"While the creative works from the 16th century can still be accessed and used by others, the data in some software programs from the 1990s is already inaccessible"
About this Quote
The sting in Lessig's line is the inversion: Shakespeare is easier to revive than your old spreadsheets. That contrast isn’t nostalgia for the canon so much as a pointed indictment of our supposedly advanced era. The 16th century looks durable not because it was technologically superior, but because its cultural output wasn’t booby-trapped by proprietary formats, DRM, and the churn of corporate platforms that treat yesterday’s files as disposable.
Lessig’s specific intent is political as much as philosophical. He’s arguing that “access” isn’t a natural byproduct of innovation; it’s a legal and technical choice. Printed texts survive because the medium is legible across centuries and the rules around reuse are comparatively permissive. Software data, by contrast, often lives inside locked containers: formats that require specific programs, programs that require specific operating systems, operating systems that require hardware nobody supports. The market calls this progress. Archivists call it a slow-motion bonfire.
The subtext is a warning about memory under capitalism. We’re building a culture that can endlessly produce, but can’t reliably preserve. That’s not just an inconvenience for hobbyists hunting an old game save; it’s a structural risk for science, government records, journalism, and art made with digital tools. Lessig, a leading voice on copyright and “free culture,” is also nudging the reader toward a moral conclusion: if we let private control dictate the terms of readability, we outsource cultural continuity to quarterly earnings.
Contextually, this sits in the early-2000s reckoning with digital rights and digital decay: the moment when the internet promised permanence while quietly accelerating obsolescence.
Lessig’s specific intent is political as much as philosophical. He’s arguing that “access” isn’t a natural byproduct of innovation; it’s a legal and technical choice. Printed texts survive because the medium is legible across centuries and the rules around reuse are comparatively permissive. Software data, by contrast, often lives inside locked containers: formats that require specific programs, programs that require specific operating systems, operating systems that require hardware nobody supports. The market calls this progress. Archivists call it a slow-motion bonfire.
The subtext is a warning about memory under capitalism. We’re building a culture that can endlessly produce, but can’t reliably preserve. That’s not just an inconvenience for hobbyists hunting an old game save; it’s a structural risk for science, government records, journalism, and art made with digital tools. Lessig, a leading voice on copyright and “free culture,” is also nudging the reader toward a moral conclusion: if we let private control dictate the terms of readability, we outsource cultural continuity to quarterly earnings.
Contextually, this sits in the early-2000s reckoning with digital rights and digital decay: the moment when the internet promised permanence while quietly accelerating obsolescence.
Quote Details
| Topic | Technology |
|---|
More Quotes by Lawrence
Add to List
