Laws That Choke Creativity

After watching the TED talk by Larry Lessig about laws that choked creativity he relates his research to the music industry. He used examples from edited video to make funny music videos to express ones creativity. He stresses the idea of remixing by taking and recreation others people works so that they can express a new idea on their own.  With the uses of this digital technology, there has been a lot of conflict. I feel like this is a difficult issue to take side upon because one person is stealing the work of another. Though this is wrong the use isn’t exactly the same so people should take that into consideration. I believe that people should be able to express to others whatever they feel like is appropriate.

3 thoughts on “Laws That Choke Creativity

  1. I Agree that people should be able to express what they believe is appropriate. I read Lessig’s essay about remixing culture and I thought that it brought up some really interesting points. He mentioned how jazz music came from remixing songs and playing them with your own style and flare. Then it turned into the remixes that we have today. The digital remixes have taken over the music industry making remixing incredibly popular among artists and aspiring DJ’s. I have always wondered what laws surround remixing other peoples songs. Are copy write laws regarding music use keeping us from hearing some of the most creative remixes or artists? Larry Lessig brought up a lot of these points throughout the essay. “Why should it be that just when technology is most encouraging of creativity, the law should be most restrictive?” (105). I think this is very true, why is it that now that we have computers increasing our ability to be creative, there are laws stopping us from doing so.

  2. I also agree to some extent that as long as people are changing the content to make it their own. The problem comes in when people use others work to make fun or mock something else. It gets offensive to the original artist I believe, or degrades it from the original meaning or purpose. Using someone’s original work to get your own gears turning is a better alternative, take the same beat or color scheme, whichever you liked from the original but create your own. Off the topic of remixing, there are also cover songs. Artists straight remaking the exact same song can both be flattering and upsetting. I feel that purpose needs copyright privileges.

  3. The point of remixing or using someone else’s material as a tool to mock something is a concern that I think is important to take into consideration the context of degradation that is possesses. Another issue of misuse that is discussed in TED talks is about the boundaries of when another artists material can be used, and the boundary restricts corporate use. In what I assume would be an advertisement for monetary gain, in which case the artist should be consulted on the terms and use of the artwork. I agree that this issue as a whole is difficult to take sides on because both sides have valid, convincing arguments. This had me thinking, what kind of solutions could be beneficial for both sides? where creativity isn’t stifled and the original creators are not disrespected through the misuse of their artwork.

    -Michelle

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *