how creativity is being Strangled by the law

[u b k]

given all the recent debates over piracy, copying, free-art commerce-art, etc., i offer up what i believe is an EXTRAORDINARY perspective.

it never occurred to me how much more is at stake than simple protection of copyrights (which is, imo, a good thing). our culture has changed in ways i haven't fully processed, but that our children have assumed as a baseline, and this fact is significant.

the law is equally oblivious to the greater cultural implications of imposing old notions of content on the new generation of technology and its users.

maybe you'll agree, maybe not. but you'll probably see things a little differently. it's an excellent presentation regardless.


TED | Talks | Larry Lessig: How creativity is being strangled by the law (video)


gregoire
del
ubk
.

[Clueless]

...even if you end up disagreeing with him. I believe he's one of the most important voices in creative culture today.

[The Byre]

Brilliant - just watch it!

[jbuzz]

lessig ideas are very interesting. I can recommend his book on the subject too.
Amazon.com: Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity: Books: Lawrence Lessig

was definitly an eye opener for me. Since reading im dragged more and more to the idea of leaving GEMA (German ASCAP) and releasing everything under creative common license, which is lessigs project too.

Creative Commons

[Sui_City]

UBK,

Thanks for sharing that. He has a poweful and beautifully worded argument. One i agree with almost wholeheartedly.

[big country]

good stuff

the illusion of people living against the law and not hurting any one
can not be good for common thought '

[pbell]

Man this is great stuff! It really opened my eyes to looking at things from new angles. I do have a question which I must raise.

People use youtube.com as a means for distributing their "amateur" works. Now if my song is on these amateur works, I agree its no worries to me. But, youtube.com makes money off of the advertising on their website, people advertise on youtube.com because people are viewing the material. My works have now been made part of the viewing material - should I be compensated as a profit is being made?

Personally I figure if its amateur, I probably don't need to be, but if people are putting up music videos of something that has been done by an artist then some compensation might be required. This is probably a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo for lawyers to figure out, but an interesting question nonetheless.

Sorry if I kind of hijacked the thread, just my first reaction.

[Sui_City]

Originally Posted by big country

good stuff

the illusion of people living against the law and not hurting any one
can not be good for common thought '

If i understand you correctly, I have a counter argument and that is:

Not all laws are necessarily correct.

Some laws have been chosen as a result of popular opinion but might not be appropriate for all.

that's the thing that bums me out. There are people who are inherently good, yet choose to be somehow otherwise, to no harm to anyone else. And should they be found to be otherwise, then they are tried and convicted.

[Sui_City]

Originally Posted by pbell

Man this is great stuff! It really opened my eyes to looking at things from new angles. I do have a question which I must raise.

People use youtube.com as a means for distributing their "amateur" works. Now if my song is on these amateur works, I agree its no worries to me. But, youtube.com makes money off of the advertising on their website, people advertise on youtube.com because people are viewing the material. My works have now been made part of the viewing material - should I be compensated as a profit is being made?

Personally I figure if its amateur, I probably don't need to be, but if people are putting up music videos of something that has been done by an artist then some compensation might be required. This is probably a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo for lawyers to figure out, but an interesting question nonetheless.

Sorry if I kind of hijacked the thread, just my first reaction.

I believe that there are certain things that should be free.

Not only free, but free of corruption.

Youtube should be one of those things in my books. Or another service like it. A communal place for sharing. Free of advertisements. Where we can communicate without fear of some guerilla marketing campaign by some corporate. It is a way of getting things out there and allowing other people to find it.

[pbell]

Originally Posted by Sui_City

I believe that there are certain things that should be free.

Not only free, but free of corruption.

Youtube should be one of those things in my books. Or another service like it. A communal place for sharing. Free of advertisements. Where we can communicate without fear of some guerilla marketing campaign by some corporate. It is a way of getting things out there and allowing other people to find it.

I agree, a communal place free for creative experimentation without the worry or hassle of corporate bother. But such a thing would be expensive, and advertising helps with that kind of stuff I guess. I just don't get why it always has to be so intrusive. Youtube really isn't that bad in my opinion, infact there is hardly any advertising on it. I don't mind a little as long as it doesn't interfere with my enjoyment of what I am viewing. If I had to look at advertisements every time I had to listen to music I'd go crazy. Thats why I tape my favorite tv shows, to go through the commercials (and I'm in commercial work - guess I'm a little Hippocratic)

[videoteque]

People add like 40.000 videos per day to YouTube. I think they must buy ships full of hard disks to keep with it. Not to talk about traffic expenses...

[3rd world order]

**** the law.. do whatever you want.

laws are for children who cant think for themselves.

to clarify, cuz i know the angry mob is gonna come after me, copyright laws only matter if you're making money and "damages" are only a share (or all) of the profits.

if you dont give a **** about making money then no one can touch you...

[lord_bunny]

Thank you very much for sharing that.

[yeloocproducer]

Originally Posted by 3rd world order

**** the law.. do whatever you want.

laws are for children who cant think for themselves.

to clarify, cuz i know the angry mob is gonna come after me, copyright laws only matter if you're making money and "damages" are only a share (or all) of the profits.

if you dont give a **** about making money then no one can touch you...

Yeah, no anger here but your first two sentances are definitely an example of the extremism/ one sided thinking he talks about later in the vid. Also, he addresses the fact that there are policies in place that take down content that has "fair use" snippets in it, which refutes your last point as well. Some very cool art statements are currently being silenced b/c of current copyright law. Maybe watch the whole thing? It's worth checking out.

[3rd world order]

Originally Posted by yeloocproducer

Yeah, no anger here but your first two sentances are definitely an example of the extremism/ one sided thinking he talks about later in the vid. Also, he addresses the fact that there are policies in place that take down content that has "fair use" snippets in it, which refutes your last point as well. Some very cool art statements are currently being silenced b/c of current copyright law. Maybe watch the whole thing? It's worth checking out.

all that legal stuff takes time, money, effort... which is why bit torrent will never die.

if they shut you down in one location then you just pop up in another... with a re-direct thru amsterdam.

eventually they get tired of chasing because it's ultimately futile.

if you dont care about money then there's nothing they can do.

if you want extremism i advocate dissolving all corporations and returning human responsibility to the marketplace... until then anarchy.

going after the lil guys is stupid... the problem comes from the top of the pyramid, not the bottom. i have no problem with ppl stealing from corporations.. they're all corrupt anyhow. amerika is the most corrupt nation on earth, take what you can get i suppose.

the corporation must be abolished before any real change happens... if you wanna focus your anger and resolve on something there it is.

[pbell]

Originally Posted by 3rd world order

all that legal stuff takes time, money, effort... which is why bit torrent will never die.

if they shut you down in one location then you just pop up in another... with a re-direct thru amsterdam.

eventually they get tired of chasing because it's ultimately futile.

if you dont care about money then there's nothing they can do.

if you want extremism i advocate dissolving all corporations and returning human responsibility to the marketplace... until then anarchy.

going after the lil guys is stupid... the problem comes from the top of the pyramid, not the bottom. i have no problem with ppl stealing from corporations.. they're all corrupt anyhow. amerika is the most corrupt nation on earth, take what you can get i suppose.

the corporation must be abolished before any real change happens... if you wanna focus your anger and resolve on something there it is.

Hmmm, I don't usually like getting into these debates, especially on forums, but I feel I have spent to much time silent on issues like this. I don't know where you are coming from, but I will never understand the hatred towards corporations. Sure, there are some that are less honorable than others, but I can say that about anything whether its a large corporation or a small mom and pop operation. Hollywood just seemed to love bashing the corporations and it trickled down into daily lives. Why do people always hate it when someone makes a buck and becomes successful? Sorry for the thread Hijack.

Back to topic, he makes some excellent points, things to be thoroughly considered.

[vodka gimli]

Anarchy?

Hmmmm.

How's their dental plan?

[EstateMatt]

Ted is the greatest website ever. it actually replaced about 70 percent of my TV watching.

[3rd world order]

Originally Posted by pbell

Hmmm, I don't usually like getting into these debates, especially on forums, but I feel I have spent to much time silent on issues like this. I don't know where you are coming from, but I will never understand the hatred towards corporations. Sure, there are some that are less honorable than others, but I can say that about anything whether its a large corporation or a small mom and pop operation. Hollywood just seemed to love bashing the corporations and it trickled down into daily lives. Why do people always hate it when someone makes a buck and becomes successful? Sorry for the thread Hijack.

corporations are totalitarian in nature and have the sole responsibility of making a profit by any means necessary. they have no responsibility to the public, to workers, or to the environment...

if you want to educate yourself i'd suggest The Corporation, which is made in Canada

The Corporation Film: Welcome

Canadians are under a lot less pressure then US south of the border because you have a national health care system and welfare for the poor which works reasonably well.

in the US it's survival of the fattest.

[EstateMatt]

Originally Posted by pbell

Hmmm, I don't usually like getting into these debates, especially on forums, but I feel I have spent to much time silent on issues like this. I don't know where you are coming from, but I will never understand the hatred towards corporations. Sure, there are some that are less honorable than others, but I can say that about anything whether its a large corporation or a small mom and pop operation. Hollywood just seemed to love bashing the corporations and it trickled down into daily lives. Why do people always hate it when someone makes a buck and becomes successful? Sorry for the thread Hijack.

Back to topic, he makes some excellent points, things to be thoroughly considered.

I think its pretty simple. in communism, infrastructure (how people get goods and services) is provided by the government and bureaucracy makes it unaccountable and inefficient.
in our country, rather than make our infrastructure one with our government, we simply give large corporations the task of providing infrastructure. Our system,creates a game for businesses to play and hopefully evolve. evolution needs very few rules. we give businesses so few rules in our country, that the larger ones wield power over the government itself rather than play the peoples game


So in the end the truth is that the largest businesses in America play the part of government under the guise of competing entities. that is what this video is about. instead of an accountable government elected by the people protecting culture, self interested unappointed businesses play the part of cultural gate keepers.

[jindrich]

what a TERRIBLE use of Keynote (apple's presentation software).

does this guy come from microsoft? because that's how a microsoft ex-employee would use the new adquired toys (a macbook pro and keynote): totally wrong.


what's the point of oversturating attendants displaying on screen at such an unbearable speed the same exact words he's pronouncing? what does THAT bring to make his speech more understandable?
what a bad use of the media, and getting the concept totally wrong. the screen should be used to ENHANCE the message, in ways spoken words CANNOT.

Or was he trying to be cool turning his speech into a hip videoclip? well, here are the bad news Mr, : Bod Dylan did it already, like 30 years ago.



In the end i think this guy's argumentation was only made to help HIMSELF (and his lack of skills), so he could steal some other people's work (like he did), to give his BAD presentations (stealing images and clips).

hope he wasn't paid for that one.



from 1 to 10, I give him a 0.


BTW, if you wanna know how to use presentation software PROPERLY and BRILLIANTLY, watch el Jobso in his Keynote in just a few days.

[drBill]

Blah, blah, blah.

I'm not going to get in a pissing match on this thread,, but this is the BS voice of liberal "new age" thinking. Call me old school, call me stupid, call me what ever, but I make my living with copyrights. Being able to own a home and eat and drive a car is kind of important to me. I kind of take it personally when someone like this tells me that I'm doing something "wrong" to hurt "the kids" because I want to profit off my creative works.

This viewpoint is total BS, and more than just a casual step towards socialism. I'll give you that Lessig is a visionary and a very smart guy, but I'm not buying his conclusions or the method in which he twists things to make his point. There's tons of laws I don't like, and I make a conscious decision not to break them cause I don't like lawyers, incarceration and court.

I agree that something needs to change, that the "model" is broken, but throwing out the idea of 'copyright" is like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Yeah, you'll get lots of kids and creativity, but much of the great art will never be created cause the artist (music, painting, software, whatever) will not be able to make a living doing it.

So......as for the strangulation of creativity? I think not.

I'll stick with the current model - thanks.

bp

[pbell]

Originally Posted by drBill

Blah, blah, blah.

I'm not going to get in a pissing match on this thread,, but this is the BS voice of liberal "new age" thinking. Call me old school, call me stupid, call me what ever, but I make my living with copyrights. Being able to own a home and eat and drive a car is kind of important to me. I kind of take it personally when someone like this tells me that I'm doing something "wrong" to hurt "the kids" because I want to profit off my creative works.

This viewpoint is total BS, and more than just a casual step towards socialism. I'll give you that Lessig is a visionary and a very smart guy, but I'm not buying his conclusions or the method in which he twists things to make his point. There's tons of laws I don't like, and I make a conscious decision not to break them cause I don't like lawyers, incarceration and court.

I agree that something needs to change, that the "model" is broken, but throwing out the idea of 'copyright" is like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Yeah, you'll get lots of kids and creativity, but much of the great art will never be created cause the artist (music, painting, software, whatever) will not be able to make a living doing it.

So......as for the strangulation of creativity? I think not.

I'll stick with the current model - thanks.

bp

But didn't he say he wasn't against copyright. What he is saying is that for amateur use just let it be so to speak. Don't attack some kid because he made a video for his girlfriend with the song "Lovesong" on it and posted it on youtube.com without the rights to the song - like he could afford them. Don't get me wrong I'm all for copyright, I support it and I believe that people should pay for music, but the question he is raising is "Should we be going after amateur works" such as many things found on youtube.com or tablatures on the internet.

[drBill]

Originally Posted by pbell

But didn't he say he wasn't against copyright. What he is saying is that for amateur use just let it be so to speak. Don't attack some kid because he made a video for his girlfriend with the song "Lovesong" on it and posted it on youtube.com without the rights to the song - like he could afford them. Don't get me wrong I'm all for copyright, I support it and I believe that people should pay for music, but the question he is raising is "Should we be going after amateur works" such as many things found on youtube.com or tablatures on the internet.

youtube is making HUGE, HUGE money. Let them share the wealth. Or.....ban copyrighted material. Pretty simple. Oh, and don't use my car without asking either.

Take away ownership of creative works and you strike a critical (and IMO lethal) blow to creativity in this country and the world.....

Can't you see it? Creativity on a high end artistic level is already taking a huge dive due to the "democratization" that he speaks of. "Creativity" on a low end junky level is thriving like crazy. That's all well and good and OK with me, but there needs to be some sort of value for those who create "copyrighted" works. My guess is that if one of the "kids" who create content off the back of others went big and started making huge money, they would be yelling the loudest about people stealing their works. (Witness Hip Hop and "sampling" of records)

Now....back to creating my COPYRIGHTED works so that I can afford my high speed internet connection so that I can surf Gearslutz next week....and the week after.

bp

[EstateMatt]

Originally Posted by drBill

yCreativity on a high end artistic level is already taking a huge dive due to the "democratization" that he speaks of. "Creativity" on a low end junky level is thriving like crazy.

what exactly do you categorize as high end and junky? because I'm pretty sure I'll disagree with you.

[Clueless]

Originally Posted by drBill

I agree that something needs to change, that the "model" is broken, but throwing out the idea of 'copyright" is like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Yeah, you'll get lots of kids and creativity, but much of the great art will never be created cause the artist (music, painting, software, whatever) will not be able to make a living doing it.

So......as for the strangulation of creativity? I think not.

I'll stick with the current model - thanks.

bp

drBill, I think you mistake Lessig's argument, which is not about the abandonment of copyright, but it's proper, constitutional application. What if we lived in a world whereby the law of the land states: if you breathe a molecule of air that was inspired by Caesar, you must give 10% of your income to Caesar as a proper restitution to his once-great authority. We can do the math and see that there is a 98% chance that every breath we take contains at least one molecule of air previously inspired by Caesar. Thus everybody in the world would owe Caesar's estate a tax, and that tax would amount to about $6.7T USD per year (based on a world-wide GDP of $67T USD).

What bothers Lessig is that the claim and extent of copyright has become so limitless that virtually nothing that contains any cultural reference is safe from paying the copyright tax. And what, today, is free from cultural reference? Not my shoes. Not my shirts. Not my car. Not my silverware. Not even my toilet paper. Consider that there's an entire industry in Hollywood to design and build tables, chairs, and all sorts of other mundane items just to make those articles free of copyright claims for a given movie! If I cannot not make a 15 minute video in my own home and have it cleared for national release by Hollywood because the molecules of copyright are everywhere in my house, is the fault with me and buying commercial off-the-shelf stuff, or is the fault with a copyright system that was designed to cover creative works for a limited period, and through an ever expanding definition of creativity and increasingly long durations?

The problem with folks posting random videos on Youtube is the tip of the iceberg. Lessig is not saying we should be able to steal music or that we should devalue music in any way. What he is saying is that when a trace of music is identifiable at the molecular level, and when a single molecule is able to outweigh the entire "other" of the creative work, there's a problem.