My sympathies probably lie with Cato's Adam Thierer on policy issues, but I think that anytime you try to impute a position to your opponent you are on shaky grounds.

Here is Thierer.

Are markets and property rights really antithetical to openness, ideas, expression, knowledge, culture, diversity, and democracy? History shows that the exact opposite is the case. Markets and property rights have served as the foundation for those virtues. Indeed, and it is still the case today, cultures and nations that refuse to allow markets and property rights to develop have a lamentable track record on all of those fronts. History has shown, again and again, that the absence of property rights and free exchange leads to economic ruin, cultural stagnation, and political tyranny. It seems that the seductive charm of "the commons" is once again leading a large number of people to think a world without property rights is not only possible, but would somehow bring about a mythical cyber-nirvana.

Here's Lessig.

But "the Internet" does not refer to a bunch of machines. It refers to the the set of protocols that enable a bunch of machines to link together in ways that no one -- including its inventors -- imagined. Technically, which in other cities means "accurately," that set of protocols is not "owned." Instead, the protocols of TCP/IP, which include the protocols for the World Wide Web, are in the public domain. I take it Cato believes that's a bad thing: That it would be better if those protocols were proprietary.

If you read the closing two sentences of each excerpt, you can see that the "debate" consists largely of Thierer setting up a straw-man view of Lessig, with Lessig setting up a straw-man view of Thierer. That tells me that the ratio of heat to light is going to be high.