Lawrence Lessig Quotes

Code will be a central tool in this analysis. It will present the greatest threat to both liberal and libertarian ideals, as well as their greatest promise. We can build, or architect, or code cyberspace to protect values that we believe are fundamental. Or we can build, or architect, or code cyberspace to allow those values to disappear. There is no middle ground. There is no choice that does not include some kind of building. Code is never found; it is only ever made, and only ever made by us.

The aim of any literacy, and this literacy in particular, is to “empower people to choose the appropriate language for what they need to create or express.

Free culture depends upon vibrant competition. Yet the effect of the law today is to stifle just this kind of competition. The effect is to produce an over-regulated culture, just as the effect of too much control in the market is to produce an over-regulated-regulated market.

Our problem is that lawyers have taught us that there is only one kind of economic market for innovation out there and it is this kind of isolated inventor who comes up with an idea and then needs to be protected. That is a good picture of maybe what pharmaceutical industry does. It's a bad picture of what goes on, for example, in the context of software development, in particular. In the context of software development, where you have sequential and complementary developments, patents create an extraordinarily damaging influence on innovation and on the process of developing and bringing new ideas to market. So the particular mistake that lawyers have compounded is the unwillingness to discriminate among different kinds of innovation. We really need to think quite pragmatically about whether intellectual property is helping or hurting, and if you can't show it's going to help, then there is no reason to issue this government-backed monopoly.

We will not reclaim a free culture by individual action alone. It will also take important reforms of laws. We have a long way to go before the politicians will listen to these ideas and implement these reforms. But that also means that we have time to build awareness around the changes that we need.

"A "guerra" que foi levantada contra as tecnologias da Internei o que o presidente da Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA)6 Jack Valenti chamou de "sua própria Guerra Contra o Terror" [13] foi forjada como uma batalha pelo direito legal de respeito à propriedade. Para saber que lado assumir nessa guerra, muitos pensam que precisamos decidir apenas se somos a favor ou não da propriedade privada.
Se essas fossem as verdadeiras escolhas, então eu provavelmente estaria do lado de Jack Valenti e da indústria do conteúdo. Eu também acredito no direito à propriedade privada, e especialmente na importância ao que o Sr. Valenti carinhosamente chama de "propriedade criativa". Eu acredito que a "pirataria" é errada, e que a lei, propriamente ajustada, deveria punir a "pirataria", seja ela dentro ou fora da Internet.
Mas tais crenças simplistas mascaram uma questão ainda mais fundamental e uma mudança ainda mais dramática. Meu medo é que, a não ser que percebamos essa mudança, a guerra para livrar o mundo dos "piratas da Internei" irá também livrar nossa cultura de valores que são fundamentais à nossa tradição desde seu início."

But fair use in America simply means the right to hire a lawyer to defend your right to create... It costs too much, it delivers too slowly, and what it delivers often has little connection to the justice underlying the claim. The legal system may be tolerable for the very rich. For everyone else, it is an embarrassment to a tradition that prides itself on the rule of law. (p. 187)

In the 1970s, 3 percent of retiring members became lobbyists. Thirty years later, that number has increased by an order of magnitude. Between 1998 and 2004, more than 50 percent of senators and 42 percent of House members made that career transition.

And with a practice of writing comes a certain important integrity. A culture filled with bloggers thinks differently about politics or public affairs, if only because more have been forced through the discipline of showing in writing why A leads to B.

We, the most powerful democracy in the world, have developed a strong norm against talking about politics. It's fine to talk about politics with people you agree with. But it is rude to argue about politics with people you disagree with. Political discourse becomes isolated, and isolated discourse becomes more extreme. We say what our friends want to hear, and hear very little beyond what our friends say.

Esse protecionismo não visa proteger os artistas. Na verdade, esse é um protecionismo que visa proteger certas formas de negócio. As corporações ameaçadas pelo potencial da Internet em mudar a forma como tanto a cultura comercial quanto a não-comercial é feita e compartilhada se uniram para induzir os legisladores a usarem a lei para as protegerem. É o caso da RCA contra Armstrong; é o sonho dos Causbys.

On December 17, 1903, on a windy North Carolina beach for just shy of one hundred seconds, the Wright brothers demonstrated that a heavier-than-air, self-propelled vehicle could fly. The moment was electric and its importance widely understood. Almost immediately, there was an explosion of interest in this newfound technology of manned flight, and a gaggle of innovators began to build upon it.

"E assim, quando os geeks e os tecnólogos defendem as tecnologias dos novos Armstrongs ou irmãos Wright, muitos de nós nos tornamos simplesmente hostis. O bom senso não fica revoltado. Diferentemente como no caso dos coitados dos Causbys, o bom senso está do lado dos donos das propriedades nessa guerra. Diferentemente dos afortunados irmãos Wright, a Internet não inspirou uma revolução do nosso lado.
A minha esperança é trazer o bom senso de volta ao nosso lado. Estou cada vez mais impressionado com o poder de tal idéia de propriedade intelectual, e mais ainda, com seu poder para bloquear o pensamento crítico feito contra os poderosos. Jamais houve em nossa história um período em que tanto da nossa "cultura" tinha um "dono" como atualmente. E nunca antes houve um período aonde a concentração de poder para controlar os usos da cultura foi tão inquestionavelmente aceita como o é atualmente."

It is valuable copyrights that are responsible for terms being extended. Mickey Mouse and "Rhapsody in Blue." These works are too valuable for copyright owners to ignore. But the real harm to our society from copyright extensions is not that Mickey Mouse remains Disney's. Forget Mickey Mouse. Forget Robert Frost. Forget all the works from the 1920s and 1930s that have continuing commercial value. The real harm of term extension comes not from these famous works. The real harm is to the works that are not famous, not commercially exploited, and no longer available as a result.

For the first time that evening, a small idea was uttered by the representative of this extraordinary company. Schmidt spoke of invigorating the Google PAC, and pushing harder to get their side of the issue better heard.
And I thought, Wow. This is a Google solution to this, the most important problem facing this republic? This the most they can imagine?