Posts Tagged: remix

Earlier in the week, I posted a couple questions regarding Lawrence Lessig’s book, Remix. In response to those questions, I thought of the following…

1.) With “illegal” downloading still a prevalent part of our culture, I still think there is much more work to be done. What kinds of changes need to be made in the new music industry that will help structure a new system in which everyone wins? A better price model perhaps?

Legal music downloading sites like iTunes, Amazon, or even Walmart have revolutionized the music industry by offering artists online outlets for their music and giving consumers a legal and convenient place to buy music legally and on demand. However, I still think the prices could be altered. Walmart offers song downloads for 94 cents and iTunes famously charges 99 cents. However, recently many new songs are being sold for $1.29. I definitely think some of  these prices are a little steep. Considering that these downloads are intangible items with no production costs (regarding compact disks), I feel like these could be priced lower. Even 99 cents is a bit much. I know that iTunes and other download sites have to pay royalties to the record companies for the music so they obviously need to charge enough to make a profit. However, I feel like if song downloads were maybe 50 cents, more people would download music legally and it could drive people away from the illegal file-sharing sites. So it’s a matter of lowering the price for more consumer downloads and less illegal industry-killing downloads. Instead these sites are raising the prices for downloads and driving people away to cheaper (and often illegal) options.

2.) What exactly can be done to streamline and simplify the convoluted mess of copyright laws? What already has been done to adjust an outdated system for this new era of connectivity?

I don’t know a lot about law, but there need to be better copyright laws in regards to music downloading sites like iTunes. It frustrates me when I purchase a song on one computer and try to bring it to another and I’m met with resistance and obstacles thrown at me by iTunes. I understand that it is very difficult to monitor such intangible products as digital music but when I PAY for a song (or any product for that matter) I should be able to use it how I want (within reason). If I want to play it on another device this should be a simple transfer. If I want to burn it on a disk, this should be no problem. However, certain laws that cling to the post-digital past make it difficult for iTunes to allow me complete freedom. This is just one small example of why lawmakers need to take a good luck at our copyright laws and change the way ownership rights are handled. The artists and record companies have become so possessive of their creative content that it is becoming frustrating for fans who want to share and offer free promotion. I definitely think that Lessig had some great ideas about decriminalizing and deregulating to make these laws simpler. Right now, copyright law is a mess but there’s still hope. With people who think like Lessig we could have a system in which everyone wins.

I’m going to start my response this week with a discussion of “The Social Network,” the Facebook movie that was released last weekend. In my framing questions, I asked how copyright will change how future generations will consume and use media. The movie calls into question issues of fair use and intellectual property. Supposedly, Mark Zucherberg was approached by twin brothers, Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss, to create a dating site for Harvard. Mark took this idea and created Facebook, giving no credit to the guys who originally had the idea.

The question isn’t whether Mark Zucherberg’s actions were unethical, but whether the Winklevoss’ had a claim to Facebook. NO. They did not. You cannot copyright an idea! They brought it to Zucherberg and he put his own twist on it and coded and created the most influential social networking tool of a generation. In relating “The Social Network” to Lessig’s Remix, I am reminded of our discussion about respect for laws. Although Zucherberg didn’t break the law, our culture has promoted a system that encourages the sharing and taking of ideas to create content and technology.

I also asked about how we can revamp the copyright system in a way that is beneficial to both the creators and the users. The answer is that I don’t know if we can. As a student, I am all for fair use and information existing in the public domain. As an artist, I am more adept to believe that we should protect the creators of content. It’s a double edged sword. I don’t necessarily think we should decriminalize file sharing and copyright as Lessig suggests. We should just improve the system by making what is protected and what isn’t a little looser. The best comparison I can give is that to the “war on drugs.” Yes, heroin and crack cocaine should be illegal. But marijuana probably shouldn’t be illegal. Likewise, taking part of a book and reselling it as your own work should be illegal. Pulling a photo from a website and using it on your blog should not.

Case in point: the photo I used in this post. Is it copyrighted? Probably. Is Facebook going to come after me and smite me? I hope not! Do a quick search of “The Social Network movie” on Google and this image appears dozens of times. The frequency of appearance and popularity should  mean that this photo is in the public domain. Maybe I’m just not completely clear on all of the copyright laws and maybe I didn’t violate any rules by using the photo in this post– but even if I did, we need to consider that I’m using it for educational purposes to illustrate a point. That makes it fair use, right? This is what Lessig is arguing for– we need a more clear cut system to make sure that users and creators are protected. Until that time, our culture is kind of in limbo– as a student I don’t know what I can use and as a creator I don’t know what is protected. The need for revision is there; now it’s up to lawmakers and creators to take the next step and improve the system.

Institutions trying to stop digital filesharing in the 21st century are like those that tried to institute prohibtion in the 20th. They want to stop demand for a product (in this case, the ability to share digital content) that consumers are unwilling to give up. And just like folks back then were willing to break the law to have their alcohol, Gen Y and Millenials today will share files no matter what.

Lessig worries about the tension between this new generation of digital pirates and the institutions that seek to control the online seas. But if prohibition is any indication, his concern is overblown. Institutions cannot take away products  consumers  believe they should have, especially if cultural memory is long enough to remember when the same institutions offered it before. Theoretically,  ‘Working Joes’ would not accept that in 1919, they could drink beer, but in 1921, suddenly they could not. The history of being able to buy a drink was too firmly established. Drinking alcohol felt like a ‘right’, even if it really wasn’t. The same is true with file sharing. Americans generally believe that once you buy something, it is yours to do with however you like. The fact that the ‘something’ is now digital, and doesn’t degrade no matter how many times you duplicate it, and can now be easily shared with millions? If the average Joe could copy analogue music on a cassette tape and share it with his friend in 1986, he or she feels the same way about digital music in 2010.

When prohibition made alcohol illegal, bootlegging and underground smuggling still provided the service anyway. What the mob did for alcohol, places like The Pirate Bay will do for filesharing. And in the end, downloading will still continue. So instead of trying to stigmatize a  practice they cannot stop, movie studios and record labels should adjust and act like the government in the ’30’s – acknowledge that this practice won’t go away, tax it and draw revenue that way.

Our age of political protesters do so silently and nonviolently and daily…from their computers.

This is what our radicals have become!

As Lessig suggested, youth today work within a different framework than the print media of our parents’ youth, and laws should be adjusted to flex and mold with the technology. Out of a fear that no creative work could be protected came a legal system that casts out a net wide enough to actually impede innovative creation. It’s time for the law to grow up…

1. Are there any aspects of current copyright law that should stay in place to protect work in the digital age?

2. How can we differentiate between amateur and professional in regard to making laws applicable to one group or the other?

3. How will we make these changes? Does it need to start with a grassroots movement? The youth themselves? Could it start with the government?

It’s refreshing to hear the sensibility of Lawrence Lessig coming to the rescue in a world gone mad with copyright lawsuits and intellectual property fiascos. While reading Lessig’s book, Remix, I thought about the following questions:

1.) The music industry is a classic example of what can happen to corporate giants when they stubbornly cling to the outdated copyright rules of the past. As Lessig mentions, sites, like iTunes, have found ways to balance access and control, and be equally attractive to creators and consumers. However, with “illegal” downloading still a prevalent part of our culture, I still think there is much work to be done. What kinds of changes need to be made in the new music industry that will help structure a new system in which everyone wins? A better price model perhaps?

2.) Lessig says that the copyright system needs to be simplified. If a child is expected to comply with copyright law, they should be able to understand it. I’ve taken classes in media law but I often still find myself baffled by the ins and outs of copyright law. What exactly can be done to streamline and simplify the convoluted mess of copyright laws? What already has been done to adjust an outdated system for this new era of connectivity?

1. Lessig is explicit about the need to revamp the copyright system in this country in order to win the “copyright war”. What can we do in order to protect creators and protect users of copyrighted material?

2. How does the remix culture affect the way that we view copyright and fair use? Does using images/audio/text/video from other sources and combining them together in a new way create a case for fair use?

3. What are the ways in which the copyright war will change how future generations consume and use media? Will the punishments enforced on copyright offenders hinder creativity? Or will loosening the rules have an effect people’s desire to create in the first place?