After watching the TED video and listening to Lawrence Lessig talk about “user generated content” or “ugc” and understanding how it relates to these two cultures and two kinds of creativity called: Read Only Culture (RO) and Read Write Culture (RW), it was easier to grasp the meaning behind the reading assignment. He discusses the issues that have aroused due to user-generated content and how it has created controversy within this “remix” or remaking of art culture and copyright infringement. In his video he explains how we have moved away from this RW culture and moved closer to an RO culture, “a culture where creativity was consumed, but the consumer is not a creator” (TED, 2:12). I thought this was interesting because I realized how strongly this concept actually applies to our current culture and how copyright laws can put this concept into affect in modern society. For example, I can spend a lot of time on the Internet and consume creative thoughts or ideas from the things that I see or look up online, but someone else created the software or search engine that lets my search for those creative thoughts, which in a sense is copyright.
In chapter five of Lessig’s book titled, Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy, he goes into further detail about how the American copyright law regulations relate differently to these two cultures stating that, “current copyright law supports the practices of the RO culture and opposes the practices of the RW culture” (p. 97). It is unfortunate to realize that as we move closer and closer to this RO culture, we are just continuing to undervalue our own capabilities and ourselves. This culture of maintaining strong control over content and enforcing stricter copyright laws definitely limits individuals’ access to creativity and refrains us from participating in the recreation of something new. I believe that copyright laws should not be completely eliminated as a whole, but definitely limited to a certain extent so that our world continues to develop extraordinary human beings that are capable of extraordinary things.
I agree with what you said at the end. Copyright laws are important so that the people who make the art can benefit from it, but we should also be able to use it for other things. As you say, we need to “develop extraordinary human beings that are capable of extraordinary things.” Remixing popular art like people did in the Ted talk is really funny, and it is completely different from the original art. In my opinion, this is not plagiarism. It is creating something new, similar to quoting something instead.
Really good response to the reading, you took out a lot of really good points and developed a really good argument, well done. I couldn’t agree with you more, I think it is a shame that so many good ideas can be left on the table because of the way copyright laws are set up today. If the world stops creating new ideas, then the world is never going to change and we will never see the next step in our lives. I agree that copyright laws need to be altered because laws that are hindering the advancement of our society have no right to govern our society. The thought of losing the creator is one that is difficult to grasp.
Hi, I definitely agree with you that the copyright regulation should not be eliminated as a whole because I think copyright regulation can protect the benefits of original creators. If our society do not have the copyright regulation, I think no one want to innovate new inventions because other people can easily copy your efforts. I also agree with you that copyright regulation should be limited to a certain extent. However, do you think how can we limit it to a certain extent? In what aspects? I think maybe the copyright regulation could be relaxed for the non-commercial use. Therefore, copyright regulation not only can protect the benefits of original creators but also will not limit people’s creativity.
I really agree with your opinion about the future copyright regulation. I also believe that the copyright laws cannot be completely eliminated because I think no one would like to pay attention on inventions without the protection of copyright laws. So I agree with you that the copyright laws should be limited only to a certain extent. The question that I want to ask you is that – how do you think we should change the copyright laws specifically so that it would not hurt the benefits of inventors but also would encourage people’s creativity?
I think it’s fair to say that copyright regulation and laws should not be completely eliminated. However, when does copyright stifle creativity and individuality? I think that copyright is an important part of remaining unique. Having said that, it is still important to preserve the inventions and steps others have taken previously to make certain inventions possible, giving credit where credit is due. Going off what my fellow students have discussed above, how does one draw the fine line between limiting creativity and acknowledging innovators?
Thank you everyone for the positive feedback! It was actually quite funny to me as I started reading all these comments I realized that I too had raised the same concern as most of you did in determining how to establish that fine line between limiting creativity and acknowledging innovators. I think that Centian brought up a good point in relaxing copyright regulation for non-commercial use as a solid starting point, but I honestly don’t know how that fine line can really be determined. I feel like if copyright laws were to be relaxed in some way that eventually people would abuse their rights and take advantage of the little leeway given. I think that thats why it is so hard for our society to come to an agreement on whats fair and whats not. However, I do believe that it starts with the innovators and how they choose to share their creativity or work with the rest of the world. If more and more innovators were protected by fewer but safer copyright laws then maybe they would be more willing to expose their creations to the general public freely.