The Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society is a research center at Harvard University that focuses on the study of cyberspace. Founded at Harvard Law School,
the center traditionally focused on internet-related legal issues. On
May 15, 2008, the Center was elevated to an interfaculty initiative of
Harvard University as a whole. It is named after the Berkman family. On July 5, 2016, the Center added "Klein" to its name following a gift of $15 million from Michael R. Klein.
History and mission
The location at 23 Everett Street
The center was founded in 1996 as the "Center on Law and Technology" by Jonathan Zittrain and Professor Charles Nesson.
This built on previous work including a 1994 seminar they held on legal
issues involving the early Internet. Professor Arthur Miller and
students David Marglin and Tom Smuts also worked on that seminar and
related discussions. In 1997, the Berkman family underwrote the center,
and Lawrence Lessig
joined as the first Berkman professor. In 1998, the center changed its
name to the "Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law
School". Since then, it has grown from a small project within Harvard Law School to a major interdisciplinary center at Harvard University.
The Berkman Klein Center seeks to understand how the development of
Internet-related technologies is inspired by the social context in which
they are embedded and how the use of those technologies affects society
in turn. It seeks to use the lessons drawn from this research to inform
the design of Internet-related law and pioneer the development of the
Internet itself.
The Berkman Klein Center sponsors Internet-related events and
conferences, and hosts numerous visiting lecturers and research fellows.
Members of the center teach, write books, scientific articles, weblogs with RSS 2.0 feeds (for which the Center holds the specification), and podcasts (of which the first series took place at the Berkman Klein Center). Its newsletter, The Buzz,
is on the Web and available by e-mail, and it hosts a blog community of
Harvard faculty, students, and Berkman Klein Center affiliates.
The Berkman Klein Center faculty and staff have also conducted major public policy reviews of pressing issues. In 2008, John Palfrey led a review of child safety online called the Internet Safety Technical Task Force. In 2009, Yochai Benkler led a review of United States broadband policy. In 2010, Urs Gasser, along with Palfrey and others, led a review of Internet governance body ICANN, focusing on transparency, accountability, and public participation.
The
Digital Media Law Project (DMLP) was a project hosted by the Berkman
Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School. It had
previously been known as the Citizen Media Law Project. The purposes of
the DMLP were:
To provide resources and other assistance, including legal assistance as of 2009, to individuals and groups involved in online and citizen media.
To "ensur[e] that online journalists, media organizations, and their
sources are allowed to examine and debate network security and data
protection vulnerabilities without criminal punishment, in order to
inform citizens and lawmakers about networked computer security."
To facilitate the participation of citizens in online media.
To protect the freedom of speech on the Internet.
In 2014, Berkman Klein Center announced that it would "spin off its
most effective initiatives and cease operation as a stand-alone project
within the Berkman Klein Center."
Internet and Democracy Project
The Berkman Klein Center operated the now-completed Internet and Democracy Project, which describes itself as an:
initiative that will examine how
the Internet influences democratic norms and modes, including its impact
on civil society, citizen media, government transparency, and the rule
of law, with a focus on the Middle East. Through a grant of $1.5 million
from the US Department of State's Middle East Partnership Initiative,
the Berkman Center will undertake the study over the next two years in
collaboration with its extended community and institutional partners.
As with all its projects, the Berkman Center retains complete
independence in its research and other efforts under this grant.
The goal of this work is to support the rights of citizens to
access, develop and share independent sources of information, to
advocate responsibly, to strengthen online networks, and to debate ideas
freely with both civil society and government. These subjects will be
examined through a series of case studies in which new technologies and
online resources have influenced democracy and civic engagement. The
project will include original research and the identification and
development of innovative web-based tools that support the goals of the
project. The team, led by Project Director Bruce Etling, will draw on
communities from around the world, with a focus on the Middle East.
StopBadware
In
2006, the Center established the non-profit organization StopBadware,
aiming to stop viruses, spyware, and other threats to the open Internet,
in partnership with the Oxford Internet Institute, Google, Lenovo and Sun Microsystems. In 2010, StopBadware became an independent entity supported by Google, PayPal, and Mozilla.
In 2017, the BKC received a $27M grant with the MIT Media Lab to "advance Artificial Intelligence research for the public good"
and "to ensure automation and machine learning are researched,
developed, and deployed in a way which vindicate social values of
fairness, human autonomy, and justice".
Students for Free Culture, formerly known as FreeCulture.org, is an international student organization working to promote free culture
ideals, such as cultural participation and access to information. It
was inspired by the work of former Stanford, now Harvard, law professor Lawrence Lessig, who wrote the book Free Culture, and it frequently collaborates with other prominent free culture NGOs, including Creative Commons, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Public Knowledge. Students for Free Culture has over 30 chapters on college campuses around the world, and a history of grassroots activism.
Students for Free Culture is sometimes referred to as
"FreeCulture", "the Free Culture Movement", and other variations on the
"free culture" theme, but none of those are its official name. It is
officially Students for Free Culture, as set for in the new bylaws that
were ratified by its chapters on October 1, 2007, which changed its name
from FreeCulture.org to Students for Free Culture.
Goals
Students for Free Culture has stated its goals in a "manifesto":
The mission of the Free Culture movement is to build a
bottom-up, participatory structure to society and culture, rather than a
top-down, closed, proprietary structure. Through the democratizing
power of digital technology and the Internet, we can place the tools of
creation and distribution, communication and collaboration, teaching and
learning into the hands of the common person -- and with a truly
active, connected, informed citizenry, injustice and oppression will
slowly but surely vanish from the earth.
It has yet to publish a more "official" mission statement, but some of its goals are:
decentralization of creativity—getting ordinary people and
communities involved with art, science, journalism and other creative
industries, especially through new technologies
reforming copyright, patent, and trademark law in the public
interest, ensuring that new creators are not stifled by old creators
making important information available to the public
Purpose
According to its website, Students for Free Culture has four main functions within the free culture movement:
Creating and providing resources for its chapters and for the general public
Outreach to youth and students
Networking with other people, companies and organizations in the free culture movement
Issue advocacy on behalf of its members
History
Initial stirrings at Swarthmore College
Students for Free Culture had its origins in the Swarthmore Coalition for the Digital Commons (SCDC), a student group at Swarthmore College. The SCDC was founded in 2003 by students Luke Smith and Nelson Pavlosky, and was originally focused on issues related to free software, digital restrictions management, and treacherous computing, inspired largely by the Free Software Foundation. After watching Lawrence Lessig's OSCON 2002 speech entitled "free culture"
however, they expanded the club's scope to cover cultural participation
in general (rather than just in the world of software and computers),
and began tackling issues such as copyright reform. In September 2004,
SCDC was renamed Free Culture Swarthmore, laying the groundwork for Students for Free Culture and making it the first existing chapter.
OPG v. Diebold case
Within
a couple of months of founding the SCDC, Smith and Pavlosky became
embroiled in the controversy surrounding Diebold Election Systems (now Premier Election Solutions),
a voting machine manufacturer accused of making bug-ridden and insecure
electronic voting machines. The SCDC had been concerned about
electronic voting machines using proprietary software rather than open
source software, and kept an eye on the situation. Their alarm grew
when a copy of Diebold's internal e-mail archives leaked onto the
Internet, revealing questionable practices at Diebold and possible flaws
with Diebold's machines, and they were spurred into action when Diebold
began sending legal threats to voting activists who posted the e-mails
on their websites. Diebold was claiming that the e-mails were their
copyrighted material, and that anyone who posted these e-mails online
was infringing upon their intellectual property. The SCDC posted the
e-mail archive on its website and prepared for the inevitable legal
threats.
Diebold sent takedown notices under the DMCA to the SCDC's ISP, Swarthmore College. Swarthmore took down the SCDC website, and the SCDC co-founders sought legal representation. They contacted the Electronic Frontier Foundation for help, and discovered that they had an opportunity to sign on to an existing lawsuit against Diebold, OPG v. Diebold, with co-plaintiffs from a non-profit ISP called the Online Policy Group who had also received legal threats from Diebold. With pro bono legal representation from EFF and the Stanford Cyberlaw Clinic,
they sued Diebold for abusing copyright law to suppress freedom of
speech online. After a year of legal battles, the judge ruled that
posting the e-mails online was a fair use, and that Diebold had violated the DMCA by misrepresenting their copyright claims over the e-mails.
The network of contacts that Smith and Pavlosky built during the
lawsuit, including dozens of students around the country who had also
hosted the Diebold memos on their websites, gave them momentum they
needed to found an international student movement based on the same free
culture principles as the SCDC. They purchased the domain name Freeculture.org and began building a website, while contacting student activists at other schools who could help them start the organization.
FreeCulture.org launching at Swarthmore
On April 23, 2004, Smith and Pavlosky announced the official launch of FreeCulture.org, in an event at Swarthmore College featuring Lawrence Lessig as the keynote speaker (Lessig had released his book Free Culture
less than a month beforehand.) The SCDC became the first
Freeculture.org chapter (beginning the process of changing its name to
Free Culture Swarthmore), and students from other schools in the area
who attended the launch went on to found chapters on their campuses,
including Bryn Mawr College and Franklin and Marshall.
Internet campaigns
FreeCulture.org
began by launching a number of internet campaigns, in an attempt to
raise its profile and bring itself to the attention of college students.
These have covered issues ranging from defending artistic freedom (Barbie in a Blender) to fighting the Induce Act (Save The iPod), from celebrating Creative Commons licenses and the public domain (Undead Art) to opposing business method patents (Cereal Solidarity).
While these one-shot websites succeeded in attracting attention from
the press and encouraged students to get involved, they didn't directly
help the local chapters, and the organization now concentrates less on
web campaigns than it did in the past. However, their recent Down With DRM video contest was a successful "viral video" campaign against DRM, and internet campaigns remain an important tool in free culture activism.
Increased emphasis on local chapters
Currently the organization focuses on providing services to its local campus
chapters, including web services such as mailing lists and wikis,
pamphlets and materials for tabling, and organizing conferences where
chapter members can meet up. Active chapters are located at schools such
as New York University (NYU), Harvard, MIT, Fordham Law, Dartmouth, University of Florida, Swarthmore, USC, Emory, Reed, and Yale.
The NYU chapter made headlines when it began protesting outside of record stores against DRM on CDs during the Sony rootkit scandal, resulting in similar protests around New York and Philadelphia.
In 2008, the MIT chapter developed and released YouTomb, a website to track videos removed by DMCA takedown from YouTube.
iPod
liberating parties, where the organizers help people replace the
proprietary DRM-encumbered operating system on their iPods with a free
software system like Rockbox,
Antenna Alliance, a project that provides free recording space to bands, releases their music online under Creative Commons licenses, and distributes the music to college radio stations,
a campaign to promote open access on university campuses.
Structure
Students
for Free Culture began as a loose confederation of student groups on
different campuses, but it has been moving towards becoming an official
tax-exempt non-profit.
With the passage of official bylaws, Students for Free Culture
now has a clear governance structure which makes it accountable to its
chapters. The supreme decision-making body is the Board of Directors,
which is elected once a year by the chapters, using a Schulze method
for voting. It is meant to make long-term, high-level decisions, and
should not meddle excessively in lower-level decisions. Practical
everyday decisions will be made by the Core team, composed of any
students who are members of chapters and meet the attendance
requirements. Really low-level decisions and minutiae will be handled
by a coordinator, who ideally will be a paid employee of the
organization, and other volunteers and assistants. A new board of
directors was elected in February 2008, and a new Core Team was assembled shortly thereafter. There is no coordinator yet.
The exploration of the Arctic for petroleum is considered to be extremely technically challenging. However, recent technological developments, as well as relatively high oil prices, have allowed for exploration. As a result, the region has received significant interest from the petroleum industry.
Since the onset of the 2010s oil glut in 2014, the commercial interest in Arctic exploration has declined.
A 2008 United States Geological Survey estimates that areas north of the Arctic Circle have 90 billion barrels
of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil (and 44 billion barrels of
natural gas liquids ) in 25 geologically defined areas thought to have
potential for petroleum. This represents 13% of the undiscovered oil in
the world. Of the estimated totals, more than half of the undiscovered
oil resources are estimated to occur in just three geologic provinces – Arctic Alaska, the Amerasian Basin, and the East Greenland Rift Basins.
More than 70% of the mean undiscovered oil resources is estimated
to occur in five provinces: Arctic Alaska, Amerasia Basin, East
Greenland Rift Basins, East Barents Basins,
and West Greenland–East Canada. It is further estimated that
approximately 84% of the undiscovered oil and gas occurs offshore. The
USGS did not consider economic factors such as the effects of permanent
sea ice or oceanic water depth in its assessment of undiscovered oil and
gas resources. This assessment is lower than a 2000 survey, which had
included lands south of the arctic circle.
A recent study carried out by Wood Mackenzie on the Arctic potential comments that the likely remaining reserves will be 75% natural gas and 25% oil. It highlights four basins that are likely to be the focus of the petroleum industry in the upcoming years: the Kronprins Christian Basin, which is likely to have large reserves, the southwest Greenland basin, due to its proximity to markets, and the more oil-prone basins of Laptev and Baffin Bay.
1st shallow water year-round manned GBS production in the Arctic (Prirazlomnaya platform)
Canada
Extensive drilling was done in the Canadian Arctic during the 1970s and 1980s by such companies as Panarctic Oils Ltd., Petro Canada and Dome Petroleum. After 176 wells were drilled at billions of dollars of cost, approximately 1.9 billion barrels (300×106 m3) of oil and 19.8 trillion cubic feet (560×109 m3)
of natural gas were found. These discoveries were insufficient to
justify development, and all the wells which were drilled were plugged
and abandoned.
Drilling in the Canadian Arctic turned out to be expensive and dangerous. The geology of the Canadian Arctic turned out to be far more complex than oil-producing regions like the Gulf of Mexico.
It was discovered to be gas prone rather than oil prone (i.e. most of
the oil had been transformed into natural gas by geological processes),
and most of the reservoirs had been fractured by tectonic activity, allowing most of the petroleum which might at one time have been present to leak out.
According to Russia's media, the geologists returned with the "sensational news" that the Lomonosov ridge was linked to Russian Federation territory, boosting Russia's claim over the oil-and-gas rich triangle. The territory contained 10bn tonnes of gas and oil deposits, the scientists said.
Greenland
Greenland is believed by some geologists to have some of the world’s largest remaining oil resources. Prospecting is taking place under the auspices of NUNAOIL, a partnership between the Greenland Home Rule Government and the Danish state. U.S. Geological Survey found in 2001 that the waters off north-eastern Greenland, in the Greenland Sea north and south of the Arctic Circle, could contain up to 110 billion barrels (17×109 m3) of oil.
Greenland has offered 8 license blocks for tender along its west coast by Baffin Bay. Currently, 7 of those blocks have been bid for by a combination of multinational oil companies and the National Oil Company NUNAOIL.
Companies that have participated successfully in the previous license
rounds and have formed a partnership for the licenses with NUNAOIL are,
DONG Energy, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Husky Energy, Cairn Energy.
The area available, known as the West Disko licensing round, is of
interest because of its relative accessibility compared to other Arctic
basins as the area remains largely free of ice. Also, it has a number of
promising geological leads and prospects from the Paleocene era.
In September 2012 Shell delayed actual oil drilling in the
Chukchi until the following summer due to heavier-than-normal ice and
the Arctic Challenger, an oil-spill response vessel, not being ready on
time.
However, on September 23, Shell began drilling a "top-hole" over its
Burger prospect in the Chukchi. And on October 3, Shell began drilling a
top-hole over its Sivulliq prospect in the Beaufort Sea, after being
notified by the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission that drilling could
begin.
In September, 2012, Statoil
chose to delay its oil exploration plans at its Amundsen prospect in
the Chukchi Sea, about 100 miles northwest of Wainwright, Alaska, by at
least one year, to 2015 at the earliest.
In 2012 Conoco planned to drill at its Devil's Paw prospect (part
of a 2008 lease buy in the Chukchi Sea 120 miles west of Wainwright) in
summer of 2013.
This project was later shelved in 2013 after concerns over rig type and
federal regulations related to runaway well containment.
October 11, 2012, Dep. Secretary of the Department of the Interior
David Hayes stated that support for the permitting process for Arctic
offshore petroleum drilling will continue if President Obama stays in
office.
Shell, however, announced in September 2015 that it was
abandoning exploration "for the foreseeable future" in Alaska, after
tests showed disappointing quantities of oil and gas in the area.
On October 4, 2016 Caelus Energy Alaska announced its discovery
at Smith Bay could "provide 200,000 barrels per day of light, highly
mobile oil".
Norway
Rosneft
and Statoil made the Arctic exploration deal in May 2012. It is the
third deal Rosneft has signed in the past month, after Arctic
exploration agreements with Italy's Eni and US giant Exxon Mobil. Compared to other Arctic oil states, Norway is probably best equipped for oil spill preparedness in the Arctic.
Environmental concerns
Greenpeace have launched the Save the Arctic Project since the melting Arctic is under threat from oil drilling, industrial fishing and conflict.
Visible surface features such as oil seeps, natural gas seeps, pockmarks
(underwater craters caused by escaping gas) provide basic evidence of
hydrocarbon generation (be it shallow or deep in the Earth). However,
most exploration depends on highly sophisticated technology to detect
and determine the extent of these deposits using exploration geophysics. Areas thought to contain hydrocarbons are initially subjected to a gravity survey, magnetic survey, passive seismic or regional seismic reflection surveys to detect large-scale features of the sub-surface geology. Features of interest (known as leads)
are subjected to more detailed seismic surveys which work on the
principle of the time it takes for reflected sound waves to travel
through matter (rock) of varying densities and using the process of depth conversion
to create a profile of the substructure. Finally, when a prospect has
been identified and evaluated and passes the oil company's selection
criteria, an exploration well
is drilled in an attempt to conclusively determine the presence or
absence of oil or gas.Offshore the risk can be reduced by using
electromagnetic methods.
Oil exploration is an expensive, high-risk operation. Offshore
and remote area exploration is generally only undertaken by very large
corporations or national governments. Typical shallow shelf oil wells
(e.g. North Sea)
cost US$10 – 30 million, while deep water wells can cost up to US$100
million plus. Hundreds of smaller companies search for onshore
hydrocarbon deposits worldwide, with some wells costing as little as
US$100,000.
Elements of a petroleum prospect
Mud log in process, a common way to study the rock types when drilling oil wells.
A prospect is a potential trap
which geologists believe may contain hydrocarbons. A significant amount
of geological, structural and seismic investigation must first be
completed to redefine the potential hydrocarbon drill location from a lead
to a prospect. Four geological factors have to be present for a
prospect to work and if any of them fail neither oil nor gas will be
present.
The hydrocarbons are expelled from source rock by three density-related
mechanisms: the newly matured hydrocarbons are less dense than their
precursors, which causes over-pressure; the hydrocarbons are lighter,
and so migrate upwards due to buoyancy, and the fluids expand as further
burial causes increased heating. Most hydrocarbons migrate to the
surface as oil seeps, but some will get trapped.
The hydrocarbons are contained in a reservoir rock. This is commonly a porous sandstone or limestone. The oil collects in the pores within the rock although open fractures within non-porous rocks (e.g. fractured granite)
may also store hydrocarbons. The reservoir must also be permeable so
that the hydrocarbons will flow to surface during production.
Trap
The hydrocarbons are buoyant and have to be trapped within a structural (e.g. Anticline, fault block) or stratigraphic trap. The hydrocarbon trap has to be covered by an impermeable rock known as a seal or cap-rock in order to prevent hydrocarbons escaping to the surface
Exploration risk
Hydrocarbon exploration is a high risk investment and risk assessment is paramount for successful project portfolio management.
Exploration risk is a difficult concept and is usually defined by
assigning confidence to the presence of the imperative geological
factors, as discussed above. This confidence is based on data and/or
models and is usually mapped on Common Risk Segment Maps (CRS Maps).
High confidence in the presence of imperative geological factors is
usually coloured green and low confidence coloured red.
Therefore, these maps are also called Traffic Light Maps, while the
full procedure is often referred to as Play Fairway Analysis.
The aim of such procedures is to force the geologist to objectively
assess all different geological factors. Furthermore, it results in
simple maps that can be understood by non-geologists and managers to
base exploration decisions on.
Percentage of the net reservoir rock occupied by pores (typically 5-35%)
Hydrocarbon saturation (Sh)
Some of the pore space is filled with water - this must be discounted
Formation volume factor (FVF)
Oil shrinks and gas expands when brought to the surface. The FVF
converts volumes at reservoir conditions (high pressure and high
temperature) to storage and sale conditions
Lead
Potential accumulation is currently poorly defined and requires more
data acquisition and/or evaluation in order to be classified as a
prospect.
Play
An area in which hydrocarbon accumulations or prospects of a given
type occur. For example, the shale gas plays in North America include
the Barnett, Eagle Ford, Fayetteville, Haynesville, Marcellus, and Woodford, among many others.
Prospect
A lead which has been more fully evaluated.
Recoverable hydrocarbons
Amount of hydrocarbon likely to be recovered during production. This
is typically 10-50% in an oil field and 50-80% in a gas field.
Licensing
Petroleum
resources are typically owned by the government of the host country. In
the United States, most onshore (land) oil and gas rights (OGM) are
owned by private individuals, in which case oil companies must negotiate
terms for a lease of these rights with the individual who owns the OGM.
Sometimes this is not the same person who owns the land surface. In
most nations the government issues licences to explore, develop and
produce its oil and gas resources, which are typically administered by
the oil ministry. There are several different types of licence. Oil
companies often operate in joint ventures to spread the risk; one of the
companies in the partnership is designated the operator who actually
supervises the work.
Companies would pay a royalty on any oil produced, together with a
profits tax (which can have expenditure offset against it). In some
cases there are also various bonuses and ground rents (license fees)
payable to the government - for example a signature bonus payable at the
start of the licence. Licences are awarded in competitive bid rounds on
the basis of either the size of the work programme (number of wells,
seismic etc.) or size of the signature bonus.
Production Sharing contract (PSA)
A PSA is more complex than a Tax/Royalty system - The companies bid
on the percentage of the production that the host government receives
(this may be variable with the oil price), There is often also
participation by the Government owned National Oil Company (NOC). There
are also various bonuses to be paid. Development expenditure is offset
against production revenue.
Service contract
This is when an oil company acts as a contractor for the host government, being paid to produce the hydrocarbons.
Reserves and resources
Resources
are hydrocarbons which may or may not be produced in the future. A
resource number may be assigned to an undrilled prospect or an
unappraised discovery. Appraisal by drilling additional delineation
wells or acquiring extra seismic data will confirm the size of the field
and lead to project sanction. At this point the relevant government
body gives the oil company a production licence which enables the field
to be developed. This is also the point at which oil reserves and gas reserves can be formally booked.
Oil and gas reserves
Oil
and gas reserves are defined as volumes that will be commercially
recovered in the future. Reserves are separated into three categories:
proved, probable, and possible. To be included in any reserves category,
all commercial aspects must have been addressed, which includes
government consent. Technical issues alone separate proved from unproved
categories. All reserve estimates involve some degree of uncertainty.
Proved reserves are the highest valued category. Proved reserves
have a "reasonable certainty" of being recovered, which means a high
degree of confidence that the volumes will be recovered. Some industry
specialists refer to this as P90, i.e., having a 90% certainty of being
produced. The SEC provides a more detailed definition:
Proved oil and gas reserves are those quantities of oil and gas,
which, by analysis of geoscience and engineering data, can be estimated
with reasonable certainty to be economically producible—from a given
date forward, from known reservoirs, and under existing economic
conditions, operating methods, and government regulations—prior to the
time at which contracts providing the right to operate expire, unless
evidence indicates that renewal is reasonably certain, regardless of
whether deterministic or probabilistic methods are used for the
estimation. The project to extract the hydrocarbons must have commenced
or the operator must be reasonably certain that it will commence the
project within a reasonable time.
Probable reserves are volumes defined as "less likely to
be recovered than proved, but more certain to be recovered than Possible
Reserves". Some industry specialists refer to this as P50, i.e., having
a 50% certainty of being produced.
Possible reserves are reserves which analysis of geological
and engineering data suggests are less likely to be recoverable than
probable reserves. Some industry specialists refer to this as P10, i.e.,
having a 10% certainty of being produced.
The term 1P is frequently used to denote proved reserves; 2P is the
sum of proved and probable reserves; and 3P the sum of proved, probable,
and possible reserves. The best estimate of recovery from committed
projects is generally considered to be the 2P sum of proved and probable
reserves. Note that these volumes only refer to currently justified
projects or those projects already in development.
Reserve booking
Oil and gas reserves are the main asset of an oil company. Booking is the process by which they are added to the balance sheet.
In August 2015, Lessig announced that he was exploring a possible
candidacy for President of the United States, promising to run if his
exploratory committee raised $1 million by Labor Day. After accomplishing this, on September 6, 2015, Lessig announced that he was entering the race to become a candidate for the 2016 Democratic Party's presidential nomination.[10] Lessig has described his candidacy as a referendum on campaign finance reform and electoral reform
legislation. He stated that, if elected, he would serve a full term as
president with his proposed reforms as his legislative priorities.
He ended his campaign in November 2015, citing rule changes from the
Democratic Party that precluded him from appearing in the televised
debates.
Lessig returned to Harvard in July 2009 as professor and director of the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics.
In 2013, Lessig was appointed as the Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and
Leadership; his chair lecture was titled "Aaron's Laws: Law and Justice
in a Digital Age."
Lessig speaking with Harvard internet law professor Jonathan Zittrain
Lessig has been politically liberal since studying philosophy at Cambridge in the mid-1980s. By the late 1980s, two influential conservative judges, Judge Richard Posner and Justice Antonin Scalia,
selected him to serve as a law clerk, choosing him for his supposed
"brilliance" rather than for his ideology and effectively making him the
"token liberal" on their staffs. Posner would later call him "the most distinguished law professor of his generation."
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, served as the youth governor for Pennsylvania through the YMCA Youth and Government program 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 an undergraduate degree in
philosophy and develop his changed political values. During this time,
he also traveled in the Eastern Bloc, where he acquired a lifelong interest in Eastern European law and politics.
Lessig remains skeptical of government intervention but favors
some regulation, calling himself "a constitutionalist." 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.
Internet and computer activism
Lessig with fellow Creative Commons board member Joi Ito
"Code is law"
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 1999 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.
Remix culture
Lessig has been a proponent of the remix culture since the early 2000s. In his 2008 book Remix
he presents this as a desirable cultural practice distinct from piracy.
Lessig further articulates remix culture as intrinsic to technology and
the Internet. Remix culture is therefore an amalgam of practice,
creativity, "read/write" culture and the hybrid economy.
According to Lessig, the problem with the remix comes when it is
at odds with stringent US copyright law. He has compared this to the
failure of Prohibition,
both in its ineffectiveness and in its tendency to normalize criminal
behavior. Instead he proposes more lenient licensing, namely Creative Commons licenses, as a remedy to maintain "rule of law" while combating plagiarism.
In March 2006, Lessig joined the board of advisors of the Digital Universe project. A few months later, Lessig gave a talk on the ethics of the Free Culture Movement at the 2006 Wikimania conference. In December 2006, his lecture On Free, and the Differences between Culture and Code was one of the highlights at 23C3 Who can you trust?.
Lessig claimed in 2009 that, because 70% of young people obtain
digital information from illegal sources, the law should be changed.
In a foreword to the Freesouls
book project, Lessig makes an argument in favor of amateur artists in
the world of digital technologies: "there is a different class of
amateur creators that digital technologies have ... enabled, and a
different kind of creativity has emerged as a consequence."
Lessig is also a well-known critic of copyright term extensions.
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 Michael 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."
Legislative reform
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 creative professionals' work, many of them
independent, would become more easily and quickly available if
bureaucratic procedure were introduced to renew trademarks for up to 75
years after this five-year term.
Lessig has repeatedly 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."
Legal challenges
In March 2003, Lessig 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
had sympathies for de-regulation, to back his "market-based" approach to
intellectual property regulation.
In August 2013, Lawrence Lessig brought suit against Liberation
Music PTY Ltd., after Liberation issued a takedown notice of one of
Lessig's lectures on YouTube which had used the song "Lisztomania" by the band Phoenix, whom Liberation Music represents. Lessig sought damages under section 512(f) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which holds parties liable for misrepresentations of infringement or removal of material. Lessig was represented by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Jones Day.
In February 2014, the case ended with a settlement in which Liberation
Music admitted wrongdoing in issuing the takedown notice, issued an
apology, and paid a confidential sum in compensation.
Killswitch
In October 2014, Killswitch, a film featuring Lawrence Lessig, as well as Aaron Swartz, Tim Wu, and Edward Snowden received its World Premiere at the Woodstock Film Festival,
where it won the award for Best Editing. In the film, Lessig frames the
story of two young hacktivists, Swartz and Snowden, who symbolize the
disruptive and dynamic nature of the Internet. The film reveals the
emotional bond between Lessig and Swartz, and how it was Swartz (the
mentee) that challenged Lessig (the mentor) to engage in the political
activism that has led to Lessig's crusade for campaign finance reform.
In February 2015, Killswitch was invited to screen at the Capitol Visitor's Center in Washington DC by Congressman Alan Grayson. The event was held on the eve of the Federal Communications Commission's historic decision on Net Neutrality. Lessig, Congressman Grayson, and Free Press (organization) CEO Craig Aaron spoke about the importance of protecting net neutrality and the free and open Internet.
Congressman Grayson states that Killswitch is "One of the most
honest accounts of the battle to control the Internet -- and access to
information itself." Richard von Busack of the Metro Silicon Valley, writes of Killswitch, "Some of the most lapidary use of found footage this side of The Atomic Café". Fred Swegles of the Orange County Register, remarks, "Anyone who values unfettered access to online information is apt to be captivated by Killswitch, a gripping and fast-paced documentary." Kathy Gill of GeekWire asserts that "Killswitch
is much more than a dry recitation of technical history. Director Ali
Akbarzadeh, producer Jeff Horn, and writer Chris Dollar created a human
centered story. A large part of that connection comes from Lessig and
his relationship with Swartz."
Lessig having a discussion with former lobbyist Jack Abramoff
At the iCommons iSummit 07, Lessig announced that he would stop
focusing his attention on copyright and related matters and work on political corruption instead, as the result of a transformative conversation with Aaron Swartz, a young internet prodigy whom Lessig met through his work with Creative Commons. This new work was partially facilitated through his wiki, Lessig Wiki, which he has encouraged the public to use to document cases of corruption. Lessig criticized the revolving door phenomenon in which legislators and staffers leave office to become lobbyists and have become beholden to special interests.
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 Representative Tom Lantos. Later that month, after forming an "exploratory project", he decided not to run for the vacant seat.
Rootstrikers
Despite having decided to forgo running for Congress himself, Lessig
remained interested in attempting to change Congress to reduce
corruption. To this end, he worked with political consultant Joe Trippi to launch a web based project called "Change Congress".
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. He is a board member of MAPLight.org, a nonprofit research group illuminating the connection between money and politics.
Change Congress later became Fix Congress First, and was finally named Rootstrikers. In November 2011, Lessig announced that Rootstrikers would join forces with Dylan Ratigan's Get Money Out campaign, under the umbrella of the United Republic organization. Rootstrikers subsequently came under the aegis of Demand Progress, an organization co-founded by Aaron Swartz.
In 2010, Lessig began to organize for a national Article V convention. He co-founded Fix Congress First! with Joe Trippi.
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". Lessig has called for state governments to call for a national Article V convention, including by supporting Wolf PAC, a national organization attempting to call an Article V convention to address the problem.
The convention Lessig supports would 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." He promoted this idea at a September 24–25, 2011, conference he co-chaired with the Tea Party Patriots' national coordinator, in Lessig's October 5, 2011, book, Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress—and a Plan to Stop It, and at the Occupy protest in Washington, DC. 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.
An Article V convention does not dictate a solution, but Lessig would
support a constitutional amendment that 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.
New Hampshire Rebellion
The New Hampshire Rebellion is a walk to raise awareness about corruption in politics. The event began in 2014 with a 185-mile march in New Hampshire. In its second year the walk expanded to include other locations in New Hampshire.
From January 11 to 24, 2014, Lessig and many others, like New York activist Jeff Kurzon, marched from Dixville Notch, New Hampshire to Nashua (a 185-mile march) to promote the idea of tackling "the systemic corruption in Washington".
Lessig chose this language over the related term "campaign finance
reform," commenting that "Saying we need campaign finance reform is like
referring to an alcoholic as someone who has a liquid intake problem." The walk was to continue the work of NH Native Doris "Granny D" Haddock, and in honor of deceased activist Aaron Swartz. The New Hampshire Rebellion marched 16 miles from Hampton to New Castle on the New Hampshire Seacoast.
The initial location was also chosen because of its important and
visible role in the quadrennial "New Hampshire primaries", the
traditional first primary of the presidential election.
2016 presidential candidacy
Lessig announced the launch of his long shot presidential campaign on
September 6, 2015.
On August 11, 2015, Lessig announced that he had launched an exploratory
campaign for the purpose of exploring his prospects of winning the Democratic Party's nomination for president of the United States in the 2016 election. Lessig pledged to seek the nomination if he raised $1 million by Labor Day 2015.
The announcement was widely reported in national media outlets, and was
timed to coincide with a media blitz by the Lessig 2016 Campaign.
Lessig was interviewed in The New York Times and Bloomberg. Campaign messages and Lessig's electoral finance reform positions were circulated widely on social media. His campaign was focused on a single issue: The Citizen Equality Act, a proposal that couples campaign finance reform with other laws aimed at curbing gerrymandering and ensuring voting access.
As an expression of his commitment to the proposal, Lessig initially
promised to resign once the Citizen Equality Act became law and turn the
presidency over to his vice president, who would then serve out the
remainder of the term as a typical American president and act on a
variety of issues. In October 2015, Lessig abandoned his automatic
resignation plan and adopted a full policy platform for the presidency,
though he did retain the passage of the Citizen Equality Act as his
primary legislative objective.
He announced the end of his campaign on November 2, 2015.
In 2011, Lessig was named to the Fastcase 50, "honoring the law's
smartest, most courageous innovators, techies, visionaries, and
leaders." Lessig was awarded honorary doctorates by the Faculty of Social Sciences at Lund University, Sweden in 2013 and by the Université catholique de Louvain in 2014. Lessig received the 2014 Webby Lifetime Achievement award for co-founding Creative Commons and defending net neutrality and the free and open software movement.
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.
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. 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.
Lessig is married to Bettina Neuefeind, a German-born Harvard University colleague. The two married in 1999. He and Neuefeind have three children: Willem, Teo, and Tess.
Defamation lawsuit against the New York Times
In 2019, during the criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, it was discovered that the MIT Media Lab, under former president Joichi Ito,
had accepted secret donations from Epstein after Epstein had been
convicted on criminal charges. Ito eventually resigned as president
following this discovery. After making supportive comments to Ito,
Lessig wrote a Medium
post in September 2019 to explain his stance. In his post, Lessig
acknowledged that universities should not take donations from convicted
criminals like Epstein who had become wealthy through actions unrelated
to their criminal convictions; however, if such donations were to be
accepted, it was better to take them secretly rather than publicly
connect the university to the criminal. Lessig's essay drew criticism, and about a week later, Nellie Bowles of The New York Times had an interview with Lessig in which he reiterated his stance related to such donations broadly.
The article used the headline "A Harvard Professor Doubles Down: If You
Take Epstein’s Money, Do It in Secret", which Lessig confirmed was
based on a statement he had made to the Times. Lessig took issue
with the headline overlooking his argument that MIT should not accept
such donations in the first place and also criticized the first line of
the article which read "It is hard to defend soliciting donations from
the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. But Lawrence Lessig, a
Harvard Law professor, has been trying." He subsequently accused the Times of writing clickbait
with the headline crafted to defame him, and stated that the
circulation of the article on social media had hurt his reputation.
In January 2020, Lessig filed a defamation lawsuit against the Times, including writer Bowles, business editor Ellen Pollock, and executive editor Dean Baquet. The Times
stated they will "vigorously" defend against Lessig's claim, and
believe that what they had published was accurate and had been reviewed
by senior editors following Lessig's initial complaints.
Lessig said 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."
.jpg)
.jpg)
