 |
| Image from film GoodCopyBadCopy.net |
I found the discussion of copyright a
fascinating study of culture. The philosophy that people would be
discouraged to create if they could not make a profit on their
creations. The film showed this not to be the case. If Nigeria is
producing double the number of films that the USA does then high
profit does not seem to be a reasonable explanation for the need for copyright. (Ref. 1) Copyright seems to
me to be more an issue of power and control than a way to encourage
creative endeavors. From the readings it seems most of the people who have an issue with the
copyright laws are those want to be creative but who are stifled
because they cannot use what they are exposed to in a an inventive
way to make something completely new. Interestingly, corporations
exaggerate the “damage” done by copyright infringement in order to
get the government to assist them in making higher profits.(Ref. 2).
What makes it such a norm that making a profit is more important than
other social priorities? I understand this is the norm in a
capitalistic society but where does it end? For example, should
anyone really be making a profit on illness? Our governmental
policies support it. While other countries march in the streets for
more social benefits, we have people marching to support the super
wealthy. The films make it abundantly clear that you need to watch
your step or big brother may get you. I understand the concept of
getting permission but it is a difficult process. I was most
disturbed by the idea of copyrighting dance. Some things are meant to
be shared. These laws seem like an undue burden on both creativity
and our court system. I understand wanting to protect individuals in the short term but lifetime +70 yrs. for individuals and 100 years for corporations may be excessive. I imagine the laws will only become more restrictive over time. If Fairchild had enforced the right to semiconductor technology, the internet and personal computers would not exist. Because they allowed the technology to be exploited beyond their now shut doors, the world was changed.
I agree with Larry Lessig (Ref. 3) that making what young people create and share naturally criminal is an unhealthy response to today's realities. Shepard Fairey had little option when he used the photo from the Associated Press because getting permission was unlikely and "fair use" can only be decided on a "case by case" basis. The interview on NPR (Ref. 4) shows that even the original photographer, Manny Garcia, had to wage a legal battle to determine who owned the rights to the original image, him or the AP. The only true hope for the landslide of re-mix, mash-ups, and the like is that it is so prevalent that there is not enough funds to fight the legal battles needed to stop it. The real question is in the end who will control our ability to share and create as a collective culture?
I agree with Larry Lessig (Ref. 3) that making what young people create and share naturally criminal is an unhealthy response to today's realities. Shepard Fairey had little option when he used the photo from the Associated Press because getting permission was unlikely and "fair use" can only be decided on a "case by case" basis. The interview on NPR (Ref. 4) shows that even the original photographer, Manny Garcia, had to wage a legal battle to determine who owned the rights to the original image, him or the AP. The only true hope for the landslide of re-mix, mash-ups, and the like is that it is so prevalent that there is not enough funds to fight the legal battles needed to stop it. The real question is in the end who will control our ability to share and create as a collective culture?
References:
3. TED Talk video: ReMix Culture by Larry Lessig, retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/187 on 01/14/2011
4. Shepard Fairey: Inspiration Or Infringement? NPR Fresh Air interview, retrieved from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101182453 on 02/27/2009
4. Shepard Fairey: Inspiration Or Infringement? NPR Fresh Air interview, retrieved from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101182453 on 02/27/2009
Lori,
ReplyDeleteI hear the passion in your blogging. I agree that creativity should play a role in this. I think that people may view the same concept but display it differently and this should be allowed. I think that is where fair use is involved. You can use a little of someone else's idea before you are penalized. With the increase in technology and the use of various forms of technology, I think that some of the copyright laws may have to be revisited.
Great summary of the issues. No one denies that content creators need to be compensated for their efforts. The little white lie is that the only way for this to happen is for media corporations to have a huge profit, of which only a tiny bit makes its way to the precious content creators coffers. Thus the battle is over business models not compensating content creators. Grrrh.
ReplyDelete