|
A Summary of Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture
Term Paper ID:44026
|
|
|
Essay Subject:
A summary of Lawrence Lessig's bood Free Culture Explains his thesis that copyright laws ...... More...
|
9 Pages / 2025 Words
1 sources, 15 Citations,
MLA Format
$36.00
Return to List of Papers
|
Paper Abstract:
A summary of Lawrence Lessig's bood Free Culture. Explains his thesis that copyright laws are in the hands of a few powerful special interest groups, via lobbying of politicians and money to support attorneys. These groups seek to extend copyrights in such a way that culture is not allowed to grow.
Paper Introduction:
A Summary of Lawrence Lessig\'s Free Culture In Free Culture The Nature and Future of Creativity Lawrence Lessigmakes the case that spurred on by the expansion of Internet content-sharing technologies powerful media interests are interfering with theprogress of American culture by lobbying for inordinate protection ofcopyrights Through relaying stories about the history of events in theUnited States and abroad he argues that this action by big media isantithetical to the freedoms and spirit of progress written into theConstitution by our founding fathers
Text of the Paper:
The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper.
He found that in many cases, he would be unable to do this withclassics, such as Robert Frost's poetry, because the CTEA had extendedcopyright terms by 2 years (214). He would like to see mitigation of whathe sees as the greed that has taken hold of his profession and causedattorneys to support intellectual property laws that are good for a smallnumber of powerful people but do enormous harm to society. In this case, thetraditional definition of property was not relevant, because a newtechnology-air travel-rendered that definition antithetical to the good ofsociety (2). Finally, as aconstitutional scholar, Lessig sees the practice of law a one that hasdegenerated from its original focus on promoting justice to a focus onmaking as much money as possible. A Summary of Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture In Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity, Lawrence Lessigmakes the case that, spurred on by the expansion of Internet content-sharing technologies, powerful media interests are interfering with theprogress of American culture by lobbying for inordinate protection ofcopyrights (9). Thus we havethe idea of the "public domain," a sphere in which creative ideas cannot besaid to be owned by anybody and are open to free use (12 ). Both in the realms of business and law, Lessigimplicates human greed as a threat to our nation's intellectual progress-and thus its cultural and fiscal health. Corporations such as Disney have banded together to see that otherwould-be Disneys cannot follow Walt Disney's creative path. The differencenow, writes Lessig, is that these entrenched businesses are succeeding atusing the legal system in ways that are unprecedented. His suggestion for shorterterms is oriented towards basing the length of copyright ownership onpractical considerations that balance the right of artists to make moneywith a consideration of what is good for society. In the realm of intellectual property, Lessig says, this case isespecially incisive. This includesdifferentiating between file sharing that takes rightful profits away fromartists from that which has no financial impact on creators. Lessig notes that the maximum a doctor can be sued for malpracticein the U.S. This was the case with the original definition ofland ownership-that the land one owns, while limited in the horizontalplain, stretches up to the sky and beyond. Filing copyrights would ensure that thecopyright ownership would be cataloged and made easily accessible to thosewho would like to use copyrighted material. Print. Lessigwrites that the internet is an ominous threat to media companies because itmakes sharing content and disseminating it to large groups of people quickand easy. New York: Penguin Books, 2 4. Because of this, Mickey Mouse and other derivativeDisney films that followed, such as Cinderella, Pinocchio, and Snow White,were not burdened by the strict copyright laws we have today and so couldbe developed in the absence of legal costs. If he had not, lawyer friends advised him, he would have beensubjecting himself and his family to a much more costly and emotionallyexhausting court battle. One of the students, Jesse Jordan, recountsthat even though everyone who heard of the accusations agreed that thelawsuit was ridiculous, he was still persuaded to accept a negotiationwhereby he admitted to wrongdoing and paid the RIAA his life savings of$12, . Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity. If this had occurredtoday, the creation of these derivative works without express permissionfrom the original creators would likely involve costly legal proceedings.However, in Disney's day, creating derivative works fell into the categoryof "free culture," culture that belongs to everyone, as opposed to"permission culture," for which the "owners" of creative works must becompensated (xiv). Ultimately, Lessigsays, this can be seen as a failing of our current legal and politicalsystems to protect the public good from special interests. Works CitedLessig, Lawrence. He explains thathe believes lawyers have lost a sense of the purpose of law-to promotejustice and the good of society. Lessig sees these mediacompanies' efforts as being currently effective, writing that the companies"are succeeding in their plan to remake the Internet before the Internetremakes them" (9). The Supreme Court reasoned thatcommon sense was on the side of the airplane industry. Walt Disney, forinstance, debuted the character Mickey Mouse in the film Steamboat Willy, aparody of Buster Keaton's silent movie Steamboat Bill, Jr.-both of whichwere inspired by the song "Steamboat Bill" (22-23). This would ensure that the big mediacompanies lobbying for copyright extensions could protect their copyrightswhile allowing works that no longer had commercial value to be transferred,de facto, to the public domain. Thus, Lessig notes, it is not that the governmentis actively punishing people for creating technological tools that threatenintellectual property or for the production derivative works-it is thatonly the rich and powerful can afford the consequences of exercising thesecreative rights (187). However, in an attempt to protect thepatent-holders of these drugs, the United States has refused the requestsof African countries to import the drugs from affordable sources, such asIndia. He believes that thestrong push toward limiting music sharing should similarly be viewed via alogical, rather than a reactionary, perspective. This, he stresses, is a highly dangerouspath that should concern all of us and lead our nation to enact copyrightlaws that benefit society as a whole rather than benefiting only a fewpowerful special interest groups. When people other than thesestudents downloaded copyrighted music using the search engines, theRecording Industry Association of America (RIAA) made what was obviously anexample of these individuals by pressing suit for a total of $98 billion(48-52). Anyone can cut and past images off any Web site, as many of us do(1 5). He explainsthat the greed of a few large, powerful media entities is creating long-lasting damage for a society that is beginning to make use of the expansivepossibilities of the Internet. Lessig believes that a balance must be struck between the rights ofcreative artists to be compensated for their work and the advancement ofculture and knowledge (xvi). Such evolutionsare not new, writes Lessig. Lessig was unsuccessful at overturningthe CTEA, so he embarked on an effort to pass what he named the Eldred Act,which would require copyright owners to file formal copyrights on theirworks part-way into their copyright term, for a nominal fee, if they wishedto maintain their copyrights (252). He writes that it is these veryfreedoms that allowed the current large media companies to becomeestablished in the first place. Lessig sees this as a personal failing; however, itis clear that with Congress and the Supreme Court both on the side ofcopyright extension, there is currently a lack of willingness by ourleaders to protect what Lessig characterizes as our founding fathers'intentions to support creative progress. Common sense, Lessig says, argues that old ideas that are no longerbeneficial to society should bow to new ideas that most ordinary peopleagree are beneficial. Thus, these films and therelated Disney theme parks continue to entertain multiple generations (23). The "old guard" has always fought to protectits hold on wealth against up-and-coming new businesses. is $25 , (185). In one of the final stories in the book, Lessig relays that the 25million residents of sub-Saharan Africa who carry the HIV virus couldpotentially have access to drugs that we know are effective in lesseningthe severity of AIDS (257-261). This definition was challengedin 1945 by Thomas Lee and Tinie Causby, chicken farmers who claimed thatmilitary airplanes flying above their farm were causing their chickens tofly into the side of their barn and die. More concretely, Lessig proposes the followingrecommendations that he believes will help protect free culture in thefuture: 1)enact more formalities, 2) have shorter copyright terms, 3)differentiate free use from fair use, 4) "liberate music-again," and 5)"fire lots of lawyers" (287-3 6). He describes a case he filed to declare a recentact, the Sony Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, unconstitutional (215).The case stemmed from the work of Eric Eldred, a retired computerprogrammer who, in 1995, began scanning works of literature that were inthe public domain and putting them on the Internet, along with images andcommentary. Lessig sees this as the most tragic example of corporate greedsurrounding the concept of intellectual property protection. The authors of the Constitution specificallydifferentiated tangible property from what we now call "intellectualproperty," assigning definite rights of ownership to the former, butpurposely leaving the latter open in many ways to public use. As a result of Lessig's negative experience, he writes that in orderfor our leaders to recognize the problems inherent in over-extension ofintellectual property protection, citizens must be made aware of thedangers of this phenomenon. The same goes for audio and video files. Through relaying stories about the history of events in theUnited States and abroad, he argues that this action by "big media" isantithetical to the freedoms and spirit of progress written into theConstitution by our founding fathers. In the end, the Supreme Court did notapprove the Eldred Act. Instead, he says, attorneys are followingthe money of the rich and powerful and arguing cases that they themselvesmay not believe are just. Without the ability to do this or the knowledge of how the drugs aremade so they can be made affordably in Africa (which they easily could be),African nations cannot afford the drugs that could bring dramaticallyrelief from suffering and longer life-spans to millions of people with HIV.Lessig argues that granting these requests would have minimal impact theprofits of pharmaceutical companies, as they could still charge theircurrent rates for the drugs that are produced and purchased in Westerncountries. Lessig has personal experience with the political clout of specialinterest media groups. Interestingly, Lessig points out, the very entities that benefittedfrom the open use of creative works in the past are now the ones lobbyingfor tight control over this-control that would have prevented their ownfounders from getting their ideas off the ground (53-61). Heargues that this must be rectified if we are to progress as a society andallow new businesses technologies to flourish (1 ). He stresses that until recent times, theformer was protected by the Constitution and societal norms. Lessig points out that what stands between an individual'scontributions to derivative works and content sharing is not so much theissue of whether these acts are legal as much as the threat of illegality.Such was the case with four students who, working independently of eachother, modified existing search engines to make it easier for people togather content from a variety of sources. He writes that these technologies are being squelched andwill increasingly be more so at the behest of a handful of companies. legal and political systems, and, whetherwe know it or not, negatively affects us all. This issue, he says,should be of grave concern to conservatives and liberals alike, because itinvolves a perversion of the U.S. Never in the history of the United States,he writes, has there been such a great threat to creativity and progress aswe are experiencing currently in what he calls "copyright wars" between thecorporations that seek greater control over their copyrights andindividuals that implement new technologies, specifically those pertainingto the Internet. Lessig notes that "media giants" are also pursuing a more entrenchedmethod of condemning perceived threats to their content by lobbying forlaws that would control content-sharing on the Internet (193). He believes that copyright holders of allworks should be required to formally file for copyrights (currentlycopyrights are granted implicitly).
If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again:
or
Click here to request an essay written just for you.
|
|
|
