Lessig, who founded Creative Commons and is no stranger to Internet-related controversy, argues that old-style institutions are killing the free flow of ideas by using legal and technological means to protect their online territory.

From the book’s website:

“The choice Lawrence Lessig presents is not between progress and the status quo. It is between progress and a new Dark Ages, in which our capacity to create is confined by an architecture of control and a society more perfectly monitored and filtered than any before in history.”

Should be good reading, and good food for thought.

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

The FCC board will vote Dec. 18 on whether to allow a newspaper in any of 20 of the largest Nielsen DMAs in the country to own a broadcast outlet (either radio or TV) in the same market.

On the face of it, Martin’s proposal looks very reasonable. It looks like the FCC chair is concerned about ensuring there’ll be lots of local news. It looks like he’s concerned that there’ll be outlets owned by women and minorities, who, it’s assumed, would make it a priority to cover news relevant and interesting to those populations.

But two FCC commissioners, Michael J. Copps and Jonathan S. Adelstein came out against Martin’s proposal in a brief joint statement. (Note Copps and Adelstein are Democrats, while Martin and the other two commissioners are Republicans.)

The non-profit organization Free Press took a closer look at the possible implications of the rule change, and they’re worrisome. If you think Free Press is making wild, alarmist interpretations, remember: Media companies who want to buy up outlets retain smart, creative lawyers whose job is to find the means to their clients’ ends. (Check out Allan Sloan’s breakdown of Sam Zell’s complicated Tribune Co. purchase, for example.)

Perhaps there isn’t anything we the public can do at this point. And perhaps consolidation is a necessary reality of the business. But not everyone is ready to roll over. Influential senators concerned about what’s happening recently passed the “Media Ownership Act of 2007.”

Unfortunately, the Act looks mostly like another layer of bureaucracy, but perhaps that’s all we have for now. Free Press has been building up a campaign to urge the full Senate to pass the legislation. They’ve got a petition going and they’ve posted a YouTube video that has highlights from some of the most popular — yet meaningless — broadcast clips out there to point out how Big Media isn’t necessarily interested in quality content.

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

Currently,  the government limits the number of newspapers, radio stations and TV stations that any one company can own in a single market. The revised rules would allow companies to own multiple outlets in a single market.

What’s at stake? Some say the very future of the media business hangs in the balance. Without the relaxed rules, some worry that TV, radio and newspaper companies will not be able to sustain themselves and eventually go out of business.

Others say the proposed revisions would give a handful of large businesses the power to strangle the diverse voices that come with having a variety of independently-owned outlets.

Bill Moyers covered the issue on his PBS show.

Earlier this month, Bob Garfield examined the proposal, as well as the FCC’s moves to give apartment dwellers the ability to choose their own cable providers, rather than being locked into whatever exclusive deal the apartment owner has signed.

If you want to weigh in on the media ownership rule review, make a public comment to the FCC’s website. You have until Dec. 11.

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

Now you can keep up with the latest developments in FOI and free press cases.

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts