Lawrence Lessig: Laws that Choke Creativity
Reading Responses
I watched a TED talk by Lawrence Lessig, a lawyer and legal activist. Who according to his TED bio has “already transformed intellectual-property law with his Creative Commons innovation. Now he’s focused on an even bigger problem: The US’ broken political system.” This TED talk was very interesting because not only was it about legal issues, but it was related to generational issues that are now directly related to how law, specifically copy right law is affected and changing.
Lessig told three stories that ultimately lead to his main point in his discussion. His argument of the need to revive creativity in culture today and what he means by that.
The first story is based off of John Phillip Sousa’s response to the “talking Machines”. Sousa did not like these machines. He felt like they took away the humanity in a way. According to Lessig, Sousa’s fear was that we would loose the capacity of “culture”. He said we would have the opposite of “Read Write” culture, and it would be transformed into a “Read Only” culture. A fantastic quote is “Culture where creativity was consumed but the consumer is not a creator.” This quote spoke to me because it resonates with my creative side. Which happens to be the side I think I am most inclined with. It reminds me that there are so many people that do not create anymore they just buy something someone else made. Society as a whole, not just on a digital side has lost its need to do for itself, but to take the easy way. Sousa called these talking machines, “infernal machines”. And it was with these “infernal machines” that our culture began to use technology to cut physical corners.
The second story is about property and property law. Back in the day, before 1945, property rights stated that the property was all the land below and sky above. After 1945, that law was called into question, why? Airplanes. The concept of trespassing is when you enter property that is that yours to enter or private property. Well with the old property laws this meant that all and any planes that would fly over that land was then trespassing on private property. How would you be able to fly across the country let alone fly to another country? In true American fashion, the story starts with two farmers, Thomas Lee and Tinie Causby. They complained because their chickens followed the fight pattern of the airplanes, and would fly into the barn walls. They tried to tell the Lord at the time that the planes must stop flying. But the Supreme Court, decided the Causby’s plea was wrong. That trespass law should be for the land not the skies. He introduced the idea that the farmers were just not using common sense. That clearly if the world is to advance, we need to have laws that allow us too.
And lastly Lessig talks about Broadcasting and how it affects culture. That is it something that needs to be controlled as a new way to spread content. ASCAP, the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers is an American not-for-profit performance-rights organization that protects its member’s musical copyrights. They were the leading the entity that controlled performance rights. Being in control of a large amount of media they showed their power and control through raising the rates by 448 percent between 1931 and 1939. However in 1939, broadcasters decided enough was enough and with the help of lawyer Sydney Kaye. Kaye opened Broadcast Music Inc., otherwise known as BMI. They were “much more democratic in the art” and they even included African American music, and even offered free music by putting it in the public domain. So in 1940 when ASCAP wanted to double their prices, most broadcasters just switched to BMI. This eventually broke the legal control over the first rate music that ASCAP was withholding because the people were fine with the free music because it was free, and ASCAP was essentially forced to release the music.
Lessig uses these three stories to argue that the internet is that next threat to culture, like the talking machines, the airplanes, and broadcasting in a sense. Although unlike the talking machine, the internet has the ability to revive the read- write culture that Sousa had wanted. He thinks of the internet as a way for several forms of user-generated content to be spread, and celebrated. He uses as example of how kids taking music and remixing it today is the like the modern version of kids singing a mix of songs. Lessig shows several example of what he means by remixing, or adapting — changing something from its original form and making it into something new. He also accurately states that this in not new technology, but that is has in fact been around for over 50 years, however now, anyone who has access to a decent computer has the capability to remix something and to take someone’s content and change it to say something else.
However, just like in the the anecdotes previously spoken about, Lessig claims that the law is not addressed this new found creativity with much COMMON SENSE. The way that copyright law is currently drafted can be used to say that this form of creativity is illegal. He points out that although copyright law is quite literally saying that you cannot COPY someone else’s content. However in the digital world, almost everything you do produces a copy. Therefore, all those digital activities need permission and without that permission they are “trespassing”. Lessig says that in this digital case, unlike in the past cases, common sense has not yet prevailed. Instead of a conclusion, according to Lessig, there is extremism on both sides.
One side drastically fighting to protect original content and copyright, while other side is fighting against the restrictions that copyright law brings. Lessig says that both of these extremes are wrong. And I am inclined to agree. As a creative enthusiast, I like what copyright stands for. I would not want someone to take credit for the work that I create. However, on the other side of that, I know it can be extremely fun and intriguing to transform original content to create something amazing. Many graphic designers work with others content and it is a part of the job. Even though typically in that line for business you have to be really careful to get permission so that there is no chance of getting sued. However it would be nice if I did not have to worry on that all the time.
Lessig’s first plan was to go to the government to try to solve this conflict between the two extremes. He said that that plan failed, for a few reasons. Lessig suggests that a private solution may be the answer. Similar to the BMI anecdote, the competition can reach a level of balance. Although we no longer have the public domain, so Lessig suggests two types of changes.
One: Artists and creators have to agree and work with the idea, making their work more available, but not for commercial use. And Two: for the businesses that drive the industry to embrace the idea. Then the content can grow together, on a level playing field. He feels that the Artists choice is key to changing this conflict for the better. Adapting the copyright laws so that they can help all involved equally with all the new developments in the digital industry. You can tell someone not to do something, but you cannot force them not to do it: to better the future of our KIDS- according to Lessig.
To me, his main point is that law, like copyright law in this case needs to adapt with time and technology. It can’t just stay the same and expect to work fairly and justly. It is going to take more than just the government. It is up to everyone to make a difference and to point out the challenges that need to be faced. From his stories, you can see that this battle is not new, but that it just changes based off the latest “threat” or issue being faced or law being challenged. The never-ending battle between new and traditional. And I have a feeling this is only going to get worse given that the amount of technological inventions seem to be growing, not diminishing. With all the new developing cultures, creativity can be lost or encouraged, but it seems to all depend on the people involved. Will our kids be able to understand this or is history bound to repeat itself. Is a creative, culture or communication and growth in our future? Is this something that would be worth teaching in future or is going to become a way of life?
The main story of the TED talk was to discuss the latest issues of copyright and the digital world. But I couldn’t help but focus on the bigger picture.
