That is why the idea of LIMITED copyright is so important. The idea of copyright is
“beneficial … to authors and inventors, … [and beneficial] to the public, as it
will promote the progress of science and the useful arts, and admit the people at
large, after a short interval, to the full possession and enjoyment of
all writings and inventions without restraint" (Lessig 5).
This means that all can benefit from the ideas of a few. Yet, limited copyright, as explained in the article, has become less limited through the Internet (Lessig 11). The commons, the idea of public domain, has been forgotten as a way of spreading and expanding knowledge (Lessig 5). Corporations, such as Hollywood, are so concerned with holding on to their own property that they don't think about the ways that this property could be expanded or improved. Of course, there is certainly the problem of people taking credit for others' inventions and creations. But, if we remember learning about the Scientific Revolution in junior high and high school, recall that the commons is important for innovation -- only through studying the notes and observations of previous scientists were new scientists able to build off of old theories and improve them. In Wu's book also, we saw how copyright laws prevented the evolution of all sorts of technologies. Copyright allows one group to hold onto its success, but it detracts from the formation of ideas for the future.
Do I agree with Lessig's assessment of our future? I'm not sure -- do you? I guess it seems fair to ask permission to use someone else's media, but is Internet control going too far in this direction? I'm not sure that I agree that the Internet should be an open space, but at the same time I don't want to see it become fully closed off. It is hard to find a balance between what is "fair" to one and what is "fair" to all. I'm definitely still figuring this all out.
I agree with Lessing ‘s idea that creativity is motivated by free culture, free software and free spectrum. In book the Master Switch, patents not only restrained the development of disruptive technology, but also gave these firms who had patents monopolistic powers. In today’s cyberspace culture, the idea of net neutrality is prevailing. There are lots of hacktivists who are fighting for free software and open information. In my project three, I also mentioned the importance to keep Internet an open place. For instance, Julian Assange releases top secrets online and the Cult of the Dead Cow group programs TorPark free software for secure communication purpose. At the same time, open code also serves as a movement for democracy and freedom. All Internet users can share information freely without paying any fees or asking for permissions.
ReplyDeleteI believe that a lot of creativity has to do with the extent of freedom a person has, and that getting wrapped up in intellectual property and ownership is a hindrance to creativity. A lot is lost when a person must work within a set of guidelines it will always effect their product. Having to adhere to copyright law does protect creators from others stealing the benefits of their ideas, but it could mean losing potential outcomes, because they have to be careful not to have too similar ideas.
ReplyDeleteHaving the Internet be ultimately open and free for all definitely will have its advantages. So far, the Internet has allowed many people to share their thoughts, opinions and artistic creations and has allowed people to receive an incredible amount of free information that would have otherwise cost them to receive. This is great; having a free flow of information allows for a more educated and knowledgable public. However, my concern lies on the fact that having everything on the Internet be free might lead to less reliable information. If there is no one getting paid to publish and create, there are less incentives to get the job well done, which results in a lack of accuracy and quality of information.
ReplyDeleteI'm really happy to pay to get the fifth season of Mad Men, given that 16 episodes on a DVD for less than $20 seems like a great bargain. I want to reward AMC and Matthew Weiner, the brain behind the show, for several months' worth of excellent and brainy entertainment. For the same reason, I'll go to the theater and pay full price to view Paramount's Star Trek: Into Darkness in December.
ReplyDeleteI don't steal others' property. What Lessig does not have time to cover in a talk, and what vexes me, that that under the DMCA the lengths of copyright get extended many decades. That means that one cannot find older work. In 40 years, Mad Men won't be popular, but what happens to the person who wants to see it then? If DVDs are no longer around, and the show is not archived online (like all of television in OASIS for Wade) what can be done?
It's very dangerous when copyright holders keep content locked down for decades and decades, and then cannot find a profitable reason to release it in new formats.
We all suffer as a result. I'd set copyright to 25 years and then let anyone share software, film, music. But I'm a dreamer, like Jefferson.
I'm really happy to pay to get the fifth season of Mad Men, given that 16 episodes on a DVD for less than $20 seems like a great bargain. I want to reward AMC and Matthew Weiner, the brain behind the show, for several months' worth of excellent and brainy entertainment. For the same reason, I'll go to the theater and pay full price to view Paramount's Star Trek: Into Darkness in December.
ReplyDeleteI don't steal others' property. What Lessig does not have time to cover in a talk, and what vexes me, that that under the DMCA the lengths of copyright get extended many decades. That means that one cannot find older work. In 40 years, Mad Men won't be popular, but what happens to the person who wants to see it then? If DVDs are no longer around, and the show is not archived online (like all of television in OASIS for Wade) what can be done?
It's very dangerous when copyright holders keep content locked down for decades and decades, and then cannot find a profitable reason to release it in new formats.
We all suffer as a result. I'd set copyright to 25 years and then let anyone share software, film, music. But I'm a dreamer, like Jefferson.
I'm really happy to pay to get the fifth season of Mad Men, given that 16 episodes on a DVD for less than $20 seems like a great bargain. I want to reward AMC and Matthew Weiner, the brain behind the show, for several months' worth of excellent and brainy entertainment. For the same reason, I'll go to the theater and pay full price to view Paramount's Star Trek: Into Darkness in December.
ReplyDeleteI don't steal others' property. What Lessig does not have time to cover in a talk, and what vexes me, that that under the DMCA the lengths of copyright get extended many decades. That means that one cannot find older work. In 40 years, Mad Men won't be popular, but what happens to the person who wants to see it then? If DVDs are no longer around, and the show is not archived online (like all of television in OASIS for Wade) what can be done?
It's very dangerous when copyright holders keep content locked down for decades and decades, and then cannot find a profitable reason to release it in new formats.
We all suffer as a result. I'd set copyright to 25 years and then let anyone share software, film, music. But I'm a dreamer, like Jefferson.
It is important for people to exchange ideas. The internet is a vessel through which people can share information like never before. Giving credit is important as it is the motivation for the work that is done. At the same time who decides just what that credit should be? IF people did not get credit why would anyone ever make movie or TV show? Copyright holders have the choice to share their work for free. At the same time they deny some people access to information. While, the content belongs to them I am not sure if they are the best judge of what they deserve. The needs of users should also be taken into account.
ReplyDeleteI understand that creators should receive credit for what they produce, but it is annoying to have pay for music, movies, etc. If only we could find a balance: make sure that these inventors and artists are compensated, but allow the consumers to have more freedom to explore the Internet. I definitely agree that it will be hard to find a solution that would be fair for an individual and fair for everyone. Will we ever find a solution?
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, we definitely need a mix of control and freedom on the Internet. I personally believe that if there were absolutely no rules or laws, copyright included, that Internet use will naturally flow to how it should be used (a nice combination). It's more of an economic theory but I think it is one that will work. For me, the openness of internet worries me based solely on the content that would be made public. When there are no rules anything can be done, including such things as child pornography. I believe that in a "free internet", self imposed ethical laws will come into play and no Internet regulation would be necessary. I believe that through a "free internet" laws will be made but they are laws that can change with society. How feasible this idea is, I'm not sure. It would definitely be a process and would take time to initially set (everyone would have to go crazy for a little while), and it could get shut down in such a trial period, but I do believe a mixture of control and freedom is needed.
ReplyDeleteTo me, creating an original idea should be treated the same as creating an original invention. I think of them in the same way because they require the same level of intelligence and creative thinking. I this respect, I think that current copyright laws have gotten ridiculous. I agree that we need a mix of control and freedom, and we can't have that with the rules we currently have in place. If we have such strict regulations online I think we are giving these companies holding the rights too much power. It's good when things roll over into the public domain. Not only do they allow for competition, but they allow for a wealth of creative derivative works. Imagine all the Star Wars works that will happen when the series finally reaches the public domain.
ReplyDelete