|
He makes a compelling argument, backed up by an impressive accumulation of footnotes - all of which are indexed and linked in the freely downloadable on-line version. Copyright is one of the most important issues of the day, especially for anyone invested in any creative industry, and yet - so few artists and arts professionals invest themselves in thinking about it. I'd recommend this to anyone. How's that for transparency. I used to think "copyright" was only a concern for appropriation artists. After reading Lessig's incredibly thorough and engaging book, I now know better.
The Internet is quickly moving into its next phase of fast connection speed and perpetual availability. Broadband connection is now widely used, and its speed is expected to be further enhanced. There will soon be no need for a user to download content from sharing networks as content is readily available any time we need. If viewed from the perspective of economics, only type A sharing is harmful. There are many who use sharing networks to get access to content that is not copyrighted or that the copyright owner wants to give away.Only type D sharing is clearly legal from the perspective of the law. As such, hundreds of years of property right was erased. There are at present many websites offering online on-the-fly music listening, movie viewing and electronic book reading. Type B is illegal but beneficial to the owner.
Lessig likened this case to the numerous extensions of copyright duration. The net effect of this sharing could increase the quantity of content purchased.Type C. He is well known for representing Eldred in the case Eldred v Ashcroft where he fought in the US Supreme Court that the numerous extensions of copyright duration by the US Congress was unconstitutional. Type C is illegal yet good for the society. One topic which I am quite interested, and which deeply affects the Internet, is the downloading of files, in particular the peer-to-peer, P2P, file sharing technology which enables fast transmission and copying of digital files. For content not sold, there is still technically a violation of copyright, although because the copyright owner is not selling the content anymore, the economic harm is zero.Type D.
He argued that the extension was unconstitutional because the Constitution has a clause on limited time of copyright, and that repeated extension would render copyright with no time limit. Common sense should revolt at this idea as well. A strong lobby comprising book publishers, music recording companies and movie companies are seeking strong enforcement power on the transmission of copyright materials on the Internet. The freedom of using such knowledge and thus enabling a free culture is what Lessig is looking forward to. Free culture, free as in freedom not free lunch, is threatened as copyright could restrain all adaptations of published materials.Lessig explained in details the origin, history and trend of the copyright issue.
The Causbys sued the US government of allowing airplanes to fly over their farm. The author of the book, Lawrence Lessig, is a professor of law at Stanford Law School. First, there should be a register of copyright materials. Although it is arguable whether everyone who takes content this way would actually have bought it if sharing didn't make it available for free, there are some who would, thus depriving the legitimate sale of copyright content.Type B. This would establish a clear legal status of copyright so that people wishing to use copyright materials could have a clear channel to seek permission.
The unlimited copyright duration has led to all published materials: books, music, films, to be excluded from the public domain forever. He is a crusader for reduced legal restrictions on copyright, trademark, and radio frequency spectrum, particularly in technology applications. Instead of vigorously putting off all file sharing activities, Lessig suggested a model that could solve the problem and satisfy all parties. As a result of such copyright extensions, the public domain of publications has ceased to expand since 1923.With regard to property right, he cited the case of Causbys. The Causbys argued that the property right of their land would include the space above it, and that the government was trespassing on their property. Any reform of the law and enforcement actions should take all these into account. Second, there should be a definite duration of copyright to enable owners to receive their fair share of benefits. He explained the case in details in the book and admitted his mistake.
Materials which their owners would wish to surrender copyright, or with expired copyright could enter the public domain for either free sharing or be used at a nominal cost. There are many who use sharing networks to get access to copyrighted content that is no longer sold. They should also consider the magnitude of type B and assess the actual harm done against the benefits gained. Fibre-optic connection and wireless connection are making Internet access more convenient and virtually always available.
Third, such duration could be reasonably extended for those with continued value. This is a kind of target advertising which is quite likely to succeed. A mere academic explanation of the letters of the Constitution was not sufficient to impress the Supreme Court. Some people use sharing networks as substitutes for purchasing content. At present, these proposals are fiercely resisted by the interest parties who wish copyright to be forever.Notwithstanding the impasse, there are clear signs that the present struggle of file copying and file sharing on the Internet is only temporary.
He regretted that he did not take the advice of his legal partners that the case should be presented to the Supreme Court highlighting the harm done to free culture owing to unending copyright. They must avoid burdening type D even if it aims to eliminate type A. Some people use sharing networks to sample content before purchasing it. In 1945, the Supreme Court ruled to uphold the decision of the Congress with a simple statement that "Common sense revolts at the idea". The most advanced technology in the dissemination of knowledge is being restrained, as well as the free culture.On file sharing, Lessig divided them into four types by the content shared:Type A.
This book also really changed the way I think about intellectual property. I learned a lot about copyright law that I was completely unaware of before.
this book is absolutely essential if you have any concern towards media and policy regarding said media. our culture is becoming increasingly digitized and intellectual property is an oft-disputed domain.
If anything, such strawmen have been set up for no other purpose than to vilify moderates on the copyright debate and frame discourse on a divisive ideological basis.Contrary to media perceptions, those attempting to subvert the status quo have been the intellectual property extremists who favor limitless copyright terms, instead of the careful balance between incentives for creative work (through the state-enforced copyrights), and infusion of creative work into the public domain after a reasonable time frame.That balance has been the rationale behind modern copyright law, and not the misguided notion that a corporation may hold perpetual ownership of the ideas conceived by its employees - "for ever minus one day", per Jack Valenti's infamous quip. Nor is it a conflict between those who support individual property rights and aspiring property abolitioners. This latter restrictive, extremist approach to copyright, Lessig argues, would hamper the fertilization of public domain with new ideas, stifle innovation and go to the face of copyright law's goals."Free Culture" provides numerous examples of how the eventual flow of copyrighted works into the public domain buttresses innovation and creativity ; how the staunchest sponsors of limitless copyright extensions have they themselves tapped into the public domain for some of their most cherished values, and how creativity, just as much as artistic and individual liberties are compromised by the tidal wave of copyright extremism.In light of the encroachment upon consumer rights, creative freedom and the public domain by such restrictive measures as anti-circumvention laws and retroactive copyright extensions, Lawrence Lessig's book is an eloquent, indispensable call for some long-needed moderation in copyright policy. It is indicative of the widespread misconceptions about the nature and purpose of intellectual property law that Bill Gates could get away with so foolish a statement as to conflate the open source movement with communist dogma.And it is to such misguided notions that professor Lessig responds with this work. The issue at stake with the current debate on copyright, Lessig contends, is not a simplistic battle of unrewarded creators against thieving pirates, as the content industry would have us believe.
|
