CODE 2.0, LAWRENCE LESSIG

Abstract

In ‘A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace, John Perry Barlow declared: “Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather.”1 The declaration captured the hope and belief that Cyberspace would liberate us from the physical and coercive powers of the state, and all its undesirable elements. This hope reflects the mood at the collapse of the Soviet Union where the concept of a physical state with boundaries was judged and found less than satisfactory.2 Thus, the corresponding growth of cyberspace in this time created a conversation whose main summation was: because states have failed, cyberspace is our solace.3 In Code 2.0, Lessig posits a nuanced version of how events in cyberspace have turned out. In the heyday of the internet, the prevailing belief was that it could not be regulated – as Barlow’s poetry holds. The initial generation of Internet users believed the government would not have the wherewithal to regulate the Internet. However, with time, the Internet has become more regulable for a different reason – commerce. To ensure trust and reliable services online, commerce required users to surrender some of their identity details and subsequently, the government tapped into the commercial actors to regulate the public’s use of the Internet. The regulation of the Internet is not solely dictated by fiat. There is an interplay between the market, architecture, norms, and the law. These four dimensions have their specific characteristics that dictate the different powers they hold in directing certain behaviours and patterns on the internet. The law regulates behaviour through sanctions – libel law, intellectual property law, and so forth. The effectiveness of the law in regulating behavior depends largely on how best the other factors support the control. The fact that the law may not offer perfect regulation in cyberspace is not reason to declare it useless. A mode of regulation does not need to be perfect to be effective. Locks can be picked but that does not mean locking doors is futile. Norms are accepted models for behavior in a particular context or community. For instance, a person cannot talk about Soviet propaganda in a Facebook group of making cakes. The person would easily be removed from the group. The norms do not a force of law but they serve to regulate certain behaviors in cyberspace as well. They have their own type of sanction within the specific community.