Aug
2014
Remixing Culture
I got some new ideas after watching the TED talk by Lawrence Lessig. Lessig mention about how the law prevents the kid’s ability of creation and he use 3 examples to prove that some law is not suit for common sense or the improvement of technology.
Speaking about the copyright, it is hard to simply judge this law is right or wrong. Copyright can ensure the benefit of the creator and protect the individual’s intellectual property. However, in the situation of remix, I agree with what Lessig said that the Laws choke the creativity. I saw some remix video online and I think it is wonderfully. If law is so harsh that government punish people use other resource without permission, they suppress new generation’s creativity and inspiration indirectly. Like Lessig clam “(new technology) These tools of creativity have become tools of speech. It is literacy for this generation. This is how our kids speak. It is how our kids think. It is what your kids are, as they increasingly understand digital technologies and their relationship to themselves” The new generation influenced by the technology deeper. They are the creator of new culture. They can use the digital technology to create and convey their thought unlike the old generation.
Technology already is the main trend of the world. The law should be changed correspondingly. The people (who make the law or create the law) should have an open mind to the copyright, even other law.
citation:
CHECK THE VIDEO HERE:
Joon Gu
August 8, 2014 at 4:59 pm (11 years ago)As you said, copyright law has been a big issue in online community. Without permission, many people share files through p2p systems. Creators who want to earn money by creating a music or art may get disadvantage by online sharing. However, it is not easy to prevent people from sharing files as technologies are centered on our lives. The available form of works can be a reference for new generation to deal with. In Jone’s essay, “This is a teachable moment-an opportunity to educate these particular students about the importance of music in their lives’ and importance of respecting and valuing music as intellectual property.” Remixing music means that people do not respect creators’ intellectual property. Creators can be harmed by copying resources. However, as Jone said, just stating a strict law is not a solution. It may makes people be unable to refer or create new music. Unless, the remixing music is not commercially sold, the law or our society should allow people to get an opportunity to have a creativity.
Jenny
August 8, 2014 at 9:19 pm (11 years ago)I agree both with Lessig and you that laws can choke creativity. It’s understandable that some of these copyright laws are in place, but creativity could flow so much more freely if there were no boundaries placed upon it. Creativity is something that can flourish best without limitations and after reaching the state of inspiration, creativity is the driver of new ideas built with passion and uniqueness. I also wanted to comment on your statement about technology and it’s use in the newer generations. Children and young adults these days seem to be glued to their technology devices and with the power of high speed internet capabilities, search engines at the click of a button, or products able to free the ideas trapped in their minds, anything is possible. “The technologies we give our kids give them a capacity to create that we never had. We’ve given them a world beyond words.” writes Lessig on page 108 in Cultures Compared. Because of the unlimited opportunities that technology presents, I agree with you in that the laws should be adjusted to reflect this chance for optimal creativity.
mfairey@uoregon.edu
August 10, 2014 at 9:19 pm (10 years ago)Simin,
It is really difficult to pick a side between copyright being fair and remixing being allowed. I think copyrighting is a fair way to protect people’s creative rights. If there were no fear of creative work being stolen then there wouldn’t really be a need for copyright laws but unfortunately technology opens the door to thieves as well as artists. But is remixing a version of stealing? In my opinion, if remixing is done right and includes enough creativity that it is not a copy of the old piece, but is instead a combination of old and new ideas then it is a new piece of art and should be considered original. I think if the focus of copyright laws were only on protecting original ideas then remixing would not be considered such a problem. It seems to me than many people use copyright laws to earn more money rather than just protecting their work.
Best, McKenna