Even though this presentation was done in March 2007, it is still highly relevant to issues involving copyright and digital and online media.
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, April 27. Late comments will not be accepted for credit.
Remember, also, to include your first name, last name initial and class (TTh class, Honors class or Online class).
99 comments:
Matthew Masepohl TTh Class
I agree with Lessig about our generation being the "remix" generation. A lot of modern music is sampled, and then there are memes and the like. As far as new copyright laws, there is kind of a grey area. I believe that as long as there is permission to make this "remixed" content or if it's being made without permission but not being sold, then it shouldn't be censored.
I agree with Lessig. In this generation, we are all feeding on each other's creativity. It isn't a bad thing, in fact, if you see how smartphones are developed it's from feeding into others creativity and ideas. With the fast and growing pace that we are living in this generation, nothing on the internet is "illegal" to use. As long as you are not making money off of the original artist's content/work, then you can use them as you pleased. Like what Lessig said in the video, remix songs are a way people express themselves and connect with people.
TX ID: m_k2018 (ONLINE)
Megan Bandstra (online)
I do agree with Lessing. It is a fascinating statement when he said that our generation is aware they are constantly breaking the law when it come to things like copyright. However, I do feel like nowadays most artists are willing to let their work be used for non-commercial use, unless its someone who puts up a strong barrier to the usage of their art like Taylor Swift. When it comes to finding a middle ground between the businesses controlling copyright and how much the artists are willing to allow people to use, I feel like there could be a good amount of artists out there who agree with Lessing when it comes to finding a good middle ground between putting their work out their for non-commercial usage but still wanting to make money from their time and effort.
Anna Beaty (T-Th 12:30-2)
I think Lessing's talk aligns with what we have been talking about in class our laws have not been able to keep up with technology. I also think he's right about it being a trickle down effect that is also evident in the lack of diversity in our media today. I agree that younger generations nowadays think it is normal to live outside these laws. I think more power to his plan allowing creativity to flow and anyone to participate in it that has access to technology. This mindset is more American than anything trickle down. I also think children are inherently creative because they haven't been shut down as much as adults. Expanding legal rights to express creative will benefit us all.
Lauren G TTH
I agree with Lessig. Today you can find a remixed version of just about anything. Song remixes and video spoofs are all over the internet. And many times the original artists will share or promote those remixes. Today's culture is all about sharing, creating and expanding on ideas that already exist. As long as the remixer isn't making money off the remix or has gotten permission, there shouldn't and usually isn't an issue.
Madison Wisenbaker
(T-Th 12:30-1:50pm)
I agree with Lessig. In our generation we are constantly copying, re-using, or remaking everything and not 100% of the time getting permission to use it. I think Lessing's talk goes with what we've been discussing about tin class. Our laws haven't been keeping up with how fast technology is progressing. But i feel like with everything moving forward artist are more relaxed about their work being shared if its not for a profitable cause. I'm sure in the near future the copyright law will change or at least have more years extended to it.
Zach I., Honors
Technically, everything you ever think, do, or create is the product of your experiences and external stimuli so is it really possible to have an original thought? Instead of strictly adhering to the completely original, we should embrace Lessig's idea of a culture of sharing and remixing. This type of environment encourages collaboration and community, which will in turn make more art, better art, and better people. Everything should really rest on the original artist's permission, which doesn't seem to be as much of an issue as current copyright law might suggest.
Long N. TTH Class
I agree with Lessig. Technology, arts and culture all change at such a rapid rate that within the realm of democratic law, ideas and creativity isn't embraced to its full potential because of a lack of common sense. Parameters that restrict the flow of ideas and culture will be the choke-hold on progressiveness because of the legal hammer that deters rather than promote. Debate is possibly the best idea towards counteracting the idea of a "chilling effect." Why are these topics relevant to me and what choices do I have that affect both me and my community/society and promote positive utility? The answer I find most compelling is expressionism, a term coined in the early 20th century. Without the ability to feel what's happening around us and the impact it has to our society, and the giant corporations that seek to silence rather than pledge allegiance. We, as a community fall short of progressing not only our individual selves from exploring endless possible paths in life, but hinder our very existence as humans.
Alicia Singletary (TTH class: 12:30-1:50 PM)
I agree with everything that Lawrence Lessig said in the video. In the 20st century the technology, arts and culture all change at such a rapid rate that within the realm of democratic law therefore the remixed creativity should be embraced but it isn't because of a lack of common sense. In this generation we do feed off each other on creativity and enhance it to make us better as people and for the businesses. When he talking about the copyright aspects I agree that we should have equal free art work and ask for permission artworks works that way it is more even.
Sawyer C. - Online
As Lessig demonstrates the historic need for a constant renovation of laws and regulations, it becomes increasingly clear that after a certain period of time, technological and creative evolution stagnates at the hands of hesitant lawmakers. Prominent obstacles to the growth of modern creativity are the regulations that define the differences between piracy and genuine remixes. In his speech, Lessig says that a key form of communication for the technological generations of today is the ability to modify already created content to say things differently. "These tools of creativity have become tools of speech," Lessig says. This highlights that not only do these remixes relieve creative yearnings but act as a form of vital communication between individuals and communities. To consider remixed arts as a form of trespassing is a direct form of stifling that creativity. the conflict between the two disables furthered ingenuity.
Peyton Buie - Honors class
I totally agree with Lessig. A lot of the media that I and the rest of my generation consumes is reused media adapted for a different purpose. Furthermore, because what is created is a new work of its own with its own message, as long as it's not monetized by the creator, it should be allowed to continue. The only case I feel there should be restrictions on this right is in the case that the work created from others' works is monetized, in which case I feel there should be some agreement between the creators of the original content and the re-creators (as well as the platform hosting the content) as to how the income would be split. This, however, would be a feat in itself as trying to find a way to split money that all parties would find fair is difficult to achieve, especially in an age where the primary host of video media is YouTube, which has a near monopoly on streaming of user-created videos (which it monetizes using ads). Perhaps if it came down to it, YouTube would repeat the past of ASCAP and in the end, creators, original creators, and media hosts could find some common ground.
Sonia Vela (Media Law 4301 Online)
I agree with Lawrence Lessig's TED Talk on intellectual property. I especially like how Lessig spoke on culture. Lessig mentioned how John Phillip Sousa refered to the talking machine as an "infernal machine" because they made people into consumers and less creatives. People will consumer other's work/culture and rather than making their own. And I can understand how that is disagreeable, how someone's work can be abused and not credited. But what Sousa doesn't understand is that other's work can influence/inspire another to create their own. Lessig states that the internet is a resource that will spread ones' work farther than imagined and can be valued and celebrated. I do not agree with others making money off another work and this can be seen directly/indirectly. Like how one's work closely resembles another. examples are music, art, fashion, brands, inventions, and much more. Lessig did a good job on educating viewers on copyright and trespassing and making the point that his stories, although, they are very antiquated, are still relevant. With time there is advancement and our laws will need to adapt.
Claire Partain
Honors
I agree with Lessing's message, and I, too, think that art and other creations should be more freely available. However, I think that there has been significant change on this matter since 2007; while I'm not sure how drastically laws have changed, culturally, I think that copyright laws are followed much less often then they were before. He's correct about the "read-write culture" that has exploded in the past few decades. Creative outlets and user-generated content dominate the Internet, and it's extremely common for someone to be a Soundcloud rapper, meme creator, or YouTube vlogger.
I like Lessing's analogy of the planes "trespassing" onto farmer's land. The idea seems ludicrous today, and that's largely due to the fact that planes have existed long enough for a culture to get used to it. The Internet is getting older, but it's still somewhat wild terrain, and exact laws and boundaries are still being altered.
This whole culture of constantly creating, adapting and changing content is entirely embedded into my generation's culture, and often we don't think twice about it. This is truly a time of creation, and copyright laws should keep up with the times.
Kathryn Willis
TTH 12:30-1:50
I agree with Lawrence Lessig. During Lessig’s video on Intellectual property. Art and other forms of art will continue to be shared whether the law agrees with it or not. Remixes have been created for many years and if they are not for a profit there is really nothing wrong with it. Art is about creating new things and new ideas, and if someone adds on to an idea or enhances it, it could benefit the world. The copyright law seems a bit out of date and with the way our generation has handled things, it will more than likely change soon.
Simone Corprew (online)
I agree with Lessing. I really liked what he said at the end when we was saying we can't stop kids from doing things, we can only criminalize what they're doing. I know so many creative people my age who just want to make content. Because technology has been around for so long it seems almost impossible to create something entirely new sometimes. But if people are taking something and building on it, why is that a problem? Obviously it's wrong to take someone's work and parade it as your own, but remixing or even giving proper credit shouldn't be "illegal". The world is almost entirely run in the digital sphere now. It can be so hard to know what is and what isn't okay. I think a lot of the restrictions presented by new laws just stifle creativity.
Halee B TTh Class
I agree with Lessig that laws have been put in place that are holding back artist and creators. There should be a change to some of laws that keep people from expressing their creativity. I am not just saying that because I'm 21 and this generation is all about user generated content. I am saying this because there have been many new technologies that have been created, because someone was given the freedom to express their thoughts an ideas. If people start thinking they will get in trouble for being creative, less people will want to express their ideas. If no ones comes up with new technologies an ideas then we won't continue to get more and more advanced. I agree with him that artist should have a choice to share their work with others for their creativity. It definitely makes sense why he decided to start the Creative Commons website.
I agree with Lessig's reasoning for remixing content. Lawmakers along with policy should evolve with technological advances to create guidelines for those interested in expressing themselves using someone else's art as long as there is a drastic change in the properties of the content and message. As a current video editor and YouTuber, producing quality material with little to no production cost can be difficult, and using existing material makes creating quality content more accessible.
Milena Arias- MC4301-TTH
I agree with Lessig, and one of the comments made above by Zach about no one exactly having original ideas. I think there is no escaping the way we share and copy each other, because social media platforms have made it the norm. I think it's important to respect each others work, and give recognition to works of originality but it doesn't mean we should ask to share it, or use it.
Zachary S ZJS22 TTh class - I disagree. I believe that this is an appropriation claim and not a valid argument. People like this guy believe that there is no economic value to art and expression and that the creators of popular content should have to get money to live from other places. His argument about airplanes makes me want to throw up. That same kid with a $1500 laptop has plenty of opportunities to create their own art without having to steal from others. Someone with an airplane has no other option, unlike the said kid who has plenty at their disposal to create. laptops have cameras and microphones to record assets so you do not need to take from others. Artists should be able to have their own art without having others dilute the originality of their work. Kids should be taught how to create for themselves and not how to just use what is available to them.
Caitlin Gold (Honors)
I agree with Lessig. Art should be more available and adding something to someone else's piece of work should not looked down upon or limited by laws. To me, remixing something is adding more creativity into the world. Not to mention that the people who make the remix usually do not make a profit. I think that the laws in place are out of date (what a surprise) and shouldn't be used because things are so different now from when they were created. We can try to teach kids how to create from themselves but ultimately the tools that are used to teach are things that were thought of by other people (not original thoughts or ideas). Hearing or seeing something and adding something to it is creativity, as it adds your own personal flare.
Jose V. (Honors)
I agree with Lawrence Lessig and his ideology that copyright and intellectual property laws should become relaxed. I especially agree with his thoughts that artists should be allowed to expressed their artistic creativity without fear of being threatened from big corporations who benefit from these copyright laws. Given the times that we live in, is any idea really original these days? I believe we're at a time where originality has run its course and innovation is setting in. We live in a time where we have been blessed with the resources that allow us to innovate original ideas that future generations can enjoy, and maybe one day innovate those ideas. If we just allow these corporations and their copyright labels dictate what artists can or can not do, then they are just suppressing the potential for creativity. It really bothers me when older artists and their labels go after new artists and sue them on copyright violations for using samples from their songs. Also, I agree with Lessig on his idea that the only time copyright should be monetized, is when artists plan on using original content for monetary reasons. Only then, is when such laws should be bought to action.
Andrik P. (12:30 class TTh)
I agree with Lessig's view that copyright laws should be toned down to allow for creators to "remix" content. This has become a troubling problem for many YouTube creators who use various amounts of copyrighted content to create a remixed project. I understand that some creators or companies that own certain copyrights should have to ability to control how their work or brand is represented, but I also feel at times that their reach can be too powerful resulting in smaller creators not receiving any credit. I think it is completely fair to have to ask the original creator for permission to use their work. However, if they have expressed that their content is free for anyone to use and then see a work afterward that they dislike, I find that use to be unfair and discriminatory.
Sam S. (12:30 class TTh)
I agree with Lessing, mostly, about us having become more of a remix generation but I feel like he speaks about it as a bug while I see it more as a feature. Taking other peoples work and refining it, changing it, or reinventing it has been of incredible value to humanity as a whole because it inspires people to take what once was and test it, manipulate and change it. Taking things that were good and making them better is what has brought us the iPhone, we didn't need to change go away from a phone we just needed it updated for our lives. As long as it is not the exact same thing but just repackaged I don't believe there should be censorship when it comes to these things. When it's music, people can be inspired and want to pay homage to someone without trying to rip off a song or artist. I tend to side with self-censorship over governmental or legal censorship in most cases.
Sataurus J. TTh 12:30.
In my personal opinion when an artist samples another artist it is a way of paying homage to them. If I were an artist and someone sampled my music I would take it as a compliment. All artist have had to gotten inspiration from another artist that they looked up to and they wanted to be just like. That is how the entertainment industry works. With that being said I agree with Lessing I do believe that copyright laws should not be so extensive. In an industry where everything is based on being creative and expressing yourself some of these laws cause people not to be able to fully express themselves.
Donte Jones
ML T-TH 12:30-1:50
My generation is very insecure when i comes to standing out, or not having a popular opinion. We are afraid to be wrong and looked at as an outsider if it doesn't benefit us. But what if it benefited culture in a sense of showing a new world that people are dissonant abut are first but then relies that that they actually can connect to this world cause we all go through the taboo that the creative is displaying. If you are able to present your own original content, you may be able to avoid copyright laws all together. However, this generation loves to be apart of the collective that is society norms. Lessig is right, sampling is pivotal nowadays. Whether in movies, music and television. The people in media find a way to regurgitate the same information.Is it really self expression though? And can original content actually ever surface without flopping out of society's grasp. Only time will tell.
Kayla M. (Online)
I agree with Lessig. This time period in film, there are a lot of remixes. For example, Spiderman movies. There are multiple twists to each storyline that is released. The constant need to add to the story, update it, add a different twist to it is starting to get tiring. Why not create a new superhero? But there are still the group of people who fantasize about Spiderman and go to every movie release day. We need more originality in the world.
Morgan M. Honors Class
I agree with what Lessig talked about in his TedTalk. I think it important that we do not limit creativity, because it was creativity that invented many things we find essential today. It is also important that people collaborate with one another and I think it is fine to have copy right laws but ones that allow for collaboration. Like Lessig stated it would be fitting for there to be laws that allowed people to use copy right materials for personal reasons and not commercial reasons that can bring that person profit. Creativity is more important today than ever with the constant society, and it should not be limited.
I agree with Lessig's argument. Technology is still a fairly a new entity in today's society, and no one is really sure how it is going to affect 50 years from now. It had given us the ability to create and recreated things that 100 years ago seemed unimaginable. It has extended our creative abilities for the better, I think. This is difficult to regulate, however, and it's very easy for someone to misuse this power and corrupt it. It's even more difficult for the government to regulate everything that's put out there on the internet. I could see how some people would want to hold very tight reigns on copyright laws but if that were to happen, then how much would that restrict creativity? Quite a bit, I would think. If only there was a way to make sure people used technology for eithically or morally correctly and nothing was put out there to upset and offend anyone. This isn't the case, however, so a delicate balance between strict copyright laws and relaxed copyright laws, seems like a good solution for now.
Linehan, Madison TR 12:30-1:50
I agree with Lessig that today has become a Read only age versus a Read AND Write world. He talks about how things have changed and about people today saying that often they produce to make money instead of loving it and being genuine. While reaching his audience he tell them about the music they listened to in their day and that their kids now and the future generations often are the "remix" and often remake and remix things from the past in order to access and relate to the culture now. He list so many examples that are easy to relate with and so very true of how the times have changed and the way the world is today.
Alex M / Online class
I agree with Lessig's points. I'm fortunate enough to have grown up in the mid-2000s era of the internet when things like Napster, MySpace, LimeWire and YouTube were flourishing and disrupting culture in a significant way. It was a very fascinating time, about 2004-2008. I used to watch AMVs myself, and I'm glad that Lessig brought them up because I feel like my generation and perhaps Gen X as well were the purveyors and consumers of this new internet culture. Thanks to the internet, this remix culture was created, and there was a "renaissance period," especially on YouTube, of mashups, AMVs, parodies and other forms of content that weren't yet struck down by DMCA's or other claims. I agree that there has to be an intermediary between the law that wishes to protect copyright and a generation that simply wants to create boundlessly, and both must benefit in a reasonable way. I feel as though with any generational shift or great shift brought about by technology, there's always this "Wild West" period where all sorts of creativity occurs without strong legal interference because the culture is just so new and the law has yet to catch up. One could argue that this is still occurring now in the 2010s with the onset of social media. I think it's fascinating how many of Lessig's points are still applicable over 11 years later.
RandalleS.(TTHclass)- I completely agree with Lessig, we are in a time of "remix".
He talks about the importance of techniques, how it has been democratized and turned into way to speak. We are in a time where speaking freely is our first choice, and how we use all tools necessary to get our views and opinions out into the world. If we were to be punished every time we made a meme of something, or used part of a song in a video that we were not selling; there would be numerous lawsuits against children and teens and adults of all ages. Copyright is a huge thing that does need to exist because it keeps people from completely ripping each other off but if its not for sale and it is changed, or REMIXED, to have a different meaning or purpose then is it really copyright? Common sense tells me no!
Rebecca Merrill (TR 12:30 class)
I agree with Lawrence Lessig in that there should be a balance between both of the extremest sides. I agree that both sides are wrong. I am going to go ahead and include myself in the generation that "remix" content. For example in high school for several assignments we used songs and altered the lyrics in order to help us memorize things for history, literature, and even math. Like Lessig says, "Its how [we] think. It's how [we] learn to understand culture." I don't think taking sounds and images to say things differently is illegal but I am a strong believer in compromise so if BMI really can demonstrate a form of balance then I'm all for it. I like the idea that artist choose if they want their work to be freely used for non commercial use.
Jakob R. Rodriguez, Honors
I feel like it is important to realize that times are changing. The learning curve of technology, most evident in my recent sit down teaching session with his dad and iPhone, is indicative of the changing times. Artistry and commercialization have also changed in this time, album release dates mean nothing and now streaming services drive album awards and serve as place holders for things like platinum and gold albums.
I agree that we need to do better in the future for future generations, but I as a writer, I like my work to be mine, writing is hard and jobs are hard to keep, all I have is my work and my name.
Jake Fest, Tues/Thurs 12:30
Lessig creates a valid argument concerning the preservation of creativity. In reality, everything is a remix from a previous generation's ideals. We are a product of the environment we live in. The social constructs that are in place mold us even further into what we eventually become. I believe there should be a balance between the two sides of the argument, concerning copyright laws. There should be room for artists to expand upon a previous work of art; however, the remix should be a transformation into a new unique form of expression.
Jamie Culpepper, TTh class
I agree with what Lessing has to say about artists giving more freedom to content for the youth to compete with. I think there needs to be a better balance between free and non-free content in order to have freedom of expression. Technology is only expanding and it would be useless if the youth can't compete with available content to produce another tool to learn from. By giving more freedom to content, more digital media can be produced to help balance the competition. I agree that we cannot escape technology so why not expand on it? In this digital age, I think we should have the freedom to produce more content from artists if it is for non-commercialism. This is how we express our views and creativity and should not be denied that.
Nora M - Online
I agree with Lessig's argument. In a climate where our arts programs are not getting the funding they need to keep creativity thriving we should really be looking into these regulations. We more need creative freedom. I fully understand there needs to be limits, someone shouldn't be allowed to take credit for your work but I see no harm in someone taking your work and making their own unique interpretation. All forms of art are incredibly accessible with present day technology it would be impossible not to build off of someone else idea. I'm also saying this as someone who feels like a hypocrite because if someone copies anything I do I have a childish fit.
I agree with Lessig. People should definitely always be given credit for their own original work, but in the modern world of today, too many people are creating too many new things every day for anyone to possibly create something completely original. Take something as simple as a normal sized Instagram account- you see someone post a beautiful photo in a really fun location, and that encourages a few of your followers to try and take a photo in the same spot. You're on Pinterest and see a nice cake, and try and recreate it for your next birthday. Is that content theft? Or are you taking inspiration from something else and making it your own? Obviously people shouldn't try to pass off the work as others as their own, but there are so many difference influences going on at once for anything to be completely unique to one person.
Hannah Robinson, TR 9:30
Alexandra Connealy-Online class
Lessing stated, "Broadcasting is a new way to spread content, therefore a new battle over the control of the businesses that spread content." I like that he points out that this has been an issue since broadcasting was created in the 1920's. I agree with his opinion of finding balance. I also don't think that the answer is so black and white, that is why in my opinion, the law is so difficult to change. For example, the Red Hot Chili Pepper's were accused by a radio show, of plagiarizing Tom Petty's song "Mary Jane's Last Dance" because the chords in "Dani California" were so similar. Tom Petty responded with "a lot of rock songs sound the same I doubt it was on purpose." I think this example shows the difficulty of having work that is one hundred percent original. Social media and the internet make it difficult to not be inspired, or accidentally take someone else's content.
Cindy Arriaga
Online Class
I agree with Lawrence Lessig and his message in the video. As we go through laws the course laws have not kept up with technology. Art is about creating new products , new things or new ideas. We find ourselves constantly re-using or re-creating finished products and revising them to our standards that benefit the world. While I am not sure how drastically laws have changed on copyright law, but I know we follow them much less they before.
Alexis Longmire TTH 12:30
I agree with Lessig. In our generation we are always remaking everything and most of the time we don't even bother getting permission. Everything Lessig said has some sort of correlation with what we have ben learning in class. Technology is progressing the government to keep laws updated. I think artists are even becoming more lenient with their work because of how hard it is to track everyone. As long as the "remixer" isn't making a profit, they should be protected.
Chris Harris
Online Class
Lessig made a strong point about copyright law in America being unfair. He uses Youtube as an example of a platform that will take down content if there is copyrighted material in the video, without seeing if the material is protected under fair use. Popular Youtube channel, H3H3, was recently involved in a copyright lawsuit over a reaction video that they posted on Youtube. In the video, they play clips from the original the video they are reacting to and periodically offer comment and criticism. After a year in court, they won their case and the content was deemed as fair use. This case will strengthen future cases in favor of fair use. I think that eventually copyright law will loosen its grip and content creators will have more creative freedom.
I think Lessig had a lot of really great points. At the end of his Talk he said that our youth is being pushed underground and turned into "Pirates". As long as our govt. puts labels on a video or song we are unable to turn it into something of our own. This is something that is super relevant in todays day and age. Especially with artists re-using melodies or samples from old songs that they are getting sued for currently. We live in a generation that is built off of remixes and revamping old things and making them new. If the govt. or a seperate party sues me for copyright, This will not only scare me to remix ever again, but It bashes creativity. This leads to a "Chilling effect" that was similar to the one we saw in the sullivan case (but copyright rather than free speech). But similar ideas nonetheless. This is infringing on our first amendment rights! On the opposite side of the spectrum, There are many instances where artists really get their styles or sounds stolen and can only do so much. It is hard to decide but I think thats why we have our justice systems set up in the first place. I believe in the generations of remixes. So long as your heart is in the right place you should feel free to take something and make it your own because at the end of the day, its still creativity.
Triston Giesie (Honors)
In some ways, I very much agree with Lessig. However, I cannot entirely support his claims and am too big of a devil's advocate to let all of the comments do the same. Though his example of "trespassing," via aviation holds truths to it and serves as an excellent metaphor for the issue, it fails to fully encompass everything. You see, I am not an expert on chicken farming or the familiar with the merits of which, but I’m sure B-2 bombers can be pretty disruptive to any kind of livestock. Similarly, while publishing things may void certain rights, it seems naïve to assume it would void a type of ownership in the idea it is from that point universally shared with the world. However, what makes the argument sway to me is simple: memes. See, without this ability to remix and humanize current events, photographs, tweets and culture. This idea Lessig presents encapsulates the necessity of their being and permits them to make all the jokes and social commentary they feel fit to. So what if it keeps the chicken farmers up at night?
Darreane V. TTH 12:30
I do agree. I believe we are living in a whole new world where sometimes I don't think the law has time to keep up with. I 100% believe someone should always have the right to own the thing it is that they made but it's not a bad idea to allow people to take that idea or invention and make it better. One because if it betters us as humans then that should be a good reason to make something better. When Lessig talked about the "infernal machines" when referring to music. I feel that portable music has become so important to us. It's what helps people wake up in the morning, its what helps people get through a long day, its what some people use as therapy and it can even be people's answers to certain things. Now a world where we never would've accepted these "infernal machines" would have definitely be a different one but luckily we don't have to know that because we said yes to change and over the years we said yes to making something better than it once was. Economic potential is what we should always consider as Lessig mentioned because it betters us as people. Free content is something that would change our world even more and could make our world better than what it is now.
M. Nereida Jaimes
HON 3396E
The innovative nature of the internet makes it near impossible to regulate such information and material effectively, without violation to constitutional rights. The laws that are currently in place make an argument for a real world and can't be properly applied to the virtual world. This just proves that the internet has posed many challenges for current law, and deeming them as outdated and inapplicable. Overall, I agree with Lessig on the idea of recreating other's property for creative purposes. Many would argue that reproducing material that is copyrighted in a form of remix is a violation of law, yet can't the opposite also argue that in reproducing this material the author gains more fame and increases their profits with the rapid sharing the internet provides? Others should have the opportunity to expand on original works without penalty, provided that the original can be accredited to the author for further works and development.
Adrian Hobley
TTH 12:30
I agree with Lessig 110%, this subject frustrates me more than anything. I can branch this off to many things but i can say the best example for this in my opinion is the Video game industry. These big AAA companies in this day and age continuously release unfinished games which seemingly has become the norm. To correct this, for about each and every game released to date a modding community is spawned. These are people just like you and me who have the free time spared to make the game how they want, how the community wants or how it should have been from the start.
Modders make their work seem effortless, they make all of this amazing content much better than what the original product the developers have put out, but instead of applauding these talented individuals for giving their game a life beyond what it would have been and just plain making the game better then almost always shut these types of projects down and for what? These people respect and love your work enough to dedicate months to years adding to your game and a lot of the time will refuse payment as well deserved as it may be. What takes these large companies of 100+ employees years to an eternity to release, the creative mind of one person can single-handedly create and put out in days time content far exceeded what would have been given to us for an outrageous price for something that surely will be unpolished and rushed to be released. Why this is seen as a problem i will never understand. Some modders take it a step further and create entire sequels to beloved games building them from the ground up after years of fan prodding a company to do so themselves put as always these projects are shut down.
Its really sad to see how money hungry and lazy these big companies are, but all we can do is hope that there will be a point in time where these developers begin to capitalize on this. Hire these people if you happen to see their work and make it your own don't shut their projects down just because they care more about the product than you do. These laws really need to change it would make entertainment so much more creative and will surely do a tremendous amount more good than harm but only time will tell.
Elvira R. (TTh)
It is simple, there is no such thing as an original thought. Everything created stems from something in the past or influenced by it. Therefore, I would like to say that I do agree with Lessing. These laws and regulations are building a wall against profound creativity. Artist have been given limitations to what they can create and as Lessing said "we live a life against the law," we have been since these certain laws have been enforced. Further agreeing with Lessing, living a life against the law as he says is extremely corrosive. Restrictions are being put on this outlet that was meant to freely express. Laws are corrupting that idea and it disables art.
However, this is not a perfect world. Lessing said as a democracy "we should be better," but the matter of the fact is this is not a perfect world and laws were created to serve as a sort of balance. There is purpose behind laws for a reason. The world is known to be corrupt, has been, and I government puts them out for "moral" reasons serving the public. The problem is these laws are being made but they have not fully figured out what to do since technology is rapidly advancing everyday. Laws need to continuously be updated since things are still being figured out. There is no telling where technology is taking us next.
Jacklyn Mann
12:30-1:50 TTH
I agree with Lessing about how we all stem off of each other. Technology has extended our creative abilities! Creativity comes from within, but something has to inspire us to be creative. It's difficult for the government to regulate everything that's on the internet. I can understand how people would want their stuff protected by copyright, however I think it is near impossible to regulate what everyone does. A balance between strict copyright laws and more relaxed copyright laws are the best medium.
Blake Lanter (T-Th 12:30-2)
I agree with Lawrence Lessig, in the 20th century everything is constantly changing, including culture and technology. Certain laws bring such changes. I agree with Lessig calling our generation the "remix" generation as well. I believe our generation all feeds off of one another's thoughts and ideas. Nothing is 100 percent original anymore, because they have been influenced in certain ways by previous artists. With this said, art should not be censored if there is permission, or if there isn't any profit being made.
Lindsay I. (T-Th 12:30-2)
I agree with Lessig's reasoning for remixing content. In the 20th century everything is always shifting and changing constantly with culture and technology. Policy should evolve with technological advances to create guidelines for those interested in expressing themselves using someone else's art as long as there is a drastic change in the properties of the content and message. Digital media is evolving so rapidly that people are creating a culture where people are creating for art rather than money. It is how people understand certain cultures and identifications.
William Berggren
(T-Th 12:30 class)
Lessig argues for the need to revive creativity and that the internet is the next threat to culture, like the talking machines, the airplanes, and broadcasting but I believe that creativity and culture is more alive and evolving than ever before due to the availability and easy access to content. I do agree with Lessig in the sense that artists choice is key in keeping creativity alive and to do that is to willingly publicly share content to be interpreted and "remixed" without consequence except for commercial use. I also agree that common sense needs to be applied and copyright law needs to adapt to the new generations in a way that doesn't discourage creativity.
Rivers Wright. TTh 12:30. First off, I just want to say that I love that he used Myspace as a reference to technology. That in and of itself shows how rapidly our world changes with technology. I do agree with him though. I think that there is definitely a read-write culture going on. I think it was always there and people were inspired by others in some way or another. I think the difference is now that it is easier to find someone else's work and do something with it. I think that we should continue the flow of ideas and give credit where credit is due without completely ripping off someone for your own benefit.
Colin Morris - Honors
For the millennial generation, we have essentially grown up with immediate access to limitless information, art, entertainment, etc. We have grown up with increased ability to communicate, collaborate and create. I believe that collaboration and inspiration drive creativity, and therefore appreciate Lessig's argument to encourage a new outlook on a remix generation. I believe artists, who have put in the amount of time and effort into their work to be monetized, should be allowed the privilege to protect their works to a certain extent. However, we cannot hold those who choose to transform these works into their very own to punishable and strict standards set forth by restrictive copyright. Millions of things are added to the internet every second, and it's unreasonable to expect the entirety of this content can be regulated. We are reaching a new age of technology, and continuing to allow restrictions on content creation will only hinder this progress.
Shanell Smith -TTH class
I do agree with Lessig. I think the remixing of art is in itself new art. I believe this could open up more possibilities on a creative stand. Some of the greatest inventions happen when people put their ideas together. I liked the similarity he drew between the ownership of property [having to get permission if someone was in a plane above your land] and the ownership of a piece of work. I think if someone was set in place where if you rework someones original work for the use of creative uses, and then having to pay to use something for advertising or business uses could create a way to benefit on both sides of the argument.
Taylor M Tu-Th
I agree with Lessig. Kids and soon to be adults should have the ability to expand on others ideas to allow for bigger and better things to emerge. I don't believe that this should be allowed for monetization unless it is a drastic change of the original work. Allowing creative expression should be a gimme. The only people I see having a problem with this are people that are solely focused on money. Creativity takes priority in my mind, because creativity creates tomorrow.
Ron Silva Tues-Thurs 12:30
I agree with Lawrence Lessing when he states that’s he supports recreating and remixing. Also, I do support using other people’s content as long as proper credit is given, on different digital platforms to say something unique. Also, I believe the technology industry is stronger when people come together to create. Collaboration is key to the creative process and vital to how we communicate today. Lastly, in order to do better for our kids we must educate our children about the right and wrong uses of technology.
Laura Gallo Online Class
Wow this is so much like what I said in the last blog. I’m 100 % agreeing with him. I feel that technology is a changing and improving upon existing inventions and it is going to be like that for many years. Inventions get revolutionized by the different ages. I believe that the law, like technology needs to move on or at least adjust itself to the contemporary era. The future of our kids gets built up with our way of thinking right now. I don’t think that living against the law make us not good citizens, I believe that the law is the one that needs to change.
I agree with Lessig. The era we are living in is one of extreme collaborative creativity. Artists work together and apart and utilize each other's works to either support a common vision or to counteract one. Either way, collaboration is huge and often if the collaboration is unspoken and without set terms, copyright becomes an issue. However, it seems that the artists of this era often do not mind as long as they are still profiting from their works. With music technology and technology in general constantly changing, artists must be willing to adapt to and embrace the changes.
Sierra Gutierrez
Online Class
Kendall Jo Allen - Honors
It is remarkable that very little improvement has been made to the problems outlined by Lessig in over a decade. Young people still have the drive to create and make things their own, and others want their work protected. I agree with Lessig's core principles, but this problem seems to be even more complex today than it was in the past. With platforms like YouTube and social media sites, it is difficult to determine what is commercial and what is not because people make money from these sites. What would be considered amateur? As soon as a creator generates ad revenue are they shut off from the content they had used previously?
In addition, this can be difficult for struggling artists to come to terms with. On April 18, Kanye West tweeted "let's be less concerned with ownership of ideas. It is important that ideas see the light of day even if you don't get the credit for them." For him, this concept would be fine because he already has the means to support himself. For less successful creators, this could mean financial failure in a capitalist society.
Jacqueline, L (TTH 12:30)
When discussing User Generated Content, I agree with Lessig’s argument that there needs to be more acceptance of digital technology revival in the read/write culture. And with that, there needs to be the option for an artist to choose how they want their content used. When describing today’s viewers as being apart of an “amateur culture” he highlighted the fact that the content that is being created is generated from a passion, and less about the money. That being said, I agree that the government needs to stop putting a price tag on everything, and start acknowledging the fact that not everyone shares an extremism idea between the conflict of law and use of technology. Some of us just want to have an open and free opportunity to make a choice as an artist. I think Justice Douglas said it best, “Common sense revolts at the idea.”
Clarke, Michael R - A04063500 (TTH)
I agree with Lessig in the sense that there should be laws that allow younger generations to recreate works from the past. This, of course, is a slippery slope, and if this same question were asked to me a couple of years ago, i might have had a different outlook. As a lover of music, I have come to notice that many songs in pop-culture today are derived works from songs my parents or grandparents grew up with. When i first came to understand this, it was upsetting to me that artists were basically copying old music and putting it forth as their own, and more importantly, it seemed that the majority of young listeners were ignorant to that fact. It was annoying to see people giving credit to a modern artist for a sound that was created 3 decades prior. But now, as i get older, I am becoming more appreciative of these remixes, as they keep us connected with works and generations from the past. I have found recently that young people are now getting introduced to older music and artists now because of these remixes. We just need to find a way where laws are loosened to allow creative works to be modernized while simultaneously announcing widespread credit to the original works.
Elisamaria T. , T-TH
I agree with Lessig in regards to copyright laws needed to evolve with modern society. Yet I still feel that artist should have the right to delegate how their content can be used. I recall once reading an article debating a similar topic; The DJ/ artist known as GirlTalk makes music by creating mash ups of several different songs. he was being criticized and punished for violating copyright laws. His argument is that he was not copying content but rather creating something completely new out of it. I thought a lot about this when watching this video. We have become a culture that produces this content for joy or the love of it rather than to make money. We create memes, funny videos, remixes, and so on all for fun to share on the internet with each other; it is our culture. But where do we find a middle ground where we do not completely eliminate copyright but loosen up on the laws that hinder a culture of free expression and creativity? The answer I am not sure of but I know that we need to start some where and the government needs to be a leader in this issue.
I do agree with Lessig. As the generation of creators has become more and more abundant in the technological era and connectedness through social media grows stronger, there is no way to avoid creative influence. In the music industry sampling can be a creative way to pay homage to an artist while still incorporating one's own style into their art. I think there needs to be stronger outlined laws regarding what is acceptable or not when it comes to creative works. Not necessarily stricter, but more specific.
Andrea T (T/TH 12:30)
Payton S. TTH 12:30
I agree with Lessing. I think that our generation is a generation of creators and copyright laws should evolve with that. Our generation is influenced by those of the past, as Lessing says, "it's how we understand culture". It's difficult for us to reach our full potential with regulations that aren't evolving with us.
Alyssa Pierce T/TH 12:20-1:50
I agree with Lessig that copyright laws need to evolve as our generations evolve. I do not believe this means we should get rid of copyright laws altogether but adjust them as appropriate to today's applications. Our generation (or at least some) strive to honor past culture and create new things from it and I think it's restrictive to not allow new works to be created from the old.
I agree with Lessig. Today’s copyright laws need to evolve as fast as technology is. People are going to remix music all the time. Just take a look at Soundcloud. The way I see it, the artist should be the one deciding if their content can be used or not. Most artist are okay with it as long as the other person isn’t making money off it and thats where the problem is. More people should have the power to create.
Nick W — Hon
The digital era has undoubtedly established a forum to test the extent and application of copyright law and fair-use doctrine. Many of the questions that arise today were not apparent in the past, simply due to the fact that there did not exist the technology to make the kind of widespread copying and distribution existent in modern times possible. Society has a reached a point at which it seems attempting to completely control the dissemination of content is unrealistic, and new ways must instead be developed to manage rights and demands on all sides. The recent history of the music industry can be looked to as an example of these kinds of developments. When the spread of unauthorized digital copies of music reached mass levels in the early 21st century, it became clear that the magnitude of this trend meant it could not easily be inhibited. People wanted easy¹ access to music the way they had come to expect as file-sharing systems became popularly used to spread copies of digital music. Eventually, music-streaming services met this need and provided a simple way for consumers to legitimately get the music they wanted in a straightforward manner, and these services have since drawn a substantial number of subscribers. While this example has somewhat different applications than does something like fair-use doctrine to copyright law, it nonetheless serves to demonstrate that effective arrangements are often reached by working with all sides to meet needs. Fortunately, the doctrine of fair use exists as part of the Copyright Act of 1976 and is responsible for protecting a good deal of the transformation-based work seen today. So long as only some of a borrowed-from work is used and is done so in order to create a new, different work that does not serve as a substitute for the original, fair-use doctrine should cover the creation of piece utilizing borrowed work. The issue, of course, lies in the fact that decisions in these kinds of situations are always based on interpretation. The use of borrowed music, for example, does not often seem to be covered by a claim of fair use, even when only part of a song is used; this is part of the reason systems like the speaker’s Creative Commons licensing system are useful in these cases. While certainly the application of a concept like fair use is not always perfect and completely clear, the doctrine’s existence has helped to legitimize much of the transformation-based content that exists today and helps to advance its underlying goal of enabling new creative expression as inspired by that which already exists.
______
¹ The file-sharing systems utilized were perhaps somewhat complex and not entirely simple, per se, but the fundamental principle in general is that these systems made digital music relatively easy to disseminate and download.
well as a fan of hip-hop music, which is based off the idea of sampling, i agree that younger generations should be able to take pre existing works of art and make them into their own and add new twists to them. i think its another great way to express yourself and yoiu can make a statment about something that is already established. Granted you need to actually make legitiment changes to the orginal work
Erin Copeland T/TH 9:30 class
I agree with Lessig. Due to the nature of our legislative system is to be slow. There's a good reason for this, to make sure the laws we pass are going to benefit us, but it means Technology is gonna run wild for a good long while before it gets regulated. And blanket copyright legislation just doesn't work for our generation anymore. Girl Talk uses like 30 different IPs to make a single song. I think we need to pull the copyright laws back to something we can actually enforce.
I agree that copyright laws need to evolve with the times. With the inclusion of new technology, the opportunity to create has never been better. I feel any active attempt not to assist this creativity, may as well be seen as an intention to hinder it.
Denise M. TTH
I agree with Lessig we truly are the remix generation. So much content is readily available to us because of the internet and we have everything at out fingertips to create something new with it. I do think artists should be payed for their work but I don't think all people remixing their work and creating something new because they love to and aren't necessarily monetizing from it should be punished because there is so much out there that is sampling etc,.
Lacy Hiet TTH 12:30
I agree with Lessig. As technology and its capabilities continue to advance and evolve, laws should evolve with them, and be less restrictive for creative content makers. Most content makers are just making content to create content, not commercialize or profit from their work. Artists should have more opportunity to build off of original work. Technology is a huge part of today's society, especially for this new coming generation, we should continue to utilize it in any way that we can.
Delia Castillo TTH 12:30
I agree with Lessig. Technology is something that is only going to keep changing the world. With that being said, the government has to accept this innovation. The government has to make laws that abide to this ever changing world. I also like how Lessig realizes that generations are so different from each other. He said that technology is what makes kids different. It's important to realize this concept and accept the fact that every generation is different and nothing is always going to stay the same.
Britta E. 12:30 TThu
I thought this video was super awesome. I learned a lot and definitely didn’t know there was such a thing as AMV’s. I remember I read somewhere about the whole “copies” thing and a couple had used a Taylor Swift song in their wedding video and Swift had YouTube take down the video because it was her song... I thought that was ridiculous! It wasn’t for commercial use or anything, there wasn’t any revenue being made from it, but it still was considered copyrighted. I do believe that we, as a generation, use songs and remixes and the like to better understand how things were back in the day and that the creativeness that comes along with that is beneficial for everybody.
Blake L. Online
I think everyone gains from a society in which creative content is shared more openly and freely. While I do think it's important that artists aren't exploited or taken advantage of for commercial use, the internet has allowed a new type of collaboration never seen before- like Lessig said, the remix generation- and I think it's a good thing. One thing about again becoming a reader/writer society that I find troubling is the amount of noise that is created on the internet and social networks. It's a great thing that creativity and communication has become more democratized, but it's important for people to not get stuck in an echo chamber of uninformed and ignorant ideas. But Lessig's main idea about allowing a mostly unrestricted creative environment, albeit with some regulation regarding commercial use, I think, is a good one.
Morgan L. (12:30 TTH)
I agree with Lessig. I think that recreating content cultivates creativity and it also allows the new and old work to be showcased through that. I agree that allowing people to recreate with the technology that is available to the masses now allows the consumer to also contribute to the creative. Times have changed and younger people now, who have grown up around technology that has developed at a rapid pace, are able to add to the creative world and have their "vocal chords". Like Souza wanted, it brings back that read-write culture.
Michael R. (12:30 TTH class)
Looking through other people’s comments, I see a pattern of our class agree with Lessing, and I am no exception. I believe this only validates Lessing’s argument when comparing the newer generation versus the old generation. Being that the young agree that we are engaging in a new way to create while continuing this narrative John Philip Souse spoke/romanticized about. Personally, just like with the new Star Wars movies, I believe this content that is created from old content is so successful because it taps into a sense of nostalgia we all love, making us think of a time we miss. Does this make the content less valuable? I do not think so. I believe you see these pieces of content sore to the top of charts everywhere only proving their validity. In my opinion, having a way to determine where the line in would certainly influence creativity.
Darrell G TTH
I agree with Lessig, the older culture is being seen embedded in today's culture. This can be seen in the music that is being, by way of samples, and remixes. You can also see this in the style choice of this up and coming culture by the clothes we wear the style of haircuts and even shoes. Using older culture styles allows this generation to put their own twist on things. We use older culture a base but in the end we put our own twist on things.
Nathan Beyer, NB
T-Th 12:30
I agree with Lessig. I think that if you raise a child in a culture where everything is illegal, they will learn to disrespect authority. In a democratic culture the general public's well being trumps individual rights. Those artists that comply with this type of thinking should make their work available for common non-commercial use. In this case creativity is allowed to flourish, where the culture is about use not ownership. I feel that if we work as a culture there is real potential for change. During the the enlightenment people were free to explore their human side. Religious authority was shirked and there was a wellspring of artistic growth. We have the potential to bring about a new age of sharing and creativity if we learn that artistic achievement is a group effort; not an individual striving for profit.
Alber Garza TTh-
Lessing makes valid points that I agree with. He seems to emphasize how the law takes forever and lacks common sense in governing the work in question. The law needs to find a way to keep up and adapt with the evolution of technology. What I most agree with is the urgency as he pleads with older people to help protect kids' (adults of the future) work. He's using history correctly, by bringing up ASCAP and BMI, and learning from their mistakes and successes. Though some content is questionable, some can be brilliant. I mean, clock the Andy Warhol image in the background. He,literally, made the Campbell's Soup Can one of the most recognizable works of art today. Some people thought it was just silly, but here are in 2018 still talking about it.
Peyton Planchard T/TH 12:30
Along with most everyone else I also agree with Lessig. I do think it should be allowed for the younger generation to remix/recreate music or other things. The future is all about being creative and improving things. Technology is rapidly changing so fast now that artists and people have to find ways to keep up. I do think copyright needs to evolve as our generations evolve.
Isaac N. TTH 12:30
I definitely agree with Lessig's arguments. He articulated these ideas very clearly and thoroughly. Being only 22 years old I can say that I have lived during an age where creativity has been put under a microscope, all in efforts to identify some kind of copyright issue. It's important that we don't "choke" the digital and overall creativity of today's children, and for those to come in order to innovate and create a new spin on current content, which gives said content more life I like to think. I am happy to see that bright minds like Lessig's have been able to shed light on the actual gravity of those issues.
Valerie Sotelo (online)
After watching the video I agree with what Lessing had to say. I really enjoyed the simplicity of his presentation but more importantly the message at the end of the video with his funny visuals explaining the different generations. How throughout the years kids remix and reuse the art and inventions of others. Like one of my peers brought up. I really enjoyed how he brought back history back and compared them to situations of today. But the main point is that we definitely need to have to fix up the law so that it doesn't set back creativity. Crazy how this talk relates to today. I watch a lot of youtube influencers and see how they struggle with uploading their option or work due to copyright and etc. Hope this gets fixed asap.
Christopher Villarreal TTH 1230
I would have to agree with most of the points made by Lessing. There is an obvious and loud battle between content makers and the business industry that comes from it. I can also see how this conflict affects the current state of our culture; being either an "RO" or "RW" society. There is a sense of morality Lessing addresses when it comes to the children of the next generation. I believe it is important to discuss how children will be affected by technology and how our culture should somewhat accommodate that.
I definitely agree as a whole with what Lessig says throughout his presentation. I also appreciate that he was able to sprinkle in bits of humor throughout. I especially liked the segment of showing fan-made creations using copyrighted works but saying that it was not copyright infringement, but taking and re-creating using other people's content to say things differently. The power of technology like this used to be in the hands of the few, but it really is in the hands of the many now days. Anyone with access to an even half-decent computer can go online, watch tutorials on how to create, and then take tools and make their own unique content.
Michael Hlozek - Online
I definitely agree with Lessig. I had never taught of our generation as the remix generation but I can see why e would be categorized with that name. We are in moment in time where the lines have become extremely blurred when it comes to copyrighted works, especially on the internet. It is a bit intimidating how much power one has. Anyone can create works that are considered "brand new" yet, use other people's works as an aspect or feature on theirs. It also a way of modernizing works from the past.
Michael S Clarke, Tuesday Thursday 12:30
I agree with Lessig on most of his general points. I think he brings up an extremely important argument that the positions that the extremes of copyright and content creation are taking is not the answer. I think young people should recognize the importance of copyright and understand why it exists. With that being said I think it is alarming for sites such as youtube to automatically take content down just because it has copyrighted content in it. I think content deserves to be first examined before it is taken down. I agree with Leggig's point that many in the creation of tradition media and content have always been hesitant to not having absolute control over what people are able to do with the content that they produce. I understand the position of artists, tv stations and film companies who want to vigorously defend how people see and use their content. I think it is important to pay for the content people see, while also pushing the industry to being a little less restrictive. I think if we can push content creators to slowly become comfortable with the idea that people can use their content, for example for non-commercial purposes than that would be in the best interest of the survival of their industry. I think given the technological capabilities of software today companies can either realize that they can lead the way and find a new way to make money or they can be left fighting for the ways things used to be. I think while the ways we access content has changed and the ability of people to manipulate that content for their own artistic/creative endeavors has changed companies, in some respect, still have a valid point in having some control over their content.
Mario Gonzalez
TTH 12:30-1:50
I agree with Lawrence Lessig. Remixing is a good thing because it allows people to make something okay into good. Make something good into great. It allows people to be creative and influences others to be creative. Remixing is okay as long as people get permission from artists to do this. If not then it is not okay. Copyright is important because people should not steal work and take it as there own work that is not right. Technology is ever changing so I believe certain laws should change over time as well.
I agree with leasing. I’m actually a DJ in Austin so we sample a lot of other artists music. Typically what we do is legal there is just a specific way to keep it legal so sometimes it is hard. Even when reducing songs we use samples of other music. Electronic music is the fastest growing genre and we feed off of each other’s creativity. Technology changes very quickly and has made huge progress in the years.
Michelle Bzoski
T TH
Degen H. TTH Class
I found that Lessig hit on some important points on the development of our modern media sharing culture. Penalties for copyright infringement are virtually non existent for the "average" person. I thought that the recreation segment he spoke on was interesting. The vast and unlimited sharing capabilities of the internet have created a grey area that our generation seems to thrive in.
Carlos C. Online Class
It's interesting watching this and seeing how Lessig predicted media sharing problems that would become much greater in modern day, especially with Youtube, Soundcloud etc... Innovativeness, creativity & breakthroughs should be the products of freedom of usage of information and freedom of bringing those informations together. The synergistic process where old and new information are freely available, used, manipulated, combined together in turn creates new innovativeness, creativity & breakthroughs. A repeating cycle that I agree with Lessig on.
Robertta P. TTH class
I agree with Lessig that artists should allow others to use their music for non-commercial use, because it inspires and allows everyday people to create. Creativity should be encouraged instead of regulated. Not only will this allow more creativity but it will allow more perspective on how people perceive art and music.
Andres Echavarria TTH 12:30
I totally agree with Lessig. I agree that we can create remixes and express ourselves. I am a DJ and create remixes and I have always been scared of getting sued for using music in my events. It is one of my biggest concerns, but I do feel that the people that are in charge right now in the government are not capable or making decisions for the young people. For example when Mark Zuckerberg was being asked questions in regards how Facebook works. They asked him how did the business made money if it was free. They were clueless that Facebook runs ads. I feel that we need more freedom when it comes to copyright. I would really look forward if they were to make the difference of using copyright material for commercialization and instead for creativity purposes. I hope one day, we figure out a different way that artists get payed what they deserve and the people gets more freedom in regards to the material.
Yessica, R. TTh class
I completely agree with Lessig. Our generation has grown up with technology which in turn makes it easier for us to create and share. We are definitely the "remix" generation. This can be clearly seen through the popularity of Soundcloud and Youtube. I don't see anything wrong with self expression, in fact I agree that creativity should be enforced because it'll create competition in turn creating more content. There's something completely different from remixing out of pure joy compared to using it for commercial use. Which reminded me of privacy law, and the class example you gave of the usage of the picture of the students at Sewell.
What I thought was kind of amusing was the fact that when he talked about the Supreme Court Case about trespassing I immediately thought about our class and it being a case that could have been covered.
I very much agree with Lessig. We create for fun and for the entertainment of others. Most content creators aren't in it for monetary reasons, but they're in it to make other people's lives more fun. We were remixing things back then and we are remixing them now. On twitter, memes get recycled with different captions, yet they still make us laugh every time. Vine audio gets replaced with music or a voiceover to make it funnier. What we're doing is taking what is already out there and making it better. Not for money, but so that others can enjoy it as much as the creator does.
Jonathon S TTH 12:30
Sherry Thorn TTh 1230
I agree with Lessig to an extent. Technology has influenced us more than anything else. Our generation is at a point where almost no content is completely new. As others have said and as Lessig pointed out, we are the "remix" generation. Lots of music has even the slightest samples of music from the past. I am conflicted when it comes to where I think the law should stand on this, though. I feel like out of respect, all artists should take into consideration what the original artists intent was with their music, and how they would feel about samples of their music being used in different ways. I feel like it's more of an ethical thing. If an artist samples just a few seconds of another song, or just a small snippet, I really don't see anything wrong with it. Now, if an artist completely takes a song and essentially copies it, and then goes onto make a considerable amount of money from it - I feel as if that is completely wrong and legal action should be taken, or the original artist should be paid or recognized in some way.
Lauren Bogard
TTH 12:30
I agree with Lessig completely. Our generation is going to be known as the "remix" generation because, like he said, it's so easy for us to take someone else's content and switch it up when we have the technology at our fingertips almost 24/7. I do believe copyright laws are in place and effective for various reasons, but I also agree that some of the creative content that is getting deleted and taken down because of infringement is sometimes better than the original. It's really getting to a point where this call is hard to make only because of the ever-expanding tech world we're living in and will continue to live in, but essentially, copyright laws, along with others, can most definitely "choke creativity".
Kendall Ward
Honors class
I really enjoyed watching Lessig’s TED talk on how our generation is “remixing” everything. I agree with Lessig, but I also think that our generation contains an incredible amount of creativity and originality as well. That being said, I think they way that creators and producers “remix” pop culture is often in respect to the original artist and can provide insightful, or just simply hilarious, commentary on the original piece of artwork. I also think that artists should be compensated for their work, but if you modify and change something to be completely different than the original content and intent of the piece then I think the original artist rarely deserves compensation for their work simply inspiring and contributing to a larger piece created by a different artist.
Post a Comment