Lessig's "In Defense of Piracy" 218
chromakey writes "The Wall Street Journal is running an essay from Lawrence Lessig about the fair use of copyrighted material on the Internet. He makes the case that companies who go to extreme lengths to squash minor videos, such as Universal, are stifling creativity in the modern era. Lessig makes specific reference to a YouTube video that was hit by a DMCA takedown notice, in which a 13-month-old child is dancing to a nearly inaudible soundtrack of Prince's 'Let's Go Crazy.' Lawrence Lessig is a board member for the Electronic Frontier Foundation."
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
People in Rebellion (Score:4, Interesting)
It has come to the point in America that many people are in some form of rebellion. Copyright issues are but a small edge of the issues that surround us. But as things now stand in the social justice arena piracy of intellectual property is not something I'm willing to get all excited about.Perhaps when our lazy government gets off of its backside and does something about the exploitation of our citizens by outrageous fuel and power prices and mortgages designed by Satan then i'll worry about whether somebody hummed a tune he heard on the radio without permission of a record company.
Re:Lessig still defends copyright (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Copyright is a means, not an end (Score:4, Interesting)
"Copyright is constitutional only if it promotes the progress of science and useful arts."
Though I agree with you on this matter, SCOTUS does not -- and (*sigh) SCOTUS is the final arbiter of what is constitutional.
In the holdings of Eldred versus Ashcroft, it was made clear that copyright is presumed consitutional if it is for a non-infinite amount of time and preserves the distinction between idea and expression.
The idiotic copyright laws that now exist and will soon exist are subject to challenges, just not *constitutional ones.
Re:Why should everything bring a profit? (Score:3, Interesting)
By separating production and publishing, we can get out of the situation whereby "back catalogues" can be made arbitrarily unavailable (producers would need to have their entire catalogue available in order to maximise profit in this model). Also, we would avoid the whole "media-shifting" mystery: company x supplies content y on media z - so if customer wants a copy on media w, company v (on inspection of media w for integrity or maybe on checking customer's license on company x's database) should be able to supply a copy on media w at cost (or close).
There is no way to set the price of Art "fairly" (Score:1, Interesting)
. . . because the benefit of having it has not been measured.
Who is to say if a song or film is really worth £8 to view? Does that bring more than £8 worth of benefit to the listener - if not then that's a rip off.
Now you can decide to just not go but since all cinemas charge the same, there is an all or nothing choice: either see film X or see nothing.
Piracy adds another option and puts pressure on media companies to provide more value.
Since there is no other way to pressure Media companies, I think it's probably having an excellent effect.
If someone (e.g. Apple with iTunes) can find a way to provide better value it will make piracy less attractive.
Copyright is a commodity (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Copyright is a means, not an end (Score:3, Interesting)
One problem is that the copyright industry has been very successful at equating copyright and property in the public mind. Many people now believe that the right to control the use of everything we create is an inherent human right that has existed since the dawn of time, and that copyright laws merely codified this right. In their view copyright infringement is the moral equivalent of snatching a little old lady's purse. It's hard to have a reasonable discussion of Fair Use when the copyright industry gets to cast itself as the little old lady.
Re:Sell unlimited use by context to individuals (Score:3, Interesting)
That isn't entirely true
Re:Why should everything bring a profit? (Score:4, Interesting)
He had been droning along about "value," comparing the Marxist theory with the orthodox "use" theory. Mr. Dubois had said, "Of course, the Marxian definition of value is ridiculous. All the work one cares to add will not turn a mud pie into an apple tart; it remains a mud pie, value zero. By corollary, unskillful work can easily subtract value; an untalented cook can turn wholesome dough and fresh green apples, valuable already, into an inedible mess, value zero. Conversely, a great chef can fashion of those same materials a confection of greater value than a commonplace apple tart, with no more effort than an ordinary cook uses to prepare an ordinary sweet.
"These kitchen illustrations demolish the Marxian theory of value -- the fallacy from which the entire magnificent fraud of communism derives -- and to illustrate the truth of the common-sense definition as measured in terms of use."
Dubois had waved his stump at us. "Nevertheless -- wake up, back there! -- nevertheless the disheveled old mystic of Das Kapital, turgid, tortured, confused, and neurotic, unscientific, illogical, this pompous fraud Karl Marx, nevertheless had a glimmering of a very important truth. If he had possessed an analytical mind, he might have formulated the first adequate definition of value . . . and this planet might have been saved endless grief.
" 'Value' has no meaning other than in relation to living beings. The value of a thing is always relative to a particular person, is completely personal and different in quantity for each living human -- 'market value' is a fiction, merely a rough guess at the average of personal values, all of which must be quantitatively different or trade would be impossible."
"This very personal relationship, 'value,' has two factors for a human being: first, what he can do with a thing, its use to him . . . and second, what he must do to get it, its cost to him. There is an old song which asserts that 'the best things in life are free.' Not true! Utterly false! This was the tragic fallacy which brought on the decadence and collapse of the democracies of the twentieth century; those noble experiments failed because the people had been led to believe that they could simply vote for whatever they wanted . . . and get it, without toil, without sweat, without tears.
"Nothing of value is free. Even the breath of life is purchased at birth only through gasping effort and pain."
Republicans need to go for copyright reform. (Score:3, Interesting)
Alright, this election is a lost cause but a core item in the new Republican Party that must emerge is a more open stance on copyrights. Democrats and liberals are in bed with copyrights because, well, the copyright is the life blood of the liberal - books, movies, etc, all require copyrights to succeed, and Republicans should be more willing to go after this jugular by removing the artificial laws that ensnare the very masses the Democrats claim to love.
If Democrats can do windfall profits taxes and penalty taxes on Republican economic interests ranging from petroleum to corn, then it only makes sense to shorten copyright to ten years and wave all civil penalties for infringement against anyone who, to borrow a page from Obama, makes under $250,000 a year.
If, after all, America's middle class is so strapped, then, why should we be forcing them to pay for something that they are perfectly capable of copying for free? If Madonna wants to be a Democrat, she can die by their economics.