What do you think?
Rate this book
الكود المنظِّم للفضاء الإلكتروني: الإصدار ٢٫٠
ثمة مفهوم شائع بأن الفضاء الإلكتروني يستحيل إخضاعه للتنظيم الحكومي؛ أي إنه بحكم جوهره محصن ضد سيطرة الحكومة (أو غيرها من الجهات). لكن هذا الكتاب يؤكد خطأ هذا الاعتقاد؛ فالأمر ليس أن طبيعة الفضاء الإلكتروني تجعله مستعصيًا عن التنظيم، بل أن الفضاء الإلكتروني ليس له «طبيعة» خاصة به من الأساس، هناك فقط «كود منظِّم»؛ وهو مجموعة البرمجيات والأجهزة التي تجعل الفضاء الإلكتروني ما هو عليه.
وهذا الكود يمكن أن يخلق واحة للحرية � كما فعلت المعمارية الأصلية للإنترنت � أو بقعة من السيطرة الغاشمة. ونحن نستطيع، بل ويجب علينا، أن نختار شكل الفضاء الإلكتروني الذي نبغيه والحريات التي سنضمنها. وفي هذا الصدد، يعد الكود المنظِّم للفضاء الإلكتروني أهم صور القانون. ومنوط بالمحامين وصانعي السياسات، والمواطنين بصورة خاصة، أن يحددوا القيم التي سيجسدها ذلك الكود.
وهذا الكود يمكن أن يخلق واحة للحرية � كما فعلت المعمارية الأصلية للإنترنت � أو بقعة من السيطرة الغاشمة. ونحن نستطيع، بل ويجب علينا، أن نختار شكل الفضاء الإلكتروني الذي نبغيه والحريات التي سنضمنها. وفي هذا الصدد، يعد الكود المنظِّم للفضاء الإلكتروني أهم صور القانون. ومنوط بالمحامين وصانعي السياسات، والمواطنين بصورة خاصة، أن يحددوا القيم التي سيجسدها ذلك الكود.
592 pages, ebook
First published January 1, 1999
120 people are currently reading
2,634 people want to read
About the author
Lawrence Lessig
59books481followersLawrence "Larry" Lessig is an American academic and political activist. He is best known as a proponent of reduced legal restrictions on copyright, trademark, and radio frequency spectrum, particularly in technology applications.
He is a director of the Edmond J. Safra Foundation Center for Ethics at Harvard University and a professor of law at Harvard Law School. Prior to rejoining Harvard, he was a professor of law at Stanford Law School and founder of its Center for Internet and Society.
Lessig is a founding board member of Creative Commons, a board member of the Software Freedom Law Center and a former board member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
He is a director of the Edmond J. Safra Foundation Center for Ethics at Harvard University and a professor of law at Harvard Law School. Prior to rejoining Harvard, he was a professor of law at Stanford Law School and founder of its Center for Internet and Society.
Lessig is a founding board member of Creative Commons, a board member of the Software Freedom Law Center and a former board member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 55 reviews
December 17, 2018
"حيث لا يزال كثيرون يعتبرون ان الحرية مثل الطبيعة, وأنها ستعتني بنفسها . لا يزال هناك كثيرون لا يدركون أن المعماريات المختلفة تنطوي على قيم مختلفة, وأننا من خلا اختيار هذه المعماريات المختلفة فقط-هذه الأكواد المختلفة- نستطيع ترسيخ ونشر قيمنا."
نبذة عن الكتاب :
الكتاب رغم قدمه النسبي –نش� في 2006- فهو يعالج مشكلة حديثة ومهمة ,وهي مشكلة الحرية والقيد في العالم الرقمي في . فالكاتب يبدأ بتبيان كيف أن الانترنت ظاهرة جديدة لا تحمل بين طياتها أي سوابق من هذا النوع , مما أثار مشكلات جديدة .ويبين لسيج هذه المشكلات مثل قيامي أنا كمواطن عراقي بنشر منشورات ممنوعة في المانيا ,فهل يمكن للحكومة الالمانية محاسبتي باعتبار أن مواطنيها يمكنهم الاطلاع على محتوى كتاباتي , وغيرها من المشاكل من الناحية القانونية ويبين أوجه الخلاف في القرارات المتخذة لعلاج هذه المشاكل .
الحرية كلمة قوية مات الكثير من اجل وهمها أو حقيقتها هذا يعتمد على الشخص الذي تسأله . هذا الكتاب هو كتاب عن الحرية أو بتعبير أدق عن الحرية المقيدة . عند ظهور الانترنت كان المكان المثالي الرائع حيث الجميع لطفاء وودودين لكن بعد ذلك بسنوات قليلة بدأت الاباحية والمخدرات و الرسائل المزعجة وأختراق الحسابات تظهر على السطح. فهل علينا ترك الانترنت الحر كما هو عند تأسيسه لكي يمتلئ فوضى وخراب أم يجب أن يتم تنظيمه ؟
بصورة أكثر دقة، سيتم بناء كود للعالم الإلكتروني يحدد الحريات والقيود فيه. لا مجال للشك في ذلك، لكن يظل"
."السؤال: من سيضع الكود؟ وأي القيم سيمثلها؟ هذا هو الخيار الوحيد الذي تبقى لنا
نعم نحن من سنحدد الكود الذي ينظم الانترنت لكن المشكلة من نحن هل تقوم الحكومات- أي حكومات؟ أم نتبع مبادئنا- أي مبادئ؟ هذه كلها أسئلة ذات أجوبة صعبة . لكن في النهاية مهما كان نوع القيد سيبقى الكود البرمجي هو من ينتصر لذلك علينا أن نحمل قيمنا أياً كانت ونبدء بوضعها بأنفسنا في هذا العالم لان أحد أخر لن يفعل لنا ذلك .
إننا على وشك الدخول إلى عصر تبلغ فيه سلطتنا في التعامل مع الهياكل المنظمة"
ذروتها، ومن الضرورة بمكان، إذن، أن ندرك ما يمكننا أن نفعله بهذه السلطة، بل
."والأهم من ذلك ما لا نفعله بها
نبذة عن الكتاب :
الكتاب رغم قدمه النسبي –نش� في 2006- فهو يعالج مشكلة حديثة ومهمة ,وهي مشكلة الحرية والقيد في العالم الرقمي في . فالكاتب يبدأ بتبيان كيف أن الانترنت ظاهرة جديدة لا تحمل بين طياتها أي سوابق من هذا النوع , مما أثار مشكلات جديدة .ويبين لسيج هذه المشكلات مثل قيامي أنا كمواطن عراقي بنشر منشورات ممنوعة في المانيا ,فهل يمكن للحكومة الالمانية محاسبتي باعتبار أن مواطنيها يمكنهم الاطلاع على محتوى كتاباتي , وغيرها من المشاكل من الناحية القانونية ويبين أوجه الخلاف في القرارات المتخذة لعلاج هذه المشاكل .
الحرية كلمة قوية مات الكثير من اجل وهمها أو حقيقتها هذا يعتمد على الشخص الذي تسأله . هذا الكتاب هو كتاب عن الحرية أو بتعبير أدق عن الحرية المقيدة . عند ظهور الانترنت كان المكان المثالي الرائع حيث الجميع لطفاء وودودين لكن بعد ذلك بسنوات قليلة بدأت الاباحية والمخدرات و الرسائل المزعجة وأختراق الحسابات تظهر على السطح. فهل علينا ترك الانترنت الحر كما هو عند تأسيسه لكي يمتلئ فوضى وخراب أم يجب أن يتم تنظيمه ؟
بصورة أكثر دقة، سيتم بناء كود للعالم الإلكتروني يحدد الحريات والقيود فيه. لا مجال للشك في ذلك، لكن يظل"
."السؤال: من سيضع الكود؟ وأي القيم سيمثلها؟ هذا هو الخيار الوحيد الذي تبقى لنا
نعم نحن من سنحدد الكود الذي ينظم الانترنت لكن المشكلة من نحن هل تقوم الحكومات- أي حكومات؟ أم نتبع مبادئنا- أي مبادئ؟ هذه كلها أسئلة ذات أجوبة صعبة . لكن في النهاية مهما كان نوع القيد سيبقى الكود البرمجي هو من ينتصر لذلك علينا أن نحمل قيمنا أياً كانت ونبدء بوضعها بأنفسنا في هذا العالم لان أحد أخر لن يفعل لنا ذلك .
إننا على وشك الدخول إلى عصر تبلغ فيه سلطتنا في التعامل مع الهياكل المنظمة"
ذروتها، ومن الضرورة بمكان، إذن، أن ندرك ما يمكننا أن نفعله بهذه السلطة، بل
."والأهم من ذلك ما لا نفعله بها
March 23, 2010
I had to read this for a class on technology and policy. It's the first book by Lessig that I've read. The writing seemed tortuous to get through, but maybe that's because it was edited by a group using a wiki. It's really not until the last couple chapters that Lessig reaches his thesis -- that we should be wary of taking a libertarian response towards changes to the architecture, norms, and laws of cyberspace. Lessig wants us to thoughtfully consider these changes and work within the structure of the legislature and, as possible, within the structure of computer code to properly regulate cyberspace with regard to latent Constitutional ambiguities. The previous 300 pages explain what you need to know to understand this thesis. I think his ideas of what can be regulated through code are a bit far-fetched, but time may prove me wrong.
December 30, 2016
This is one of the seminal books in its field, but even v2.0 has been overtaken by events. It's time for v3.0.
Read
July 8, 2017So, the copy of the book currently with this reviewer has 410 pages.
There appear to be entire doctoral programmes available to address the issues presenting on page 7. (And page 11. And page 25.)
#aphids - p20, p59, p120, p121, p122, p123, p124, p125, p126, p127, p129, p130, p131, p132, p133, p135, p136, p139, p142, p143, p144, p145, p146, p151, p170, p180, p181, p182, p183, p184, p185, p186, p188, p191, p192, p193, p194, p197, p198, p199, p200, p203, p204, p206, p208, p209, p223, p233, p234, p235, p236, p237, p238, p239, p240, p241, p247, p248, p249, p250, p252, p253, p254, p255, p256, p257, p261, p262, p263, p266, p267, p268, p269, p270, p271, p272, p273, p282, p290, p291, p294, p295, p300, p301, p304, p305, p306, p314, p315, p316, p317, p318, p319, p320, p321, p322, p324
On page 20, 'It [Lessig's point] is instead to remark that this space enables more of this duality.' needs to be addressed at,in an appropriate time,setting. And similarly, the differences between over here and over there alluded to on p298.
On p22: 'Is there any constitutional problem with [a worm being placed in computer software with judicial authorization]?
I don't know, but it seems like there should be. The content of the point-bearing aphid is acknowledged. And concerning the conversation about congestion fees, to what extent do recent trends and developments in custom and practice make that one proceed in better ways? An important point to make would be that the next time one of our guys, gals or Xs over there is picked, we need to know which one it is and to develop proper modalities to handle their stack. Considering the content of p62, has Lawrence Lessig ever met Sir Nigel Sheinwald? To what extent is the two-step aphid an enabler of the low for those whom the we feel contempt, of the middle for those whom the we feel indifferent, and of the high for whose deemed by the we to be either righteous or exquisite, if not both?
On p23, the 4-ness difficulties associated with regulability need to be addressed at,in an appropriate time,setting.
On p24, 'Why can't we imagine an Internet or a cyberspace where behavio(u)r can be controlled because code now enables that control?' may beg the question as to which behavio(u)r would the we wish to control and why, and to what extent could the we be tempted to substitute choice for behavio(u)r? How concerned should the rest be about that? (see also arguments on p38). On p204, 'Controlling employees (or spouses) is one important new use of e-mail technologies.' appears to beg the questions.
The interpretation of the picture painted on p28 needs to be de-convoluted and the nature of Prof Lessig's concerns should be formalised.
On page 37, to what extent are-can difficulties of anonymity be resolved by modern cell [mobile] phone technology? What else may be relevant in the context of the content of chapter three?
Considering the arguments on pp68-70, is it clear what the components of a digitalID would consist of? What arrangements would be needed to make sure that tracking, identification and content-harvesting processes function in the spirit of the fourth amendment? And what arrangements would be needed to make sure there are no cyber-stateless citizens? And to make sure there are no citizens in cyber-administrative or cyber-indefinite detention? The arguments on p76 appear to have some basic weaknesses; and also in the paragraph beginning "I have spent many pages making a point that some may find obvious." on p77. What else may be relevant with respect to the nature of choice in the arguments on p78? Is enoughfulness a word? Sufficiency may be better, and again "in inverted commas". Considering the argument at the end of p80, how might (an) appropriate separation(s) of government and commerce be configured? And considering the arguments on p209, how much surveillance is enough?
Is it possible to elaborate a more compelling definition of cyberspace than the prose on offer on pp83-5 that can include the aphids on pp86-8 in its sentences? And on pp97-102, to what extent are the goings-on in the LambdaMOO space a new and fast variation of an old theme in a frathouse setting? What sort of arrangements may be available to work through the law of cyberspace, per the content of pp102-106 in such a way to prevent an aphid-schmayphid fire? And on p109, there appear to be doctoral programmes available to develop the legal interpretations of arguments projected on or reflected by the over there in a suitably elaborated definition of cyberspace. What sort of boundary conditions may be available to elaborate decent interfaces between the corporation and the staffers on its payroll between real and cyberspace? On p114, it may be desirable to elaborate what the end of better to good regulation of cyberspace would be.
On pp138-9, what may "The key criticism that I've identified so far is transparency...Now that's not saying much, at least about us. And there's nothing about cyberspace to suggest things are going to be different.." assume? What else appears to be significant in this context? On p143, be careful with "My own intuition about that is different." for reasons that should be addressed at,in an appropriate time/setting.
The arguments on pp155-6 point to a need for the law to account for the regulatory effect of code: apologies if I'm jumping the gun here - if programmers can have a passport that is properly defined for cyberspace, surely the law in the first instance ought to have the effect of saying only a certain pool of programmers can interact with an object either in cyberspace or within a network that has territorial boundaries in certain ways and that would include a prohibition on turning human beings (who have a right to be the subject of certain conversations) into objects, picking them up and putting them somewhere else across or within cyberspace (ah - some of this is addressed on p226; on p258, how decent are zoning arrangements and also those to allow for proper challenge, and where these are either unsatisfactory or non-existent, what measures may exist in infrastructures elsewhere in real space that can allow for functional lives to develop that can find their way in the world both beyond as well as within two county lines?). What else appears to be particularly relevant in this context? The translation argument on p156 seems a little nihilistic. The warrant requirement is placed in inverted commas on p158 in the question "So why the 'warrant requirement'?" and both appear to require particularly careful handling, as well as the arguments running through the rest of the chapter. And on p201, what would the laws of cyberspace need to include to prevent citizens from being picked up, put over there and talked about, even in inverted commas?
There appear to be some basic difficulties with the arguments on pp210-4 that need to be addressed at,in an appropriate time, setting. As well as an elaborated answer to question three on p217: answers two and four appear to be particularly unsatisfactory. On p218, it may be decent to elaborate what the implicit charge in "The burden is on you, the monitored, first to establish your innocence..." would be and which [organised crime-backed?!] law enforcement agency would sponsor it. The arguments on the rest of the page and the aphids on p219 appear to present some particular difficulties.
The questions on p220 appear to be interesting and can be addressed at,in an appropriate time and setting. How might the law distinguish between manipulation on the one hand and coercion on the other, and what are considered to be facts in each case and how are/might determinations (/be) made about what matters?
To what extent do the arguments on pp224-5 hold true? And on p229, to what extent does Prof Lessig need to turn the reader's inalienable right into a liability rule in order for him to be able to exercise his privilege, and in doing so, to what extent would that set aside the reader's 13th amendment rights in the US and be in breach of part one of the Modern Slavery Act in the UK? And to what extent might the general welfare be enhanced by spacializing privacy as opposed to propertizing it, and if these concepts boil down to the same thing, would it be easier to compile the ground rules?
On p242, how might it be possible to frame and pose a better question than 'How can we reestablish credibility in this space so that it is not lost to the loons?' On p263, Prof Lessig is particularly concerned about the process-less blocking of blacklists: it may be appropriate to review how satisfactory current domestic and international law is concerning blacklisting, administrative detentions, control orders and related topics in real and across cyberspace to include the extent to which these activities can be sponsored and implemented by third parties and jurisdictions. The arguments on p269 in inverted commas need to be addressed at,in an appropriate time/setting as well as consideration of where the thus far and no further textbook boundaries may be set for the use of intellectual property.
What sort of arrangements may be able to best address the current concerns relating to broadcast content, technology, law and geography outlined on p270? What else appears to be generally relevant in this context? (including in particular the we-had-no-choice argument on p271), and on p273, how might the difficulties associated with 'The key to making this [sharing in inverted commas spectrum] possible is for every receiver to become a node in the spectrum architecture' best be handled, addressed and resolved satisfactorily? On p274, what sort of arrangements could be put in place to accommodate the preferences of groups organising their houses around x-pointed stars in consideration of the question '...if spectrum users could share spectrum without any coordination by the government, why is it any more justified to impose a property system on spectrum...?'
"A faithful reading of the framers' Constitution" quoth Prof Lessig on p275, "would strike down the regime of spectrum allocation." Quoth he further "The model for speech that the framers embraced was the model of the internet..." but surely, this would be to conflate a person's expression with the infrastructure available to convey the message on broadcast media? Separating the two, it may be sensible to elaborate how editorial independence and related matters would sit between them.
And breathe.
We have an interlude on p276 - hurrah!
In chapter 13, to what extent is it clear how the step is made that makes software code equivalent to legislation even in configurations where the former is intended to carry out some implementation of the latter? (An example is offered on pp159-60 of Free Culture, where software embedded in a VCR implements Digital Millenium Copyright Act anti-copying provisions.)
On p288, apart from pricing power, what other issues and arguments appear to be significant concerning the mediated (non-)supply of goods and services across cyberspace? And considering the arguments on pp291-3, what does need to have to say about cyberspace-mediated slavery? There are no aphids in the protecting Hollywood section on pp295-6 and the conversations about why the industry does what it does in the way in which it does what it does need to to take place at,in an appropriate time,setting. The arguments on p309 need to be handled and addressed especially carefully. And so too the conversation prompted on p323 and arguments on p327.
There appear to be entire doctoral programmes available to address the issues presenting on page 7. (And page 11. And page 25.)
#aphids - p20, p59, p120, p121, p122, p123, p124, p125, p126, p127, p129, p130, p131, p132, p133, p135, p136, p139, p142, p143, p144, p145, p146, p151, p170, p180, p181, p182, p183, p184, p185, p186, p188, p191, p192, p193, p194, p197, p198, p199, p200, p203, p204, p206, p208, p209, p223, p233, p234, p235, p236, p237, p238, p239, p240, p241, p247, p248, p249, p250, p252, p253, p254, p255, p256, p257, p261, p262, p263, p266, p267, p268, p269, p270, p271, p272, p273, p282, p290, p291, p294, p295, p300, p301, p304, p305, p306, p314, p315, p316, p317, p318, p319, p320, p321, p322, p324
On page 20, 'It [Lessig's point] is instead to remark that this space enables more of this duality.' needs to be addressed at,in an appropriate time,setting. And similarly, the differences between over here and over there alluded to on p298.
On p22: 'Is there any constitutional problem with [a worm being placed in computer software with judicial authorization]?
I don't know, but it seems like there should be. The content of the point-bearing aphid is acknowledged. And concerning the conversation about congestion fees, to what extent do recent trends and developments in custom and practice make that one proceed in better ways? An important point to make would be that the next time one of our guys, gals or Xs over there is picked, we need to know which one it is and to develop proper modalities to handle their stack. Considering the content of p62, has Lawrence Lessig ever met Sir Nigel Sheinwald? To what extent is the two-step aphid an enabler of the low for those whom the we feel contempt, of the middle for those whom the we feel indifferent, and of the high for whose deemed by the we to be either righteous or exquisite, if not both?
On p23, the 4-ness difficulties associated with regulability need to be addressed at,in an appropriate time,setting.
On p24, 'Why can't we imagine an Internet or a cyberspace where behavio(u)r can be controlled because code now enables that control?' may beg the question as to which behavio(u)r would the we wish to control and why, and to what extent could the we be tempted to substitute choice for behavio(u)r? How concerned should the rest be about that? (see also arguments on p38). On p204, 'Controlling employees (or spouses) is one important new use of e-mail technologies.' appears to beg the questions.
The interpretation of the picture painted on p28 needs to be de-convoluted and the nature of Prof Lessig's concerns should be formalised.
On page 37, to what extent are-can difficulties of anonymity be resolved by modern cell [mobile] phone technology? What else may be relevant in the context of the content of chapter three?
Considering the arguments on pp68-70, is it clear what the components of a digitalID would consist of? What arrangements would be needed to make sure that tracking, identification and content-harvesting processes function in the spirit of the fourth amendment? And what arrangements would be needed to make sure there are no cyber-stateless citizens? And to make sure there are no citizens in cyber-administrative or cyber-indefinite detention? The arguments on p76 appear to have some basic weaknesses; and also in the paragraph beginning "I have spent many pages making a point that some may find obvious." on p77. What else may be relevant with respect to the nature of choice in the arguments on p78? Is enoughfulness a word? Sufficiency may be better, and again "in inverted commas". Considering the argument at the end of p80, how might (an) appropriate separation(s) of government and commerce be configured? And considering the arguments on p209, how much surveillance is enough?
Is it possible to elaborate a more compelling definition of cyberspace than the prose on offer on pp83-5 that can include the aphids on pp86-8 in its sentences? And on pp97-102, to what extent are the goings-on in the LambdaMOO space a new and fast variation of an old theme in a frathouse setting? What sort of arrangements may be available to work through the law of cyberspace, per the content of pp102-106 in such a way to prevent an aphid-schmayphid fire? And on p109, there appear to be doctoral programmes available to develop the legal interpretations of arguments projected on or reflected by the over there in a suitably elaborated definition of cyberspace. What sort of boundary conditions may be available to elaborate decent interfaces between the corporation and the staffers on its payroll between real and cyberspace? On p114, it may be desirable to elaborate what the end of better to good regulation of cyberspace would be.
On pp138-9, what may "The key criticism that I've identified so far is transparency...Now that's not saying much, at least about us. And there's nothing about cyberspace to suggest things are going to be different.." assume? What else appears to be significant in this context? On p143, be careful with "My own intuition about that is different." for reasons that should be addressed at,in an appropriate time/setting.
The arguments on pp155-6 point to a need for the law to account for the regulatory effect of code: apologies if I'm jumping the gun here - if programmers can have a passport that is properly defined for cyberspace, surely the law in the first instance ought to have the effect of saying only a certain pool of programmers can interact with an object either in cyberspace or within a network that has territorial boundaries in certain ways and that would include a prohibition on turning human beings (who have a right to be the subject of certain conversations) into objects, picking them up and putting them somewhere else across or within cyberspace (ah - some of this is addressed on p226; on p258, how decent are zoning arrangements and also those to allow for proper challenge, and where these are either unsatisfactory or non-existent, what measures may exist in infrastructures elsewhere in real space that can allow for functional lives to develop that can find their way in the world both beyond as well as within two county lines?). What else appears to be particularly relevant in this context? The translation argument on p156 seems a little nihilistic. The warrant requirement is placed in inverted commas on p158 in the question "So why the 'warrant requirement'?" and both appear to require particularly careful handling, as well as the arguments running through the rest of the chapter. And on p201, what would the laws of cyberspace need to include to prevent citizens from being picked up, put over there and talked about, even in inverted commas?
There appear to be some basic difficulties with the arguments on pp210-4 that need to be addressed at,in an appropriate time, setting. As well as an elaborated answer to question three on p217: answers two and four appear to be particularly unsatisfactory. On p218, it may be decent to elaborate what the implicit charge in "The burden is on you, the monitored, first to establish your innocence..." would be and which [organised crime-backed?!] law enforcement agency would sponsor it. The arguments on the rest of the page and the aphids on p219 appear to present some particular difficulties.
The questions on p220 appear to be interesting and can be addressed at,in an appropriate time and setting. How might the law distinguish between manipulation on the one hand and coercion on the other, and what are considered to be facts in each case and how are/might determinations (/be) made about what matters?
To what extent do the arguments on pp224-5 hold true? And on p229, to what extent does Prof Lessig need to turn the reader's inalienable right into a liability rule in order for him to be able to exercise his privilege, and in doing so, to what extent would that set aside the reader's 13th amendment rights in the US and be in breach of part one of the Modern Slavery Act in the UK? And to what extent might the general welfare be enhanced by spacializing privacy as opposed to propertizing it, and if these concepts boil down to the same thing, would it be easier to compile the ground rules?
On p242, how might it be possible to frame and pose a better question than 'How can we reestablish credibility in this space so that it is not lost to the loons?' On p263, Prof Lessig is particularly concerned about the process-less blocking of blacklists: it may be appropriate to review how satisfactory current domestic and international law is concerning blacklisting, administrative detentions, control orders and related topics in real and across cyberspace to include the extent to which these activities can be sponsored and implemented by third parties and jurisdictions. The arguments on p269 in inverted commas need to be addressed at,in an appropriate time/setting as well as consideration of where the thus far and no further textbook boundaries may be set for the use of intellectual property.
What sort of arrangements may be able to best address the current concerns relating to broadcast content, technology, law and geography outlined on p270? What else appears to be generally relevant in this context? (including in particular the we-had-no-choice argument on p271), and on p273, how might the difficulties associated with 'The key to making this [sharing in inverted commas spectrum] possible is for every receiver to become a node in the spectrum architecture' best be handled, addressed and resolved satisfactorily? On p274, what sort of arrangements could be put in place to accommodate the preferences of groups organising their houses around x-pointed stars in consideration of the question '...if spectrum users could share spectrum without any coordination by the government, why is it any more justified to impose a property system on spectrum...?'
"A faithful reading of the framers' Constitution" quoth Prof Lessig on p275, "would strike down the regime of spectrum allocation." Quoth he further "The model for speech that the framers embraced was the model of the internet..." but surely, this would be to conflate a person's expression with the infrastructure available to convey the message on broadcast media? Separating the two, it may be sensible to elaborate how editorial independence and related matters would sit between them.
And breathe.
We have an interlude on p276 - hurrah!
In chapter 13, to what extent is it clear how the step is made that makes software code equivalent to legislation even in configurations where the former is intended to carry out some implementation of the latter? (An example is offered on pp159-60 of Free Culture, where software embedded in a VCR implements Digital Millenium Copyright Act anti-copying provisions.)
On p288, apart from pricing power, what other issues and arguments appear to be significant concerning the mediated (non-)supply of goods and services across cyberspace? And considering the arguments on pp291-3, what does need to have to say about cyberspace-mediated slavery? There are no aphids in the protecting Hollywood section on pp295-6 and the conversations about why the industry does what it does in the way in which it does what it does need to to take place at,in an appropriate time,setting. The arguments on p309 need to be handled and addressed especially carefully. And so too the conversation prompted on p323 and arguments on p327.
October 6, 2016
بروفيسور لورنس ليسج يستهل الكتاب مقتنعا بضرورة تقديم تمهيد عن ما اذا كانت الشبكة تحتاج الى تنظيم ام لا وهو يتماشى مع وجهة النظر القائلة بضرورة التنظيم المحدود ويناقش
قابلية امكان ذلك من عدمه .. يبتدئ بقصة عن شخص اسمه جيك خجول وانعزالي ما يلبث ان يدخل على الشبكة وينشر نوع من القصص المخزية والتى
تلقى رواج منقطع النظير وتنتشر لدى بعض المراهقين ما يلزم رفع عريضة من ولي امر الطفل وتحاكمه المحكمة ثم لا تجد شي ضده وتطلق صراحة ليرجع
ويعاد العهر الذي يمارسه .. يناقش كيف انتشرت مثل هذه السلوكيات وما هي حدود التعبير المسموح به في شبكة الانترنت
في الفصل الاول ندخل في مغالطة هل نستطيع ان نتحكم في الشبكة ؟ يحكى ان الوهم السائد بان ذلك غير ممكن هو نتيجة لجلهنا بكيفية عمل الشبكة يضرب مثل
بجامعتي شيكاجو وهارفارد الاولى تعتنق مبادئ حرية التعبير وتجعل الاتصال سهل ومن دون رقابة الثانية تمارس العكس مع مراقبة من هنا نعلم امكانية
ممارسة شي من الرقابة .. تتنوع فصول الكتاب من الحديث عن الملكية والخصوصية والكثير من الحجج والنقاشات وفصول عن الحلول المقترحة لكن يعيب الكتاب ضخامه حجمه لذا لم استطع اكماله
قابلية امكان ذلك من عدمه .. يبتدئ بقصة عن شخص اسمه جيك خجول وانعزالي ما يلبث ان يدخل على الشبكة وينشر نوع من القصص المخزية والتى
تلقى رواج منقطع النظير وتنتشر لدى بعض المراهقين ما يلزم رفع عريضة من ولي امر الطفل وتحاكمه المحكمة ثم لا تجد شي ضده وتطلق صراحة ليرجع
ويعاد العهر الذي يمارسه .. يناقش كيف انتشرت مثل هذه السلوكيات وما هي حدود التعبير المسموح به في شبكة الانترنت
في الفصل الاول ندخل في مغالطة هل نستطيع ان نتحكم في الشبكة ؟ يحكى ان الوهم السائد بان ذلك غير ممكن هو نتيجة لجلهنا بكيفية عمل الشبكة يضرب مثل
بجامعتي شيكاجو وهارفارد الاولى تعتنق مبادئ حرية التعبير وتجعل الاتصال سهل ومن دون رقابة الثانية تمارس العكس مع مراقبة من هنا نعلم امكانية
ممارسة شي من الرقابة .. تتنوع فصول الكتاب من الحديث عن الملكية والخصوصية والكثير من الحجج والنقاشات وفصول عن الحلول المقترحة لكن يعيب الكتاب ضخامه حجمه لذا لم استطع اكماله
February 28, 2019
We have a choice in how code and the Internet rule our lives. Lessig, during the turn of the new millenium, urged us to consider this choice. The law, the market, social norms, and the architecture of code are four forces that shape our access to information and community. Lessig was early to identify many of the challenges we’re still grappling with on the web (eg. free speech, privacy, copyright). And even though many of his proposed solutions never came to fruition (eg. an identity layer, filter tags), it doesn’t mean they’re without merit. He feared that we’d live in a world where we forget that we have a choice about how information (including our own) is shared and that privacy is lost. Unfortunately, he wasn’t wrong, at least for now. Code (both legal and technical) is inevitable, but its design is not.
March 14, 2019
Brilliant foundational text. Professor Lessig is a genius, eerily predicting in 1999 many of the problems of regulation, governance, and community that we face today with respect to social media. Famous for introducing the four forces of social theory (law, markets, norms, and code), this book, despite being dated in its examples, still offers foundational insights on how we should approach tech issues today. Professor Lessig writes clearly and simply on a complex topic (I expected as much though, based on how much I enjoyed his book, Free Culture). I especially loved how he creatively weaved together principles of code and constitutional law.
July 23, 2024
Used this for my thesis on AI & Creativity. Great insights into how we should think about how technology ought to be regulated with more than just the law in mind. Makes an argument for solving tech problems at the root with architectural limitations rather than the all-too-common yet ineffective bandaid solutions that the law seems to provide.
A book that all technologists and tech policymakers should read.
A book that all technologists and tech policymakers should read.
March 24, 2023
This is a book I read and reviewed in 2015 as part of Informatics Law module at Vilnius University. Overall, I found the book an interesting read and at the time it helped me form a more realistic take on the regulation of information, sovereignty, copyright in the age of the Internet.
---
Main Argument
’s core argument in the book is a rather controversial one that initially received lots of criticism due to the, at the time, seemingly unregulated Internet. The author wrote the book in response to the general opinion that the Internet cannot be regulated by the government. In ’s opinion, the Internet can and will be regulated via means of code.
Style and Delivery
Code 2.0 tackles lots of difficult and in some ways inconvenient issues as it pertains to not only regulation in cyberspace, but decision making and balance of power in general. What is more, there’s a stigma associated with how things work on the Internet (the idea that the foundation upon which the Net was built cannot change substantially). As a result, it requires proper tools to get the reader on the right track to understanding L. ’s ideas. It is vital that the reader does not discard the author's arguments due to lack of compelling real world based scenarios. However, the author appears to have succeeded in finding these tools.
L. Lessig approaches every argument with lengthy examples that at first seem nothing or little to do with the core concepts of the book: stories from the virtual gaming world (MMOGs), “dot’s� life, etc. But in the end they offer good analogies. Because the book provides multiple examples for one problem, it is much easier to identify the pattern that relates to the raised argument.
However, in some cases the conversation slides a bit too much in favor of American life. There are numerous cases throughout the book where the reader is expected to understand how the American Law system operates (Federal Law, State Law, legislature, the Congress etc). Therefore, if you are not quite familiar with it, it may prove to be challenging at times to follow through the section. It would have made sense to include a chapter dedicated to that subject alone.
On the other hand, in other cases the content has much depth to offer. For example, the four modalities (the “dot�) serve well in the entire book and beyond. In fact, it even has a name �Pathetic dot theory�. The theory can, for example, be used to explain how smoking is regulated.
Potential Decay and Relevance
When it comes to books of such themes, it is important to evaluate the relevance of the content in the context of modern day. In 1999 the first edition of the book Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace was published. Back then it served as a response to the common belief that, as the author himself puts it, �cyberspace was beyond the reach of real-space regulation�. After a while the book started to show age � not because the arguments in the book started to contradict themselves, but because the common belief has changed. As time went on, the true believers of Internet anarchy started to fade away:
In the years since, that common view has faded. The confidence of the Internet exceptionalists has waned. The idea � and even the desire � that the Internet would remain unregulated is gone.
And so the second, more relevant, edition was published in 2006. The context was made relevant again. And yet in 2015 it makes sense to question the book’s merits again.
If anything, the years since 2006 have shown us that the book is becoming, in fact, more and more relevant. You will hardly find a person in cyberspace who still believes that the original values of the Internet are irreplaceable.
Intellectual property, copyright infringement � the very same themes of the book � are being constantly re-evaluated by the governments. Take the United States of America, for example. It has not been that long since acts such as Stop Online Piracy Act or PROTECT IP Act (both introduced in 2011) were pushed rather aggressively through Congress. The cyberspace resisted them. But it appears that these are not some isolated incidents, we can expect to observe an increasing number of such acts, all in the name of embracing cyberspace regulation.
Censorship has seen new heights since 2006 as well. In the UK, in October 2014 it was reported that Ministers were drafting legislation to compel credit card providers to carry out age checks on users before allowing access to adult websites. Again, similar ideas in this context were addressed in Code 2.0.
Therefore, it is reasonable to say that Code 2.0 still provides many relevant questions for us to answer in the current age of the Internet. And given the path we are taking, it makes sense predicting that the book will continue to be relevant for the foreseeable future.
---
Main Argument
’s core argument in the book is a rather controversial one that initially received lots of criticism due to the, at the time, seemingly unregulated Internet. The author wrote the book in response to the general opinion that the Internet cannot be regulated by the government. In ’s opinion, the Internet can and will be regulated via means of code.
Style and Delivery
Code 2.0 tackles lots of difficult and in some ways inconvenient issues as it pertains to not only regulation in cyberspace, but decision making and balance of power in general. What is more, there’s a stigma associated with how things work on the Internet (the idea that the foundation upon which the Net was built cannot change substantially). As a result, it requires proper tools to get the reader on the right track to understanding L. ’s ideas. It is vital that the reader does not discard the author's arguments due to lack of compelling real world based scenarios. However, the author appears to have succeeded in finding these tools.
L. Lessig approaches every argument with lengthy examples that at first seem nothing or little to do with the core concepts of the book: stories from the virtual gaming world (MMOGs), “dot’s� life, etc. But in the end they offer good analogies. Because the book provides multiple examples for one problem, it is much easier to identify the pattern that relates to the raised argument.
However, in some cases the conversation slides a bit too much in favor of American life. There are numerous cases throughout the book where the reader is expected to understand how the American Law system operates (Federal Law, State Law, legislature, the Congress etc). Therefore, if you are not quite familiar with it, it may prove to be challenging at times to follow through the section. It would have made sense to include a chapter dedicated to that subject alone.
On the other hand, in other cases the content has much depth to offer. For example, the four modalities (the “dot�) serve well in the entire book and beyond. In fact, it even has a name �Pathetic dot theory�. The theory can, for example, be used to explain how smoking is regulated.
Potential Decay and Relevance
When it comes to books of such themes, it is important to evaluate the relevance of the content in the context of modern day. In 1999 the first edition of the book Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace was published. Back then it served as a response to the common belief that, as the author himself puts it, �cyberspace was beyond the reach of real-space regulation�. After a while the book started to show age � not because the arguments in the book started to contradict themselves, but because the common belief has changed. As time went on, the true believers of Internet anarchy started to fade away:
In the years since, that common view has faded. The confidence of the Internet exceptionalists has waned. The idea � and even the desire � that the Internet would remain unregulated is gone.
And so the second, more relevant, edition was published in 2006. The context was made relevant again. And yet in 2015 it makes sense to question the book’s merits again.
If anything, the years since 2006 have shown us that the book is becoming, in fact, more and more relevant. You will hardly find a person in cyberspace who still believes that the original values of the Internet are irreplaceable.
Intellectual property, copyright infringement � the very same themes of the book � are being constantly re-evaluated by the governments. Take the United States of America, for example. It has not been that long since acts such as Stop Online Piracy Act or PROTECT IP Act (both introduced in 2011) were pushed rather aggressively through Congress. The cyberspace resisted them. But it appears that these are not some isolated incidents, we can expect to observe an increasing number of such acts, all in the name of embracing cyberspace regulation.
Censorship has seen new heights since 2006 as well. In the UK, in October 2014 it was reported that Ministers were drafting legislation to compel credit card providers to carry out age checks on users before allowing access to adult websites. Again, similar ideas in this context were addressed in Code 2.0.
Therefore, it is reasonable to say that Code 2.0 still provides many relevant questions for us to answer in the current age of the Internet. And given the path we are taking, it makes sense predicting that the book will continue to be relevant for the foreseeable future.
July 16, 2018
This is an insightful thesis on the intersection of code, law and public policy. It presents, quite starkly, the regulatory power of code and how it is increasingly becoming a tool of control by states and corporations. It calls for all of us to understand and deliberate how we want this regulation to occur, because it is here to stay. It is unassuming in its simplicity, exhaustive in its description and amorphous in its prescriptions - it poses important and immediate questions for us to reckon with.
January 10, 2024
The book is a gift to society and remains relevant after 25 years. It helped me gain a deeper understanding of the internet and how its architecture and regulation has evolved over time. My only gripe with it is the US-centricity and overfocus on the US constitution.
March 9, 2017
Lessig's updated version of Code 2.0 was a requirement for a computer science elective I am taking. While I wouldn't say that I would have chose this book to read if it weren't part of the course, I actually found the material quite interesting.
The governance of cyberspace is something that most governments have not figured out how to accomplish effectively. Lessig lays out a plan for how this could be accomplished. Again, if you are not overwhelmingly interested in the subject or have a desire to learn about how constitutionality applies to the internet, you may find this a bit dull. If that does interest you, however, you may find some of his ideas quite intriguing. To that end, it may be time for an update to the material. The ideas he speaks to still largely apply, but would be more impactful had they been updated with more modern examples.
The governance of cyberspace is something that most governments have not figured out how to accomplish effectively. Lessig lays out a plan for how this could be accomplished. Again, if you are not overwhelmingly interested in the subject or have a desire to learn about how constitutionality applies to the internet, you may find this a bit dull. If that does interest you, however, you may find some of his ideas quite intriguing. To that end, it may be time for an update to the material. The ideas he speaks to still largely apply, but would be more impactful had they been updated with more modern examples.
July 18, 2014
The book tackles a very interesting topic: regulation in the age of cyberspace. Now, this 2006 book is a rewritting of a 1999 book, so today it's rather dated in its more technical details. Lessig argues that the Internet is moving away from its early ideals of freedom, anonymity and decentralization. The regulatory power of code in cyberspace could make the Internet "the most regulable space of human activity". That's one of the main statements of the book, which he develops convincingly in great detail. He then analyzes the implications of the regulatory balance in cyberspaces for issues like free speech, copyright and privacy. In each case, he takes a stance based on what he sees as the American constitutional values (that is, his position is according to the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law).
Lessig is a fine writer and, as a lawyer, builds his arguments nicely, step by step, with lots of relevant examples. I mostly agree with the way he puts the problem and up to this point I find his analysis and critique spot-on. However, when it comes to solutions, it seems to me that he is technologically naive. Perhaps it isn't true. Perhaps that's what was to be expected in 2006. But in 2014, the knowledge of what has come to pass undermines the reading of his book. And it's a pity. Most of the problems he identified are still topical. Most of his legal, political and even technological critique is still valid. The examples he brings together are useful as mini-history of the recent developments of the Internet. So, if you're interested in the subject, don't let the dated parts of the book discourage you. It has plenty more to offer.
I said Lessig is a good writer, but I found it really hard to finish the book and it's hard for me to tell why. I can't pinpoint any exact and major problem with his writing, but still it feels somewhat... boring at times.
Lessig is a fine writer and, as a lawyer, builds his arguments nicely, step by step, with lots of relevant examples. I mostly agree with the way he puts the problem and up to this point I find his analysis and critique spot-on. However, when it comes to solutions, it seems to me that he is technologically naive. Perhaps it isn't true. Perhaps that's what was to be expected in 2006. But in 2014, the knowledge of what has come to pass undermines the reading of his book. And it's a pity. Most of the problems he identified are still topical. Most of his legal, political and even technological critique is still valid. The examples he brings together are useful as mini-history of the recent developments of the Internet. So, if you're interested in the subject, don't let the dated parts of the book discourage you. It has plenty more to offer.
I said Lessig is a good writer, but I found it really hard to finish the book and it's hard for me to tell why. I can't pinpoint any exact and major problem with his writing, but still it feels somewhat... boring at times.
July 24, 2011
Describes how the internet or cyberspace is being regulated and the role of code, encompassing embedded software and hardware code as well as current laws. With regulability being determined by architecture, norms, law and market forces, cyberspace may well end up being the most regulated and intrusive "space". In introducing cyberspace, it distinguishes cyberspace from the internet based on the lifespan plus the level of control and interaction e.g. internet banking vs a virtual world like Second Life. Dedicating a few chapters on latent ambiguities using real space vs cyberspace examples, it challenges the interpretation of various amendments to the US Constitution or Bill of Rights in today's context on intellectual property, privacy and free speech. It also touches on sovereignty or rather how competing ones deal with each other. It proposes the need for courts to embrace the challenge associated with latent ambiguities and to initiate and be part of the conversation, the move to increase transparency at the code level via open code as opposed to closed code and the rejection of decisions or initiatives crafted by election-funding lobbyists. Written by a then Stanford law professor currently at Harvard, who is also the founder of Creative Commons, it can lengthy and unengaging at times but it will suit persevering newbies and should also offer some light to informed netizens.
December 22, 2011
In Code: Version 2.0 Lessig gives us the best kind of general-audience academic book. He focuses on asking questions and presenting frameworks of thought, but he doesn't hide his own opinions about how those questions should be resolved. He synthesizes literature and provides good references, but in an unobtrusive way that doesn't interrupt the flow of his own writing. And most importantly, he opens the door to an exciting array of ideas.
Personally, but I found most interesting were his theories of latent ambiguities in constitutional values (an idea I've seen hinted at, but never explained, by less sophisticated constitutional theorists) and the way he works with the interaction of laws, norms, markets, and architecture. In the process he gives a useful framework for thinking about government to those of us who are skeptical about the products of contemporary American democracy.
This is the kind of book that is wonderful in its tangents. Though it's well worth reading for the main argument, the ideas and frameworks Lessig presents are applicable well beyond cyberspace for thinking about government, regulation, and the rule of law more generally.
Personally, but I found most interesting were his theories of latent ambiguities in constitutional values (an idea I've seen hinted at, but never explained, by less sophisticated constitutional theorists) and the way he works with the interaction of laws, norms, markets, and architecture. In the process he gives a useful framework for thinking about government to those of us who are skeptical about the products of contemporary American democracy.
This is the kind of book that is wonderful in its tangents. Though it's well worth reading for the main argument, the ideas and frameworks Lessig presents are applicable well beyond cyberspace for thinking about government, regulation, and the rule of law more generally.
January 9, 2012
This book goes over the new challenges that the internet introduces. Gone is the idea of a black and white geological location of anyone connected to the Net. If you buy Nazi paraphernalia (ignoring for a moment the shameful fact that there is such a thing) in France from a person in the United States you've broken the law...or have you? In France, it's illegal to buy anything Nazi-related, in the US it's not.
This is but one example of the new problems we're dealing with because of how the internet is designed. Lessig advocates the very code of the internet being the solution. You can write code that would prohibit anyone in France from even seeing anything Nazi related on the Net. But to do this, you'd have to track the location of his (or her) IP address; which raises the question of privacy. Is tracking your every mouse click, also poetically called "mouse droppings", is that an invasion of privacy? There are no clear cut answers to these questions.
He brings up some great questions and poses some interesting possible solutions. While he can ramble on a tad and he gets too much into the nuances on Constitutional Law for my liking, it's a very thought provoking book.
This is but one example of the new problems we're dealing with because of how the internet is designed. Lessig advocates the very code of the internet being the solution. You can write code that would prohibit anyone in France from even seeing anything Nazi related on the Net. But to do this, you'd have to track the location of his (or her) IP address; which raises the question of privacy. Is tracking your every mouse click, also poetically called "mouse droppings", is that an invasion of privacy? There are no clear cut answers to these questions.
He brings up some great questions and poses some interesting possible solutions. While he can ramble on a tad and he gets too much into the nuances on Constitutional Law for my liking, it's a very thought provoking book.
January 31, 2012
Very easy to read, but a bit repetitive. This is an interesting introduction to some regulation debates surrounding cyberspace.
It also proposes a specific fix to some of the problems (a coded ID system which would eliminate some of the anonymity of the web) which seems a bit too neat.
Having such a solution in the book is both a great virtue of it and a downside as well. The good part is that this solution makes the book not merely a series of paranoid criticisms, which is too often the norm in books about cyberlaw/crime/society. But it is also somewhat of a detriment, because as I read, I became much more interested in Lessig's insightful perspectives and the problems he brings up, than his solution to these problems.
It's worth at least a skim for anyone remotely interested how Internet law has changed and will continue to change. Great reading if you are interested in the SOPA/PIPA debates, though it doesn't mention it directly (yet-a future new edition should).
It also proposes a specific fix to some of the problems (a coded ID system which would eliminate some of the anonymity of the web) which seems a bit too neat.
Having such a solution in the book is both a great virtue of it and a downside as well. The good part is that this solution makes the book not merely a series of paranoid criticisms, which is too often the norm in books about cyberlaw/crime/society. But it is also somewhat of a detriment, because as I read, I became much more interested in Lessig's insightful perspectives and the problems he brings up, than his solution to these problems.
It's worth at least a skim for anyone remotely interested how Internet law has changed and will continue to change. Great reading if you are interested in the SOPA/PIPA debates, though it doesn't mention it directly (yet-a future new edition should).
March 18, 2008
This is a really terrific assessment of the current state of Information, particularly as it exists on the Internet. Lessig's biggest concerns are showing readers that the current state of the Internet has nothing to do with the essential nature of the Internet, but is rather the product of conscious choices that have been made to affect the code behind the Internet throughout its history. He also hammers home that a change in the code (or the law, norms, or market that house/effect the Internet) could drastically alter this medium that we think we know so well. Very readable and full of compelling arguments.
July 7, 2008
While this is the first of Lessig's books I've read, it seems to function as an introduction to the scope of his body of work. For that reason, and perhaps because the first edition was published in 1999, it is at times rather pedagogic, especially for someone who has grown up with the internet. His style is lucid and readable, although I think 15-20% of the text is spent talking about the arguments he is going to make, as opposed to simply making them. Still, a work of formidable intellectual vision that draws many insights about cyberspace that should have been obvious but weren't. If every member of Congress read this book, we would be much better off.
June 13, 2007
An interesting take on the internet and digital technology in general. Lessig claims that far from being an anarchy, the internet is bound rigidly by a set of laws: its code. By changing the design of the code, we change the space, the culture, the use.
Lessig argues for a series of changes which he thinks should be made to the code. Many of these deal with the intellectual property, copyright, and ownership issues which Lessig deals with at Creative Commons.
This is the older version of the book, and I hope to get my hands on the new version, soon.
Lessig argues for a series of changes which he thinks should be made to the code. Many of these deal with the intellectual property, copyright, and ownership issues which Lessig deals with at Creative Commons.
This is the older version of the book, and I hope to get my hands on the new version, soon.
March 3, 2008
Had to read this for a class, but was surprised to see I actually enjoyed it! A really easy, interesting read about the effect of the internet and technology on our culture, law and government. There is some scary stuff in here about the power of technology and what people are willing to give up in terms of human rights, just so they can have their life somewhat easier because of internet capabilities. Big Brother stuff all over the place..only it's true and Lessing shows you where and how to control its power over us.
April 22, 2010
Would have given it 2 1/2 stars if I was able to. It was okay...read it as required reading for a class..a bit of it went a bit above my head. But the majority was also a bit outdated as this was written in 1999. He has a newer version of this from 2006, and I wish I had read that instead. I believe the newer one would have different views of his ideas of controlling and regulating the Internet and whether it is possible...discussing law, code, and the ethics it involves. It was interesting, but a bit dry for me.
August 22, 2015
Discussion of the internet and related information technologies from a legal and regulatory view. An excellent presentation of constitutional issues arising from information technologies, covering such big-ticket topics as privacy, sovereignty, free speech and protection of intellectual property. I found it to be a thought-provoking and informative coverage of these issues that goes well beyond considerations surrounding information technologies.
October 5, 2007
A great book. It gives me a fresh look at how technology affects laws (and how people react to it). Lessig is one of my fav writers.
This book is a must if you want to study (or just want to know the issue around) cyberlaw. Granted, his view is more closer to the open source and anti-IPR people like me.
This book is a must if you want to study (or just want to know the issue around) cyberlaw. Granted, his view is more closer to the open source and anti-IPR people like me.
March 18, 2014
A great book - Dr. Lessig is a gifted thinker, and this book (both versions) were prescient in identifying what have become increasingly important issues surrounding the Web. It's not super accessible, but if you care about these issues, especially from a legal or policy perspective, then this book is a must-read.
August 15, 2007
I'm skeptical (and a little surprised) by Lessig's willingness to embrace a top-down architecture approach to net design, but this book is a must-read for anyone that wants to be more than just a surfer.
October 3, 2008
while i appreciate the updated-as-a-wiki sort of thing, it reads as if it were written by committee. which is very disappointing since Lessig's other books show that he is actually a fantastic writer.
Still, good info if you're into it.
Still, good info if you're into it.
January 26, 2010
This book has some fairly interesting perspectives on our situation of being in the real world and cyberspace at the same time, and what that means for everything from copyright to consumerism. However, I think it was overly wordy and got into too many side topics.
May 16, 2012
Incredibly insightful and densely packed. Lessig not only examines the implications of online design and functioning (and of the decisions made that result in and/or support both); he offers well-thought-out approaches to combating the more troubling aspects of the digital world.
March 22, 2016
The first edition of this book is slightly outdated.
But nevertheless, it is interesting to reflect on what has actually happened from the predictions of this book.
I find the language a bit boring at times, maybe because it was written by a lawyer.
But nevertheless, it is interesting to reflect on what has actually happened from the predictions of this book.
I find the language a bit boring at times, maybe because it was written by a lawyer.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 55 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.