Pre-class Discussion for Jan 9

Lessig: Code 2.0

• In the last paragraph of the "Telephones" section on the bottom of page 64, Lessig states that failing to follow the laws of the US government is as bad an idea for General Motors as Ebay. Does this hold true for not-for-profit sites such as Wikipedia? Do not-for-profits pose less danger because they are not motivated by money or arguably more danger to Lessig's use of market controls simply because they won't be as beholden to the market? Ttassin 22:27, 8 January 2008 (EST)

• • I think that it depends on the non-profit. Those that depend on donations would probably be in the same position as commercial enterprises because they would lose donations due to the bad publicity from not following the law. Those non-profits that would actually gain donations from taking a principled stance on this issue, like the EFF or the ACLU, would be less susceptible. They would still be subject to any laws and regulations that were passed, but they would be less susceptible to other forms of enforcement like fines or the ensuing bad publicity. Anna 23:28, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Spar: Ruling the Waves

• Lessig and Zittrain's articles would suggest that we seem to be currently residing in the "Creative Anarchy" timeframe of Spar's analysis immediately preceding the implementation of more comprehensive rules regimes. Is the rapid rate of software and technological generation that is attributed to the internet truly unique to this wave of innovation? Regardless of the answer, does the diffuse nature of internet generativity expand the playing field enough such that we could find ourselves in the Innovation, Commercialization, and Creative Anarchy period simultaneously so that sectors of internet technology will fall into the Rules timeframe separately? Is this kind of thinking justified or solely an example of the "this time is different" mentality that Spar suggests happens during virtually every period of technological innovation? Ttassin 22:43, 8 January 2008 (EST)

• How does Spar’s fourth phase function in the context of international disputes over the proper regimes? It seems highly unlikely that the internet will lead to total political anarchy and the dissolution of national borders. Assuming then that nations will remain as they are, that we are in the “creative anarchy” phase, and that we will eventually reach the next phase, then which nations will be imposing regulations on the internet and how will these different sets of rules will be resolved when they inevitably conflict? Anna 04:14, 9 January 2008 (EST)