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 a link to the talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_creativity
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. Thursday, July 6. Late comments will not be accepted for credit.
Remember, also, to include your first name, last name initial.
22 comments:
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
Lessig makes some extraordinarily compelling and interesting points throughout this presentation. My heart says that I agree with him but my brain says that I do not. Take for example his points about how common sense should be implemented when dealing with the evolution of technology. The problem with this mindset is that a "common sense" law that is passed in one decade may no longer be common sense in the next.
Because this video is from 2007, we have an empirical example of how one of his points is already flawed: "not free for commercial use and free for non-commercial use."
Take the music remix argument for example. It is quite possible that a music remix could go viral on Youtube, generating millions of views. Well, in 2017, millions of Youtube views equate to thousands of dollars the account holder receives from ads being played on the video. In this instance, the "music remixer" is certainly receiving a commercial benefit from someone else's intellectual property. Point being, "common sense" sounds wonderful in theory, however, continuous changes in both culture and technology make it both difficult and dangerous to recognize such laws. Therefore, I agree with Lessig in theory, but not in long-term practice.
Alex Teay
In theory Lessig has a point and it is well taken. But ill have to disagree. Like Alex said above, "remixing" has generated "Youtubers" who watch already created content for reactions and get money off it. There isnt any originality anymore and it drives me insane. We are teetering on blurred-lines of infringing on intellectual property. The word Intellectual is totally losing meaning because we will support of level of creativity that encompasses laziness. Just my thoughts!!
Eric M
I would have to agree with Lessing's on the points of his example on youtube. They maybe using someone else's songs but they are turning it into something entirely new, expect the anime one. The video on the Jesus dancing to the song that was entirely the creators' idea the video changes the meaning of the song for conxumers
William P.
I personally support what Lessig offers and the creative commons. Although some people may view this as a lack of original creativity, i believe that in some ways, kids could actually be inspired by using these works to build their own ideas upon. While some have the ability to look at a blank canvas and instantly feel the flow of creative energy surround them, others aren't so lucky... perhaps an artist who has no idea what to draw first..or a writer not knowing where to begin his novel. They might need a push in the right direction. And if the recording artists themselves are o.k. with it, then why shouldn't we be?
I also thought the videos were quite entertaining in their own right. It is said that a true artist or musician does not limit themselves.. Instead, they appreciate their surroundings and experiences for what they are.
E.Stone
As an artist, creator and philosopher-I am going to have to agree with Lessing and disagree with both Alex, and "Uncle dub."
Firstly let me attend to Uncle dub, as you may know, your own name is a living embodiment of the manipulation and remixing or "dubbing" vocals or instruments from another sound or track; this is known as "Dub"- a reggae movement out of the 1960's. Thereby your name, you are supporting a cultural movement that rose from the freedom of culture, music and speech. Here is a snippet of the definition of dub:
"Dub is a genre of music that grew out of reggae in the 1960s, and is commonly considered a subgenre,though it has developed to extend beyond the scope of reggae. Music in this genre consists predominantly of instrumental remixes of existing recordings and is achieved by significantly manipulating and reshaping the recordings, usually by removing the vocals from an existing music piece, and emphasizing the drum and bass parts (this stripped-down track is sometimes referred to as a riddim). Other techniques include dynamically adding extensive echo, reverb, panoramic delay, and occasional dubbing of vocal or instrumental snippets from the original version or other works. It was an early form of popular electronic music.
Given history, we are all aware of the imminent dangers that come from prohibition and laws against creating (There is a reason we have the right to freedom of speech). If we take a look at the prohibition movement, you can see that laws never stopped people from drinking alcohol-they actually made alcohol more enticing. Prohibition laws created gangs and illegal routes; it brought the mistreatment/death of hundreds of people, bribery and incarcerations. No need to go on with the story of the 20's but alcohol was more alive than ever after those laws, whether they wanted it or not. We can see a similar psychological and sociological experiment unravel in front of our eyes regarding privacy, copyright issue and intellectual rights. Take a look at torrents, lime wire and emule; nothing has stopped people from getting what they want.
With this being said, as Pablo Picasso is widely quoted, “good artists borrow, great artists steal.” Every work of art is nothing but an imitation. Read Plato's, "Ion" and you will see his views on aesthetics and all works of art being copies of the forms. Read Immanuel Kant's, "Critique of judgement" and you will hear how we have all been trying to recreate the true and "Free beauty" that can only be seen in nature. Nature is the only artist after his conclusions on who is qualified to critique art and aesthetics--I will not digress but if you would like to know more, take a leap into one of the worlds greatest thinker's minds on your own time.
This Talk is about the death of creativity, do we have a right to creativity? I sure would say so myself. Lessing makes some great points about the silly and negligent behaviors that passing laws of this sort would enact. We need to put our money driven thoughts away, and not let this socio-economic system that we are a part of dictate freedoms that deep down, define us as humans. If we pass such behavior, we will set precedent for the infringement of god knows how many more basic human rights. Take a look at modern "freemium" business models in today's world- people called them crazy but models like these are doing more that flourishing.
May Olvera
This is going to be really extra, but I want to attack this from a philosophical perspective since Felipe touched on it.
I think that Lessig’s argument for Creative Commons is very much influenced (directly or indirectly) by Marx’s “Estranged Labour,” or his theory of alienation, which is one of the most influential pieces of writing I have ever come across and one that I agree with completely.
The main idea that both Marx and Lessig touch on is alienation: alienated workers and an alienated generation. Marx diagnoses the problem perfectly, and Lessig finds a contemporary solution.
Lessig makes a very important distinction between two living generations, ours being one that is determined to break the shackles of alienation—a task that his generation ultimately failed at.
Marx essentially defines alienation as a disconnect between a person and the items that they create, and he notes that it wasn’t always this way. However, it is inevitable that this alienation exist in a system in which the product of a persons labor is strictly a means of survival, rather than something that gives life purpose.
What Creative Commons does is it allows for the means of creative production to be held by anyone with an idea so long as they respect the reasonable wishes and limitations of the original content creator, rather than only those with the necessary capital (which tends to be way more than any normal person can afford) having that creative access. By cutting out some restrictions that are in place only to protect monetization, it allows for people to collaborate and make art for arts sake and for themselves, creating a less alienated generation. As Lessig puts it, it creates a generation with a read-write culture, rather than a read-only culture.
The reason that this is important to note, is that we need to understand that monetary gain is not the only incentive for creativity and innovation. In fact, I would say that monetization based on absolute ownership of property inevitably leads to monopolization, which is one of the biggest stiflers of creation. Therefore, these laws are no longer in place to protect and encourage freedom of thought and the fruit that comes from it — rather, they are now kept intact to protect the interest of those who already own the means of creative production.
Having then established that money is not the only driving force for creativity and rather can act as a hinderance, I don’t understand why communal content creation and ownership is so wild. Especially since people our age already engage in some pretty hard meme’ing, which is an extremely collaborative and democratic form of bottom-up creative diffusion. We already know what collaborative creation looks like, perhaps we don’t all understand how powerful that is yet, but I am confident that our generation will be one to combat the creative alienation that has resulted from monetization with tools like the ones Lessig has given us.
Kate Jones
I think Lessig has some important points about how society communicates through these remixes and use of work to create something new. I think everything that we know of today started out in using someone else's work to create something new or improved. Music comes taking previous works and changing it into something new; this is the same with many different aspects of creative life. Our generation believes in expanding the bounds of creative expression and taking our works into our own hands to decide what we want to do with it without boundaries permanently pressed on by the government.
Kasey T.
I will have to agree with Lessig. He made good points when it comes to our generation remixing on what is already produced. My cousin majored in music and his works evolve around other artists with similar taste in him. We others' have ideas then we can create ideas, that's how the world works. Just like the airplanes trespassing worked then for sometime, it certainly doesn't work now. Each generation evolve into what was already there.
But I will say it does suck to make something and others' profit from it even if it is a remix. But the way the internet is, it is so easy to do that.
Elizabeth H.
I agree with Lessig's opinions of how technology has given the millennial generation a greater opportunity for creativity and a more accessible way to express it. Almost every creation derives inspiration from something/somewhere, so I believe it would be very hard to adapt to changes if we were unable to gain influence and learn from past experiences.
Ryder B.
I agree with Lessig's intro in how the "talking machine" was foreshadowed to eliminate the vocal cords of society, via evolution. The 'read only' society prevailed as the interests, and musical tastes of the masses were catered to by a few artists who had the necessary resources to make it on the radio and/or into the public eye.
The accessibility of digital technology and creative commons to the masses is the "revival of the vocal cords". It gave a society of individuals a voice, a platform, and an opportunity to compete with those artists who may have more resources and funding.
I enjoyed Lessig's touch on how the rise in opportunity for competition will allow for a higher quality of creativity surfacing through the masses. The market will be based on this creativity of content, not the amount of funding or publicity one can afford.
Kimberly C- I agree with Lessing that creative commons is important to the culture, art, knowledge, and everything that we gain from the internet. I believe that while copyright law is important to protect content creators from their work being used for commercial endeavors that they did not authorize, but I believe that these works should be available for what Lessing calls "amateur creators." I think that living passively and becoming solely content consumers stifles creativity, free thinking, and can even smother the economy. Lessing is right in that while there should be some form of regulation when it comes to online material and copyright, there should be easy access for those who are inspired by the work of others and want to create something new to share with the world.
Samantha W.
In Lessig’s Ted Talk, I find him to make some great points. For example, how youtube videos may be using someone else's songs but they are turning it into something brand new. In my view, I support what Lessig presents and the creative commons. Although some may view this as unoriginal creativity, I think that it is crucial to the inspiration of artists. I am studying film and sometimes when I hear a song it inspires me to make a video. If I were unable to use the song in my video, strictly for art purposes, then that would take away my opportunity for new creation. Creative Commons allows for creative production to be held by anyone with an idea, as long as they abide by the limitations of the original content creator. Lessig says it creates a generation with a read-write culture, rather than a read-only culture, by reducing these restritions and allowing for people to use and create for the sake of making art.
I agree with Lessig on a lot of what he says, if not all of it. I have seen both sides take affect in my personal life when it comes to being completely for and against the copyright laws. The technology we use to be creative is changing so quick, it's no surprise people are quick to defend their side all they can. Remixing and sampling is already a big part of our music culture, and has defined sound in multiple genres, and these different aspects of old songs are used to display a different ideas from the original creation.
I have to say I agree with Lessing. I understand that need for artists and their producers to have copyright laws in place to protect the creative visions of their original work from being used for commercial use. However, that same original work could be completely "remixed" to produce something entirely new and original and just as creative in its own right. I agree with Lessing that there should be some sort of "creative commons" where free flowing collaboration for the purpose of being creative and origional in one's own way is encouraged and not deemed illegal. In this day in age we now have the accessibility to technology that allows us to produce music and movies at our fingertips. Why not evolve with the times and be able to use that technology and and draw inspiration from works of great artists before us to to create our own original visions?
Alicia F.
Lessig makes many important points throughout. I would have to say that for the most part I agree with his views. I feel that it is definitely fine to use another person’s works to form something new and original. If this was not allowed then the world would be missing out on so much.
Serena K.
Has anyone ever watched the movie Joy? The main character invents the self-squeezing mop She pays licesnsing to an inventor who claimed patent to invention similar to hers and comes to find out the invention was nothing like hers. Laws that Choke creativity makes a good point about the read and write and read only cultures. If we pass laws that restrict creativity because of intellectual property and copyright infringement we are only hurting ourselves. Ideas spring from other ideas. We create in innovative ways and passing laws to discourage creativity based on someone's devine right to rule with power over their own idea only hurts our ability to progress. I like what Alex said about the Youtube example but then I think back to remixes It is not the creator of a remix song who must be punished because more people are viewing the remixed video. By all means, give that author credit it was that work that people enjoyed more, let him pocket the ad income. If it comes down to this commerical based mentality I would let the best man win. I think of UBER and Lyft. Uber was first Lyft did it better. And idea should not have restrictions based on exisiting material. I know patents are a little different but the point is first we had a mop, then we had a self-squeezing Joy Mangano Mop. First you have song, then you have a remix. First you have Pride and Predujice and then you have zombie fighting Elizabeth Bennett.
I DJ so I agree with Lessig. Every time I play, I remix or mashup multiple songs. The freedom to mix 2-4 tracks at once, all by different artists is what makes my job. Without being able to that, would create a boring experience for my audience and myself. There would be no differentiating between two DJ's because they would all sound the same. Every DJ would have to play wedding sets (press play, song ends, press play on the next song)
I agree with Lessig theory somewhat. In the digital age that we live in today people are always mixing content to create their own. That for me is where signals get crossed because of copyright since they don't own it but they can remix. I wonder how Lessig would describe the content now 10 years later.
I concur with Lessig on his point of views that say that our creativity is being deluded and blocked/ chocked by the government that do not let this generation express their talents by using work that is old and well passed the term of copyright. we wouldn't have found out most of the stuff we find on mass media without remixing it or using it as a different expression of mass media. so I believe that we should be able to use thee mediums as a source of entertainment and freedom of expression through those uses of spreading ideas.
I agree with Lessig. I believe the freeness in our ability to re-create a work of art is important in today's society. Restriction of remixing will only stifle the creativity of its users, and can potentially result in limiting one's right of free press and speech. This allows a read-write culture rather than a read-only culture. My major is electronic media, and I hope to go into the field of film and music. So, Lessig's points were important for me and my career. Within this field, the freedom of creativity is extremely necessary for the survival of the industry.
- Kaylee S.
I'm not sure if I can fully agree with Lessig. On one hand our generation thrives on user-generated content and I believe its a huge proponent of all industry types. If you look back to one of the original Saturday Night Live skits with Will Ferrell "More Cowbell" even though it was the original artists performing, it was the writers at SNL that turned the song into something else. Arguments could be made that if it wasn't Blue Oyster Cult performing it would be copyright, but i'd say look at the sales of the original song after that skit became famous. User-generated content can definitely be beneficial to both parties and if not over done, be stir creativity. On the other hand, in arguments before, this constant rehashing and remixing of content and other artists' work casts a shroud of uncertainty on future creativity. We don't see much new work in the movie and gaming industry outside of AAA titles and sequels because businesses believe that's where the money is and it is not worth taking a risk creating new content. I believe the same could apply to Lessig's theory. In the end Lessig has a point that simply outlawing the ability to remix content isn't the choice because there are too many possibilities. I don't have the answer but there is a line that could be drawn in the middle.
Austin M.
Post a Comment