Week 6: Response

Lessig makes many points in Remix that would peak interesting discussions, but two issues he raises that I would like to reflex further on are:

1.Lessig compares the Remix of digital media to quoting other writings in a critical essay, but it is really the same thing?

2. Lessig warns that since copyright law criminalizes copyright violation instead of prohibits it, that our children are comfortable with breaking the law in terms of copyright, and will therefore become numb to breaking other laws as well.

1. Lessig equates remixing digital media to quoting other writings in a critical essay or other text. But It is not the same thing. In my research paper for this class I may pull from thirty sources to compile my work/creation. But each time I cite another source, I will mark it with a footnote, and at the end of my paper there will be a bibliography giving full credit to each source.

That can’t be done for a song or other such digital media (yet). For the Brazilian producer featured in Good Copy, Bad Copy, he doesn’t credit Gnarls Barkley’s song “Crazy” in any way in his remixed song of the piece. He uses aspects of the original song to augment his new song, like I pull from other sources in my paper to help make my argument, but unlike a writer, the music producer does not credit the originator in anyway. No where in the remixed song does a voice fade in over the bass track saying “lyrics and melody from Gnarls Barkley’s “Crazy,” from the album St. Elsewhere, copyright 2006.”

Lessig overlooks a major difference when he compares remixing digital media to citing other sources in another writing. Remixing digital media is taking without giving proper credit or any kind of indication that part of this compilation includes someone else’s work. Citing another source in a paper legitimately references someone else’s work and in no way indicates that the ideas expressed solely belong to the present author.

If some kind of system could be instituted that allows for proper citation for remixed digital works, then the comparison might be more legitimate. I support Lessig’s desire for the two to be the same, but more work has to be done on protocol (like so many things in the copyright realm) before that happens.

2. I think that Lessig is being a little bit over-dramatic when he warns that children who do not think breaking copyright law is wrong will soon grow to think that breaking other laws is not wrong as well. Those who copy CDs will not become assimilated to think that it’s okay to break into a bank as well. But I do think the ethics of breaking copyright law need to be considered. Where is the line drawn?

Personally, I don’t think that sharing song files with a friend is a bad thing, as long as the share-ee supports the artist in some other way if they become a fan of the shared music. However, I think it’s wrong to illegally download movies and choose not to participate in that form of copyright violation whatsoever. Why do I think one is right and one is wrong? How has this copyright war morphed my ethics into being okay with some copyright violation but not all? How people’s viewpoints of copyright violation have evolved over the past ten-twelve years is a very interesting topic, and may provide insight into how to reform the current laws.

Whoever brought up prohibition as an example in class today was right: making the laws tighter will only increase the activity. What copyright law needs is a big makeover. Yet with other aspects of the U.S. government needing a makeover as well, aspects that take precedence over intellectual property (like health care), copyright reform might take a little longer than Lessig would like.

Tags: response