In the reading this week by Lessig, there are “two cultures and two kinds of creativity. One (RO) is fueled by professionals. The other (RW) is fueled by both professionals and amateurs” (84). But, as the speaker in the Ted talk says, even though they are amateurs they are not amateurish. This means that while they are not professional content makers, the content can still be legitimate and high quality. “These two cultures embody different values,” says Lessig. “RO culture speaks of professionalism… RW culture extends itself differently. It touches social life differently. It gives the audience something more” (84-85). RW culture is about the audience creating content for itself, while RO culture is about an outside creator making content for a target audience. As is discussed within the reading and in the Ted talk, and in the video about the Amen Break, this is a very powerful force. When a creator is part of his or her own audience, the content is richer, and closer to the core of what it is.
The Amen Break video really inspired me. I thought that it was a great thing that the Winstons did, letting people sample and remix their work for free. The fact that it spawned an entire new underground scene is incredible. People who were sampling, remixing, and reinventing the same sound for themselves and each other were truly creating their own content using the tools they were given by the band. It is amazing to learn about the variety of people’s ideas and creations that all came from the same six seconds of sound.
These days it is common for musicians to remix their own songs, or let other bands do it for them. Often times popular songs will have radio edits (which I consider to be a form of remixing), extended versions, hip hop or electronica remixes, covers, and more. It is also common these days to have artists come together to create new songs or combine their own to make new ones. Mixing content and remixing existing sounds is a huge part of music in today’s culture, and I think it’s great. Collaborating minds are much better than one, and it opens up a lot of new possibilities. Even mixing two completely different styles to create a new one is in itself original art.
In the reading, there is a section titled “differences in law.” In the beginning, Lessig states that “American copyright law regulates any creative work produced after 1923, for a maximum term of life of the author plus seventy years, or ninety-five years for corporate work” (97). This is insanity. This means that a song created today could be under copyright for the next 150 years. Does this necessarily mean that it can’t be used though? Well, not really. Fortunately, the author can give permission, but this still is a form of controlling content creation. Of course, amateurs ignore this and remix songs as they please, but it is not for profit, and is often small-time, being posted on sites like YouTube and SoundCloud. I think that this type of behavior should be encouraged, not legally preventable. I do think that the copyright system should be changed to be much more lenient. It is important for authors to be able to profit from their work, but it should not be completely untouchable for an entire generation. Up and coming artists thrive on public domain, because there is so little left to create that is truly original. Art, music, and creation is essential to the growth of society. We shouldn’t put limits on it.
I think that using the music industry as an example of how artists use other people work in their work is perfect because even though they are using other people’s song they are adding their own creativity to it. It shows that there are ways to build upon work that has already been creating to make something new and innovative. I also agreee that it is a little ridiculous that the law makes something untouchable for 150 years when so many things change just in 5 years time. tachology and society changes at such a rapid pace that copyrighting something for that long hinders progress.