In our discussion about intellectual property, I told you about Lawrence Lessig, an expert on copyright and technology and a Harvard Law professor.
Lessig gave a TED talk in 2007 called "Laws that Choke Creativity." Though it's seven years old, it remains relevant to our discussion of digital technology and intellectual property.
He makes an argument about the problem with modern copyright law and digital technology and offers a solution. Take a look and after you watch the video, return here with your impressions. Did you agree or disagree with Lessig? What surprised you in watching the video?
47 comments:
Colin Ashby: T/TH 12:30pm
Lessrig makes many great points of the increasingly limited amount of artistic expression available to people. I liked the term he said: "copyright abolitionism"
Laws that automatically take down any material that expands upon copyrighted material even if it might be in fair use? Although PIPA and SOPA got struck down, similar future laws seem to be something that will likely happen.
Like Lessrig said, artist choice is the key for future innovation. Technology has made our generation (and future generations) different. We need to do better at allowing more things to be shared and used to fuel greater innovation.
Nicholas Ross
M ITV
I agree with Lessig and appreciate what he is trying to do with copyright and technology>
I make a lot of music and upload it onto various music hosting websites. These websites usually give the option to choose which rights you want to allow on the music.
Whenever I upload something that I did individually, versus with a band, I always attach fairly loose creative commons to it. In my eyes, I would be thrilled if someone listened to something I did and thought they could add to it. The more people that do this, the more my original work is heard. It ends up being mutually beneficial.
I agree with Lessig on many points.
It surprised me most when he spoke about the land agreement of olden days. The land agreement stated that land was protected into an infinite amount of space upwards. I can't imagine something like that today. The videos he showed were very funny, and I've always enjoyed remixes. I liked his point about criminalizing remixing and such actions. That's a very interesting way to look at it and I never had until now.
Skye Wallace M ITV
I agree with Lessig on many points.
It surprised me most when he spoke about the land agreement of olden days. The land agreement stated that land was protected into an infinite amount of space upwards. I can't imagine something like that today. The videos he showed were very funny, and I've always enjoyed remixes. I liked his point about criminalizing remixing and such actions. That's a very interesting way to look at it and I never had until now.
Victoria Gonzales T/H 12:30
I really liked his first story and the argument he made with it. I was surprised how he acknowledged our creative generation. I feel like many people in our parent's generation just think we are all lazy. It is refreshing to see someone with a more positive perspective.
With any new medium, there comes new legal questions. I agree with Lessing that one of the solutions to our problem is for artist to allow their work to be used by amateurs.
Andy Erickson
T/TH 12:30
I agree with what Lessig had to say in this presentation. I like how he compared the "talking machine" to the internet and how people are sharing property. I like how he explained that people these days are doing a lot more with technology besides just sitting and watching a television. This younger generation is very different from our parents generation. This younger generation's children will be very different from them as well. Things will never stop changing.
I like how he compared airplanes flying over land to people sharing intellectual property on the internet. As long as someone isn't using the exact work of somebody else and profiting off of it, I think everything is fine being shared. Things are getting pretty intense when it comes to sharing these days, I'm excited for what the future holds in these area of discussion.
Andy Erickson
T/TH 12:30
I agree with what Lessig had to say in this presentation. I like how he compared the "talking machine" to the internet and how people are sharing property. I like how he explained that people these days are doing a lot more with technology besides just sitting and watching a television. This younger generation is very different from our parents generation. This younger generation's children will be very different from them as well. Things will never stop changing.
I like how he compared airplanes flying over land to people sharing intellectual property on the internet. As long as someone isn't using the exact work of somebody else and profiting off of it, I think everything is fine being shared. Things are getting pretty intense when it comes to sharing these days, I'm excited for what the future holds in these area of discussion.
Maia Wintrob
T/TH 12:30
I agree with what Lessig had to say during his presentation. I like how he says "that parents should recognize what their kids are doing today" when it comes to remixing songs with videos because they are establishing new creative ideas. Lessig said it is important to emphasis that it is not "piracy" what kids are doing, people are not making these remixes for copyright and wholesale use but rather to recreate a creative idea. Kids are using new digital technologies that are creating a new medium, which establishes new legal questions for the future. So I agree with Lessig that kids are different from our parents generation because they grew up in the technology generation that causes them to come up with these creative ideas.
Konrad Carlson (tth1230)
I agree with the speaker that if we want our society to continue to grow we must readjust copyright laws. The videos in his presentation were hilarious Tony Blair and W too funny.
I find myself at odds when it comes to this topic. On one hand, artistic freedom is a valuable ideal that must be protected, but at the same time security cannot exist without compromising said freedom. Where do we decide the cutoff point is? The idea of living in a Read Only society is awful, but the Read Write culture is vulnerable to legal issues. Piracy may be viewed as a means of expression to some, but it is still against the law. I like artistic freedom, but I also like knowing that any art I create is still mine tomorrow.
Fantasia Valencia (T/TH 12:30)
I with agree Lessig. It should be the artist choice if their ideas can be used. I think the person who created the certain context should have an overall decision on what can and can't be used from their idea. What surprised me was finding out that every type of context is considered copied. I really enjoyed the fact that he pointed out the difference between parent and children context, and how much it has evolved over time.
Very interesting video. I agree with Lessig. I enjoyed the example of planes trespassing over farms being related to internet content and copyright laws. It's so true that "re-creativity" is our form of communication and bridging gaps between new and older generations.
As long as copyrighted content is not being used for commercial use, I agree that there should not be an issue with recreating new media to be enjoyed by online audiences.
Chris Russell M@2 San Marcos
I liked the comparison lessig made about laws protecting land ownership and how that changed with changing technology (planes). I agree with Lessig and it is true that with ever-expanding web capabilities and technology, there needs to a reform in the way creative property law is interpreted. It seems almost impossible to regulate web content and seems unfair that regulators only go after a few while others are left alone.
I agree with Lessig and loved how he presented it. I liked his real world examples (never knew Sousa had that opinion, and I've played a lot of his music in my life. I love the comparison of the talking machine to the internet. I do believe that it's the artist who created the work's right to decide what can or can't be done with their work...but at the same time, I think if it is changed enough, then it is no longer that artist's work, it's a new work.
(Also, the common sense joke was pretty funny.)
Jaclyn Coles T/R 12:30
I mostly disagree with Lessig, I can see why he said music/art (ex a song) should be freely used if it's not for commercial use, but what about the creator? If the creator/songwriter or whomever doesn't want it used in that way I think they have the right to protect their property and say "no, you can't use it." Even if it's not for commercial use, that seems just to me.
Casandra Medina T/Th 12:30
I thought the most powerful quote was near the end when he said "we can no longer make [children/young people] passive... we can only make them pirates." I think that's absolutely true. These laws need to be changed to reflect what people are using it for. Like Jaclyn said above and like Lessig said in the video, if the content is being used creatively and not to make money than the producer should not be punished.
Brenda Maya T/TH 12:30PM
I agree with most of what Lessig talks about, but I also disagree with a few points he makes. Overall I think Lessig is trying to create this middle ground (gray area) in terms of copyright laws. Throughout the video he talks about the younger generation. I'm assuming he is talking about Gen Y. I spent all semester working on a campaign (for AAF/NSAC) that focused on Gen Y (my generation) and can agree with what Lessig has to say about this generation. He calls them "remixers" and I personally believe we are "cultural remixers." With this in mind I can agree with Lessig's idea of not penalizing people that use private content for non-commercial use. I believe this will enhance the development of creativity within younger generations and so on. Using digital digital technology to say things differently, in my opinion, is a form of expression and it should not be penalized.
I agree and disagree. I'm confused and torn. I firmly believe that a creator should have the rights to his/her work- if they made it, they should decide what they want to to do with it, who can use it, how much it will cost, etc. For example a singer/artist has the right to put a song on iTunes and sell it, and they have the right to give it away for free, and they have the right to put it on a website and ask for donations.
I don't think it's fair when someone who isn't the creator takes it and tries to make money off of it.
They can take it, remix it and entertain people with it (like on Youtube) but they shouldn't make a profit.
Piracy is an issue that probably won't be stopped because we (people my age) are "different" like Lessig says. We grew up with technology and we know how to get around things. We'll just be criminalized...
Who knows? I don't. Times are changing.
NICK C.
T/TH 12:30
Vanessa Joseph T/TH 12:30
I agree with Lessig because an artist should have the choice of how their works should be used. My only disagreement is the actual functionality of doing this. The middle ground he is attempting to create is difficult, in my opinion, to actually create. People are so one sided on ideas like this and do not like to compromise either way. I found the "Jesus Christ the Musical" to be a very interesting, funny way to show the use of another's idea/song to create a new type of work.
DJ K (M-ITV)
I think everything Lessig brought forth in this TED talk made a lot of sense. Technology and the internet have caused an explosion in the creative capabilities of the general public of our culture. I think the theory of Creative Commons is sound and a good idea, but I worry about the one thing that still commands our society: greed. I remember hearing about Creative Commons back in 2008, and haven't really heard a whole lot about it since. What I worry happened to the idea is that people want to "remix" content that is already popular. They want to take something that they have seen and their friends and family and acquaintances have seen, and put a new spin on it. What motivation do these people have to go to Creative Commons where all the content they could use is not widespread? I still think that the Creative Commons model is a good idea, and I hope that more creative people than me know to use it to work on broadening their skills. But money is king in our culture, and at some point people who get good enough in their specific creative skill will be drawn into finding ways to get that money. And once money is involved, they will do whatever they can to protect their rights to their content.
Katie Peloquin (TTH)
I agree with Nick, in that people should be allowed to remix other peoples work for the sake of creativity, but for the most part they should not profit from it. Or they should at least owe the original creator some kind of royalty if they make buckets off of it. Which is kind of what Lessig was talking about when he said that artists should make their work available for non-commercial use. I think that he has a good concept going but it seems like it be be difficult to achieve. I've seen this TED talk before so no surprises.
N. Lillie Almanza
T/Th RR campus 2:30 class
We should be able to reinvent always, borrowing from each others ideas we able to proceed in intellect without ever having limitations because ideas will generate and imagination will never cease and this means that skies the limit. I like to think that people can continue to learn and teach each other but man is so territorial, It's the proof that we are animals. I agree with Lessig, "copyright abolitionism"--why stop with just one letter and then one word or one symbol… what if the first person was able to copyright the word hello.., then what? :-)
Dahlia Hanly T/Th 12:30
I completely agree with Lessig. The idea of criminalizing acts that would absolutely respect the fair use doctrine is insane. I grew up sorta split between the generations before computers and mobile technology and those who have had it since they can remember. Technology to older generations is something we use that benefits us. However for younger generations, technology simply is a way of life.
To limit and restrict the creativity of kids recreating the meaning of something is simply to stifle progress as a species and as a whole.
I understand the importance of protecting your individual genius, however I don't suspect the kids of today will be as keen on "MINE" like those currently making the laws are.
Shelby Bumbalough
TTH 12:30
I like what Lessig had to say for the most part, but a part of me wonders how I can have an opinion on whether or not artists need to choose to let their work be available more freely for noncommercial use or not because I have never been in that position. If I were, I might possibly feel like that work is my work, even if someone used it as a foundation for something that they built upon. However, I do believe that he is right in saying that there needs to be a middle ground. Especially considering the world that we live in today. He is right. Kids are making music and TV as opposed to just listening and watching. It is who they are. The fact that people can take content and change it to mean something different is pretty awesome, but I am torn as to whether or not it is fair to the original artist.
Brenna Bole (M/ITV)
I liked how Lessig compared older generations with younger generations, saying, "We watch tv, they make tv." I think part of the reason there are laws that don't take into consideration the changing technology is because the older generation is the one primarily in charge of the law at the moment. Hopefully as my generation reaches that point, laws will reflect technological advances more appropriately.
I took a film appreciation class and we had to create our own movie "mashup" trailer where we took a movie and cut and arranged scenes from the movie as well as adding in music to create a trailer for a totally different genre of movie. (We took a futuristic sci-fi movie and turned it into a romantic comedy and it was the best project ever.) So I completely agree with what Lessig means when he says our generation likes to make new out of the old.
Amanda Ross TTR 12:30
Lessig struck a pretty fair balance in the "repurposing" discussion in that he understands the importance of remixing for artistic expression and not just making money. Anyone who thinks it's an all-or-nothing issue is ridiculous.
As long as you're not trying to make money off of someone else's work, it seems pretty cut and dry to me.
Amanda Emmons
TTh 12:30-1:50
I agree with Lessig in the sense that something should probably change to fix the problem with modern copyright law and digital technology. He mentioned the first change is that artist should make their work more freely for this amateur use but not free for commercial use. Although I am not a musician, so I have no background or knowledge with this issue, but if I were an artist I probably would not want to give my music away for free. It is up to the musician after all, with what they want to do with their music, but I would be upset if people were downloading and using my creations without my permission. But it is a good way to get your name out there and for people to start listening to your music.
He also mentioned something about age of prohibitions where ordinary people live their life knowing they are doing something against the law. And that older people made mix tapes, while younger people are remixing songs. I agree with both of these statements from Lessig.
M ITV
Yemi Akande
I understand lessig's perspective about the digital natives and the need to redefine the scope of copyright laws in order to accomodate instead of stifling the digital native's creativity with copyright red tape. I also understand the perspective of the original creator. I believe however that if someone wants to use an original creation to enhance their own, then it should be done within the given parameters otherwise, they can do without.
Cortney Clarke TTh 12:30
Even though this TED talk is dated, I still find it surprising how relevant it is to modern time. I loved how his analogies related to both generations and were easy to understand. My favorite was his "talking machines" story. It's crazy how similar the argument for how the talking machines were going to hurt their society, sounded like the argument for technology. I agree that our past generations were stuck in a world of just reading and not creating. I love that he doesn't choose sides, but rather says we need to create a middle. The younger generation will continue to create and rebel against the law. The two extremes need to meet in the middle and create a sense of boundaries. Without boundaries we are just creating a generation of law breaking criminals.
I thought that this video was really interesting. I agree with Lessig he had a lot of valid points. It's a different time, technology is such a big part of our lives, especially young people. I think that copyright laws should be more lenient in letting people use artist's works for creativity and not for a commercial use. I feel like getting permission from copyrighted work now a days is such a hassle and sometimes unnecessary. I wanted to get a Chicago Cubs image for my debit card, and when I tried to do it online Wells Fargo wouldn't let me because my image was copyrighted. I would need the permission from the Chicago Cubs or wherever the image came from to use it.
TTh 12:30-1:50
Sarah Duran TTR 12:30
I feel like Lessig's main point in his commentary was to embrace the changing times of our society.
He phrases how our society goes back and forth on "read write" and "read only". On what basis is the work, that is created by the artist, free to participate in "recreation"? Or should it just remain as consumed work?
Lessig strongly encourages the idea of "producing for the love and not the money", that artist should embrace the idea that their work will be used more freely and that businesses should embrace the idea of free content to remain competitive.
Although I am aware of our changing society, why should all artist have to "embrace" it if not all artist do not believe in it? Majority of our society consumes the works of artist on a illegal base (i.e. limewire, bootleg, difference in logo etc.), aka taking work never for the love, but for the money. I feel like what was once a rule is now being worked around to make it seem okay without permission.
Great video because it really makes you think of how people are approaching the changing times.
Taylor Alanis
I agree with what Lessig said about how this generation is different and how we need to find a happy medium and how he says we should create for the love of what we are doing not for the money. I do agree with that so much but the reality of the situation now is that's what we are taught. More money equals more power and both equal a higher status and happiness. And the love over money thing can be confusing because a lot of younger people are "stealing music by illegally downloading it. Im not sure if it is because they don't have the money or it is just convenient and that causes the artist to lose money. Even if they are producing this music for the love of their art or not, should they be angry about people illegally downloading their music? and do fans love the music so much that they would do anything to get it even steal it? or is paying money for it the extreme. I do believe we should embrace free content but its a lot more complex and i think Lessig's talk dipped into some very interesting points about it.
I agree with Lessig in that taking and recreating others content is important for creativity and that the owners of said content to not peruse litigation against those that create using their content. However i think his speech glances over some of the key issues that effect content producers in the digital era. There are already laws that protect both the content producer and the people that remix others content to create something new. However, the problem is policing legitimates threats to content creators; such as piracy. Also, economics and funding can play a significant role in limiting the creativity of content creators. Unfortunately, neither of Lessig's solutions have proven to be a sustainable business model for premier content such as movies and TV shows that cost millions to produce.
R Villalobos M ITV class RR campus
Every time I watch a TED Talk, I wonder why I don't watch them more often. Loved this...
I agree with Lessig whole-heartedly. It's a shame to think we live in a "read-only" type of society where our vocal chords have died. Though, a very valid point.
I very much agree that average people are living against the law, pretty much everyday. Most of us can probably say we've downloaded music illegally, or watching a pirated movie (whether you knew or not)...We all do it because the consequences seem so far off.
Very interesting TED Talk, this one. I really enjoyed it.
This was a really good TED Talk! I definitely agree with Lessig's argument that we need to adapt to modern times, and create a balance (maybe by way of competition) so that we can revive our culture to be a read-write culture, not a read-only culture. I was surprised how honest he was about the government not using common sense, and I thought it was great, because it's so true! It is also true that most of us live our lives against the law, most of us have burned CDs, downloaded music, ect., not simply to disobey the law, but because we don't see (or don't want to see) the harm that it does. Well, that's not a good way of thinking, because it does come with a price. What we need is balance, just like Lessig said, and we need to use common sense. Just like the airplane model Lessig used, (which was great) we must exercise common sense, and roll with the modern times of technology. We need to get our vocal chords back.
Chanell G., Monday ITV
Madison Soranno
M 2-4:50 p.m.
With how quickly technology is changing it is important that some of these copyright laws be reconsidered. However, it is still important for the original creator of the work to get credit for that work. Lessig's argument about recreating is completely valid. When we recreate something, we shouldn't be punished for that especially with all of this new technology. Instead, we should just look at these laws with a new perspective.
I am completely agree with Lessig when he says that there are extremes on both sides. I think it is important that the two work together to find a balance.
Brenda Brantley
TTH 12:30 p.m.
Lessig presents a very interesting argument and I agree with most of what he said. I also agree with Nick regarding piracy. Being raised in a generation where cell phones and personal computers did not always exist, I am very impressed with how creative and resourceful my much younger classmates are. I enjoyed watching the remixes.
I was mostly surprised by the transformation from a read-write society to a read-only.
Chelsey Coyle
Tues/Thurs 12:30 / Spring 2014
First off, I must say I loved how Lessig "created" his presentation in such a way. It was very enticing and interesting on how he did single words, phrases and kept the audience engaged. Secondly, I most definitely agree with Lessig on our future regarding creativity coming to a halt because the rules are so strict on whats free, what people can share, what people can create from other works, etc. He made the prime example by showcasing works of "kids" in this generation and how WE understand the oldie but goodies and make them into our own. This should not be looked down upon nor should we be reluctant to create new works from our own perspective. He made a great point and solution proposing that if we are not creating "remixes" of works for a commercial purpose, then we should be allowed to do this. Also, with all of our technology these days and "anyone with access to a $1,500 computer" ....these are our tools of creativity and our tools of speech. The digital world is always creating and reproducing architecture and we need to use our common sense in law to allow us more access to copyright.
Taylor Espinosa
T/TH 12:30 PM
First and foremost I would like to say how this TED Talk reminded me so much of the documentary RIP!: A Remix Manifesto which discusses the same topics like copyright infringement. I have always been a supporter of Free Use, and I believe it is an important issue that a lot of people kind of overlook. I agreed with so many points that Lessig was talking about. One point in particular I thought was interesting was that he referred to our generation as one that takes old content and recreates it using technology. I was on the AAF/NSAC team this year and worked on an advertising campaign that primarily focused on "throwback" and nostalgic culture within Gen Y Millennials 18-25 years old. Our generation tends to be kind of obsessed with this growing trend and we referred to our target demographic as "cultural remixers." Basically this term refers to us taking old content and creatively making it our own which is exactly the point Lessig made. Another interesting point I heard in the video was that he said we live in an "age of prohibitions" I couldn't agree more. Making more laws and putting prohibitions on things never solves anything. I think there should be a balance between free use and all rights reserved. I agree that today's artists should begin to consider putting their content as free for amateur use and not commercial use.
Haley House (T-TH 12:30)
I completely with agree Lessig. It should be the decision of the creator if they would like to share their creative juices. If you created the content you should have the overall say on how the content is used or shared. I was not surprised to find out that mostly all material is used multiple times. This should create much discussion on how we view the copyright world.
I mostly agree with Lessig. Most of us knowing break the law when we create certain youtube videos. Yet, we still do it because without certain parts of "borrow" works these videos, the art, suffers.
I feel like as long as you are using it to create and not to make money you should be okay. Just like how on Youtube, if you upload a video with music that is copyrighted and you acknowledge that, you can not monazite it. Yet, the video is still out for people to watch. As long as you are "borrowing" and not "stealing" (making money off of it) then who cares?
There is a open - collaborative production company started by Joseph Gordon - Levitt called HitRecord. Becaisly it is a collab of artist of all types who post art on the website and allows other artists to come in and add their spin to your art. If it makes the show, each artist who had a hand in that piece gets paid for their contribution to it. It's all creative commons. I think that it has worked very well since that is what this generation does. Might be worth y'all to check out.
Loved the acknowledgement on this new generation being very creative instead of the perceived lazy.
I agree with a lot said in this Ted talk.
-Tamara Johnson
(Tth):
I am a huge fan of his ideas, especially the ones described in this video. The argument "the most significant thing about what this internet is doing is its opportunity to revive the culture that Suza romanticized."
Digital opportunity was in mind - user generated content. Our culture is defined by this. We generate new content by building on old content.
I find interesting the way in which he touches on how many people, past and present, are so reluctant to new ideas. In today's context, we look back at many of those people with a sense of humor, but at the time these were legitimate concerns. It really makes me wonder how future generations will view today's concerns in regards to innovations of our time.
Post a Comment