Week 3 Seminar: Copyright, Creativity & The Creative Commons August 5, 2008
Posted by Tama in Seminar.trackback
This week please read these items:
[X] Lawrence Lessig, “Preface”, Introduction”, “Piracy”, “Conclusion” and “Afterward” from Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity. New York: Penguin Press, 2004, pp. xiii-xvi, 1-79, & 257-306. (The link will open the entire book as a PDF, but you’re only required to read the page span indicated. Of course, you’re welcome to read it all if you have time! The full book is in the library is you prefer to read hardcopy.)
[X] Sam Howard-Spink, "Grey Tuesday, Online Cultural Activism and the Mash-up of Music and Politics." First Monday 9.10, 2004.
And please listen to this presentation:
[X] Lawrence Lessig, ‘Final Free Culture Lecture’, Stanford University, 31 January 2008. (53 minutes, video file)
Last week Henry Jenkins and J.D. Lasica gave us some grounding in the way that cultural interaction and production have changed in recent years, especially in the context of digital media. Building upon these ideas, this week we’re turning to the work of Lawrence Lessig who has been called, among many other things, the Elvis of cyberspace law! Lessig is a passionate crusader for a legal system which reinforces and encourages creativity, rather than locking creativity down (which is what the MPAA [Motion Picture Association of America] and RIAA [Recording Industry of America Association] and their anti-piracy rhetoric platform are doing in Lessig’s view). In the excerpts from Free Culture that you’re reading, pay particular attention to the way culture has changed in terms of ownership and in terms of what that entails for creativity and cultural production. I’d encourage you to also explore the websites of the Creative Commons organisation, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Lawrence Lessig’s own website. Lessig’s book is a great read, so if you have time you may want to dip into some of the other chapters, too. You’re also reading an article by Sam Howard-Spink which explores the cultural reaction to ‘The Grey Album’, and the reaction when copyright holders tried to remove the album from circulation. (If you’re interested, you can download the Grey Album using bittorent via links here, or watch the Grey Video – a music video featuring one of the remixes from the Grey Album.)
When reading, keep these questions in mind:
[1] How does the rhetoric of ‘piracy’ work in the debate(s) surrounding digital cultural production and creativity?
[2] How has copyright as an idea evolved over time? (Think about the politics behind the way copyright works.)
[3] How have large corporations and copyright holders reacted to new media forms and new media technologies in the past two decades?
[4] What does ‘Grey Tuesday’ tell you about the way individuals react to the current copyright system? How representative do you think this attitude towards copyright is amongst young people today?
[5] What does an organisation like the Creative Commons hope to achieve in terms of copyright and creativity?
[Image Credit: ‘culture is not a crime’ by Dawn Endico CC BY]
Create a free edublog to get your own comment avatar (and more!)
Hi everyone. In relation to our discussion yesterday about the extent to which copyright should be enforced, I started thinking about the spoken word. When we write essays and reports and so forth we reference to acknowledge copyright, but what about speeches and interviews and the like? Have people been called to account for not acknowledging sources? What do you think?
Hi Anna! it is really better to acknowledge someone when we quote excerpts from a speech of that famous person, because it will give more credibility on our stance by sighting an idea or presenting a reference using those speeches or interviews. Copyright should be implemented in a case-to-case basis, this issue is so varied that it would be difficult to police. It’s like how the world is perceived as black and white.
I see your point Anna but I think that speeches and interviews are acknowledged copyright right?
If you give an interview it is the journalist’s job to respect the rules an the code of conduct only to write and printe what the interviewed person has actually said and stated. Then if anyone wish to make a reference to the article or the television report (or what ever communication channel the interview is being pupliced through) they will have to make a reference to the journalist and his work. Right?
Or did I misunderstand.
In Denmark there has just been a case where a female singer gave a speech about a political issue. Month later a political party made a commercial using the phrase that the female singer had used in her speech. The female singer won the case but there was a big debate about whether the singer had the rights to that pharse just because she used it in her speech.
I dont think it would have been an issue at all if the singer had written it in an colum for a news paper or but it in one of her songs even. So yes Anna I see your point:)
Okie…about the ‘technicalities’ of copyright per se, I suppose it differs between countries and the limits to which the legislation allows (particularly to the ‘fair use’ sections).
From where I was from (Singapore), we do have a ‘Copyright Act’ (Chapter 63) that deals with copyright issues. In particular, section 28 states that “…copyright shall continue to subsist until the expiration of 70 years after the expiration of the calendar year in which the author of the work died…” Which means that the protection lasts till 70 years from the DATE OF DEATH. More relevant is section 35 on the copying for ‘educational use’, which states that “dealing with a literary, dramatic or musical work…by way of the copying, for the purposes of research or study…of not more than a reasonable portion of the work or adaptation…shall be taken to be a fair dealing”. In addition, as a common law-based legal system, the courts (by way of judicial precedent) do make decisions on what can or cannot be done.
*pardon for the legal content*
Well, I’m all for copyright protection (be it creative commons or the typical ‘all rights reserved’ types) as I view ‘protection’ as a separate entity from ‘enforcement’. I’d like to protect my works, but I may not enforce (or make people pay) my rights all the time. I guess it’s about control of where the work goes/lands up.
On a separate (and lighter) note, did presidential ‘hopeful’ Mr John McCain infringe copyright laws when he reportedly used an image of socialite Paris Hilton in one of his campaign ‘commercials’?
Okie…about the ‘technicalities’ of copyright per se, I suppose it differs between countries and the limits to which the legislation allows (particularly to the ‘fair use’ sections).
From where I was from (Singapore), we do have a ‘Copyright Act’ (Chapter 63) that deals with copyright issues. In particular, section 28 states that “…copyright shall continue to subsist until the expiration of 70 years after the expiration of the calendar year in which the author of the work died…” Which means that the protection lasts till 70 years from the DATE OF DEATH. More relevant is section 35 on the copying for ‘educational use’, which states that “dealing with a literary, dramatic or musical work…by way of the copying, for the purposes of research or study…of not more than a reasonable portion of the work or adaptation…shall be taken to be a fair dealing”. In addition, as a common law-based legal system, the courts (by way of judicial precedent) do make decisions on what can or cannot be done.
*pardon for the legal content*
Well, I’m all for copyright protection (be it creative commons or the typical ‘all rights reserved’ types) as I view ‘protection’ as a separate entity from ‘enforcement’. I’d like to protect my works, but I may not enforce (or make people pay) my rights all the time. I guess it’s about control of where the work goes/lands up.
On a separate (and lighter) note, did presidential ‘hopeful’ Mr John McCain infringe copyright laws when he reportedly used an image of socialite Paris Hilton in one of his campaign ‘commercials’?
HI guys! I would like to share my idea about Anna’s post. When we write essays or articles pertaining to our own ideas and arguments it is more credible if we sight some excerpts from speeches or interviews of influential persons. The implementation of the copyright law varies from country to country, thus obviously it would be very hard to internationally police it.
With the Paris Hilton issue as raised by Alvin, she has her own answer to McCain’s campaign, as i quote her ” If I will be President, I’ll paint the White House pink.”
Hi everyone, I like to respond to Anna’s post about interviews and speeches. Generally, people are not asked to account for acknowledging sources. But like what Benedikte said about journalists, it’s part of their jobs to report acurately and respect whatever copyright laws there is to observe. As for public speeches, it is appropriate for speakers to state that they are quoting someone when they use certain phrases. This like using citations in essays has similar effects.
Now I like to touch on copyrights issues which has to do with large corporations and copyright holders. I think that it quite unfair that the authors or creators themselves do not have the rights but had to submit themselves to those large corporations or copyright holders once they produce or create something (Reading on Free Culture). And the way in which these corporations and copyright holders reacted to new media forms and technologies is to set limits and impose law so that the public do not have open access to certain properties. They have in fact created a barrier to those intellectual properties becoming part of human culture in the process.
And as for ‘Grey Tuesday’, it is an outcry or act of protest to the current copyright system. It is also taking apart that which is familiar and patching it into something new. It is a form of creativity. From the rising popularity of mash-ups, it is representative of the attitudes young people have towards copyright issues.
I agree that American copyright rules are too controlling and as we spoke about in class a milder version would be better… that was my opinion anyway. I do believe though that copyright is very important and I don’t believe in the “all or nothing” theory at all.
The main reason is that I think people who come up with a new concept or new invention should get credit for that and they should be given a chance to develop their new idea.
If we did not have copyright, big corporations would just take the new concept or new invention and copy it. The bigger corporations have a financial advantage and are already organized as an organization they are given a head start that the small inventor will never mach.
I understand that the American copyright rules are in the big corporations favor and that they benefit heaps more than the small inventors but I don’t see how els the small inventors are given a chance.
Hi guys..
When I saw the video of Lessig lecture, I’m interesting to his statement (that he quoted from American constitution) that said the original idea behind the copyright policy is to promote the progress of sciences. Just like other monopoly policy that only applied to serve the progress. In the light of this idea, I think protection is just one aspect of the copyright, not the main objective. What we see from the practice in the industry now, copyright is not about promoting the progress anymore, but it is all about protection and control of the creative work. Just like extension the term of the copyright cannot be saying to promote progress.
Seeing the reality this way, can we say that the practice of the copyright policy nowadays is “misleading”?
What’s your opinion…?
Rouli,
I would say that the principles of ‘copyright’ has been exploited by some (who have the influence and power of knowledge).
Nevertheless, the concept started off with all positive intentions.
Hi everyone, the copyright itself is an immense problem , and it brings us a marathon discussion indeed.
According to Annas’ point. when we write an essay or our assignments, we always cite the celebrities’ opinions which make our essays become much powerful and believable. So we always reference to thank copyright. one one hand, when we do that, we respect other people working findings. On the other hand, we also hope that the copyright will protect our own harding study.
However, when it comes to interview and dialogues, in people minds, it is not copytight resposibility.
So I reckon that it should be the difference ORALITY AND LITERACY.
copyright protects the literacy because we can clearly see them and we can keep them for ever. furthermore, the copyright can avoid literacy property embedding in competition. converse, it is totally differernt for Orality. orality is always forgot by the copyright
Yes, I like to agree that the copyright concept started off with good intentions. But alas it had been abused by those who had an interest or will lose interest if those ‘rights’ were not protected.
So in the end those who have power or legal authorities have a greater say in the matter. Indirectly this led to a limit in creavity or the effort to promote creativity.
Thank you.
Hi guys, maybe we suddenly realized a phenomena which is our lives got lots and lots rules to follow. It is not easy to listen the music that we crazy for; maye when we enjoy reand one amzing book we can be invader for it; or maybe we want to make fun with our friends but we are defending someone else’ rights. How can we response to this kind of problems? How they come up in a split moment? The answer is “Copyright”, it seems like everyone knows the word, knows what this specific word mean , but not every single person know how powerful the “Copyright” is! So the copyright is pernetrating in all the details of the modern world.It does not includes the pysical stuff, for example ,books , cd ….but also the sprite things, ie one creative sentence…..we are so easy to invade the rights holders , but we can not escape form the mess situations. The basic reason for it is copyright is everywhere , it can belongs to anyone at anytime. As Anna said the interviews things , even one speech can be a kind of right for the speaker, it can be a private thing and can not be used by other person without permission. Why is the copyright so powerful? I think because it can make profits for someone or corporations. i would like to KFC as example , maybe we have no chance to know the original intention of the inventer, and maybe this guy will never know how he was creative to invent this brand.But the brand has popular in all the world, it become the common sence for people. One thing is obvious , the brand is unique!!!!! The right holders get billion and billion and so on money from it. But no one can recreate it before. As we know ,we can get a conclusion which is “Copyright equal to Profits” in most situation! Because of the money machine , our life have got into a confused situation?.How can we make the copyright more gentle and more useful for common people ? How can we make our life more easy and more free?
Life in this world is run by people who established themselves to make a conglomerate, big businesses, corporations and establishments actually have the control of an economy in any democratic and capitalist nation. Thus, the copyright’s main purpose is to protect profit, control competition and most of all suppresses the imitations or the similar ideas that exist. These conglomerates support politicians by financing their campaigns and when successful as voted by the people these politicians in return process the interests of these conglomerates for their benefits. It would be a very long story if we try to discuss the pros and cons of the copyright and for my opinion this is applicable on a case to case basis, depending on the economic situation of a certain country, whether a trade agreement exists with the mighty USA or the local law itself is too relax or non-existent against piracy.
I like Alvin’s distinction between ‘protection’ and ‘enforcement’ of copyright and I think it’s relevant to ramfelsean’s comment above. I agree, multi-national corporations use copyright to protect profits and control competition, but more often than not it’s for their ‘protection’ by using the threat of ‘enforcement’. At what point is it worthwhile for the corporation to pursue the copyright offender?
From all the comment so far, I get the sense that most of us have some kind of “objection” to the practice of copyright policy nowadays (but I’m not saying objection to the copyright law itself). Just wondering, maybe that‘s the opinion of most of people (media users) generally. I think, moving from all right reserved to some right reserved is the better alternative right now. But have you guys find the weakness of the some right reserved idea that make us have to stick to all right reserved? (at least from the media users’ point of view)