Try QuoteGPT
Chat naturally about what you need. Each answer links back to real quotes with citations.
"Esse ciclo diferenciado é possível porque as pressões comerciais que existem em outros meios não existem nos blogs. A televisão e os jornais são entidades comerciais. Elas precisam trabalhar para manter a atenção. Se perdem leitores, perdem faturamento. Como tubarões, precisam nadar atrás da próxima "notícia quente".
Mas os bloggers não possuem amarras semelhantes. Eles podem molestar, eles podem se focar, eles podem ficar sérios. Se uni blogger específico escreve algo realmente interessante, mais e mais pessoas irão criar lirnks àquela história. E quando o número de links para uma certa história aumentar, ela sobre no ranking das histórias."
Lawrence Lessig (born 3 June 1961) is an American academic and political activist. He is most famous as a proponent of reduced legal restrictions on copyright, trademark, and radio frequency spectrum, particularly in technology applications. He is a director of the Edmond J. Safra Foundation Center for Ethics at Harvard University and a professor of law at Harvard Law School. Prior to rejoining Harvard, he was a professor of law at Stanford Law School and founder of its Center for Internet and Society. Lessig is a founding board member of Creative Commons, a board member of the Software Freedom Law Center, an advisory board member of the Sunlight Foundation and a former board member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Biography information from Wikiquote
Chat naturally about what you need. Each answer links back to real quotes with citations.
Related quotes. More quotes will automatically load as you scroll down, or you can use the load more buttons.
We Americans have a long history of fighting "big," wisely or not. That we could be motivated to fight "big" again is not something new. It would be something new, and something very important, if an equal number could be rallied to fight the increasing extremism built within the idea of "intellectual property." Not because balance is alien to our tradition; indeed, as I've argued, balance is our tradition. But because the muscle to think critically about the scope of anything called "property" is not well exercised within this tradition anymore. If we were Achilles, this would be our heel. This would be the place of our tragedy.
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.
Add semantic quote search to your AI assistant via MCP. One command setup.
The danger in media concentration comes not from the concentration, but instead from the feudalism that this concentration, tied to the change in copyright, produces. It is not just that there are a few powerful companies that control an ever expanding slice of the media. It is that this concentration can call upon an equally bloated range of rights — property rights of a historically extreme form — that makes their bigness bad.