Slashdot Mirror
Lessig On Free Content, Copyright
Glyn Moody writes "In an interview with the Guardian, Lawrence Lessig explains exactly how he'd like copyright reformed, and has this to say about free content: 'I think it's going to be a more significant movement than the free software movement because whatever the importance of the freedom of coders, coders will still be just a tiny proportion of the public, but culture is ... much broader.'"
Really, now...while I feel the creative landscape would be a much brighter place if copyrights didn't last indefinitely, I don't see Lessig proposing any real plan here. 14 years renewable to 28 sounds fair to me, but I'm part of the choir in this situation, and I don't see any indication that our lawmakers are going to be receptive to this. To my knowledge, one of the major reasons for the lengthening of copyright terms in the US is that we needed to bring our laws in line with the copyright laws in Europe, and nothing is changing there.
There are billion dollar interests at stake here. I'm glad that there are academics like Lessig that want to stand up for their principles, but unless he's planning to raise the funds for a massive lobbying campaign, I think he's fighting a losing battle...
The most realistic part is definitely the bit about requiring people to register for copyrights, but I worry about this - if you need to register, chances are you'll need to pay. Even if it's just a little, I'm not in favor of giving the government more knobs to turn...I fear that this particular step would only further help the moneyed interests at the expense of the little guy.
Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
The idea of triggering only on commercial distribution is a logical no brainer. Makes perfect sense therfore will never be passed in the U.S.
Keep up the good fight LL.
OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
Where was the "Free" concept before the computer age? Let's say even before 1995... Why did no other segment of society invent it?
... but people would refuse to even fund those basic things if they had the choice.
Stephen King is rich as hell and loves to write. Was it really impossible for him to give a book away? Just one?
How about music? Art?
I suppose the main difference is that before the computer age everything had a replication cost, and now it doesn't, but can that be the only issue?
Madonna never gave away CDs at cost, nor did any artist I've ever heard of. Why wouldn't have someone done that just once to see what happened? Maybe the publicity would do you well. The only thing that I know of that came close is a few bands encouraging bootlegs, and even at that it wasn't strictly "Legal", just encouraged (as far as i know).
The government makes a few things "Free" such as parks, streets, beaches, police, army,
In the computer realm, we are dedicating massive numbers of man-hours to open source projects and not even expecting to profit from the publicity!
Okay, so most people are fundamentally selfish to such an extreme that makes me embarrassed to call myself human, but what makes these programmers so different from other "Creators"?
I can't even attribute it to the fact that many got rich in the 90's because many of the open source projects had/have nothing to do with rich people, at least not Stephen King rich.
any ideas?
Now how is big media "locking up" YOUR culture?
For a full explanation, read Lessig's book "Free Culture", but the brief version is: Culture has always been built upon previous culture. New art is not only based on old art, but the most interesting parts are usually in the variations. If it's illegal to base new works on old works (because they're forever locked up by copyright, DRM, etc.), then the only people who can create new works are those who own the old. The media industry therefore becomes a self-perpetuating cartel. Even the very rare completely new creation just gets absorbed into the same mass of cultural protectionism.
Second I find it funny that slashdot defines IT'S culture in terms of what big business produces. Third I find it insulting that slashdot presumes that what others produce belongs to IT.
I don't understand these statements, and I'm pretty sure the first one is flat wrong.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I think it was Joni Mitchell at the '71 Isle of Wight festival who asked gate crashers why they expected her and others to perform for free. It's a nice utopian thought that cultural creators would share everything with everyone, but most creators have to worry about paying the rent. Now Joni Mitchell probably didn't have too much to worry about in that regard, but I think her point is still valid. Getting rid of copyright won't help people pay the rent. If you want to propose a system of generously distributed grants and stipends to cultural creators, an anarchistic or communist reorganisation of society, or even something like the WPA projects for writers and artists that's fine -- and much more realistic than saying culture ought to be free. Culture is not going to be free until people are free to make it. Tinkering around with the length of the copyrights isn't going to change the situation, either.
I fully realise that in the end most creators end up working for nothing or taking a loss and that copyright doesn't do anything for them -- but neither will "free culture" or shorter copyrights. People make culture, but people have bills to pay and kids to feed. I'd work for free too if I didn't have to worry about groceries, rent, day care, saving for retirement...
In this case it did. He came up with an idea linguists know is wrong. Had he had training, he wouldn't have understood why Newspeak was not feasible.
Human beings are perfectly capable of molding a language to fit their needs, it is not possible for a higher authority to craft their thoughts by means of language.
And don't cite Chomsky here. He has never upheld the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. In fact, the theory of universal grammar invalidates it completely.
The media is certainly a strong influence people's perceptions in any given situation.[1] But influence is not the same as control. If the media could control your perceptions, you would buy absolutely everything that they told you to without question or thought. I doubt you do that. I know I don't. All the media can do is attempt to persuade us. They're good at it, but not so good that resistance is futile. Is it hard to persuade large numbers of people of something? Sure. Is Lessig fighting an uphill battle against entrenched interests? Yep. Does that mean he's certain to fail? No. I refer you to the case of Martin Luther King Jr., who wrought major changes in a vast array of deeply entrenched cultural forces through little more than the power of words.
That's going to depend largely on the age of John and Jane. I've been using bits and pieces of Lessig's book Free Culture in the basic composition course I teach at a large, fairly conservative university in the southern U.S. I've provided my students with arguments from lots of viewpoints - Lessig's one, but also Jack Valenti's testimony before the Judiciary committee in 1995, Alan Menken from the same occasion, Thomas Jefferson's letter to Isaac McPherson, and others. I've had students who believed passionately that copyright should be left just as it is, or extended even further; but those tend to be the exception. The majority of them favor copyright reform a la Lessig. Older people (notably my mother) tend to think the current copyright regime is just fine as it is.
Oh, and nobody ever gets any news or information from anywhere but CNN or Fox. I had forgotten. Thanks for reminding me.
Television is no longer the only, or even the main source of information in people's lives. Lots of people get their news from the Internet. (Especially younger people.) And some of us, quaint thought it may seem, still read books and newspapers. Imagine that.
My point? The media is neither omniscinet nor omnipotent. The media is powerful, yes, but it's not invincible. It can be challenged; it can be beaten. Don't throw in the towel before you've even begun exercising.
[1] Just today I came across a reference to a study from the early nineties showing that people who watch a lot of TV tend to have a much more negative view of the economy than people who don't - even when you're considering people who actually make the same amount of money. See Hart and Daughton, "Modern Rhetorical Criticism," in the chapter on analyzing media.