow oppress people simply by creating an artistic or technical work and not giving it to them.
If you are a pessimist because you fear that IP extremism will eventually oppress most users to an unbearable extent, I believe this is unfounded, at least in the US. The American people will only tolerate so much BS, and if it gets to the point where the system is really concentrating power in the hands of a minority, people won't stand for it. You might think that's the case now, but it isn't. The majority of the US is now bought into the system through their 401k, or because they work for a corporation.
I might sound like some communist, but I am most certainly not that. I'm just a simple social democrat, and unfortunately very pessimistic about the eroding political power of "the people".
Just remember, every enemy looks powerful before it's beaten. As for being a social democrat, that can mean so many different things that I'm not going to comment on it.
Re:Newsflash--Lessig Hates IP (Score:2)
If you don't understand that this has already happened, I'm sorry for you. Precisely because the majority of the US has been SOLD (or as you say "bought in" but the truth is SOLD, as in sold a bill of goods) on the ownership of stock as the key to their future, instead of on the collective national "ownership" of the instruments of wealth production as a key to their retirement, the country is highly "bought in" to a system and can't afford to change it, or challenge it. Hell, I can't afford to challenge it either... my retirement is tied up in the stock market too. My retirement assets (such as they are) are tied up in companies that buy and sell intellectual property, and I'm dependent on the corporate system as much as the next guy.
OK, when you start mentioning "collective national 'ownership'" it sends up a red flag (no pun intended). That's the dictionary definition of socialism, and history has proven it to work no better than the current system with regards to the defense of individual rights, economic prosperity, or any other measure of success.
Re:Newsflash--Lessig Hates IP (Score:2)
Actually, it satisfies me quite nicely. It was just that your original language strongly resembled that used by the far Left. I think we can all sign on to the idea that when an individual knowingly commits a criminal act, that individual should be held accountable. In practice, the mere existance of a political movement aiming to compel CEOs and board members to accept such responsability could have a stronger impact than you believe (imagine suits thinking to themselves that it might happen, so they had better get used to it), but that's just my opinion.