A glowing review Stanford law professor Larry LessigÕs book The Future of Ideas was issued by the Wharton business school scholars at the University of Pennsylvania in April 2002. WhartonÕs scholars heap praise on LessigÕs vision of an Òintellectual commonsÓ on the Internet, free of corporate and governmental rules. According to WhartonÕs breathless review of The Future of Ideas on their Knowledge@Wharton website, Lessig posits that evil Òcorporate heavyweights have begun using copyright and patent law to turn large swathes of the Internet into their own private property. [Software] code is kept secret; content is restricted. Increasingly, ideas are not free; increasingly, the fact that they are being regulated is invisible; increasingly, we are not free ø to make use of the innovations of others or to innovate ourselves.Ó
Two quick talking points to remember:
1) Lessig is a lawyer arguing against copyright and private property laws.
2) Wharton is a prominent business school giving cyber-communists like Lessig a voice.
A wealthy and successful author, professor and lawyer far left in his politics, Lessig speaks around the world in defense of the Òlittle guysÓ in cyberspace ø the hackers, the thieves and terrorists who disrupt commerce on the Internet in the name of Òfreedom of ideas.Ó In March, Lessig spoke at AustinÕs South By Southwest Interactive Internet copyright law symposium promoting his book and the destruction of copyright/private property laws as a member of the Silicon Valley-based Electronic Frontier Foundation. The EFF have (unsuccessfully) defended a number of hackers and digital thieves on the basis that electronic media on the Internet is so easy to copy and distribute it shouldnÕt be illegal at all. To Lessig, the use of Òfile-sharingÓ programs like Napster that facilitate the theft of copyrighted movies, music and books and their subsequent mass redistribution to non-paying Internet users isnÕt the problem ø itÕs the big corporations and the laws protecting copyright holders that have forced hackers to steal in protest. To Lessig, the Internet is a place where information and ideas must be free to continue innovation.
In an ironic twist on the whole Òideas are not freeÓ and corporate stifling of innovation idea put forth by LessigÕs book, Wharton scholars reviewed LessigÕs The Future of Ideas by parroting other reviewerÕs reviews. Wharton spends a long paragraph of their review quoting similarly kind words about LessigÕs book from generic leftist reviewers at The American Prospect, Salon.com and Kirkus Reviews. How innovative is it to review a book by just quoting another reviewer? IÕm sure both Lessig and Wharton would attribute this lack of innovation to the bugbear of corporate rule on the Internet. Big business has always been the bane of those working to bring about the workerÕs paradise.
Speaking of innovation and the workerÕs paradise, the only semi-innovative part of WhartonÕs review/analysis of LessigÕs book is that it frames The Future of Ideas in two bizarrely opposing ethics: Marxist communism and American Puritanism. Wharton describes LessigÕs book as Ò[p]art manifesto, part jeremiadÓ and notes that Òmanifestos and jeremiads predict the futureÓ because Òthey show us how, if only we change our ways ø If we overthrow capitalism, say, or devote ourselves to God, or wrest control of the Internet away from the powers that be ø we will not only avert disaster but will create an ideal world, a communist utopia for example, or an eternal paradise, or a thriving, truly democratic culture.Ó
(Allow me to refer you to Òquick talking point to rememberÓ number twoÉ)
Immediately following the tip of the hat to MarxÕs communist utopia, Wharton offers up a couple of paragraphs extolling the virtues of Puritanical America. Wharton claims that Lessig Òevokes a national tradition that extends back several hundred years to the Puritan ministers who taught their congregants to see themselves as sinners in the hands of an angry God, who dangled their souls over metaphorical hellfire, and then urged them to prove their faith by doing good works on earth.Ó LessigÕs secular sermon dangles us Òover the black hole of an eerily Orwellian damnation,Ó and challenges Americans Òto take the lessons of the Constitution to heart ø to liberate culture from the grip of corporate evil by revising intellectual property law, by creating online public conservancies, by ensuring neutral platforms, and by making wireless spectrum a public resource.Ó
Wait, the ÒPuritan ethicÓ so horribly reviled on college campuses for the past 35 years is suddenly the key to liberation? I thought intellectuals in America hated the outdated and restrictive Puritan ethic. I cannot remember ever having a college professor tell me Òit is AmericaÕs devotion to the Puritan ideals that has made us the most respected nation in the world.Ó IÕve never heard a bearded and balding author of pseudo-intellectual tomes say: Òthe Puritan ethic of hard work, fair play, honesty and righteousness is the very framework of the United States.Ó Never have I read an essay from a philosophy grad student that offered up the notion: ÒThe gift of AmericaÕs Puritanical past is a representative republic based on the ideals of freedom and democracy.Ó Most everything I hear is Òif America would only throw off the straightjacket of Puritanism, we could be a center of intellectual power and culture like FranceÓ or ÒWell, you know, real communism has never been tried by the Western democracies.Ó These frightening attitudes are unfortunately very common among many high-tech journalists, cyber-pundits, opinion makers and open source software developers that have no real stake (personal monetary investment) in a technology business.
The Wharton business school at UPenn, does have a stake in technology businesses in general. Although the Knowledge@Wharton review started off being very cyber-communist friendly, they ended on the more positive/more business friendly ÒPuritan ethicÓ note. Why did Wharton change horses in midstream? Was it because of the fact that Puritanism built a nation full of freedom loving people that has succeeded for over 200 years. Did they realize that communism is a brutal and oppressive failure that has murdered hundred of millions of people in the 20th Century alone?
Or it may be as simple as WhartonÕs scholars asking themselves: ÒWhich one sells more corporate subscriptions to our Knowledge@Wharton service in post 9/11 America: Puritan or commie?Ó
Would you put your faith in the Puritan ethic or do you really believe real communism hasnÕt been tried? Email me with your views.
<>
