The struggle against these changes is not the traditional struggle between left and right or between conservative and liberal. To question assumptions about the scope of "property" is no to question property. I am fanatically pro-market, in the market's proper sphere. I don't doubt the important and valuable role played by the market in most, maybe just about all, contexts. This is not an argument about commerce versus something else. The innovation that I defend is commercial and non-commercial alike,; the arguments that I draw upon to defend it are as strongly tied to the Right as to the Left." at page 6

The future that I am describing is as important to commerce as to any other field of creativity. Though most distinguish innovation from creativity, or creativity from commerce, I do not. etc. at page 10.

I disagree with Jamie about James Boyle, and on multiple points. So I'm much happier that you brought up Larry Lessig. No-one can question the inexhaustible energy that he has poured into opposing IP expansionism, the Microsft monopoly and defending freedom of speech amidst the unfolding saga of law and politics attempt to adjust to the novelties generated by technological advance.

But then so have many rightwing libertarians, and many others whom I will not have any political association with. That didn't make their activiy any less wellcome, just as their opposition to state intrusion on civil liberties and scepticism of bellicose foreign adventures is welcome. The question is to what degree and in what way do I (or we) wish to interact with them. This has (and has had) a determining impact upon the ripost (or lack therof) to the outrages tht have occurred relentlessly in the area of intellectual property in the last decade.

Now given the collapse of politics, never mind 'the left', I can feel glad that someone did something, as those of a more social radical outlook have been either too up their own ass, too stuck in a certain ritualistic form of leftist militantism - both of action and thought - or just plain too dissociated to be able to act.

The citations above underline two of the central problems that I encounter with Lessig's work. As list-members are aware, the historical discourse of the commons was not fueled by the desire to sustain entrepreneurialism. Rather it was to fight against the pauperisation of millions so as to swell the riches of the few. Furthermore, by removing the material basis for subsistence (land for culivation) the 17-18th century rulers were determined to create 'hands', a labour force, that would man the manufacturing centres that were flourishing in urban areas. The choice was between starvation and wage-labour.

In modern western societies the impact of the IP enclosures is not a threat of starvation, although in the developing world it will be death through refusal of medication.

Nonetheless, an emancipatory possibility hads arisen for cultural and communication workers due to the precipitous descent in the price of the productive equipment required and the distribution mechanism potentially available. In this context, it is not surprising that the information aristocracy has targetted the primary matter, the creative or informational works, as the locus that must be fortified to perpetuate their domination.Otherwise media workers could simply work for themselves, as many attempt to do despite the the stranglehold exercised at licensing and distribution levels.

Let's leave aside Larry's romanticisation of the entrepreneurial figure, which deserves attention in its own right, and examine his vision of innovation. At no point does the impact of innovation upon the distribution of wealth merit scrutiny. Does this mean that all change is positive, every technological novelty an occasion to incant the marvellous nature of our modern age? Growing up in the shadow of th nuclear bomb, might we have one or two queries with regard to innvationb's effect onth environment? Rather than continuing down that path, I merely want to point out that at no point is the dogma of 'all progress, all the time' challeged. Paging Walter Benjamin, Is Walter Benjamin in the house....

Now Lessig was in a position to address some of these points, even in a passing manner, and he didn't. A huge number of people with an interest in technology politics listen to him, and what does say? He has explicitly rejected the proposition that in order to fight ip expansionism tech-activists should crosspolinate with social movements and dorect actionists. Apparently even the mousish EFF lack the necessary moderation:

"You are too extreme. You ought to be more mainstream." You know and I am with you. I think EFF is great. It's been the symbol. It's fought the battles. But you know, it's fought the battles in ways that sometimes need to be reformed. Help us. Don't help us by whining. Help us by writing on the check you send in, "Please be more mainstream." The check, right? This is the mentality you need to begin to adopt to change this battle. http://news.openflows.org/article.pl?sid=02/08/22/1937218&mode=thread

And that during a speech otherwise spent berating the audience for their failure to take poliical action? What's politics? Donating to Rick Boucher, delegating your struggles t the EFF (even if they are too militant), writing to Congress etc.

ow that is Lessig's position politically, and the supreme court appeal in Eldred this autumn represents the apex of his strategy. The US Constiution is to be the document to stop the copyright train, out of control and off the tracks, dead. I hope that they are successful but I'm not confident. And even if Sonny Bono is struck down, the communications conglomerates will find new mehods to shovel shit down our throats.

If you keep the code free you can do things with it, that affect the physical layer of the net, tha affect the content layer of the net, that affect the meaning of the net.... Everything's going to flow in the wires, just don't let thm notch up th resistance at the ends. Eben Moglen