Simply Brilliant.Acknowledging the “either / or mistake” that prevails and leads to “extremism rules”, stressing the “cost of mistrust” towards learning “regulatory humility” is fundamental for the sake of our children and the information society we want them to inherit. Unfortunately, no tangible sign of such humility anywhere around the world (be it © reform, anti counterfeiting agreements, three strike approaches, HADOPI, LOPSI 2, Digital Britain bill, etc.). In my research domain on DRM technologies, I’ve been struggling with this for several years now with limited success arguing there is a need for “managing exceptions” in DRM environments as a middle ground between the © freaks and the abolitionists holding yet another Day Against DRM on May 4th, 2010 among other initiatives. Society has stopped thinking critically and creatively. I suggest March 11th should be marked as the “Day of Regulatory Humility”, engaging people around the world to take a step back and to humbly and critically look at the issues their respective parliaments are working on.March 11th, 2010 : The First Day of Regulatory Humility… 364 days left to organize the 2011 edition. Care to join ?

Lessig invites to some form of reconciliation, essentially between freedom and control, as these forces manifest on the internet (copyright, journalism, transparency). But he fails to say why, other than some adverse reaction to "extremism". (I declare my stance for other commenters, I stand on the freedom end of the scale)He says that we need to "complement the market" in the domain of creation and journalism, but again does not say in what sense the market falls short. I am sure that investigative journalism will remain in some forms, and that it will change shape too (wikileaks). If the majority of people agree with Lessig, then you don't need democracy to sustain journalism with tax money, it should be easy to get enough subscribers. Also, who decides which kinds of journalism receives the subsidies, this inevitably leads to big and well-connected companies reaping most benefits.The question is how much journalism should we have, compared to blogs and other forms of content. Who is to say what people want? Lessig? The same problem applies to music and movies. Who is to say the right amount of creation in society? What was fundamentally wrong with the amount in the pre-copyright era?I like how Lessig does not want to use government power to support an industry, but he is ok to support artists. It's clever and humanizing. But what does it actually mean? Is the industry not composed of people too? Why do artists deserve more protection than record labels (which sponsor and invest in artists)? Finally, what is wrong with transparency causing skepticism. Is that skepticism unwarranted? Or was the blind trust unwarranted? On one hand, people know that politicians are not angels by a long-shot (on the contrary), but on the other, we're asked to believe in their benevolence and impartiality.

fantastico

I had the occasion to attend the lesson , it has been a fresh clear and stimulating analysis.Hope it will increase the awareness of the italian decision makers, which till now quite poor

The internet gives a lot of freedom, but also allows scammers more room to operate. I mean look at [url=http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=255859]this post here[/url] where someone actually copied an entire website, you wouldn't get that kind of thing happening offline without a lawsuit.