Dean Elena Kagan strikes again. From an HLS press release:

Renowned legal scholar Lawrence Lessig has been appointed to the faculty of Harvard Law School, and as the faculty director of Harvard University's Edmond J. Safra Foundation Center for Ethics. The announcement was made jointly today (Dec. 12) by Harvard University Provost Steven E. Hyman and Harvard Law School Dean Elena Kagan.

Lessig -- a widely acclaimed expert in constitutional law, cyberlaw, and intellectual property -- comes to Harvard from the faculty of Stanford Law School. Prior to joining the Stanford faculty in 2000, he was on the faculty of the University of Chicago Law School and Harvard Law School.

Dean Kagan and HLS have been on a tremendous hiring spree. One source sums it up: "Can we get a list of who's left -- not counting federal judges like Posner, Easterbrook and Calabresi -- that Kagan hasn't scooped up in the last few years? Dworkin? Ackerman? Epstein?"

Says a second: "Dean Kagan is a juggernaut. In spite of losing about 25 percent of its endowment, Harvard is apparently not in a hiring freeze."

More discussion, including words from Professor Lessig, after the jump.

Stanford law professor Larry Lessig had an editorial in the Wall Street Journal's weekend edition, "In defense of piracy." Lessig starts off hating on the lawyers who went after the mother in the dancing baby/YouTube/Prince's "Let's Go Crazy" case. (Background here.)

How is it that sensible people, people no doubt educated at some of the best universities and law schools in the country, would come to think it a sane use of corporate resources to threaten the mother of a dancing 13-month-old? What is it that allows these lawyers and executives to take a case like this seriously, to believe there's some important social or corporate reason to deploy the federal scheme of regulation called copyright to stop the spread of these images and music?

The answer: Crazy copyright law.

Lessig goes on to defend others whose creativity is derived from others' creativity, like Danger Mouse and mash-up artist Girl Talk, whose latest album samples from 300 different songs. No rights acquired.

Midway through, the editorial goes into "Braveheart" mode. There's a war going on, says Lessig-- the "copyright wars." Kids these days are sharing copyrighted material through peer-to-peer networks, while the art world is embracing a rampant remix culture.

This war must end. It is time we recognize that we can't kill this creativity. We can only criminalize it. We can't stop our kids from using these tools to create, or make them passive. We can only drive it underground, or make them "pirates." And the question we as a society must focus on is whether this is any good. Our kids live in an age of prohibition, where more and more of what seems to them to be ordinary behavior is against the law. They recognize it as against the law. They see themselves as "criminals." They begin to get used to the idea.

That recognition is corrosive. It is corrupting of the very idea of the rule of law. And when we reckon the cost of this corruption, any losses of the content industry pale in comparison.

That's heavy. Lessig's suggestions for ending the war, saving our lawless kids, and encouraging creativity, after the jump.

The controversy surrounding Chief Judge Alex Kozinski is rapidly dissipating -- and with good reason. He has recused himself from the Ira Isaacs obscenity trial, and he's called for an investigation of any potential misconduct on his part. So, to quote his website, "Ain't nothin' here. Y'all best be movin' on, compadre."

We've read tons of Kozinski coverage (so you don't have to). Here are three of the most important posts:

1. The wife of Chief Judge Kozinski has come to his defense, over at Patterico's Pontifications:

My name is Marcy Tiffany. I have been married to Alex Kozinski for over thirty years and we have raised three sons together..... [T]he LA Times story, authored by Scott Glover, is riddled with half-truths, gross mischaracterizations and outright lies. One significant mischaracterization is that Alex was maintaining some kind of "website" to which he posted pornographic material.

Obviously, Glover's use of the word "website" was intended to convey a false image of a carefully designed and maintained graphical interface, with text, pictures, sound and hyperlinks, such as businesses maintain or that individuals can set up on Facebook, rather than a bunch of random files located in one of many folders stored on our family's file server. The "server" is actually just another home computer that sits next to my desk in our home office, and that we use to store files, perform back-ups, and route the Internet to the family network. It has no graphical interface, but if you know the precise location of a file, you can access it either from one of the home computers or remotely.

Using the term "website" also gives the impression that Alex was actively aware of all of the material, when, in fact, it had accumulated over a number of years and he didn't even remember that some of that stuff had been stored there or whether it had been put there by him or one of our sons, who also have access to the server.

That's just an excerpt; read the whole thing over here.

2. Professor Eugene Volokh, a former clerk to Chief Judge Kozinski, offers his thoughts over at the Volokh Conspiracy. Money quote:

Kozinski has a quirky sense of humor, and keeps some joke pictures and videos on his computer rather than throwing them away. I'm sure they aren't the kinds of things some people would enjoy seeing. But he wasn't trying to show them to those people! He was just minding his own business, keeping some files on his own private server. And now it's a national news story.

Enough already.

3. Professor Volokh's post concludes by quoting the analysis of Professor Lawrence Lessig, another leading legal academic and cyberlaw guru. Professor Lessig writes:

When it comes to government invasions of our privacy, we are (and rightly) a privacy obsessed people. We need to extend some of that obsession to the increasingly common violations by private people against other private people. There is nothing for Chief Judge Kozinski to defend because he has violated no law, and we live in a free society (or so he thought when he immigrated from Romania). A free society should feed the right to be left alone, including the right not to have to defend publicly private choices and taste, by learning not to feed the privacy trolls.

That's just the tail end of a long and thoughtful post. Read it in full by clicking here.

Alex Kozinski's Wife Speaks Out [Patterico's Pontifications via Volokh Conspiracy (Jonathan Adler)]
Alex Kozinski [Volokh Conspiracy (Eugene Volokh)]
The Kozinski mess [Lessig Blog (Larry Lessig)]

A brief update on an earlier story. Last week, we mentioned that celebrity cyberlaw prof Larry Lessig, of Stanford Law School, was contemplating a congressional bid. His prospective campaign would be centered on the theme du jour of Change (in this case, of Congress).

Many ATL commenters didn't think highly of the idea:

"He has NO chance against Jackie Speier."

"He can't exactly self-fund, and the primary is just over three months away. I like the fellow well enough, but this seems foolhardy."

"Jackie Speier has this thing locked up. She has name recognition, prior elected experience, the endorsements of everyone who matters, party money, and a compelling story that involves getting shot several times by crazy people. Beat that."

Professor Lessig apparently decided he couldn't. For his official statement on why he decided not to run, see his website.

P.S. Are we sure Professor Lessig couldn't have pulled this off? After all, he is a former Supreme Court clerk (Posner / Scalia). Those folks can do anything they set their formidable minds to!

From Larry [Lessig08.org]
Lessig Decides Against Run for Congress at Internet Speed [The Lede / New York Times]
Larry Lessig: I'm not running for Congress [The Iconoclast / CNET]

Earlier: Following in Obama's Footsteps? Professor Lessig Considers Running for Congress

The stereotypical law professor might be viewed as too disengaged from the "real world" to be a good politician. But as Barack Obama shows, it's quite possible to move from legal academia into political life.

Now another prominent young law prof -- who, by the way, is an outspoken Obama supporter -- is contemplating Congress. From a Stanford Law School source:

Larry Lessig is considering a congressional run to replace Tom Lantos. Seems to have sparked a lot of energy and attention here on campus and in the Silicon Valley the last day or two.

No discussion yet about what happens to his Con Law class if he decides to run.

As Professor Lessig recently told the WSJ Law Blog, he wants to change the political process, primarily by reducing the influence of money and lobbyists on policy decisions. And what better way to reform the system than from within?

If you're interested in expressing support for Professor Lessig, check out the links collected below. The Draft Lessig Facebook group already has over 3,000 members -- but surely they'd welcome more.

Lessig '08 [official website]
Draft Lessig - Change Congress
Draft Lessig for Congress [Facebook]
Law Blog Q&A With Lawrence Lessig [WSJ Law Blog]