Now that you have a foundation in Intellectual Property Law, I want you to watch Lawrence Lessig's TED Talk.
As you watch, pay close attention to what he says about U.S. copyright law and how it impacts our digital culture. Look for broad themes about the First Amendment and Intellectual Property. Even though he gave this talk in March 2007, much of it remains relevant to this day.
After you watch, return here and leave a comment about what you think of his talk and his argument. Do you agree with him? Why or why not? You may also address what you liked or disliked about his talk and where you think intellectual property law is headed.
Here's the link: http://www.ted.com/talks/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_creativity?language=en
Remember to include your first name, last name initial and what class you're in (MW, TTh or Online).
90 comments:
I can't believe he talked about AMVs haha!!! I haven't thought about those since I was in high school.
I think the creative commons is an interesting and important concept, but I think it is also important to monitor how these pre-existing works are being used. I have seen artists who make their living by their artwork have it stolen, traced over and recolored, and printed and sold, and they never saw a dime of profit from the sales, since their works were "changed." It is important to be able to create content, but it is also important that creators are able to protect their work.
I think that Lessig makes a good point, technology has undoubtedly intertwined with the modern generation's culture. While Lessig spoke about current legislations' "creativity chocking" abilities, I thought about the New York Times v. Sullivan ruling. I agree with Lessig, as a democracy we should do better and ensure that we do limit or create a "chilling" effect on the public's creativity.
A balance must be created.
Ludmilla A.
Online
Lessig makes a very strong case about the creative commons and technology. Our young culture is able to recreate and tell new stories through other peoples work. While they may be breaking the law of copyright we have to consider what is really important. We live in a world controlled by technology and we should be embracing and encouraging current and future generations to grow and develop. Instead of artist being offended of their work being used without permission they should be flattered that people feel influenced from their work. Yes I do agree there should be some form of balance but creativity in my opinion is very important in order for people to grow.
Kelsie Frommel
ONLINE
Interesting TED Talk to say the least... I think the U.S. Copyright Law greatly affects our culture today because I feel like the growth of YouTube is because of the encouragement to express yourselves through visuals or audio elements. I think audio usage on YouTube has been an on and off thing because YouTube does its best to monitor and apply the U.S. Copyright Law to uploads. I've always thought that if a musical artist's song was used in a video should be something to be flattered about because the uploader is pretty much promoting and spreading the musical artist's work(s) amongst their audience. However, if the YouTube uploader incorporated copyright music and was receiving revenue for doing so, then I can understand how the U.S. Copyright Law is something that needs to be greatly considered. I just feel like everyone has the right to express themselves freely.
Chanell Heeter, TTH
I really enjoyed this TED Talk. As a musician, I can totally understand the side of the argument that says "people shouldn't be able to use my product for anything without paying me for it". But as a product of this generation I also very much understand that side that says "things should be able to be used as long as it's not for commercial use.
I really like what Lessing said overall. I agree with the idea that people should be able to use products as a part of the fair use clause. As long as they're not blatantly using someone else's creative property as a means to make money for themselves.
I think that (hopefully) this is where intellectual property law is headed. And that in the future we see the changes that Lessing spoke of.
Darion R. - Online
I watched the video before reading the rest of your post and I was surprised that he did this talk in 2007! It is crazy how relevant this still is nearly a decade later. I noticed how he almost brought up the Creative Commons that we talked about the other day in class. I thought overall his talk was very enlightening. I remember back just a few years ago there was a huge uproar about SOPA taking away all of those creative opportunities he was mentioning but as with everything else it was a big deal for a week and then everyone forgot, including myself. I am really hoping we can continue to grow on the whole subject and understand the possibilities we have to come. People deserve the right to create but also deserve the credit for being the creator if their song or whatever instance is involved in a profit by someone else.
Zach Rowley
T/Th
I like the way Lessig compares early property laws to current day copyright laws. However, I believe there is a reason that, in the government's eyes, common sense 'revolts' at the idea of pilots being charged for trespassing over head, and not so for people who want to express themselves. The key difference between the airplanes trespassing and our non-commercial use of copyrighted material has to do with exactly what Lessig said at the end of the video. Lawmakers stand to lose in the influence economy if they want to go against lobbyists and big-name industries to fight for what's right, or fair, or for what just makes sense.
This video makes me think that even though we are evolving into a new culture on a daily basis, we can see the story behind it. Times always change-every new generation brings something new to the table, but without incorporating something"old" with it. We evolve culturally, but we still retain the roots of it all. Older people tend to say things like "that's not music!," when they refer to what's popular or they say, "that's a rip off of 'so and so'," and a lot of times it's because for some reason they're resistant to change. We all are at some point or another, but the good thing about it is that we all have the capability to have an open mind about things. This is what enables us to follow along and even follow through with times. I agree with Lessing, we have to take it upon ourselves to come up with that "private solution."
Nancy Cabrera Online
I thought it was interesting how Lessig discussed the effect of these laws on younger generations at the conclusion of the video. It seems like there could be sociological implications to this as well. Having laws that are "made to be broken" starts people on a slippery slope to breaking laws that aren't. Lowering restrictions on media to respect creative freedom will make people more willing to respect the necessary restrictions.
Lessig talked about the importance of artists voluntarily giving up some of their copyright protection to give people creative freedom. However, recently, with the Taylor Swift vs. Spotify debate, we've seen this movement losing traction, and artists focusing more on profits than on creativity.
I really enjoyed his talk about how the laws are affecting the way we enjoy certain things. We as people want to express ourselves in parodies and such, but because of certain copyright laws, we can't. I think it's still true about how sites like YouTube have to remove certain videos because it has a clip of something from popular culture like music. We should be able to express ourselves as long as we are not simply just copying the entire song and using it as our own. The laws are put there to protect people from using it as a money maker, but if we aren't using it gain profit, then it should be okay. We often are influenced by these creators and they should share them with the world. I feel as though these laws for intellectual property should be less limiting as long as it's not copying the exact song or video. Re-creating something should be allowed.
Kristie Nakamura Online
I believe that Lessig's argument is very valid and I agree with his speech. The digital world that us "kids" live in today is constantly new and evolving, how can there be a liable restriction of copyright in something that is constantly changing? I also agree with him that competition brings common ground and an even playing field, which is essential in the creative space of the digital world.
Maggie Ximenes
Online
I found Lawrence Lessig's Ted Talk to be very interesting. I agree with him, I believe that this is a new era and its becoming more and more common to reuse someone else's work in some way or another and it really shouldn't be that big of a deal.
Katie Bordini
Online
I really liked his presentation. He did a great job of keeping people and myself engaged, and made very good points. I do think many people's work should be protected, but he made a great point of people recreating a different story with other people's content. There are many beneficial things for our generation through digital media; however, I fear what future generations will be like. I do have a strong appreciation for books, art, architecture, and live music. I like taking things in instead of resorting to the internet always. Technology is taking over, and I fear many children don't have an appreciation for libraries, history, the music revolutions, and the arts. Only being attached to technological devices doesn't share the true beauty of where everything comes from.
Online- Jacqueline Davis
I have conflicted views and can't easily side with one view or the other. As a consumer, I agree; as a writer, I disagree out of fear of someone claiming my work as their own.
Kathryn S. - online
"I agree with the idea that people should be able to use products as a part of the fair use clause. As long as they're not blatantly using someone else's creative property as a means to make money for themselves."
In this era when people reuse content it is commonly presented in a new fashion and allows for it to be interpreted in a way it may not have been before. I agree that as long as it's not done in a way where the creator is not discredited people should be free to use contend under fair use.
Marilyn M. Online
I agree Lessig makes a compelling argument. In the world we live today, as technology evolves, do does art. Whether it be music, film, etc, we, as humans learn and interpret things by copying and processing. Having a "choke" on creativity almost violates freedom of expression. As Lessig said, it's not about piracy where people are taking copyrighted works and distributing them as they are, but distributing the works that have been interpreted in a different way. If all recreated works need to be diminished, where's the freedom of expression in that?
J. Okazaki
TTH
I agree with Lessig 100%. His point on how democracy needs to be better was the cherry on top. This all made sense because copy right laws are prohibiting kids from expanding there creativity on what's already out there. Especially since they are breaking the law already. Artist and producers should agree with Common Rights with fairuse in mind and how they can't use it for "commercial use". I believe that's fair enough. We are in a time where it is time to change the Copy Right law or not have one at all but unfortunately money is the issue. I love when Lessig said they should "do it for the love and not for the money". I'm a big believer in contributing to the world without a payment, money will always be there. We need to look at it in a different perspective then for selfish reasons like for money. Lessig argument was really good and showed how future generations need Common Right's to help there creativity.
Sierra K. TTH
This was a very interesting Ted talk. Lessig made very valid points. I agree with Lessig. The rules and regulations of copy right prohibit people from using their own creativity. When it comes to expanding on others work I think these artist should be flattered that someone thinks that highly of their work. With that being said I also think there should be rules and limitations when doing this.
Shelby Coke
Tuesday Thursday 2:00 class
Taylor Hutsler M & W 3:30
I thought Lessig had some interesting points in his presentation at TedTalks. I liked how he brought the idea of copyright around to the younger generation and made the point that we are growing up in a society of 'law breakers.' He points out how it is antithetical to the idea of a democracy.
Lessig is a genius, even back in 2007. Imagine how much he would have to talk about had he filmed this talk today. Just in the short 21 years that I have been alive, the world and technology has evolved drastically. I can't even imagine what the world will be like 10 years from now, AND THAT'S THE POINT. We should be able to use the creative works that are already in existence as a launch site. As long as the use is fair, then by all means I encourage it. We should have the right, in order to help be a part of evolution, to take works already created and (based on our perceptions and OWN creativity) change them, alter them, make them easier to use, make them better, improve quality, etc. That's where innovation comes from, IDEAS. Who is to limit someone's ability of creative thinking? By not allowing fair use, the government would be violating the first amendment and greatly limiting encouragement for citizens to get creative, thus, limiting innovation.
-Michele P
Lessing's TED talk makes a number of good and solid points in which I found very interesting. I especially liked how he spoke about the younger generations creative process and how many times there is a struggle that must be dealt with due to copy right laws that prohibit creativity from something that's already out there. Common sense is something that some struggle with, to say the least. I agree that creativity from sources already made should be available to create something new out of them with the understanding that there is regulations for commercial use and such. I really enjoyed Lessing's talk and think he made a lot of valid points.
Jacy F.
M/W
I think that Lessig made some very valid arguments during his TED talk. I agree that there needs to be a balance between the two extremes of giving content away and stifling the creativity of our generation. The technology that we have at our disposal in this age allows us exponentially more possibilities than just 20 years ago. It is great that we have such advancements, but I agree with Lessig when he said that "the artist choice is the key for new technology having an opportunity to be open for business." There needs to be some distinction and consent for personal use and commercial use of creative content.
Anthony M.
M/W
I agree with Lessig for the most part. I like that he focuses on the difference between recreating something and piracy. I think it is important to know the difference. I do think that copyright laws should be followed and not just ignored like many people do, commonly on YouTube. I do like that people are allowing their works to be used for noncommercial uses, and I don't think that should be sopped. If anything it should increase.
Alyssa M. MW
I agree with Lessig in that this day in age, kids are growing up with technology all around them. Kids are learning how to do things a lot faster than the older generation. They look up to these artists and they want to be just as creative. These artist's shouldn't be upset at the fact that people are using their works to make something of their own. If I were an artist I would be happy. I think Lessig did a great job of telling the three stories and then tying them altogether.
Preston A. MW 3:30-4:50
I love the way that Lessig makes his point by starting off with those three examples. The copyright laws need to be reviewed when it comes to recreating and reworking previous works of art in any form, especially because the internet is so abundant. You can find anything you want, anywhere at any time of the day thanks to the internet. People everywhere are already making remixes of songs etc. to be made into new and refreshing takes, so why not let people use works of art to create new art without commercial use? I agree with Lessig. Like Lessig said, as long as its used "for the love and not for the money" then I see no problem in letting individuals and other artist recreate art, as long as its recreated.
Chelsea Seifert
T/TH
I pretty much agree with everything Lessig said, especially about artists work being freely available for amateur use but not commercial use. I think he also has a really interesting point about how different the generation of "kids" is today from when our parents were young. This really is the age of creating things, not just listening to or watching them, and it is entirely because of technology. I like what he says about bringing back the culture that is putting out content for the love of what they're doing, and not for the money. Also about remixing songs, etc. because I think it's so interesting to put your own spin on something that someone else has created. Everyone gets something different out of each song or poem or whatever the medium is, and it is great to be able to make it your own. It's also very interesting to hear him talk about how we live our lives basically breaking laws, which I feel like is true in many cases because people pirate music or use songs in YouTube videos without permission of the artist. Some of our laws really need to be reevaluated.
Marilyn G. - Online
I agree with Lessig that the evolution of technology has changed everything. Recreating is just another way of people saying things differently. Like he said the tools of creativity are the tools of speech for our generation. Since we now live in a digital world it's apart of our culture to do the creating. They should promote peoples creativity instead of punishing them.
Danielle Cisneros MW
I thought Lessig's way of arguing our digital world and U.S. copyright law was very creative and impactful.
I one hundred percent agree with Lessig's argument. Our technological world does need balance because too much or too little of anything only causes harm. We live in a world where technology is practically the source and tools for ideas and to put so many limits on this privilege is what causes people to rebel against these laws.
Lessig's mention of kids breaking the law helped me see the impact of U.S. copyright law has on us.
Olympia Mendoza MW
I couldn't help but think of the music industry when it comes to copyrights. Back in the days of Limewire/ Frostwire whether you're downloading music from the original artist or the countless remixes of the next "up and coming" artist. Even today, whether you pay for a dollar off iTunes or $13.99 for the whole album. Copyright laws do matter. I really liked how he talked bout the "Artist's choice" and how it connects to "the kids" and technology.
- Vicky S.
T/TH
Lessing made very valid points about the creative commons and technology, and I do agree with him. I think that there is such an emphasis on our generation to think creatively, and individuals should be encoraged to do so - not punished. It was also mindblowing to see how many laws are broken regularly, and find myself wondering if it's always intentional? If people aren't educated about the copyright laws, how do they know that they are breaking them? This was an interesting video because of the clarity he provided about copyright.
Sarah Sutton
T/TH
I really enjoyed his comment in the end on convincing artists to allow their content to be used for non-commercial purposes for free. As long as someone else is not making money off of their work without giving the artist a cut, it should be free to use for things like remixes and parodies.
This talk reminded me of Spotify and how it appeals to both the creator and the consumer. I know of artists who refuse to ever put their content on Spotify and artists who believe it is an ingenious way to share. To me, in the end, creation is about the product, not the reward. If you make something for people to enjoy, why not let them enjoy it.
Katie B.
TTH
I agree with Lessig in the sense that technology is changing so much and making creativity a whole different discussion in this day and age. I think that copyright laws are in a good standard the way they're set now, but I also think people should still be able to use material for their own creative, personal uses as well as long as it's not for commercial use. I think there definitely needs to be a balance to it because we need to be able to be allowed to be creative when using technology because that is how we can grow and expand society. I think that it is something that is okay to be regulated but should only be done so to a certain extent.
Lisa Ghera
TTH
I feel Lessig was accurate in his assessment of how complex copyright laws can be. While they might be a practical means of fighting piracy, they can also be constricting when it comes to the creation of actual content. While maintaining intellectual property laws that are reasonable for all parties is of the utmost importance, his words in the second-to-last paragraph where he talked about artist choice being essential to new technological opportunities seemed to especially ring true. If the newer generations are to make use of newly-developed technology as well as work to advance it further, at least some leeway should be given to creators to allow for more experimentation and understanding of what they're supposed to be working with. Therefore a worthwhile amount of deliberation regarding copyright laws would appear to be a wise decision, so as to ensure that these laws be not too obstructive to those who wish to simply create new content using influence, if not also a reasonable amount of direct material, from content that came before their own.
Dylan H.
T-TH
November 30th, 9:56 PM
Lawrence Lessig’s TED talk was interesting to say the least. He got me thinking in a way I haven’t. The new culture he talks about, the one I’m taking part in, uses technology as a creative module because we love to remix or create new things out of older stuff, not for money. It would be great if that happened, but we don’t start out that way. But singers like Taylor Swift do it for the money. By taking her songs off Spotify, for example. She has a right to make money off her music, but Spotify was paying her, it just wasn’t enough. The “amateur culture” Lessig mentioned, makes videos, music, art, etc. for our friends, family or even the world to see. We don’t do it for money, just for our creativity to be seen and shared. I agree with his proposal of balance. The competition of less free and more free is good for consumers. Pandora is free, but we have the option to pay for fewer advertisements. I think that is a great solution that could be used for other problems involving technology. I also agree with Lessig that technology has made us different, but laws has made us criminals(in a way). I have downloaded music illegally before as much of my colleges have. We don’t sit back and watch, we create. The government needs to match the needs of the new culture. Stop making us live against the law. As well as match the needs of producers, who rightfully deserve to make a profit from their job.
Hunter C. TTH
I agree with Lessig that technology has changed everything, and that kids these days know how to use technology in so many ways. I see where authors of their work would get defensive because it takes a lot to create something unique. They are proud of what they make and don't want anyone stealing it, but recreating is just another form of creativity. There are all kinds of ways to make something your own. We should promote people's creativity instead of trying to stop it. Authors should look at this as flattering that they could inspire so many people in so many different ways.
Aliena B. T/Th
This video was in 2007 and even in 2014 today U.S. Copyright Law still affects us greatly. I myself use YouTube and have gotten several of my videos taken down because of copyright rules I wasn’t familiar of until this semester. YouTube gives us the opportunity to express ourselves with audio and videos. I always thought that as long as I put the producers credit in my description I could slide by without getting an email about copyright infringement. In my FDOM class we watched a video about the REMIX culture that had to do with Creative Commons which reminds me of this issue.
Sara Shields
T/Th 2:00
I think Lessig makes a great point with how modern technology is intertwined with the new generation and our ability to create new works. I understand protecting one's work as their own, but I also feel like artist's should appreciate that their work inspired someone else to create art or music or whatever. Finding a balance is ideal, but I would think that a person who expands on someone else's work is not doing so with malice, but just feeling inspired.
Janelle St. John MW
I agree with him on the fact that creators should allow their works to be used in non commercial ways. Part of our culture is using the technologies given to us, and if we are punished for things we create, that will cause a people to not want to create anything. Creators should want to have their work out there no matter what if they really want to make a difference. He made a good point that kids today are living differently than we are/did. We should give them a world where they can feel like they can be themselves. What people have to understand is that all ideas are going to happen eventually, and there will be a point in time where something different has to come along. Using "recreativity" provides a new way of thinking outside of the box for people, and as time goes on, we need more and more of that. We shouldn't punish all of those who want to make a difference a different way.
-Laura Moss
MW
I completely agree with Lessig's points about our generation's involvement with creativity and modern technology's impact on the law. As more and more technology allows our generation to be more creative and create new works out of anything and everything, it's easy to see where the law is outdated. When Lessig pointed out just how easy it is to break copyright law, it's becoming more clear to me why creative commons is such a better option in today's culture. It should be the creators choice to spread their work and let it be used to stimulate more creativity and works for years to come.
Sarah S.
MW 3:30
I think Lessig makes a very valid point about Creative Commons and technology. Our culture is centered around the use of technology. That’s what we are driven by. Covers of songs and parodies provide a way for people to get creative and express themselves through works previously created by the original authors. I think that artists still need to receive the credit they deserve for creating original works, but Creative Commons allows for everyday people to enjoy and be creative themselves. I think artists should be amazed at the fact of knowing they had that much influence on someone. The U.S. Copyright Law really affects our generation in the sense that we are encouraged to express ourselves, but if everything in the public domain is under strict Copyright Law, that squanders some of the creativity. Take YouTube, for instance; I agree that movies and shows shouldn’t be on YouTube because that means that someone simply recorded it and threw it online. There’s no creativity there. On the other hand, when YouTube removes a video for having songs in it that don’t belong to the person using them, I think that’s going too far. When I was learning Sign Language, there was one particular girl that I would watch to pick up on new signs. She ended up going through a whole battle with YouTube because they kept taking her videos down due to her using music. I don’t think that is fair. We should all have the freedom of expression.
Amber L. TTH 2-3:20
There is a fine line between using someone else's creative work and claiming it as your own and using someone else's work to expand on in a creative sense, acknowledging the fact that it is an expansion of someone else's idea. As a musician, I think others can agree that some of the best music is a play on something that already exists, a cover or a mash-up. How discouraging would it be for my generation if we could not expand on what already exists without punishment?
Emily Kellar
TTH 2pm
User-generated content and digital media is definitely the language of the younger generations today. New technology allows for more creativity on the web whether it be with audio, video or a combination of media. As we continue to evolve in technology the copyright law is becoming outdated. Creative Commons is an excellent alternative for today's digital creativity. Artists can allow their content to the public for non commercial use to stimulate creativity with their works. We have a freedom of expression and U.S. Copyright Law makes it harder for self expression.
Devan Flores
TTh 2 p.m.
Having studied piracy and copyright last year as part of a communications subject, I was already introduced to the work of Lawrence Lessig. This Ted Talk in particular presents a number of ideas that I strongly agree with, one being how technology is and sadly changing everything. It is crazy to me that this ted talk was filmed in 2007, because of how valid his points were then and it's about to be 2015. Lessig speaks of an amateur culture of user-generated content, where people produce content for the love of what they’re doing, not for money. He makes the distinction between remix and piracy, noting that when people remix, they take the original content and recreate it, using digital technologies, to say things differently. He also criticizes the application of copyright law to this remix culture and cites the need for common sense. I think artists should feel prideful that people want to use there music and not have such a negative look to it. I also feel no one should be given the privilege to limit someone’s creativity. Creativity makes the world go round.
Lindsey Snoga
TTH 2:00
I think Lessig was absolutely correct in saying that our generation is technology oriented, and as generations change, the laws need to change with them. This is a sticky situation if you look at it from both sides, though. The majority (consumers) obviously feel that if they aren't using the original work for commercial purposes, they should be able to do with it as they please. The minority (producers) justifiably have a different view. I think that if I had spent all of that time and effort to make something of my own I would want to fully reap the benefits and most certainly would not want some one else taking credit for it.
Shelby Stamper
MW 3:30
I really enjoyed this TED Talk, and thought Lessig did a good job of making his argument. I think with this generation being so used to using and taking anything off the internet, laws will change in favor of users. Artists and creators should have their works protected from commercial use of others. But young people these days just want to be creative too and Creative Commons allows amateur creators to do that, and I think that artists should be okay with that. I also like the way he tied his 3 examples in, that made it make sense for me.
Sara Blackman T/TH
I enjoyed this TED talk as I usually do. I can relate because me and my Dad are avid home video makers/editors that constantly run into this problem with our videos being taken down (off YouTube/Vimeo) if you don't credit your music appropriately. I think if you legally obtain the music (buy it on CD or digitally) and credit the artist appropriately you should be able to share it on the internet (without making a profit) paired with your own images/video without being punished. So I am completely in agreement with Lessig's argument and believe that these laws put a damper on creativity and the expansion digital media.
-Dillon Behen
I found Lessig's TED Talk to be interesting, mainly because all of the technology available to us today is something I'm not completely familiar with, and usually very far over my head, but I'm amazed at all the things people are capable of creating. I agree with his remarks that the 'more free' can compete with the 'less free' and one can teach lessons of the other; I agree that it's going to be impossible to completely eliminate this technology from "our world", as kids, because for our generations it's 100% instinct, and you can't kill instinct.
Kaylee Rocha, MW
This TED talk was kind of difficult for me to follow, but I did agree with a few things:
When Lessing was discussing how people used to make music "for the love, not for the money" made me realize how much our culture has changed. Art used to be for the soul, not for the money which I feel is what it's all about now.
Although there are artists, musicians, etc. that remain creating works for their own pleasure, most artists get wrapped up in the money making, and it kills the creativity.
I also agree with the intellectual property laws, though. Without these, artists may be hesitant to release their works and we would live in a boring and uncreative world.
There are pros and cons of both sides, but these laws are in place because of the world we live in.
Brittany G. M/W
This TED Talks was very interesting to me. One of the main points I picked up on was that Mr. Lessig pointed out that musicians created music "for the love, not for the money"in the past.It's sad to think about how much or culture has changed when it comes to the music industry or any industry for that matter. Most people I have encountered are in a career field for the money not for the love. Technology is consuming our world.
I think as the generations evolve so should some adjustments to the law.
Lessig also criticizes the concept of remixing original property into something new with a twist. Copying is the biggest form of flattery in my opinion and I feel that's how it should be looked at in other people's eyes.
This TED Talks was very interesting to me. One of the main points I picked up on was that Mr. Lessig pointed out that musicians created music "for the love, not for the money"in the past.It's sad to think about how much or culture has changed when it comes to the music industry or any industry for that matter. Most people I have encountered are in a career field for the money not for the love. Technology is consuming our world.
I think as the generations evolve so should some adjustments to the law.
Lessig also criticizes the concept of remixing original property into something new with a twist. Copying is the biggest form of flattery in my opinion and I feel that's how it should be looked at in other people's eyes.
Janelle H. MW 330
Our generation is very technology-oriented, and because technology has evolved so quickly, the laws have had trouble keeping up with all the developments. Although some of the Ted Talk was over my head, I enjoyed the video. It’s a hard line to determine when it comes to intellectual property because I can see both sides of it. As a consumer, I love that information and people’s works are readily available at my fingertips. But if I were a producer, I know I would be more possessive with my works and how they are used. It’s a difficult circumstance.
Amaris W. M/W
I agree with what Lessig says. I think the laws do have a hard time keeping up with the constant changes and probably need to adapt. Lessig criticized creating remixes on original music, which I somewhat agree with. But I think all the fan-made videos should be seen more as a compliment, not stealing the work.
Kayla K. TTH
I agree in the terms of how our generation knows we live in a country where we know copyrights and trademarks have laws but we constantly break them for our own entertainment. As a part of this generation I agree and disagree with these laws. For instance I took photos for a schools cheerleading team, and my photos were published on websites and newspapers without my permission. I was livid but at the same time I was proud they used my photo. However I would have liked just a "heads up." But our technology is constantly changing and keeping up with these practices is hard.
Haley S. M/W
i agree with lessing's presentation, as we are a generation that copies other movies and t.v. shows for parody purposes. some of us do this because we are fans and do these videos to share with other fans of the materials. Technology is constantly changing making more people share material with one another. trademark and copyright laws are slow with keeping up with how much information is being shared.
jerry garza
MW
I agree with Mr. Lessig. These copyright laws have become so strict that it makes it almost impossible to "remix" anything. I agree with creative commons that artist should share creative rights with the public under certain circumstances. If I were an artist and someone remixed my work, and made a complete new work, I'd be honored. However, I'd require my consent if they were trying to profit off of it. Strict copyright laws don't stop our generation from committing "copyright infringement," it only makes us better of finding ways to get around it. So, like Mr. Lessig said we should just find a balance between the two so no ones creativity is stifled and no ones money is messed with.
Tyler S. T/TH 2:00
In my opinion, Lessig is on to something. However, I would take his position one step further. In viewing intellectual property rights, one should look beyond scarcity to the greater paradigm around which our legal system has been built. To create an original idea, as it stands today, in many ways entitles one to it's eventual implementation. For instance, the individual who created the chair is entitled not only to the patent, but to the eventual profits from the production of chairs, as anyone who seeks to produce these chairs must first gain the patent-holder's permission. This example is an oversimplification, to be sure. But in it lies a truth: individuals feel that they are owed more than ownership of their idea.
Consider the following scenario: a man creates the idea of a chair, but does nothing to bring the idea to fruition. Another man steals the idea for the chair and puts it into production for profit. I would venture to say that most Americans would claim the creator of the chair is owed at least some of the profit from the producer. If this is true, the current paradigm under which our law operates gives more than just ownership to the owner of intellectual property. It additionally gives or ensures at least partial ownership regarding the fruits of production. If one believes that legislatures respond to the wishes of the people and that the people would mostly agree with the conclusion of the previous scenario, it can be said that this extension of intellectual property rights is likely to remain a part of the law, for better or for worse.
The thrust of my argument, as a natural extension to Lessig's, is that the paradigm should shift to favor those who bring ideas to fruition. An individual with useful ideas, who does nothing to make them a reality, is not worth protecting by law. Those willing to act on original ideas, whether they are the owner or not, should enjoy the Lockean proviso as applied to all intellectual property.
In this way, an idea becomes only as valuable as its execution. To a large extent, this is already the case. However, inefficiency, counter-productive patents, and other hindrances to useful production currently stand in its way.
Jon Rodriguez TTH 2:00/3:30
The fact that this video was released in 2007 blows my mind! The issue Lessig discusses in his TED Talk is so relevant today and I absolutely agree with what he is saying. I really appreciate the fact that Lessig is taking up for us, "kids" and acknowledging that times ARE different and that we ARE a generation of technology and all of its creative outlets. I, in no shape or form, think that stealing artists' work is acceptable, but I do believe that artists should be appreciative of the platform they have, and try to help others with their creativity. For example, Girl Talk, makes amazing mixes and sooo many people enjoy his work and his talent for mixing and mashing music. I don't think anyone's art is more important than another, and I think all should be appreciated.
The fact that this video was released in 2007 blows my mind! The issue Lessig discusses in his TED Talk is so relevant today and I absolutely agree with what he is saying. I really appreciate the fact that Lessig is taking up for us, "kids" and acknowledging that times ARE different and that we ARE a generation of technology and all of its creative outlets. I, in no shape or form, think that stealing artists' work is acceptable, but I do believe that artists should be appreciative of the platform they have, and try to help others with their creativity. For example, Girl Talk, makes amazing mixes and sooo many people enjoy his work and his talent for mixing and mashing music. I don't think anyone's art is more important than another, and I think all should be appreciated.
Tesia G
MW 3:30
I loved how Lessig talked about recreation and how it is not considered piracy. I personally love watch recreations of things or listening to them. I think it is important for people to be able to recreate things or even create something new with someone else's work. It allows creative juices to flow and it might inspire someone else to do the same. DJ Earworm is a great example. He creates a mashup every year of the top songs of that year. He started this in 2007. He takes bits and pieces of each song and creates a brand new song.
Daniel P
MW 3:30
This TED Talk is still extremely relevant today! I agree with Lessig's argument. I think that remixing especially shouldn't be considered piracy! For example, remixed songs are my favorite! Can you imagine how many more remixes would exist if nobody didn't feel threatened towards the subject? I don't think that much will change in the upcoming years. If anything, intellectual property may end up protecting more then we would like.
This TED Talk is still extremely relevant today! I agree with Lessig's argument. I think that remixing especially shouldn't be considered piracy! For example, remixed songs are my favorite! Can you imagine how many more remixes would exist if nobody didn't feel threatened towards the subject? I don't think that much will change in the upcoming years. If anything, intellectual property may end up protecting more then we would like.
Lessig made a very strong point when discussing User Generated Content (USG). Our generation puts creative thoughts and ideas all over the internet because we love to; we're not in it for the money. Our generation is different than our parents because of technology. Millennials on the internet are amateur artists putting our own touch on videos, pictures, music, etc. In Lessig's words, a lot of the time we're "remixing" art that already exists. The argument to this would be that we're "stealing" another artist's work, also known as piracy. This is why ideas, like SOPA, generate in hopes to revise the Intellectual Property Law. I'm glad Lessig shared his thoughts to people of all generations as he challenges us to be more open-minded.
Lindsay C. MW
This is a perfect example of the times changing faster than the law does, and the story about the airplanes ties in very well to the argument. I absolutely agree with him. This may just be because I am a child of the generation he is talking about and am so spoiled to have access to so much at my fingertips, but I don’t believe the people “re-creating” are doing much harm to the music industry in the first place. In my opinion the artists that are typically used are probably not going to hurt financially from their song being used in a youtube remix. If anything I would think that would increase the sale of that particular song if the video goes viral. And even struggling artists are typically happy to have their song out there. That being said I still can’t be sure of where intellectual property law is headed. I do believe that while people are able to obtain content digitally (and often illegally) vinyl seems to be back in style, and while it may or may not make a huge difference, artist are able to sell their albums for two to three times as much as the digital files. Having a physical representation of the music to market and sell is a great way to offer a more classic option to a generation who can get any digital content with a few clicks of a mouse.
Patrick Connor Markey - MW
Chris Chaney M/W @ 3:30
This TED Talk is perfect to watch especially with what is discussed that is so involved in today society.
It is mentioned that our generation is remixing art today and it should not be discussed as a problem but am achievement to expand and improve previous arts. Remixing should not be considered piracy.
In my opinion, with online interaction and the ability to share world's is moving faster than copyright and piracy laws can change.
I think people should be allowed to take others ideas and re-invent them into something new. However I do agree with a few others that breaking the law to do so is risky since the start of it may lead to laws being broken that shouldn't be broken. If we were to change the laws somehow to make it acceptable I'd be for it fully since ideas and new inventions or creations is what keeps us going economically. We shouldn't allow the law to limit our abilities though the law adapting to our needs may be something that could work.
I think people should be allowed to take others ideas and re-invent them into something new. However I do agree with a few others that breaking the law to do so is risky since the start of it may lead to laws being broken that shouldn't be broken. If we were to change the laws somehow to make it acceptable I'd be for it fully since ideas and new inventions or creations is what keeps us going economically. We shouldn't allow the law to limit our abilities though the law adapting to our needs may be something that could work.
Michael M. MW
MacKenzie. S TTh
As far as amateurism and creative collaboration, Dr. Lessig has a great point and idea. Many times creativity thrives with multiple minds providing input. I begin to disagree with Lessig when professionalism enters the equation, because intellectual property can be someone's entire source of income and it would be impossible to protect oneself without strict copyright laws. Einstein once said that the key to creativity is ones ability to hide ones sources. This does not mean that to create one must copy, but instead merely gleam inspiration from another's idea. Theft should always be a crime, whether it be of an object or a concept.
For the most part, Lessig’s examples confused me and I would not be surprised if I took his points the wrong way (although I’d like to think I at least understood it enough to give a blog comment that suffices).
Lessig brought a few points that reflect a society changing faster than the law is. This is something that I agree with… we see this issue with Gay Rights and Abortion laws (or lack thereof). I hope that intellectual property laws don’t change too much (such as the USSC giving Disney ownership of Mickey Mouse for longer). Don’t get me wrong, I fully believe that Mickey Mouse is Walt Disney’s baby and no one else deserves to make profit off of him. However, I think if the USSC continues to extend how long “limited time” lasts then it will show an inconsistency. Personally I think they should make a decision and stick with it, rather than changing it as often as they have.
Hannah Cramer T/Th
I agree and disagree with this video.
People should be able to re-think/re-invent their ideas and even use other ideas to help re-create new projects. But if I were a writer or creator of some sort,I want protection of my work. There's a happy medium, its just figuring out the balance and how to ingrain that into society.
Becca Roberts
T/TH
I loved this TED Talk, partially because I've always had a tough time in deciding my stance on this issue. Lessig made excellent points regarding actual piracy versus the recreation of creative content. I agree with Lessig that these are not the same. I also agree that we need to find a happy medium between the two extremes that Lessig mentioned. I feel like the extremists, who have created technologies that can take down any content containing copyrighted material, are essentially restricting creative expression. However, I do believe there is a fine line between recreating content and downright stealing. Again, there needs to be a happy medium.
Araceli B.
TTh
Kristen Smith- MW 3:30
I do have to agree with a lot of what he said. I think that the laws do have a difficult time keeping up with the changes that take place everyday, especially within the digital culture. The fact that people, people my age, "life life knowing they live life against the law" doesn't seem to make sense. Why should we have to suffer because of out-dated laws? The Creative Commons is an amazing progression of the Copyright issue, because it makes so many resources available to people who want to create their own forms of art with them. Just because they are secondary creations doesn't lessen their value, but the fact that they stand to possibly seen as illegal is ridiculous.
Lessig has made a strong argument for the creative commons. It’s undoubtedly important to point out that the rising generation lives through technology and relates to it different than any other generation does. Because media through technology has grown so rapidly in a short period of time, it is important that we as a community address the issues that came out of this revolution as well. Creativity and new inventions stand on previous notions and discoveries. If we prevent the people from using other peoples works now, we may stifle future creativity. This will be a very tricky subject to handle now and in the future. This video and Lessig’s talk is a great jumping off point to get the people thinking and the community debating.
Greta Bruner MW 3:30
I found this video to be interesting and compelling. It made me think about where I stand with the topics he discussed. I would have to say that I agree and disagree with some of the things he talked about. Mr. Lessig feels that there are too many copyright laws that are restricting the creativity of people and technology, and I agree. It is crazy to think that this video was posted in 2007 and what he talked about is still so relevant today, seven years later. We live in a society where my generation, and those to follow, are consumed with technology, music, and as Lessig mentions,"remixes" of things. I agree with Lessig and think that older generations/businesses need to accept that the world has changed. These generations and businesses need to realize that placing all these copyright laws on everything is only making the younger generations as he says, "feel like they are living life against the law."I feel that there should be more freedom when it comes to "remixing" old ideas into new ones, but I also believe in still giving credit to those who have the original creation. There needs to be a middle ground established within the law and public with copyright/intellectual property laws.
Elizabeth D. T/TH Class.
After watching his lecture, I have to agree with Lessig. I can honestly say that technology has been the one thing that has impacted the new generation the most. Back in the day, the radio was the only form of technology. Now, technology has evolved into something that appeals to the senses and it has taken over our world. I often think of how different things will be when I'm older. I bet our grandparents never even dreamed of carrying around a tiny touchscreen device that could hold thousands of songs.
In regards to the copyright laws, I feel as though artists should have the ability to express their creativity. I understand there are laws that prohibit one from stealing the work of another, however, those laws are not well laid out. Some of the best material comes from remixes and parodies. There would be no Scary Movies and no dance remix of that perfect summer song. I hope for the future that the laws are much more lax; unless someone is very clearly ripping someone else off, creativity should be encouraged.
Hannah C
Online
I do think it's hard to know the line of copyright law and creative commons when we live in a world with advanced technology and outdated laws. I think people should be allowed to create something new out of the ideas of someone else, when given the right by the creator. EDM, an entire genre of music, has evolved based on remixes. In today's world, it is hard for the government to have control over all the copies and access that are available to artists' creative works.
Raelyn Bobo (MW)
After watching Lawrence Lessig's TED talk, I agreed with a lot of the points he made. I agree that we need to makeover the current copyright laws, but that policy makers won't understand this until it's too late. I agree with the fact that BMI identifies that competition can achieve a type of balance. There has to be a way to be able to add onto someone else's work without being called a "trespasser." I don't like the fact that websites like YouTube can have an "auto-take-down" of content, even if fair use is established. There has to be a way for the individual to create their own copyright law, without having to follow a company's exact laws.
Ashley Shoemake MW
I like the way Lessig conveyed this idea that were shifting into an RO society instead of remaining RW through multiple examples examining the history and generational differences that have lead us to where we are now in regards to law and creativity.
"I agree with the idea that people should be able to use products as a part of the fair use clause. As long as they're not blatantly using someone else's creative property as a means to make money for themselves."
There have been so many technological advances in such a short period of time that allows us to access, remix, edit, etc. anyones work from all over the world and i just think were trying to play catch up and figure out how to create some sort of middle-ground. Artist learn and create from being exposed to other cultures and influences, if someone makes a simple riff or drawing and immediately call copyright infringement if somebody stems off of that, it stunts our society's creative and experimental growth.
Melanie Carissimi
M/W
If you criminalize something, it doesn't make it "go away", it makes it makes it more sought after on an underground scale. When he made that point, I thought, "bingo". The fact that there are two extremes is what's slowing down any resolve of this issue.
We're seeing this right now with the passing of laws and civil issues like Ferguson and Eric Garner. Although different subject matters, the opinions of the courts and the congress differ from the people, because they do not reflect the people. There are also extremes between the positions of power and the people. Even the congress has reflects extremes from one another. It is because of this that passing anything is virtually impossible.
Lessig's point is valid, there need to be a middle ground, and once that is established, then we can move forward.
Theresachristine Etim
M/W
For the most part, I agree with Lessig's message in this TED talk. The point that resonated most with me was the point he made about kids in those days (I would've been a part of those kids) operating by doing that as a form of communication. Remixing is not a crime. It's how we share culture in this day and age. It is no different than verbally passing stories from generation to generation and adding spins here and there. That being said, I do think that original creators of work should have rights to forbid other individuals from using their work for certain purposes. That is why we have creative commons, and we shouldn't shy away from the remix and remaster!
I agree with Lessig's argument for the most part. I feel that there will be a shift to going back to what he called the re-wright culture. I feel that this does help develop culture and advance creativity. Although I can see how people want credit for their works that people use. I think original creators should allow their work to be reused, though. For the most part, creator create their work to share with others. So it should be allowed for other creators to recreate their own content in their own way.
Candace E. TTH
I agreed with the majority of the points that Lessig makes. With that being said, I feel that the point he stressed at the end to be most vital to his argument. Growing up as a digital native I understand the vital part that technology played in my childhood and well through my adolescence. The statement he makes about the previous generation "boxing" in the the youth's opportunity to use technology to further progress our democracy was especially moving to me. Personally, I believe that user-generated content will be the tool that reshapes what we deem creative as a society. This TED talk reminds me of an old lyric from a Nas song from 1998, "There is nothing new under the Sun. It's not what you do, but how it's done." Any creative person can trace their creative passion to a certain taste they developed at an early age. This taste became more defined and matured with the creative until the taste transformed into that creative person's own personal style that was directly inspired by the art they learned to love and respect. In closing, I believe that certain copyright laws are in fact choking the creativity out of the coming generations.
Matthew D. MW
This TED Talk was pretty interesting. Lessig was right in 2007 and he's still correct in 2014- we are being dominated by a digital world. Everything is at our fingertips. If we want something, we're growing accustomed to just going online and getting it. A lot of popular music today features samples from other songs or is a remix of a song. There's a difference between taking someone else's content and claiming as your own and taking it and expanding on it in a new, creative way. It's a form of flattery- someone likes your content so much that they're reinventing it and helping it reach a broader audience in hopes that it impacts them in a new way. Making music used to be for the passion, but now it's for the money. I think if we keep choking out the creativity, we'll all be so afraid that our content will be compared to the likeness of another's content, and we might actually keep all our creativity to ourselves. Where's the fun in that?
Taylor K. (MW)
Lessig's TED Talk was very interesting! I agree a lot with the points he makes. Technology has completely changed society and people (especially the younger generations) views on copyright. It has increased how content is shared and viewed.
Personally, I think what is being shared of the content is important to look at. Sharing snippets of the content or making a remix of something is not the same as sharing the content in its whole form. I think the original author should have control over how the whole form particularly is shared. If they are trying to earn money from their work, then someone giving it out for free could definitely impact them. However, snippets and remixes aren't really the same and don't have much impact monetary wise. So, I think it's important to look at what's being shared, and allow the artist to make the call about the work in it's entirety itself.
Steffanie Agnew
M/W
Lessig's talk was very interesting. I agree with several of his points. Technology has changed so much over the years, especially since he made this TED talk. There is so much shared content on the internet but I think the original author should get credit for what is published.
Online Class
Lawrence Lessig offered insightful information and points pertaining to copyright, creative commons, and technology revolutions. It is crucial to spread the importance of everything that pertains to copyright and knowing if your creative projects work or go against the copyright laws. I like when Lessig said that artists and creators need to embrace the opportunity to have their work to be made more freely. Also, that businesses should embrace the opportunity to be more open so that those two can grow together on a neutral platform. Lastly, I like how he brought up that technology has made children "different" from their parents. The difference of generations is what separates and allows for creative processes.
Hillary O (T/Th)
I enjoyed Lessigs Ted talk and believe it helped me understand intellectual property a little better as well. I liked the quote by Suza (sp), and feel like he definitely had some insight to the future. "These talking machines are going to run artistic development of music in this country." The point that Lessig made about the extremists was interesting to me because it seems those are in fact the two sides, auto-takedown vs. rejecting copyright, and I agree with Lessig when he says that both of these sides are wrong. Interested to see what changes and laws regarding music will come in our future.
Heidi Kucera
MW 330-450
I agree with Lessig. Our generation is extremely technology oriented and there are tons of YouTube videos and such that show our generations creative side while using others creative content as well. So long as it's just for creative expression and not for profit it should be allowed.
Molly Dodge
MW 2:00pm
Lessig makes many good points and since this talk in 2007, many changes have been mad. The world we live in today where technology does not have a limit, it is easy to share and pirate online material. Recreating content and downright stealing content is very different and if we can find a happy medium then everybody can calm down. If i had material getting stolen for someones else's use I would be pissed and i do not think that would be fair.
Chris Cesario
T/TH
Lessig's talk was nicely structured and informative. I got me thinking that the digital world really is progressing so rapidly that the original basis of the copyright law needs to be updated in order to keep up. I agree with Lessig's point towards younger generations. I feel the issue with copyright is the abuse of this law. I agree with Lessig that younger generations communicate and express themselves creatively with great influence and more knowledge with operating technology such as creating remixes. Music remixes and mash-ups violate copyright laws which to people today is merely taking one idea and transforming it into an entirely different,new idea. So I think the problem is not entirely the law. It mainly needs to be updated with a clear definition of what is considered creative or a violation to insure the protection of existing ideas combined with creative new innovations to keep up with our society today.
Alexandra Garcia
TTR
Post a Comment