Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Lawrence Lessig Elected to FSF Board of Directors

Posted by timothy on from the appropriate dept.

Free Software Foundation writes "Stanford Professor Lawrence Lessig was elected to the Free Software Foundation's Board of Directors on March 28, 2004. With Eben Moglen, the two most prominent academic legal minds on the subject of copyleft licensing now both serve as Directors of the Foundation. Professor Lessig's involvement will undoubtedly give a major boost to the FSF's ongoing efforts to neutralize legal threats to software freedom. The official announcement is here."

95 of 168 comments (clear)

  1. Huh? by damiam · · Score: 3, Informative

    Lessig was elected two weeks ago and no one knew until today? How does that work out?

    --
    It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    1. Re:Huh? by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's nothing. This november, we will elect someone president, but won't know who for months before the legal battle ends.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    2. Re:Huh? by _|()|\| · · Score: 1
      Lessig was elected two weeks ago and no one knew until today?

      This announcement is the first time I've seen a list of the board members. By whom was he elected?

    3. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      "This announcement is the first time I've seen a list of the board members. By whom was he elected?"

      The FSF shareholders.

    4. Re:Huh? by Rogerborg · · Score: 2, Funny

      >This november, we will elect someone president, but won't know who for months before the legal battle ends.

      Eh? Surely Diebold already know the result.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  2. Any other rose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I still think that Eben Moglen sounds like the beginning of that Def Leppard song.

    I get nothing from the new guy. 'cept maybe "Less sig, more post"? On that note, I depart.

  3. Those who can do, those who can't... by ObviousGuy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think Lessig is one of the foremost thinkers when it comes to modern intellectual property law. His thoughts are, of course, more evolutionary than revolutionary and closer to the mainstream concepts of IP rights and responsibilities than many of us are aware. His ideas have great impact on the way many of us think about IP law.

    However, his ideas are only effective within the walls of academia. He could actually enact through judicial activism many of the concepts and principles that he believes in if he were an actual judge.

    Which begs the question, why would an obviously talented legal thinker be passed over time and again for judicial appointments?

    --
    I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
    1. Re:Those who can do, those who can't... by vrtladept · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Which begs the question, why would an obviously talented legal thinker be passed over time and again for judicial appointments?

      The problem is that he's just too liberal for the current conservative regime. I am a big fan of Lessig as well even though I usually vote Republican. I've read two of Lessig's books and while I might disagree with him on other things, he's dead right when it comes to intellectual property and presents a very informed opinion that I think most sane non RIAA or MPAA tainted people could agree with weather they are from a blue or red state.

    2. Re:Those who can do, those who can't... by odin53 · · Score: 3, Informative

      It has nothing to do with whether he's politically liberal or conservative. Note that he clerked for both Judge Richard Posner on the 7th Circuit and Justice Scalia of the SCOTUS, two very NOT liberal judges; not the actions of a generally politically liberal person.

    3. Re:Those who can do, those who can't... by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He could actually enact through judicial activism...

      Stop right there. That's not right. Judicial activism should not exist in any direction, even on viewpoints we agree on. Judicial activism is where a judge ignores the law and just rules based on how they wish the law was. That's wrong.

      If you want him writing laws... send him to Congress.

    4. Re:Those who can do, those who can't... by kcbrown · · Score: 1, Flamebait
      Which begs the question, why would an obviously talented legal thinker be passed over time and again for judicial appointments?

      Because the people who appoint judges (especially to high courts like the circuit courts and the Supreme Court) aren't interested in appointing people who can think. They're interested in appointing people who are likely to rule in favor of their corporate masters no matter how strong the argument against them is.

      --
      Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
    5. Re:Those who can do, those who can't... by vrtladept · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Well, he claims to be liberal in Free Culture.

      If I was an aspiring legal type, I'd probably clerk for just about any appellate level judge that would take me. The experience would be too good to pass up.

    6. Re:Those who can do, those who can't... by mph · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Judicial activism is where a judge ignores the law and just rules based on how they wish the law was. That's wrong.
      It's not necessarily wrong; there are state and federal constitutions, to protect the populace from bad laws. The ability of the judicial branch to overturn unconstitutional laws is an important part of "checks and balances."
    7. Re:Those who can do, those who can't... by kevlar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Judicial activism has nothing to do with unconstitutional laws. It has to do with a judge considering a law "wrong" or "harsh" even though it _IS_ Constitutional.

    8. Re:Those who can do, those who can't... by mph · · Score: 1
      Judicial activism has nothing to do with unconstitutional laws. It has to do with a judge considering a law "wrong" or "harsh" even though it _IS_ Constitutional.
      Then there's at least 20,000 people using the term incorrectly, since this recent example was based on a (state) constitutional argument.
    9. Re:Those who can do, those who can't... by LostCluster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Calling a law unconstitutional is simply ruling a law invalid because the supreme law of the USA is the Constitution as ammended and it says something contradictory to that law.

      Judicial activism is something beyond that, when a judge makes a twisted ruling that's likely to be appealed because it's not grounded in any law at all... simply "legislating from the bench". That's really exposing a weakness in our government, that a judge has to really-really-really screw up to lose their job. Bad judges are hard to get rid of, but the solution isn't to want bad judges who you agree with.

    10. Re:Those who can do, those who can't... by Aneurysm9 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Judicial activism" is a term that is frequently misused, usually for some political end. The way I understand it, judicial activism is for a judge to rule on a case with disregard for the commands of valid laws. Ruling a law to be invalid because it is preempted by a superior law is not activism, but an integral part of a judge's job.

      --
      There was Cowboy Neal at the wheel of a bus to never-ever land.
    11. Re:Those who can do, those who can't... by swillden · · Score: 1

      Then there's at least 20,000 people using the term incorrectly

      No, they're using the term correctly. They're complaining that the MA Supreme Court engaged in judicial activism, implying that what the court did was wrong.

      Most of that first google page was links to conservative publications, who obviously think the ruling was wrong. I saw one liberal page, but even that one was saying that although the ruling was great, judicial activism is still bad.

      It's not the fact that the question was constitutional that makes it activism, but rather the idea that perhaps the court went beyond simply applying the law and started pushing an agenda.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    12. Re:Those who can do, those who can't... by cowboy+junkie · · Score: 1

      Depending on what your viewpoint is, any interpretation of the Constitution and our laws that is not literal to the word of the text could be perceived as judicial activism.

      As long as laws are written that are vague, interpretations of their meaning will be made by judges, for better and for worse. The solution is to write better laws that address the specifics.

    13. Re:Those who can do, those who can't... by wdball · · Score: 1

      Have you ever heard of Eldred, the case he argued? Or Creative Commons? Or any of the other cases and organizations he's involved with? It's strange that you picked Lessig, when he does so much in the way of organization building and lawmaking--and for those of you who don't understand our system of government, laws are passed by legislatures and then interpreted through the courts, which means Lessig's litigation is of huge importance.

      Can we also please dispense with the idea that those that can't do, teach? Hasn't everyone had enough really great and really crappy teachers to know that teaching isn't just something you can fall into?

    14. Re:Those who can do, those who can't... by odin53 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Okay, this is probably way OT, but...

      Well, he claims to be liberal in Free Culture.

      Hm, where does he claim that? I can't find anything that says he's a liberal, but I may be missing it.

      If I was an aspiring legal type, I'd probably clerk for just about any appellate level judge that would take me. The experience would be too good to pass up.

      I don't know many former clerks that weren't at least sympathetic to the views of their judges. A reason may be that judges don't often pick clerks that appear to have beliefs contrary to their own. Also, though clerkships are competitive and prospective clerks usually apply to many, many clerkships, I don't think that many people would apply to be clerks with Posner or Scalia if they weren't already sympathetic to their views: Posner and Scalia are polarizing jurists that are especially capable of provoking extreme reactions from liberals. I just don't know many liberal legal-types that would want to be their clerks, period. Remember that clerks have to work closely with their judges: clerks do much of the research, help hash out the arguments and reasoning and edit (or even draft, though probably not for Scalia or Posner, who probably do their own first drafts) opinions. The clincher (or deal breaker, as the case may be) is that these opinions effect real results and affect real people. They are not academic exercises. That's enough for a liberal not to clerk for those two.

    15. Re:Those who can do, those who can't... by odin53 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Fair enough, someone mentioned that elsewhere. Frankly, though, I've only known one person who clerked for Scalia -- and he was pretty conservative.

      The original, overall point I was trying to make was that being "conservative" or "liberal" has nothing to do with one's thoughts on the state of intellectual property laws today. That point I'll stand by. ;)

    16. Re:Those who can do, those who can't... by vrtladept · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Okay, this is probably way OT, but.

      Well, we are discussing Lessig so I don't think this is offtopic. But to each his own.

      ... where does he claim that?

      You are right, there is no sentence in the book that says, "I am a liberal" but it is implied a few times. However, I remember it being insinuated several times in the book, but in the preface (page xiv) he says: If we understood his change, I believe we would resist it. Not "we" on the Left or "you" on the Right, but we who have no stake ... This leads me to believe he identifies with the Left or with liberals.

      I just don't know many liberal legal-types that would want to be their clerks, period.

      Well I can't speak for Lessig, but I would bet that being a clerk for a Justice is more of who you know than who you agree with. I'm a security consultant and more than once had to implement what I consider draconian intrusion on my client's employee's privacy. It pays the bills and is good experience on the resume. Does that make me a mercenary? Maybe, but isn't it really the jobs of consultants (and perhaps lawyers) to do the will of those who pay them?

    17. Re:Those who can do, those who can't... by vrtladept · · Score: 1
      The original, overall point I was trying to make was that being "conservative" or "liberal" has nothing to do with one's thoughts on the state of intellectual property laws today. That point I'll stand by. ;)

      And on this point I will agree with you and so would Lessig. He goes to great lengths in Free Culture to point out the Left and Right reasons why you should agree with him on IP.

    18. Re:Those who can do, those who can't... by patternjuggler · · Score: 1

      Which begs the question, why would an obviously talented legal thinker be passed over time and again for judicial appointments?

      I was going to guess if Dean or some of the other presidential candidates who appeared as guests on Lessig's blog (and who've since dropped out of the race) won the election they'd put Lessig in their administration somewhere, appointed him to head the FCC, or as you say made him a judge. Maybe if some supporters of those candidates who've since gotten in line in support of Kerry made their voices heard something like that could still happen.

    19. Re:Those who can do, those who can't... by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      The solution is to write better laws that address the specifics.

      So long as laws are written in a human language, the solution will be to have judges, who according to accepted methodologies, deem to intepret the "will of the legislature." This is so even where a statute is specific to the point of agony. Law is not an engineering problem.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    20. Re:Those who can do, those who can't... by pimpin+apollo · · Score: 1

      You're right on saying that it's not because he's liberal or conservative, however clerking for someone doesn't automatically ascribe you to their political/judicial way of thinking. Rhenquist, not exactly a 9th circuit kinda judge, clerked for Robert Jackson, an FDR appointee. A SC clerkship is such a great job that you'd be a fool to reject it because you didn't always agree with legal decisions.

      I also think this is an encouraging trend. That justices choose to surround themselves with people who will question their decisions rather than mindlessly pander to them is a trend I wish we could see in other branches of government. I doubt it though; try getting an internship with Bill Frist with recomendation letters from the ACLU.

      That said don't expect someone who openly supported Edwards to be nominated by the same administration that nominated Miguel Estrada.

    21. Re:Those who can do, those who can't... by aastanna · · Score: 1

      This leads me to believe he identifies with the Left or with liberals.

      You're probably right, but it could also mean that he assumes his reader to be left leaning and not say anything in particular about his personal beliefs.

    22. Re:Those who can do, those who can't... by ratamacue · · Score: 1
      Judicial activism is where a judge ignores the law and just rules based on how they wish the law was. That's wrong.

      Legally wrong, but not necessarily morally wrong. If the law is unjust, then it is morally correct to override or ignore the law.

    23. Re:Those who can do, those who can't... by twilight30 · · Score: 1

      So according to this interpretation an American woman wanting abortion in the US has no real guarantee of that 'right', because it's a judicially-imposed extension of the right to privacy.

      Bit black-and-white, wouldn't you say?

      Keep in mind that in the Anglo-American model of jurisprudence, where judges have been effectively cowed by the parliament (Congress), they demonstrate notoriously dino attitudes (England being perhaps the best example of this). Where they explicitly have been unleashed, they have shown remarkable intellectual growth (the US and Canada come to mind).

      --
      ========================================
      Death will come, and will have your eyes
      -- Pavese
    24. Re:Those who can do, those who can't... by cardshark2001 · · Score: 1
      Stop right there. That's not right. Judicial activism should not exist in any direction, even on viewpoints we agree on. Judicial activism is where a judge ignores the law and just rules based on how they wish the law was. That's wrong.

      It depends on who you ask. Some people believe that the constitution is the supreme law of the land, and when congress passes a law that violates the constitution, the courts have the responsibility to overturn the law. This concept is known as judicial review. Often, this is also what is called "judicial activism".

      What you perceive as judicial activism depends on which side of the political fence you are on. For instance, many conservatives consider the Mass. Supreme court decision overturning the ban on gay marriage to be judicial activism. On the other side of the coin, many consider the US Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore to be judicial activism.

      Whichever side of the fence you fall on, you need to acknowledge that the courts have the right, and indeed the responsibility, to overturn laws which violate the constitution. If congress made a law which said that I could no longer say bad things about the president, such a law would be in clear violation of the first amendment to the Constitution.

      Somehow, people have gotten it into their head that Congress can pass any old law it wants to, and if the courts overturn it, that's "activism". In reality, the judicial branch of the government is a necessary part of the checks and balances system which our forefathers worked so hard to create, and is not subservient to Congress.

      --
      WWJD? JWRTFA!
    25. Re:Those who can do, those who can't... by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      Anyone? Anyone got an answer?

      Nope, didn't think so. Just the usual Slashdot "Oh yeah? Well, shaddup."

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  4. I just can't do it but.. by re-Verse · · Score: 5, Funny

    My hats off to Anybody who can find a way to score a +5 Funny off of this article.

    1. Re:I just can't do it but.. by FrYGuY101 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I was thinking the same thing... but now you have challenged my honor!

      attempt 1:Yeah, but does he run Linux?
      attempt 2:Imagine a Beowulf cluster of him!
      attempt 3:I for one welcome our new FSF Overlords...

      ... I got nothin'...

      --
      "If we let things terrify us, life will not be worth living."

      - Seneca
    2. Re:I just can't do it but.. by BlueShad0w · · Score: 2, Funny

      1) ???
      2) +5, Funny
      3) Profit!!

    3. Re:I just can't do it but.. by God!+Awful+2 · · Score: 1

      Wrong! It should be:

      1. Read article
      2. Post comment
      3. ???
      4. +5, Funny

      Step 1 is optional.

      -a

      --
      /. users can't
    4. Re:I just can't do it but.. by sylvester · · Score: 1
      You forgot "I ain't got shit to say about the article, but I reckon if I mention that it's not possible to post something funny about it, I might just get modded up".

      MOD GRANDPARENT DOWN FOR CHYINT OUT LOUD, IT'S NOT FUNNY!
      No, it's not funny, but the fact that it's moderated as +5, Funny is funny, and thus the comment as a whole is funny, and should be moderated as such. See? It's recursive meta-humour, but you might have a hard time understanding it.

      -Rob
      --
      -Rob Ewaschuk
  5. Re:Please... by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 5, Insightful

    continue to do nothing except "advocate" free software

    Evidently spoken by someone who uses free software like it was some kind of naturally happening thing...

    If not for the FSF, and Eblen amd RMS and the other, you might be posting your drivel with some non-free software, because some corporation would have managed to squash free software in order to grab more marketshare.

    I wish people like you were less ingrate and remembered whom you owe having the choice of running free software in the first place to.

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  6. CSPAN called by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    They want their mindnumbingly boring story back.

  7. legal framework for free software by Christopher+Anthony · · Score: 1, Insightful
    This is great, because it means that Lessig and Moblen can continue to work on creating the legal framework for free software. In many ways this is more important than the software itself.

    This can only serve to strengthen the GPL, particularly as version 3 nears completion, with stronger protections of freedom. All of our hard work is for nothing if Microsoft can steal our code with impugnity.

    --

    ---
    Find out more about the impending downfall o

    1. Re:legal framework for free software by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      In many ways this is more important than the software itself.

      That's the sad part. Licensing becoming more important than the thing being licensed.

      All of our hard work is for nothing if Microsoft can steal our code with impugnity.

      How do you know that they haven't already???

      --
      What?
  8. Probably won't help in the long run... by kcbrown · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Professor Lessig's involvement will undoubtedly give a major boost to the FSF's ongoing efforts to neutralize legal threats to software freedom.

    Perhaps. But remember that he was on the losing side of the Supreme Court case against the Copyright Term Extension Act.

    It certainly can't hurt to get all the assistance we can, so I'm pleased that he's been elected to the FSF Board, but let's not kid ourselves: we're very likely to lose the intellectual property fight -- there are far too many large corporations that are in favor of draconian and one-sided (favorable to them) intellectual property laws, and everyone that matters, including the Supreme Court, favors the large corporations.

    Interestingly enough, those very laws are exactly what will keep Microsoft in their monopoly position.

    --
    Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
    1. Re:Probably won't help in the long run... by ciaran_o_riordan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      yeh, let's give up.

      If you have some sage advice for FSF, I suggest you write it on the back of a cheque and send it to them. (whether you do this or not - and whether you give up or not, they'll keep fighting for your freedom.)

      --
      Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
  9. Lessig's latest book available free online by akratic · · Score: 5, Informative

    Lessig's latest book, Free Culture, is available online for free (both as in speech and as in beer). It was reviewed on Slashdot two weeks ago. I haven't read it yet, but I've read one of his earlier books, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace, and thought it was excellent.

    1. Re:Lessig's latest book available free online by Caseylite · · Score: 1

      I have read Free Culture, I downloaded it for free, printed it at work, popped it into a three-ring binder and read it inside a week. This is the first book I have read of his, but I have listened to a speech of his from the 2002 O.Reilly Open Source Conference and seen him in television interviews from time to time. Lessig makes clear, convincing points - he has the gift of making complex issues understandable. He is respected and likeable, and will be a strong asset to FSF in the trials to come.

  10. Re:Please... by MushMouth · · Score: 2, Informative

    Lessig is no liberal, he clerked for conservative Supreme Court Justice Kennedy.

  11. Re:Please... by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Lessig is definitely not in the "all software should be Free" camp. He tends more to suggest that we should continue to feed the public domain, which means shorter copyrights, not the elimination of them.

    So really, he's much more moderate than RMS, so having him on the board should likely make the FSF a little more Congress-friendly.

  12. I disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I think Lawrence Lessig is a marginal person. Someone who is found to be biased against Microsoft in the court can not convince people that what he is saying is the truth. He offers non-commercial license on his site creative commons, but he discourages people from using that license, instead offers the FSF licenses which doesn't have any license that covers non-commercial use. That's very dishonest and assumes that the programmers are nothing but code monkeys producing code. Our code is also creative art and we should have the right to choose our license. This idea that everybody has to release his source under GPL or something complaint is getting to my nerves. Lawrence Lessig is making money out of his writings thus he doesn't see a problem in restricting the use of his work, but we programmers has to release our source code under FSF licenses. That's bullshit.

    1. Re:I disagree by Fnkmaster · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Can you point to where he discourages people from using non-FSF licenses, or tries to prevent people from licensing their code as they will? I generally think Lessig's arguments are pretty clear, and I am pretty sure he would acknowledge that code and speech are both different forms of expression, that deserve to be protected by *limited term* copyrights, and that authors should be allowed to make money off of their work, whether its code or books, with the caveat that they should also use licenses that contribute back to the community and to the public domain.


      I don't think of Lessig as an absolutist like Stallman, he's an intellectual and academic, and academics generally spend too much time thinking and analyzing to have such a black-and-white view of the world. He's taken a stand to protect the very existence of concepts like the public domain. Yes, Creative Commons offers more flexibility in licensing format than the FSF offerings, but that's done in the domain that Lessig knows. I'd love to see the FSF become as warm and fuzzy and accepting as Creative Commons is, and I have no reason to believe that Lessig won't help with that process.

    2. Re:I disagree by ciaran_o_riordan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > "This idea that everybody has to release his source under GPL or something complaint is getting to my nerves."

      free vs. unfree is a line in the sand, we could spend time debating it, or we could just use the GPL. The G is for General - there was an EmacsPL, a GCC-PL, etc. But RMS realised that it would be nice for other people to be able to share code between projects, so he made a General license for all software. If you use it, your software can be integrated with other peoples software easier - allowing more programming and less lawyering.

      Don't worry, using a General license doesn't prevent you from being a unique little snowflake.

      --
      Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
    3. Re:I disagree by s20451 · · Score: 1

      Can you point to where he discourages people from using non-FSF licenses, or tries to prevent people from licensing their code as they will?

      The FSF as an organization takes a dim view of non-free software; one would think that joining its board is sufficient evidence of his approval of this viewpoint. Or is that not enough evidence for you?

      --
      Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
    4. Re:I disagree by s20451 · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point. Not everyone agrees that a line in the sand is necessary. The GPL is a good idea, but my greatest objection to the FSF is their rejection of the idea that free and non-free software can coexist and each have their role to play. Hopefully Lessig will moderate their views.

      --
      Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
    5. Re:I disagree by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      > Can you point to where he discourages people from using non-FSF licenses

      Sure! Published software should be free software. To make it free software, you need to release it under a free software license.

      Unless you think he's joining the FSF to bring it down from the inside?

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  13. The big battle for free software... by Jake+Diamond · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...will be in the courts. We see it with Linux and SCO, and that won't be the last major court battle over free software. Free software (and open source, for those that worry about that distinction) has proven that it's up to snuff technically. And intelligent people can disagree over ease-of-use compared to commercial products.

    But the one area where proprietary software really has had free software outclassed is in legal muscle. Of course, some companies (Novell, IBM, HP for a few) have supported free software because they stand to benefit from it. But free software needs as many sharp legal experts as it can get--that will support free software for the sake of free software. It's nice to see that this is happening.

    1. Re:The big battle for free software... by Jake+Diamond · · Score: 1

      I agree with you on IBM's weight. It managed to fight the feds for the better part of a decade and came out fine. It's extremely successful and I would never underestimate them.

      Their big case regards Linux. While "a rising tide affects all boats"--meaning a win for Linux would support FOSS in general--I don't see them picking up lawsuit after lawsuit just so they can win the FOSS Nice Guy of the Year award. They, like any corporation, support free software because it is profitable for them to do so. And if they no longer thought they could benefit, they'd stop supporting FOSS.

      I like IBM too--one fewer job offer and I'd likely be working for them--but they aren't supporting Linux out of the kindness of their hearts.

  14. Re:Losing streak? by LostCluster · · Score: 1

    That's more of a problem for the system than him. Lawyers can't always be judged by their win-loss record. Afterall, most public defenders don't really get to be selective about their clients.

    So really, I think he's realizing that he's better off lobbying lawmakers than trying cases right now... the reason why he's losing so many cases is because the laws keep getting worse.

  15. So... by adamofgreyskull · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...do they like lawyers or not? ;o)

  16. Re:Please... by akratic · · Score: 3, Informative

    Not true; Lessig clerked for Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court, and for Richard Posner on the Seventh Circuit.

    Conservative judges can, and do, hire liberal clerks, and vice versa. Scalia, in particular, is known for hiring liberal clerks regularly. Lessig wrote an article for The Industry Standard about why there's nothing odd about this.

  17. Imagine... by adamofgreyskull · · Score: 1

    ...a beowulf cluster of self-fulfilling /. posts.

    From: http://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/lawyers.html
    A man went to a brain store to get some brain for dinner. He sees a sign remarking on the quality of proffesional brain offerred at this particular brain store. So he asks the butcher:
    "How much for Engineer brain?"
    "3 dollars an ounce."
    "How much for Computer Scientist brain?"
    "4 dollars an ounce."
    "How much for lawyer brain?"
    "100 dollars an ounce."
    "Why is lawyer brain so much more?"


    "Do you know how many lawyers you need to kill to get one ounce of brain?"

  18. Re:Would you have sex with Commander Riker by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

    I'd just hate to be the chump janitor that has to clean the holodeck!

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  19. Re:This is horrible by kiltedtaco · · Score: 3, Insightful
    In a way Lessig is a sellout to the big media industries.


    Bzzzzt. Wrong. Why don't you read one of his books before you start accusing him of being the exact opposite of what he is.

    Every time we've had it up to here with the likes of the RIAA and SCO, Lessing would come out and scream from the rooftoops that abolition of copyright is too radical, and those who see copyrights for the evil that they are get labeled as extremists.


    An extremist is someone who believes themselves to be absolutely unquestionably right, without considering the opinion of the opposition. Sounds like yourself. Just because Lessig is willing to look at both sides of the issue, which you obviously aren't capable of, doesn't mean he's a sellout to either side. He's simply willing to actualy expend some thought about the problem, instead of demanding one way or the other all the time.

    Sadly, Lessig is the extremist, and even nurotic. If a mugger wanted to beat an ole lady with a baseball bat 10 times, and I wanted to force it so that she would be beat 0 times - Lessing would come in and say we were both extremists and suggest we beat her 5 times.


    I'm sorry you don't agree with lessig. I'm also sorry can't understand the concept of comprimise. I'm also sorry you can't be bothered to contemplate the other side of your argument. You're obviously not a musician, writer, or artist. Just because you want to take their works for free doesn't mean it's right.
  20. how lessig lost the big one by ciaran_o_riordan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If you want more info about Lessig losing that big copyright case, you can read his account of it. (very interesting, it half reads like an apology.)

    Here, in Lessigs style, is an anecdote (from the 80's) : A Microsoft sales rep messed up a 1.5million dollar deal - so the rep is called in to Gates' office and he says to Gates' "I guess I'm fired, yeh?", Gate's replies: "What? you just learned a big lesson and we footed a 1.5million dollar bill for that lesson - there's no way I'm gonna fire and have some other company gain that experience you just gained."

    Lessig is a good smart guy, and FSF/GNU have been doing the impossible for 20+ years now. Lessig lost a failed a big test, there'll be other tests, and he'll try again because he cares about the subject matter.

    (yes, this is my second time replying to the parent, the first reply was knee-jerk. This post is hopefully more considered - or at the least, it's longer.)

    (bleh, this post needs more thinking, but I should go do something else instead.)

    --
    Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
    1. Re:how lessig lost the big one by WryCoder · · Score: 3, Insightful
      It doesn't just read like an apology, it is an apology. Lessig states he misread the court and argued poorly. However, IMO the majority opinion was one of pragmatism (just another extension), a desire to "harmonize" with the EU's extension, and the belief that since Congress had been given the authority to set the limits, the Court should not intervene. The dissenting opinions by Stevens and Breyer are remarkable. They actually addressed the constitutional issues.

      (You can Google Eldred v. Ashcroft for html, but the pdfs are much easier to read.)

    2. Re:how lessig lost the big one by pardonne · · Score: 1

      You make a fine point but the counter is also there. You don't want losers making your case.

      Next big opportunity he gets, he better win or he has to leave the leadership to someone else.

      Pardonne

  21. Re:This is horrible by argoff · · Score: 1

    An extremist is someone who believes themselves to be absolutely unquestionably right, without considering the opinion of the opposition. Sounds like yourself. Just because Lessig is willing to look at both sides of the issue, which you obviously aren't capable of, doesn't mean he's a sellout to either side. He's simply willing to actualy expend some thought about the problem, instead of demanding one way or the other all the time.

    Bullshit, I used to believe in copyrights stronger than anybody. It was not easy to reject them, but I was honest with myself which it is so easy for me to see that Lessig is not. Some people in other nations consider me extremist because I believe in free speech, free press, and freedom of religion - but I am not extreme, they are just full of themselves. It is not that I am unwilling to consider the alternatives, it is only because I accept facts as they are - full of myself or not.

  22. Addition to the board loss to the effort? by emtechs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Over the years Lessig has always been the goto guy for comments putting the FSF actions and announcements in a digestible context. Now that he is officially part of the organization he won't be able to provide an objective opinion. Is that a gain or a loss?

  23. Damn, misread that subject line by TekPolitik · · Score: 1
    I misread it as "Lawrence Lessig Elected to EFF Board of Directors". I let rip a cheer as I imagined the EFF having somebody among their board who is capable of rational discussion. Alas it was not to be.

    I'm wondering what this adds to the FSF. Sure, Larry's a good fit, but I don't see that he's better value to the FSF on their board than he is off their board acting as a third party commentator. The FSF already has a capable lawyer on the board. If it was the availability of an additional opinion they needed, they could have just asked as necessary.

    Of course Larry's probably not a good fit to the EFF board, for exactly the same reason as he would be a valuable addition to that board.

    1. Re:Damn, misread that subject line by nudicle · · Score: 3, Informative

      um, Lessig is already on the EFF Board.

    2. Re:Damn, misread that subject line by TekPolitik · · Score: 1
      um, Lessig is already on the EFF Board

      Then he needs to get off it, because he obviously hasn't done any good there.

  24. Re:This is horrible by argoff · · Score: 1

    You're obviously not a musician, writer, or artist.

    Oh, and one more thing, I couldn't let this go by. I'm actually a musician, writer, artist, and a programmer. Logic wise, it wouldn't matter if I was none, but I am all - and because of that I see the crap related to copyrights first hand.

    When people say that to me, what it means to me is that they can't think logically for themselves - so instead they try to probe into my personal life to see if there is some justification to blow me off, and thus ignore the facts about copyrights. Well thanks but no thanks.

  25. Should Copyright Even Exist? by MichaelCrawford · · Score: 2, Interesting
    In the section Should Copyright Even Exist?, part of Links to Tens of Thousands of Legal Music Downloads, I compare digital music to software, and introduce the reader to Richard Stallman, the GNU Manifesto, and the Free Software Movement.

    Because my article is written for, and widely read by music downloaders, I think this section may be the first introduction most p2p users get to the notion that there is a legitimate reason to consider the elimination of copyright: the reason being that the ability to faithfully and cheaply copy digital information yields more benefit to society than the benefit that results from allowing the authors of digital information a monopoly to their work.

    While copyright law is a cornerstone to Open Source licensing - without copyrights, licenses would be unenforceable - I think it's pretty clear especially from Richard Stallman's earlier writing that his objective is the elimination of copyright.

    Consider that there are far more people who listen to music than who program, or even use computers. If they were all made to understand the benefit to society of cheap, faithful digital copying, maybe we could eliminate, or at least substantially reform copyright.

    --
    Request your free CD of my piano music.
    1. Re:Should Copyright Even Exist? by Little+Brother · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You realize, of course, that the elimination of copyright would make the GPL invalid as well don't you. That's right, the GPL is only valid because of the protections offered under copyright law, otherwise anyone could just disregaurd the General Public License.

      --

      Little Brother, watching the watchers

    2. Re:Should Copyright Even Exist? by mav[LAG] · · Score: 1

      And you realise of course that without copyright, the GPL would no longer be necessary? Anyone would be free to copy, modify and distribute anyone else's copyrighted work without having to ask permission or getting a license to do so.

      --
      --- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
    3. Re:Should Copyright Even Exist? by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      Not really. The non-distribution of source would be an issue.

      Redistribution of binaries, of course, would be quite feasible.

      --
      May we never see th
    4. Re:Should Copyright Even Exist? by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      Why, that's a good point! Microsoft could take all of the FSF's work, build on top of it, sell the binaries, and we could all get the modified source from them because, uh, ummm... what's the last bit, again?

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    5. Re:Should Copyright Even Exist? by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      That would just make everything effectively BSD-licensed, which will still be a great win for Free Software. Copyleft (GPL) is a weapon against misuse of copyright. If copyright no longer exists, the existence of that weapon is no longer an issue.

      --
      Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
    6. Re:Should Copyright Even Exist? by mav[LAG] · · Score: 1

      Here's another good point! Free software developers could take the source for Office, build on top of it, sell the binaries and Microsoft could all get the modified source from them because, er, can't remember the last bit. It works both ways.

      Just to clarify my position, I am not anti-copyright - just anti the indefinite extension of copyright. The only point I was making was that without copyright law, the GPL would not be necessary. Your argument doesn't work anyway since "all of the FSF's work" exists precisely because of the GPL's protection under copyright law. Your hypothesis is more like "what would happen if copyright law was abolished tomorrow." To speculate on a world without copyright law is extremely difficult.A good place to start is imagining there is no such company as Microsoft and no such organisation as the FSF since neither could exist without copyright law. Have fun :)

      --
      --- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
    7. Re:Should Copyright Even Exist? by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      That would just make everything effectively BSD-licensed, which will still be a great win for Free Software. Copyleft (GPL) is a weapon against misuse of copyright. If copyright no longer exists, the existence of that weapon is no longer an issue.

      I still can't agree. The reason BSD-licensing has value at all is because of intent -- because peole that BSD-license their software do so because they want to release the source. So, I don't have to distribute the source, but I do anyway.

      If a closed-source vendor suddenly loses copyright protection, he clearly doesn't *want* to release his source, so he's not going to do so.

      --
      May we never see th
    8. Re:Should Copyright Even Exist? by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      Yes, but suddenly those closed-source programs can be freely duplicated and freely reverse-engineered. They will be competing with open-source program which will have a tremendous advantage in acceptance. The massive duplication of the closed-source programs will make it effectively impossible to generate revenue through their sale. The cycle of upgrades and bugfixes for closed-source software will grind to a halt, while the open-source software continues to be maintained.

      --
      Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
  26. Re:This is horrible by iminplaya · · Score: 1

    When people say that to me, what it means to me is that they can't think logically for themselves - so instead they try to probe into my personal life to see if there is some justification to blow me off, and thus ignore the facts about copyrights.

    This happened to me in one my discussions over copyright. He thought it was important to know my age and occupation in order to properly "frame" the questions I was asking. I tried to explain that those things were (and are) totally irrelevent and that the question stands on its own no matter where it came from. Of course it's simply a diversion to avoid tough questions. He's very comfortable with things the way they are, and doesn't want any disruptions in his path to the copyright gravy train.

    --
    What?
  27. Re:This is horrible by iminplaya · · Score: 1

    You're obviously not a musician, writer, or artist.

    Of course, NO artist would ever question the validity of copyright. Hogwash...poppycock...pish-posh...nonsense. Luckly, more and more artsts are realizing that the value is in the original, and that copies, if not completely worthless, are little more than free advertising. The only business that stands to lose is the publishing business. The copyright wars have always been the publishers(with gov't backing) against the public AND the artist. The publishers didn't want to give the artists any rights in the 1700's and 1800's, and now they want to take away all public rights also.

    --
    What?
  28. Guilt by association??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    Can you point to where he discourages people from using non-FSF licenses, or tries to prevent people from licensing their code as they will?


    The FSF as an organization takes a dim view of non-free software; one would think that joining its board is sufficient evidence of his approval of this viewpoint. Or is that not enough evidence for you?


    So, um... yeah; that would be "not enough evidence" for me. Can you cite a specific quote by Lessig in support of limiting copyright holders' rights over how they license their works? I think you'll have a pretty hard time...
  29. Re:This is horrible by argoff · · Score: 1


    I knew he was going to say that because I've heard it so many times. The worst part is that for every artist and writer that copyrights benefit, there have got to be at least a thousand who the copyright system hasn't helped a bit or even screwed. The first time I was attacked like that, I found it so selfish and offensive that I didn't know what to say. Now, I find that the best solution is to call them on it like I did.

  30. Re:Please... by thesaur · · Score: 1

    Lessig is rather a classic liberal, as the term is still used in Europe. It has nothing to do with political direction, merely with open-mindedness and a good education. As in "Liberal Arts".

  31. Re:Those who can do, those who can't - IN AUDIO by turnstyle · · Score: 2, Informative
    "Well, he claims to be liberal in Free Culture."

    fwiw, you might check out the streaming archive that I've been putting together...

    --
    Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
  32. Re:... and Lessig Doesn't by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

    Your contention is that copyrights only harm culture, apparently because they limit the ability for a person to experience it. If that were true, your comparison to the 1830s slavery conflict would be appropriate.

    However, in my opinion, copyrights, when applied appropriately, can extend culture. When combined with an appropriate business model(which isn't the way the RIAA/MPAA are handling things), they can simultaneously help artists continue to produce, while exposing everyone else to their work.

    The artist deserves to be paid. He puts a lot of work into making a recording sound exactly as he wishes to express himself.

    The consumer, on the other hand, shouldn't be the one paying. That does have detrimental effect on culture through limiting exposure.

    The best solution I've seen so far is to use a website to promote artists' work, and use advertising and other revenues from that website to pay the artists.

    --
    tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
  33. Re:This is horrible by iminplaya · · Score: 1

    They're always going to repeat the party line ad nauseum because they're drones, incapable of critical thought on the matter, because it's all about the money. All we can do, and what we need to do, is to help them see the light, de-program them, if you will. This is why I'm not sure if it's ignorance or arrogance on their part. They just might not know any better, or maybe I'm just cutting them too much slack. One thing I do know is that the current direction we are headed is the only way our economic system can take us. It depends on selfishness and scarcity to operate. It's every man for himself. Any cooperation involved is just to beat the other guy. Anyway, let's just carry on, and enjoy the show.

    --
    What?
  34. Re:This is horrible by kiltedtaco · · Score: 1

    Oh really? So are you saying you deserve no compensation for any of your work? The point of copyrights is to encourage people to create, money being the easiest incentive to do so. Maybe you don't need any encouragement, go ahead and put your work in the public domain. That's your right, you can opt-out of copyright for your works. But I'm willing to pay to support the creator(s) of the song/painting/program. I hope you won't be too offended.

  35. Re:This is horrible by kiltedtaco · · Score: 1

    It's dificult to argue with made up numbers. But i'll try

    I attacked you like that because i'm a musician, and you're attacking my right to recieve compensation for my work. You're devaluing my work, deeming it unworthy of compensation. This is selfish and offensive to me.

    I don't know about these people you think the 'copyright system' has screwed, explain and i'll respond.

  36. Re:This is horrible by argoff · · Score: 1

    Well thats the whole point, there are plenty of other ways to get compensated for your work. Work on commission, do a loss leader, have a tip jar, do a concert, create as a service, whatever ... but to assert the right to microregulate how everybody on the planet uses a given piece of information - well, sorry I can't go for that - especially in the information age where the only way to distinguish free speach content from copyright content is to give authorities the power to censor.

  37. Re:This is horrible by iminplaya · · Score: 1

    You're entitled to compensation for the original. The copies are worthless. If somebody wants to pay for them, fine. IP is not a natural right, like, for example, the right not to be shot is. It's a gov't service to protect the publishing industry's(since THEY own most copyright) interests. The industry has always hated new tech since Gutenberg(sp), and has always found ways since then to slow it down, or cripple it with IP "protection". Well, now it's in its deathbed, and I say good riddance.

    --
    What?
  38. Re:This is horrible by argoff · · Score: 1

    From what you tell me, I wander if you're not being screwed, after all - the best way to screw a person over is to tell them they have some special type of right that they don't have and watch them beat their head on the wall trying to make it work.

    Something tells me you're not Michael Jackson. That you'd likely be far better off going way out of your way to give away everything you create and encourage copying wherever possible, then develop a "following" who will buy shirts, signed items, and tickes to events you perform at.

  39. Re:This is horrible by kiltedtaco · · Score: 1

    So I have to resort to the charity of others? Sorry, that's not an incentive for me to go create.

    Now it's interesting you say "the right to mircoregulate how everyone on the planet uses a given piece of information". So it's just the "microregulation" we need to get rid of or prevent?

    Guess who thinks similarly. Yep. Good ole Lawernce Lessig.

  40. Re:This is horrible by kiltedtaco · · Score: 1

    You seem to be talking about picture-hanging-on-the-wall art. I don't know about that, I can't comment.

    Whether you use the word "protect" or "promote" in that sentence depends only on perspective. Per the constitution, the gole of copyright is to "promote" the arts and useful sciences. If you think they've gone too far and started to 'protect' publishers from, oh who knows what evil, then sure, that's your opinion. That's a problem of our copyright law, not a fundamental problem of the idea people should be compensated for their ("intellectual") works.

    I really can't reply to the last two sentences there. I can't understand what you're trying to convey there. Betamax probably.

  41. Re:This is horrible by kiltedtaco · · Score: 1

    From what you tell me, I wander if you're not being screwed, after all - the best way to screw a person over is to tell them they have some special type of right that they don't have and watch them beat their head on the wall trying to make it work.

    Yes because the movie, music, printing, and computer software don't work? How exactly do I go about telling if I really have a special right or not? I think I missed your point.

    Something tells me you're not Michael Jackson. That you'd likely be far better off going way out of your way to give away everything you create and encourage copying wherever possible, then develop a "following" who will buy shirts, signed items, and tickes to events you perform at.

    Good point. I like it. But I think that your argument that copyrights should be abolished (I'm assuming that's what you were saying, correct me if not) is not furthered by one case in which copyright is a hinderence. Whether or not you copyright your own works is your choice. Denying it to everyone else simply because it doesn't suit you makes no sense.

    Do not confuse the music industry with the institution of copyright.