1. This divides the discussion into Lessig and Anti-Lessig, which seems myopic. It doesn’t seem like the starting point for a well-rounded discussion.

2. You have framed the anti-Lessig discussion.

OK – so that takes care of the low hanging fruit. If we can skip the who’s a fanboy/who’s a troll discussions that would be great. I’m here because I find professor lessig’s blog interesting and entertaining.

Now here’s the one I really question.

3. If someone’s views are truly anti-Lessig, and they get over the first two points, how likely are they to contribute their work under a Creative Commons license?

Does Professor Goldstein consider Free Culture to be among the mistaken commentaries?

The U.S. copyright law has an exemption for people with
disabilities. See Section 121. Although some authors
are complaining about receiving no royalty from copies
as allowed by Section 121, nobody is challenging the
law under equal protection.

Joseph Pietro Riolo
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>

Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this
comment in the public domain.

perhaps, but someone has to do it.

perhaps a blanket immunity for widows and orphans might be written into copyright law?

but then you would be discriminating on the basis of marital and parental status – and maybe even sexual orientation since state laws against gay marriage would exclude gays and lesbians from the copyright exemption.

then the american non-widows and non-orphans liberty union would challenge the law under equal protection… and where would this get you?

maybe the best idea is to make the law apply to everyone equally and not use the sympathetic infrigner as rhetorical hyperbole against a nominally good law.

There’s got to be plenty of lawyer-larva who would be interested in the assignment 🙂 :-).
(gotta beat suing widows and orphans)