READ ONLY vs. READ/WRITE
In the TED talk “Laws That Choke Creativity”, the differences between read only (RO) vs. read/write (RW) are discussed, along with examples of how copyright has affected our culture. Digital technology can be the revival of RW, and allow “ameutuer culture” where people produce for the love rather than the money.
In the article Remix Planet, the variety of “remixes” that now exist is extensive, ranging from music to movies to games and TV! An excerpt I thought was very powerful is “Who owns the words?” asked a disembodied but very persistent voice throughout much of Burroughs’ work. Who does own them now? Who owns the music and the rest of our culture? We do. All of us.”
This weeks reading stresses the importance of RW cultures, and how we need much more. A quote that describes copyright from Baker goes as follows, “Copyright is a trail lawyer’s dream – a regulatory program enforced by private lawsuits where the plaintiffs have all the advantages, from injury-free damages awards to liability doctrines that extract damages from anyone who was in the neighborhood when an infringement occurred”. Lessig believes that these “rights” and controversy over them are all caused by competition, and that that although protection from competition is important, it should not stop creative abilities and projects.
Copyrights are very important in modern society. There is now infinite social media outlets (blogs, websites, youtube, etc) where people express themselves, and occasionally involving incorporating works from original creators. Copyrights limit creativity because it puts barriers and other restrictions on people who just want to create something, but fear they may be penalized for their remix or mashup. I think that RW needs to be prioritized over RO (but read only should not be entirely eliminated). This will allow for people to express themselves in ways that help them grow as individuals, and is not based on profit, but self-expression.
I do believe that copyright restrictions puts a bit of a hold on some peoples creativity. But also one can argue it does not. When someone sees these restrictions they can have that push and drive to create something that has not been done before. They really have to think outside the box to make something amazing and creative. I can see where it should have less restrictions and hopefully in the future we will see this.
It is really a great idea to turn RO culture to RW culture because it will help us to have a better understanding about what we can improve as human beings. In the course reading, the author Lessig mentioned that “RW culture ask something more of the audience. It is offered as a draft. It is invites a response” (Page 85). This means that RW culture is not simply teach and learn, but also have something in return after the reading. I think the remix culture is a good way to express the opportunity to develop the RW culture as it is coming from the existing artworks. It is a brand new way for people to learn and apply their learning into something new.
I appreciated reading your thoughts on this week’s lesson – but I’m left with the similar question I asked Donna – does one person’s expression, that is based on the work of some one else, alter the original expression?
Is that a right? To have one’s expression not altered or colored by another’s point of view?
I used the example of the movie “Saving Mr. Banks in my post on Donna’s page. But, this can be applied to endless numbers of movies – based on novels. Does the author of a novel have the right to the expression of the characters they created? Do they have the right not to have them “misrepresented” in a movies form? To what extent is an original idea a property to be owned?
As a fierce defender of individual property rights, I tend to believe that the copyright – described in the “RO culture” – has many more layers than simply the commercial and monetary.
I agree completely with you when you say that copyrights limit creativity. When someone places a copyright on a popular logo or beat it cannot be improved by the creators peers. This limits us greatly and results in us not getting the best out of our products and opportunities. Do you think that we would be more advanced as a society if copyrights did not exist? In my opinion I think copyrights limit creativity but also can prevent crimes and conflicts. So I guess that would leave me somewhat neutral on copyrights. I hope this is valuable feedback for you to review.
In your comment, you have effectively summarized key points from the TED talk, the article Remix Planet, and the recent reading. You have highlighted the differences between read-only (RO) and read/write (RW) cultures, emphasizing the potential of digital technology to revive RW and foster amateur creativity.
You have also drawn attention to the proliferation of remixes in various forms of media, and the powerful question raised in Burroughs’ work: “Who owns the words?” You acknowledge that we, as a collective, now own the words, music, and other aspects of our culture.
The importance of RW cultures and the need for a shift towards prioritizing them over RO is a central theme in your comment. You have effectively conveyed the limitations that copyright laws impose on creativity and self-expression, particularly in the context of social media platforms.
Your argument that RW should not entirely replace RO is well-articulated, as you believe that both have their merits and should coexist. This perspective showcases your understanding of the balance needed to encourage creativity and self-expression while respecting the rights of original creators.
In conclusion, your comment thoughtfully addresses the importance of RW cultures and the impact of copyright laws on creativity and self-expression. Your insights highlight the need for a more inclusive and open approach to artistic expression in today’s digital age.
khalidelarbi——————business for sale