Slashdot Mirror
Lessig Defends Free Culture in Keynote
lisah writes "Professor Larry Lessig, a keynote speaker at this week's Linux World Expo, took issue with current copyright laws and their effect on a free read-write culture. Lessig says that, by today's standards, the simple act of creating a video mashup renders its creator a 'pirate' and argued for sweeping changes that would embrace a fair use culture. Lessig asked the audience to consider sharing works under a Creative Commons license and redirect money they would spend on restricted content to organizations that support a fair use and free culture. He says that opponents of a free read-write culture have strong financial and political backing so unified community support is crucial. 'If the debate is controlled by lawyers and lobbyists...," says Lessig, 'this debate will be lost.'"
It's interesting to see how this affects different media. Creating and posting a mash-up of the Harry Potter films would be grounds for a lawsuit, and yet there's nothing to stop millions of thirteen-year-olds writing terrible fanfic and posting it all over the internet. Oh, the horror!
How much money would this culture cost the entertainment producers? If fair use is really fair then it should still allow
I do not think that media should be allowed to be replayed for free. Significant amounts of money went into making TV shows and movies and the like and any system must ensure that the producer gets his cut. Contrary to the demands of my sig, not all information should be completely free. Using the CC license is a happy medium. The I really think that this speaker has the right approach, so to speak. From TFA:
Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
I've always felt that the reason DRM and content restrictive licenses don't drum up more outrage is simply because most people are entertainment sinks. Media and content goes into their ears and eyes and then doesn't do anything. The creative types, the young folks learning about mixed media on computers, and the artists are in such small number that their outrage over being stifled goes unnoticed by everyone else. If more people actually used the media as a means of creative expression and not just a disposable good, we wouldn't have this issue. Note that I have no idea how to fix it, I'm just bitching about cause/effect.
Did you know subscribers can see articles in the future? Holy shit!
Redirecting spending money from copyrighted content to independent artists releasing their work under the Creative Commons license is akin to becoming vegan/veggetarian: It requires willpower, it requires sometimes going for what is best when it's not what you want, and overall it's worth it. It's also doomed to failure in an instant gratification culture.
It has my support, though, for what that's worth. I wish the idea the best of luck, and I gladly participate.
I can write a graphic novel or do a film about vampires, fictitious lords, cartoon mice, or almost anything I imagine BUT they'd better not be obvious copies of characters in works protected by copyright, and they better not be named after counterparts in copyrighted works (except for the purposes of parody which is fair use). That's no different than saying that I can start a techie news blog/forum to rival this one, but I'd better not call it "slashtech.com", and better not cut and paste large swatches of content that was originally published here, or I'd probably get a series of nasty emails from an OSTG-retained lawyer until I ceased and desisted.
OK, you say, that's all part of running a business, as far as the last part goes. BUT that's exactly what the kind of unpleasant stuff that folks in the media business deal with every day - and their stake is much greater because their assets are primarily their content, as opposed to hosting a site to facilitate discussion.
You have to remember, however, that Lessig is able to be "generous" because he is "subsidized." In other words, as a professor, he draws a hefty salary (typically over $100,000 annually) with low health insurance rates , and anything else is gravy. In addition, he has retirement pension and benefits.
However, if you are a screenwriter or an author or independent artist, you don't necessarily have the luxury of giving away your creative works for free, because that IS your livelihood, and you are probably working on it 24 hours a day, whether conciously or subconsiously (i.e. thinking about it even while you are sleeping). An artist may have a lot of success now, but the artist's next work may be a failure and lose money. Buying independent health insurance can cost about $175 per month alone. Plus an independent artist will not necessarily have retirement fund with matching employer contributions as Lessig has.
Lessig is passionate about free stuff because it benefits HIM, not artists. He stands everything to GAIN, and nothing to lose, plus he's getting paid for it. Giving away his book for free is just part of the charade.
Lessig is starting to sound like Stallman. Stallman is more effective, though. What we need is some serious lobbying, along the following lines:
-
Copyright harmonization The US should not go beyond the 50 years of the TRIPS agreement. 50 years from first publication, copyright expires. That's it. Free Elvis! (The US can do that unilaterally. Less than 50 years requires international negotiation.)
-
Make copy protection illegal for uncopyrightable material If you can't copyright it, you can't use technical means to protect it.
-
Enforce the Audio Home Recording Act Any arrangement between manufacturers and/or content distributors to restrict rights guaranteed to consumers is illegal restraint of trade.
-
Free spectrum, free content If it goes out over the free airwaves, like TV channels for which broadcasters do not pay, it can't be copy protected.
Now that's a reasonable agenda to lobby for.Rant on.
Mashups are not fair use for the artist unless the artist releases the work for use as a mashup. If you create a mashup you *are* infringing a copyright -- AND more importantly, a moral and ethical right. The creator of a work has the right to ensure that that work is only seen in a form which the creator approves of. If the artist releases it for use in a mashup, fine. If not, it is not yours to play with. Just because it is easy to steal material and make a mashup does not mean it should be legal. It's easy to spit on people in the street and scratch your keys down someone's door; doesn't mean it should be legal.
And don't tell me there's 'no harm' in it. If I am an artist and you misrepresent my work, you are harming my reputation. You might scare off potential customers, whatever. Even if you label the work as derivative, people seeing will still use it, consciously or not, to help form an opinion on the underlying art.
You could argue that the extra exposure might benefit an artist. BUT it is THEIR choice if they chase that extra exposure or not, not a mashup artist's choice.
A lot of internet discussion revolves around the user's rights, the big fat corporations trying to protect their wallets, all that emotional crap. THe actualt creators, off which 99% of the web feeds like a parasite, get squashed between the two.
Rant off.
I'd put my money on his publisher ('s lawyers) intentionally feeding him lies so he prevents fan works from competing with any sequels.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.