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.
There's a very thin edge here, and a very slippery slope.
As an artist, if I create something, I want it to be protected - in the sense that if anyone is going to make money off of my brain, I want it to be me. That being said, I can see Lessig's point of being able to build on the work of others, or at least a redacted version of it.
Let's be realistic - if people didn't use seminal ideas from others, and have the ingenuity, creativity and broad-mindedness to take something and expand it, where would we be? what would we have (and not just in a materialistic sense)?
What if Beethoven hadn't used thematic ideas from Mozart, or Mozart from Bach, or Bach from any of his predecessors? Indeed, we would have very limited amounts of music to work with. Jazz is a great example - it is a "remix" of other forms of music.
I don't think that what Lessig is espousing is correct, but we do need to look critically at how information is shared and used. We are making criminals of kids for file sharing, but then again, in that case, I would agree that it's law. file sharing of music is to avoid purchase (read - paying for the creativity of the artist)
However, I don't think that if you want to use an idea of mine as a take-off point for another blog entry that I should be compensated for that. If I didn't think of that possibility or option, well, my bad fortune.
There is a difference between file sharing and expanding on the ideas of others. But I think a new business model is emerging where file sharing will be part of the mix, e.g. "let the kids share our music because we make our money off of the shows." I think if you follow the money trail you see which side people are on. As this paradigm shifts, people will change sides.
Culturally I don't know how you'd be able to survive if you could not build on the ideas of others.
I am the Richard who the Ashley spoke of in the above chat and I feel very strongly about copyright and copyleft. I may comment more at a later time.
George Bernard Shaw:
'If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas.'
Think about the following:
Have you ever tried to play a PC game or use other software that is over 10 years old? How many vendors sell or support 10 year old software? How many vendors would sue you for distributing, supporting, and/or altering said software so it would work?
Do you like go see 'Macbeth', 'Twelfth Knight', 'A Comedy of Errors', 'Richard III', or any of Shakespeare's other plays? Can you imagine one of his decedents suing people over the right to perform the bard's works some 400 years after they were created? What if it was only 100 years after they were created?
Have you ever printed out a copy of a famous work of art (like 'the Last Supper' by da Vinci or 'Starry Night' by van Gogh), frame it, and hang it up: or even use such a work as a desktop, cellphone, or website background or on a credit/debit card? Have you failed to pay the artist for his or her creativity?
'Steamboat Willie' was made in 1928 and will be under copyright, under current law, until at least 2023; still under copyright almost a century after it was created. How does this help Walt?
Given I live until I'm 65, this blog post that I'm writing today at 27 will not enter the public domain until 2116.
Where are my royalties Jeff?
I am really regretting not asking you to edit that conversation for content :)
Lessig chose the wrong show to appear on. Jon Steward would have been a far better interviewer of Lessig.
Colbert's interview style is far to aggressive and confrontational: he is prone to disarming opponents with wild, irrational arguments and luring his guests into making emotional and/or embarrassing comments.
On the other hand, Steward tends to ask questions and a make comments that further the conversation. I'm not saying Steward is a pushover or is witless: Steward does provide opposition when the conversation starts to move in a direction he doesn't approve of, however, his arguments are rational and his satire is normally limited to brief, one line comments (after which he is brings the conversation back on task).
Very few people will interview better on Colbert's show and Lessig showed that he had not done his homework, '...[on that other show--what's it called? the Daily Show?]'
I was quite surprised by Lessig's performance: Lessig normally seems very well spoken and knowledgeable, however, I've never seen him in an interview or debate. I have to wonder if his polish is limited merely to presentations and the written word.