Subject: Re: Lessig (was Re: As if the DMCA wasn't bad enough)
From: "Frank BENNETT (フランク ベネット )" <>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 13:03:25 +0900

On Wed, Sep 12, 2001 at 10:37:52PM -0400, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Frank BENNETT (=?iso-2022-jp?B?GyRCJVUlaSVzJS8hISVZJU0lQyVIGyhC?= ) writes:
>  > On Tue, Sep 11, 2001 at 03:01:51PM -0400, Russell Nelson wrote:
>  > > Tim O'Reilly writes:
>  > >  > Hey Russ, have you actually read Lessig yet?
>  > > 
>  > > Yup, otherwise I wouldn't be opening my trap.  He has some valid
>  > > points, but the basis of his arguments is wrong.  Code isn't law, code
>  > > isn't even *like* law.  Is it a constraint?  Yes, of course it is.
>  > > But it's a constraint that can be changed *except* when the law
>  > > prohibits it.  Code is an engineering problem.  Law is a political
>  > > problem.  I can solve engineering problems all by myself.  I don't
>  > > need anyone's permission to solve an engineering problem.
>  > 
>  > Bridges are an engineering problem too.  Societies that have rich and deep
>  > legal structures tend to build more of them.
> Not sure that there's a cause and effect relationship between those
> two facts.

If your point is that a lot of bridges are porkbarrel projects that could not
justify themselves on economic grounds, I'll grant you the aside.

If you mean to say that law is irrelevant to or inconsistent with the
expansion of choice or the improvment of life, then we differ.  As you earlier
referred to law as a "public good", though, I assume that this is not your

Frank Bennett