(posted by Larry Lessig) June 19, 2007 2:07 AM
- comments (147):
During my keynote at the iCommons iSummit 07,
I made an announcement that surprised some, but which, from reports on
the web at least, was also not fully understood by some. So here again
is the announcement, with some reasoning behind it.
The bottom line: I have decided to shift my academic work, and soon,
my activism, away from the issues that have consumed me for the last 10
years, towards a new set of issues. Why and what are explained in the
extended entry below. | technorati |
Three people I admire greatly are responsible for at least inspiring this decision.
The first is Obama. Six months ago, I was reading Obama's (really
excellent) latest book. In the beginning of the book, he describes his
decision to run for the United States Senate. At that point, Obama had
been in politics for about 10 years. Ten years, he reflected, was
enough. It was either "up or out" for him. He gambled on the the "up."
We'll see how far he gets.
But for me, Obama's reflection triggered a different thought. It's
been a decade since I have become active in the issues I'm known for.
Over this decade, I've learned a great deal. There has been important
progress on the issues -- not yet in Congress, but in the understanding
of many about what's at stake, and what's important. Literally
thousands have worked to change that understanding. When we began a
decade ago, I would have said it was impossible to imagine the progress
we've made. It is extraordinarily rewarding to recognize that my
pessimism notwithstanding, we are going to prevail in these debates.
Maybe not today, but soon.
That belief (some think, dream), then led me to wonder whether it
wasn't time to find a new set of problems: I had learned everything I
was going to learn about the issues I've been working on; there are
many who would push them as well, or better, than I; perhaps therefore
it was time to begin again.
That thought triggered a second, this one tied to Gore.
In one of the handful of opportunities I had to watch Gore deliver his global warming Keynote,
I recognized a link in the problem that he was describing and the work
that I have been doing during this past decade. After talking about the
basic inability of our political system to reckon the truth about
global warming, Gore observed that this was really just part of a much
bigger problem. That the real problem here was (what I will call a
"corruption" of) the political process. That our government can't
understand basic facts when strong interests have an interest in its
misunderstanding.
This is a thought I've often had in the debates I've been a part of,
especially with respect to IP. Think, for example, about term
extension. From a public policy perspective, the question of extending
existing copyright terms is, as Milton Friedman put it, a "no brainer."
As the Gowers Commission concluded
in Britain, a government should never extend an existing copyright
term. No public regarding justification could justify the extraordinary
deadweight loss that such extensions impose.
Yet governments continue to push ahead with this idiot idea -- both
Britain and Japan for example are considering extending existing terms.
Why?
The answer is a kind of corruption of the political process. Or
better, a "corruption" of the political process. I don't mean
corruption in the simple sense of bribery. I mean "corruption" in the
sense that the system is so queered by the influence of money that it
can't even get an issue as simple and clear as term extension right.
Politicians are starved for the resources concentrated interests can
provide. In the US, listening to money is the only way to secure
reelection. And so an economy of influence bends public policy away
from sense, always to dollars.
The point of course is not new. Indeed, the fear of factions is as
old as the Republic. There are thousands who are doing amazing work to
make clear just how corrupt this system has become. There have been
scores of solutions proposed. This is not a field lacking in good work,
or in people who can do this work well.
But a third person -- this time anonymous -- made me realize that I
wanted to be one of these many trying to find a solution to this
"corruption." This man, a Republican of prominence in Washington, wrote
me a reply to an email I had written to him about net neutrality. As he
wrote, "And don't shill for the big guys protecting market share
through neutrality REGULATION either."
"Shill."
If you've been reading these pages recently, you'll know my allergy
to that word. But this friend's use of the term not to condemn me, but
rather as play, made me recognize just how general this corruption is.
Of course he would expect I was in the pay of those whose interests I
advanced. Why else would I advance them? Both he and I were in a
business in which such shilling was the norm. It was totally reasonable
to thus expect that money explained my desire to argue with him about
public policy.
I don't want to be a part of that business. And more importantly, I
don't want this kind of business to be a part of public policy making.
We've all been whining about the "corruption" of government forever. We
all should be whining about the corruption of professions too. But
rather than whining, I want to work on this problem that I've come to
believe is the most important problem in making government work.
And so as I said at the top (in my "bottom line"), I have decided to
shift my academic work, and soon, my activism, away from the issues
that have consumed me for the last 10 years, towards a new set of
issues: Namely, these. "Corruption" as I've defined it elsewhere will be the focus of my work. For at least the next 10 years, it is the problem I will try to help solve.
I do this with no illusions. I am 99.9% confident that the problem I
turn to will continue exist when this 10 year term is over. But the
certainty of failure is sometimes a reason to try. That's true in this
case.
Nor do I believe I have any magic bullet. Indeed, I am beginner. A
significant chunk of the next ten years will be spent reading and
studying the work of others. My hope is to build upon their work; I
don't pretend to come with a revolution pre-baked.
Instead, what I come with is a desire to devote as much energy to
these issues of "corruption" as I've devoted to the issues of network
and IP sanity. This is a shift not to an easier project, but a
different project. It is a decision to give up my work in a place some
consider me an expert to begin work in a place where I am nothing more
than a beginner.
So what precisely does this mean for the work I am doing now?
First, and most importantly, I am not leaving Creative Commons, or
the iCommons Project. I will remain on both boards, and continue to
serve as CEO of Creative Commons. I will speak and promote both
organizations whenever ever I can -- at least until the financial
future of both organizations is secure. I will also continue to head
the Stanford Center for Internet and Society.
But second, and over the next few months, I will remove myself from
the other organizations on whose boards I now serve. Not immediately,
but as I can, and as it makes sense.
Third, in general, I will no longer be lecturing about IP (whether
as in TCP/IP or IPR) issues. No doubt there will be exceptions. In
particular, I have a few (though because this decision has been in the
works for months, very few) obligations through the balance of the
year. There will be others in the future too. But in general, unless
there are very strong reasons, I will not be accepting invitations to
talk about the issues that have defined my work for the past decade.
Instead, as soon as I can locate some necessary technical help, I
will be moving every presentation I have made (that I can) to a Mixter
site (see, e.g., ccMixter) where
others can freely download and remix what I've done, and use it however
they like. I will continue to work to get all my books licensed freely.
And I am currently finishing one last book about these issues that I
hope will make at least some new contributions.
Fourth, these pages will change too. My focus here will shift. That
will make some of you unhappy. I'm sorry for that. The blog is CC-BY
licensed. You're free to fork and continue the (almost) exclusively
IP-related conversation. But I will continue that conversation only
rarely. New issues will appear here instead.
read on...
1. Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture Coat
2. A First Life Survival Kit for a Second Life Fan
3. Firefox's Foxkeh
You have to wonder if there is a design behind the fact that 