The article “Free Culture: The Nature And Future Of Creativity” by Lawrence Lessig highlights the evolution of copyrights and creativity protection in the world as we witness it today. It discusses different cases and scenarios differentiating lawful applications of copyright infringement and then discusses the importance of software technology in introducing and enforcing such the copyright laws. As a computer engineering major, I took pride in reading through the recognition that the article gives to software technologies. I am aware of the technical working of technical ideas that sounded trivial to me, but the interesting fact about this discussion was how technology is now being evaluated on day to day basis to maximize financial gains. In the Adobe e-book illustration, the lawsuit will be proportional to the number of control parameters that are hacked. Therefore, to me it was a great reading as it highlighted the power of technology in assimilation and enforcing the copyright law.
Lawrence Lessig's "Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity" brings up interesting points on how copyright law either protects the creators or restricts its users, depending on which way it is looked at. I largely agree on Lessig's statements about the unnecessary control that code has in the Adobe eBook Reader example he presented. Many times I've ran into software programs that had been paid for and owned to have been limited to how many times it is downloaded or whether it can be moved from one computer to another. Frequently this happens without full disclosure of the permissions of the program. Why should something that I own be also limited and controlled by someone or something other than me? I'd have to say that copyright laws like DMCA has been increasingly aimless and do less to protect the creative products of people. It also inhibits the creativity of the general public. In terms of film this could mean the inability to create spin-offs or parodies of a certain piece, or being restricted from skewing an existing video in order to create a new thoughtful work. Overall I believe copyright laws have their uses but the limitations on end users ultimately loses out on stimulating creativity.
Since I've browsed the online art community for several years, the copyright issue that was discussed in Lawrence Sessig's Free Culture is not exactly something that is new to me, though I admit that I have not really delved deeply into the dilemma.
The Internet is such subjective territory that it makes everything difficult to control, but the issue of copyright and ownership is especially difficult. While I understand the reasoning behind the limitations of such things as eBooks, I still find it a little strange to be restricted to the number of times one can print out or copy.
Although it's reinforced for the sake of protecting an artist's right, such limitations make the entire situation a little absurd. I doubt the copyright movement will ever reach a stage in which everyone will be happy, but then again, there isn't anything out there that makes everyone happy. Until the Internet territory is better understood, I think it will be something that will be continually pondered and argued over.
This article delves into the issue of just how far does copyright law encompass. Lessig argues that before the internet became the widely used phenomenon it is now, copyright was less about defining what you can and cannot do and more focused with what you have permission to do. Even if one lacks permission, one may still perform the action, albeit risking the possibility of getting caught and charged with a crime. Because of technological advancements, however, the Internet changes all of the precedent concepts of copyright. Whenever something is accessed on the Web, a new copy is created. The focus of copyright law is now to prevent the user from using the copy in certain ways rather than preventing the copy from creation in the first place. Programmers place copyright protection into the data being accessed, limiting the number of times a book may be copied to the computer's clipboard, for example. In this way, it is no longer simply a matter of should or should not; it is now a matter of can or cannot.
The Internet is a hard thing to tame. Copyright protections can be bypassed by skilled hackers. Because of this, fair use can no longer be used as an excuse for certain uses of the data. Copyright control should be just as encompassing until the point where fair use can be reasonably argued in favor of. Some restrictions are ridiculous and unreasonable, such as how certain eBooks deny the use of a read-aloud program. This is a denial of accessibility of the product to those with reading disorders and is a violation of fair use. Nonetheless, these restrictions exist, and one can only hope that someday, this precedent will be challenged and overruled in court.
It is interesting to read how the advancement and accessability of new technology (especially the internet and other digital technologies) has changed the way we determine copyright. But "changed" may not be a good word; perhaps translated. When the copyright laws were translated over to the internet, the control over the uses of the product was in control by those who created the code behind the device used to experience the product. With digital technology, now every action by the user can be documented and limited. This limits the amount of choices the user can interact with the product. The code enforces the copyright laws. The user doesn't have a choice whether or not he breaks these laws; the code already limits that choice. This limit of choice is big step from the previous method of copyright enforcement. I think the jump from free use of product after purchase to controlled use of product after purchase is a mistake, because it allows for the control over the use of the product in areas where there may not be copyright laws present. This would include how many times one can read it. I know that others can copyright the information if they allowed complete access, but wouldn't copyright laws further down the line of possible uses (reselling product as someone's own for example) be enforced if betrayed? We shouldn't limit the use of a product that is our own possesion.
As I read through Lawrence Lessig's essay, I realized that there are so many laws regarding copyright as well as loopholes. Lessig focuses on what can be considered a copy of a certain piece, whether it be books,movies, etc. What interested me the most about the article was the example of the robotic dog Aibo. The website made for teaching the robotic dog new tricks, which I didn't think was harmless. After all, the consumer is the one who purchased the dog, therefore, he or she can decided what it wants to teach it. However, after reading the article, I realized that the people who made the website were actually hacking the product. I learned that this was a violation of copyright. Lessig stresses the importance of the issues behind the world of copyright throughout this essay.
The excerpts from Free Culture by Lawrence Lessing bring up a controversial issue of copyright and fair usage. He states how before the internet, there were three circles in which copyright fell into. There was unregulated, regulated, and fair use, and these unspoken regulations were untouched and were doing perfectly well for everyone before the internet. But then with the rise of technology and circumvention devices, copyright code takes over the old unspoken copyright law. Lessing explains how the meshing of the unregulated and regulated uses gives an abuse of control after the first-buy doctrine. With a regular print book, the first-buy rule is set in place. We have unregulated uses for the print book, and the publishers can’t do anything. With the internet, every view of ebooks and other online sources makes a “copy.” Reading a print book several times and reading an ebook are completely different because of the laws placed upon them. The main reason I see the government standing on the side of the publisher/company is because of revenue. If the people continue to share information and items with eachother, even if it means view an item online (one view means one copy), then it would cut the amount of consumers, meaning a cut in revenue. This excerpt reminds me of the Yes Men excerpt viewed in lecture. The excerpt from Lessing states that the DMCA blames the distributors of circumvention technology. It’s puzzling because the government is blaming the manufacturer of the VCR for the illegal spread of copied taped. But if the government can place such restrictions, then what about the manufacturers of guns? It seems that money outweighs everything else, and according to the behind the scene shots with the Yes Men, it can outweigh life.
The article "Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity" by Lawrence Lessig discusses the issues revolving copyrights throughout the history of America and how it changed since the birth of the U.S. Lessig talks about how the internet age threw everything about copyrighting into a conundrum. He goes on the talk about how certain things are illegal/copyright violation online but other are not. For example, when a book on e-book allows the account holder to print 10 pages of the book every 10 days and the person does not abide by it, it is in copyright violation because that person is reproducing the book. This interestingly leads to the conflict between free-will and property control. Futhermore, Lessig discusses how "law" changed to "code" with the age of the Internet. Control over content and material will not be enforced by the courts. but by the codes programmers create and implement. This issue becomes more than just a conflict of copyright violation, but becomes an issue with the American way of life, which is primarily "free-will" and "freedom of speech". Are we really free? Are we really in control of OUR lives? In my opinion, to a limited extent.
In Lawrence Lessig’s “Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity” he discusses the changes and effects of the modern day copyright regulations. In the article, he notes the dramatic change of the internet and it’s effect on copyright regulations. Since the internet allows anyone to access information at anytime and as many times, copyright regulations have restricted viewers to a limit. This subject of copyright laws and the artist, in the era of the internet, has definitely changed the entire medium. While artists can freely distribute their work virally, it becomes harder to keep track of where it goes and how the make a living off of it hence copyright laws become vague in the internet sphere.
In this week's article"Free Culture:The Nature And Future of Creativity",the author Lawrence Lessig discussing about the power of the copyright and how its impact on the construction of idea and the freedom of the creators from his perspective.He presenting some interesting examples that exist in our reality such as the Adobe eBook Reader in order to shows different aspects of intellectual property over the software,architecture,and media .Technology spread the range of effective control,which has made creators devise and distribute primary work under the freedom.However, the technology also can damage the creativity of the creator because of its potential of over reproduction to the consumers.It is important for us to understand the way to balance the rights between the creator and consumers.
In this article by Lawrence Lessig, Free Culture, he talks about the changes throughout American history of copyright. Starting from all the way in the 1790s there really was no copyright laws or regulations. Once a book was published the owner/writer really had no control as to how their book would get sold or distributed. As time pasted, these copyright laws evolved into three categories such as: unregulated uses; reading, giving, reselling, sleeping, etc., regulated uses, and regulated uses that are nonetheless deemed "fair use" regardless of the copyright owner's views. One thing, i found very interesting is how the author pointed out the power of the market and how copyright is mainly controlled by the consumer market. Barnes and Noble could tell customers to no touch the books in their stores to preview, via property laws that protect them from doing so, however if they were to do that, customers would just move on and go to another bookstore. So basically the competition keeps all the big companies in check to not make extreme laws.
Lawrence Lessig's "Free Culture" entails the complexities behind the idea of property through "copyright". Today we revel in the complexities of such legal right. Lessig explains how copyright protects our rights as creators but limits others' (artistic) license from distorting our work into theirs. Making "copies" infringe our rights as creators. The emergence of the Internet further complicates the idea of copyright. Copyright law is actually copyright code, as Lessig argues. Behind ebooks and Youtube vids are corporations who control the distribution of such electronic resources. Creative licenses are now governed by corporations, protected by copyright "laws". I think back to all those amateur YouTube vids that have the audio removed or the vids removed entirely for "copyright infringement". Majority of these videos did not intend to plagiarize the copyrighted materials and take credit for the work, no some of these videos simply incorporate the materials into their own creative works. However, the Internet age's copyright code categorizes this as a legal infringement thus exercising its control over such issues. Technology and the internet can limit the freedom of people to create their own media. If allow the internet age to burgeon through such legalities, the internet will become another limiting form of media like the television set.
Lawrence Lessig outlines the way in which copyright law has changed since its first installment. The main idea of the excerpt from his book “Free Culture” is that Internet is the cause of all the changes. Copyright law used to have three facets, “unregulated uses, regulated uses, and regulated uses that are…’fair’” (143). The Internet has, however, melded these three facets together and copyright has been extended, essentially because everything on the Internet is a copy. The most prominent change is that now the law is enforced by an instrument rather than a person; copyright law is now “copyright code” (152). He uses many examples to demonstrate the alterations of copyright. Hacking has become interwoven into these laws. I enjoyed the excerpt, especially because I had not previously known much about the history of the copyright. Because I have grown up with the Internet, the copyright laws that accompany it have always been there. However, now that I know how it originated, I have a new perspective. The idea that we are not allowed to “read aloud” (152) certain books seems ridiculous. It was interesting to see how far it has extended.
the article brought to attention how much copyright regulations have changed throughout American history, especially with the internet. It was very interesting to read all the rules of what one is allowed to and not allowed to do with works that don't belong to them. I find the issue of lawsuits over copyright infringement very petty. All the new regulations and lawsuits only prove how greedy we are as human beings (especially in the US). I don't think so many rules would be so necessary if people were not always thinking about how to make more money. For example, the case about making a VCR illegal because of it's ability to record films. I agree with Mr. Rogers and believe that not everyone has the time or money to watch it when it's being shown, so why not tape a show to watch later? Paul Conrad cleverly captures our greedy world by showing that guns are legal, yet VCR's, which don't have the ability to kill, are not.
In this article, "Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity" by Lawrence Lessig discusses about copyright and it's contradicting issues. It talked about how ironic it is to have guns legal while the VCR is technically illegal due to copyright, even though we all know how guns are far more dangerous object than a VCR is. I think because of the many possibilities that an internet can do, it has complicated the law about copyrights, which sometimes doesn't make sense.
I don't think people should consider this to the extreme where you are restricted to do certain things, as long as your respect the owner. Copyright came to be to protect the owner/creator so as you don't make off money through someone else's invention. I think sharing it with others without being greedy and making money off of it is an okay thing to do. Such as, sharing music with someone that you bought or watching a dvd movie together with your friends that you bought. As long as you don't out money into the matter, copyright shouldn't be a problem.
To relate this article with our media class, I think it is rather a good thing to see various art works from experienced people and come up with your own ideas over that, yet I think it becomes an issue when you start to claim that same idea is yours and make money off of something that you did not work for. One way creativity derives from is by watching others' works so if copyright does not permit this, I don't think we can be as creative or come up with new ideas. More new ideas derive as you share and brainstorm your ideas with others.
First of all, there were some parts where I did not appreciate his sarcastic tone. Secondly, it is interesting how much the Internet changed the laws of copyright. On top of that, now we have technology like TiVo that allow us to record shows faster and easier than vhs recorders. Even though youtube seems to allow complete "free culture" in which you can post anything you want, they'll take down videos that have copyrighted material and take down audio if the music is copyrighted. Yet you can put up the clip in a mirrored image and it's safe. This article made me wonder what's okay and not okay. LIke, how far does the law go? What if someone had a similar idea, is that not allowed? And why are there so many remakes of movies these days? Also, how do you get permission to use material?
The development of the act for copyright is a signification of human society evolution .In the article “Free Culture”, Lawrence Lessig has introduced to us the evolution of copyright act. Today, copyright is automatically and covered in every area. People cannot use or transform others work without permission. I think the most difference of copyright act between today and 1790 is the purpose of having copyright act. In 1790, the aim of the copyright act was to regulate publishers and prevent the unfair competitions, however, there was no that many forms that works could be transform. Nowadays, there are thousands of art forms, TV shows, movies, internet, etc are created due to the fast development of technology. Any kind of forms can be business and earn money. It leads the act of copyright has to evolve, or the original works and artist won’t be satisfied.
Lawrence also clearly describes what “copy” is. I like the example he presents the act is not regulated, such like read a book, resell a book or sleep on the book. Whatever what people do with the book, it won’t be regulated by law. Only those who make a “copy” regulate the copyright law.
Internet may lead to a new evolution of copyright act. Internet is getting into people’s daily life, and it diffuse information, articles, pictures and music is also posted online which can be download easily. A “copy and paste” looks very simple which people do not realize the serious issues.
I think it is a good article for students to understand how serious of copyright and to learn quote from the book for their essays or research.
In the article Free Culture : The Nature and Future Of Creativity, written by Lawrence Lessig, discusses the evolution of "copyrights" (rights) granted by the law. In the article, he emphasizes on the dramatic change of the American copyright since 1790 to the late 1900's. The creation of copyright laws in 1790 was intended to give the "author the exclusive right to "publish" copyrighted works", and those decided to "republished the work without the copyright owner's permission" will violate the copyright. The copyright law granted the owner to have exclusive right to not only publish the work, but it also allowed the owner to "control over any copies of that work", so that no one can translate, make a movie, or duplicate without the owner's permission. In addition, even the slight modifications of the original work---also known as “derivative rights”--- is also perceive as a different wrong. Interestingly, the copyrights laws compared to present day has dramatically changed, such that even the slightest modification or uploading songs on “youtube” would be consider an infringement.
In “Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity,” by Lawrence Lessig, he talks about the evolution of copyright regulations and how the Internet has played a significant role. In the article, he claims that "the Internet should at least force us to rethink the conditions under which the law of copyright automaticcaly applies, because it is clear that the current reach of copyright was never contemplated, much less chosen, by the legislators who enacted copyright law" (140). Because information and content is so readily accessbile on the Internet, copyright regulation is not able to be enforced as strictly as it has been pre-Internet. Lawrence notes that "on the Internet, increasingly, rules are enforced not by a human but by a machine" (148). I think this week's article was very interesting, especially since it's still extremely relevant today. Copyright infringement is something that will always be an issue and it's important to find a copyright regulation system that works, even in this ever-evolving digital world that we live in.
|.=============================,| || I WILL NOT TALK IN CLASS. || || I WILL NOT TALK IN CLASS. || || I WILL NOT TALK IN CLASS. || || I .-----. OT T, || || / >< \ / || || | |/\ || || \______//\ / || || _(____) / / || || / , _ _ _/___________________|| '==\___\_) |====================' |______| | | | | |__| |__| (__) (__)
With the dawn of the information age, copyright law has become a much more powerful force in our day to day lives. As film students, we have to be especially aware of any copyrighted material we place in our videos, intentionally or unintentionally. Perhaps most commonly, a commercial piece of music used as soundtrack is seen as a violation of copyright, though potential violations can be many and subtle. Even a TV show playing in the background of a video can be constituted as a violation; people have had their videos taken off of Youtube for far less.
In his article "Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity" Lawrence Lessig shows just how controlling copyright laws have become in modern times. I found his comparision of modern to past copyright law particularly illuminating. Whereas copyright only extended to registered "maps, charts, and books" in earlier times, copyright today is automatically placed on nearly any idea expressed in a concrete form. One was free to create derivative works based on copyrighted material in those simpler times; now, the process is fraught with legal hazards.
Lessig also shows us the dangerously synergistic relationship between copyright law and modern computing. One case stands out to me is the "hacking" of the Sony aibo dog. Through its overtly restrictive software and coding, Sony has placed boundaries preventing its consumers from using the adorable pet robots to their full potential. When hackers devised a way to circumvent these boundaries to teach the robot to dance jazz, their actions were considered a violation of Sony's intellectual property. Simply put, they made it illegal to teach a (robot) dog to dance jazz style.
Why does this matter? With ever-increasing control over the distribution of copyrighted information, corporations are more able to twist copyright laws in their favor. Through software coding, they are able to eliminate lawful "fair use" of their products, restricting consumer freedoms. While some may say that this is a necessary step in eliminating piracy of copyrighted materials, when will the regulation stop? In order to reap the full benefits of the information age, information must remain largely free.
In his article, “Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity,” Lawrence Lessig discusses the issues of copyright. Originally, copyright largely applied to books, but not to music or creative ideas like it does now. As information became more accessible with the Internet, copyright regulations became stricter. The copyright laws from 1790 protected the author’s right to publish his own copyrighted work, which evolved to needing the author’s permission in order to republish his or her work (or giving “control over any copies of that work”). Now copyright owners also have control of any “derivative works” that grew from his or her work. Essentially, these copyright protects the author’s creative idea. It was interesting to see this progression of copyright regulation in Disney’s lawsuits to control all of its property; Video Pipline was not allowed to use clips of Disney’s films as a way of selling them without Disney’s permission. One interesting connection Lessig made to the internet was that Disney was able to centralize control over access to their content with the Internet because each use of the Internet produces a copy and “becomes subject to the copyrights owner’s control” (146).
In “Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity,” Lawrence Lessig talks about the change in the scope of the copyright law as well as the technology today that allows the owners to extend their effects. I really like the examples the author lists when he explains how the computer code of Adobe eBook Reader restrict people from copying, printing, and even listening to a book. "This is how code beams law. The controls built into the technology of copy and access protection become rules the violation of which is also a violation of the law." It obviously sounds absurd to everyone as well as you might be able to receive nays and threatening letters from the copyright owners by just moving a fun club online and sharing trivia every month. The article makes me start thinking more about our studying from other people's idea in our daily life. Does that consider illegal? And what direction will the scope of copyright will keep evolving towards? Assume one day, wiring a comment about an article like what we are doing right now cause us trouble, does that necessarily mean our society is highly protective of one's intelligence or it is restricting people's creativity and obstructing our society from making even a slight progress.
This article is a basic overview of how laws and regulations change according to how much the technology evolves. It was interesting to see how the copyright regulations were different from before and after the emergence of the Internet. As the internet advances, there needs to be more advanced ways to protect the copyright of creative works. As an example, codes written by programmers to protect copyrighted materials and regulate the information uploaded on to the internet. Een in youtube, when you upload a video that includes a music track that is copyrighted, immediately after the upload, they warn you that your video includes a copyrighted music track. In many cases, these videos are deleted or just the music track is muted from the video. I believe that there is a constant battle between the enforcers of copyright and the violators. There are many different ways such as P2P programs and file sharing websites that enable people to upload and share copyrighted content. As more ways emerge to get past the copyright enforcements, there will be more ways developed to regulate and enforce the copyright, and then there will be more other ways to avoid this regulation. So, for this fact, I don't believe that one is ahead of the other but there is a constant battle between the two.
The article addresses the changes in the copyright laws that now give the owner control over publishing, copying, and rights to derivative work. The author claims that the copyright laws that apply to the distribution of works over digital networks, namely the Internet, should be reviewed because the recent laws did not consider the scope of the distribution of digital media. It is interesting to consider that each download of information from the Internet is considered a copy and is therefore subject to regulation. Control over digital information is easier to track as compared to the past when information such as books and videos were distributed in hard copy. The example of Disney and Video Pipeline shows the additional control Disney had once the distribution of the trailers moved to the Internet. Additionally, owners have control over the spread of copyrighted material in the example of the Aibo hack and the Felten paper. The code the of this material became restricted under the copyright law based on controls that prevent copy and access.
Lawrence Lessig article “Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity, focuses on modern day copyright issues. Lessig especially dives into the change in copyright laws since the Internet. Prior to the dot COM boom, copyrighted material where either categorized as unregulated, regulated or simply fair use. The days when the exclusive rights were given to the author over the amount of copies made are far gone. Copyrights laws have drastically changed with advancement in technology. Enforcement of copyright laws is now in the hands of instruments. Lessig argues that everything on the Internet is essentially a copy already. I find this article very interesting because in this technological age of trendy websites and mobile applications, it seems that anything original only last for short while before it’s duplicated infinite amount of times. More people now have access to counter fit items than ever and with increasing web traffic it seems impossible to enforce any copyright laws. Am most curious to see what the future hold for the war between copyrights and piracy.
Lawrence Lessing’s book Free Culture on the evolution of copyright law presents an interesting dilemma when you consider that although he advocates for broader free use rights of works his very own book utilizes the same protections and laws he criticizes. It’s interesting to note how American copyright law has evolved to the point where every piece of information that is produced now maintains some sort of copyright and that in order for it to be absolved of this “protection” one must explicitly declare it to be of the “creative commons”. This selection reminded me of a recent conversation I had with Professor Jeremy Hight instructor of Vis 40 at UCSD. He explained that if someone had 1% of an idea they can take that 1% to court and claim the total product if they had that 1% before you did. A second point of Hight’s is also mentioned in this essay which is the intimidation factor of lawyers and the prospects of having to go to and be “tied up” in court. Even if you have a valid claim to a product or idea the threat of the expenses of litigation may be enough to have you back down. I believe however it would be worthwhile to fight for such a claim. Lessing’s point as to the extremities of the DMCA are not clear as the issue never went to court and thus the law was never tested to see if it passed muster. Therefore it is not clear whether or not these specific cases were valid or not. Another consideration is the idea that companies must defend their copyright rigorously. Aside from the concern of piracy I remember reading about a case in which a company allowed individuals to create permutations of their product but when someone created a permutation that was considered foul they sued them. The court then ruled that because the company had not enforced their copyright equally that they created a precedent upon which this specific use was allowed and therefore could not ask that person to cease and desist. I believe in a very limited scope of copyright and I deny that anyone can copyright a phrase, idea, pattern or style although I will admit that this would decrease incentive to publically produce work in the digital age as we are all beholden to the reality that we need to eat to live and like to be rewarded for our efforts.
The article “Free Culture: The Nature And Future Of Creativity” by Lawrence Lessig highlights the evolution of copyrights and creativity protection in the world as we witness it today. It discusses different cases and scenarios differentiating lawful applications of copyright infringement and then discusses the importance of software technology in introducing and enforcing such the copyright laws. As a computer engineering major, I took pride in reading through the recognition that the article gives to software technologies. I am aware of the technical working of technical ideas that sounded trivial to me, but the interesting fact about this discussion was how technology is now being evaluated on day to day basis to maximize financial gains. In the Adobe e-book illustration, the lawsuit will be proportional to the number of control parameters that are hacked. Therefore, to me it was a great reading as it highlighted the power of technology in assimilation and enforcing the copyright law.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLawrence Lessig's "Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity" brings up interesting points on how copyright law either protects the creators or restricts its users, depending on which way it is looked at. I largely agree on Lessig's statements about the unnecessary control that code has in the Adobe eBook Reader example he presented. Many times I've ran into software programs that had been paid for and owned to have been limited to how many times it is downloaded or whether it can be moved from one computer to another. Frequently this happens without full disclosure of the permissions of the program. Why should something that I own be also limited and controlled by someone or something other than me? I'd have to say that copyright laws like DMCA has been increasingly aimless and do less to protect the creative products of people. It also inhibits the creativity of the general public. In terms of film this could mean the inability to create spin-offs or parodies of a certain piece, or being restricted from skewing an existing video in order to create a new thoughtful work. Overall I believe copyright laws have their uses but the limitations on end users ultimately loses out on stimulating creativity.
ReplyDeleteSince I've browsed the online art community for several years, the copyright issue that was discussed in Lawrence Sessig's Free Culture is not exactly something that is new to me, though I admit that I have not really delved deeply into the dilemma.
ReplyDeleteThe Internet is such subjective territory that it makes everything difficult to control, but the issue of copyright and ownership is especially difficult. While I understand the reasoning behind the limitations of such things as eBooks, I still find it a little strange to be restricted to the number of times one can print out or copy.
Although it's reinforced for the sake of protecting an artist's right, such limitations make the entire situation a little absurd. I doubt the copyright movement will ever reach a stage in which everyone will be happy, but then again, there isn't anything out there that makes everyone happy. Until the Internet territory is better understood, I think it will be something that will be continually pondered and argued over.
This article delves into the issue of just how far does copyright law encompass. Lessig argues that before the internet became the widely used phenomenon it is now, copyright was less about defining what you can and cannot do and more focused with what you have permission to do. Even if one lacks permission, one may still perform the action, albeit risking the possibility of getting caught and charged with a crime. Because of technological advancements, however, the Internet changes all of the precedent concepts of copyright. Whenever something is accessed on the Web, a new copy is created. The focus of copyright law is now to prevent the user from using the copy in certain ways rather than preventing the copy from creation in the first place. Programmers place copyright protection into the data being accessed, limiting the number of times a book may be copied to the computer's clipboard, for example. In this way, it is no longer simply a matter of should or should not; it is now a matter of can or cannot.
ReplyDeleteThe Internet is a hard thing to tame. Copyright protections can be bypassed by skilled hackers. Because of this, fair use can no longer be used as an excuse for certain uses of the data. Copyright control should be just as encompassing until the point where fair use can be reasonably argued in favor of. Some restrictions are ridiculous and unreasonable, such as how certain eBooks deny the use of a read-aloud program. This is a denial of accessibility of the product to those with reading disorders and is a violation of fair use. Nonetheless, these restrictions exist, and one can only hope that someday, this precedent will be challenged and overruled in court.
It is interesting to read how the advancement and accessability of new technology (especially the internet and other digital technologies) has changed the way we determine copyright. But "changed" may not be a good word; perhaps translated. When the copyright laws were translated over to the internet, the control over the uses of the product was in control by those who created the code behind the device used to experience the product. With digital technology, now every action by the user can be documented and limited. This limits the amount of choices the user can interact with the product. The code enforces the copyright laws. The user doesn't have a choice whether or not he breaks these laws; the code already limits that choice. This limit of choice is big step from the previous method of copyright enforcement. I think the jump from free use of product after purchase to controlled use of product after purchase is a mistake, because it allows for the control over the use of the product in areas where there may not be copyright laws present. This would include how many times one can read it. I know that others can copyright the information if they allowed complete access, but wouldn't copyright laws further down the line of possible uses (reselling product as someone's own for example) be enforced if betrayed? We shouldn't limit the use of a product that is our own possesion.
ReplyDeleteAs I read through Lawrence Lessig's essay, I realized that there are so many laws regarding copyright as well as loopholes. Lessig focuses on what can be considered a copy of a certain piece, whether it be books,movies, etc. What interested me the most about the article was the example of the robotic dog Aibo. The website made for teaching the robotic dog new tricks, which I didn't think was harmless. After all, the consumer is the one who purchased the dog, therefore, he or she can decided what it wants to teach it. However, after reading the article, I realized that the people who made the website were actually hacking the product. I learned that this was a violation of copyright. Lessig stresses the importance of the issues behind the world of copyright throughout this essay.
ReplyDeleteThe excerpts from Free Culture by Lawrence Lessing bring up a controversial issue of copyright and fair usage. He states how before the internet, there were three circles in which copyright fell into. There was unregulated, regulated, and fair use, and these unspoken regulations were untouched and were doing perfectly well for everyone before the internet. But then with the rise of technology and circumvention devices, copyright code takes over the old unspoken copyright law. Lessing explains how the meshing of the unregulated and regulated uses gives an abuse of control after the first-buy doctrine. With a regular print book, the first-buy rule is set in place. We have unregulated uses for the print book, and the publishers can’t do anything. With the internet, every view of ebooks and other online sources makes a “copy.” Reading a print book several times and reading an ebook are completely different because of the laws placed upon them. The main reason I see the government standing on the side of the publisher/company is because of revenue. If the people continue to share information and items with eachother, even if it means view an item online (one view means one copy), then it would cut the amount of consumers, meaning a cut in revenue.
ReplyDeleteThis excerpt reminds me of the Yes Men excerpt viewed in lecture. The excerpt from Lessing states that the DMCA blames the distributors of circumvention technology. It’s puzzling because the government is blaming the manufacturer of the VCR for the illegal spread of copied taped. But if the government can place such restrictions, then what about the manufacturers of guns? It seems that money outweighs everything else, and according to the behind the scene shots with the Yes Men, it can outweigh life.
The article "Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity" by Lawrence Lessig discusses the issues revolving copyrights throughout the history of America and how it changed since the birth of the U.S. Lessig talks about how the internet age threw everything about copyrighting into a conundrum. He goes on the talk about how certain things are illegal/copyright violation online but other are not. For example, when a book on e-book allows the account holder to print 10 pages of the book every 10 days and the person does not abide by it, it is in copyright violation because that person is reproducing the book. This interestingly leads to the conflict between free-will and property control. Futhermore, Lessig discusses how "law" changed to "code" with the age of the Internet. Control over content and material will not be enforced by the courts. but by the codes programmers create and implement. This issue becomes more than just a conflict of copyright violation, but becomes an issue with the American way of life, which is primarily "free-will" and "freedom of speech". Are we really free? Are we really in control of OUR lives? In my opinion, to a limited extent.
ReplyDeleteIn Lawrence Lessig’s “Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity” he discusses the changes and effects of the modern day copyright regulations. In the article, he notes the dramatic change of the internet and it’s effect on copyright regulations. Since the internet allows anyone to access information at anytime and as many times, copyright regulations have restricted viewers to a limit. This subject of copyright laws and the artist, in the era of the internet, has definitely changed the entire medium. While artists can freely distribute their work virally, it becomes harder to keep track of where it goes and how the make a living off of it hence copyright laws become vague in the internet sphere.
ReplyDeleteIn this week's article"Free Culture:The Nature And Future of Creativity",the author Lawrence Lessig discussing about the power of the copyright and how its impact on the construction of idea and the freedom of the creators from his perspective.He presenting some interesting examples that exist in our reality such as the Adobe eBook Reader in order to shows different aspects of intellectual property over the software,architecture,and media .Technology spread the range of effective control,which has made creators devise and distribute primary work under the freedom.However, the technology also can damage the creativity of the creator because of its potential of over reproduction to the consumers.It is important for us to understand the way to balance the rights between the creator and consumers.
ReplyDeleteIn this article by Lawrence Lessig, Free Culture, he talks about the changes throughout American history of copyright. Starting from all the way in the 1790s there really was no copyright laws or regulations. Once a book was published the owner/writer really had no control as to how their book would get sold or distributed. As time pasted, these copyright laws evolved into three categories such as: unregulated uses; reading, giving, reselling, sleeping, etc., regulated uses, and regulated uses that are nonetheless deemed "fair use" regardless of the copyright owner's views. One thing, i found very interesting is how the author pointed out the power of the market and how copyright is mainly controlled by the consumer market. Barnes and Noble could tell customers to no touch the books in their stores to preview, via property laws that protect them from doing so, however if they were to do that, customers would just move on and go to another bookstore. So basically the competition keeps all the big companies in check to not make extreme laws.
ReplyDeleteLawrence Lessig's "Free Culture" entails the complexities behind the idea of property through "copyright". Today we revel in the complexities of such legal right. Lessig explains how copyright protects our rights as creators but limits others' (artistic) license from distorting our work into theirs. Making "copies" infringe our rights as creators. The emergence of the Internet further complicates the idea of copyright. Copyright law is actually copyright code, as Lessig argues. Behind ebooks and Youtube vids are corporations who control the distribution of such electronic resources. Creative licenses are now governed by corporations, protected by copyright "laws". I think back to all those amateur YouTube vids that have the audio removed or the vids removed entirely for "copyright infringement". Majority of these videos did not intend to plagiarize the copyrighted materials and take credit for the work, no some of these videos simply incorporate the materials into their own creative works. However, the Internet age's copyright code categorizes this as a legal infringement thus exercising its control over such issues. Technology and the internet can limit the freedom of people to create their own media. If allow the internet age to burgeon through such legalities, the internet will become another limiting form of media like the television set.
ReplyDeleteLawrence Lessig outlines the way in which copyright law has changed since its first installment. The main idea of the excerpt from his book “Free Culture” is that Internet is the cause of all the changes. Copyright law used to have three facets, “unregulated uses, regulated uses, and regulated uses that are…’fair’” (143). The Internet has, however, melded these three facets together and copyright has been extended, essentially because everything on the Internet is a copy. The most prominent change is that now the law is enforced by an instrument rather than a person; copyright law is now “copyright code” (152). He uses many examples to demonstrate the alterations of copyright. Hacking has become interwoven into these laws. I enjoyed the excerpt, especially because I had not previously known much about the history of the copyright. Because I have grown up with the Internet, the copyright laws that accompany it have always been there. However, now that I know how it originated, I have a new perspective. The idea that we are not allowed to “read aloud” (152) certain books seems ridiculous. It was interesting to see how far it has extended.
ReplyDeletethe article brought to attention how much copyright regulations have changed throughout American history, especially with the internet. It was very interesting to read all the rules of what one is allowed to and not allowed to do with works that don't belong to them. I find the issue of lawsuits over copyright infringement very petty. All the new regulations and lawsuits only prove how greedy we are as human beings (especially in the US). I don't think so many rules would be so necessary if people were not always thinking about how to make more money. For example, the case about making a VCR illegal because of it's ability to record films. I agree with Mr. Rogers and believe that not everyone has the time or money to watch it when it's being shown, so why not tape a show to watch later? Paul Conrad cleverly captures our greedy world by showing that guns are legal, yet VCR's, which don't have the ability to kill, are not.
ReplyDeleteIn this article, "Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity" by Lawrence Lessig discusses about copyright and it's contradicting issues. It talked about how ironic it is to have guns legal while the VCR is technically illegal due to copyright, even though we all know how guns are far more dangerous object than a VCR is. I think because of the many possibilities that an internet can do, it has complicated the law about copyrights, which sometimes doesn't make sense.
ReplyDeleteI don't think people should consider this to the extreme where you are restricted to do certain things, as long as your respect the owner. Copyright came to be to protect the owner/creator so as you don't make off money through someone else's invention. I think sharing it with others without being greedy and making money off of it is an okay thing to do. Such as, sharing music with someone that you bought or watching a dvd movie together with your friends that you bought. As long as you don't out money into the matter, copyright shouldn't be a problem.
To relate this article with our media class, I think it is rather a good thing to see various art works from experienced people and come up with your own ideas over that, yet I think it becomes an issue when you start to claim that same idea is yours and make money off of something that you did not work for. One way creativity derives from is by watching others' works so if copyright does not permit this, I don't think we can be as creative or come up with new ideas. More new ideas derive as you share and brainstorm your ideas with others.
First of all, there were some parts where I did not appreciate his sarcastic tone. Secondly, it is interesting how much the Internet changed the laws of copyright. On top of that, now we have technology like TiVo that allow us to record shows faster and easier than vhs recorders. Even though youtube seems to allow complete "free culture" in which you can post anything you want, they'll take down videos that have copyrighted material and take down audio if the music is copyrighted. Yet you can put up the clip in a mirrored image and it's safe. This article made me wonder what's okay and not okay. LIke, how far does the law go? What if someone had a similar idea, is that not allowed? And why are there so many remakes of movies these days? Also, how do you get permission to use material?
ReplyDeleteThe development of the act for copyright is a signification of human society evolution .In the article “Free Culture”, Lawrence Lessig has introduced to us the evolution of copyright act. Today, copyright is automatically and covered in every area. People cannot use or transform others work without permission. I think the most difference of copyright act between today and 1790 is the purpose of having copyright act. In 1790, the aim of the copyright act was to regulate publishers and prevent the unfair competitions, however, there was no that many forms that works could be transform. Nowadays, there are thousands of art forms, TV shows, movies, internet, etc are created due to the fast development of technology. Any kind of forms can be business and earn money. It leads the act of copyright has to evolve, or the original works and artist won’t be satisfied.
ReplyDeleteLawrence also clearly describes what “copy” is. I like the example he presents the act is not regulated, such like read a book, resell a book or sleep on the book. Whatever what people do with the book, it won’t be regulated by law. Only those who make a “copy” regulate the copyright law.
Internet may lead to a new evolution of copyright act. Internet is getting into people’s daily life, and it diffuse information, articles, pictures and music is also posted online which can be download easily. A “copy and paste” looks very simple which people do not realize the serious issues.
I think it is a good article for students to understand how serious of copyright and to learn quote from the book for their essays or research.
In the article Free Culture : The Nature and Future Of Creativity, written by Lawrence Lessig, discusses the evolution of "copyrights" (rights) granted by the law. In the article, he emphasizes on the dramatic change of the American copyright since 1790 to the late 1900's. The creation of copyright laws in 1790 was intended to give the "author the exclusive right to "publish" copyrighted works", and those decided to "republished the work without the copyright owner's permission" will violate the copyright. The copyright law granted the owner to have exclusive right to not only publish the work, but it also allowed the owner to "control over any copies of that work", so that no one can translate, make a movie, or duplicate without the owner's permission. In addition, even the slight modifications of the original work---also known as “derivative rights”--- is also perceive as a different wrong. Interestingly, the copyrights laws compared to present day has dramatically changed, such that even the slightest modification or uploading songs on “youtube” would be consider an infringement.
ReplyDeleteIn “Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity,” by Lawrence Lessig, he talks about the evolution of copyright regulations and how the Internet has played a significant role. In the article, he claims that "the Internet should at least force us to rethink the conditions under which the law of copyright automaticcaly applies, because it is clear that the current reach of copyright was never contemplated, much less chosen, by the legislators who enacted copyright law" (140). Because information and content is so readily accessbile on the Internet, copyright regulation is not able to be enforced as strictly as it has been pre-Internet. Lawrence notes that "on the Internet, increasingly, rules are enforced not by a human but by a machine" (148). I think this week's article was very interesting, especially since it's still extremely relevant today. Copyright infringement is something that will always be an issue and it's important to find a copyright regulation system that works, even in this ever-evolving digital world that we live in.
ReplyDelete|.=============================,|
ReplyDelete|| I WILL NOT TALK IN CLASS. ||
|| I WILL NOT TALK IN CLASS. ||
|| I WILL NOT TALK IN CLASS. ||
|| I .-----. OT T, ||
|| / >< \ / ||
|| | |/\ ||
|| \______//\ / ||
|| _(____) / / ||
|| / , _ _ _/___________________||
'==\___\_) |===================='
|______|
| | | |
|__| |__|
(__) (__)
With the dawn of the information age, copyright law has become a much more powerful force in our day to day lives. As film students, we have to be especially aware of any copyrighted material we place in our videos, intentionally or unintentionally. Perhaps most commonly, a commercial piece of music used as soundtrack is seen as a violation of copyright, though potential violations can be many and subtle. Even a TV show playing in the background of a video can be constituted as a violation; people have had their videos taken off of Youtube for far less.
ReplyDeleteIn his article "Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity" Lawrence Lessig shows just how controlling copyright laws have become in modern times. I found his comparision of modern to past copyright law particularly illuminating. Whereas copyright only extended to registered "maps, charts, and books" in earlier times, copyright today is automatically placed on nearly any idea expressed in a concrete form. One was free to create derivative works based on copyrighted material in those simpler times; now, the process is fraught with legal hazards.
Lessig also shows us the dangerously synergistic relationship between copyright law and modern computing. One case stands out to me is the "hacking" of the Sony aibo dog. Through its overtly restrictive software and coding, Sony has placed boundaries preventing its consumers from using the adorable pet robots to their full potential. When hackers devised a way to circumvent these boundaries to teach the robot to dance jazz, their actions were considered a violation of Sony's intellectual property. Simply put, they made it illegal to teach a (robot) dog to dance jazz style.
Why does this matter? With ever-increasing control over the distribution of copyrighted information, corporations are more able to twist copyright laws in their favor. Through software coding, they are able to eliminate lawful "fair use" of their products, restricting consumer freedoms. While some may say that this is a necessary step in eliminating piracy of copyrighted materials, when will the regulation stop? In order to reap the full benefits of the information age, information must remain largely free.
In his article, “Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity,” Lawrence Lessig discusses the issues of copyright. Originally, copyright largely applied to books, but not to music or creative ideas like it does now. As information became more accessible with the Internet, copyright regulations became stricter. The copyright laws from 1790 protected the author’s right to publish his own copyrighted work, which evolved to needing the author’s permission in order to republish his or her work (or giving “control over any copies of that work”). Now copyright owners also have control of any “derivative works” that grew from his or her work. Essentially, these copyright protects the author’s creative idea. It was interesting to see this progression of copyright regulation in Disney’s lawsuits to control all of its property; Video Pipline was not allowed to use clips of Disney’s films as a way of selling them without Disney’s permission. One interesting connection Lessig made to the internet was that Disney was able to centralize control over access to their content with the Internet because each use of the Internet produces a copy and “becomes subject to the copyrights owner’s control” (146).
ReplyDeleteIn “Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity,” Lawrence Lessig talks about the change in the scope of the copyright law as well as the technology today that allows the owners to extend their effects. I really like the examples the author lists when he explains how the computer code of Adobe eBook Reader restrict people from copying, printing, and even listening to a book. "This is how code beams law. The controls built into the technology of copy and access protection become rules the violation of which is also a violation of the law." It obviously sounds absurd to everyone as well as you might be able to receive nays and threatening letters from the copyright owners by just moving a fun club online and sharing trivia every month. The article makes me start thinking more about our studying from other people's idea in our daily life. Does that consider illegal? And what direction will the scope of copyright will keep evolving towards? Assume one day, wiring a comment about an article like what we are doing right now cause us trouble, does that necessarily mean our society is highly protective of one's intelligence or it is restricting people's creativity and obstructing our society from making even a slight progress.
ReplyDeleteThis article is a basic overview of how laws and regulations change according to how much the technology evolves. It was interesting to see how the copyright regulations were different from before and after the emergence of the Internet. As the internet advances, there needs to be more advanced ways to protect the copyright of creative works. As an example, codes written by programmers to protect copyrighted materials and regulate the information uploaded on to the internet. Een in youtube, when you upload a video that includes a music track that is copyrighted, immediately after the upload, they warn you that your video includes a copyrighted music track. In many cases, these videos are deleted or just the music track is muted from the video. I believe that there is a constant battle between the enforcers of copyright and the violators. There are many different ways such as P2P programs and file sharing websites that enable people to upload and share copyrighted content. As more ways emerge to get past the copyright enforcements, there will be more ways developed to regulate and enforce the copyright, and then there will be more other ways to avoid this regulation. So, for this fact, I don't believe that one is ahead of the other but there is a constant battle between the two.
ReplyDeleteThe article addresses the changes in the copyright laws that now give the owner control over publishing, copying, and rights to derivative work. The author claims that the copyright laws that apply to the distribution of works over digital networks, namely the Internet, should be reviewed because the recent laws did not consider the scope of the distribution of digital media.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to consider that each download of information from the Internet is considered a copy and is therefore subject to regulation. Control over digital information is easier to track as compared to the past when information such as books and videos were distributed in hard copy.
The example of Disney and Video Pipeline shows the additional control Disney had once the distribution of the trailers moved to the Internet.
Additionally, owners have control over the spread of copyrighted material in the example of the Aibo hack and the Felten paper. The code the of this material became restricted under the copyright law based on controls that prevent copy and access.
Lawrence Lessig article “Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity, focuses on modern day copyright issues. Lessig especially dives into the change in copyright laws since the Internet. Prior to the dot COM boom, copyrighted material where either categorized as unregulated, regulated or simply fair use. The days when the exclusive rights were given to the author over the amount of copies made are far gone. Copyrights laws have drastically changed with advancement in technology. Enforcement of copyright laws is now in the hands of instruments. Lessig argues that everything on the Internet is essentially a copy already. I find this article very interesting because in this technological age of trendy websites and mobile applications, it seems that anything original only last for short while before it’s duplicated infinite amount of times. More people now have access to counter fit items than ever and with increasing web traffic it seems impossible to enforce any copyright laws. Am most curious to see what the future hold for the war between copyrights and piracy.
ReplyDeleteLawrence Lessing’s book Free Culture on the evolution of copyright law presents an interesting dilemma when you consider that although he advocates for broader free use rights of works his very own book utilizes the same protections and laws he criticizes. It’s interesting to note how American copyright law has evolved to the point where every piece of information that is produced now maintains some sort of copyright and that in order for it to be absolved of this “protection” one must explicitly declare it to be of the “creative commons”. This selection reminded me of a recent conversation I had with Professor Jeremy Hight instructor of Vis 40 at UCSD. He explained that if someone had 1% of an idea they can take that 1% to court and claim the total product if they had that 1% before you did. A second point of Hight’s is also mentioned in this essay which is the intimidation factor of lawyers and the prospects of having to go to and be “tied up” in court. Even if you have a valid claim to a product or idea the threat of the expenses of litigation may be enough to have you back down. I believe however it would be worthwhile to fight for such a claim. Lessing’s point as to the extremities of the DMCA are not clear as the issue never went to court and thus the law was never tested to see if it passed muster. Therefore it is not clear whether or not these specific cases were valid or not. Another consideration is the idea that companies must defend their copyright rigorously. Aside from the concern of piracy I remember reading about a case in which a company allowed individuals to create permutations of their product but when someone created a permutation that was considered foul they sued them. The court then ruled that because the company had not enforced their copyright equally that they created a precedent upon which this specific use was allowed and therefore could not ask that person to cease and desist. I believe in a very limited scope of copyright and I deny that anyone can copyright a phrase, idea, pattern or style although I will admit that this would decrease incentive to publically produce work in the digital age as we are all beholden to the reality that we need to eat to live and like to be rewarded for our efforts.
ReplyDeleteBy Mike Boulrice