Considering their background, it is understandable that Ess’ and Lessig’s arguments come from different perspectives. This is true, even when they are talking about the same issue, namely, copyright in the digital age.

Lessig, as a lawyer, analyzes the ethical implications of a set of laws that have seeped from intended protection in the professional world into severely punishing amateur everyday use. His response is a much more tangible, specific approach to what to do next.

Ess, as an ethicist, looks at the reality of digital sharing and copying, from a much more philosophical standpoint. Of course, any practical proposal, whether from Ess, Lessig or anyone else, should have a strong and clear theoretical support.

Both Ess and Lessig give alternatives that encourage more sharing and less controlling than our (American/Western) current copyright system.

Ess, highlights the importance of social contribution to a shared work as part of the emphasis of community well-being as means to individual well-being. This echoes the principles of Confucian thought. In his description of FLOSS, these principles lead to free availability of resources that one can edit, hopefully for improvement.

Lessig, on the other hand, does not defend the abolition of copyright, but advances that there is a strong need for reform. This reform is not intended to shift weight from individual gain to social gain but to defend individual interests both for publishers and consumer, which are usually two sides of the same person, I may add. He presents steps for a balance that conserves individual rights to protect content and to use content fairly.