Ross v. Lessig in US News & World Report
Monday, December 22nd, 2008 by Patrick Ross
Print This Post
You can check out today’s U.S. News & World Report for a Point/Counterpoint by Stanford (soon to be Harvard again) Law Professor Lawrence Lessig and yours truly on Lessig’s proposal to decriminalize unauthorized file-sharing online. This is not a simple issue, and I’m pleased the magazine provided a platform for the debate.
It should be noted both pieces were written before the news broke that the RIAA and its members would no longer be filing civil suits against massive infringers of unauthorized creative works, but would instead be working with Internet service providers on enforcement of creators’ rights. I have written that there is much to praise in that decision, and that it is a win-win-win for copyright owners, ISPs and consumers.
But that news has nothing to do with the proposal by Mr. Lessig to decriminalize unauthorized file-sharing.
In this latest news development, it is the copyright owner making the decision as to how to address massive infringement. In Mr. Lessig’s case, it is the infringers forcing a decision through law whether the copyright owner likes it or not.
The essence of copyright is that in order to “promote the Progress and Science and useful Arts,” rights are given to creators. Their exercise of those right gives us the rich tapestry of works we enjoy today. Unceremoniously removing those rights because a significant volume of people choose to ignore them is not the way a civilized, democratic society should function, and it would serve to seriously erode the incentive for further creation.
Bottom line: RIAA dropping suits=rightsholder decision. Decriminalizing infringement=lawbreaker decision. The former promotes creativity, the latter discourages creativity.
ADDENDUM:I’ve been offline spending the holidays with my wife, kids and parents, but today I’m back and took a glance at Professor Lessig’s blog. I noticed something very interesting. I made a point above to link to my piece as well as his. His blog entry directs readers only to his US News editorial; anyone following the link would have no clue that there was an opposing opinion piece. I’m a bit surprised someone of his intellectual caliber would be hesitant to let readers know of points of view that diverge with his.
December 22nd, 2008 at 7:34 pm
“The former promotes creativity, the latter discourages creativity.”
Actually, it’s the opposite.
The more restrictive the law is, the less experimentation allowed, and the less creative one is *allowed* to be.
December 25th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Neal: No, as a creator, it is NOT the opposite.
Patrick: Once again, you are spot on.
As a creator, it is MY decision when it comes to deciding how my work will be used/distributed, not that of a lawless mob.
December 30th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
[...] proposed decriminalization of unauthorized file-sharing against an op-ed by Lawrence Lessig, and I linked to both on this blog, although for some odd reason Professor Lessig on his blog chose only to link to his own editorial, [...]
January 5th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
“I’m a bit surprised someone of his intellectual caliber would be hesitant to let readers know of points of view that diverge with his.”
You just can’t resist the ad hominem attacks, can you? Don’t bother denying it.
January 5th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
John,
According to my Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary 10th Edition (yes, this Luddite still uses bound dictionaries), “ad hominem” means “1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect 2: marked by an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made.”
I expressed sincere admiration for an opponent’s intellect, and expressed sincere surprise at his failure to acknowledge that there was a counter-argument in the magazine. That statement does not appeal to feelings or prejudices, but instead is a statement of my own feeling. It is not an attack on Professor Lessig’s character, and it most importantly did not come in answer to any argument made by him; in fact, it was in response to a lack of action on his part.
Thank you for commenting.
April 2nd, 2009 at 12:20 pm
[...] creators even if that means forfeiture of their rights over distribution and reproduction? Some say yes. I continue to maintain that consumer-friendly legal models (sometimes enabled by rights [...]
June 10th, 2010 at 11:19 am
[...] on fallacies upon close examination, as I pointed out when I was invited to debate Professor Lessig in an issue of U.S. News and World Report. Now a movement has begun that completely rebuts a central thesis of Professor Lessig’s book [...]
June 16th, 2010 at 6:18 pm
“The more restrictive the law is, the less experimentation allowed, and the less creative one is *allowed* to be.”
That is nonsense. Experimentation has nothing to do with using other people’s works as your own. Experimenting is about pushing the envelope and moving past boundaries. There’s no incentive to create works if you are not compensated for them. It’s true that great artists engage in their work for the sake of engaging in their work, but without ownership of what they created there is no incentive to commit oneself full time to it. What could that incentive possibly be?