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.'"

Comments

Money!

[andrewman327]

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:

He also noted that there are two ways of approaching the argument for free culture. The first is the "lefty" way of talking about ideals, which doesn't seem to get very far with many people. The "right" approach discusses why expanded rights for users under copyright law would be good for business, good for growth, and good for the economy and society.

Re:Sadly...

[hamfactorial]

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.

Rise, hippies! Rise!!

[Almahtar]

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.

Re:Rise, hippies! Rise!!

[MrAndrews]

That's a big problem for the CC movement at the moment... it DOES require willpower for the average person to go "free". It's a lot easier in software, but entertainment is still the domain of the big players. And it's not really a valid argument that big companies are the only ones making good stuff... but they spend a lot of money to maintain the image that non-Big Label content is amateurish. You "hit it big" when you sign with a multinational company, and until then, you're just building your portfolio.

Open source software folks are probably the best ones to realize the flaw in that argument, since by the same standards something like Linux would only be for amateurs. But still I think we all view indie content as necessarily lower-quality, which makes the whole thing a self-fulfilling prophecy... artists see no reason to be professional amateurs so they DO hold out for the big labels. We'd rather watch Firefly on DVD than support some of the cool things web artists (working under CC) want to do.

If everyone that reads Slashdot pledged to spend $10 a month on CC content, I bet you'd see a lot more quality content emerge, and it'd require a lot less willpower to swear off copyrighted things completely.

Re:Interesting...

[penix1]

"Of course there's nothing to stop those 13 year olds from acting in terrible harry potter fan made films either"

Except copyright law itself. The derivative works part of copyright keeps that from happening.

So yes, those 13 year olds can be sued for just such a performance especially if they released it.

B.

Lessig needs to rant less and lobby more

[Animats]

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.