BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

Copyfight! Copyfight!

11 comments on Copyfight! Copyfight!

Copyfight! Copyfight!
: Forbes’ Stephen Manes gave Lawrence Lessig’s new book a bad review; Lessig whined back; and now Manes delivers a good slap back to Lessig — all of which is such a great spectator sport. Says Manes, after arguing that Lessig is wrong his tally of public-domain works the devil Disney supposedly exploited:

Apparently 9-for-16 on the facts is good enough in the Emerald City of Palo Alto–hey, it’s a better ratio than the two of nine U.S. Supreme Court justices Lessig managed to win over to his flaccid arguments in the Eldred case. In his bloggy rage after being taken to task by a mere non-lawyer, Lessig demonstrates that he doesn’t really know or care what the public domain really is, apparently blinded by his grand wish that damn near everything be put there. He seems to think that anything that seems old–never mind whether it is or not–must be in the public domain. And if it isn’t, it should be.

Lessig doesn’t care much about protecting intellectual property, but he’s downright monomaniacal about the public domain.

Oh, how I wish Manes would join in the wiki-editing of Lessig’s book.

11 responses to “Copyfight! Copyfight!”

  1. Joel Avatar
    Joel

    nerd fight!

  2. Chris Tolles Avatar
    Chris Tolles

    Another skirmish in the content tribe vs. the innovation tribe.
    It’s interesting that Stephen Manes references radio in his critique of Lessig’s book – the radio guys won a very long and protracted battle with copyright holders of their day with the creation of compulsory copyright, which allowed radio stations to play music without having to get specific permission form copyright holders.
    The content tribe seems to have it all, the lawyers, the DMCA, The RIAA, THE MPAA, Stephen Manes’ snarky review, members of Congress, Disney’s auto-extension of copyright and a trillion dollars in lobbying. And all the innovation guys have going for them is owning the future.
    heh.

  3. Anil Avatar
    Anil

    I suspect from Stephen’s tone that he wouldn’t want to participate in the wiki because he would hold it in the same contempt that he holds for blogs. I am always suspect of people who think words like “lawyer” or “blogger” are insults.

  4. Steve Rhodes Avatar
    Steve Rhodes

    and Manes is known for his insults

  5. Jeff B. Avatar
    Jeff B.

    Wow, Steve. I dearly enjoyed Manes’ evisceration of Lessig (who is all hat and very few cattle, in my estimation, on the copyright issue), but that flame you link to is rather awful. Do you happen to know the context? What did Seabrook write that brought that on?
    Eh. Anyway, Joel’s got it right: Nerd Fight! Woo-hoo!

  6. Doug Lay Avatar
    Doug Lay

    Are you going to provide a link to the supposed “good slap back?” There’s nothing whatsoever impressive about the quote you lift – just some straw-man distortion/generalization and some nyaa-nyaa about the outcome of the Eldred case. BFD.

  7. Jeff Jarvis Avatar
    Jeff Jarvis

    Sorry. Link there now. Go read the whole thing; there’s lots of good rebuttal to Lessig.

  8. Doug Lay Avatar
    Doug Lay

    I read the linked article. Thank you. Gotta grant Manes at least one body-blow on Lessig – his calling out of Lessig’s fast-and-loose list of Disney public domain borrowings. And Manes does sound reasonable for a couple of paragraphs talking about the advantages of the Berne convention vs. the prior copyright regime in the US.
    Overall, though, most of the article comes off to me as paranoid smack-talk. And Manes doesn’t touch at all on the one thing that most of us computer nerds find most egregious and broken about today’s copyright law – the anti-circumvention provision (section 1201) of the DMCA.
    Take a look at the link below for more explanation of Section 1201, if you’re not already up to speed. Is the report unbiased? Of course not. But the fact-to-trash-talk ratio is a lot higher than in Manes’ article:
    http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/unintended_consequences.php

  9. Richard Bennett Avatar
    Richard Bennett

    By now it should be apparent to that research isn’t Lessig’s strong suit. I’m not sure what is, that this it definitely isn’t.
    Perhaps Lessig’s research is so appalling because he thinks he’s a “big pictures and ideas” guy who doesn’t have to sully his pure mind with meaningless facts that can only get in the way of a good screed, and perhaps he simply understands that his readers don’t read him for good information and solid analysis anyway, so why bother?
    BTW, calling file-stealers “innovators” is about as disingenuous as calling them “file sharers.” Let’s call things by their names.

  10. Richard Bennett Avatar
    Richard Bennett

    BTW, the flame Steve Rhodes links above is first rate. The recipient shows an e-mail he got from Manes calling him a dipshit and then proceeds to prove its accuracy. I seriously enjoyed it.
    See: My First Flame.

  11. Steve Rhodes Avatar
    Steve Rhodes

    I actually thought that Manes came out looking worse.
    It has been years since I read the piece, but I seem to remember that he sent the flame because he thought Seabrook was too kind in his New Yorker profile of Bill Gates (which a decade ago was one of the first pieces to use email really well in a magazine like the NYer).