At 1:27 AM -0500 4/1/00, Matthew Gaylor wrote:
>Lawrence Lessig: Battling Censorware
>Copyright law is limited by the Constitution. But when there are
>conflicts with the First Amendment, some courts lean the other way.
>
>http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/1,1151,13533,00.html?nl=int

The problem is that Lessigs 'solution' to the problem of bad laws is 
to stand around and hope the government will pass better laws, sooner 
or later, someday. He fails to see the connection between government 
power and government abuse of that power -- he doesn't see that a 
government which can destroy Microsoft is also a government which 
could decree the use of Linux to be a capital offense. He worships a 
God of Chaos and Evil, and acts surprised when it performs acts of 
random destruction.

It is not government or the law which produced CPHack or DeCSS;it is 
government and the law which are trying to destroy them. Like my 
hippie history teacher back in High School taught us to sing "Which 
side are you on, boys, which side are you on?"

I believe anyone has a right to try to crack encryption for their 
personal use;I also believe companies have a right to devise the best 
damn encryption they can. May the best technology win. (It's worth 
noting that software companies have more-or-less given up on copy 
protection as it was known when I was a wee little lad, and the 
software industry is hardly failing to turn a profit. There is a 
terrifying lack of true originality, but that's due to a lot more 
than fear of pirates.)

Very soon, we will simply have to devise a better model for paying 
creators than the current scheme. Copyright law is dying, drowning in 
a sea of infinitely replicable bits. I don't doubt one will arise. 
Frankly, I find *trademark* law to be even more threatening to true 
creativity than copyright law, as it covers not just piracy, but 
original works. All art is the product of the culture of the artist, 
and all culture is the product of previous cultures. Trademark law 
turns culture itself into property, and I do not find this to be a 
comforting thing. What I create is rightfully mine;what I inspire in 
someone else is rightfully THEIRS.

Reply via email to