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.'"
I had the pleasure of seeing Lessig speak a year ago. If you ever have the chance to see this man, do so. Even if you hate his message, he is an absolute god when it comes to speaking and presenting. His style of presentation has earned its own title of the "Lessig" style of presentation.
While I am somewhat awed by Lessig's ability to present, my real admiration for him comes from how he has pursued his cause. Lessig argues for radical change in current laws. He is not the only person to argue for radical change. What makes Lessig different is that had has not only made attempts to work within law to bring about change, but he has gone even further and tried to implement what he advocates within a voluntary and completely legal manner without reliance on the force of government to enact the change that he seeks. Lots of people advocate some sort of radical change in society, but relatively few make a genuine attempt to bring about such change through methods other then complaining to the government to use the force of law.
The Creative Commons is an incredible accomplishment. While the CC is in no danger of displacing current media, it has certainly started to make a dent. Will the CC ever make a dent large enough for the average Joe to really sit up and take notice without legislative change? Perhaps not, but what it has done is create an ecosystem to explore the 'fair use' world that Lessig envisions. Even those who find the watering down of copyright power revolting can not honestly proclaim any sort of mal-intent from creating a way for artists who want to offer their works to the public domain a simple and easily identifiable way to do so.
I strongly encourage anyone who is even vaugly interested in this debate to check out Lessig's book, Free Culture. Keeping in tune with Lessig's philosophy on copyright, the book is freely available online. Some enterprising readers of the book also have a complete reading of the book in MP3 format. Check it out.
If I want to do a movie on Vampires, should I have to pay someone? You mess Lessig's point. Culture by definition builds upon its past. Vampires, elves, bad ass action heroes, our concept of aliens, formulaic romantic comedies, guitars, a generic punk sound, a whiny emo sound, and all other pieces of "entertainment" are all "mashups" in one way or another. All of the above exist ONLY because of culture that they were built upon. None of the above have any meaning to a stone aged tribal person living in the rainforest. These are not concepts that spring magically from the human mind. These are concepts that have evolved in our culture. Lessig's point is that we are stunting culture by following back every creative idea to its source and asking permission before we use it.
If you had to go back and ask the originators punk if you could use their sound and they had an absolute veto over it, we might very well not have punk and all the other types of music that sprung from that branch in the musical tree. The same goes for more other examples. Today, you can merrily write about vampires without worry of a lawsuit, but if you try and write about another fictional villain, say a Star Wars Sith Lord, and you will find your ass sued into the ground. This SHOULD be troubling. Our ability to create new culture is being stunted by demanding that anyone wants to bud off of some other creative needs to ask the original authors permission. Instead of having an explosion of stories and mythos from worlds from our popular culture, we have tightly controlled and stunted versions.
Further, even the most pro-copyright minded person MUST see the insanity of copyrights that last CENTURIES. Lessig doesn't argue for an end to copyright. He argues for some sort of sanity in it. Giving people copyrights that exists well past their death and then some is crazy. Dead artists don't need their works protected. If you want to use a Robert Frost poem, you damn well should be able to. The guy has been dead for almost half of a centaury yet you can still find your ass sued if you post one of his poems on the Internet.
No matter what you think of copyright, you MUST agree that the current system is insane and needs fixing. Perhaps you might not want to take it as far as Lessig does, but you certainly must agree that a mean who died in 1949 doesn't need his work to continue to waste away under copyright protection.
Authors have the right to be compensated under CC licenses by choosing CC-NC-SA. All a CC license does in that case is makes it clear to the readers of the book that they can enjoy the fair use privileges we used to take for granted. There's a distinction between consumers and resellers there that modern copyright fanatics forget: the law was not meant to keep me from giving my copy of Harry Potter to my friend, it was meant to keep me from printing a thousand copies without permission. Copyright's trying to remove all those rights, and CC is an attempt to clarify them again.
But the bigger issue is whether Jack Ryan is actually the exclusive property of Tom Clancy as a concept. Fanfic isn't strictly legal if you're a copyright maximalist. Exploring the characters and ideas that other authors have created should be encouraged. "Patriot Games" may not be the best book in the world, but it could be that someone out there will write the Best Novel of All Time based on a character Mr Clancy created. But no one will try that if they think they're going to get sued. CC content creates an environment where derivative works can be made without fear of retribution, and quite possibly lead to more revenue streams for the originating artist.
CC does not have to mean "nobody gets paid". It's more about "nobody has to be scared of lawyers".
The world's only surviving livewriter.
The entire purpose of Copyright, as it was initially envisioned, was to create a thriving public domain to benefit the people as a whole. Yes, that which others had spent money on was originally intended to be free after a time, in order to allow the creator time to make a profit before their work was contributed to the public. As a limited sort of monopoly, it more or less did what it was intended.
Through gratuitous copyright extension however, the system has been perverted into what is primarily a vector with which to attack others through the legal system. What was originally supposed to be a way to increase the size and quality of the public domain is now being used to create virtually unlimited monopolies on information. Whatever view you may have on copyright, it's certainly not being used as it was originally intended. The Creative Commons is a step in the right direction, but we're still stuck with the problem.
GPL: Free as in will
Well if we're going to remove artificially create rights and restrictions we also need to get rid of most laws. Or are you being hypocritical? Why do YOU have a monopoly on your property? I should be able to take whatever I want, sure you can stop me or try to but I should be able to freely shoot you dead as well.
You're missing the point. Copyright did not start out to be a mechanism for forcing people to pay for content every time they were exposed to it. The current incarnation is completely counter to its original purpose, and arguably no longer serves the public in a positive way.
Huh? By that reasoning all artificial rights are communism. Everything short of total anarchy is communism.
Forced distribution of resources dictated by the government is communism, capitalism lets the market dictate how they are distributed. By what definition is copyright capitalistic?
GPL: Free as in will
"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.
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
I'd be more sympathetic with copyright holders if they weren't such hypocrites. Much of modern copyright issues can be traced to the Disney corporation. Extensions on copyright are directly linked to the expiration of copyright on Mickey Mouse.
Disney has made billions upon billions of dollars using the "intellectual property" of long dead authors. Do you really think Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Pinocchio, or any of other stories that built the Disney empire were dreamed up by Disney themselves? That didn't stop them from using the material. Where was their concern for the "protection" of ideas back then?
Walt Disney is every bit as dead as Hans Christian Anderson, yet if I tried to sell a story about Mickey Mouse I'd have about one week before I found myself assaulted by Disney's legal department. Why is one protected and not the other?