new icn messageflickr-free-ic3d pan white
View allAll Photos Tagged lessig

Lawrence Lessig on why he supports Obama. It's a 20 minute presentation, but worth your while. If you have the time and inclination, please check it out.

  

(link from powazek)

 

Today's SmallSat Express launch on SpaceX now was a treat. This was SpaceX's first time to fly a "flight-proven" rocket for the 3rd time, and Planet is the prime, with SkySats and Doves flying on this mission. All of my favorite space companies working together!

 

I have a wishlist idea for the SmallSat community, something I affectionately call “Rats in Space” and I was reminded of it while brainstorming space colonies with Larry Lessig and Chris Hadfield this weekend.

 

There are various motivations for establishing a human settlement on the moon. Some envision a lifeboat, lest disaster strike planet Earth. Some envision “charter civilizations” with experiments in better governance, a stepping stone to farther-flung off-world civilizations. For these to work, moon base alpha needs to not only be self-sufficient. It would also have to support human reproduction.

 

And this is when I learned something new from an ISS astronaut — nobody has tested mammalian impregnation in space or in lunar gravity. People have tried to simulate it on Earth, but it is not a good proxy. There is a centrifuge on the ISS, but it is not big enough, and it causes vibration modes when running. And there have been attempts to study this before, but they experienced failures in implementation and red tape.

 

So, that made me think of a simple experiment that we might want to run: A small sat cylinder could spin in LEO to precisely mimic a steady lunar-gravity environment, like a rodent-sized Rendezvous with Rama (Arthur Clarke gets the posthumous naming rights). You would send up pregnant rats in various stages of pregnancy, and others ready to copulate in space. These multi-generational reproductive studies, if wildly successful, could be verified with a simple video feed (proof of life). And if fetal development and growth was hampered for some reason, it would be good to know early on.

 

More intellectual property for a few is less public domain for all.

 

This illustration is an allegory of the battle between the old world of corporate monopolies and post-internet public domain for the extension of intellectual property rights.

The legend of Achilles' invulnerability served as inspiration, not the actual Trojan War.

 

Ce dessin n'est pas une représentation d'un épisode de la guerre de Troie, seulement une référence au mythe d'invulnérabilité d'Achille. Le personnage blessé au tendon est une allégorie des groupes financiers qui se battent pour allonger la durée de protection de la propriété intellectuelle au détriment du domaine public (en position couché). Le mouvement de la culture libre est symbolisé par la flèche dans la jambe d'Achille.

 

First rough version in 2009, definitive illustration made in 2010.

  

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_culture_movement

 

fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_libre

 

es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultura_libre

 

www.crassh.cam.ac.uk/events/25023

 

arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/10/us-signs-internationa...

 

www.slideshare.net/KatherineAhnberg/honors-college-presen...

 

singaporeittraining.com/oracle-vs-google-case-threatens-f...

 

ffyh.unc.edu.ar/materiales-educativos-abiertos/slider/rec...

 

www.lugod.org/presentations/2018-june-copyleft/june-slide...

 

cdn.knightlab.com/libs/timeline3/latest/embed/index.html?...

 

downloads.alcts.ala.org/ce/04262016_Cassette_to_Cloud_Ref...

 

www.mironline.ca/the-intellectual-property-of-renewable-e...

 

www.create.ac.uk/event/creativity-circulation-and-copyrig...

 

whitneywyngaert.com/hist-544/copyright-or-copyleft/

 

www.kb.dk/en/kb/copyright/index.html

 

steigerlegal.ch/2013/11/24/urheberrecht-was-fordert-der-a...

 

theconversation.com/shouldnt-there-be-a-time-limit-on-mic...

 

www.euractiv.de/section/eu-innenpolitik/news/urheberrecht...

 

www.actualitte.com/article/patrimoine-education/etats-uni...

 

alexcabal.com/why-i-release-things-into-the-public-domain

 

www.openbook.gr/the-battle-of-copyright/

 

issuu.com/faronet/docs/dec16_web/41

 

www.dirittiglobali.it/2019/01/article-13-is-almost-finish...

 

theconversation.com/oracle-vs-google-case-threatens-found...

 

snapvoip.blogspot.com/2019/01/oracle-vs-google-everyone-e...

 

www.aeidl.eu/fr/nouvelles/nouvelles-actualites/4688-la-di...

 

euroculturer.eu/2019/02/20/hating-the-right-thing-for-the...

 

www.dnevne-novice.com/9-svet/2484-eu-ne-zeli-da-bi-korpor...

 

lr4.lsm.lv/lv/raksts/novoe-izmerenie/kot-robot-i-problema...

 

tokar.ua/read/19407

 

theconversation.com/qui-veut-la-peau-de-sci-hub-114794

 

macostair.press/blog/copyright-protection-disaster

 

openpedagogy.commons.gc.cuny.edu/2019/04/30/tools-of-tech...

 

fr.scribd.com/document/288737331/Copyright-and-Your-Thesis

 

spvet.it/archivio/numero-112/edi112.html

 

www.ruprecht.de/?p=16379

 

www.contrepoints.org/2019/07/15/349098-copyright-censure-...

 

www.kolegaliterat.pl/niewolna-kultura/

 

witonline.org/2016/10/12/the-creative-commons-or-commonly...

 

www.legalreader.com/importance-of-securing-software-intel...

 

uncrcow.tumblr.com/post/130547114980/q-why-do-internation...

 

www.dirittiglobali.it/2019/01/article-13-is-almost-finish...

  

Graph by Tony Piro. Please keep it mind that it shows a correlation, not causation.

 

It is a very similar curve to that found in a Pew survey of 45,000 people globally (and includes Africa).

 

In his book, The Moral Landscape, Sam Harris offers a commentary on the U.S. as outlier:

“While most developed societies have grown predominantly secular, with the curious exception of the United States, orthodox religion is in florid bloom throughout the developing world.

 

Religiosity is strongly coupled to perceptions of societal insecurity. In addition to being the most religious of developed nations, the United States also has the greatest economic inequality. The poor tend to be more religious than the rich, both within and between nations.

 

And on almost every measure of societal health, the least religious countries are better off than the most religious.” (p.146)

 

But there may be more to it. Americans believe all kinds of crazy stuff, and it begs the question whether it correlates with insecurities as well.

 

In a class I co-taught with Larry Lessig, we used a pre-print of Posner’s book, Catastrophe: Risk and Response, which relates the following statistics on American adults:

• 39% believe astrology is scientific (astrology, not astronomy).

• 33% believe in ghosts and communication with the dead.

 

Ponder that for a moment. One out of every three U.S. adults believes in ghosts. Who knows what their kids think!

 

People’s willingness to believe untruths relates to the ability of the average person to reason critically about reality. Here are some less amusing statistics on American adults:

• 49% don’t know that it takes a year for the earth to revolve around the sun.

• 67% don't know what a molecule is.

• 80% can't understand the NY Times Tuesday science section.

 

Posner concludes: “It is possible that science is valued by most Americans as another form of magic.”

Media lobbyists seem to know no bounds. With a steady stream of successes under their belt, perhaps they have gone too far.

 

I remember when Lessig took them to the Supreme Court last time on the Mickey Mouse act, and lost, again. Every time Mickey Mouse comes up for expiration of copyright, Congress somehow finds a reason to extend the length of copyright.

 

Then there was the DMCA. That has been a frustrating exercise for me as lawyers working for Dreamworks and will,i,am have pulled down media that they don’t like from my flickr and youtube streams, with no justification or legal basis. One of my Obama photos was even used by Lessig to fight the AP on fair use.

 

Then I read in Lessig’s latest book on the corruption of Congress that he faced $1 billion lobbying against him.

 

“Since 1995, Congress has enacted 32 different statutes to further refine and strengthen the protection of copyright.” (56)

 

“Between 1998 and 2010, pro-copyright reformers were outspent by anti-reformers by $1.3 billion to $1 million—a thousand to one.” (59)

 

Many in Congress never even heard the counter-argument to Disney. Today’s protests may change that.

 

(More infographics from americancensorship.org)

I found that I have blogged, directly or indirectly, about most of these books. From foreground/right to background/left:

Dawkins, Ridley, Nanotech, Lessig, Deutsch, Complexity and Emergence, New Humanists from EDGE, Redesigning Humans, Free Culture, Feynman, Molecular Electronics, Biohazard, Po Bronson and MacNiven cover Hotmail, Kurzweil, Biocosm, Scientist in the Crib, Code, Juan Enriquez, Genetic Programming, TED, On Intelligence & Mind Wide Open, Watson’s DNA, Gates, Wolfram and Williams’ thoughts on quantum computing, World Tech Summit, Accelerating Change Conference, and The Future of Life.

 

[and some newer ones below]

Drawing on an index card. I was watching a video of a Lawrence Lessig presentation at the time.

Coopting and corrupting the Constitution. Larry Lessig’s TED Talk just went live today, and I highly recommend it.

 

I have had a number of unusual encounters with Larry Lessig over the years, from Creative Commons to co-teaching a class at Stanford Law School, to a non-profit mission seeking influence in the White House =)

 

From TED: “132 Americans gave 60% of the SuperPAC money in the 2012 election.”

 

“The funders are not The People. This is a corruption. There’s one piece of good news; it’s bipartisan, equal-opportunity corruption. It blocks the left on a whole range of issues we care about (climate change, sensible health care, food safety, financial reform). It blocks the right too, as it makes principled arguments of the Right increasingly impossible (smaller government). Here’s the bad news; it’s a pathological democracy-destroying corruption.”

 

He uses the empty vessel of “Lester” at the start of the talk to forestall the cognitive dismissal of some, a technique that he has honed over the years.

 

And some quotes from Lessig’s latest book Republic Lost:

“The great evil that we as Americans face is the banal evil of second-rate minds who can’t make it in the private sector and who therefore turn to the massive wealth directed by our government as the means to securing wealth for themselves.”

 

“in the most critical cases, the vast majority of contributions to a congressional campaign are not even from the voters in that district. 79% of contributions to California state legislators came from out-of-district contributors. It is clear ‘the funders’ are not ‘the People.’”

 

“Everything our government touches— from health care to Social Security to the monopoly rights we call patents and copyright— it poisons. Yet our leaders seem oblivious to the thought that there’s anything that needs fixing. They preen about, ignoring the elephant in the room. They act as if Ben Franklin would be proud.”

 

“We must remember that harm sometimes comes from timid, even pathetic souls. That the enemy doesn’t always march. Sometimes it simply shuffles.”

To answer this question, we must stop examining the supply side of the equation, and instead look to the demanders.

.

  

.......***** All images are copyrighted by their respective authors ......

.

 

... message header for Rolling Stones Politics

 

The problems are many. Too many. Our eyes get fixed upon one among them, and our passions get devoted to fixing that one. In that focus, however, we fail to see the thread that ties them all together.

 

We are, to steal from Thoreau, the “thousand[s] hacking at the branches of evil,” with “[n]one striking at the root.”

.

 

..............................................................................................................................................................................................

.

.....item 1).... Rolling Stone Politics .... www.rollingstone.com/politics ... Lawrence Lessig on How We Lost Our Democracy

.

.....................................

 

img code photo....

 

assets.rollingstone.com/assets/images/blog_entry/1000x306...

 

'Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress – and a Plan to Stop It' by Lawrence Lessig

 

Courtesy of Twelve/Hachette Book Group

 

.....................................

.

.

POSTED: October 5, 3:25 PM ET | By Lawrence Lessig

 

www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/lawr...

 

The following is an excerpt from Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress – and a Plan to Stop It by Lawrence Lessig.

 

Introduction

 

There is a feeling today among too many Americans that we might not make it. Not that the end is near, or that doom is around the corner, but that a distinctly American feeling of inevitability, of greatness—​culturally, economically, politically—​is gone. That we have become Britain. Or Rome. Or Greece. A generation ago Ronald Reagan rallied the nation to deny a similar charge: Jimmy Carter’s worry that our nation had fallen into a state of “malaise.” I was one of those so rallied, and I still believe that Reagan was right. But the feeling I am talking about today is different: not that we, as a people, have lost anything of our potential, but that we, as a republic, have. That our capacity for governing—​the product, in part, of a Constitution we have revered for more than two centuries—​has come to an end. That the thing that we were once most proud of—​this, our republic—​is the one thing that we have all learned to ignore. Government is an embarrassment. It has lost the capacity to make the most essential decisions. And slowly it begins to dawn upon us: a ship that can’t be steered is a ship that will sink.

 

We didn’t always feel this way. There were times when we were genuinely proud—​as a people, and as a republic—​and when we proudly boasted to the world about the Framers’ (flawed but still) ingenious design. No doubt, we still speak of the founding with reverence. But we seem to miss that the mess that is our government today grew out of the genius that the Framers crafted two centuries ago. That, however much we condemn what government has become, we forget it is the heir to something we still believe divine. We inherited an extraordinary estate. On our watch, we have let it fall to ruin.

 

The clue that something is very wrong is the endless list of troubles that sit on our collective plate but that never get resolved: bloated and inefficient bureaucracies; an invisible climate policy; a tax code that would embarrass Dickens; health care policies that have little to do with health; regulations designed to protect inefficiency; environmental policies that exempt the producers of the greatest environmental harms; food that is too expensive (since protected); food that is unsafe (since unregulated); a financial system that has already caused great harm, has been left unreformed, and is primed and certain to cause great harm again.

 

The problems are many. Too many. Our eyes get fixed upon one among them, and our passions get devoted to fixing that one. In that focus, however, we fail to see the thread that ties them all together.

 

We are, to steal from Thoreau, the “thousand[s] hacking at the branches of evil,” with “[n]one striking at the root.”

 

This book names that root. It aims to inspire “rootstrikers.” The root—​not the single cause of everything that ails us, not the one reform that would make democracy hum, but instead, the root, the thing that feeds the other ills, and the thing that we must kill first. The cure that would be generative—​the single, if impossibly difficult, intervention that would give us the chance to repair the rest.

 

For we have no choice but to try to repair the rest. Republicans and Democrats alike insist we are on a collision course with history. Our government has made fiscal promises it cannot keep. Yet we ignore them. Our planet spins furiously to a radically changed climate, certain to impose catastrophic costs on a huge portion of the world’s population. We ignore this, too. Everything our government -touches—​from health care to Social Security to the monopoly rights we call patents and copyright—​it poisons. Yet our leaders seem oblivious to the thought that there’s anything that needs fixing. They preen about, ignoring the elephant in the room. They act as if Ben Franklin would be proud.

 

Ben Franklin would weep. The republic that he helped birth is lost. The 89 percent of Americans who have no confidence in Congress (as reported by the latest Gallup poll) are not idiots. They are not even wrong. Yet they fail to recognize just why this government doesn’t deserve our confidence. Most of us get distracted. Most of us ignore the root.

 

We were here at least once before.

 

One hundred years ago America had an extraordinary political choice. The election of 1912 gave voters an unprecedented range of candidates for president of the United States.

 

On the far Right was the “stand pat,” first-​term Republican William Howard Taft, who had served as Teddy Roosevelt’s secretary of war, but who had not carried forward the revolution on the Right that Roosevelt thought he had started.

 

On the far Left was the most successful socialist candidate for president in American history, Eugene Debs, who had run for president twice before, and who would run again, from prison, in 1920 and win the largest popular vote that any socialist has ever received in a national American election.

 

In the middle were two “Progressives”: the immensely popular former president Teddy Roosevelt, who had imposed upon himself a two-​term limit, but then found the ideals of reform that he had launched languishing within the Republican Party; and New Jersey’s governor and former Princeton University president Woodrow Wilson, who promised the political machine–​-bound Democratic Party the kind of reform that Roosevelt had begun within the Republican Party.

 

These two self-described Progressives were very different. Roosevelt was a big-government reformer. Wilson, at least before the First World War, was a small​-government, pro-​federalist reformer. Each saw the same overwhelming threat to America’s democracy—​the capture of government by powerful special interests—​even if each envisioned a very different remedy for that capture. Roosevelt wanted a government large enough to match the concentrated economic power that was then growing in America; Wilson, following Louis Brandeis, wanted stronger laws limiting the size of the concentrated economic power then growing in America.

 

Presidential reelection campaigns are not supposed to be bloody political battles. But Taft had proven himself to be a particularly inept politician (he was later a much better chief justice of the Supreme Court), and after Roosevelt’s term ended, business interests had reasserted their dominant control of the Republican Party. Yet even though dissent was growing across the political spectrum, few seemed to doubt that the president would be reelected. Certainly Roosevelt felt certain enough of that to delay any suggestion that he would enter the race to challenge his own hand-​picked successor.

 

A Wisconsin Republican changed all that. In January 1911, Senator Robert La Follette and his followers launched the National Progressive Republican League. Soon after, La Follette announced his own campaign for the presidency. Declaring that “popular government in America has been thwarted . . . ​by the special interests,” the League advocated five core reforms, all of which attacked problems of process, not substance. The first four demanded changes to strengthen popular control of government (the election of senators, direct primaries, direct election of delegates to presidential conventions, and the spread of the state initiative process). The last reform demanded “a thoroughgoing corrupt practices act.”

 

La Follette’s campaign initially drew excitement and important support. It faltered, however, when he seemed to suffer a mental breakdown during a speech at a press dinner in Philadelphia. But the campaign outed, and increasingly embarrassed, the “stand pat” Republicans. As Roosevelt would charge in April 1912:

 

The Republican party is now facing a great crisis. It is to decide whether it will be, as in the days of Lincoln, the party of the plain people, the party of progress, the party of social and industrial justice; or whether it will be the party of privilege and of special interests, the heir to those who were Lincoln’s most bitter opponents, the party that represents the great interests within and without Wall Street which desire through their control over the servants of the public to be kept immune from punishment when they do wrong and to be given privileges to which they are not entitled.

 

The term progressive is a confused and much misunderstood moniker for perhaps the most important political movement at the turn of the last century. We confuse it today with liberals, but back then there were progressives of every political stripe in America—on the Left and on the Right, and with dimensional spins in the middle (the Prohibitionists, for example). Yet one common thread that united these different strands of reform was the recognition that democratic government in America had been captured. Journalists and writers at the turn of the twentieth century taught America “that business corrupts politics,” as Richard McCormick put it. Corruption of the grossest forms—​the sort that would make convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff wince—​was increasingly seen to be the norm throughout too much of American government. Democracy, as in rule of the people, was a joke. As historian George Thayer wrote, describing the “golden age of boodle” (1876–​-1926): “Never has the American political process been so corrupt. No office was too high to purchase, no man too pure to bribe, no principle too sacred to destroy, no law too fundamental to break.”

 

Or again, Teddy Roosevelt (1910): “Exactly as the special interests of cotton and slavery threatened our political integrity before the Civil War, so now the great special business interests too often control and corrupt the men and methods of government for their own profit.”

 

To respond to this “corruption,” Progressives launched a series of reforms to reclaim government. Many of these reforms were hopeless disasters (the ballot initiative and elected judges), and some were both disasters and evil (Prohibition and eugenics, to name just two). But mistakes notwithstanding, the Progressive Era represents an unprecedented moment of experimentation and engagement, all motivated by a common recognition that the idea of popular sovereignty in America had been sold. The problem was not, as McCormick describes, a “product of misbehavior by ‘bad’ men,” but was instead now seen as the predictable “outcome of identifiable economic and political forces.”

 

That recognition manifested itself powerfully on November 5, 1912: The incumbent Republican placed third (23.2 percent) in the -four-​-man race; the socialist, a distant fourth (6 percent); and Teddy Roosevelt (27.4 percent) got bested by the “new” Democrat, Woodrow Wilson (41.8 percent).

 

Yet only when you add together these two self-​identified Pro-gressives do you get a clear sense of the significance of 1912: almost 70 percent of America had voted for a “progressive.” Seventy percent of America had said, “This democracy is corrupted; we demand it be fixed.” Seventy percent refused to “stand pat.”

 

A century later we suffer the same struggle, but without anything like the same clarity. A “fierce discontent,” as Roosevelt described America in 1906, is once again raging throughout the republic. Now, as then, it gets expressed as “agitation” against “evil,” and a “firm determination to punish the authors of evil, whether in industry or politics.” We look to a collapsed economy, to raging deficits, to a Wall Street not yet held to account, and we feel entitled to our anger. And so extreme is that entitlement that it makes even violence seem sensible, if only to the predictably insane extremes in any modern society.

 

Roosevelt was encouraged by this agitation against evil. It was, he said, a “feeling that is to be heartily welcomed.” It was “a sign,” he promised, “of healthy life.”

 

Yet today such agitation is not a sign of healthy life. It is a symptom of ignorance. For though the challenge we face is again the battle against a democracy deflected by special interests, our struggle is not against “evil,” or even the “authors of evil.” Our struggle is against something much more banal. Not the banal in the now-​overused sense of Hannah Arendt’s The Banality of Evil—​of ordinary people enabling unmatched evil (Hitler’s Germany). Our banality is one step more, well, banal.

 

For the enemy we face is not Hitler. Neither is it the good Germans who would enable a Hitler. Our enemy is the good Germans (us) who would enable a harm infinitely less profound, yet economically and politically catastrophic nonetheless. A harm caused by a kind of corruption. But not the corruption engendered by evil souls. Indeed, strange as this might sound, a corruption crafted by good souls. By decent men. And women. And if we’re to do anything about this corruption, we must learn to agitate against more than evil. We must remember that harm sometimes comes from timid, even pathetic souls. That the enemy doesn’t always march. Sometimes it simply shuffles.

 

The great threat to our republic today comes not from the hidden bribery of the Gilded Age, when cash was secreted among members of Congress to buy privilege and secure wealth. The great threat today is instead in plain sight. It is the economy of influence now transparent to all, which has normalized a process that draws our democracy away from the will of the people. A process that distorts our democracy from ends sought by both the Left and the Right: For the single most salient feature of the government that we have evolved is not that it discriminates in favor of one side and against the other. The single most salient feature is that it discriminates against all sides to favor itself. We have created an engine of influence that seeks not some particular strand of political or economic ideology, whether Marx or Hayek. We have created instead an engine of influence that seeks simply to make those most connected rich.

 

As a former young Republican—-indeed, Pennsylvania’s state chairman of the Teen Age Republicans—​I don’t mean to rally anyone against the rich. But I do mean to rally Republicans and Democrats alike against a certain kind of rich that no theorist on the Right or the Left has ever sought seriously to defend: The rich whose power comes not from hard work, creativity, innovation, or the creation of wealth. The rich who instead secure their wealth through the manipulation of government and politicians. The great evil that we as Americans face is the banal evil of second-​rate minds who can’t make it in the private sector and who therefore turn to the massive wealth directed by our government as the means to securing wealth for themselves. The enemy is not evil. The enemy is well dressed.

 

Theorists of corruption don’t typically talk much about decent souls. Their focus is upon criminals—​the venally corrupt, who bribe to buy privilege, or the systematically corrupt, who make the people (or, better, the rich) dependent upon the government to ensure that the people (or, better, the rich) protect the government.

 

So, too, when we speak of politicians and our current system of governance, many of us think of our government as little more than criminal, or as crime barely hidden—​from Jack Abramoff (“I was participating in a system of legalized bribery. All of it is bribery, every bit of it”) to Judge Richard Posner (“the legislative system [is] one of quasi-​bribery”) to Carlyle Group co‑founder David Rubenstein (“legalized bribery”) to former congressman and CIA director Leon Panetta (“legalized bribery has become part of the culture of how this place operates”) to one of the Senate’s most important figures, Russell B. Long (D-La.; 1949-1987) (“Almost a hairline’s difference separates bribes and contributions”).

 

But in this crude form, in America at least, such crimes are rare. At the federal level, bribery is almost extinct. There are a handful of pathologically stupid souls bartering government favors for private kickbacks, but very few. And at both the federal and the state levels, the kind of Zimbabwean control over economic activity is just not within our DNA. So if only the criminal are corrupt, then ours is not a corrupt government.

 

The aim of this book, however, is to convince you that a much more virulent, if much less crude, corruption does indeed wreck our democracy. Not a corruption caused by a gaggle of evil souls. On the contrary, a corruption practiced by decent people, people we should respect, people working extremely hard to do what they believe is right, yet decent people working with a system that has evolved the most elaborate and costly bending of democratic government in our history. There are good people here, yet extraordinary bad gets done.

 

This corruption has two elements, each of which feeds the other. The first element is bad governance, which means simply that our government doesn’t track the expressed will of the people, whether on the Left or on the Right. Instead, the government tracks a different interest, one not directly affected by votes or voters. Democracy, on this account, seems a show or a ruse; power rests elsewhere.

 

The second element is lost trust: when democracy seems a charade, we lose faith in its process. That doesn’t matter to some of us—​we will vote and participate regardless. But to more rational souls, the charade is a signal: spend your time elsewhere, because this game is not for real. Participation thus declines, especially among the sensible middle. Policy gets driven by the extremists at both ends.

 

In the first three parts of what follows, I show how these elements of corruption fit together. I want you to understand the way they connect, and how they feed on each other. In the book’s final part, I explore how we might do something about them.

 

The prognosis is not good. The disease we face is not one that nations cure, or, at least, cure easily. But we should understand the options. For few who work to understand what has gone wrong will be willing to accept defeat—​without a fight.

 

From the book Republic, Lost. Copyright (c) 2011 by Lawrence Lessig. Reprinted by permission of Twelve/Hachette Book Group, New York, NY. All rights reserved.

 

Related

• How Money Corrupts Congress: Interview with Lawrence Lessig

.

.

.............................................................................................................................................................................................

.

.....item 2).... Teddy Roosevelt (1910): “Exactly as the special interests of cotton and slavery threatened our political integrity before the Civil War, so now the great special business interests too often control and corrupt the men and methods of government for their own profit.”

 

Read more: www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/lawr...

.

.

.............................................................................................................................................................................................

.

.....item 3).... So, too, when we speak of politicians and our current system of governance, many of us think of our government as little more than criminal, or as crime barely hidden—​from Jack Abramoff (“I was participating in a system of legalized bribery. All of it is bribery, every bit of it”) to Judge Richard Posner (“the legislative system [is] one of quasi-​bribery”) to Carlyle Group co‑founder David Rubenstein (“legalized bribery”) to former congressman and CIA director Leon Panetta (“legalized bribery has become part of the culture of how this place operates”) to one of the Senate’s most important figures, Russell B. Long (D-La.; 1949-1987) (“Almost a hairline’s difference separates bribes and contributions”).

 

Read more: www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/lawr...

.

.

.............................................................................................................................................................................................

.

.....item 4).... FSU News ... www.fsunews.com ...

 

The demanding side of the political equation

10:25 PM, Oct. 24, 2012 |

 

Written by

Chad Squitieri

Senior Staff Writer

 

FILED UNDER

FSU News

FSU News Chad Squitieri

 

www.fsunews.com/article/20121025/FSVIEW0305/121024023/The...|newswell|text|frontpage|s

 

Now that the presidential debates are over, I find myself as an onlooker being left without a satisfaction. A debate is an opportunity for two candidates to engage in a thought provoking discussion that highlights their differences from one another. What we often end up with in debates is little more than sidestepping and finger pointing.

 

Looking forward to debates to come, my wish is that they will consist of more substance, and fewer talking points. This wish of course can easily be shrugged off as little more than the naïve daydream of a college student; a thought destined to never materialize. The way to see this apparent pipedream become reality, however, is more in the hands of the voter than one might expect.

 

Political debates have never been known for their politeness, and this election cycle stayed true to form. While it may be accurate that politics in this country have always been highly contested matters with the ability to bring out plenty of emotions, it is also true that the mechanics of politics have seemed to stay in step with the rest of our society. It seems that in today’s political realm, it is becoming more and more “cool” to be rude to your opponent. The rationale behind this action is explained by the fact that candidates feel they can rally their bases in opposition to the other candidate by acting in ways we have witnessed over this debate cycle.

 

Actions such as talking over one another, name calling and finger pointing come to mind. The bigger question, though, is why do candidates feel they can better rally their bases by acting in a way that seems to turn the discussion into little more than a spectacle as compared to a way that better gets a candidate’s core message to voters. To answer this question, we must stop examining the supply side of the equation, and instead look to the demanders.

 

The demanders in any election are the voters. It is the voters that make up the political market, and it is this market that the suppliers, the candidates, bring their ideas. It is the nature of politicians to behave in ways the public wants them to behave. Having this thought in mind, it becomes easily identifiable why our politicians would act in ways that would otherwise seem counterproductive to the political process. It is because that is what we ask for.

 

If as a whole we demand to see politics turned into a spectacle consisting of little more than name calling and snarky, eight-second clips intended to make the front side of the evening news, then that is what our candidates will supply us with. If we instead insist on a more thought-provoking discussion which gets at the fundamentals, then candidates will have the incentive to provide just that.

 

As the next generation, we will have the ability to steer the course of the political process in this country. Whether we choose to end up with more political gridlock and wordplay, or instead choose straightforwardness and seek results is to be determined.

.

.

.

.............................................................................................................................................................................................

.

.....item 5).... youtube video ... Jimi Hendrix - Are you Experienced (full album) UK ... 60:21 minutes

 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tlRYLP8GOU

 

Published on Nov 16, 2012 by gunsgifts galleries

 

1. "Foxy Lady" 0:00

2. "Manic Depression" 3:22

3. "Red House" 7:08

4. "Can You See Me" 11:01

5. "Love or Confusion" 13:19

6. "I Don't Live Today" 16:33

 

Side two

 

No. Title Length

 

1. "May This Be Love" 20:51

2. "Fire" 24:05

3. "Third Stone from the Sun" 26:52

4. "Remember" 33:42

5. "Are You Experienced?" 36:35

 

1997 Experience Hendrix reissue bonus tracks

 

No. Title Length

 

1. "Hey Joe" (Billy Roberts) 40:05

2. "Stone Free" 43:35

3. "Purple Haze" 47:18

4. "51st Anniversary" 50:02

5. "The Wind Cries Mary" 53:17

6. "Highway Chile" 56:37

 

Category:

Music

 

License:

Standard YouTube License

.

.

.............................................................................................................................................................................................

.

.

This collage is an example of what can be done totally legal and in a very simple way with the Creative Commons license. Thanks to the following individuals, Lawrence Lessig's Creative Commons and the Wikipedia.

 

The topics of this little experiment have been several. From the first days of computing to nowadays most recent thoughts about information and technology itself.

 

1. General history of computing, computer science and informatics

 

2. Warfare, WWII and the evolution of computers, security and surveillance

 

3. Globalisation and "the net"-culture

 

4. From industrial-society to information-society

 

5. Violability of the information-society

 

6. Privacy

 

7. Copyright vs. Copyleft

 

I'm attending informatics (which isn't cs only) at the Technical University of Vienna

Or “poster parenthood” from the Lessig blog. I was delighted to see my Obama photo (on the right) being used by the legal proceedings against the AP who claims they have the source copyright to the imagery used in the iconic poster of Obama. The AP photo is on the left, and the question is whether the graphic abstraction is a fair use under the law.

 

Larry is crowdsourcing examples for their case. If you know of other CC photos of Obama like mine, please send pointers to shep_use@pobox.com

 

Another example of the interesting downstream benefits of using the Creative Commons designation on flickr: I asked Larry about how my photo came to be used here, and he replied that it helps people see that what's powerful in the AP photograph isn't so much the photograph as the image that's being photographed -- Obama's face! But it was your photo that made me recognize this point, because I tripped across it as I was using the CC search tool for an Obama image for a different purpose and had this real deja vu sense.”

 

Funny twist… we just got a ping from a journalist looking for the first use of the word “crowdsourcing” and they claim that was by me in this flickr group discussion back in Feb 2006… Spooky archives.

 

Speaking with the former Speaker of the House and now Minority Leader, I was wondering how best to bring up the topic of campaign finance reform, but she beat me to it.

 

We spent a fair bit of the afternoon with her today, and she came out blazing, saying how the Democrats will “outspend out-position and out-redistrict them.”

 

And, coming from the highest-ranking female politician in American history, I was pleased to hear her say that majority of the seats that they intend to win back will be women. “Women will take back the House.”

 

On the Republican Presidential candidates: “You don’t have the A team or the B team. They want to save their bid for the next election where they might win. You have a C-team of candidates.”

 

Then the open-ended question: what will the policy agenda be for the next four years? We spent 1.5 hours on this topic, but she started with one and only one imperative: election reform. I told her it was on my mind having just read Lessig’s book.

 

“The three steps are Disclose, Reform, Amend. 1) Disclose. Federal elections need to disclose the donors, like we do in California. 2) Reform and 3) a Constitutional Amendment to overturn the Citizens United Supreme Court case (whereby corporations were ruled to be like people in their ability to donate to campaigns as an expression of free speech, but bizarrely, they are unlike people in that they are not limited in the size of those donations and can remain anonymous.)”

 

“This will be the greatest change for our country.”

 

“Many Republicans will try to block it. They spent $75M trying to defeat me last time.”

 

“It’s for America. If the Republicans took it on, we should support them.”

 

And then in a sweet and kind voice: “I have to walk in their shoes, so I can fight them better.”

 

“In December 2004 I met with Steve Jobs and asked ‘Can you help us rebrand the Democratic Party?’ He replied ‘You can’t brand yourself when you don’t know who you are.’ He later offered “Energy is an issue you can work around. But you have to get private sector advice. No political branding people.’”

 

“Intel CEO Craig Barrett was emphatic – if you have one issue, it has to be energy.”

 

“Then Bush won and we had an ethical issue – corruption, cronyism and incompetence. They hired their friends. It was a cash and carry operation, pay to play. Then came Katrina.”

 

“Our message will be Rebuilding America, and the more specific the better. It will be broadband, water systems, and reigniting the American Dream.”

 

“For the Republicans, ‘it’s faith or science, take your pick.’ For us, it’s science, science, science, science. For healthcare, for the economy, for the environment, for education, it’s science. Anna Eshoo expressed her exasperation ‘You wouldn’t believe it. We are dealing with people who don’t believe in science.’ With the COMPETES Act, they fought it with tears in their eyes. This was a commitment to science in education. The Republican leadership opposed it.”

 

“The coal patch is the worst. They deny science.”

 

“We have smart kids who are undereducated. Nothing, nothing brings more money to the U.S. Treasury than education of the people. From early childhood to K-12 to adult reeducation and lifelong learning.”

 

“I was with Obama and pointed to Lincoln on the wall. ‘Public sentiment is everything’ he famously said. You have to explain what you have accomplished to the people.”

 

“The Republicans say there is no government role in clear air, clean water, public education, public safety, public health, Medicare, or social security. You need a public role to get that done for all. This particular breed of cat is not the Republican you know as your neighbor; this particular breed is dangerous to children and other living things.”

 

And that was the end. On the way out, I showed her the space artifacts in my office and she particularly liked the Apollo Fuel Cell =)

Gary is the second "lawyer unicorn" that I have met — the other is Larry Lessig. Gary gave one of my favorite TED 2015 Talks, which just came online today:

 

“The problem is not that the poor don't get laws, it's that they don't get law enforcement. In the developing world, basic law enforcement systems are so broken that recently the U.N. issued a report that found that "most poor people live outside the protection of the law." Now honestly, you and I have just about no idea of what that would mean because we have no first-hand experience of it. Functioning law enforcement for us is just a total assumption. In fact, nothing expresses that assumption more clearly than three simple numbers: 9-1-1, which, of course, is the number for the emergency police operator here in Canada and in the United States, where the average response time to a police 911 emergency call is about 10 minutes. So we take this just completely for granted.”

Please appoint Lawrence Lessig to the Supreme Court at your first opportunity. He's well-qualified and totally gets the Internet.

VW Prolo taking Kevin out for a walk / VW Prolo found someone new is part of the BestOff 2019 exhibition at the Ars Electronica Center, Kunstuniversität Linz and splace. The exhibition shows projects by students and graduates of the Kunstuni Linz.

 

Credit: Kunstuniversität Linz

This caricature of Lawrence Lessig was adapted from a Creative Commons licensed photo by Robert Scoble available via Wikimedia.

This caricature of Jim Webb was adapted from a photo in the public domain available via Wikimedia.

This caricature of Hillary Clinton was adapted from a photo in the public domain from The Secretary of States's Flickr photostream.

This caricature of Bernie Sanders was adapted from a Creative Commons licensed photo from Nick Solari's Flickr photostream.

This caricature of Martin O'Malley was adapted from a photo in the public domain from the U.S. Air Force.

This caricature of Lincoln Chafee was adapted from a Creative Commons licensed photo by Kenneth C. Zirkel available via Wikimedia.

 

I am reading a pre-print of "Evolving Ourselves" and his TechonomyBio 2015 talk describes how unnatural selection and non-random selection are dominating the evolution of our biome and our species. More below.

 

It reminds me of the class I co-taught at Stanford with Larry Lessig in 2004 on genetics, evolved artifacts, and the regulatory ecosystem. I wrote at the time:

 

We went in with the presumption that society will likely try to curtail “genetic free speech” as it applies to human germ line engineering (changing the DNA of egg or sperm), and thereby curtail the evolution of evolvability. Lessig predicts that we will recapitulate the 200-year debate about the First Amendment to the Constitution. Pressures to curtail free genetic expression will focus on the dangers of “bad speech”, and others will argue that good genetic expression will crowd out the bad. Artificial chromosomes (whereby children can decide whether to accept genetic enhancements when they become adults) can decouple the debate about parental control and agency. And, with a touch of irony, China may lead the charge.

 

Many of us subconsciously cling to the selfish notion that humanity is the endpoint of evolution. In the debates about machine intelligence and genetic enhancements, there is a common and deeply rooted fear about being surpassed – in our lifetime. But, when framed as a question of parenthood (would you want your great grandchild to be smarter and healthier than you?), the emotion often shifts from a selfish sense of supremacy to a universal human search for symbolic immortality.

 

P.S. The video also came out for our opening panel; it starts at minute 4:27 of "You Say You Want a Revolution" with (Drew Endy of Stanford, David Glazer of Google, me, and Chris Waller of Merck). And here's a summary article that runs with my parenting metaphor.

Giving final talk about Free Culture at Stanford

This caricature of Lawrence Lessig was adapted from a Creative Commons licensed photo by Robert Scoble available via Wikimedia.

This caricature of Hillary Clinton was adapted from a photo in the public domain from The Secretary of States's Flickr photostream.

This caricature of Bernie Sanders was adapted from a Creative Commons licensed photo from Nick Solari's Flickr photostream.

This caricature of Martin O'Malley was adapted from a photo in the public domain from the U.S. Air Force.

 

so many fun people…

 

I’ll add some tags

I'd been meaning to do a Creative Commonist design ever since Bill Gates came up with his ludicrous statement. Then I heard Lessig was coming to Edinburgh to speak at the launch of the Scottish Creative Commons licenses. Well, it seemed like the ideal opportunity!

 

Oh, and if anyone wants a copy, let me know!

a warm reception for Elon Musk today.

 

Video. At minute 5:30, you can see the Board, with the Daimler representative closest to the camera, and with me the farthest away in Pink. And then Elon takes the stage at 7:20.

 

"There were many people who thought that Tesla would fail. Many of them unwisely chose to short our stock. I presume those people are not here today. [laughter]" (8:30)

 

The most passionate response was at minute 49:10, to the question about the National Automobile Dealers Association:

 

"Our philosophy on service is not to make a profit on service. I think that it's terrible to make a profit on service. [applause] And unfortunately, the way the auto dealer association is set up is that they make most of their profit on service. So this obviously would not be a good outcome [for them]. Now the challenge we face, of course is that the auto dealers are very strong and influential at the state level among the legislatures." (50:45)

 

"But if you look at the opinion polls in any state...in any context, as to whether people want direct sales, the answer is overwhelmingly yes. So in North Carolina or Texas or obviously in California or nationwide, the percentage of people in favor of allowing Tesla to do direct sales varies from a low of 86% to 99. And in the case of the 86%, there was a concerted attempt by the auto dealers to get everyone they could to possibly vote against it, and it still was 86% in favor. So clearly if democracy was working properly and the legislatures were implementing the will of the people, something else would be happening. And there would not be legislation trying to artificially restrict direct sales. And right now, the auto dealers association is crowing about the fact that they were able to defeat us in Texas and they are making so much progress in North Carolina and stopping us in Virginia. I think it's outrageous that they would crow about a perversion of democracy. That's just wrong. I think they are making a big mistake. I think what's actually going to happen is that customers will lead a revolt on this front." (51:54 - 54:17)

 

With echoes of Larry Lessig in my mind.

 

Gettysburg Battlefield

 

The regiment spent much of the battle holding the line lying in the muddy low ground around Plum Creek. The monument remembers this with a carved footprint in the “mud” next to the prone soldier, only visible from above the monument.

 

The 96th Pennsylvania was commanded at the Battle of Gettysburg by Major William H. Lessig. It brought 356 men to the field and lost 1 man wounded.

"On November 18, 1735 the heirs of William Penn granted 200 acres to John Lacy. In 1738, Lacy's widowed wife married Jacob Stout. On October 20 1759, when the two sons of John Lacy became adults, they conveyed to their step-father(Jacob Stout) the said 200 acres. A large part of Perkasie is now built upon this land. The original holdings included: the territory bounded by the Lessig's School House, the Branch Creek, Market Street, and Ridge Road. This cemetery is the final resting place of those first settlers of Perkasie.": from historical marker.

 

www.jwfuqua-photography.com

I saw several of these between Mission and Bryant on 24th st.

 

algore.com

 

www.climatecrisis.net

 

Update (7/08): Lessig used this photo in a presentation he gave at Netroots Nation. Here's a screen capture.

 

www.flickr.com/photos/ari/2683176706/

 

I'll include a link to the video when it is online.

Larry Lessig gives his last speech on Free Culture at Stanford University.

A public message for SOPA by the ACTA corporation. Made in reference to the "1984" world by George Orwell, our SOMA will be the SOPA, making a perfect Internet for the masses, freed of any form of life ... Illustration from 2011.

 

fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act

 

deviantlibrarian.wordpress.com/2012/01/15/great-graphics/

 

www.librarian.net/stax/3778/getting-serious-about-sopa-wh...

Copyright hacking-sketch inspired by Lawrence Lessigs session at internetdagarna 2012 (#ind12)

I will not comment any copyright fundamentalist pictures in Flickr .

  

You should not forgo Larry Lessig on how the excesses of copyright protection are strangling creativity: br.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q25-S7jzgs

  

All bundled up for winter in Boston

Christmas visit to Bluffton with Lessigs and Neuefeinds

"Sometimes an institution becomes too sick to fix itself…Sometimes an institution, like an individual, needs an intervention, from people, from friends, from outside."

— Lawrence Lessig, Republic, Lost

 

A version of this poster was done for the Coffee Party's Citizens Intervention Rally in October 2011.

 

See all the posters from the Chamomile Tea Party! Digital high res downloads are free here. Other options are available. And join our Facebook group.

Lawrence Lessig : “They Don't Represent Us

Lawrence Lessig : “They Don't Represent Us

Lawrence Lessig : “They Don't Represent Us

Lawrence Lessig, aka Larry Lessig, is a Harvard University professor active in reform and improvement of U.S. systems including copyright, trademark, and elections. Lessig is a founding board member of Creative Commons. He is exploring running for President of the United States in the 2016 election.

 

This caricature of Lawrence Lessig was adapted from a Creative Commons licensed photo by Robert Scoble available via Wikimedia.

 

Christmas visit to Bluffton with Lessigs and Neuefeinds

Lessig signals Unsportsmanlike Conduct!

 

Lawrence Lessig, aka Larry Lessig, is a Harvard University professor active in reform and improvement of U.S. systems including copyright, trademark, and elections. Lessig is a founding board member of Creative Commons. He is exploring running for President of the United States in the 2016 election.

 

This caricature of Lawrence Lessig was adapted from a Creative Commons licensed photo by Robert Scoble available via Wikimedia. The referee is adapted from a Creative Commons licensed photo from Neon Tommy's Flickr photostream. The backbround is adapted from a Creative Commons licensed photo from Parker Knight's Flickr photostream.

 

Christmas visit to Bluffton with Lessigs and Neuefeinds

Christmas visit to Bluffton with Lessigs and Neuefeinds

1 3 4 5 6 7 ••• 79 80