Lawrence Lessig to Leave Copyright Sphere

brandonY writes "The founder of Creative Commons, the Stanford lawyer behind the 'Eldred v. Ashcroft' case, and the author of 'Code' has spent the last 10 years working tirelessly on behalf of limited copyright terms, net neutrality, and the public domain. Tuesday, Lawrence Lessig announced on his blog that he has "decided to shift my academic work, and soon, my activism" from fighting the good fight for the public domain to fighting the good fight against corruption and the influence of big money's effects on legislation in general."

I hate to be negative...

[Kintar1900 (901219)]

..but good luck with that. :/

Re:

[L. VeGas (580015)]

In related news:

Angelina Jolie has vowed to single-handedly adopt every single orphaned African child.

Tom Cruise has vowed to eliminate mental illness worldwide with vitamins.

I vow to make every post +5 moderation on Slashdot.

Re:

[rs79 (71822)]

I met Larry at the ICANN formation meeting at Harvard when he was either still a student or had just finished school. I like Larry. but if you wanted to roll with the "corporate influence over democracy" meme that would have been a great place to start.

Larry, I love ya babe but, ya know, you've still never won a case, ever.

Best of luck though. It's better you're around and keep trying. Welcome to "middle age and wtf happened".

Re:

[osgeek (239988)]

Those are some pretty sour grapes you're pedaling there.

So how many cases do you have to win in order to have truth and wisdom in the books you write?
How many to be a good and ethical person?
How many to do noble, important things and not have wannabes in the peanut gallery take "I met him once and he wasn't all that" pot shots at you?

It's the Hacker's Quest

[CarpetShark (865376)]

I hate to be negative...but good luck with that. :/

Well, yeah, it's a tough fight to take on. On the other hand though, it's a good thing. Most developers think that you shouldn't work around bugs, or fix surface problems, but should instead drill right down to the fundamental causes of things, and fix those. This way, you solve many problems in one go, and produce more elegant, lasting, maintainable solutions. You might say that this is what hackers are all about: finding ever more elegant solutions to

Re:

[Duhavid (677874)]

You have it backwards.

Either remove corporate money, and limit personal donations,
or have one big pool of money that everyone can contribute to
( and all politicians draw from equally ) without any ability
to direct money to particular candidates.

Doing it the other way around would mean that corporations
and the wealthy would be completely unregulated ( which I
know fits some agendas, but it ignores human nature ).

Re:

[drinkypoo (153816)]

I simply propose that for every dollar you wish to donate to a candidate, you must donate one matching dollar to a general fund which is split evenly between all candidates who get enough petition signatures to appear on a ballot. In addition, we should require broadcast media to provide a certain amount of time to be split equally between candidates, and outlaw all campaign commercials (including those aired by SIGs to get around limits on campaign contributions/spending.)

Re:

[Duhavid (677874)]

I like all of it, except the dollar for a candidate, dollar for the pool
idea. It dilutes the effect, but does not do away with it. So, those
wishing to control the agenda will just make sure to invest 2 or 3 dollars
for every one they invest now. They obviously think the 1 dollar is
effective in getting their agenda enacted, I dont see them stopping at
2 or 3.

Re:

[Duhavid (677874)]

I dont have any links, sorry. Just an idea that flitted thru
my mind when discussing this issue with a friend of mind.

I dont know that the nickle and diming away of the money is
a big deal, they cant spend it on themselves. :-)

The bigger deal in my mind ( aside from putting it into
effect in the first place ) is that people are not donating
money, by and large, from a desire to see the system work,
but from a desire to influence and control. But I dont think
we want that money anyway.

Re:

[fucksl4shd0t (630000)]

Ok, I'll expose all the problems, not that I disagree with the idea. I think it's in our best interests to hold publicly funded campaigns, and if that means candidates have less total money to spend on the campaign, so be it.

Problem #1: Who qualifies as a candidate? We already have this problem in our current system, so let's consider it. Anybody can be elected if enough people vote for them, right? But the writing on the walls says if you run as a write-in candidate, only an extreme situation (as we r

Re:I hate to be negative...

[kbielefe (606566)]

I've yet to see it seriously discussed

This is a surprising comment to me, given the general political awareness and libertarian leanings on slashdot. Not only has it been seriously discussed, it has been implemented in places. In Arizona, for example, statewide candidates have the option to run publicly funded campaigns due to an initiative that passed a few years ago. They must collect a certain number of $5 donations to qualify, then they get a set amount for the primary, and another set amount for the general election. If someone decides to go the private-funded route, whatever money they raise is matched dollar for dollar in the public fund.

There are a number of glaring problems with it:

• Freedom of speech issues. Think of the politician you most despise. Now imagine being forced to contribute to his or her campaign.
• The amounts were too small to mount effective campaigns, providing barely enough for one mailer and maybe one late-night TV commercial. This gives a huge advantage to candidates with more name recognition. Taxpayers wouldn't support any higher amounts.
• If you want enough money to actually get your message out, you have to go the private route, with the matching system effectively raising funds for your opponent.
• It creates all sorts of bizarre conditions on when money can be spent. For example, how to account for resources that are used from pre-announcement through post-election, like a web site.
• There is no time for violations to be sorted out in the courts before the election happens. Therefore, if someone breaks the rules to gain an unfair advantage, there is no remedy until after the election, and no way to determine if it would have affected the outcome. With the small amount of funds, violations that would otherwise be insignificant play a much bigger part.

Re:

[Duhavid (677874)]

"Freedom of speech issues. Think of the politician you most despise. Now imagine being forced to contribute to his or her campaign"

This always seems to come up.

You can always envision that your money went to the guy/gal/hermaphrodite that you
did like ( or that you hated least ). And if you cant get past that, then what
about the other guys "free speech"? Or is money and economic backing going to
continue to be the main input?

And I would propose that there be no "private route", as it seems that when private

Re:I hate to be negative...

[kbielefe (606566)]

I think the matching funds thing just sounds like lip service, since those who need the money the least get the most from the general fund.

I think I explained it wrong. If you are privately funded and you raise $1000, all your publicly funded opponents get $1000 from the general fund, but you get nothing from the general fund.

Taxpayer support? The money should come from those who want to spend it. The campaign contributions should all go thru one agency/filter. They all put their money in a pot, and they all draw from it equally.

The point is that no one wants to spend their money to fund candidates they don't agree with, so the only way it works at all is to fund it through taxes. I'm all for people having an equal opportunity to speak. I just don't think I should have to pay for it. There's a huge difference between equal opportunity and enforcing equality.

Don't know if you want to run yet? You don't get to dip into the pool yet, either.

The trouble is, when you put this together with the rule about not spending any money outside the fund, what do you do when you want to use a web site that was developed before you became eligible for funding? That web site would be an "extra" expenditure. That's just one example of things that pop up when you actually put it into practice.

Re:

[Hatta (162192)]

What incentive do I have to do that though? There's going to be an election either way, hell it's probably better that very little money is going to be spent on it. If my donation isn't going to give my candidate a competitive advantage there's just no reason for me to do it.

He's just widening his scope.

[paladinwannabe2 (889776)]

After all, who thinks we'd have the copyright terms we do now if it wasn't for Disney buying off congressmen?

One step beyond

[Colin Smith (2679)]

One of the reasons big businesses throw money at politicians is because in government they have essentially unlimited money to spend on pet projects... It comes back tenfold. And... That money is borrowed.

Without the ability to borrow/spend unlimited amounts of cash (8,9,10 trillion is essentially infinite as far as I'm concerned, or at least, it tends to infinity), politicians wouldn't be anything like as powerful and wouldn't be such obvious and attractive targets for big business.

There you go. Corruption, built into the very basis of our monetary system from the ground up. It took me several years to come to this conclusion, I don't really expect you to accept it.

 

Re:One step beyond

[adelord (816991)]

Are you referring to the fractional reserve banking system as the source of new money? I just recently came across that, thanks to someone's sig line on here, which pointed to the "Money as Debt" instructional animation at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-905047436 2583451279 [google.com] which is incredibly illuminating. It did take me a few weeks to prove to myself that it isn't bullshit though, and it helped that I have a friend who loan officer at a bank and he believes in the current system. He played a great devil's advocate.

Re:

[dabadab (126782)]

Jesus, it's macroeconomics 101, how does a two-level banking system operate.
I did not sit through the whole video, but it's a well-known mechanism (like, there's a Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] about it), not some closely guarded secret.

Re:

[obeythefist (719316)]

Well yes... the USA was founded, whether you consider it noble or not, because rich colonists were being taxed by their government but they were not in control of the government by being part of it (representation).

So the colonists overthrew the government and established one that fit their ideals, allowing the rich to control their government by forming it themselves. Bear in mind that at the time the only people voting were rich white men.

Re:He's just widening his scope.

[nomadic (141991)]

After all, who thinks we'd have the copyright terms we do now if it wasn't for Disney buying off congressmen?

Myself for one. I think lobbying is very destructive in general, but it's never quite as cut-and-dried as "buying off" people. First of all, even with all the loopholes, it's very difficult for one donor to give enough money to a member of congress to severely sway them. I mean, these people are usually start out being comfortably well-off, even with the frequent pay cuts you get when you move from the private sphere to the public one.

Very few members of congress are going to let themselves be bought for a few thousand dollars. Just not worth it.

Also, there are a lot of people who are more attracted to politics because they value power over money. Not that it's any more noble a character trait, but for a lot of these people the power they wield is an end in itself. They like being able to call the shots, and a good number of them aren't going to trade that power for a little bit of money. If money was that important, a lot of them would have been better off staying in the private sector, where they would be making a hell of a lot more.

What happens with the lobbyists is that they're very, very good at their jobs. They're smart. They're friendly. They're likeable. They're charismatic. They can usually give their side of the story without any opposition. If a lobbyist comes into your office to talk about a subject you haven't really given much thought to, and lays a slick, professional presentation on you, cites a bunch of credible-sounding statistics, mentions the support of some industrial association, you're going to be naturally leaning towards their side.

Re:He's just widening his scope.

[BoberFett (127537)]

Myself for one. I think lobbying is very destructive in general, but it's never quite as cut-and-dried as "buying off" people. First of all, even with all the loopholes, it's very difficult for one donor to give enough money to a member of congress to severely sway them. I mean, these people are usually start out being comfortably well-off, even with the frequent pay cuts you get when you move from the private sphere to the public one.

Very few members of congress are going to let themselves be bought for a few thousand dollars. Just not worth it.

They're not being bought for a few thousands dollars during their term in office. They're being given lucrative positions after they leave office. That's the real payout.

ask Mary Bono

[mojoNYC (595906)]

Bono voted for a pay raise for members of Congress in 2005. In May 2006, she stated in a subcomittee hearing on the extension of copyright law that her regular $165,200 congressional salary was not enough to pay for her son Chesare's college expenses. She said that were it not for her late husband Sonny's royalties, she "could not afford college for [her] son." Along with college expenses, she had to pay for new cars for both her and Chesare. Chesare, Chez for short, planned to attend USC in the fall of 200

Re:He's just widening his scope.

[0p7imu5_P2im3 (973979)]

Here's 50 "donations" to start with:
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/topindivs.asp?ID=D 000000128&ContribID=U0000000007&Display=ID [opensecrets.org]

More:
http://www.opensecrets.org/softmoney/softcomp2.asp ?txtName=Walt+Disney+Co&txtUltOrg=y&txtCycle=2005& txtSort=name [opensecrets.org]

http://www.opensecrets.org/ [opensecrets.org] is full of such records of "donations" made on behalf of Disney.
And that's just one website.

Now ask for something hard to find.
;)

Mr. P2im3 has already given you a list

[paladinwannabe2 (889776)]

Keep in mind, though, that Disney would never bribe senators. That might get people arrested! All Disney needs to do is offer millions of dollars (in Campaign Contributions) to people who support extending copyright. It works like this:

Disney: Canidate A, do you support extending copyrights?
A. No, I think it's stupid!
Disney: Too Bad.
Disney: How about you, Canidate B?
B. Yes! I do!
Disney: Okay, B! Here's a big sack of money! Now go get elected!
B. Woohoo!
Disney: How about you, Mr. C?

Change of focus? Sorta.

[Raindance (680694)]

I believe the fundamental reason for Lessig's shift in focus is that he sees systemic money-driven corruption to be the central disabling constraint for implementing enlightened copyright/patent/etc laws.

He's done a fantastic job and played a central role in promoting a movement toward enlightened legal treatment of intellectual and creative works. Coffee all around. I don't see him as abandoning this movement, just attacking the problems facing the movement at a deeper, more fundamental level.

Re:

[Omnifarious (11933)]

I was thinking the same thing. To some approximation, the fight against excessive copyright and patent protection is a subset of the fight against corruption. But there is a veneer of rational seeming arguments surrounding ridiculously strong copyright and patent protection that make it a trickier fight in some ways because some of the proponents are actually honest. Honestly mistaken, but honest all the same.

Re:Change of focus? Sorta.

[truthsearch (249536)]

Lessig also had a special role in the Microsoft anti-trust case (IIRC he was specially chosen by the judge to submit independent briefs, then let go with no explanation around the time Bush came into office). So he has good knowledge of big business and the interaction with markets and the government.

Re:Change of focus? Sorta.

[kebes (861706)]

Quite right. Lessig specifically emphasizes this in his post:

I am someone who believes that a free society -- free of the "corruption" that defines our current society -- is necessary for free culture, and much more. For that reason, I turn my energy elsewhere for now.

I think he's done tremendous good. However during his work towards "sane copyright" he has seen how the system isn't able to work in the public's best interests. Having identified certain weaknesses in the current implementation of democracy, he's going to try to fix those problems. If those problems are fixed, then things like copyright reform (which is to the public's benefit) will come about naturally. So he's still very much working towards Free Culture. But as he says, a necessary condition for Free Culture is a non-corrupt (or less corrupt) legal system.

It's strange, though, because he is now tackling a problem that is much bigger and harder to solve. Rather than just get one set of laws fixed (copyright laws), he is now hoping to change all the laws that affect governance. Yet, he is undoubtedly right that without fundamental changes in the way governance occurs, any "wins" in other domains (be it copyright law, privacy, etc.) will be tenuous and short-lived.

Re:

[Threni (635302)]

> I don't see him as abandoning this movement, just attacking the problems facing the movement at a deeper, more fundamental level.

Corruption is a big problem with more important effects than merely copyright law. If corruption were tackled properly it would result in far-reaching changes from law (including drug law, which is costing billions and imprisoning millions for victimless crime) to foreign policy.

Bravo.

[beavis88 (25983)]

Kudos to Mr. Lessig for realizing that we need smart people to treat the disease, and not just its symptoms. On the other hand, he's just expanded his target by a couple orders of magnitude...

Re:

[Watson Ladd (955755)]

And now that target is my target, and your target, and Joe's target. David against Goliath isn't good odds for David unless he has a lot of people his size gang up on Goliath. Then it's better odds then David vs. someone his size.

Gore and public domain

[by Anonymous Coward]

Since Lessig admires Gore, it is worth pointing out that the three biggesst setbacks for the public domain (DMCA, 1998 Bono Extension, URAA) were signed by Clinton.

It does not help my impression of Gore either to get the Inconvinient DVD that says "share" this movie with your friends, while the movie starts with a $250,000 FBI threat against sharing the movie.
When they said "share", they meant "repurchase". Sales are more important than the message, I guess.

Re:

[MadUndergrad (950779)]

To be fair, Clinton signed them; he didn't vote for or write them. It would have been nice had he vetoed them, but I don't know how much good it would have done. You have to remember that the congress Clinton had to work with is the same one that we've had 'til 2006, and largely still do.

Re:

[Nimey (114278)]

Clinton != Gore. Gore might not have signed it if it'd been his call; we'll never know.

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

Since Lessig admires Gore, it is worth pointing out that the three biggesst setbacks for the public domain (DMCA, 1998 Bono Extension, URAA) were signed by Clinton.

What does that have to do with Gore? As VP, his only legislative duty was to break ties in the Senate.

It does not help my impression of Gore either to get the Inconvinient DVD that says "share" this movie with your friends, while the movie starts with a $250,000 FBI threat against sharing the movie.

Did Gore insert that FBI notice? Was it his re

Re:Gore and public domain

[ChaosDiscord (4913)]

Clinton signed the three bad laws. Okay. This may come as a surprise, but Bill Clinton and Al Gore are different human beings. Our constitution doesn't give vice-presidents any right to veto things. Even if Clinton's actions somehow taint Gore, it's possible to admire someone for the good things they've done, even if they have serious flaws.

As for sharing Gore's movie, remember that "share" can mean things besides "distribute copies of." You can loan your friends your DVD perfectly legally. You can invite a few friends over and show them your copy of the DVD without breaking any laws.

As for why it's for profit, there are trade-offs whenever one wants to get a message out. The people who funded the movie probably to make a profit. In exchange the movie got widespread distribution and plenty of media attention. Having the movie available in theaters across the country may have gotten his message out to more people than making a less polished movie freely available would have. Maybe Gore made the wrong trade-off, but it's not an obvious decision.

Re:

[pavon (30274)]

It does not help my impression of Gore either to get the Inconvinient DVD that says "share" this movie with your friends, while the movie starts with a $250,000 FBI threat against sharing the movie.
When they said "share", they meant "repurchase". Sales are more important than the message, I guess.

That is like forming a negative impression of Tobey Maguire because Stan Lee didn't get his cut of the Spiderman films. Gore was an actor and promoter of the film. He doesn't own it and has little say in how it was distributed.

Re:Gore and public domain

[icydog (923695)]

It does not help my impression of Gore either to get the Inconvinient DVD that says "share" this movie with your friends, while the movie starts with a $250,000 FBI threat against sharing the movie.

What kind of irresponsible site did you get your iso from? Mine just had the movie.

another relevant endeavor

[Locutus (9039)]

hopefully someone, as committed, will fill in but the net effect is that a good fighter just moved to another good fight. Good luck and good work Lawrence.

LoB

Re:

[Rycross (836649)]

As someone else pointed out, its less moving to another fight and more addressing the root causes that made his first fight necessary. There's a reason that copyright has grown to such dramatic length and scope.

Bravo!

[Bob9113 (14996)]

Love your work. Completely agreed that the "corruption" you mention is at the root of the IPR problems, and that the latter cannot be solved without addressing the former. It has to take a lot of courage to switch from a field in which you are a (perhaps the) luminary.

Best wishes, god speed, and I'll be watching and looking for opportunities to help.

You never know...

[DESADE (104626)]

Lessig is one of the more brilliant minds of our generation. Don't forget his efforts to bring Microsoft to task when that seemed an insurmountable obstacle. I've read some of his books and whether you agree with him or not, he as a way of attacking an issue and providing deep, insightful arguments. He's also very good at taking complex issues and distilling them down so that the average person can understand them. Don't count him out before he begins. If he manages to get some air time, he might be able to make a real difference. Either way, when one of our best minds announces his intention to take on a real issue in our society I think that's a good thing.

Re:

[drinkypoo (153816)]

Lessig is one of the more brilliant minds of our generation. Don't forget his efforts to bring Microsoft to task when that seemed an insurmountable obstacle.

Oh, I haven't. I also haven't forgotten that Microsoft was let off the hook by the Bush administration.

Corruption is inherent in the system

[BobMcD (601576)]

I think we're too far gone, at this point, to fight corruption in our government.

Ten years isn't going to be enough. In ten years' time, all of us working together would hardly even make a dent in it. Take down one corrupt politician and there's an entire party's worth to take his or her place.

We could use a new system. Perhaps if we pushed more of the decisions to the people it would become too expensive to 'buy' support? Or perhaps we could ban parties names from anything printed by/endorsed by the government? Or perhaps merely instituting a 'removal-by-popular-constituant-vote' system would do...

I do not have an answer, but repairing the current system just doesn't seem like a good use of time and effort to me.

The wrong enemy

[Reality Master 101 (179095)]

"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." -- Benjamin Franklin (maybe)

Lessig is attacking the wrong enemy. I'm not saying that moneyed interest aren't often a problem -- but put all the laws and effects that the government passes for them on one side of the ledger. Now take all the money that is spent to influence the masses on the other: welfare, social security, health care, and god knows how many pork barrel projects at the local level (Alaskan bridge, anyone?). It's not even close.

I have met the enemy and he is YOU. The modern sense of entitlement is what's pulling us down.

(I will resist the urge to tie entitlement to the desire for all music for free)

Welfare, social security, health care

[Tony (765)]

The difference is, it doesn't take a lot of money to buy a politician. A few hundred thousand is sufficient, not the billions that are spent on health care, or welfare.

Social security and welfare *benefit* society. Sure, there are those who take advantage of the system, but I can promise you, they are the minority. For most folks on welfare, it's a short-term thing, a stop-gap to fill in while they figure out their financial life since their ex-corporate masters outsourced their job to India or China.

As far

One way

[BCW2 (168187)]

Collect a database of all contributions and fees collected by Congresscritters. Then correlate it to each ones voting record. If the voters saw the tie in for why their Rep voted for that (insert idiotic bill) piece of crap. This could be a way to remove the incumbants. Personally I vote against all office holders in every election, it's the only chance to change things. This would also work at the state level.

Re:what about the good of the internet

[Watson Ladd (955755)]

...because big companies can profit off it. I suggest reading Empire by Negri and Hardt. One of their points is that a lot of the separate struggles for freedom have the same enemy, namely the interests of the propertied class.

Re:

[Omnifarious (11933)]

Members of the propertied class generally feel they have the most to lose from change. Freedom inevitably brings change.

Re:Best of luck

[mike2R (721965)]

While it is a noble undertaking, I find such a statement somewhat humorous, as fighting the influence of big money on legislation is a futile endeavor.

Removing completely, yes. But cutting it down by 95% in the US is easy. Just stop the complete abuse of political funding that goes on at present; this really isn't hard. Nowhere else in the first world are corporations allowed to buy politicians in the way that happens quite normally in the US. Eliminate that and you're just left with real corruption (politicians selling out for personal gain, rather than as a necessary part of getting elected). This happens everywhere of course, and I'm sure the US is no exception, but it's a fart in a jacuzzi compared to the current situation.

Personal opinion (this is thinking of the UK more than the US): public funding of political parties. A few million per annum out of general taxation is a tiny price to pay for the sanctity of the political process.