Week Five Readings: Copyright and Privacy
This week you reviewed copyright guidelines and watched Stanford’s Lawrence Lessig discuss new ways of understanding copyright law. How is copyright changing and how much should it change?
17 Responses to “Week Five Readings: Copyright and Privacy”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
May 4th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
“We made mixed tapes, they remix music. We watched TV, they make TV…you can’t kill the instinct that technology produces, we can only criminalize it. We can’t stop our kids from using it, we can only drive it underground. We can’t make our kids passive again, we can only make them, quote, pirates. And is that good?”
-Lawrence Lessig
I like what Lessig said about digital technology giving a read-only culture the chance to once again become a read-write culture, and about the democratization of music remixing and video editing technology– now it’s open to anyone who has a $1500 computer.
He makes a compelling argument for relaxation of copyright laws in so far as they relate to non-commercial, amateur/ creative purposes.
May 4th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
As a huge fan of Lawrence Lessig, I have to agree with him. In the old days we needed strong protection of property because when we spoke of property, we meant physical objects. Physical objects are often indivisible and zero sum in nature—the more of something I have, the less you can have of it. But with intellectual property in the internet age, objects, no longer physical, are infinitely reproducible and the cost of distribution is negligible. Since the property we speak of has changed, the law that govern that property should also change.
There is also money to be made from Lessig’s idea. Recently, Radiohead gained a lot of publicity when they asked their fans to decide how much they wanted to pay for their latest record. However, they also came up with an equally innovative idea for which they received less attention. They decided to sell the component parts of one of their singles on iTunes. That is, for 99 cents each, you could download the vocal track, the guitar, the percussion track etc. in order to make your own remix or mashup.
The kind of cultural innovation and participation that Lessig talks about should not be feared. The economic system tied to intellectual property will certainly change, but that does not mean people will no longer be able to make money off their ideas. They just have to come up with different ideas.
May 4th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
It’s certainly true that people will need to adapt in order to continue making money off of their creativity - I think the last thing anyone wants is for people to be less inclined to write, make music or art, etc. because they can’t support themselves by doing so. But I also hope that the type of technology-centric creativity Lessig demonstrates doesn’t foreshadow a day when everyone knows how to creatively edit audio and video of speeches being delivered, but couldn’t begin to write a speak themselves. Or can sample tracks like crazy, but not read music, play instruments, or write a song.
Hopefully the new ways of creating/entertaining will also inspire people to learn more about the old forms they are manipulating in new ways. With regard to copyright, for the time being, we are just going to have to accept there will be some friction between people who created under the old rules, where copyright was relatively hard and fast, and people who constantly experimenting with the latest tools for transforming those creations.
May 4th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
I’m with Adam. Times are a changing. So should the laws.
Lessig said in this speech that he’s given up on changing government, primarily because it’s corrupted by the system that finances it. If that makes you sad, check this shit out:
http://change-congress.org/
Change Congress is Lessig’s new project. He’s shifted focus away from fixing copyright to fixing government. This is very cool.
Also very cool:
http://www.soundopinions.com/shownotes/2006/021806/shownotes.html
Lessig appeared on Chicago’s own Sound Opinions, a year before he did this talk at TED. Instead of remix videos and Sousa, the key example is a song we all probably know, “In the Pines.” The version you should recognize is the super-excellent “Where did you Sleep Last Night,” recorded by Nirvana in 1994 on their unplugged record.
Listen to the .mp3 of the show at the link above.
Lastly, the coolest:
http://creativecommons.org/
At this point, I should hope everyone in this class has heard of the project Lessig eludes to, yet has to be coy about, Creative Commons. Many of us have already used CC-licensed material in slideshows or as photos to accompany our stories. I’ve had great luck doing so:
http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=87147
http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=87083
And in that spirit, I publish my blog and all my Flickr photos under CC licenses. I use other’s work for free, so I should allow others to do the same. We’re all better for it. A rising tide and all that.
Chicken and waffles and copyleft… deeeeeelicious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladys_Knight#Solo_music_career
May 4th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
As I was watching the Lessig video toward the end when he is talking about piracy, I started thinking about how I needed to catch up on the last few episodes of Lost.
I thought there was a connecting evolution between Lessig’s ideas and the Deighton Q&A. These aren’t the exact ideas presented, but it’s the direction my mind went.
Take the development of file sharing online and people people able to download any song, movie or TV show they want –> copyright issues concerning this downloading –> networks and studios start realizing there’s a new market for their product –> subscriptions where you pay for download OR free if you put up with some ads here and there –> selling your information or using your viewing habits to target advertisers = you’re no longer a pirate & the studios are happy they’re making money off of you once again.
Going off of Adam’s comment, I was thinking about the Radiohead album when I was watching the video. In recent news, Metallica has announced that they are thinking about adopting the same “pay what you want” concept for their next album. Lars Ulrich was such a strong opponent of Napster. I don’t know if this is a case of starting to understand the role the Internet will play in the distribution of music, or if they’re just jumping on the bandwagon.
May 4th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Lessig’s commentary on user-generated content defined the copyright issues for artists and users very well. Yes, our kids create content and display it for all to see. My sons certainly do and I encourage it. Digital technology empowers struggling artists and writers, giving them a platform to be seen and heard. Future artists grow up creating, viewing and passing along their content. And users (the new audience) like what they see, comment on it and share it.
Remix and copyright issues are tricky for me. As an artist myself I am uncomfortable with someone taking my work and changing it. On the other hand, I search images, photographs and other art work to get ideas for my own work. Digital art is a medium like no other where artists find images online, copy and change them and create something totally new defining culture in a new way. Have we become a culture of copycats? I don’t think so. The new music, art, news and entertainment content created in the digital space may be copied or inspired by copyrighted content but what is created is a new image or message.
Not sure where I come down on this one. I think artists and creators should have their original work protected by copyright of the so desire. I am not sure where the balance point Lessig defines exists.
May 4th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
In terms of the law, I definitely think Creative Commons-type changes makes sense, for practical reasons if nothing else. Once something is on the internet it’s there forever (more or less), and attempting to remove it often draws more attention, making your efforts to retain ownership counterproductive.
Creative Commons licensing relies on trust, but also on the public nature of the Internet. In some ways that makes it an even more powerful tool than copyright and plagiarism laws: If you want to know if someone’s using your material without crediting you, google a sentence you wrote.
The only issue I have with it is financial. Journalists need to figure out how to make money off the Internet.
May 4th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
I liked Lessig - it was the first time I heard him speak. He is brilliant and hopeful and important. But he should stay away from art - those videos were very amateurish - and that’s why they work. The bar is set low.
So correct me if I’m wrong: Our kids are bucking big-brother read-only norms, thanks in part to this new, flexible and customizable platform, and it is vital that our kids are allowed to create and remix their transformative (not copied) “art” in an open community without being told they are criminals?
Yeah? Okay. Sure. Fine. “You’re not criminals.” Make all the ma-na-ma-na videos you want. New-fangled karaoke for all!
But be careful…content transformation isn’t always transformative in a good way. One of the most successful business models in music over the last 20 years has been remixing. It’s not new. From Vanilla-Ice ripping Queen/Bowie to Puff Daddy ripping every ’70s soul track every recorded.
For a while, everybody was doing it - from Jermain Dupri to Kanye West, and hip-hop music has suffered. Some people say it’s dead, and I am inclined to agree, and that is very sad because there was poetry and musicianship underneath much of that mess.
Why dead? Because there is no longer an emphasis on NEW. Hip hop music has regressed so far that the most recent machinations are remixed nursery rhymes.
Look at movies and theater…so many remakes.
Partly the fault of the business people in control? Yes. Money talks. But in our culture, there isn’t enough emphasis on NEW.
Little government money for music and crayola in classrooms.
Programs are cut left and right.
Generations of artists never develop.
Much like bloggers need mainstream media - “remix art” needs original art.
Someone needs to write “ma na ma na,” “I Will Survive,” and “Endless Love.”
The copyright question is meaningless if there is nothing new to copyright.
This would never happen, but part of me want copyright law made more strict to deter talented artists from lazily reshaping new works when they could be making their own.
May 5th, 2008 at 12:06 am
Lessig’s presentation was an eye-opening look into the dangers of where copyright law could head. Of course, there are two sides to copyrighted material - the producer, and the reproducer.
As a journalist and writer, I always want to make sure my work is attributed to me, and is accurately presented…and that I get paid for it if I can.
As a blogger, I need to make sure the material I am in most cases redistributing is presented accurately and fairly, and that I am allowed to reproduce it…and get paid for it if I can.
When I wrote my senior thesis as an undergrad, I interviewed and worked with an organization that I quoted some materials they provided to me. We were going to be working on a book collaboratively, but after I completed my work and presented it to my source, they ended up assuming my idea, and never following through on the book idea.
Knowing that my work is on file at our university library, and that I have several copies, however, put my mind to rest. But what worries me is how EFF interprets fact and idea copying.
“Copyright only protects the expression — the combination of words and structure that expresses the factual information — not the facts themselves.”
Because my thesis was predicated on factual content, taken, and presented in a certain way, does that mean that they could turn around and present the same information in a different structure?
Or would simply citing my material in their presentation be legal?
The miles of red tape, along with complicated case law will only be able to tell. Copyright law is changing on a case-by-case basis in the court system, but I feel the liabilities should rely on the original producer of the work. Wait, but what about the person they work for, and are being paid by?
Shit.
May 5th, 2008 at 1:06 am
Creativity is consumed, but the consumer is not the creator … infernal machines screwed up our culture. But now an “infernal machine” is giving it back to us…
Like Josh … I want to get paid for everything I do, for the most part. For blogging though … I guess I have no expectations to be paid for what I write or redistribute. But, either way, the way copyright laws are now, Journalist can’t really make money off the internet. If I could get paid for every time something I’ve written has been mentioned or posted on another website or blog … I could possibly not be in school right now and be living the happy life (well … maybe not, but…).
As far as remixing and stuff … “there is nothing new under the sun,” right? Or is there? Is there a balance for artists and writers in regards to copyright laws? Do we want other people gaining fame and fortune over our work, even if it’s only a portion of it? And don’t we all use the work of others to act as a muse for our own to some extent?
May 5th, 2008 at 1:09 am
*I will say though, I write more for the love of producing than for the love of money (or the goal to make money) … I just would like to make money off of my writing since I don’t think I’m qualified to make money in any other way really.
May 5th, 2008 at 2:09 am
I found Lawrence Lessig’s presentation to be both intelligent and interesting, and I definitely agree with his forward-thinking attitude toward user-generated content. I think the re-mixing of ideas is definitely the wave of the future, but like Sol, I worry that people will fall into the trap of thinking that there is nothing new to be made. I love remixes and good sampling, but I also love innovation and the creation of something unique. The re-hashing of old ideas is definitely the big theme of today - remakes of old movies, sequel after sequel, remixes and sampling in hip hop, and of course, the tidalwave of reality TV that has usurped originally written sitcoms and dramas. To be clear, I love and derive great enjoyment from re-makes, sequels, remixes, samples - and yes - even some reality TV… I just hope that brand new ideas and original thought don’t get COMPLETELY lost in the melee. But I do agree with Lesig. We have to embrace the future and the changes that technology bring because it’s here and it’s happening, whether we like it or not. People have a tendency to resist change, but historically, it usually proves more prudent to figure out how to embrace it and incorporate the best aspects of the new with the best aspects of the old.
May 5th, 2008 at 9:24 am
The most useful concept for me in the readings was the transformation requirement. No matter what we are doing as bloggers or journalists we should be adding something original to the discussion. Because we are journalists and not artists, we have to get beyond remixing for fun or for entertainment. We should be adding information or analysis.
Like Aranya and Sol, I worry a bit that with all this emphasis on remixing our content will become less fresh and that we will become lazy. But with Creative Commons and the examples of Radiohead and Metallica mentioned above, it seems that the truly creative people are moving in the direction of establishing a system of sharing. Money complicates things, of course. We are creators too, and while most of us don’t need to get rich, we probably want to be able to live off of our creating.
May 5th, 2008 at 10:46 am
How is copyright changing and how much should it change?
The first tie I noticed the change in the air was when napster took the digital media file-sharing concept to a mass-media level. Since then obviously many things have changed. Digital media is the next significant method of media distribution. Even the highly touted, newly crowned champion of HD media - Blu-ray is only a few months from obsolescence. It should change as much as it can to stay abreast of consumer desire. While digital media piracy is still prevalent, by offering consumers a way to download music legally, the number of law-abiding citizens who can afford to do so, pay for and download their music with a clear conscience.
With the onset of file sharing and digital media, entirely new derivative genres have appeared on the intarwebs:
Machinima - the art form whereby amateur filmakers take video engine game footage and create their own episodic content not unlike a bizarre form of puppetry:
Red vs Blue is probably the most famous example of Machinima (and most profitable) The video game engine used is borrowed, but the scripts are original, and in the case of Red vs Blue, often hilarious.
,a href=”http://youtube.com/watch?v=jT2uLZGCJTU&feature=PlayList&p=20FBEB9BD70830BC&index=5″ rel=”nofollow”>Anime Music Videos (commonly called AMVs) are a huge, albeit niche/cult genre that uses edited versions of anime and sets them to music. The music and video is all borrowed, but the prowess of some of the editors is beyond compare.
Another example of borrowed material made anew through the magic of editing is called Recuts. See some of your favorite films of old recreated.
There’s plenty of originality to be found in works of a derivative nature.
May 5th, 2008 at 10:48 am
speaking of editing, the ability to edit a post would be grand
May 5th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Any proper discussion of copyright needs to involve this brilliant video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJn_jC4FNDo
I enjoyed the Lessig video and thought he really hit the important issues right on the head. I would complete disagree with those of you that say there is too much ‘emphisis’ on remixing. Lessing makes the case that remixing should be possible and those that do it should not be criminals. Even though in the present climate, the RIAA, MPAA and our elected officials would like nothing more.
This issue goes way beyond remixing IMHO. The Internet has rendered traditional business models obsolete, and those with stacks of cash are fighting and suing everyone in sight in order to make it go back how it was instead of learning how to adapt.
Lessig says something like “We are all living against the law.” I feel like this is scary proposition, but I immediately understood. The culture that we produce, that the musicians, artists and writers produce, I believe, belongs to everyone. Do it for the love, not the money.
May 5th, 2008 at 11:36 am
That video is pretty amazing, Ryan. I agree that creative commons and the public domain is necessary for ideas to develop and grow. I don’t think using other work makes people less creative or lazy. On the contrary, I think using parts of other people’s ideas and work can make people MORE creative, because they’re forced to think outside the box and do things differently to avoid copying someone else’s work verbatim.