The creativity of amateurs is being suppressed by overprotective copyright laws to a ridiculous extent. According to Lawrence Lessig, the “copyright war” of the last decade is to blame. The “copyright war” is most easily described as the music labels’ and government’s attempts to stop kids from downloading free songs from peer to peer file sharing programs like Napster or Limewire. And like any war, the “copyright war” has its collateral damages. This collateral damage is the stifling of creativity for everyday people. Take for example the story of Stephanie Lenz.
Last year Ms. Lenz uploaded on YouTube a video of her daughter dancing to a vaguely discernable Prince song in the background. Within a few months, Prince’s record company, Universal, demanded that YouTube remove the video from their website claiming copyright infringement. The idea that Universal would pay thousands of dollars for a group of extremely expensive lawyers to challenge YouTube and threaten to sue Ms. Lenz over such a meaningless video is almost humorous. It is obviously an inefficient waste of resources and perfectly exemplifies how much the “copyright war” has gotten out of hand.
The main issue is why people cannot quote others in the name of creativity. Lessig puts it best when he says, “writers with words have had the freedom to quote since time immemorial, "writers" with digital technology have not yet earned this right. Instead, the lawyers insist permission is required to include the protected work in anything new.” Like Lessig, I believe amateur creators should have the right to quote artists in a digital medium without the possibility of lawsuit or criminal infractions. The digital revolution of YouTube and Wikipedia has brought back the voice of the amateur. And for this voice to be heard to its full extent, drastic changes in copyright law must be made.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I completely agree with you, Brian. Writers have had the freedom to quote in the past- and they still do. Musicians, on the other hand, have created their own set of expectations and laws, setting themselves apart from other types of artists, as if music requires more protection and deserves more money than literature does. It was suggested in lecture today that musicians and record companies just need a harsh reality check, being that they are not deserving of any special treatment. For instance, I just recently realized how much more money and media coverage popular musicians receive than popular writers, on average. It makes me question why this is. It is clearly a characteristic of our culture and the values that define it. Music is valued more than literature. My next question is then why this is and whether or not it is acceptable?
ReplyDeleteIn response to the Prince video on YouTube that you discuss, I wonder if the artists (in this instance, Prince) are even notified about such major, yet ridiculous, potential lawsuits in such situations. Once an artist signs with a record label, do they give up the right to allow others permission to use their works completely, or can they make specific exceptions, as in Ms. Lenz’s case?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLike Brian, I agree with Lessig on the double standard of intellectual property. That is, that writers have been able to quote authors without permission or payment, but musicians or film-makers have yet to acquire that right. The ability to quote is an excellent compromise that does not stifle the creativity of writers. Further, there are still thousands of books being written every year. The ability to quote an author without permission has not stifled the incentive for writers to create. While Locke’s point that people are entitled to the rights of their work is valuable, I think that as long as an artist’s use of an idea or clip of song does not prevent the original work from being sold, copywrite should not be involved. Let’s face it, when people talk about protections provided by copywrite laws, they’re talking about money. And in keeping with Locke’s theory that government should interfere as little as possible in the lives of citizens, as long as an artist isn’t cutting into another artist’s profits by using their work, the government should leave it alone.
ReplyDelete-JB