"The consequence of this massive threat of liability tied to the murky boundaries of copyright law is that innovators who want to innovate in this space can safely innovate only if they have the sign-off from last generation's dominant industries. That Lesson has been taught through a series of cases that were designed and executed to teach venture capitalists a lesson." page 189.
"We pride ourselves on our 'free society,' but an endless array of ordinary behavior is regulated within our society. And as a result, a huge proportion of Americans regularly violate at least some law." pg 201
As I am assuming Lessig is a lawyer (has been mentioned before in class), many of his claims, such as the one above, are asserted with the use of court cases as support. While I find this material to be incredibly dry, it makes a good argument, especially for someone who knows anything about the history around modern technologies.
In reference to the above (and possibly other) quotes was a case vaguely mentioned by my brother about the RIAA; suing an individual who stole 35 songs for thousands of dollars is not meant to protect the original creator of the work, as Lessig would argue. The case was made against that individual to make an example and restrict rights of those without power. In many, including my own view, I will argue, 35 songs is very little for the average citizen (especially in the younger internet savvy demographic), and thus suits like this both are enraging and frightening. If such a high price had to be paid for 35, how much more could any one of us suffer if targeted?
"The first question should be whether this particular prohibition is really necessary in order to achieve the proper ends that copyright law serves." pg 202
"The point is the definition of 'illegal.' The law is a mess of uncertainty. We have no good way to know how it should apply to new technologies." pg 192
In fact, the last section we were required to read for class, Lessig goes over the frustration of trying to make congress repeal initial laws(?) currently in perpetual motion by Congress. Copyright is, in summary, something available in abundance to the wealthy, but barely under protection by the individual with little money and/or (arguably the same thing) power. "Congress knows that copyright owners will be willing to pay a great deal of money to see their copyright terms extended. And so Congress is quite happy to keep this gravy train going" pg 216. This refusal to allow re-use of images with such intense regulation and punishment clearly stifles innovation, if not LEGAL innovation. As Lessig points out in a summarized, and repeated, phrase, "The inefficiency of the law is an embarrassment to our tradition" pg 192, and "If innovation is constantly checked by this uncertain and unlimited liability, we will have much less vibrant innovation and much less creativity" pg 192.
The case that Lessig and his other colleagues lost in the last portion of our reading was somewhat disappointing and I assume it was much more so to Lessig. His immediate response to try to find where reasoning did not factor in value systems, as he had mentioned, did not do anything to convince the judges of what they thought was right. For when persuading someone, appeals to the audience must speak directly to what THEY want to hear. It is unfortunately more rare that someone will listen to what is right, just, logical, well supported, or ethical over what they want to hear.
Disney and other copyright extending companies tend to steal from the public domain.
Owners vs. producers, "the power of money" pg 231
No comments:
Post a Comment