Because I lack much more than a cursory knowledge of copy-write law and the many cases that have led up to its current state, I cannot in good conscience argue that the laws surrounding the copywriting of intellectual property be increased, decreased or eliminated. I will however argue that they should be adjusted to adapt to the rapidly changing landscape that is currently our most prominent form of creativity and expression, the internet. Lawrence Lessig pointed out, “It is now anyone with access to a $1500 computer who can take sounds and images from the world around us and use it to say things differently.” He quite passionately argued not to destroy, or criminalize, this next generations freedom of expression. I would argue that though the building blocks of this self-expression, more commonly known as art, are frequently the intellectual properties of others, the final piece is so much more than that. At a certain point, somethings are truly broken down so much that they cease to be what they once were. In The Amen Break, the author illustrates this when he says, “…this was done by slicing the original 6 second sample into each of it’s original drum hits.” At this point of deconstruction, the only thing the artist is not doing is producing the particular sound themselves. If you take those drum hits, and completely rearrange the rhythm and tempo, the only difference between you and the original artist is the money spent on the drum set and the ability to create the rhythm in real time, but what you would have is the intellectual skill to be able to arrange them electronically. Is either of these more artistic than the other? That’s like one painter saying to another, “you can’t use blue. I painted with blue!”

I any regard, even when using much longer samplings like the examples in the Lessig TED talk, if the amalgamations created are not used for financial gain, I see no harm in it. It may reach a few hundred views on YouTube. Where this becomes convoluted, is when both YouTube and the “creator” make money off this sampled content. It is at this point that I get in over my head with copywrite law. Relating to this Lessig wrote in Cultures Compared, “Put simply the current practices of the copywrite law support the practices of the RO (read only) and oppose the practices of the RW (read write) culture.” (p. 97). To me this sounds terribly detrimental to the creativity or our youth. I’m not sure the exact solution, because I simply don’t know the law well enough. What I can tell you, is that this needs to be addressed and fast, before too many companies lock up every bit of content and restrict free expression.