Jump to content

Talk:Lawrence Lessig

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 89.134.223.11 (talk) at 17:38, 13 January 2014 (→‎Why isn't the term "Creative Commons" found in the article?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

West Wing episode

Christopher Lloyd played Lawrence Lessig in the February 09, 2005 episode of The West Wing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patricio00 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 10 February 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is Richard Posner "strongly conservative"?

Although Posner's economic approach to law may co-inside with conservative jurisprudence at times, I really wouldn't say Posner is 'strongly conservative.' First of all, his law-and-economic theory often times strongly disagrees with typically conservative opinions, if not only in reasoning, but also in final decision as well. Second, Posner is openly pragmatic and, thus, does not necessarily agree with 'originalism' or other conservative theories of statutory interpretation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.240.76 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--Posner may not be a "typical" conservative, but he's no liberal. I'm editing the sentence to clarify. Rebekah Zinn 19:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--Posner is a libertarian (and, as observed above, a pragmatist), rather than a conservative. Although he is certainly not a traditional "liberal," his views on social issues tend to end up on that side. I doubt he and Scalia would agree on much. Ken Kukec 21:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

picture move to wiki commons

whould please anybody do that? i would like to use this piv in de:wp too. thanks.Lichtkind 23:45, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Biased Tone in Political Values?

Is this an accurate and unbiased way to report Prof. Lessigs political views?

"A year abroad at Cambridge convinced him to undertake a second undergraduate degree in philosophy there, and he was converted to liberal political values."

I wonder about "and he was converted to," as "conversion" has the tone and meaning of being pressured into a certain point of view or belief, whereas it is not necessarily true that Cambridge University's philosophy department has an agenda with respect to influence of anyone's political views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.57 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "was converted to" necessarily suggests any pressure, but I accept the point that the phrasing suggests more external agency than there is evidence for. Bwithh 22:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about switching "was converted to" to "changed his views to"? I'd do it myself, but I'm currently burdened by an unfair constructive ban by Wikipedia. Listener Sheogorath 217.212.230.115 (talk) 10:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His Books

Is 'Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity' the same book as 'Free Culture: Big media etc..'?? --FluteyFlakes88 06:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard faculty page for Lessig shows all his publications.

Quote

The "war" that has been waged against the technologies of the Internet [...] has been framed as a battle about the rule of law and respect for property. To know which side to take in this war, most think that we need only decide whether we're for property or against it.
If those really were the choices, then I would be with Jack Valenti and the content industry. I, too, am a believer in property, and especially in the importance of what Mr. Valenti nicely calls "creative property." I believe that "piracy" is wrong, and that the law, property tuned, should punish "piracy," whether on or off the Internet.

- Lessig, Free Culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.197.12.72 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisource does not have a page with this exact name.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Lawrence_Lessig —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.177.166.2 (talk • contribs) 12:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Section merge

I don't know enough about Lawrence Lessig and his activities to complete this change myself (can't think of a way to integrate well as prose) but realize that the "wiki-related activities" section is probably a violation of WP:SELF unless merged into the "Free Culture" section. I've made the Wiki-section a subsection of the "free culture" section, but would someone please merge the wiki-section completely? Thanks, Nihiltres 18:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Dude, don't know if you read your article talk page, but was just cruising the donations roll and wanted to say thanks for putting your money where your mouth is. ;) Best, jengod 00:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Code

The single sentence that comprises the "code" paragraph/section is so short and so ... well I have almost no idea what idea it is trying to express. Can someone expand on this? 74.103.98.163 15:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I rewrote what was there to express itself a little more clearly, but it's central to Lessig's net-world-view, so could use expansion. It's better to title it "Code is law" because that's what he said. The entire article could use some cleanup and reorganization, though, so it isn't just that bit. --Dhartung | Talk 23:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not entirely necessary to elaborate about Code here, since there's already an article on the book; I tightened up that section a bit and linked to the article. SparsityProblem 05:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the new text is an improvement. Sander123 08:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence_Lessig#Attitudes: Problems

"Lessig refuses to embrace the usual libertarianism. While Lessig remains skeptical of government intervention, he favors judicial activism and regulation by calling himself "a constitutionalist." " -- We need to tweak this, to avoid the appearance of problems with WP:WEASEL or POV.

  • "the usual libertarianism typical of Internet culture" -- WP:WEASEL or POV
  • "judicial activism": (from the article) "a speaker may use the term "activist judge" to mean that a judge has simply made an important decision that the accusing speaker disagrees with. When used in this way, the term "activist judge" is little more than a term of political criticism. This is the most common context in which the general public is exposed to the term."

-- Writtenonsand 23:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis on Lessig Method Powerpoints?

Could anybody familiar with Lessig's presentations expand this section? What kind of speech is recommended using this method? How one can incorporate aspects of the "Lessig Method" that will help kick the quality of your presentations up a notch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.171.153.169 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find much out there on the nuts and bolts of the Lessig method. I only found some brief commentaries about the method in a few interviews. I'll keep looking for some analysis. He uses Keynote instead of PowerPoint for what it's worth.Nichworby (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very bad form

If Lessig is merely "considered" liberal, then why are Posner and Scalia not "considered" conservative, but merely conservative? I'm changing it. 68.32.238.94 04:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a Criticism section

There should be a criticism section. Just for starts, Lessig's battle with Stephen Manes:

http://www.forbes.com/columnists/business/free_forbes/2004/0329/084.html and http://www.forbes.com/2004/04/02/cz_sm_0402manes_print.html

No. See "Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies". Philwiki (talk) 08:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And articles at the Progress and Freedom Foundation, like:

http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop15.5freecultureanalys.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by DonPMitchell (talk • contribs) 00:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Golan error

Respecting the norm against self-editing, I wanted to note that there's a significant error in the entry about Golan v. Ashcroft. The case was not dismissed. Indeed, we won the first victory in the history of the First Amendment as applied to copyright. The case has now been remanded to the district court, and continues.

http://www.lessig.org/blog/2007/09/a_big_victory_golan_v_gonzales.html

Thanks. Fixed. Nurg (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding the excellent suggestion re a criticism section, you might want to include a link to the "Anti-Lessig Reader" at my wiki.

http://wiki.lessig.org/Anti-Lessig_Reader lessig (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a link to it in Ext links. Nurg (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No longer on the EFF board of directors?

YouTube sent Ms. Lenz a notice that it was removing her video. She wondered, "Why?" What had she done wrong? She pressed that question through a number of channels until it found its way to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (on whose board I sat until the beginning of 2008). The foundation's lawyers thought this was a straightforward case of fair use. Ms. Lenz consulted with the EFF and filed a "counter-notice" to YouTube, arguing that no rights of Universal were violated by Holden's dance.

Link to article: http://reno.wsj.com/article/SB122367645363324303.html --81.229.72.33 (talk) 03:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Nurg (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reduced restrictions on copyright

"a proponent of reduced legal restrictions on copyright, trademark"

If restrictions on copyright and trademark are reduced, that would mean more restrictive copyright etc. Surely the opposite is meant. Nurg (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Lessig is also the grandfather of the economics of digital content resale in virtual worlds

In 2003, thanks to a meeting between Lawrence Lessig and Linden Lab, creators of the Second Life virtual platform, Lessig successfully argued that virtual worlds like Second Life ought to allow content creators inside the virtual world to keep their intellectual property on every item they create there, and that it ought to be the role of every virtual world to adopt mechanisms to enforce users' intellectual property rights, as well as allowing them to share their digital creations freely or for a fee. This persuaded Linden Lab to design their very complex "permissions system", where every object is uniquely identified as to whom created it and currently owns it, and has "licensing" information in it allowing content to be given away, shared, incorporated on other people's content ("derivative works"), or sold ("licensed") for a fee using a micropayment system. A whole economy of digital content was born out of this meeting — about US$1.5 million are exchanged each day inside Second Life thanks to Lessig's vision of creating a virtual world economy where intellectual property rights are enforced.

Here is an interview from Linden Lab's founder mentioning it: THE SECOND LIFE OF LAWRENCE LESSIG, PART II

Gwyneth Llewelyn (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Broken link

Link number 18 (http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/002912.shtml) gives a 404 error. Or at least it does for me, based in the U.K. where internet is censored. Could people from other places in the world check the link and if it is indeed broken remove it? Spiros Bousbouras (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both links to the blog are working correctly in Germany. Pendare (talk) 20:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that the link works correctly in the UK, at least it does in England. Listener Sheogorath 217.212.230.115 (talk) 10:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Time for new "List of..." article?

I have been working on List of publications by Richard Dawkins and vastly expanding the list of media about RD that is online for free. It strikes me that Lessig might also rate such a page, to avoid those who wish primarily to monitor the BLP vs. tracking the media about him. I think that both have a significant "public figure" component to their notability.--Livingrm (talk) 03:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas Section?

The article seems to be missing a section which details Lessig's ideas about copyrights and trademarks. Shouldn't we add one? Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 10:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i agree. and also other ideas, like this 93.86.205.97 (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inline links for primary sources already described in news reports cited earlier in the paragraph

Is this diff appropriate? Dualus (talk) 01:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. The links are unneeded as "references" -- references should be independent media coverage for this. The links are also unneeded as links, unless the sites are encyclopedic, in which case the articles should be created. I'm not sure the paragraph itself is needed, but I left it in. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is already independent media coverage in the news stories cited previously in the paragraph. The primary sources should be cited with inline external links to follow the common practice. In such cases, bare domain names or full URLs only should be used so that the links would still be able to be followed if the article is printed. Dualus (talk) 01:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From my recent edit summary: "How exactly do redlinks instead of the primary sources which were already described in news reports cited earlier in the paragraph improve the encyclopedia? how do redlinks help the user? Are you going to create stubs for them?" I intend to replace them. Dualus (talk) 07:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly does that list of links improve the encyclopedia? See WP:RL for the reasons for red links, but if that's a point of contention, I'm agreeable to delinking the domain names entirely, since I don't think they are encyclopedic. Please do not replace them without consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk)
Is this compromise agreeable? Dualus (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

usefull information not in good shape

The following information have been removed because the (ugly) format did not plaised few guys that force to follow guidelines, instead of remodeling information. It remains usefull informations on the subject.

Columns

Interviews

Audio/video

Transcripts

Transcript of his oral argument and the Court's Opinion for Eldred v. Ashcroft

It appears to have been removed because Wikipedia is not a collection of Internet links, not because it was poorly formatted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
removing information (even in bad shape) from an encyclopedia, is juste plain stupid.(WP:BURO) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.30.139.86 (talk) 07:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for posting the list here, so it can be discussed what is detrimental to the article, what can be used as a reference (or even, to draw information from that can be used in the article) and what is simply superfluous. Indeed, this was not removed because it was not in a good shape (actually, it is in a 'good shape', it is how external links sections should be formatted), but because this is just a linkfarm. There may be some links here that are of interest for the article, but many c/should simply go into a {{dmoz}}. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved some more here, and put some others back in the article. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Dualus

I have removed all the copy added by this editor because it is both poorly sourced and/or OR. This editor has been adding this same information at all the articles related to the Occupy Wall Street articles causing much disruption and frustration to the other editors. See the talk page at OWS article - read from the bottom up to save time. I also deleted the "email" information because the source was not available. If this editor has well-sourced information appropriate for a living person that does not contain OR, he may chose to add it to the article. Gandydancer (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, learning proper sourcing issues takes time. Emails generally are not acceptable to use as quotes, or links to websites. But newspaper sites such as The Guardian are acceptable. It takes time to learn this stuff.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional convention section blanking

Gandy's deletion deleted far more than just my work. All of the objections above are about the contributor, not the content. I am still waiting on the specific reasons that there may be issues with the paragraph I included. I am reverting. Dualus (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait no longer, here you go:
Not to mention, this is the type of belittling treatment which we have asked you to stop several times. You are not waiting; she said in her edit comment to see the talk page; and, to mistreat good editors will not be a good precedent for you to set. Starting today, we want you to turn over a new leaf. Work collaboratively with the other editors you work with, or pretty soon you'll be out of work. If you wish to communicate why you feel your edits to the constitutional-convention stuff do not violate WP:OR or WP:SOURCE then please state them, so that other editors on the talk page can hear both sides of the disagreement, and so that consensus can peacefully emerge. 완젬스 (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Academic criticisms?

The current section on Academic criticisms appears to lack substance. There's a newspaper article citing a Green Party MP to suggest that Lessig does not know the meaning of "legitimate commercial interests" in copyright law. Then a reference to a debate about whether cyberspace law is a worthy research subject. An unsourced claim about Lessig's alleged focus on Eastern European law. An out-of-context interpretation that turns "Google is more dangerous than Microsoft ever was" into "Microsoft's anti-competitive practices were only hypothetical", without a source to demonstrate any kind of academic criticism. — There are certainly many scholars who disagree with much of Lessig's work, but this section does not reflect that. In fact, I find it hard to argue that the section as it currently stands is better than nothing. Rl (talk) 13:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much agree. What bothers me is that the three references for this section are not easily checked online, although they may in fact exist. I'm skeptical.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it should be deleted. I didn't put much time into my decision other than to note that there are no "blue words" (linked words), so I assume the criticisms don't amount to much. Gandydancer (talk) 13:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two of these three references are easy to check: Google’s Gatekeepers, Regulating search. I just find them insufficient as sources for the supposed content of this particular section. Rl (talk) 15:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was not clear what the Lessig quote at the beginning of the NY Times article was all about.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the pertinent quote is not at the beginning, but it in the second to last paragraph of the NYT piece. Rl (talk) 05:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thanks.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have now removed the entire section due to a distinct lack of substance. Relevant information on criticisms and debates would be useful to have, though, either in a separate section or worked into the various topic sections. Rl (talk) 08:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The section on the corrupting influence of big money needs to be fleshed out. Wikipedia needs a separate article on the subject as well.

The section on the corrupting influence of big money needs to be fleshed out. Wikipedia needs a separate article on the subject as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdnctx (talk • contribs) 11:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this subject pertains to this article (Lawrence Lessig) by all means include it. There are other treatments in Wikipedia on the subject of money-influenced corruption, such as Lobbying in the United States.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Rootstrikers

Without judgement on what they do, I'm seeing few independent google hits on Rootstrikers. I think it needs to be merged until the group can demonstrate independent notability. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the talk page of Rootstrikers, pageviews are indeed anemic; but there are solid references. What if we revisit this topic in a month or two, but keep them separate for the time being? We may get a better read on things then. Summer is coming; it may be this rally in Philadelphia gathers interest.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's crystal ballery. The references which even mention "Rootstrikers" (several don't even mention the organization) do so as a trivial name drop. There's not near enough in them to sustain a full article. This is a push piece, and as much as I personally agree with what's being pushed, we can't have that here. If sources do more in-depth coverage of the group, we'll write the article after they do, not in anticipation that they might do so. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's part of a coalition: United Republic, Rootstrikers, and Get Money Out. If it's going to be a merge, it should be a merge to a coalition article, not Laurence Lessig. I agree with Tomsulcer. 184.78.81.245 (talk) 01:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's been over six months since this discussion (and I've seen increasing references to Rootstrikers in the media since then) can this be laid to rest? i.e., to remove the merge proposal box from the top of the Rootstrikers page. Caseylf (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LTACitizen (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reorg "Money in Politics"

Both (new sub-) sections are explicitly about money in politics. --193.254.155.48 (talk) 10:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't the term "Creative Commons" found in the article?

Lessig made extensive work on Creative Commons. Why is this term not even mentioned on this page?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lawrence_Lessig&oldid=590536649"