| | |
|
ShawnFettyFirstPaper 7 - 02 Nov 2011 - Main.ShawnFetty
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | Just collecting links while I continue to edit off-wiki | >
> | NOT READY FOR EDITING | | | The Problem(s) with open-source law | | | Introduction | |
<
< | Open-source law envisions the coordinated effort of dispersed, freely collaborating lawyers. The idea builds on the same premise (simplified here) as open-source software: the product of free and easy sharing is superior to proprietary products. Open-source law promises the pursuit of justice where there is none—or at least cheaper legal services. | >
> | Open-source law envisions the coordinated effort of dispersed, freely collaborating lawyers. The idea builds on the same premise (simplified here) as open-source software: the product of free and easy sharing is superior to proprietary products. Open-source law promises the pursuit of justice where there is none—or at least cheaper legal services. | | | | |
>
> | Striving for those goals, proponents of open-source law have been chasing the tails of three very different dragons: 1) Wexis, 2) treatises and practice journals, and 3) lawyering itself. In the first case, we have PreCydent, an open-source competitor to Wexis. For the second, a number of Wikipedia-law-clones have been published on the Web. And finally, we have Harvard’s experiment in “[harnessing] the distributed resources of the Internet” to draft briefs. | | | | |
<
< | Striving for those goals, proponents of open-source law have been chasing the tails of three very different dragons: 1) treatises and practice journals, 2) Wexis, and 3) lawyering itself. In the first case, a number of Wikipedia-law-clones have been published on the Web. For the second, we have PreCydent, an open-source competitor to Wexis. And finally, we have Harvard’s experiment in “[harnessing] the distributed resources of the Internet” to draft briefs. | >
> | Despite these efforts, open-source law remains a sluggish movement. None of the Law-Wikis have been even modestly adopted, Precydent went belly up, and the Berkman Center’s Openlaw site appears to have been effectively decommissioned (given the dead links and other signs of neglect) sometime in 2002, just a few years after its inception. | | | | |
<
< | Despite these efforts, a sustainable model for open-source law remains undeveloped. None of the Law-Wikis have been even modestly adopted, Precydent went belly up, and the Berkman Center’s Openlaw site appears to have been effectively decommissioned (given the dead links and other signs of neglect) some time in 2002, just a few years after its inception. Here, I sketch what happened with open-source law. | >
> | These are setbacks, but with respect to the first two facets of open-source law, workable models have been developed. Precydent did everything we need it to do. And, while the Law-Wikis have floundered, the birth of thousands of legal blogs, coupled with efforts like Cornell’s Legal Information Institute and Justia, provides at least the start of an open conversation about the state of the law and legal practice. Money and lack-of-interest are problems, but they are problems with relatively simple solutions. | | | | |
<
< | Moreover, while sites like Cornell's Legal Information Institute Justia.com may eventually become credible legal references, they fall short when it comes to promoting actual advocacy. | >
> | Rejuvenating open-source lawyering requires addressing the array of sociological and professional elements working against lawyers collaborating. | | | | |
<
< | Law is not inherently incompatible with the open-source model. Moving forward, any successful open-source law methodology must address the array of sociological and professional elements working against lawyers collaborating. | | |
Section II |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |