Comments on: Lessig, others: There is more to the world than just the USA http://ossguy.com/?p=108 Ideas on how we can make the world a better place, with a technical bent Mon, 06 Sep 2010 18:33:20 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9-rare hourly 1 By: Stephen Paul Weber http://ossguy.com/?p=108&cpage=1#comment-1561 Stephen Paul Weber Sat, 01 Nov 2008 02:58:10 +0000 http://ossguy.com/?p=108#comment-1561 One: It's silly to suggest that such public figures such as Lessig help "even more". Lessig has already done far more than can be expected of any one man. We have to be willing to step up as agents of change in our own arena. Two, and in line with other commentors: Unlike many Americans, Lessig rarely seems to have the US-only we-only-matter concept. He speaks about US law because that is where he is educated and to Americans because they are his compatriots. Three: you know what I think of UN, WIPO, and others. They're a media circus and a sham. Any energy put towards them is wasted. One: It's silly to suggest that such public figures such as Lessig help "even more". Lessig has already done far more than can be expected of any one man. We have to be willing to step up as agents of change in our own arena.

Two, and in line with other commentors: Unlike many Americans, Lessig rarely seems to have the US-only we-only-matter concept. He speaks about US law because that is where he is educated and to Americans because they are his compatriots.

Three: you know what I think of UN, WIPO, and others. They're a media circus and a sham. Any energy put towards them is wasted.

]]> By: Joey Boilermaker http://ossguy.com/?p=108&cpage=1#comment-1557 Joey Boilermaker Thu, 30 Oct 2008 00:57:53 +0000 http://ossguy.com/?p=108#comment-1557 Hi Ossguy, First, a couple of disclaimers: I'm a former law student of Lessig's, so take everything I say below with a grain of salt because I may be a bit biased (in favour of him). Also, US born and educated, I now live in a former outpost of the British Empire, one less beset by overcrowding, rampant pollution, and materialism than the US. In short, I talk every day with smart folks who have interesting, fresh criticisms of the way US politicians, journalists, and media mavens conceptualise and attempt to solve the problems we all face together. So here we go. I think you're absolutely correct that a lot of writing done by US authors, journalists, pundits, and scholars seems to assume that the regulatory, legal, political and social concerns of the US are the only ones worth thinking and writing about. Solutions for Americans, are, as you say, erroneously treated as solutions for all. The tendency to write from a particularly "American" perspective is most apparent in the political arena - especially in reporting about war (reporting on Georgia, if you recall, was undoubtedly tilted toward a ridiculously one-sided interpretation of events that only idiots in the US subscribe to) - but I think you're right that the attitude seeps into other types of academic writing and journalism. (I'm reading Philip Bobbitt's new book - Terror & Consent - and let me tell you, as brilliant as this book is, it definitely suffers from unnecessarily narrow horizons.) Ok, so, with all that said, let me defend Lessig's approach to writing about intellectual property policy and corruption. Lessig is a fellow who not only likes to get things right, but HAS to get them right. He thinks his views through very carefully, adjusts them as new circumstances require, and is willing to listen to a wide range of voices - especially voices from outside the academy (something too many American academics would just never do). Lessig is quite open to new ideas, so the notion that a non-American regulatory solution or idea would be off the table just doesn't wash wish me. Not sure if that's implied in what you've said above, but to avoid confusion, I'm throwing it out there. As for the notion that Lessig's views about corruption are somehow geographically bound, I'd actually challenge you to have a closer look at what he has said. He's tried to come up with a comprehensive and sustainable conception of corruption that reformers of all hues, nationalities and zip codes can use to conceptualise the causes and remedies for particular forms of corruption. Sure, he hasn't written a book or article comparing parliamentary government and non-parliamentary forms with an eye to showing why one form of government is more prone to corruption than another (a silly endeavour if you ask me, since both have structural features which serve as breeding grounds for it), but let me assure you, it's not because he's got some axe to grind against such projects; it's just that his approach to corruption is not primarily that of a comparative political scientist. Lessig has a long-standing interest in philosophy, one he developed at Cambridge (if memory serves) prior to law school. And so, he approaches these problems conceptually in the first instance, so he can accurately identify the critical issues at hand. What I'm driving at is that Lessig is probably the public intellectual *least likely* to be guilty of the specific form of myopia that you're (rightfully) concerned about. He's very well-informed about the regulatory problems affecting non-US jurisdictions in the IP space in particular, but his philosophical/conceptual approach to legal, regulatory and political problems, is designed to bring everyone together by using a vocabulary that is not geographically specific but which speaks to everyone where they are. Lessig's far more cosmopolitan than you give him credit for, my friend. In any event, I hope I haven't misunderstood any of your comments above. And nothing I've said here is meant to be an attack on you personally; I only mean to challenge your views (as I see them). Take care. JB Hi Ossguy,

First, a couple of disclaimers: I'm a former law student of Lessig's, so take everything I say below with a grain of salt because I may be a bit biased (in favour of him). Also, US born and educated, I now live in a former outpost of the British Empire, one less beset by overcrowding, rampant pollution, and materialism than the US. In short, I talk every day with smart folks who have interesting, fresh criticisms of the way US politicians, journalists, and media mavens conceptualise and attempt to solve the problems we all face together.

So here we go. I think you're absolutely correct that a lot of writing done by US authors, journalists, pundits, and scholars seems to assume that the regulatory, legal, political and social concerns of the US are the only ones worth thinking and writing about. Solutions for Americans, are, as you say, erroneously treated as solutions for all.

The tendency to write from a particularly "American" perspective is most apparent in the political arena - especially in reporting about war (reporting on Georgia, if you recall, was undoubtedly tilted toward a ridiculously one-sided interpretation of events that only idiots in the US subscribe to) - but I think you're right that the attitude seeps into other types of academic writing and journalism. (I'm reading Philip Bobbitt's new book - Terror & Consent - and let me tell you, as brilliant as this book is, it definitely suffers from unnecessarily narrow horizons.)

Ok, so, with all that said, let me defend Lessig's approach to writing about intellectual property policy and corruption. Lessig is a fellow who not only likes to get things right, but HAS to get them right. He thinks his views through very carefully, adjusts them as new circumstances require, and is willing to listen to a wide range of voices - especially voices from outside the academy (something too many American academics would just never do).

Lessig is quite open to new ideas, so the notion that a non-American regulatory solution or idea would be off the table just doesn't wash wish me. Not sure if that's implied in what you've said above, but to avoid confusion, I'm throwing it out there.

As for the notion that Lessig's views about corruption are somehow geographically bound, I'd actually challenge you to have a closer look at what he has said. He's tried to come up with a comprehensive and sustainable conception of corruption that reformers of all hues, nationalities and zip codes can use to conceptualise the causes and remedies for particular forms of corruption. Sure, he hasn't written a book or article comparing parliamentary government and non-parliamentary forms with an eye to showing why one form of government is more prone to corruption than another (a silly endeavour if you ask me, since both have structural features which serve as breeding grounds for it), but let me assure you, it's not because he's got some axe to grind against such projects; it's just that his approach to corruption is not primarily that of a comparative political scientist. Lessig has a long-standing interest in philosophy, one he developed at Cambridge (if memory serves) prior to law school. And so, he approaches these problems conceptually in the first instance, so he can accurately identify the critical issues at hand.

What I'm driving at is that Lessig is probably the public intellectual *least likely* to be guilty of the specific form of myopia that you're (rightfully) concerned about. He's very well-informed about the regulatory problems affecting non-US jurisdictions in the IP space in particular, but his philosophical/conceptual approach to legal, regulatory and political problems, is designed to bring everyone together by using a vocabulary that is not geographically specific but which speaks to everyone where they are. Lessig's far more cosmopolitan than you give him credit for, my friend.

In any event, I hope I haven't misunderstood any of your comments above. And nothing I've said here is meant to be an attack on you personally; I only mean to challenge your views (as I see them). Take care.

JB

]]> By: Jay http://ossguy.com/?p=108&cpage=1#comment-1555 Jay Wed, 29 Oct 2008 23:15:14 +0000 http://ossguy.com/?p=108#comment-1555 I can understand the idea that Lessig should be expanding beyond the political lines of the USA. But, this is where he lives so naturally he's focused on on his home country. And by no means is he advocating that others shouldn't focus on THEIR own countries. In fact, that was the idea behind Creative Commons and the fact that its become so successful internationally is because he's allowed others to step up in their own communities and carry the mantle. And its already happening with his new group Change Congress as well: a whole new group in Canada has adopted the Change Congress platform, made it their own and is running with it in their own Parliament. http://ibelieveinopen.ca/ Lessig's focused on the U.S. because its what he knows. And he wants you to focus on your own country and community. But thats up to you...he's not going to fish for you. I can understand the idea that Lessig should be expanding beyond the political lines of the USA. But, this is where he lives so naturally he's focused on on his home country. And by no means is he advocating that others shouldn't focus on THEIR own countries. In fact, that was the idea behind Creative Commons and the fact that its become so successful internationally is because he's allowed others to step up in their own communities and carry the mantle.
And its already happening with his new group Change Congress as well: a whole new group in Canada has adopted the Change Congress platform, made it their own and is running with it in their own Parliament.

http://ibelieveinopen.ca/

Lessig's focused on the U.S. because its what he knows. And he wants you to focus on your own country and community. But thats up to you...he's not going to fish for you.

]]>