An advertisement for copyright and patent preparation services from 1906, when copyright registration formalities were still required in the US.

Copyright infringement is the unauthorized use of works under copyright, infringing the copyright holder's "exclusive rights", such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, spread the information contained within copyrighted works, or to make derivative works. It often refers to copying "intellectual property" without written permission from the copyright holder, which is typically a publisher or other business representing or assigned by the work's creator.

Colloquial terminology[link]

Copyright infringement is often associated with the terms piracy and theft. Although piracy connotes brazen high-seas robbery and kidnapping, it has a long history of use as a synonym for certain acts which were later codified as types of copyright infringement. Theft is more strongly hyperbolic, emphasizing or exaggerating the perceived harm of infringement to copyright holders who choose to utilize their copyrights for profit; it connotes a kind of loss which infringement may not actually effect, and the U.S. Supreme Court has even ruled that infringement does not "easily" equate with theft.^[1]

"Piracy"[link]

The practice of labelling the infringement of exclusive rights in creative works as "piracy" predates statutory copyright law. Prior to the Statute of Anne 1709, the Stationers' Company of London in 1557 received a Royal Charter giving the company a monopoly on publication and tasking it with enforcing the charter. Those who violated the charter were labelled pirates as early as 1603.^[2] The term "piracy" has been used to refer to the unauthorized manufacturing and selling of works in copyright.^[3] Article 12 of the 1886 Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works uses the term "piracy" in relation to copyright infringement, stating "Pirated works may be seized on importation into those countries of the Union where the original work enjoys legal protection."^[4] Article 61 of the 1994 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) requires criminal procedures and penalties in cases of "willful trademark counterfeiting or copyright piracy on a commercial scale."^[5] Piracy traditionally refers to acts intentionally committed for financial gain, though more recently, copyright holders have described online copyright infringement, particularly in relation to peer-to-peer file sharing networks, as "piracy."^[3]

Theft[link]

Copyright holders frequently refer to copyright infringement as theft. In copyright law, infringement does not refer to theft of physical objects, but an instance where a person exercises one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder without authorization.^[6] Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft, holding, for instance, in the United States Supreme Court case Dowling v. United States (1985) that bootleg phonorecords did not constitute stolen property and that "interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright... 'an infringer of the copyright.'" In the case of copyright infringement the province guaranteed to the copyright holder by copyright law is invaded, i.e. exclusive rights, but no control, physical or otherwise, is taken over the copyright, nor is the copyright holder wholly deprived of using the copyrighted work or exercising the exclusive rights held.^[1]

Enforcement responsibility[link]

The enforcement of copyright is the responsibility of the copyright holder.^[7] Article 50 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) requires that signatory countries enable courts to remedy copyright infringement with injunctions and the destruction of infringing products, and award damages.^[5] Copyright holders have started to demand through the ACTA trade agreement that states act to defend copyright holders' rights and enforce copyright law through active policing of copyright infringement.^[8] It has also been demanded that states provide criminal sanctions for all types of copyright infringement and pursue copyright infringement through administrative procedures, rather than the judicial due process required by TRIPs.^[7]

Hollywood learned their lesson from rampant videocassette piracy and tried to have legal action taken against the new digital threat. MGM Studios filed suit against Grokster and Streamcast, for P2P file sharing services that contributed to copyright infringement.^[9] In 2005 the Supreme Court ruled in favor of MGM, others could be held liable for copyright infringement since they functioned, and indeed willfully marketed themselves, as sites for illegal downloads. The MGM v. Grokster case did not overturn the earlier Sony decision, but rather clouded the legal waters. Future designers of copyright infringement software were warned. ^[10] In addition to legal maneuvers to curb copyright infringement the industry tried different ways of distribution. Instead of waiting months after the debut of a movie to release it on DVD or video-on-demand, movies like Bubble (2005), were released on all formats at the same time. This signaled the rise of the new distribution windows for the Industry. With new changes in distribution operations comes less chance of copyright infringement upon intellectual material, but with the internet being a global entity, it will take a combination of worldwide legal agreements, an agency tasked with enforcing the crimes, and new ways of selling products to reduce copyright infringement.

Criminal liability[link]

Article 61 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) requires that signatory countries establish criminal procedures and penalties in cases of "willful trademark counterfeiting or copyright piracy on a commercial scale".^[5] Copyright holders have demanded that states provide criminal sanctions for all types of copyright infringement.^[7]

Online intermediary liability[link]

Whether Internet intermediaries are liable for copyright infringement by their users is a subject of debate and court cases in a number of countries.^[11]

Definition of intermediary[link]

Internet intermediaries were formerly understood to be internet service providers (ISPs). However, questions of liability have also emerged in relation to other Internet infrastructure intermediaries, including Internet backbone providers, cable companies and mobile communications providers.^[12]

In addition, intermediaries are now also generally understood to include Internet portals, software and games providers, those providing virtual information such as interactive forums and comment facilities with or without a moderation system, aggregators, universities, libraries and archives, web search engines, chat rooms, web blogs, mailing lists, and any website which provides access to third party content through, for example, hyperlinks, a crucial element of the World Wide Web.

Litigation and legislation[link]

Early court cases focused on the liability of Internet service providers (ISPs) for hosting, transmitting or publishing user-supplied content that could be actioned under civil or criminal law, such as libel, defamation, or pornography.^[13] As different content was considered in different legal systems, and in the absence of common definitions for "ISPs," "bulletin boards" or "online publishers," early law on online intermediaries' liability varies widely from country to country. The first laws on online intermediaries' liability were passed from the mid 1990s onwards.^{[citation needed]}

The debate has shifted away from questions about liability for specific content, including that which may infringe copyright, towards whether online intermediaries should be generally responsible for content accessible through their services or infrastructure.^[14]

The U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (1998) and the European E-Commerce Directive (2000) provide online intermediaries with limited statutory immunity from liability for copyright infringement. Online intermediaries hosting content that infringes copyright are not liable, so long as they do not know about it and take actions once the infringing content is brought to their attention. In U.S. law this is characterized as "safe harbor" provisions, and in European law as the "mere conduit" principle.

Peer-to-peer issues[link]

Peer-to-peer file sharing intermediaries have been denied access to safe harbor provisions in relation to copyright infringement. Legal action against such intermediaries, such as Napster, are generally brought in relation to principles of secondary liability for copyright infringement, such as contributory liability and vicarious liability.^[15]

The BitTorrent protocol: In this animation, the colored bars beneath all of the 7 clients in the upper region above represent the file, with each color representing an individual piece of the file. After the initial pieces transfer from the seed (large system at the bottom), the pieces are individually transferred from client to client. The original seeder only needs to send out one copy of the file for all the clients to receive a copy. To stop animation, click browser's Stop or hit ESC key.

These types of intermediaries do not host or transmit infringing content, themselves, but may be regarded in some courts as encouraging, enabling or facilitating infringement by users. These intermediaries may include the author, publishers and marketers of peer-to-peer networking software, and the websites that allow users to download such software. In the case of the BitTorrent protocol, intermediaries may include the torrent tracker and any websites or search engines which facilitate access to torrent files. Torrent files don't contain copyrighted content, but they may make reference to files that do, and they may point to trackers which coordinate the sharing of those files. Some torrent indexing and search sites, such as The Pirate Bay, now encourage the use of magnet links, instead of direct links to torrent files, creating another layer of indirection; using such links, torrent files are obtained from other peers, rather than from a particular website.

Since the late 1990s, copyright holders have taken legal actions against a number of peer-to-peer intermediaries, such as Napster, Grokster, eMule, SoulSeek, BitTorrent and Limewire, and case law on the liability of Internet service providers (ISPs) in relation to copyright infringement has emerged primarily in relation to these cases.^[16]

Nevertheless, whether and to what degree any of these types of intermediaries have secondary liability is the subject of ongoing litigation. The decentralised structure of peer-to-peer networks, in particular, does not sit easily with existing laws on online intermediaries' liability. The BitTorrent protocol established an entirely decentralised network architecture in order to distribute large files effectively, and recent developments in peer-to-peer technology towards more complex network configurations are said to have been driven by a desire to avoid liability as intermediaries under existing laws.^[17]

Countries where sharing files without profit is legal[link]

Downloading copied music is legal in some countries in the context of the copyright, such as Canada,^[18] The Netherlands,^[19] Spain,^[20] and Panama, provided that the songs are not sold. In Canada it is legal to download any copyrighted file as long as it is for noncommercial use, but it is illegal to distribute the copyrighted files (e.g. by uploading them to a P2P network).^[21]

Russian law[link]

Downloading music and films for home use is legal due to exception provided by section 1273 of Russian Federation Civil Code. A special 1% compensatory levy intended for copyright holders is collected from the price of certain goods (like computers or clean CD-RW disks).^{[citation needed]} The compensation mechanism is unclear, though, and left entirely in the hands of the collecting agency established at the same time, with Nikita Mikhalkov, a prominent film director and political figure, at its helm.^{[citation needed]}

See also[link]

This "see also" section may contain an excessive number of suggestions. Please ensure that only the most relevant suggestions are given and that they are not red links, and consider integrating suggestions into the article itself. (November 2011)

For a substantial discussion of copyright infringement in the domain of computer programs, see copyright infringement of software.

References[link]

Further reading[link]

• Johns, Adrian: Piracy. The Intellectual Property Wars from Gutenberg to Gates. The University of Chicago Press, 2009, ISBN 978-0-226-40118-8
• Rosen, Ronald (2008). Music and Copyright. Oxford Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-533836-7. 
• Joe Karaganis, ed. (2011). Media Piracy in Emerging Economies. Social Science Research Council. ISBN 978-0-9841257-4-6. 

External links[link]

• A 2000 Salon.com article by Courtney Love addressing copyright infringement of music
• A 2001 reprint of two speeches given by Thomas Macaulay in Parliament in 1841, when the issue of copyright was being hammered out.
• A 2003 article on CD Piracy in China from the music webzine www.CLUAS.com
• A 2008 article illustrating the effect of piracy on video games
• An article for students explaining the difference between plagiarism and copyright infringement
• How Corporate Law Inhibits Social Responsibility
• Movie and Record Industry Piracy Figures Incendiary, But Not Fact. – June 2006 MP3 Newswire article challenges inflated copyright infringement claims by media companies
• US Copyright Office

v t e Copyright law by country Copyright Acts by country · Copyright case law by country · Copyright terms by country · International copyright agreements (by country) · Rule of the shorter term Africa Egypt · South Africa Americas Argentina · Canada · Chile · United States Asia Afghanistan · Azerbaijan · China (Hong Kong) · India · Iran · Japan · Jordan · Malaysia · Pakistan · Philippines · Tajikistan · Thailand Europe European Union France · Germany · Greece · Ireland · Italy · Netherlands · Poland · Spain · United Kingdom Other countries Russia (USSR · Russian Federation) · Serbia · Switzerland · Turkey Oceania Australia · New Zealand Category:Copyright law by country · Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights

Richard O'Dwyer is a 24-year-old in Sheffield, England,^[1] whom the US Justice Department has been seeking to extradite from the UK since May 2011 in relation to alleged copyright infringement on his website TVShack.net. The Southern District Court in New York has charged O'Dwyer with conspiracy to commit copyright infringement and criminal infringement of copyright. Each charge carries a maximum sentence of five years. Richard O'Dwyer's lawyers opposed extradition and argued that any criminal prosecution should be brought in the UK, as TVShack was not hosted on American servers. On 13 January 2012, a UK Magistrate ruled that O'Dwyer can be extradited to US to face copyright infringement allegations.^[2][3] The extradition order has been approved by UK Home Secretary Theresa May.^[4] O'Dwyer has appealed against the extradition.^[5]

Personal life[link]

O’Dwyer is a student of Interactive Media with Animation at Sheffield Hallam University.^[6]

TVShack[link]

O'Dwyer established the website TVShack at the domain name TVShack.net in December 2007.^[7][8] The site, which had the categories Movies, Television, Anime, Music and Documentaries, included the disclaimer 'TV Shack is a simple resource site. All content visible on this site is located at 3rd party websites. TV Shack is not responsible for any content linked to or referred from these pages.'^[9] The site stated that it was governed under the law of 'Sweden, the country in which this site is based and from which all services are provided.'^[10]

Domain seizure[link]

On 30 June 2010 US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials seized seven domains for "violations of Federal criminal copyright infringement laws". This action was authorized by the warrant issued by the Manhattan Federal Court following a request by the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York. The Manhattan US Attorney Office alleged that the seven websites engaged in "criminal copyright infringement" and were "involved in the illegal distribution of copyrighted movies and television programs over the Internet".

Besides O'Dwyer's TVShack.net, the other domains involved were Movies-Links.tv, FilesPump.com, Now-Movies.com, PlanetMoviez.com, ThePirateCity.org and ZML.com. TVShack was, along with five other websites, described as a "linking website", providing "access or links to other websites where pirated movies and television programs are stored". The seventh website, ZML.COM was described as a "cyberlocker".

The domain seizures was undertaken by the Complex Frauds and Asset Forfeiture Unit of the ICE in partnership with the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center. Assistant United States Attorneys Thomas G.A. Brown, Rebecca Rohr, Joseph Facciponti, Jason Hernandez, and Michael Ferrara, were in charge of the investigation.^[11][12] At the time Kevin Suh, Vice President of Content Protection for the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) said the domain seizure was the “largest takedown of illegal movie and television websites in a single action by the federal government.”^[13]

Move to TVShack.cc domain[link]

Within a few days of the TVShack.net domain seizure, TVShack was moved to the TVShack.cc domain.^[14]

Filesharing website Zeropaid noted 'Whether or not one agrees with the methods of the sites that were raided, it does start to call in to question the effectiveness of the raids conducted by ICE (Immigration Customs Enforcement from the US). If these raids only serve to be little more than a minor inconvenience to some of these sites, would this effort to stop these sites be a waste?'^[15]

November seizure[link]

In late November 2010, roughly five months after the initial seizure, a second operation saw a total of at least 82 domains seized by the ICE. This included TVShack.cc.^[16]

O'Dwyer was visited by UK and US police at this time, and some computer equipment was seized.^[17] O'Dwyer's mother stated that he shut down the website the next day.^[18]

US charges and extradition request[link]

In May 2011 the US Justice Department, through the London US embassy, asked for Richard O'Dwyer to be extradited to the US under the Extradition Act 2003.^[19] The extradition request follows the Southern District Court in New York bringing two charges against Richard O'Dwyer for criminal copyright infringement in relation to TVShack.net. The two charges, conspiracy to commit copyright infringement and criminal infringement of copyright, each carry a maximum sentence of five years.^[20]

When the extradition request was made in May 2011, O'Dwyer spent one night in Wandsworth prison before arrangements were made for bail. On 14 June 2011, he then appeared before the Westminster magistrates court for a preliminary hearing regarding the extradition request.^[18] O'Dwyer's barrister opposed extradition and argued that any criminal prosecution should be brought in the UK, as TVShack was not hosted on American servers.^[21] The hearing for the extradition was scheduled for 12 September.^[20] On 13 January 2012, a judge ruled that O'Dwyer can be extradited to US to face copyright infringement allegations.^[2][3]

In February 2012, businessman Alki David undertook to fund O'Dwyer's defence, in the event of him standing trial in the USA.^[6] David Cook of Pannone Solicitors, who successfully represented defendants in some of the UK's leading cybercrime cases, also undertook to assist in the O'Dwyer case on a pro bono basis.

On 9 March 2012, Theresa May approved the extradition of Richard O'Dwyer to the United States.^[4] On 21 March 2012, an appeal against the extradition was lodged on Richard O'Dwyer's behalf.^[5]

Legal objections[link]

US and UK copyright offences[link]

According to the Open Rights Group UK citizens should not be subject to US legal standards on copyright infringement.^[22] Iain Connor from Pinsent Masons said "It appears that US copyright owners are seeking to rely on the Extradition Act and the US case law to secure a prosecution for the authorisation of copyright infringement by the provision of links to infringing content." He observed that "US companies are likely to try and secure a conviction in the US where they know that they could succeed on the basis of an offence of authorising copyright infringement," and that in the UK "the only case where this was looked at was the 'TV Links' case" where it had proved unsuccessful."^[18][22]

Despite these protestations, during O'Dwyer's extradition hearing, it was held by the Judge that the offences alleged were also illegal under UK law. Whereas TV-Links was able to successfully argue it was a 'mere conduit' under the EU Electronic Commerce Regulations 2002, aggregating content 'they did not select or modify', O'Dwyer had exerted considerable control over the content hosted on TV-Shack, and therefore the allegations, if true, constituted a crime in the UK.^[14]

Jurisdiction[link]

In June 2011 Richard O'Dwyer's mother said she is "baffled" why a case with no direct links to the US should be heard in the US.^[18] Mrs O’Dwyer argued that “if Richard has done something wrong it is right it is dealt with,” but that "it doesn’t seem right that Richard, who hasn’t been to America since he was five years old, should be taken there. No one would be able to visit him and he could be waiting in prison for a couple of years before his case is even heard. He should be tried here.”^[21] At the preliminary hearing for the extradition request Richard O'Dwyer's barrister Ben Cooper argued that "the server was not based in the US at all", and that "Mr O'Dwyer did not have copyrighted material on his website; he simply provided a link. The essential contention is that the correct forum for this trial is in fact here in Britain, where he was at all times."^[18]

Calling the extradition request for Richard O'Dwyer "absurd", the Open Rights Group warned that lacking certainty about jurisdiction is "potentially opening an individual to dozens of prosecutions" for copyright infringement.^[22]

2003 US–UK Extradition Treaty[link]

There has been criticism of the Extradition Act 2003 in the UK in respect of the cases of Gary McKinnon and the NatWest Three.^[21] In particular, the Act has been criticised for reducing the level of evidence required for extradition from the UK to US from prima facie evidence to 'reasonable suspicion', and for allowing extradition to proceed on the basis of offences in US, rather than UK law. In addition, the standard of proof required for extradition from the US to UK is different, in accordance with the Fourth Amendment – the standard of 'probable cause'.

When in opposition the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats criticised the Extradition Act 2003 and in September 2010 Home Secretary Theresa May an independent review of all extradition arrangements was begun.^[18] The review, completed in September 2011, concluded that the 'reasonable suspicion' and 'probable cause' tests had 'no significant difference', and that there was no imbalance in this respect. Moreover, the UK extradition procedure was found to be more elaborate, and more difficult to achieve, than that from the US. In respect of the NatWest Three, the report noted that the extradition evidence had been prepared according to the standards of the pre-2003 Treaty, and that was therefore no grounds to criticise the 2003 Treaty in respect of this case.^[23]

A forum bar amendment to the Extradition Act was included in the Police and Justice Act 2006, but has not been brought into effect. The unimplemented bar provision indicates that extradition would be barred if 'a significant part of the conduct alleged to constitute the extradition offence is conduct in the United Kingdom' and 'in view of that and all the other circumstances, it would not be in the interests of justice for the person to be tried for the offence in the requesting territory.' taking into account 'whether the relevant prosecution authorities in the United Kingdom have decided not to take proceedings against the person in respect of the conduct in question'.

Civil liberties groups have called on the government to effect the forum clause into UK law in relation to the extradition request for Richard O'Dwyer, amid concerns over whether the US courts are the appropriate legal forum. According to Liberty "Enacting the forum amendment would have been quite simple. It's not that we're arguing that in every case where activity has taken place here we shouldn't allow people to be extradited. But we should at least be leaving our judges some discretion to look at the circumstances."^[18] According to Liberty the forum clause would allow UK courts to "bar extradition in the interests of justice where conduct leading to an alleged offence has quite clearly taken place on British soil."^[22]

The 2011 Extradition review however concluded that the forum bar clause 'would require the judge to consider the evidence available to the requesting State and the evidence available to the domestic prosecution authorities. It would also require scrutiny of the prosecution decision making process.', and that to do this would be 'time consuming, costly and undermine the efficient and effective operation' of the Act.^[23]

See also[link]

• Gary McKinnon
• Hew Raymond Griffiths

References[link]

External links[link]

• TVShack.net
• Blog of Julia O'Dwyer (Richard O'Dwyer's mother)

Lawrence Lessig
Born	(1961-06-03) June 3, 1961 (age 51) Rapid City, South Dakota, U.S.
Occupation	Founder, Creative Commons Founder, Stanford Center for Internet and Society Professor, Harvard Law School
Spouse	Bettina Neuefeind
Website
lessig.org

Interview with Lawrence Lessig in 2009.

Lawrence "Larry" Lessig (born June 3, 1961) is an American academic and political activist. He is best known as a proponent of reduced legal restrictions on copyright, trademark, and radio frequency spectrum, particularly in technology applications, and he has called for state-based activism to promote substantive reform of government with a Second Constitutional Convention.^[1]

He is a director of the Edmond J. Safra Foundation Center for Ethics at Harvard University and a professor of law at Harvard Law School. Prior to rejoining Harvard, he was a professor of law at Stanford Law School and founder of its Center for Internet and Society. Lessig is a founding board member of Creative Commons, and also is on the board of MapLight.^[2] He is on the advisory boards of the Sunlight Foundation^[3] and Americans Elect.^[4] He is a former board member of the Free Software Foundation, Software Freedom Law Center and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.^[5]

Academic career[link]

Born in Rapid City, South Dakota, Lessig grew up in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, and earned a B.A. in Economics and a B.S. in Management (Wharton School) from the University of Pennsylvania, an M.A. in philosophy from the University of Cambridge (Trinity) in England, and a Juris Doctor from Yale Law School in 1989. After graduating from law school, he clerked for a year for Judge Richard Posner, at the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, Illinois and another year for Justice Antonin Scalia at the Supreme Court.^[6]

Lessig started his academic career at the University of Chicago Law School, where he was Professor from 1991 to 1997. From 1997 to 2000, he was at Harvard Law School, holding for a year the chair of Berkman Professor of Law, affiliated with the Berkman Center for Internet & Society.^[6] He subsequently joined Stanford Law School, where he established the school's Center for Internet and Society.^[7]

Lessig returned to Harvard in December 2008 as Professor and Director of the "Edmond J. Safra Foundation Center for Ethics".^[8]

Political activism[link]

Lessig is currently considered politically liberal. As a law clerk, however, he worked for both Judge Richard Posner and Justice Antonin Scalia, two influential conservative judges.

Lessig has emphasized in interviews that his philosophy experience at Cambridge radically changed his values and career path. Previously, he had held strong conservative or libertarian political views, desired a career in business, was a highly active member of Teenage Republicans, serving as the Youth Governor for Pennsylvania through the YMCA Youth and Government program^[9] in 1978 and almost pursued a Republican political career.

What was intended to be a year abroad at Cambridge convinced him instead to stay another two years to complete a graduate degree in philosophy there and develop his changed political values. During this time, he also traveled in the Eastern Bloc, so acquiring a lifelong interest in Eastern European law and politics.

Lessig refuses to embrace conventional libertarianism. While Lessig remains skeptical of government intervention, he favors regulation by calling himself "a constitutionalist". In his blog, Lessig came out in favor of then-Democratic primary candidate Barack Obama, citing the transformative nature of Obama's campaign as one of his chief reasons. On one occasion, Lessig also commended the John McCain campaign for discussing fair use rights in a letter to YouTube where it took issue with YouTube for indulging overreaching copyright claims leading to the removal of various campaign videos.^[10]

In a speech in 2011, Lessig revealed that he was disappointed with Obama's performance in office, criticizing it as a "betrayal", and he criticized the president for using "the (Hillary) Clinton playbook".^[11] Lessig has called for state governments to call for a national constitutional convention,^[12] and that the convention be populated by a "random proportional selection of citizens" which he suggested would work effectively. He said "politics is a rare sport where the amateur is better than the professional."^[12]

Constitutional convention[link]

In 2010, Lessig began to organize for a national constitutional convention.^[13] He co-founded Fix Congress First! with Joe Trippi.^[14] Lessig called for a convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution^[15] in a September 24–25, 2011 conference co-chaired by the Tea Party Patriots' national coordinator,^[16] in Lessig's October 5 book, Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress – and a Plan to Stop It,^[17] and at the Occupy protest in Washington, DC.^[18] Reporter Dan Froomkin said the book offers a manifesto for the Occupy Wall Street protestors, focusing on the core problem of corruption in both political parties and their elections.^[19] Lessig's initial constitutional amendment would allow legislatures to limit political contributions from non-citizens, including corporations, anonymous organizations, and foreign nationals, and he also supports public campaign financing and electoral college reform to establish the one person, one vote principle.^[20] Lessig's web site convention.idea.informer.com allows anyone to propose and vote on constitutional amendments.^[21]

Rootstrikers[link]

Change Congress, founded by Lessig and Joe Trippi, the Fix Congress First project, and the Rootstrikers project were created to help volunteers to address the problem of money in politics.^[22][23] In November 2011, Lessig announced all three projects would become part of the "United Republic". http://unitedrepublic.org/.  organization, along with Dylan Ratigan’s Get Money Out campaign.^[24][25]

Money in politics[link]

At the iCommons iSummit 07, Lessig announced that he will stop focusing his attention on copyright and related matters and will work on political corruption instead.^[26] This new work may be partially facilitated through his wiki, "Lessig Wiki", which he has encouraged the public to use to document cases of corruption.^[27] Lessig criticized the revolving door phenomenon in which legislators and staffers leave office to become lobbyists and have become beholden to special interests.^[28]

In February 2008, a Facebook group formed by law professor John Palfrey encouraged him to run for Congress from California's 12th congressional district, the seat vacated by the death of U.S. Representative Tom Lantos.^[29] Later that month, after forming an "exploratory project", the decision was made not to run for the vacant seat.^[30]

Despite having decided to forgo running for Congress himself, Lessig remained interested in attempting to change Congress to reduce corruption.^[30] To this end, he worked with political consultant Joe Trippi to launch a web based project called "Change Congress".^[31] In a press conference on March 20, 2008, Lessig explained that he hoped the Change Congress website would help provide technological tools voters could use to hold their representatives accountable and reduce the influence of money on politics.^[32] He is a board member of MAPLight.org, a nonprofit research group illuminating the connection between money and politics.

Lessig has known president Barack Obama since their days of both teaching law at the University of Chicago, and had been mentioned as a candidate to head the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates the telecommunications industry.^[33] However, this position is now held by Julius Genachowski.^[34]

At his talk at the 2009 Aspen Ideas Festival, Professor Lessig talked about Forbin Problems in a talk entitled Will Technology Change Our Lives?^[35] and also about his idea that the American public has lost faith in the central institution of our democracy, Congress.^[36]

Internet and computer activism[link]

"Code is law"[link]

In computer science, "code" typically refers to the text of a computer program (the source code). In law, "code" can refer to the texts that constitute statutory law. In his book Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace, Lessig explores the ways in which code in both senses can be instruments for social control, leading to his dictum that "Code is law." Lessig later updated his work in order to keep up with the prevailing views of the time and released the book as Code: Version 2.0 in December 2006.

Legislative reform[link]

Despite presenting an anti-regulatory standpoint in many fora, Lessig still sees the need for legislative enforcement of copyright. He has called for limiting copyright terms for creative professionals to five years, but believes that introducing the bureaucratic procedure needed to renew trademarks, by making copyright need to be renewed for up to 75 years after this five year term, would mean that creative professionals' work, many of the independent, would become more easily and quickly available.^[37] Lessig has repeated taken a stance that privatization through legislation like that seen in the 1980s in the UK with British Telecommunications is not the best way to help the Internet grow. He said, "When government disappears, it's not as if paradise will take its place. When governments are gone, other interests will take their place," "My claim is that we should focus on the values of liberty. If there is not government to insist on those values, then who?" "The single unifying force should be that we govern ourselves." ^[38]

Free Culture[link]

In 2002, Lessig received the Award for the Advancement of Free Software from the Free Software Foundation (FSF), and on March 28, 2004 he was elected to the FSF's Board of Directors.^[39] In 2006, Lessig was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.^[40] Lessig is also a well-known critic of copyright term extensions.

He proposed the concept of "Free Culture".^[41] He also supports free software and open spectrum.^[42] At his Free Culture keynote at the O'Reilly Open Source Convention 2002, half of his speech was about software patents, which he views as a rising threat to both free/open source software and innovation.

Lessig and Jimmy Wales at the iCommons iSummit07 in Dubrovnik.

In March 2006, Lessig joined the board of advisors of the Digital Universe project.^[43] A few months later, Lessig gave a talk on the ethics of the Free Culture Movement at the 2006 Wikimania conference.

Lessig claimed in 2009 that, because 70% of young people obtain digital information from illegal sources, the law should be changed.^[44]

Net neutrality[link]

Lessig has long been known to be a supporter of Net Neutrality. In 2006, he testified before the US Senate that he believed Congress should ratify Powell's four Internet freedoms and add a restriction to access-tiering, i.e. he does not believe content providers should be charged different amounts. The reason is that the Internet, under the neutral end-to-end design is an invaluable platform for innovation, and the economic benefit of innovation would be threatened if large corporations could purchase faster service to the detriment of newer companies with less capital. However, Lessig has supported the idea of allowing ISPs to give consumers the option of different tiers of service at different prices. He was reported on CBC News as saying that he has always been in favour of allowing internet providers to charge differently for consumer access at different speeds. He said, "Now, no doubt, my position might be wrong. Some friends in the network neutrality movement as well as some scholars believe it is wrong - that it doesn't go far enough. But the suggestion that the position is 'recent' is baseless. If I'm wrong, I've always been wrong." ^[45]

Combating sexual abuse[link]

In May 2005, it was revealed that Lessig had experienced sexual abuse by the director at the American Boychoir School which he had attended as an adolescent.^[46] Lessig reached a settlement with the school in the past, under confidential terms. He revealed his experiences in the course of representing another student victim, John Hardwicke, in court.^[47] In August 2006, he succeeded in persuading the New Jersey Supreme Court to restrict the scope of immunity radically, which had protected nonprofits that failed to prevent sexual abuse from legal liability.^[48]

Media references[link]

Lessig appears as a character in a 2005 episode of the television political drama The West Wing ("The Wake Up Call", season 6, episode 14). Lessig’s character, portrayed by Christopher Lloyd, is intended to be a realistic depiction including such details as citing his book The Future of Ideas and his expertise in Eastern European constitutional law.^[49]

Artist group Monochrom performed a "Love Song for Lessig" on Boing Boing TV in the November 15, 2007 episode.^[50] The German term "lässig" (meaning "cool" or "relaxed") is pronounced the same as Lessig's last name, and "Love Song for Lessig" uses the homonym for humor.

"Prometeus - The Media Revolution", a video produced by Italian internet consulting company Casaleggio Associati that attempts to predict the future of media over the next 40 to 50 years, proposes Lawrence Lessig to become the new US Secretary of Justice and declare copyright to be illegal in 2020.

Legal challenges[link]

Lessig's political opinions on copyright law have led to legal challenges where he has attempted to put them into action without legislative change. In March 2003 he acknowledged severe disappointment with his Supreme Court defeat in the Eldred copyright-extension case, where he unsuccessfully tried to convince Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who has sympathies for de-regulation, to back his "market-based" approach to intellectual property regulation.^[51]

Notable cases[link]

• Hardwicke v. American Boychoir (representing plaintiff John Hardwicke) Pending^[48]
• Golan v. Gonzales (representing multiple plaintiffs)
• Eldred v. Ashcroft (representing plaintiff Eric Eldred) Lost
• Kahle v. Ashcroft—(also see Brewster Kahle) Dismissed
• United States v. Microsoft (special master and author of an amicus brief addressing the Sherman Act^[52])
  • Lessig was appointed special master by Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson in 1997. The appointment was vacated by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.^[53] The appellate court ruled that the powers granted to Lessig exceeded the scope of the Federal statute providing for special masters. Judge Jackson then solicited Lessig’s amicus brief.
  • Lessig himself says about this appointment: "Did Justice Jackson pick me to be his special master because he had determined I was the perfect mix of Holmes and Ed Felten? No, I was picked because I was a Harvard Law Professor teaching the law of cyberspace. Remember: So is 'fame' made."^[54]
• MPAA v. 2600 (submitted an amicus brief with Yochai Benkler in support of 2600^[55])

Personal life[link]

Lessig is married to Bettina Neuefeind, and is the father of three children (Willem, Teo, and Tess) [1].

Bibliography[link]

• Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace (2000) ISBN 978-0-465-03913-5
• The Future of Ideas (2001) ISBN 978-0-375-50578-2 - available as a free Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommerical (by-nc)
• Free Culture (2004) ISBN 978-1-59420-006-9 - available as a free Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial
• Code: Version 2.0 (2006) ISBN 978-0-465-03914-2 - available as a free Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (by-sa)
• Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy (2008) ISBN 978-1-59420-172-1 - available as a free Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (by-nc-nd)
• Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress--and a Plan to Stop It (2011) ISBN 978-0-446-57643-7

See also[link]

• 99 Percent Declaration
• Copyleft
• Free software movement
• Free content
• FreeCulture.org
• Open educational resources
• Gratis versus Libre
• Open content
• Law of the Horse
• Lobbying in the United States
• Second Constitution of the United States proposal for constitutional reform

References[link]

External links[link]

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Lawrence Lessig

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Lawrence Lessig

• Official website Lessig (includes blog 2002-2009)
• Official website Lessig Blog, v2
• Lawrence Lessig on Twitter
• Lawrence Lessig's channel on YouTube
• Lawrence Lessig at Harvard Law School
  • Profile at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics
• Rootstrikers
• Lawrence Lessig at TED Conferences
• Appearances on C-SPAN
  • C-SPAN Q&A interview with Lessig, November 20, 2011
• Lawrence Lessig on Charlie Rose
• Lawrence Lessig at the Internet Movie Database
• Works by or about Lawrence Lessig in libraries (WorldCat catalog)
• Lawrence Lessig collected news and commentary at The New York Times
• Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress—and a Plan to Stop It talk by Lawrence Lessig

Charlie Crist
44th Governor of Florida
In office January 2, 2007 – January 4, 2011
Lieutenant	Jeff Kottkamp
Preceded by	Jeb Bush
Succeeded by	Rick Scott
35th Attorney General of Florida
In office January 7, 2003 – January 2, 2007
Governor	Jeb Bush
Preceded by	Richard Doran
Succeeded by	Bill McCollum
21st Education Commissioner of Florida
In office January 2001 – January 2003
Governor	Jeb Bush
Preceded by	Tom Gallagher
Succeeded by	Jim Horne
Personal details
Born	Charles Joseph Crist, Jr. (1956-07-24) July 24, 1956 (age 55) Altoona, Pennsylvania
Political party	Independent (2010–present)
Other political affiliations	Republican Party (1986–2010)
Spouse(s)	Amanda Morrow (1979–1980) Carole Rome (2008–present)
Residence	St. Petersburg, Florida
Alma mater	Florida State University Samford University
Profession	Lawyer
Religion	Methodist
Signature
Website	charliecrist.com

Charles Joseph "Charlie" Crist, Jr. (pronounced /ˈkrɪst/; born July 24, 1956) is an American politician who was the 44th Governor of Florida. Prior to his election as governor, Crist previously served as Florida State Senator, Education Commissioner, and Attorney General. He was elected governor in 2006 with 52.4 percent of the vote (against opponent Jim Davis), and took office the following year.

Crist's term as governor ended in January 2011. Crist announced on May 12, 2009 that he would run instead for the United States Senate seat being vacated by then-fellow Republican Mel Martinez. He later decided to run as an independent in the general election, but lost to Republican Marco Rubio.^[1]

Early life and education[link]

Crist was born in Altoona, Pennsylvania^[2] on July 24, 1956, to Charles Joseph Crist, Sr., an American physician of Greek Cypriot descent, and Nancy (née Lee), of Scots-Irish American descent.^[3] His family name is adapted from the original Greek name "Christodoulou".^[4] Crist moved to St. Petersburg, Florida, as a child, where he attended Riviera Middle School^[5][6] and graduated from St. Petersburg High School in 1974. He is the second of four children and has three sisters: Margaret Crist Wood, Elizabeth Crist Hyden, and Catherine Crist Kennedy. He attended Wake Forest University for two years, where he played quarterback for the Wake Forest Demon Deacons football team. Crist earned his undergraduate degree from Florida State University where he was elected Vice President of the student body and became a member of the Pi Kappa Alpha fraternity. He received his J.D. from Samford University Cumberland School of Law.^[7][8]

Law career[link]

After graduating from law school in 1981, and having passed the bar on his third attempt,^[9] Crist was hired as general counsel to Minor league baseball, which was headquartered in St. Petersburg. Drawn to politics, Crist was a candidate for public office for the first time in 1986, as a Republican, in the primary race for a state Senate seat in Pinellas County. After losing in a runoff, Crist joined his brother-in-law in private practice in St. Petersburg, but soon returned to politics as an aide in the successful 1988 United States Senate campaign of Connie Mack III, whom he has since described as his political mentor.^[10]

Florida Senate[link]

Crist was elected to the Florida Senate in 1992, representing parts of St. Petersburg,^[11] defeating longtime incumbent Democratic State Senator Helen Gordon Davis of Tampa.^[12] Crist was able to unseat Gordon Davis following Florida's redistricting, which created an entirely new state senate district.^[12] His victory was credited with ending the 128-year control of the Florida Senate by the Democratic Party, resulting in an even 20-20 tie in Senate between the Democrats and Republicans following the 1992 election.^[12]

He established a reputation as a law-and-order senator, sponsoring legislation requiring inmates to serve at least 85% of their sentences before becoming eligible for parole.^[2] He supported teacher salary increases, co-sponsored laws that created charter schools, and created a vanity license plate sold to raise funds for Everglades conservation.^[11] As chairman of the Senate Ethics and Elections Committee, Crist pursued an investigation into actions of then-governor Lawton Chiles amid allegations that Chiles' campaign had made "scare calls" to senior citizens days before the 1994 gubernatorial election. Chiles eventually testified before Crist and the committee and admitted that his campaign had made the calls.^[2][10]

Florida Education Commissioner[link]

Crist gained statewide name recognition in 1998 as the Republican challenger to the popular incumbent Democratic U.S. Senator Bob Graham. He lost to Graham by 26 percent^[13] but was elected Education Commissioner of Florida in 2000 – a position he held until it became an office filled by political appointment in 2003, pursuant to a 1998 constitutional amendment.^[10]

Florida Attorney General[link]

In 2002, Crist was elected Attorney General. Supporters of his candidacy included America's Most Wanted host John Walsh, who filed Crist's gubernatorial candidacy paperwork, citing his work with the Center for Missing and Exploited Children. During his term as Attorney General, Crist was praised by civil rights and consumer groups for expanding the powers of his office to prosecute civil rights and fraud cases; for combating spam e-mail; freezing utility rates; adding restrictions to telecom companies, and protecting the environment.^[2][14] He was criticized by pro-life advocates during the Terri Schiavo case when he ended official attempts to keep Schiavo on life support.^[2][15]

In September 2006, Canadian anti-consumer-fraud activist and author Les Henderson criticized Crist's handling of the Lou Pearlman-Wilhelmina Scouting Network affair in his self-published book Under Investigation. In 2004, Jacqueline Dowd, the assistant attorney general leading the investigation, was dismissed by the office of the Attorney General. Her successor, John MacGregor, ended the investigation in 2004. Dowd stated that she did not know why she was dismissed. During the 2006 gubernatorial campaign, Crist's campaign manager said that she had resigned, amicably, over a difference of opinion on her contact with the press. Henderson, citing $5,000 in campaign contributions from Pearlman companies to Crist received a year after the investigation was complete, argued that the investigation was dropped because of Pearlman's political connections.^[16][17] A lawsuit stemming from the Ponzi scheme and investment scandal alleges that Crist and other state regulators failed to protect investors, and also cites campaign contributions.^[18]

As Attorney General, he was noted for his position in the Terri Schiavo case, where he disagreed with governor Jeb Bush. Crist received criticism from both sides on this issue.^[19]

Florida Governor[link]

Crist in Brazil, 2007.

Crist has received criticism for his fiscal approach, for his support of President Barack Obama's fiscal policies, and for his official schedule.^{[20][21][22][23]}

Crist supported capital punishment^[24] and gun rights. In 2008 he signed a provision that prevents employers from prohibiting employees' bringing firearms to the workplace, as long as the weapons are secure and individuals maintain a concealed carry license.^[25][26]

His position on abortion issues is not clear-cut.^[27] In 1998 Crist ran for Senate as a pro-choice candidate,^[27] and has stated that he opposes overturning Roe vs. Wade.^[27][28] Crist has said that he opposes a mandatory 24-hour waiting period before a woman can undergo an abortion.^[27] In the 2010 Senate campaign, Crist first presented himself a pro-life Republican^[29] but after he lost the Republican nomination and became an unaffiliated candidate, had all pro-life statements removed from his website.^[30] On June 11, 2010 Crist vetoed a bill which would have removed taxpayer funding for abortion,^[31] as well as require a woman to have an ultrasound before having an abortion.^[32]

Crist supported efforts to ban same-sex marriage in Florida, and supported the current ban on adoption by homosexual prospective parents – saying that a "traditional family provides the best environment for children."^[33][34] His position led gay rights groups to protest the passage of the Florida Amendment 2 (now Article 1 Section 27 of the Florida Constitution) ban on same-sex marriage during his wedding in 2008.^[35][36] He shifted in June 2010, when he stated that he no longer supported Florida's ban on same-sex adoption: "A better way and approach would be to let judges make that decision on a case-by-case basis."^[37]

On other issues, Crist differs from other Republicans, particularly on environmental policy, an important issue in Florida. He announced plans to sign executive orders to impose strict air pollution standards in the state, with aims to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent of the 1990 levels, by 2050 .^[38] In his gubernatorial campaign, Crist opposed offshore oil drilling. Crist altered that position in June 2008, when oil reached peak prices, saying "I mean, let's face it, the price of gas has gone through the roof, and Florida families are suffering, and my heart bleeds for them." ^[39][40]

As an environmental advocate, Crist proposed in June 2008 that the State of Florida buy 187,000 acres (760 km²) of land for conservation. Crist described the deal "as monumental as our nation's first national park."^[41] The agreement, which still faces legal and financing challenges, would give the state 73,000 acres (300 km²) of sugar and citrus plantations for Everglades restoration projects.^[42][43][44]

Crist was the first Republican governor to accept the state's National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) invitation to a convention, and has been described^{[by whom?]} as the state's "first black governor." Crist endorsed legislation requiring paper records of all ballots cast during an election, stemming from criticism that votes were being undercounted in black communities by computerized voting machines. He has also tackled the state's regulation of the insurance industry, particularly for property (in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina) and health insurance. While new property insurance legislation has proved controversial – in particular the creation of the Citizen's Property Insurance Corp and the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund (both of which have been described as risky and underfunded) – the health insurance reform efforts have been well received. Standing next to former football star Dan Marino (whose son, Michael, is autistic and who inspired the Dan Marino Foundation^[45]), Crist signed a law expanding health coverage statewide for autism disorders and he has also signed legislation expanding low-income coverage and creating public and private insurance options in the state.^{[46][47][48][49][50][51]}

Post-gubernatorial career[link]

On January 7, 2011 it was announced that Charlie Crist would join personal-injury law firm Morgan and Morgan in Tampa.^[52] In addition, he will be a part time instructor at Stetson University College of Law.^[52]

Political positions[link]

Future of the Republican Party[link]

On November 12–14, 2008, Crist hosted the Republican Governors Association (RGA) annual meeting in Miami. After the Democratic Party win in the 2008 election,^[53] there was speculation about the tone of the Republican Governors meeting. Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin was a featured participant and speaker.

Crist's speech at the RGA conference, "Listen to the Voters and Serve" included his sentiments on how the GOP should evolve:

Crist held a joint interview with Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina and they discussed the split in the Republican Party over where to direct the party's next efforts to gain more voters.^[55]

Political campaigns[link]

Role in 2008 presidential election[link]

Senator John McCain played a major role in Crist's 2006 campaign for governor, endorsing Crist and traveling the state to campaign with him. The day before the general election, Crist chose to hold a campaign event with McCain in Jacksonville. Later, when the Republican Presidential primary debates were held in St. Petersburg, Crist embraced McCain and offered a tepid welcome to the other presidential candidates. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who had campaigned for Crist during the gubernatorial election, had sought his endorsement to support a campaign strategy that relied on winning the Florida primary.^{[56][57][58][59]}

In May 2007 Crist signed a bill moving the date of Florida's presidential primary to January 29, 2008. Such adjustments of state primary dates – intended to increase the prominence of an individual states' role in the nominating process of the major political process and known as front-loading – are a violation of the primary rules of both major parties. The change prompted the Democratic National Committee to strip Florida (and Michigan, which made a similar change) of their superdelegates and 50 percent of their regular delegates to the Democratic nominating convention, and the Republican National Committee said it would strip 50% of all of the state's delegates.^[60] Crist joined Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm in demanding that their states' delegates be seated. Ultimately, the Democratic National Committee decided to seat all Florida and Michigan delegates while granting each delegate a half vote, and the Republican National Committee came to a similar conclusion.^{[61][62][63][64]}

On January 26, 2008, Crist endorsed McCain in the Republican primary race, saying, "He's a great friend and will do a great job for the United States."^[65] McCain later won the primary by five percentage points.^[66]

On October 28, 2008 Crist extended early voting hours of operation and declared that a "state of emergency exists" due to record voter turnout and resultant hours-long waits at locations throughout the state.^[67] Some Republican operatives were disappointed with the decision, including one anonymous source who said "He just blew Florida for John McCain."^[68][69]

On October 29 and October 31, 2008, Crist appeared on MSNBC's Morning Joe in which he told former Florida congressman Joe Scarborough that the race was tightening in Florida.^[70][71]

2010 Senate campaign[link]

Wikinews has related news: Musician David Byrne sues Florida governor over campaign song

Crist announced May 12, 2009, that he would not run for re-election as Governor and would run for the US Senate in 2010. His main Republican opponent was House Speaker Marco Rubio,^[72][73] in addition to Democratic nominee Kendrick Meek.^[74]

Crist was considered the front runner in the Republican primary, but eventually trailed Rubio by 20 points in polls.^[75][76]

As a result, Crist announced his intent to run as an unaffiliated candidate in the 2010 senate election, while at the same time, according to a press release from his campaign, he would remain a registered Republican.^[77] Crist officially changed his registration status to "non party affiliated" on May 13, 2010. After initially signaling that Crist might return former campaign donors' contributions, Crist's campaign later indicated that it will not do so.^[78] Crist eventually lost the race to the more conservative Republican candidate Marco Rubio, Crist receiving 30% of the vote, compared to 49% for Rubio and 20% for Meek.

Personal life[link]

This section requires expansion.

Former Florida Governor and Former First Lady Carole Crist

In July 1979, Crist married Amanda Morrow; they divorced less than a year later.^[79] Crist became engaged to Carole Rome on July 3, 2008 after 9 months of dating, and was married^[80] on December 12 of that year at the First Methodist Church of St. Petersburg, where Crist is a member.^[81]