As you learn about Intellectual Property, I'd like for you to watch Lawrence Lessig's TED Talk: "Laws that choke creativity."
Even
though this presentation was done in March 2007, it is still highly
relevant to issues involving copyright and digital and online media.
Here's the talk:
After
you watch the presentation, return here and add a comment about whether
you agree with Lessig or not, and why or why not. Also, because we are near the end of the semester, the deadline for your comment is 11:59
p.m. Friday, Dec. 9.
Remember, also, to include your first name, last name initial and class (morning, afternoon or online).
166 comments:
Sean Guion Online MC 4301
I agree 100% with Lessig. He intelligently discusses the openness of copyright and what you should and should not do. Making derivative's of work is what drives society forward while reminding us of our history. Without the ability to make derivative I would not have the luxury of 80's cover bands at hole-in-the-wall bars which are only made better by these bands. Without derivative works, we wouldn't have any of The Dark Knight's, The Avengers, or 21 Jump Street (just to name a short list). History repeats itself and that seems to be working out for us in terms of creativity and media.
I also agree completely with Lessig's stance on copyright and derivative works. Our whole society feeds off of previous works whether that is in music, films, books, television. It is rare to come across a single original idea like Star Wars for example since that idea came from numerous science fiction films George Lucas had seen. Even Lucas said that his ideas were a collaboration from other films. The idea of derivative works that Lessig was discussing is that yes it is ok to be creative and transform someones creation to make it your own as long as you are not intentionally ripping someone off by not making a new original medium. Without taking peoples ideas and adding something big to it, we would rarely see new movies, films, books and movies. This is what fuels our society.
Kiersten E.
Tues- Thursday 2:00pm afternoon class
Corey R. T-TR 11:00-12:30
I agree with what Lessig has to say in the Ted talks video. The knowledge of what he speaks of about copyright makes sense of what is and isn’t allowed under the circumstances of the regulations that come with copyright. Everything today, star wars, the batman, spiderman, superman movies, etc. all wouldn’t exist or continue to come out in the future with these new films under these derivatives. There are ways to go about the making of these films without taking credit or harming the original creators.
Shanae M. Online
I agree with part of what Lessig is saying. The quote from the beginning said “Culture where creativity was consumed but the consumer is not a creator.” I really agree with that. But, I have to admit, the internet does not exacerbate that problem. In fact, it in a way reverts it back to the consumers also being the creators.
It’s a very complicated issue. As Lessig pointed out, almost all work that is out there today is in some state of being copied and that the internet now makes it that much easier to remix and overtake another person’s art. And, the argument can be made, that it is not really user being a creator online so much as the user is adding another layer to art that it usurped from someone else on the internet. But, this is what art has in many ways always been. Looking at the evolution of music- take Country for example- it was started in the Mountains, added to by the others, imbued with new mediums and stretched to outlaw and then (sadly) pop. So, all art is copied. But, the issues come from whether they are legally used or just ripped off.
I think that his overall point was that laws need to adapt with modernity- particularly with technology. And I do agree with that for sure. As he says, the law is one way to go- but it is also important that the artists and consumers agree to it as well.
I agree with Lessig's analysis of current copyright laws and the stifling environment that they create for would-be creators. I think he makes a good point when he argues that so many of the things we have today are a result of co-creation and derivative works. With the democratization of technology, anyone is capable of creating, and in our current social environment, using these technologies to create messages is an important form of expression that heightens the public discourse.
I completely agree with his suggestion that creativity and competition will thrive when artists embrace the idea of allowing their work to be made available for certain uses. So many of the modern inventions and concepts we have today came about through the piggybacking of other ideas. If creativity is to thrive, it is important that creators are open to collaboration and transformation.
Denver Donchez, 11 a.m. class
Cody W., 2 p.m. class
I wholeheartedly agree with Lessing about copyright. Derivatives are a mechanism that helps contribute to innovation in society. There's a reason the U.S. Constitution states that it should advance and promote sciences and arts. I understand the rationale behind copyrights laws, but at the same time, it should not be so strict that it prohibits future innovations.
A great deal of sciences and arts that surround us today were created and/or inspired from previous works, and many of us in society enjoy these creations religiously. Lessing is a very brilliant man, and I think the information (copyright issues) he speaks about carries great merit and substance.
Andrew W., 2 p.m. class
I agree with Lessig. I think that art is has a repetitive nature. It is important to foster fair use so that creativity can move forward. I think that the balance between fair use and copyright is important. I think he put it best when he said "more free must compete with less free." if this balance is held then there is a happy medium where creativity can flourish but those who have already created can still benefit.
I agree w/ Lessing that we live in a time where many people live life against the law (pertaining to reproducing content they have not ask the creator to use) but I also understand that from a bureaucratic point of view; that's bad for business. My favorite point he made was about how we have to find a way to balance commercial vs. free use as well as if the story was created long before copyright laws then those things should be in the public domain (horror stories that were made into fairy tales) so that someone has the legal ability to maybe create a bigger and better "disney" based on the horror stories or a different lane of fairy tales.
- Bill Manson | T/TR 2-3:20
I agree and disagree with Lessig. I agree that people should be encouraged to be creative and need songs, videos, ideas, etc. to build off of, but I also see the other side of it. I think artists put so much time and effort into making their creations exactly what they want them to be and they want it to reflect their beliefs and ideas. When someone else takes it and makes it into something completely different, it might be something that the artist is not okay with. On the other hand, I think it is nearly impossible to have no inspiration from past works of art while creating something new. I understand his viewpoint for sure.
Megan H. T/TH 2p.m.
There is a lot of truth in what Lessig is saying about copyright laws in this TED talk and what does and doesn't go against it with the different regulations abiding to the topic.I agree with his statements. He talks a lot about free use and how we wouldn't have remakes of certain movies or even characters that are classic to this day. I like how these laws don't make it completely so people can't remake things in the future otherwise we would slowly start to run out of ideas. There is always a way to avoid harming the original creators of certain pieces of work and giving credit to them. A lot of famous work that we have today is remakes of somebody else's original ideas.
I agree with Lessig also when it comes to copyright etc. Making derivatives of works whether it be music or movies or really anything is why we have so much to choose from in the present day. Most people say that they get "inspiration " from a musician or artist they adore, and usually create something from their platform. If we didn't have the freedom to look to others or adapt movies, there would never be anything interesting to listen to or look at. If we can't take ideas from other people, and obviously not rip them off, then there wouldn't be new ideas ever. Although it can be tricky, if you follow the rules, you shouldn't run into too many problems.
Sarah Pearce 12/1/16
Tues/Thurs 11:00-12:20
I agree with Lessig. I believe the whole backbone of creativity is other creations. As an adult, its hard enough as it is to be creative solely out of passion. In order to survive and make it in the real world we have to think realistically, but in doing so we've paralyzed a lot of our creative ability. If you limit creativity to only the people that can create something solely from scratch, potential for progress is limited on a massive scale. Not everyone is going to be a creative genius, but everyone in a sense IS creative and should be allowed to exercise it under fair use.
Lauren Hall
T/Thr 2-3:30
I completely agree with Lessig; there needs to be a balance to help the artistic community thrive. Artwork, in any form, is the product of inspiration of someone else's perspective.
Those who don't want to share their property shouldn't have to and those who do should be allowed to.
Ruby F. // Online
First off let me say that I love watching Ted Talks, secondly I do agree with Lessig. There should definitely be a balance between fair use and copyright laws. All of us use other creative works to help us with our own work, it helps one brainstorm and get new ideas to make better work. Not everyone can think of stuff from the top of their head therefore one should not be denied from looking at other art works such as music and movies in order to gain inspiration.
Maha R.
Online
Larisa R- ONLINE:
I completely agree with Lessig. I think that creativity comes from others creations. Like he says, "every single use of culture produces a copy." I also follow his points about copy write. There needs to be a balance between what can and cant be used by others. People should be able to choose whether or not others can use their content. The artists choice is the key to the future of creations.
Victoria G. Online
I agree with Lessig here as well. I think it's important to foster that creativity we have in ourselves and not force the younger generations to come to curb these types of creativity. We certainly shouldn't put laws in place that prevent them from doing it in the first place. My only issue would be how do we decide when something is stolen or is used in the exact way as the previous creator. I also think that it is nearly impossible to not want to be creative when we are touched with works of art and want to show that in relation to the works of art we enjoy but it might be difficult for the artist if we take their work and create something new with it. Not everyone is okay with that.I think answers to questions like those should be really hashed out and discussed so that we know just how much freedom we have in using our creativity.
Alex Light AL
2pm T/Th
I agree with Lessig's idea behind what he is saying. Im not sure I connected the 2nd example of land rights and trespassing transferring to copyright, but he seemed to make it a good relatable source. I also agree that maintaining the right to recreate, as recreation is the only way to progress into something new. I like that he involve music as an example of that because music is a history of recreation of its very past, whether it be country, rap, edm, or jazz. It all takes previous work and history to make something new. I believe that the more strict copyright laws become the less creativity and progression we will have as a society to both advance from the past and to excel toward a better understood future. I like that he said without the use of the internet we were becoming a read only versus read/write society. Blockading our creativity makes us prone to conformity and we've seen were that leads us (modern day North Korea). But, I do also understand that creativity can be dangerous, such as Hitlers concepts on humanity, which was a combination of creativity of a bad individual and ignorance of a nation.
Personally, I very much agree with Lessig. His assertion that culture, by nature, produces copies of itself is something that I've found to be true. If that were not the case, we wouldn't have so many superheroes that span different creators and publishers, and we wouldn't have so many similar crime TV dramas, etc.
Also, creativity thrives when people aren't bound by rules and restrictions. When people are free to create what they want to, so many great things come of it. For example, video games span so many genres and topics and some of them contain some of the most beautiful and compelling stories I've ever seen in media.
Alexis D., Online
I do agree with Lessig and his talk. We stem our ideas from other ideas and having the freedom to express that is important. The boundaries are there to protect work, but also there to be able to remake and in a way polish old work. I think that creativity is something that should be encouraged and we shouldn't be afraid of the law. The Fair Use Doctrine is something that allows us to work and build off ideas, but not "steal".
Andrea Martinez
T/TH 11 a.m.
I agree with what Lessig has expressed in this talk. Human ideas are generally inspired from something in the world around them. Usually that inspiration comes from other human beings previous idea. It is a cycle. A cycle which keeps the creative world running in our daily lives. I like what Andrea Martinez said, we are "building off" of the ideas brought before us, not "stealing" them.
I agree with what Lessig expressed in his talk. Ideas always come from another idea somewhere down the line. Inspiration from human ideas come from other people's ideas. Naturally in culture ideas feed off of other ideas. You should be allowed to feed off an idea since that person most likely got the idea from someone else. Also people would be more creative if they were allowed to create from other ideas they would be less limited.
Felipe P.
2pm class
Cody B.
T/TH Afternoon
Being one of the "kids" that Lessig mentions in this talk, I believe he is completely right. New ideas are harder and harder to come by as time has passed. Anything I think I may have made up has a good chance of already existing or being too similar to something else that if I tried to publish it, I could get sued. He also strikes a chord with me when he speaks on the "read only" culture. There are lots of consumers of art but it seems rare that I meet true creators. When we are able to use today's technology however, the possibility of remixes allows one to take something that is already made and create something new from it. I see this take the form of music, book-to-movie adaptations, movie remakes, parodies, etc. In a society where so much already exists, remixing may become the most popular form of creation.
I agree with Lessig's talk. He makes good points about our history and learning to accept new forms of creativity. Someone can use another's work to inspire a greater idea related to or entirely different from. Too many limitations can choke crativity and restrict us, as a soceity, from growing. I do believe there should be a balance between Copyright and Fair Use. As long as someone is not merely taking something verbatim, and instead creating it into incomparable. For instance, myspace was a huge social media platform and if nobody was allowed to expand on that, there would not have been room for Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, etc..
Crystal S.
T/TH 2pm
I 100 percent agree with Lessig.
By placing a copyright on every piece of work that is produced, no individual could ever add to - or modify - the work, preventing it from possibly being improved. This is happening throughout the world with multiple works, not just the music industry.
If an individual places a copyright on his or her work that allows for other to use it for noncommercial purposes, then ordinary people would not be breaking the law on a daily basis and producers of the work can still make their deserved income.
I really think it is the middleman that needs to be cut out of the equation, at least in the music industry. Record labels, for the most part, make the majority of the profit, leaving the artists with just a small percentage of the earnings. If deals or agreements were made directly with the creator of the work, issues could be avoided and both parties can walk away with a win.
Jairo Devora, Tuesday/Thursday, 11:00 a.m.
I agree with Lessig on the fact that the "kids" he mentions is doing things for the love of it and not for the money. People currently want to simply create things in an effort to express themselves or getting a laugh or recognition. Where would we be if just creating things would be illegal.
I love the fact that he brought up the lawsuit against airplanes flying over farms. I think this truly shows how the nation evolves with technological advances. The court rules that common sense prevents the farms from winning. Just as what Lessig stated: "What about common sense today?"
Tools of creativity have become how people communicate today. In my opinion, these creative tools help the world advance. Many of new inventions come from someone seeing something and then modifying it to make it better. If you look at the evolution of automobiles you can see the journey of such modifications. Without working on a previous model of a vehicle then it would slow the progression of where we are today.
-Autumn B.
T/TH 2 p.m.
I absolutely agree with Lessig's opinion on copyright law and the reasons that it's important for us, as a society, to have the right to reuse creative works and recreate them. Amateurs who want to freely and creatively customize popular creative works should not be held back from doing so by the big man up top who's trying to hoard all their intellectual property and profit from it without regard for others. After all, if the general public wasn't able to reuse premade content, how would we be able to watch anime music videos or bad lip syncings of George Bush? A world without those things is one I wouldn't want to live in. Plus, the freedom to reuse works allows us to move forward and create more great things that we're able to collectively enjoy.
Kris Bushong, Tuesday/Thursday 11a.m.
Carla S. 2 p.m.
I can agree with a lot of what Lessig is saying. I think his overall point in his speech was that the law has to keep up with modern society. Times change, which means the law about technology, which is basically what we as a society revolve around everyday, should be updated. I do see why artist, for example, Taylor Swift refuses to have her music available for free streaming on freemium's like Spotify, it's her music and what she chooses to do with it is her business. Which is how it should be for every artist, they should have their own choice.
I agree with what Lessing has to say regarding copyright. I think it is important for artists to be able to recreate and reuse other ideas. However, with the technology today, I think there is a fine line between copyright and fair use. Today's generations have such easy access to information and ideas, making it easy to call these ideas "original." I feel that people should be able to build off of other people's ideas without fear of breaking the law, but I also feel that the people with the original idea should have some sort of protection as well.
I enjoyed the beginning of the video where he used the quote "Culture where creativity was consumed but the consumer is not the creator." I think this is a very relatable quote, especially in today's time. The internet could arguably kill the creative thought in our generations. However, I think the access to technology could also enhance that creativity if we use it the right way.
Ashley S.
T/TH 2:3:20
I agree completely with what Lessing says in his TED Talk regarding copyright laws. I believe that the common sense defense was a very good point to bring up, because of the changing times the laws must change to cater those people. I often find it hard to find material to use to expand upon to create something new, for fear of the copyright laws. Even with the advanced search on google it can become increasingly harder to find quality images and videos to use legally so I think it's wonderful that there will be a place to access these types of media with consent already coming from the content creator.
Kelly C. T/TH 2-3:20pm
I fully agree with what Lessig is saying. For me the general statement of saying "you can't stop the creativity you can only criminalize it" summarizes everything. Individuals nowadays will find a way to do whatever they want. Now with today's technology that could mean possibly illegal. To sum it up you can role with it or get rolled over because this generation will find a way around it.
Osita O.
T/TH 11am
What Lessing says makes sense and I agree to what he says in that copyright will limit the creativity available to newer generations. I guy I know does music, both in making his own as well as remixing songs of other people more famous and popular. He'd done some great work remixing songs by the likes of Kanye West and Denzel Curry, but because he didn't own these materials that he sampled from the original songs he had the SoundCloud account where he posted all this taken down. In that sense it's pretty harsh the extent to which the copyright will go. At the same time, I make cover art to certain extents and it scares me to think of someone just ripping that off. I've seen it happen before to lesser known graphic designers and the rage that engulfs me seeing that is not something I like. So it'd be nice to not have to worry about someone stealing the style you created to try and further themselves. This is why on a subject of copy-written work I'm divided in my stance because I see both sides to the argument. But what Lessig seems to point out is a recognition of what and what not to do and if only it was so black and white like that might it work. But right now it's a complicated issue that depending on each and every person's stance, may never get fully resolved.
Copyright and derivative works is where Lessig has me fully.
It's impossible to find original ideas now-a-days. TV shows, movies, music, YouTube videos, advertisement, etc, they are all the same yet different. It is so rare to see a new idea in action.
I'm a blogger and it is frustrating to see people who steal your ideas and use them as their own. Being a creative person is very hard in a world full of people with access to right click.
Sydney Herrera
T/TH 2:00
I agree with what Lessig has to say about protecting this generation’s right to “remix” others works so long as it is content created for the love of creating and not for profit. In my opinion this constitutes as fair use and the government has no right to try to ban or take down remixed works and dub them as piracy. I also like how Lessig mentioned that this is how our generation speaks and how we are reviving the read and write principle by creating our own user generated content. To be completely creative without any outside influence or inspiration is hard to come by because everyone is influenced by others whether they know it or not. I believe true inspirational creativity is taking an idea and expanding on it in new ways to evolve culture and art.
Gabe T (Morning 11am T/TH)
I agree with Lessig as well. It is important to understand where technology is taking our society. For example, when he talks about remixing music, it's important to understand that although they are using someone else's original works, remixing the song and creating something else from it is an art itself. Most people still don't realize that so many of the songs they listen too use "samples" of other songs to make their beat. A lot of people feel that sampling isn't a true form of creativity, but in my opinion it's an art itself and should be appreciated. I do think that the creation of new ideas is lacking and that a lot of people are just building on past ideas, but as long as they don't try to profit from the works that contain someone else's work, it is totally acceptable. Overall, advancement in time will bring along new technologies that the law must keep up with.
My opinion on what Lessig is explaining in the Ted-Talk sits on the same side with what he believes. With the expanding industry of technology, it's nearly imperative to understand how society has totally evolved and will keep evolving with the adaptation to new inventions/technologies. Personally, I have friends who DJ and make a lot of mixes with a bunch of different artist's songs, so it's crucial to understand that even though they're mixing someone else's work... it's still ART that they are creating. So hearing Lessig talk about the idea of remixing music, I definitely had a connection to that thought. Famous rappers that make millions and millions of dollars, are also the same rappers who use audio samples throughout their tracks and some people probably never even catch that. With social media, it seems like new ideas and new thoughts are a rare thing for today, and that originality is lacking. All and all, with time going forward, the law must be able to keep up with the new innovations that are certain to come.
Madeline B. T/R 2PM
I agree with Lessig because it is important for other people to have a chance to turn something they enjoy into something of their own, a song for example. I know that artists work very hard to come up with their songs, but I also think that the people who remix the songs work just as hard.
I love watching Ted Talks because it gives me an interesting point of view from someone much more knowledgeable about the topic than me.
I agree with Lessig when he says that there should be a difference between fair use and copyright laws. We use others works to look for inspiration to create our own work. It is hard to say that you have a completely genuine idea with NO inspiration from others at all.We all piggyback off of each other, whether it be goals in life or creative works. Creative doors will open the day we lessen how strict copyright laws are.
Cindy L. Online.
I most definitely agree with Lessig. Doing remakes of other peoples work to me is like paying homage, its kind of like, we loved your work so much back then(for example Star Wars), that we want to remake it with modern technology and give the new generation what we experienced. If we were not able to remake some of our favorite classics, whether it be a movie or a song, I believe for some the legacy of that song or movie wouldn't be able to live on through generations, by putting a modern spin on nostalgia and making it relatable.
I agree with Lessig completely when it comes to people being able to turn something they love into something of their own. Nothing in this world is unique anymore. It is all a remix because it all comes from some kind of inspiration. Rather that be a certain song or film, or even just from looking a piece of art, nothing is created just because a random thought came into your head. That thought had to aspire from somewhere. I myself used to make AMVs and really related to that segment of this TED TALK.
Lauren Eckhardt
TR 2PM
Pablo O. - Online
I concur with Lessig's notion that the current copy write laws are becoming antiquated and do not reflect the conditions of modern culture and technology. Lessig points out that copy write laws were created to protect copies of something and apply less to the instant use of something on the internet. These laws create a culture of alleged pirating and hinder the economic potential of the creative output by amateur artists. This is a wonderful Talk that I can really get a lot out of. As someone looking to create and publish a variety of content online, I must stay current with these issues as they are evolving more and more.
Sarah Rogers 11 am
I agree with what Lessig had to say as well. He talked about law limiting creativity and I believe that is so relevant to our generation and how we have grown up. It seems like these days, every idea has some inspiration behind it- this inspiration being an idea from another person or entity. I consider myself a creative, being an art and design minor, but I can't say too often that my ideas for my art were 100% from my own brain and not done before by someone else. In today's world, it is common to see ideas being reused and recreated in a different way and I think as time goes on, recreation will become a more accepted way to recreate and this will most likely change the law just as Lessig referenced the law changing for property laws and the airlines.
We live in progressively changing times and I think recreation is a normal part of the creative process.
I fully agree with Lessing in this TED Talk. The Constitution points out that copyright laws should promote the advancement of sciences and arts. However it today's modern day that doesn't always happpen. In my opinion, no idea is truly original. You can't have a website without a computer, or a computer without wires, or wires without electricity, and so on. Copyright laws are essential but they need to become less strict to promote future inventions. In today's world, I think we should learn from Lessigs talk and promote more innovation through change of previous ideas.
Jesse D
2:00pm Tuesday/Thursday
I also agree with Lessig and his discussion over copyright and derivatives of works. Copyright is a very important part of media and is what keeps people's work from being copied without permission. Derivatives of works are an important way for history to be retold in a different way, and if it wasn't for derivatives of works, then some history may be lost to new generations. I know my younger siblings wouldn't be in to superheroes like batman and superman if the movies of these superheroes had never been remade. The newer generations are used to older movies and expect everything to be in HD, so if there weren't remakes of old movies, then the younger generations wouldn't pay them any attention. Lessig's TED talk is still very relevant to today and is very useful when it comes to talking about how copyright works.
Andrea T.
TTR 11am
I have to agree with Lessigs viewpoint on copyright and derivative works. Lessig makes a good point by saying a lot of the things we see today are all made from co-creation and derivative works. It is very rare that you can find an individual who can come up with something new and original. Lessig says its okay to use the creation of someones work to inspire your own ideas, but just dont rip them off. I have to agree with his argument. It's hard to fully be original. Every book, song, movie, etc is all taken from someone else idea but with a different twist on it that way it's not the same exact thing.
I think Lessig is right. We need to allow for more freedom with copyrighted products so long as they are not reused for commercial purposes. However, I would have to argue that freeconomics is often the way of generating commercial level attention over the internet nowadays. Whereas YouTubers are able to acrue money once they reach a certain number of subscribers, reused and remixed copyrighted material may generate more popularity for the one recycling the original content than the producer of the original content. An example would be if someone uploaded a short film to YouTube and then someone else extracted the video file, stripped the audio and forced the on screen talent to lip sync Shanaya karaoke. The melodrama film might be trumped by a user who has a much larger fan base and the intended meaning or significance behind the film would be lost to the slapstick humor replacing that intended message.
That is something I think about when it comes to fair use. Many forms of art today are inspired by past works, or satirical, or related to previous works which I believe is mainly a business aspect. In film, producers are going to put the financial investment towards what is already known to create the greatest return. Which it is safer to reboot 100 StarWars films before taking a chance on producing "The Memoirs of Logan Martin." Maybe a Netflix original? Even directors when casting for parts specify which specific already-famous actor they want someone to be most-like when they audition. Which sucks but most people don't go to movies because they want to experience the quest of new characters, but to see their favorite actors try and play those characters. JOB SECURITY. This is why it can be very hard to become an actor and why famous actors and actresses are idolized and publicized in extreme fashion. They are everywhere and become fantasies for many.
Much like dreaming, everything comes from something and we cannot create something without having been first inspired by something else. In dreams, we cannot meet someone we have never seen before.
Ideas are certainly dangerous since we, as a species, are very comfortable with status quo and new ideas can be frowned upon or often receive less than praising approval or support upon release.
Any-who... Lessig is right since user created content online is what all the rage is today with kids and young adults since it's cheaper than television and is unrestrained from censorship. More freedom is necessary to allow the continuation of memes, gifs, vines and YouTube satirical series which take a dump on the original content in my opinion. Butt hey, that's my opinion and everyone's got one so they are free to post crazy videos for laughs or recycle content or music for personal expression.
-Logan Martin
Tuesday Thursday 11am-12:20pm
Lauren H. 2pm Class
I agree with Lessig's ideas on derivative works. Most, if not all, consumer generated content is highly influenced by other copy written works. I love the analogy Lessig uses of the pilots flying over land that had not given them permission to do so. Common since tells us there is no way for every land owner to give every pilot permission to fly over their land, just as there is no way for every consumer to request permission to use content that is copy written from every artist.
This is why his idea about making content "more free" is logical. Artist should allow consumers to use their content as long as it is not for commercial use.
Ruthann.M
online class
After watching Lessig's TED Talk I would have to say I agree with him. I really liked the example he used how way back when, land was protected by trespassing laws and rights extended up into the sky, and for a while that was fine until the invention of airplanes. In 1945 two farmers tried to say the airplanes were trespassing and they could not fly over the land without permission from the land owner and wanted the flight to stop. The Supreme Court considered this 100 year tradition but in the end the farmers lost, saying that the doctrine that protected from trespassing all the way up in the sky had no place in the modern world (now that airplanes had been invented). We are living in a modern world, and technology is forever advancing. We need to be able to transition these old laws to better fit our needs in these different times. In these modern times technology is so that we can take content from everywhere and re-create it to be something different. He says "Every single use of culture produces a copy. Every single use requires permission, and without permission you are a trespasser." Some form of balance needs to be achieved.
I agree with Lessig, because our society is all about innovation, creativity and newness. The iPhone wouldn't be what it is now without the invention of the cell phone. The world is more creative when we collaborate and build upon old things. The whole lesson of IP has reminded me of hitrecord.org it's a great website that encourages collaboration. Trespassers are the real creators!
Meagan, S 11am T/TH
In my opinion Mr. Lessig's view on copyright was perfectly on point. In today's world it is so easy to be influenced by an idea that we might have seen through the numerous amounts of media we have access too. Social media has grown immensely in the past couple of years, with ideas and thoughts being thrown out there for anybody to see. What makes America so great is the opportunity to build off of each other to create something unique in its own way. It is so hard to come up with an original idea, some would argue it's impossible. I agree when Lessig says it's okay to use someones work for inspiration to a certain extent. I believe that the main point of his talk was that the laws in place need to adapt to the technology that we all now have.
Jacob Boucher 11:00 am
Completely agree with Lessig. Not having the ability to make derivatives even in a public setting would be ridiculous.
Tyler D. T/Th 2pm
Francesca Neely-Dickey, Tues/Thurs. afternoon class
First and foremost, I agree with Lessig. I think there is a lot of value in our culture’s ability to recreate works. The internet gives users the ability to contribute to a constantly evolving culture. However, I should add that as a photographer I’ve experienced many downsides to this medium. People and companies regularly will steal, edit, and capitalize on your work without permission even with current copyright laws. I think it’s important to acknowledge that many corporations have a history of stealing from smaller artists and businesses. For a recent example, consider how both Zara and Forever21 stole designs from illustrators to sell cheaper versions of their shirts, pins, and earrings.
However, Lessig’s point about the importance of recreation does resonate with me for a few reasons. First, so much of our modern humor is generated from old works. Our culture would be so dull if these new creations were taken down just because they contained copyrighted material. Second, I would not be the artist I am today without the ideas I stole from other artists. Like the quote says, “to steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is research.” – Francesca Neely-Dickey
(It’s actually a quote from Wilson Mizner that is commonly misattributed to the comedian Steven Wright. I’m not THAT much of a jerk.)
I love, love, loved this. At first I was unsure at where he was headed but when he got to todays society and went in to detail about how creativity is stifled it made so much sense. However, what I loved most was his solution. Having artists see the world as challenges of creativity would be so much better than who can get the most money. Stealing someone's idea is one thing, but building off of it opens a new world of possibilities. He said that there are two strongly opposing sides but I honestly couldn't see a better way to do things. I feel like that happens a lot with society, students often feel like the way they are thinking makes the most sense to reasonable people on issues such as gay marriage, yet theres still so many people that like to stick to those traditional values. But I 100% agree with him. Also I hysterically laughed at the anime video.
Jessica Strahan
Afternoon, Tuesday Thursdays.
I agree with Lessig in that it is hard to find the line between what should and shouldn't be legal in terms of intellectual property. What resonated most with me was at the end when he discussed how many people live their day to day lives breaking the law, and that is what generations below us grow up to normalize because they have been around it their whole lives. In a democracy especially this is not how we want our future generations to view the governing law. The law has certainly failed to keep up with technology and I believe that it is coming to bite them in the butt very soon.
Melanie Chalupa 2p TR
Katy Fordyce Tues/Thurs 11 AM
I agree 100% with Lessig because if society wants to grow and expand creativity then you have to be able to share ideas and content. Just like the airplane story, if you want to share cultures and travel to new areas, you have to change the law that prohibits it from happening. The same is true for Lessig's argument of finding that balance for sharing and remixing content. I grew up taking home videos from summer camps, family trips and birthday parties, adding my favorite music from the internet and sharing it with my friends. At the time (2006-2009) I was able to do that without YouTube automatically taking it down but now they are more strict which stinks. I would spend hours making those videos and I loved creating them. Sure I could have clumped the home videos together without adding anything extra, but adding my favorite band's music made it come to life and acted as the cherry on top. It was my way of expressing myself with some small help from other people's art and I would hate to limit kids in the future from having that same creative outlet as I did.
I agree with Lessig and his opinions towards copyright and derivative works. Derivatives are so important to society because they build the on the foundation of all creative works. History will always repeat itself and the same goes for art as well. As lessig states, “every single use of culture produces a copy.” However, I definitely think that it is important to keep a balance between fair use and copyright.
Erinn Jaet
2pm T/TH
I agree with Lessig and his feelings toward derivative works and toward copyright. Derivative works allow us to take something old, add to it, and share it with each other. Derivative works breath new life into something that may seem forgotten and allows us to embrace our history. That being said, just as Lessig says, it is also important to avoid piracy and stealing of another person's work. While imitation may be the highest form of flattery, stealing and piracy are not ok.
Paige Mathews
2PM T/TH
I agree with what Lessig had to say in his TED Talk. One of my favorite parts of the talk was when he said "you can't kill the instinct that technology produces, we can only criminalize it." I think that it's safe to say that we are a society that is influenced by the works of other people. Artist sometimes talk about who or what influenced their art. This can be said for music, movies, or other forms of art. For example, think of all the great music that we most likely would't have if artist were afraid to be influenced by music of the past. I think that this is fine as long as the person isn't straight up copying what has been done already.
Brooke C.
T/Th 11-12:20
I agree and disagree. I agree that people should be able to express their creativity.. I feel that in all reality it can be hard now a days to make something that is truly 100% original, because we derive so much of our work from something that is already made. On the other hand.... I don't feel that the original artists should be any less credited for their work even if a new work was derived from bits and pieces of the original work. Crediting less doesn't support the creativity factor either.
Sarah S.
Tues/Thurs 11-12:20
Haley Burnett T/R 2pm
I agree with Lessing when he says that there are currently two extremes out there and that we need to find a good meeting point in between the two. People should have the freedom to express their creativity and to use past creative works has inspiration, Whether it be a remix, continuation of the story, etc. I liked how he used the plains in the beginning and referenced to Justice Douglas. Yes I can see where the farmers may have been annoyed with the plains upsetting their chickens, but to think about plains not being able fly over private properties just sounds silly and too much of a hassle. It's common sense. When is comes to the original artist, I believe that they should not be credited any less. It's a collaboration rather than stealing from one another.
Matthew M. T/R 2:00 p.m.
Lessig has some interesting things to say about the world of copyright and the digital medium that has taken over the past several years. With that, I do agree with Lessig that the two extremes still exist, even after ten years since his ted talk. One example that comes to mind is that of popular YouTubers attacking and taking down smaller YouTubers videos just because a clip was used in one of the smaller channels videos. It seems to me that we as a society are not making any improvements in the use of copyright and how it should be implemented in this digital age. Common Sense has continued to allude our society, and we desperately need to track it down.
Logan McCullough - 11:00 T/th
I agree with Lessig that derivative works are an important aspect of culture and society. I understand the counter-argument, and as a podcaster I would obviously be upset if someone were to profit off of my work. However, how can we expect people to have the ability to constantly create if they are constantly in fear of making something that someone somewhere in the world has already made. I think this entire matter of copyrighted material should come down to ethics, not laws. If an artist hears a song and creates a song inspired by the original that has a similar sound but is different in ways that make it unique to the artist, the original artist should not be upset, but be flattered. I understand that greed ruins everything good in this world, that is why I suggest we change the culture of copyrighted works. We should be encouraging creativity, not stifling it.
I agree with the majority of was Lessig has to say as I believe most would. He discussed the very important aspects and forms of copyright and derivative works and how copyrighted material should be handled. He also discusses legalities concerning these issues. Creativity is stifled and there may be a need for improvement in law concerning copyright. Some laws do not cover the rapidly expanding era of technology and the new issues that develope with them. New laws many need to be developed. I also believe the ability to recreate works is crucial for advancement and important in society. Everything is inspired or influence by something.
K. Macchia TTH 11am
I personally find it impossible to disagree with Lessig's argument regarding copyright since most of the artists I look up to have in some form transformed someone else's work and made it uniquely their own. I can see why creators would disagree with Lessig seeing as they put in so much time, effort and money into creating what they see as a masterpiece just so someone else can steal it and recreate it. At the end of the day everything we do, see, listen to and even wear references to the past. Fashion takes part in this as well when trends from the 70's are recreated into modern 21st century looks. When classic hit songs are recreated into dance mixes. It shouldn't be looked at negatively but more as creatively.
Elianne C.
Tuesday, Thursday 2pm.
I think he makes a good point when he talks about the picture of culture being where people participate in the creation and the re-creation of their culture. Little do we realize ever single culture produces a copy. With that said it is hard to find any form of art that cannot be related in some way to something that was created before it. The digital world with all its rules and regulations has a way of backing a artist in a corner, causing the artist to live a life constantly against the law. My favorite thing that Lessig said in the TED talk that at artist choice is the key for new technology. He understands that with recent technology the younger generation will have a different mindset and therefore are a different form of artist.
Laura C. 2 p.m.class
I agree with Lessig in the TED talk about "Law that choke creativity." Holding up strict copyright, infringes on one's freedom to creativity. I agree that there needs to be a balance between giving complete freedom with copy right and having an insanely strictly upheld--so HARSH! If it is something simply not for commercial use--then it shouldn't have strict laws on copy right. I found the read to write and write to read very interesting and believe it to be true.
Audra Register T/TH 11 am
Emmanuel Ruan
TTH 2pm
I agree with Lessig on what he said on the TED talk video. I think that what he mentions about copyright makes sense, it shares what is allowed and what is not allowed depending of situations and ll the regulations that come with copyright. I also feel like the original artists shouldn't be any less credited for things they worked on even if something new came up of. Or if its for commercial use then it should not have harsh laws on copyright and what that comes with it.
Brandon V. TTH 2:00
I agree with Lessig and his stance on copy right and derivative works. Copy rights are needed, in order to protect our creativity, but at the same time it can seem controversial thanks to derivative works. These works can seem unfair to someone with a copy right but at the same time this helps push our society forward. It allows one to bring ideas from the past to the present legally. For example, artist and musicians. The digital world is vast and these things are needed in order for things to even have a chance when it come to copy right.
I agree with Lessig and his stance on copyright. I do think that it is great that we have laws protecting copyrighted material. But I don't think that it should ever come at the cost of the creator or be too harsh against the perpetrator.
We live in a world where derivative work has been around as long as anyone can remember. From works of art to scientific breakthroughs, we look at that piece of medium, think of ways we can improve it or put our own spin on it, and end up creating something even better. This allows us to not only grow as people, but as a society. As long as you are not just blantantly ripping off someone else's idea without adding ( or attempting to add) a spin on the idea, then it should be fine.
Anne Odiboh
T/TH 2 p.m
Austin Robertson Online MC4301
I completely agree with Lessig, as the fair use of copyrighted material is crucial in the freedom and communication in society. Without this common sense approach, you inadvertently create a closed, regulated communication network with very little freedom to operate outside of very tight boundaries.
Carley O
T/TH 11:00-12:20
"Policy makers here will not understand this until it is too late to fix it."
I agree with Lessig's talk about his stance on copyright. He talks about how no work is considered "original" anymore and is just a remix, or another version of the content it was, and then again and again. The extremism that has been around for several years now is still relevant to this day and a balance is definitely needed for it.
It's kind of difficult to not agree with what Lessig argued about regarding copyright regulations; however, it's a very complicated issue nonetheless. There's a saying that goes, "Nothing is new under the sun," and I feel like it applies to most artistic work and ideas. A lot of us receive inspiration and influence from what has already been done, and even if something original is created, it's likely that somebody somewhere else has made something exactly similar. I do think that the regulations are necessary though in order to differentiate between what's influenced and what's stolen, I'm just saying that copyright is a very subjective topic in regards to creative content. Also, I don't really like or agree with what Lessig said about us being raised to steal ideas and what not. Perhaps maybe in 2007 when the video was created, but if anything now more importantly we don't want to fit in. Perhaps I'm speaking for myself, but we want to stand out with original content and ideas. Yes we still get influenced by what we like, but at the same time if we see something has already been done, I hope at least, we would try to stray away from that.
David Baugh 2 PM T/Th
I would completely agree with Lessig's argument. Most creativity is derived from somewhere else whether we know that or not. I can't imagine the creativity that would come from being completely open. It is an idea that would allow society to grow as a whole rather than individually. To collaborate on many things as a society would be an incredible idea and there would be so much more development.
Laura R.
online
I completely agree with Lawrence Lessig's ideas. Now days almost every new creative work produced is similar to one that already exists. There are so many creative works in existence that it is pretty hard to create a completely original one. This relates to me because I play guitar. An example is that a lot of the times that I create a “new” song, there is always this feeling that it Is very similar to other songs. Even if I have not even listened to those songs before, they come from the same bases and will sound too similar.
I also believe that nowadays, with the technology we have, it is even harder to create new things. And the laws should adapt to the present. I completely agree that the usage of someone else’s ideas for non-commercial purposes should be completely legal. I also agree that if someone tries to use that same content for commercial purposes should be illegal. Once your work is online, everyone has access to it.
Enrique R. del Bosque.
2p.m T/Th
I honestly agree with Lessig about this. Think about it when he says " more free, is better than less free", creativity is protected. Creativity needs to be expressed. I would put "A Princess of Mars" novel for example. According to George Lucas and James Cameron, they got their inspirations of Star Wars and Avatar from A Princess of Mars novels. It's not that it's copying off ideas from that novel, but it's the inspiration that gave Lucas and Cameron the push to do their films.
Sergio Garcia
December 7th, 2016
Tues/Thurs 2:00 Class
I love how Lessig recognized how taking old media and remixing it is young people's way of understanding the content. I think that in a time where people are more worried about how artist are sampling and whether the corporations are getting paid misses the whole point of the art that these people are creating. Sometimes they are using these remixes to get across different messages or share their beliefs and that shouldn't be subject to legislation. Lessig makes a valid point that the techniques that people have been using has been around in studios for years but, now anyone who wants to work with this technology who seeks it out can create with it. I believe that since this video was created that the technology has become even more accessible than Lessig stated. Now you don't even have to have a super expensive computer but you can create this user generated content off an iPhone.
Brianna Evans
T/R 11 AM
I think this was a very interesting TED talks and I am glad that the assignment was over this video. I totally agree with Lessig. Most work produced today has roots from an older time. When talking about music, there is so many songs out on the radio today that feature vocals from older songs (Kanye West's "Gold Digger" for example). On Soundcloud there was a very popular DJ who had his entire profile deleted (all the songs, views, and followers... gone) because his profile featured songs that were remixed. Remixes allow for a bridge between generations, in my opinion.
Nicole Vaguine
T/R 2pm
Michela Johnson T/TH 2pm
I agree with what Lessig said in his presentation. The younger generation is living in the age of the internet so to speak. Having grown up during a time where the internet started taking form and webpages slowly and steadily became more than simple HTML pages, the internet gave birth to a wonderful thing called YouTube. I remember spending hours on this site in 2006 watching an endless abundance of AMVs during my Naruto fandom days. It never really occurred to me that any of the videos could be breaking any sort of law. It wasn't until I tried to make a video of my own and it got taken down because I used Madonna's Vogue as background music. That was me as "an ordinary person breaking the law." Content should be freer I think as long as it's allowing people to express their creativity in a non-commercial way. At the same time I do believe that works still need to be protected. It's all very confusing and no one has really figured out how to "regulate" creative speech and intellectual property on the internet. Honestly, I don't even understand much of it, so I have opted to create very little content that involves even a paint drop of someone else's work.
This is a bit tangent, but I would like to point out that internet sometimes polices itself. More specifically I will address YouTube videos that have slipped through the cracks of copyright (as far as I understand it anyway). Sometimes you will see re-uploaded videos from people other than the original creator. Then the copy police (aka the YouTube community) will bash the hell out of the uploader for posting something that wasn't even his or her content.
Bobby K-H
TTH 2p.m.
Lessig supports a great argument. The 3 different facts were really what he called "common sense". I believe that it is really important that the use of technologies to educate is so important. For instance, when Lessig showed the different remixed videos, he gave the audience a giggle. Not only did the audience laugh, but they may have learned a thing or two about technology, government and video editing. I also believe that its important that you give rights to those who deserve it. like Lessig said. All in all, the reproduction, and or "remixing" of content, is something that is really nothing compared to what may come up in technologies in the near future.
I completely agree with Mr.Lessig on his views towards copyright regulations. His views are actually the fundamentals on what copyright is. Whenever creativity happens, the originator wants his or her ideas presented to other people to get their ideas out there, but also be recognized by others who was responsible for their idea. Music is a great example of it. When song artists remake songs from other artists, they have to have permission with their consent to make it or they will be sued in federal court.
Tyler W.
Online
I have to agree with Lessing during his presentation. He is supports what is in the best interest of keeping creativity and originality. Now and days it is harder and harder to find an artist in any field who has a completely fresh look on their work. Everyone is inspired by one another and over the next few years we are going to see more questions being asked and regulations needing to be discussed because of how easy it is to access and edit online to make it "your own." In music, style in clothes, movies and television shows we look at everyday it is no wonder creativity is tested and Lessing cleared up many questions.
Lea Del Bosque
online
I agree with Lessig that it is necessary to move toward giving artists more choice in the extent that which someone can modify their work for another purpose. As he described, the creativity that is stimulated by an artist's existing work is inevitable and should not be criminalized because that is how society moves forward. It's not about being lazy or trying to pass someone else's work as your own, but taking something we like and building on it or completely re-purposing the content so to speak.
Watching this ted talk reminded me of another similar one by Mark Ronson on the topic of sampling music.
https://www.ted.com/talks/mark_ronson_how_sampling_transformed_music#t-50634
Aly Crowley Afternoon
Maria Martinez/ T-TH 11:00
I agree with Lessig saying that "among our kids, there's a growing copyright abolitionism, a generation that rejects the very notion of what copyright is supposed to do, rejects copyright and believes that the law is nothing more than an ass to be ignored and to be fought at every opportunity possible." We sometimes take for granted everything that we see on the internet and we make it ours since it is so easy. We don't think about the consequences. However he also said, that we are not criminals if we aren't using it for commercialization purposes. It is inevitable to see something we like and recreate something out of it. I am a fashion merchandising minor and I see this all the time with designers. They get looks from other decades and tweak them to make them theirs. Copyright issues not only happen with broadcast and music. It is important however, to give credit to artists and creators and if not then legal issues can come into play.
Breonna R, TR 2PM
I agree with Lessig’s point that this is “a culture where people participate in the creation and the re-creation of their culture.” To suggest that one must create a piece from complete scratch, from start to finish, would discourage creation altogether and creation is essential to progression. Artist tend to find their own voice by first relying on, experimenting, and studying the voices of others-- within and separate from their specific discipline of choice. Artist pull inspiration and works from the word around them and as long as a new perspective created, it should be protected.
I further agree with Lessig that theft of a work isn’t justifiable, copyright laws should remain within reason and in conjunction with fair use, and that a degree of transformation must take place. However, the claiming and hoarding of ideas can be detrimental to the progression of a culture and hinder the society as a whole.
Taylor Carfield T/Th 11:00-12:20 .
I completely agree with Lessig. The importance of deriving content from other people's works is a foundation we have developed as a society. Copyright law is understandable in terms of business and profit but it can overall be an inhibition to creative development. Lessig makes a valuable point in suggesting finding a balance between fair copyright law and also allowing for more creative freedom in order to help our society stay true to our roots of creativity and innovation. I think that Lessig makes a great point of how far we have come in a society before copyright and how change can only help our world.
I really liked this video and Lessig's perspective. I agree with the points that Lessig made. It seems to me, however, that these days artists/musicians/creators in general rarely produce work that is entirely original. From sampling, parodies, reboots, and spin-offs. I feel like in today's world you don't have to create your own work to be an artist. Now people find loopholes in using bits and pieces of other people's work to create something new, but that's what are is I guess.
Alexander G.
2pm T/Th
I believe that he is correct in thinking that we should be free to express ourselves and take what someone has made and make it our own. As long as people know that you created it and not the original creator I think its fine for creative purposes. I for one like to take clothing patterns and change things to make it the way I want it and that should be ok.-Kristen Caudillo, Media Law online
As a blogger and part-time freelance videographer, I highly support Lessig’s proposal and argument made against copyright laws. I agree with Lessig’s proposal to evolve as a democracy and establish a method that fosters both, our cultures instinct to create and business. Moreover, I agree that we are living in "an age of prohibition." We promote the acceptance of criminal engagement, and promotion of this acceptance is corrosive and damaging to our society.
As much as I agree with Lessig’s and his terrifying notion that a divided society dissipates creativity, I have to admit that his proposal is too idealistic for our society to accept. In my opinion, copyright laws were not established to protect artist creativity, but to protect the financial rights of creative work. Where there is money, there is greed and where there is greed there is control.
Lessig proposes two ideas that would allow for balance, however I would unfortunately argue that our society has tipped the scale in favor of copyright laws. This unbalanced system will continue to promote division; however, it is safe to argue that the current state of our society does allow for the greatest good for the greatest number.
Carol T.
Online
Katherine Dowlearn
2pm T/Th
I agree with Lessig here, especially since I, as well as our entire class, are classified as these kids. I think he makes some quality points especially relating the planes to what copyright is for our generation. He made points on what copyright is and permissions of copyrights and it's importance and the fact that our generation is creating. Every single use of culture uses a copy. It all goes back to common sense and how people better understand things. There is nothing wrong with inspiration and kids will continue to create and re-invent new ideas.
I agree with Lessig. Art of any kind is repetitive. There is the theory of the hero with a thousand faces which states that there are no new stories. Everything that is made today is based on something and it is limiting art by trying to stop people from make art based on other art. People are inspired by other art most of the people I know that are writing their own stories started by writing fanfictions. It would be a worse world if someone tried to stop them from creating that art.
Rachel Bloom
T/TH 11:00 am
I agree with what Lessig has to say about it being common sense for us to be able to use materials and creativity to recreate pieces into new ones. We truly are living in an age where internet makes it so easy to break the law every single day and that should not be the case. Copyright law needs to adapt to modern day times as well as consider how it may stifle the creativity of it's people. I personally believe in being progressive and building off of one another and think that Lessigs' commentary on us becoming a consumption only society would be a scary thing. Everything becomes a copy in some form and we should not be considered breaking the law by default if the creators intended use was to encourage creativity.
Erica Browning 11am MW
I agree with Lessig stance on copyrights. I think it is nessacary to have laws and rules in place to protect people's idea's and work. But history often repeats its self and it's now difficult to come up with an idea that has not been thought of before because everyone inspires each other. By not having the common sense approach and artist choice, a regulated society is created with strict boundaries for creativity and less technology. I like that Lessig closed with saying how all of this connects to the kids and how we are different from his generation. His generation made mixed tapes and watched T.V. while we remix music and made T.V.
Savannah C-G 11am MW
First of all, this video gave me some comic relief whenever Lessig showed the "remixed" videos. I've been very stressed with finals and this definitely me a good laugh.
History repeats itself and in Lessig's examples it proved how people were "copying" others but in different ways. Nowadays, as Lessig said, people of the young generation are "remixing" and that there needs to be better copyright laws to address this. Since there are already copyright laws in place, it is wrong to say we need different ones. As technology advances, these laws need to have the same background, but be enhanced in a way that people cannot get away with taking popularity from the original version of something. I do agree that it is wrong when court systems manage different cases in different ways. Every case has a grey area, but that should not change they way they are addressed. Overall, I agree that with the read-write culture, artist should be able to express themselves without worrying about being copied and it should be up to the artist whether something is breaking a copyright law.
- Kalyn F Online
Nathalie C.
Tuesday/Thursday 11 a.m.
Although he has some good points, as an artist and creator of works, I cannot completely agree with Lessig. When content is made, it's made with intent, and if someone were to twist its meaning or use it without permission, it could be upsetting for the creator. His analogy is a bit of a reach. Land may not hold as much meaning to the owner as a creation can. Yes, there should be some room for others to use it for noncommercial fun, and yes, it can inspire a different product, but should we really just reconfigure someone else's work? Would it limit originally? These days, there's a lot of rehashing and repackaging of the same crap. He mentions that "this is the way kids talk," but I don't necessarily think this is a good thing. What are we really expressing if it's not even our originally thought, but a thought based on someone else's? Idk, maybe this is just an ill-conceived rant from a tired, overworked and underpaid student who's been studying for 10 hours straight.
Like many of my fellow comrades, I agree with Lessig. As a music person, we are taught theory and chord progressions that are musically correct and expected for singer/songwriters to follow. Therefore, many of the chord progressions used are similar to other musicians. We are taught in my guitar class to use licks from BB King and other greats before us. If the laws were to tighten, it would restrict the creativity and progress of art and the freedom to form opinions around the media. I could see a counterpoint being that because of this, innovation can be restricted because everyone is relying on the past rather than looking into new options of the future.
Janelle Abad, Afternoon class.
Andrew C.
Afternoon 2:00pm
I agree with Lessig on two points. He ended his presentation saying that people, especially the young, live against the law. I remember as a kid having LimeWire an online program to illegally download tons of music music. I knew it was illegal but I did it anyways, I lived against the law. I believe that this needs to change to maintain a safe and quality democracy. People will always remix music from now on regardless if it's legal or illegal, that moves me into my second aggreance with Lessig. I agree that a remix, taking another persons work and creating something new with it is fine as long as it does not resemble the original work for profit. Remixing can be one of the biggest drivers in progressing as a creative community. Taking something that you like and improving on it. That's the two points that validate my aggreance with Lessig.
With current technology, it is easier than ever to steal other people's work without giving them credit for it. I agree with Lessig about needing to modernize our copyright laws. He makes it very clear that he is not talking about "people taking other people's content in wholesale and distributing it without the permission of the content owner." He is talking about recreating other people's content in different ways. I think with so much information available and so many tools available for people to create and be creative that feeding off of each other is a healthy thing for our society.
-Taylor Summer T/TH 11am
Lovedddd the remix videos, really made me laugh.
I completely agree with Lessig. I believe there should be rules and regulations on copyrights and you shouldn't be able to claim someone's work as your own, but in the world art is going to overlap with other art. I do understand how people who create material would want it to stay unaltered and would be upset if someone stole their efforts and success, but at the same time if someone takes your work and reworks it into something new they are not stealing your success.
With all of the new technologies today, and everyones individual creativity, remixing someones art into another form of art is a whole category of music now and the copyright laws should reflect the changing times.
Kayla Krantz
Online Class
Greg Arellano
Tuesday/Thursday 2pm
I agree with Lessig. His arguments against corporate-clenched rule on artistic works is ultimately the underlying bedrock of modern creative works. The "auto-takedown" phenomenon mentioned by Lessig is a form of industry-approved censorship that has no regard in art for art's sake.
I have hopethat millenials will ultimately be the generation that gets copyright laws right (if they're not easily bought by the industry) in a way that benefits both the corporation and common man alike.
Christa Trevino
T/TH 2PM
Who can't agree with Lessig? I wholesomely agree that people should be more open to the creative minds who have the passion to take something great and make it greater. It's a gift, not a detriment and shouldn't be criminalized. As Lessig stated, the younger generations are already growing to be used to "breaking the law". And it's not their fault. Society changes constantly but as long as people can be open-minded, that doesn't have to be such a bad thing.
I feel like very little people wouldn't agree with Lessig. This has always been an issue I follow and fight for. Copyright shouldn't be something so scary and untouchable -- I wouldn't have many of my favorite movies or books or songs today if the original work it's based on hadn't been taken by a creative soul and turned into something pure and enjoyable. Different, even, but for the modern audience.
It's my favorite thing, to see people inspired by people. It makes me sad that something so wonderful can be shut down so easily.
Claudia Boone, MC4301 Online
Ashley Casanova
T/TR 2pm
i would have to agree with lessig. in order for people to achieve things to the best of their abilities they need to be creative and open minded. If we were to limit peoples creativity many things in all senses wouldn't progress in my opinion. We need to keep a balance to flourish and thrive as a whole.
Kimberly Garcia TTH 11:00 a.m.
I agree with Lessig because I think that artist should allow their works to be available to people that want to create their own spin on different works. I also appreciate that he mentions that technology can not be stopped but only criminalized. When he talks about others trying to prevent the younger generations from using the resources around them I can't help but think of those who automatically disregard others when they say they're pursuing a career in the arts such as film making. I think that it's nice to hear him talk about how important it is to keep people creating or re-visualizing content.
Andrea Bolivar 2 pm class
I agree with Lessing that “Culture is where creativity was consumed but the consumer is not a creator.” but at the same time I believe that in this time where with the internet everything is easier to get a lot of consumers are becoming the creators of other's people's creative ideas without any permission to do so and that is why copyright and trademark law exists, but a lot of the consumers are not aware of them or ignore them. Not too long ago I went to an artist exhibit in Austin, and I was kinda sad to see that from 200+ artist there was only a handful that you can really appreciate the creativity, the rest was a copy art of each other, it was generic.
I agree with Lessig’s stance on copyright works as well as his statement about transforming ideas of others into even greater things. This society is filled with art and creativity of all kinds and the creators shouldn’t be afraid of letting others admire and learn from them. Most of the new inventions relating to anything and everything came from a previous idea. There is a difference between stealing an idea and growing from it to create something new, exciting and even useful to society. In today’s world, there are so many different resources one is exposed to for creation of something greater and we as a society should encourage it. Of course there has to be a limit that is reasonable for copyright as the government shouldn’t scare creators away because of the fear of stolen intellectual property. There can be a good balance that provides room to grow while keeping the rights of the creators safe. The only thing I would add to that in a different point of view is that people shouldn’t just rely on the works of others to create new things. Because if it wasn’t for the creators that thought outside the box, they wouldn’t have discovered half of the things that they did.
Vianney Strick
TTH 11-12:20
Clayton Kolav TTh 2:00
I agree with Lessig's approach to copyright, but at the same time people's original works should be protected. There would be a negative domino effect that would occur if anyone could use anything at anytime. It is sad that we can't "speak" through our recreation of different works, but we are not just limited to remixing others works. This creates an opportunity for us to take different ideas and create our own original works. I would not want my (hypothetical) original work taken from me. I like his open-mindedness, but it's not the way it is and that's for a reason. It gives us the opportunity to create on our own.
I agree with Lessig. I very much agree that previous works that have been recreated in some way, shape, or form are becoming increasingly popular, and I think that it is is important to allow this to continue to happen. Allowing these old works to be rediscovered, and is a way to keep history relevant. However, I am not entirely sure that nothing should be copyrighted at all. I think there has to be a line drawn somewhere, but I think that generally less copyright would be a good thing for society.
Trevor Sartin
2 p.m.
I think Lessig had a very unique and accurate interpretation and presentation regarding copyright. We are in an ever-evolving world and technology is always going to be advancing. The more people with access to such technology, the more uncharted copyright territory is going to pop-up. Lessig made an excellent point towards the end of the talk about "prohibition." Just because people don't understand it, or don't know how to deal with it doesn't make it wrong. Pushing or suppressing these advancements will not do any good for the future generations. All-in-all, I thought Lessig was able to explain why it is essential to understand the importance and potential of these new copyright "issues."
-Mikayla Watson, online
Leah J Online,
I agree with what Lessig has to say in the Ted talks video. His speech about copyright makes sense of what is and isn’t allowed under the circumstances of the regulations that come with copyright. A lot of productions today wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t a remake of somebody else’s original ideas. There are ways to go about the making of these works without taking credit or harming the original creators.
Kayla Jamerson
2pm
I agree with Lessig, much like everyone else. I liked his point about the platforms today's generation uses and how the remaking and remixing of certain works has become our form of speech. Copyright laws are in place to protect original works from being duplicated or used without permission, but so much emphasis on protecting these works has somewhat crippled innovation. Building off each other's ideas to make something better or simply using it to express something differently is a way for us to engage, listen to one another and introduce new perspectives.
2 PM
I agree with Larry Lessig that copyright laws stifle creativity. Most music and art is just old works recreated and very rarely if ever is anything created out of scratch. Everyone creative person is inspired by someone else so we are bound to see or hear that in their work. The thing that concerns me is not the artists because I believe that artists want to create and inspire, it is when a business becomes involved. For example, when musicians are funded and pretty much owned by record labels, it is the labels that has the right to their music. The solution to all this is the internet. Letting artists have a platform that they can share their music with the world without being owned. I'm not knocking the record labels or recording companies but more or less making a point that a business exists to make money so of course they need to protect what is theirs. But I think having more artist run collectives and things like bandcamp that makes it easy for people to inspire and share will cause the record label to lose some power (I think people will always be drawn by the persuasion of money) like Lessig suggests.
I agree with Lessing on his views on copyright laws. I agree with how today we as a generation use our versions of previous works as a form of expression or speech.It is simply using old ideas to create new in order to make it better. This does not mean they are just using the same idea and taking credit for it, it simply means they are building off something. I found it interesting that he said our generation has grown accustomed to breaking the law. Which is totally true, but I think that stems from harsh copyright laws.
Kambrie Laurent
2:00 T-TH
Meghan Hopper
2:00 T-TH
I agree with Lessig, we shouldn't criminalize a generation that is simply following a creative instinct brought on by the development of evolving technology. I really enjoyed when he said that artists and creators should embrace this idea of people feeling inspired by their work and that they should allow young creators to be inspired by it and build off of it for amateur purposes. Because this truly will develop the creativity community in society and not only is it just a wonderful thing for individuals to be able to express themselves but this is an excellent business decision for this economy. Being able to as he said "remix" such classic things from the past such as music, art, fashion etc is such a wonderful thing to see in my opinion because it is a new generations take on something that is still so treasured to this world. They are simply tweaking it but by no means are forgetting about the original master piece.
I do agree with Lessig in what he had to say about how the Internet has brought upon a different form of expression. We are now in a very dynamic world with technology that enables us to be creative and build upon older ideas to communicate different perspectives. I believe its important to let stuff not be so restricted as it limits creativity and freedom of expression to an extent. Of course the creators should be rewarded for their work but people shouldn't be penalized for building upon their inspirations of others!Today's tools of creativity are modern tools of speech. I agree that people should be more open to the creative minds that exist. I'm grateful for having an amazing tool as the internet to be able to create content and share it with the world. Only time will tell how previous generations will have to deal with such issues.
Javier Melendez
T/TH 2PM
I agree with Lessig. Remix culture has taken hold and will never let go, and it doesn't make sense to punish people for doing something out of passion and not for profit. If anything, these fan works serve as buzz marketing for the brand and add to its fame. However, I understand why media companies behave the way that they do when they issue takedowns aggressively.
There is a series on YouTube called Friendship is Witchcraft. It's a parody of Hasbro's My Little Pony TV series. As a fan of quality cartoons, I enjoy watching My Little Pony every now and then. Friendship is Witchcraft recuts and dubs over episodes of Hasbro's show and is equal parts parody, commentary and genuinely funny original humor.
Hasbro issued a cease and desist to the creators of the YouTube series and the creators pushed back as much as they could. There was even an episode parodying the conflict with Hasbro in which there was a running gag where they said Dole wasn't letting them use the word "apple" anymore.
Eventually it wasn't worth it for the creators and they let the videos be taken down. You can still find them as re-uploads on other accounts.
From Hasbro's perspective, under current laws, if they let people use assets from their show they could lose the right to be the only people allowed to make money off of it. Hasbro is usually really chill about fan works, but since Friendship is Witchcraft used clips from the show it made them nervous.
I guess that was just a rambling way to say some of my favorite stuff on the internet is part of this dubiously legal remix culture, but I can't hold it against companies for trying to protect their property. It seems to me that in order for good-natured companies to be able to allow for these fan works, the United States is going to have to do a dramatic overhaul of copyright law.
Andrew S.
11am TTh
I agree with Lessig and how copyright could be seen as hindering to art. I think that copyright should be looked at objectively on a case by case basis. Art does feed off of and build off of each other but copyright laws are made to keep people from profiting from the work of other artists.
Amanda P
MC 4301 Online
Alexi Ramirez, Tuesday/Thursday 2 p.m.
As Lessig said, the architecture of copryight law produces the presumption that these acts are inherently illegal, irrespective to fair use. This, to me, is something that can be problematic so I do agree and identity with what Lessig says in this TED talk. Until the artists and creators except the notion that their work can be used non-commercially, and understand the free-flowing nature of the 21st century, then copyright law can stop being so restrictive. I agree that change starts with the people producing the original content -- and not the other way around -- and criminalizing only makes the ensuing generations feel like criminals. That shouldn't be the case. Copyright law should indeed protect creators from people profiting off their hard work, but anything more limiting defeats the purpose of the society that we live in.
Lessig makes a very strong point that I agree with. Every day, new ideas and projects are used and many of which were based on other ideas. It is very hard to come up with something that is 100% original. It gets harder when most great ideas have already been thought of or used. People should have the right to make something based off of something else. It will create something new out of something old. Creativity should not be limited in the way some people try to hinder it. Let the world be inspired by your work to create something new.
Samuel Ramirez
2 pm T Thr
Amanda Woolery
T/TH 11:00
I do agree with Lessig. I think that having the opportunity to recreate works for creative purposes, such as the remixes that he shows in the video, should be allowed. If copyright laws are too strict, I worry that this may hinder people from wanting to produce new works of art, in fear that they will violate a copyright law. As technology advances more each year, I believe that the issue of copyright is going to become more and more prominent. Lessig discusses the differences of his generation versus his children's generation and how his generation "watches TV" and the children "make the TV". I think that this goes to show the importance of allowing creative freedom to recreate works and not allowing copyright laws to become too strict, especially with growing technology. Overall, I think that as long as people aren't reproducing works of art to capitalize on it, but instead doing so in creative expression, that this should be allowed and not punished by the law.
I agree with Lessig. I think that he breaks down the culture of creativity very explicitly, and hits every point. From the differences between generations, the differences and altercations between extremes, and the consequences of actions in preventing and bettering outlets for creativity. I agree with him when he said the differences in the extremes in regards to laws, and that both of them were wrong, I think that is important to understand: completely banning outlets for creativity is wrong, and completely ignoring laws and deliberately breaking them is also wrong. I also agreed with his point on making all art and works free to recreate or use to create, as so long as it is not for a profit. I've run into many problems in making video projects with music, because I'm not allowed to use music in videos, but if it were legal to use other artists' music in my works, I think it would open another door for my generation's creativity in our works.
Allison R.
Tues/Thurs 11:00
I agree with Lessig as well. There are so many creative works already out there that any original thought is still inspired by another work even if the creator isn't aware of it right away. As long as the intention isn't to completely rip something off than I think it is only a normal thing to come with the world we live in. There is just so much content getting put out there everyday that things will naturally overlap. It's weird to think that, "we live life against the law," as so many do. It's as if we don't question, but just accept that as our fate.
I think this is definitely something people of an older generation should watch. They are constantly wondering why we are doing things and how were doing it but that's only because they don't understand us. But digital media does. So I agree with Lessig. My favorite thing that he said in the video was when he said that digital media is how we as the "new generation" speak and think. This is definitely true because social media sites like Facebook and Twitter have allowed us to express our opinions on many things going on in the world and just in life in general. Lots of individuals today will make a video to express how their feeling and to me, that is the new way of communication and definitely is the new way on how people around my age are communicating. I also liked how he mention how people today are remixing classic songs and turning them into a new version. That is very true and it's because like he said, we are always looking for something new. And that's why I am so proud to be apart of this generation!
Marques M.
T/TH 2pm
I have to say that I agree with Lessig. All creative work is somehow influenced by work before it. I agree that the extremes on both sides are the wrong way to look at the situation. The laws are there for a reason but I think there should be outlets that allow people to share their work and ways for people to use that work for non commercial reasons. Lessig makes some good points and presents them in an interesting fashion and I generally agree with what he says.
Benjamin A.
Tues/Thurs 2:00 p.m.
I agree with Lessig that changes need to be made and that we need to think before enforcing copyright laws that are too strict. Society and culture are constantly changing and people are finding new ways of self expression. New technology plays a large role in creativity and it is okay that people find inspiration from the things around. However, creative work should never be exact replicas.
Kristy Derrett
Tues/Thursday 2:00pm
December 9,2016 @5:26pm
Faith Piveral MC 4301 TR 11am
I agree with Lessig with the fact that social media is reviving user generated content that is created for creativity, not money. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your view of economics) America is not built on creativity, America is built on capitalism. Living in a world where users can share content and use them how they would like would be wonderful; however, it is not realistic in our current culture. I do agree that if copyright laws are too strict then it could create a chilling effect for potential content creators which can cause a cultural problem in itself.
I agree with Lessig's comments. The internet is full of crazy ideas based off the derivative works claims and it has spawned lots of interest even for the original works. People create music videos, fan art and other more creative works based on copyrighted works all the time, and I think to stifle that creativity that the internet allows is doing an injustice to our younger creative minds.
Joshua H. Online
Richard D, Afternoon
I agree with Mr. Lessig on the fact that we need to make more allowances for the creativity of User Generated Content (UGC) on the internet. There have been few other inventions in the history of humanity that have pushed our knowledge and understanding of the world in the ways that the internet has. The idea that we would try to limit ourselves in this regard seems illogical and counter intuitive, especially considering what Mr. Lessig said. His story about the "trespassing" airplanes was particularly convincing and I feel that this is the main reason I agree with his argument.
I agree with Lessig in his beliefs about copyright. Almost every idea, now, is created from an artist who derived that idea from another artist. We have to be careful when it comes to making new copyright laws, though, as it will tarnish new ideas in fear of artists thinking they are plagiarizing. I do think, however, it's possible for an artist to come up with a completely original idea but it's just hard for us to grasp since there are so many ideas in circulation and so many that have been thought up already.
Brandon S.
2 pm TTH
I agree with Lessig's statements on copyright laws. It's important in my opinion to find balance in all views and systems that are controversial. I understand that artists and creators put a lot of time and effort into their works, but direct use of material should be fine if it's not being used for commercial purposes. I also think that remixing, re-creating, and re-invisioning material in new ways is an important part of a creative culture. So many influential works of literature, art, and media works were based off of or inspired by previous works. It would be dangerous to have too broad a definition of copyrighted material where it would take away the creativity the internet has inspired in others. There would be petty copyright sights left and right.
Amanda F.
T/Th 11:00am
Stephanie Williams TR 2PM
Like most of my peers I agree with the majority of what Lessing says. I feel that the older generation is much more resistant and suspicious of change. You see that even more now after the presidential election. Many people seem to want to go back to the "good ol" days. What that exactly means I as a millennial don't understand. However, as Lessing points out multiple times change is inevitable. Our evolution as a species is being seen through the evolution of our technology. Through the democratization of content sharing and remixing our technology has progressed leaps and bounds ahead of us. Our laws are slow and again as Lessing said common sense is not so common when it comes to the law.
Thought Lessing believes that there can be a balance between creator and government. I feel this is some what of a hopeful thought. Government will always want to regulate while the creator, the artist will always seek to break from control. The generation that Lessing refers to is me and my peers and being almost ten years that have past I have noticed the difference in my generation and our embrace to change, to share. This is an idea that our government has not caught up to.
I agree with Lessing 100% about his talk of copyright, mainly because of the way he talks about the balance between government and creators. It has potential to be somewhat hopeful for the future. Generations before mine are always going to be against change, mainly because they don't like change, but my generation has been seeing change throughout my lifetime and I feel like we are so used to change that it wouldn't matter that much. I also feel like my generation would embrace the change much more than that of past generations.
Matt P
T/TH @ 2 p.m.
Lauren P. Afternoon
I agree with Lessig's opinion about copyright laws. He talks about this being the language that "our kids" speak. I think that this statement is so incredibly accurate. We are told to get off our devices and see the world around us, but I think that is exactly what this generation is doing. They are taking the old and making it new again. They are brining experiences to audiences that wouldn't otherwise be able to participate in. Just as books hold the history of our past, I feel that our devices and social media accounts are doing much of the same thing. Acting as a digital scrapbook, it you will, of the current events that are happening continuously while we live our day to day lives. We are in an age where ideas have somewhat blended together and have been done and re- done over and over. It is unrealistic to expect these ideas to not be reused as the years go on. I think Lessig is correct in his statement about their being a collective of work available to use for recreation without threat of a lawsuit. I believe that society, as a whole, would benefit from this because it would increase creativity and friendly collaborations, with no intention of capitalizing on the situation.
Benjamin Rauls TH: 2pm
While I agree with Lessig, I’ll play devil’s advocate and say it’s much more complicated than just saying all work should be “read/write”. I personally work with Creative Commons daily, and I love it. I think it's a great community for people to share their work. But those people choose for their work to be out there. They choose for their work to be adapted, and that's awesome. As a photographer and videographer myself, I am still conflicted about how other use my work. I think its awesome if people want to use them for personal use, but I do think its a slippery slope when money starts to be involved. And that isn’t just “selling” the work. Images can help social media brands and personality attract followers, which can directly correlate to money earned even if they aren’t selling my photos or videos. So, I think there is a lot of gray areas. I can’t say I agree or disagree completely, but I think creators should be more open to the idea of sharing their content. The Chainsmokers are known for sharing fan covers and content made with their music. They acknowledge that this isn’t a threat to their music, but a way to further promote themselves.
I agree with and support Lessig's ideas toward copyright and its restrictions. His example of the airplanes and trespassing was the perfect analogy to put it into perspective. How can people create a trespass law/restriction on something that is indefinite? Just like the space above the land, the internet and technology is ever-changing, evolving and unlimited. Placing restrictions on material that is not used for commercial purposes diminishes the concept and of "re-creativity." How many movies, songs, book and internet memes would we have without this re-creativity? All great ideas stem from somewhere whether it's something we see, hear, taste, smell or touch. Copyright laws also destroys the "amateur culture" Lessig spoke about where people produce work out of passion rather than for the money. Limiting resources, limits inspiration. When the inspiration is gone, people will be bound to the same contraints and can't grow creatively.
-Emily Santana, T/TH 11:00 am
Due to the length of this response, I will be submitting in two parts.
At the end of his presentation, Lessig said, "ordinary people live life against the law." That has to be one of the most profoundly simple appeals to common sense I've seen in a long time and it gives us a great question: If ordinary people live their lives against the law, and not just a few and far between but an overwhelming number of 'ordinary people', isn't it time to change the law?
Seeing the bigger picture here is important though, because if you want to change a law, the first thing you might do is go through the governemnt. Lessig tried that, and to nobody's surprise, he was unsuccessful. You see, if you want to change a law, you have to analyze the system it comes from.
Let's say you're Justin Bieber. You just dropped an awesome new single and it's been soaring up the charts ever since it was released. Obviously, you're going to be very wealthy because of this, right? Well, it's not that simple. The vast majority of the money made off a new song or a new album goes to the record label that signs you. Your net worth is nothing to laugh at, but it's not nearly as large as it should be.
According to Wikipedia, "As of 2015, Bieber had sold 44.7 million records in the United States, of which 10.7 million account for aggregated album sales." So let's do some math. Let's say Bieber sold each of his 10.7 million albums for an average price of $15 USD. That nets us about $160 million. Let's say Bieber gets to keep half of that. After all, we need to pay the recording studios and manufacturers for plastic and CDs, and that's just assuming most of those sales weren't digital downloads, which they probably were. This leaves us with 34 million records sold which may mean a lot of things. Let's assume that these 34 million sales come in the form of a simple $1.99 transaction on iTunes. That gets us another $70 million, roughly, of which Biebs can keep 3/4. So now we're at a total of about $190 million. Surely Bieber is going to make boatloads of money from tons and tons of other sources like tours, endorsements, appearances, streaming services and YouTube revenue. Looking at 3 of Bieber's tours from 2010 to 2016, he's netted just over $300 million, bringing our total to just shy of half a billion dollars. That's not including anything else I mentioned, only tours. We'll say he makes about $10 million a year across all the other avenues, though that is honestly a shot in the dark. So we can add another $60 million to that half-billion, attributed to Bieber's popularity in the last 6 years. While Bieber may have spent a lot of money on a lot of things, that net wealth isn't terribly affected; the wealth simply changes forms from liquid assets to solid, tangible assets. Of course, things depreciate in value, so let's put Bieber back at that cool half a billion for argument's sake.
A simple google search shows us that Bieber is worth around $240 million, less than half of the perceived half-billion we thought he made. Where did all that money go? To his record label of course.
The modern music industry is set up like subsistence farming. You put out a great track that everyone loves so you sell yourself to the label so they promote it. Ideally, since the artist was the one that brought this content to the label in the first place, they would keep the majority of the money, but that's simply not how it goes. Instead of what should be a small fee of maybe 20% charged by the label for their services and distribution costs, the label keeps the majority of the money and the artist is given enough to look wealthy even though they're getting cheated out of most of their wealth. Why do they get cheated? Because they sold the copyrights to their label.
End of Part I
-Eric O. TR 11 am
Beginning of Part II
In recent years we've been seeing a lot of artists voicing concerns about this system and they're absolutely right, it needs to be changed. Change is sparked by controversy and when a society is on the cusp of a large change, there is a period of chaos. For an example of this, simply look to the previous election. It's how we direct this chaos that matters, because while it has large destructive potential, it also shows real promise for getting people what they want.
So what's the big picture here? Well I'm glad you asked. The big picture is that artists aren't getting paid and aren't really getting a say in what does or doesn't get taken down. When a video is removed for 'copyright infringement' it isn't the artist personally doing that, it's the record label. What needs to happen is a shift in consciousness, or a paradigm shift. Record labels may appear to help artists, but they only do so to serve their needs and generate revenue by trapping artists in bad contracts by making them feel like there's no other option. Record labels need to stop being greedy and keeping the money for themselves and artists need to accept nothing less than full creative control and copyright ownership. Copyright law has been made harsher and harsher to keep up with what they would call piracy, and in some cases, that is a very valid concern. In the majority of cases though, it's just ordinary people who see these creative works and create derivitave works not for the purpose of monetization but simply to say "hey look what I did!" It's not theft, it's creativity, and it shouldn't be squashed out, it should be embraced.
The reason copyright law has so much power is because the power is held by record labels. If we put that power in the hands of the artists, it would be much harder to corrupt and much easier for people to 'get away with it'. What are they really getting away with though? They're not stealing anything, they're actually adding to it. The original work was a beautiful thing, but people are capable of beautiful things, so if someone wants to apply their ideas to an existing work and they give credit to the source material, why can't that just be a cool new thing? Why does it have to be a crime? In short, it doesn't, and Lessig is speaking to the big picture here by going through people instead of governemnt. He's not parading on the steps of the capitol and shouting things, he went through the proper channels to reach a proper audience. As his audience, we cannot continue to allow our fellow citizens to be subject to such harsh, black and white regulations that simply do not suit the world we live in.
In conclusion, I agree with Lessig, not just in the sense that I agree with what he has to say, but the way that he is saying it. If airplanes aren't trespassers for flying over property, then people aren't criminals for recording over property. It's common sense.
-Eric O. TR 11 am
I agree with Lessig becuase he sheds a very real light on how and where ideas come from and copyright should apply to "new" ideas. It was a very ineresting veiw point that I would have never thought of if not presented in this way.
Joseph P. Online
I completely agree with Lessig’s argument. It takes the creation of creativity from people to generate new and interesting material. Many of us take life too seriously and lack the creativity that we need in order to succeed. It’s important that others exert their creativity in anyway possible, rather than leaving it to those who can come up with a novel on the spot. It takes a whole population to contribute to the creative melting pot that we are generating to date. Everyone has a creative bone in their body because if you create anything yourself, it is creative within its own entity. Though, there should be a line between fair use and copyright in order to maintain the creativity that is already shown by other people. Great video!
Preston R. Online
I very much so agree with Lessig throughout his entire TED Talk. Though I do feel that sometimes it is difficult to come up with ideas never used before, and like Lessig mentioned a lot of media is built based off others ideas (like the anime and song example he presented.) In which yes, this was someone else's work that has been made into their own. But, that the original creator still has just as much credit for the now "remixed" version. I think it is great to have the freedom of creativity. I do agree with Lessig's copyright view.
Katherine K. TTR 2p.m.
Katerina Charalambous
T/TH 2:00 pm class
I definitely agree with Lessig's discussion on Ted Talk. It was interesting when he brought up the story of the airplanes being considered trespassers. It gives you an idea of how things were in the past. It's hard for me to disagree with his argument about copyright laws, it is impossible to place restrictions on every single individual. His other example about how when kids take music or a song and remix it for themselves, we hear remixes all the time now a days. The government would have too much control over the people if they went after every single person for remixing a song. Of course it's a different story if these kids are using their remixes for commercial purposes, because then it takes away from the artists original song. But anyways, I really did enjoy listening to Lessig's discussion.
I, like so many others before me, also agree with Lessig's argument. Copyrights grants the creator exclusive rights for its use and distribution when it is original work, for a limited time. This law is difficult to apply to an always-changing society like the one we live in now. It’s hard to argue when one is breaking the law. Does the law apply when someone uses others previous work as inspiration but has added, removed or tweaked it to that which fits their liking and liking of others? Or this creativity in itself that needs to be protected as well? I believe Lessig was conveying that we learn from our past to improve our now and future. All ideas derive from something that has already been created.
Gabriela Perez
T/TH 2:00p.m.
I also agree with Lessig's argument. I like when he said, "tools of creativity have become tools of speech" We live in a generation where digital technology is changing/ improving every single day. The copyright law makes sense when it comes to the profit distributed to the original owner, but all ideas generally come from something already created but that could be improved.
Brooke Shoemaker
T/TH 2:00
I definitely agree with Lessig's argument. I believe our generation celebrates the art of creativity and collaborating. In the digital industry, we can use "tools of creativity" as our "tools of speech" like Lessig describes and create a whole different form of message from existing work. Specifically in the digitalized realm, the internet has a mass of different personalities from all around the world who have access in seeing a creator's work in a different way. I believe that we should acknowledged that opportunity and take advantage of the fact that we can see things differently. We should embrace that change, and lawmakers should understand that collaborating with other works online can be original in its own sense of propriety.
Brianna W.
T/TH 11 p.m.
I agree with Lessig's argument because there is so much creative work that is already out there and it hard for a new artist make make something different without getting at least some inspiration from someones past works. I was talking about this a couple months ago with a friend about how nothing is original anymore. Whether it is movies or music. There are hardly any orginal movies that don't reference something that was once done in the past and even listening to music I find mysel comparing the style of artist to artist of the past.
T/TH 2pm
I 100% agree with Lessig's argument because creativity is everywhere. All original works, thoughts and actions are inspired by another person's work in some way or another. We should acknowledge the fact that one's creativity leads to even more creativity created by someone else. I believe that the re-creation of material in a new way is an important factor of how culture is created. Limiting ourselves with this law just seems completely illogical.
-Cecilia Long
MC4301 Online
I agree with Lessig’s stance on copyright and derivative works. He talked about free use and how remakes of movies wouldn’t have happened with out it. I believe there needs to be a balance to help the people who create these films, movies, music and arts. There is a reason that the Unites States Constitutions states advance and promote sciences and arts. You should be allowed to work off of others works, because there is not point of an artist creating something if it can’t influence the audience. I believe that creativity should be encouraged rather than bringing the law into it.
Alejandra Avila
T, Th 2PM
I agree with Lessig all the way. He made some really great points about our history and how it pertains to how we live today. My favorite point he was trying to get across to his audience was that about "kids" or our generation. He realizes that technology is what makes us different from older generations because it's what we've grown up on. I think it's something that has helped become even more creative. He talked about re-creating, which I think is very important. I think it helps inspire artists and creators. Of course from a business standpoint, copy right laws are crucial, but for creative purposes it puts a lot of restrictions on people.
Bailey Savage
T/TH 2pm
I agree with Lessig. I think copying an idea, song, etc. to a degree is inevitable, and we draw inspiration from everything we’ve ever seen or heard. Learning that taking inspiration or “copying” is illegal could stop individuals from thinking big and creates unimaginative individuals with no passion to recreate and improve on what already exists. Innovation would completely stop and it would be hard to produce completely original pieces of work. I believe copyright laws should still exist, to deter others from stealing ideas as a whole and profiting off of them, but if it’s for a creative project or form of expression people should be allowed to use what inspires them.
-Tiffany Young, 11am
Victoria Beeler - ONLINE
I definitely agree with Lessig. The laws have not/are not keeping up with the internet age and their is no common sense with the laws regarding this. I don't think that YouTube, and the like, should automatically take down things that could be potentially copyrighted, I believe that it should be a case-by-case judgement. I think his "private" solution is very smart. Competition does need to draw a balance. Freer content on a neutral platform sounds like a dream, ideal world.
Online class
I agree with Leissig's TED talk, ideas form from other ideas and so on so forth. Although I didn't completely understand everything in the TED talk I agree with his essential concept.
I agree with Leissig on his stance in the Ted talk video. Our society builds it's culture on people's works from previous years especially in creative fields like music or art. People look towards others works to find inspiration from the past with a combination of what moves them today. It's rare to find unique or original ideas because more than likely they have been done before in the past like certain guitar riffs in songs. Derivative works that were discussed in the video are referring to getting ideas from others to be creative and morph maybe a portion of that idea with one of your own without complexity coping the original idea. It's one thing to borrow an idea or get inspired by a piece of art but it's another to steal the idea complexity and that is what Leissig is referring to. Our society seems to go through cycles where ideas, trends, fashion, movies, and books come back and are recycled for the current time we are in. If we didn't have the creative foundation from the past our future wouldn't be what it is today. We need those previous thoughts to continue the evolution of our society.
Jennifer Jacquez
Tuesday/Thursday 2:00pm
I agree with Leissig's TED talk. I've been saying for the past couple years that Hollywood is just running out of ideas. I've been feeling like i see the exact same movie concepts year after years. Where is the line that determines creativity and just being a plane copycat? Also, while I blogging/vlogging gets bigger and more common in society, we should focus on a case-by-case basis on whether someone is violating copyright laws.
Krys White, online class.
TR 11am
I agree with Lessig's argument that the internet is the opportunity to revive read/write culture. Having creators be consumers and consumers be creators encourages the "produce for the love not the money." Ever growing technology allows anyone and everyone to be a creator, whether it's original content or a remix.
My mind immediately goes to YouTube. There's a huge variety in the content and there's a lot of people who have been inspired and built somewhat original content based off an existing work. I do understand the side in which an original content creator wants to have their work protected, and they should. But the laws right now need a lot of work to keep up with the shift in technology and the internet.
Evan Brisco T-Th 2:00 p.m.
I wholly agree with Lessig here. Civilization has been around so long that completely original ideas are becoming extinct, ideas are constantly compounding. Derivative works drive us closer to "new" ideas and creating barriers to stop these ideas halts us as an evolving society. We need to be able to borrow works from others freely to create new content. Creating parodies should be able to generate revenue as well, because although based on someone elses idea, if the work has been transformed there is nothing wrong with that, and the Supreme Court agreed with that as well. Great video.
It's funny to see this discussion, because i do agree with Leissig's view. creativity is something that is unique to every person and it can change everything in the world from peoples views, designs, inventions,...and much more. The laws are great in keeping profits high for businesses but prevent the growth of creativity. this is why we see the same shows and movies that are remakes of the old ones.
If we look at the internet we can see creativity grow. Ideas people share on the internet can be added to or recreated to create something amazing, such as peoples small video memes that can be found all over the internet with diffrent meme captions, and those memes are than put on shirts and sold. The shirts would not be possible if not for the creative freedom that is allowed on the internet.
Sergey Crismon
T,Th 2-3:30pm
Lessig's Ted Talk was very powerful. I feel that people look down on the millennial generation due to the technology advances that have been made, resulting in so much more access to just about anything. I love when Lessig says "These tools of creativity have become tools of speech. It is a literacy for this generation. This is how our kids speak. It is how our kids think. It is what your kids are as they increasingly understand digital technologies and their relationship to themselves". The only way to create new content is to be able to borrow other works. I agree with Lessig when he said both sides were extreme and wrong. There needs to be a happy medium. Artist's should be more lenient and open their works free for non commercial use and businesses should embrace and enable these opportunities. I stand by Lessig's stance about copyright. Our generation is a generation of creativity and free expression, and it is only going to keep growing. Like Lessig says at the end of his talk, "It is technology that has made them different. They live life knowing they are against the law. And in a democracy we ought to be able to do better, at least for them". Lessig has the millennials, the future leader's of this great country, best interest at heart and I agree with him 100%.
Victoria Vaughn T/Th 2pm
Post a Comment