Last week I posted about Lawrence Lessig being on the Colbert Report talking about his new book. During the interview Colbert, tongue-in-cheek of course, dared his audience to remix the interview. Well, last night Colbert played his own remix of the interview, which was great. Today I went to YouTube to see how many people posted a remixed version of the interview and counted 16. Here are four of my favorites
January 2009 Archives
Last night I posted a link to a clip on YouTube where Lawrence Lessig was on. This sparked a conversation between a colleague and myself on Lessig's point of view and copyright in general. With her permission the conversation is posted here (personal asides and misspellings included). I'd be interested in hearing your perspective.
Jeff: Lawrence Lessig on Colbert. http://tinyurl.com/8weu6m. "Isn't that like saying arson laws are turning our kids into pyromaniacs?"
Ashley: I saw that episode. :)
Jeff: what did you think?
Ashley: Richard is sitting here complaining that you didn't comment on his status when he had it say something about Lessig. I didn't see that status either so ignore him.
Richard also points out that the youtube clip is illegal
I think that he's absolutely right... not Colbert on the arson bit I do believe that people's creations should be protected, but not to the extreme that it's been taken too. And as long as the original is cited (linked back to or whatever) then what does it matter.
Richard also says that he thinks Lessig would have done better on that daily show
I see that you're Facebook friends with Sam Richards. Isn't he awesome?
Ashley: Wait I missed a sentence in what I was saying. I do believe that Lessig is completely right about "remixing" as it were. However, I also believe that people's ideas should be protected. Though, it has been taken to the extreme. It's at the point where I"m afraid to put something out there for fear it's already been done and I'm going to be sued!
Sorry, class drained me. I hope that made more sense.
Jeff: A common misconception, fostered in part by Lessig himself, is that he feels there should be no copyright protection. What he really argues for is that the gray area that allows for creativity be open for people to do something with. He has a 4-part grid explaining "protected" and "fair use" the he showed during his keynote.
I did not see Richard's updates. I'll check my friend's list to see if he is on it.
Jeff: The point Richard makes (the Colbert clip on YouTube is illegal) is correct and also supports the argument Lessig made on the show: the law as it is was written for a different time.
Why do Colbert and Comedy Central not insist it be taken down? In fact why are there multitudes of clips there? Because having these clips there actually increases interest in the show and therefore drives up the show's revenue.
The laws were written for a text based medium where making copies did infringe in the rights of the owner. These digital copies now actually help to enhance the owners status and profitability. Yest by definition the law was broken.
Jeff: Ashley, you mind if I post a transcript of our conversation on my blog? I think there is value here. Feel free to do the same.
Ashley: Feel free to do so.
Jeff: Lawrence Lessig on Colbert. http://tinyurl.com/8weu6m. "Isn't that like saying arson laws are turning our kids into pyromaniacs?"
Ashley: I saw that episode. :)
Jeff: what did you think?
Ashley: Richard is sitting here complaining that you didn't comment on his status when he had it say something about Lessig. I didn't see that status either so ignore him.
Richard also points out that the youtube clip is illegal
I think that he's absolutely right... not Colbert on the arson bit I do believe that people's creations should be protected, but not to the extreme that it's been taken too. And as long as the original is cited (linked back to or whatever) then what does it matter.
Richard also says that he thinks Lessig would have done better on that daily show
I see that you're Facebook friends with Sam Richards. Isn't he awesome?
Ashley: Wait I missed a sentence in what I was saying. I do believe that Lessig is completely right about "remixing" as it were. However, I also believe that people's ideas should be protected. Though, it has been taken to the extreme. It's at the point where I"m afraid to put something out there for fear it's already been done and I'm going to be sued!
Sorry, class drained me. I hope that made more sense.
Jeff: A common misconception, fostered in part by Lessig himself, is that he feels there should be no copyright protection. What he really argues for is that the gray area that allows for creativity be open for people to do something with. He has a 4-part grid explaining "protected" and "fair use" the he showed during his keynote.
I did not see Richard's updates. I'll check my friend's list to see if he is on it.
Jeff: The point Richard makes (the Colbert clip on YouTube is illegal) is correct and also supports the argument Lessig made on the show: the law as it is was written for a different time.
Why do Colbert and Comedy Central not insist it be taken down? In fact why are there multitudes of clips there? Because having these clips there actually increases interest in the show and therefore drives up the show's revenue.
The laws were written for a text based medium where making copies did infringe in the rights of the owner. These digital copies now actually help to enhance the owners status and profitability. Yest by definition the law was broken.
Jeff: Ashley, you mind if I post a transcript of our conversation on my blog? I think there is value here. Feel free to do the same.
Ashley: Feel free to do so.
If you know me, you know that my blogging, up to recently, has been sporadic at best. Like many others I struggled not only with finding my voice but, also with figuring out the point of it all. What did I have to say that was worth reading? Who would want to read it? With many other people out there much smarter than me already blogging about the things I would blog about why should I bother? What purpose would it serve? Me? Others?
Recently I made the commitment to have another go at blogging partly spurred on by a book I'm reading on economics, The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More by Chris Anderson. Anderson, editor in chief of Wired, talks about the economics of a world in which virtually anything is available and how within this ubiquitous availability there seems to be a market for everything. What Anderson found in his research is that the distribution curve virtually never drops to zero no matter how much content is out there. And it keeps being added. Someone, somewhere, out there is interested.
Now writing a blog for a single reader does seem pointless. But what if this reader was interested enough in what I had to say to want to hire me to do some work? And what if they were in a position to do so? Now, with virtually no overhead and only an investment of time, I have a consulting opportunity. It gets interesting. And what if another person becomes interested and this leads to another opportunity, say a publication or speaking engagement? It begins to add up. Think about it. If maintaining a blog only leads to one connection a year what does that look like over the course of your career? Pretty good, huh?
Recently I made the commitment to have another go at blogging partly spurred on by a book I'm reading on economics, The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More by Chris Anderson. Anderson, editor in chief of Wired, talks about the economics of a world in which virtually anything is available and how within this ubiquitous availability there seems to be a market for everything. What Anderson found in his research is that the distribution curve virtually never drops to zero no matter how much content is out there. And it keeps being added. Someone, somewhere, out there is interested.
Now writing a blog for a single reader does seem pointless. But what if this reader was interested enough in what I had to say to want to hire me to do some work? And what if they were in a position to do so? Now, with virtually no overhead and only an investment of time, I have a consulting opportunity. It gets interesting. And what if another person becomes interested and this leads to another opportunity, say a publication or speaking engagement? It begins to add up. Think about it. If maintaining a blog only leads to one connection a year what does that look like over the course of your career? Pretty good, huh?