Comments on: The Anti-Lessig Reader Wiki Blog, news, books Tue, 10 Oct 2017 06:01:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: Patrick R Sweeney Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:04:06 +0000 This may sound more critical than it is meant to be. It is not my intention to troll, but I think there is a certain hubris in this which begs a few obvious notes.

1. This divides the discussion into Lessig and Anti-Lessig, which seems myopic. It doesn’t seem like the starting point for a well-rounded discussion.

2. You have framed the anti-Lessig discussion.

OK – so that takes care of the low hanging fruit. If we can skip the who’s a fanboy/who’s a troll discussions that would be great. I’m here because I find professor lessig’s blog interesting and entertaining.

Now here’s the one I really question.

3. If someone’s views are truly anti-Lessig, and they get over the first two points, how likely are they to contribute their work under a Creative Commons license?

By: Pablo Tue, 24 Jan 2006 18:00:49 +0000 Your colleague, Professor Goldstein, went on record recently to say “The single greatest error that the popular media and some commentators make is to buy into the notion that copyright is capable of conferring a monopoly over ideas. Copyright law will not – in any context or in any country-extend its protection to ideas; ideas are under the law always free for all to use.”

Does Professor Goldstein consider Free Culture to be among the mistaken commentaries?

By: Joseph Pietro Riolo Tue, 24 Jan 2006 11:02:11 +0000 To Three Blind Mice:

The U.S. copyright law has an exemption for people with
disabilities. See Section 121. Although some authors
are complaining about receiving no royalty from copies
as allowed by Section 121, nobody is challenging the
law under equal protection.

Joseph Pietro Riolo

Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this
comment in the public domain.

By: three blind mice Mon, 23 Jan 2006 14:53:16 +0000 gotta beat suing widows and orphans

perhaps, but someone has to do it.

perhaps a blanket immunity for widows and orphans might be written into copyright law?

but then you would be discriminating on the basis of marital and parental status – and maybe even sexual orientation since state laws against gay marriage would exclude gays and lesbians from the copyright exemption.

then the american non-widows and non-orphans liberty union would challenge the law under equal protection… and where would this get you?

maybe the best idea is to make the law apply to everyone equally and not use the sympathetic infrigner as rhetorical hyperbole against a nominally good law.

By: lessig Mon, 23 Jan 2006 12:16:29 +0000 Not limited to Free Culture, and more distilled in its criticism.

By: Branko Collin Mon, 23 Jan 2006 08:56:47 +0000 How is this different from the Free Culture wiki?

By: Seth Finkelstein Sat, 21 Jan 2006 04:11:56 +0000 Just get the MPAA or RIAA to assign it as a project for an intern :-)

There’s got to be plenty of lawyer-larva who would be interested in the assignment :-) :-).
(gotta beat suing widows and orphans)