Slashdot Mirror

I'm saying that Lessig and Obama are friends who used to teach together at the University of Chicago law school. I'm saying that Obama called Lessig up when he was going to run for president in order to discuss his internet/technology policy. I don't have the source for this, but I'm not making it up--hopefully my credibility on Slashdot is sufficient.

There has even been speculation by people outside the tech industry that Lessig may be tapped for the Supreme Court in an Obama administration. I've even come across fervently anti-Obama blogs that discuss their fear that Obama will appoint "communist Lessig" to the Court--so it's not just Lessig lovers who are suggesting this appointment may happen.

I think maybe Lessig mentions as much in his 20-minute presentation here. I don't want to watch the 20 minutes on my slow-as-molasses computer right now, though.

Also, Obama has invited Lessig to speak with him. source

Yes, it's just the regular lame junk your newly net savvy friends forward you to your work email.

http://lessig.org/blog/2008/06/the_kozinski_mess.html

"Nothing alleged to have been on this server violates any law. (There's some ridiculous claim about "bestiality." But the video is not bestiality. It lives today on YouTube -- a funny (to some) short of a man defecating in a field, and then being chased by a donkey. "

While we're all getting carried away assuming the worst and making animal pr0n jokes, Lessig actually provides some news "that matters" on the facts. Trouble is, no-one is going to remember the facts after the fact and assume he can't be trusted.

"Nothing alleged to have been on this server violates any law. (There's some ridiculous claim about "bestiality." But the video is not bestiality. It lives today on YouTube -- a funny (to some) short of a man defecating in a field, and then being chased by a donkey. "

http://lessig.org/blog/2008/06/the_kozinski_mess.html

Xix.

http://www.lessig.org/blog/2008/02/20_minutes_or_so_on_why_i_am_4.html

A 20 minute video done by Lawrence Lessig on why he supports Obama. Would it be too much to consider that the endorsement of the Electronic Freedom Foundation?

That does give me some comfort over some of the things that REALLY concern me over Obama as mentioned above.

To the likes of you, Lawrence Lessig has this to say:

http://www.lessig.org/blog/2008/02/20_minutes_or_so_on_why_i_am_4.html

"Can't seem to remember OSS being used by any other presidential candidate in the past, ever."

Obama on CCW:

None of that, and I imagine other examples are available, sound like he wants to "let local governments enact". That sounds like federal action to me. And comparing RP's view on abortion to Obama's view on the various "gun" issues doesn't work. No matter how one stands on abortion, there is no "abortion" amendment. One can make an argument that that particular issue is best solved at the local level. On the other hand, there is a right to bear arms amendment. Local governments don't get to stomp on that anymore than the federal one. So even if he was "only" in favor of local governments taking such actions, that still doesn't make it right. And as far as needing an amendment to nationally prohibit CCW or a new AWB, why? All it would take is a congress willing to go along with it and a Supreme Court willing to as well. No amendment was needed to pass the first AWB.

You are correct though, there are no strict Constitutionalists left. Much to all our loss. However, just because there aren't any in the current field, doesn't given those who are in the field a free pass. And that includes GWB's violations of the 4th amendment and McCain's possible future violations. No one gets a free pass.

I claim he's a constitutional law professor. That's not a debatable point, it's a fact -- and other law professors he's worked with say he's got his head on straight.

With regard to right to bear arms, his long-term goal is that local governments have the ability to enact strong gun control measures. Given that there tends to be a congruence between Libertarians who want the federal government to keep its nose out of what state and local governments can legislate in other areas (see Ron Paul's view on abortion), this doesn't strike me as exceptional. So -- I'm not worried that Obama is going to take away my shotgun or my ability to get a concealed-carry license. If I still lived in California, I'd be worried that policies Obama supports would let my state and/or local governments abridge my rights in that regard -- but where I do live, that issue is thoroughly moot. (Implementation is another thing, as well; it probably would take nothing short of an amendment to let such a thing get through without a challenge, and as such is beyond the power of any President, I don't see why you're so worried about it).

If you're going to make it black and white, though, not a single member of Congress and not a single Presidential candidate (possibly excluding Ron Paul) supports the Constitution as written -- unless you accept the modern interpretation of the interstate commerce clause, which is pretty completely outlandish. There are no more strict Constitutionalists, and certainly none of the three major candidates comes close to fitting that bill; get over it.

This video is a few months old, but for what it's worth, Larry Lessig has been an Obama champion since the days where everyone thought Clinton would win in a walk; here's his written endorsement from back in November of 2007 talking about why Obama is a superior choice on the issues that matter to most copyright and technology geeks.

This video is a few months old, but for what it's worth, Larry Lessig has been an Obama champion since the days where everyone thought Clinton would win in a walk; here's his written endorsement from back in November of 2007 talking about why Obama is a superior choice on the issues that matter to most copyright and technology geeks.

In a country with over 300 million people, a more than $13 trillion dollar economy, worlds largest military, and many global interests and programs, there are simply too many important issues for the candidates to have a nuanced knowledge of all of them. Realistically, they must all rely on advisors, so I would take the views of their advisers fairly seriously. You can also get at least a sense of a candidate's general leanings, which suggests which advisors they are likely to listen to. It's also useful to look at the opinions of people who you respect on these issues that have actually talked to the candidates, e.g., Lessig's endorsement of Obama.

Now, let me add that, while a candidate must rely on advisors for detailed positions, he must know something about the issues himself, otherwise he cannot reasonably assess whose advice to take. We have in recent years seen a stark object lesson in the disastrous consequences when the decision maker really doesn't know anything at all and is simply led by whichever advisors are the loudest, most persistent, or the most clever at politicking.

The last point worth making is that the biggest problem on tech issues is that money talks. Lobbist access, fundraising, and political ads by large corporations have a tendency to drown out the public interest. I do think that on at least one of these points Obama has a clear advantage: His fundraising is based much more in small donations from ordinary people, so he is less beholden to these corporate interests and has less obligation to spend time listening to their lobbyists at fundraisers. I think this may make a bigger difference in the end than people realize.

Lawrence Lessig got some heat from the religious conservatives for getting involved with such videos:

RedState Flap"

Microsoft, Google, and all other websites that currently use CAPTCHA, need to find a solution that puts them a step ahead of the spammers.

...but that's not the message given there week after week. The clips in question come from a few specific sermons -- which aren't, as a whole, as inciteful as the specific elements cut from them and aired -- given shortly after Obama decided to run for President, and for which he was not himself present.

Were controversial messages given from the pulpit while Obama was present? Absolutely. Hateful? No -- and when Obama heard about the sermons in question going close to that line, his decision to stay with the church was significantly influenced by knowledge of Wright's impending retirement.

I grew up in a church where the sermons given rotated between the board of elders -- and several of them preached things I absolutely wouldn't want to be associated with today. What I do know about Obama -- the friends he keeps, his considered thought process (The Audacity of Hope reveals much about his thought process -- and how he takes detailed, considered, multi-sided views on issues others see through partisan glasses -- additionally confirmed by every piece I've read by someone who's worked with him or knows him personally), and -- yes -- his elloquence, makes me excited to be represented by a President I can believe in.

But hey, don't take my word for it -- ask Huckabee.

Don't forget the AA's a 1 gig line to every home, and almost everyone would get their music/video through the internet. And without strong enforcement, p2p piracy would dominate. That may be the big holdup, the telcos are not going to update the infrastructure until we can enforce things like the DMCA and put anyone who does not recognize "Intellectual Property" as real property in prison. Hopefully the next administration will listen to people like Laurence Lessig ) and Richard Stallman

My initial thought (however cynical it may come across?) is: Is this really just another plea of "Hey general public, I'm Obama and unlike the other candidates, I'm hip and in-touch with the current generation! Vote for me!" ?

If you're wondering whether Obama's enthusiasm for the Internet and technology goes beyond "hip and in touch", you might consult Lawrence Lessig's endorsement of him. And after reading Obama's tech paper, I can't say I think any other candidate's compares even in showing awareness of issues.

That said, the fact that I see the net strongly leveraged elsewhere -- including Paul's rather impressive campaign -- makes me *less* jaded about the increasing use of social networking. Nor do I think it's really surprising or affected: to some extent, all politics is (among other things) organizing. Real-world social networks were a huge part of politics before social networks came to the web, it's a completely natural fit now that's here. So to one degree or another, *everybody* is using it. I think part of the reason Paul stands out in his use is his unfortunate and somewhat unfair uphill battle in traditional media -- he really didn't have anywhere else to go.

Now, I'd agree it sometimes seems Obama is using this tool more heavily and talking more about his use of tools than anyone else in the field other than Paul. But I think to the extent that's true, it's largely because up until the last 4 years of his political career, organizing has been a big part of what he does -- his start, for goodness sake, was as a community organizer. It really does appear he has a philosophy that includes bottom-up organization as a component of well-balanced politics. And what the social networking tools do that's new to politics is increase the reach and efficiency of that kind of organizing. They only marginally bolster the traditional political networks, but they're a huge boost at the grassroots level, especially the more you know about grassroots organizing.

I also would agree that not all candidates are created equal on the tech-friendly front, however. In particular, McCain has some issues with not fighting the internet, and while Clinton might have some good progressive impulses regarding it, I don't trust her not to throw it under a bus if some other "expediency" arises.

So while I'm sometimes a bit disappointed we didn't get a race like Obama vs Paul -- one that I think would have essentially signaled a real end to business as usual and a significant shift to digital politics -- I still think Obama stands out as an evolutionary step in the right direction, if not the Paul revolution.

One other thing about a part of the premise of the post ("Hey general public, I'm Obama and unlike the other candidates, I'm hip and in-touch with the current generation! Vote for me!"). This isn't necessarily directed at the poster I'm responding to, but I'm noticing a high degree of frequency in attacks on Obama that are essentially "Sure he SEEMS great, but SEEMING isn't the same things as BEING great and we just don't know what's REALLY behind HIM!" To some extent, I don't blame people for thinking this way. We've been let down pretty severely by quite a bit of our political leadership recently. And it's hard to really know whether what you know about a candidate is image or fact.

But I also think the time for this kind of talk about Obama is past. He's been in the spotlight for a while, there's plenty of material available about him and written by him to get genuinely familiar with the substance of his history and positions. I don't have a problem with people arguing about what they don't like about Obama's stated policies, or a vote he made in the past. But at this point, anybody bringing up this kind of "we don't KNOW" or "he's all STYLE and TALK" rehtoric isn't bringing up an insightful point, they're showing their own need to do homework. Or, in some cases, acting with ulterior motives.

that never happened.

http://lessig.org/blog/2008/02/there_but_for_the_grace_of_god.html

The fact that they are associates is definitely reassuring.

Lessig on Wiki-law:
http://lessig.org/blog/2005/12/wikilaw_launches.html

fwiw

Two quick URLs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lessig
http://lessig.org/blog/

In short, he's a very smart (arguably brilliant) legal mind who thinks that the current copyright system is the result of corrupt practices by media corporations and the complicit congress. He has unsuccessfully tried the legal route (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/technology/articles/eldredprimer_100902.htm) and is now working on the corruption aspect of the issue.

Lessig, on the other hand, has no political or governmental experience besides clerking for Antonin Scalia and Richard Posner. He has been an academic all of his life and, as you all should know, he basically started the free culture movement on his own. He's spent the last ten or so years lecturing and giving presentations on the corruption and distortions of copyright law and is a folk hero among tech types. Before this talk of a congressional bid started, Lessig made waves in the blogosphere for supporting Barack Obama and his tech policy. Obama was even able to get constant-critic Matt Stoller to gush over his views on tech and his support from Lessig.

The connection between Obama and Lessig is hardly accidental. Lessig is in many ways the ur-Obama. Obama, as we've heard over and over again, draws much of his support from highly educated, young, wealthy voters. Lessig fans almost consist exclusively of that wine-track core of the Obama coalition. Franky, the only people who really care about copyright or free culture are the highly educated, young and wealthy. Obama is often thought of as being too cerebral and inspiring and lacking experience. While these claims are overblown with Obama, they're almost too true of Lessig. Lessig is incredibly cerebral -- both him and Obama were law professors -- and has built up this huge and devoted fan base by giving speeches and power point presentations about a fairly obscure subject.

That O'Reilly story is over a year old; the REAL news is much more recent. As Lawrence Lessig reports, Malmud's resource.org and Lessig's CC have together purchased a database with a substantial portion of all federal cases. The group has made the data available xml format free for developers to use as they wish. See the resource.org press release at http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/0_Press_20080211.pdf

He actually lives in San Francisco, in the 12th Congressional District, according to a blog post from a few years ago. He does still live in San Francisco, not in Palo Alto or at Stanford.

No shit, Sherlock.

Not to mention writing a blog post explicitly endorsing Obama and uploading a twenty-minute video to the same effect. But, uh, good sleuthing I guess.

Lessig is (was?) a featured writer in Wired Magazine. He is a brilliant supporter of free culture, and has a lot of foresight towards the future in a very-RMS way.

Anybody unfamiliar with his ideas would do good to read more

Her failure here was not because her campaign didn't know of the issue. I spoke directly to leading figures (or so they said) in the campaign. The issue was discussed, and a decision was made. And the decision was to say nothing about the issue. You can almost see the kind of tiny speak that was battered around inside HQ. "Calling for free debates might be seen as opposing copyright." "It might weaken our support among IP lawyers and Hollywood." "What would Disney think?" Better to say nothing about the issue. Better to let it simply go away.

As a fan of Larry Lessig, I was interested to hear that he liked Barack Obama. As I've followed the campaigns, I think it's important to see that the differences in policies, or even compotencies between Hillary and Barack isn't what really separates the two candidates. He's just posted a video which illustrates the main differences quite clearly to me:

http://lessig.org/blog/2008/02/20_minutes_or_so_on_why_i_am_4.html

As a fan of Larry Lessig, I was interested to hear that he liked Barack Obama. As I've followed the campaigns, I think it's important to see that the differences in policies, or even compotencies between Hillary and Barack isn't what really separates the two candidates. He's just posted a video which illustrates the main differences quite clearly to me:

http://lessig.org/blog/2008/02/20_minutes_or_so_on_why_i_am_4.html

See his blog: 4Barack.

Larry Lessig, founder of the Creative Commons, made a very cogent endorsement of Obama last fall. It makes for a good read. "Clearly on the big issues -- the war and corruption. Obama has made his career fighting both. But also on the issues closest to me. As the technology document released today reveals, to anyone who reads it closely, Obama has committed himself to important and importantly balanced positions."

First, and again, I know him, which means I know something of his character. "He is the real deal" has become my favorite new phrase. Everything about him, personally, is what you would dream a candidate should be. Integrity, brilliance, warmth, humor and most importantly, commitment. They all say they're all this. But for me, this part is easy, because about this one at least, I know.

Second, I believe in the policies. Clearly on the big issues -- the war and corruption. Obama has made his career fighting both. But also on the issues closest to me. As the technology document released today reveals, to anyone who reads it closely, Obama has committed himself to important and importantly balanced positions.

First the importantly balanced: You'll read he's a supporter of Net Neutrality. No surprise there. But read carefully what Net Neutrality for Obama is. There's no blanket ban on offering better service; the ban is on contracts that offer different terms to different providers for that better service. And there's no promise to police what's under the technical hood (beyond the commitment already articulated by Chairman Powell): This is a sensible and valuable Net Neutrality policy that shows a team keen to get it right -- which includes making it enforceable in an efficient way, even if not as radical as some possible friends would like.

Second, on the important: As you'll read, Obama has committed himself to a technology policy for government that could radically change how government works. The small part of that is simple efficiency -- the appointment with broad power of a CTO for the government, making the insanely backwards technology systems of government actually work.

But the big part of this is a commitment to making data about the government (as well as government data) publicly available in standard machine readable formats. The promise isn't just the naive promise that government websites will work better and reveal more. It is the really powerful promise to feed the data necessary for the Sunlights and the Maplights of the world to make government work better. Atomize (or RSS-ify) government data (votes, contributions, Members of Congress's calendars) and you enable the rest of us to make clear the economy of influence that is Washington.

After the debacle that is the last 7 years, the duty is upon the Democrats to be something different. I've been wildly critical of their sameness (remember "Dems to the Net: Go to hell" which earned me lots of friends in the Democratic party). I would give my left arm to be able to celebrate their difference. This man, Mr. Obama, would be that difference. He has as much support as I can give.

You don't strike me as a person who knows what he's talking about. The whole series of blog posts sounds like you think you've found a flaw in the system, and now you're expanding more and more on that perceived flaw instead of actually researching it.
You repeat the same point over and over again without any proof as if repetition somehow makes it an axiom, and you highlight only problems that impact every form of license in the world, not just CC.

More specifically, your series of articles sound exactly like the FUD being spread by ASCAP recently about how CC relates to music, to which Lawrence Lessig (a man who actually knows what he's talking about) has rebutted on his blog: http://lessig.org/blog/2007/12/commons_misunderstandings_asca.html#more

As far as I can tell, DHINAL (Dan Heller is not a lawyer). Why would I worry about his opinions, rather than the well informed opinion of Lawrence Lessig, the law professor who actually founded the Creative Commons, and uses the licenses extensively?

Lawrence Lessig has given me a bit of hope that Obama just might be able to steer clear of the *AA's more than most.

Well, not officially an adviser, but Creative Common founder Lawrence Lessig supports Obama.

So your cynicism is badly placed.

In case anyone else is wondering, Larry Lessig == Lawrence Lessig.

I was right with you until you offered up the proposition that anyone, anywhere could learn anything from that pretentious pile of horse dung that is Andrew Keene's "Cult of the Amateur."

Lessig has a blog entry about the suit.

However, if broadcast spectrum was just a free-for-all of everyone doing whatever the hell they wanted, it would be chaos, since people would be free interfere like hell with each other's uses without there being a particularly clear cut way of determining what's okay and what isn't. Thus, the broadcast spectrum is more or less owned by the government who then leases out the spectrum under various conditions.

except that this is TOTALLY WRONG.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_spectrum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software-defined_radi o
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_radio
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spread_spectrum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Radio

http://www.greaterdemocracy.org/OpenSpectrumFAQ.ht ml
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/02/14/lessig_explai ns_open.html
http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/003708.shtml
http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2003/03/12 /spectrum/index.html

To enable signals to get through intact, the government has to divide the spectrum of frequencies into bands, which it then licenses to particular broadcasters. NBC has a license and you don't.

Thus, NBC gets to bathe you in "Friends," followed by a very special "Scrubs," and you get to sit passively on your couch. It's an asymmetric bargain that dominates our cultural, economic and political lives -- only the rich and famous can deliver their messages -- and it's all based on the fact that radio waves in their untamed habitat interfere with one another.

Except they don't.

"Interference is a metaphor that paints an old limitation of technology as a fact of nature." So says David P. Reed, electrical engineer, computer scientist, and one of the architects of the Internet. If he's right, then spectrum isn't a resource to be divvied up like gold or parceled out like land. It's not even a set of pipes with their capacity limited by how wide they are or an aerial highway with white lines to maintain order.

Spectrum is more like the colors of the rainbow, including the ones our eyes can't discern. Says Reed: "There's no scarcity of spectrum any more than there's a scarcity of the color green. We could instantly hook up to the Internet everyone who can pick up a radio signal, and they could pump through as many bits as they could ever want. We'd go from an economy of digital scarcity to an economy of digital abundance."

So throw out the rulebook on what should be regulated and what shouldn't. Rethink completely the role of the Federal Communications Commission in deciding who gets allocated what. If Reed is right, nearly a century of government policy on how to best administer the airwaves needs to be reconfigured, from the bottom up.

Great post. Thought I'd also point out that I think Lessig has moved on to a bigger problem.

Actually, I find him wonderfully eloquent and inspiring. Lawrence Lessig calls him "the truly inspired rhetorician of our age". Here's one passage that struck me:

The monopoly isn't in any intellectual sense interesting, it isn't in any ethical sense tolerable, it isn't in any economic sense necessary, it's simply a thing that happened to happen, and that we will soon be finished making no longer there.

What a put-down. The slight complexity of the last two phrases ("happened to happen" and "we will soon be finished making no longer there") is deliberate. It makes you pay attention and drives the point home. Language like this draws you in: it makes you think, and because you have to work a little it makes you a participant. Frankly, you need to think and you need to participate because there is so much depth behind his words. There are so many ideas, so many necessarily unanswered questions, that I would even say - and I mean this as high praise - that at some point or at some level you need to disagree.

I don't know what his actual beliefs are but Obama was the first one to support placing the debate footage under Creative Commons. It also looks like Lessig is friends with the guy, it doesn't necessarily mean they share copyright views but it hopefully means he would actually hear our side of the copyright debate rather than just Disneys.

Oh, I dunno. Let's say a link to the YouTube video was posted for instance, here: http://www.lessig.org/blog/

At that point I'm not sure that it isn't a legal precedent, because it's knowingly in the hands of someone with the capability to recognize it as such.

When Lessig (or someone else in similar station) knows it, and Disney knows that Lessig knows it, it's a precedent.

There is a wiki on Lawrence Lessig's blog (author of Free Culture and creator of Creative Commons) here. He is proposing that we craft our reply there.

But you still didn't explain why the past is not trying to hold us down via copyrights, patents and so on... You just said that it won't...

See what infamous Jack Valenti said about the launch of CreativeCommons and Lawrence Lessig:
(see 2nd part of the video)
"And I hope Larry, that I am supporting you in this doesn't ruin your reputation."
http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/003757.shtml

John Edwards is calling for Creative Commons debates also.

Also though it's a bit offtopic I thought it was necessary to add this as well. Sooner or later in this discussion someone is bound to mention something about the RIAA or MPAA. Considering the various cheers that arose here when Jack Valenti died I thought that some people may benefit from Lessig's perspective.

John Edwards is calling for Creative Commons debates also.

Also though it's a bit offtopic I thought it was necessary to add this as well. Sooner or later in this discussion someone is bound to mention something about the RIAA or MPAA. Considering the various cheers that arose here when Jack Valenti died I thought that some people may benefit from Lessig's perspective.

Not to fan the black helicopters type rumors, but take a look at the Associated Press wire story on this:

http://news.google.com/news?q=ap%20obama%20public

...no mention of the Creative Commons portion of the request letter at all.

I can understand shrinking down mention of something as relatively "obscure" as Creative Commons in an article on another subject, but since the entire article is about copyright license, wouldn't mention of the full story (both options) be better reporting?

I've not been able to find a version which contains only the Obama statement, just several pieced together articles that credit other writers for other portions of the story, so I'm not sure who to write to. (It just says "Washington" in the versions I've found)