Lessig

I think you classmate pplz who already wrote about this article have gotten a pretty good summary worked out.

(I, for one, was simply excited that Lessig's article didn't include any HUMDINGERS like that one phrase from Benkler's masterpiece: "numbers of individuals several orders of magnitude larger than" or, as I like to say it: "more people than," but of course that ain't sound as smart.)

So yeah, as you ppl have already summarized, the Kodak situation let more people get creative, without worryin if taking a picture meant they were "stealing" something (becuz the law just decided it wasn't stealing). So good, widespread creativity and freedom in photography. That happened.

Ok, and then you got the "Just Think" situation, where kids are learning about multimedia and film by actually using it. Which sounds good. I like the thought process behind this, that kids are growing up in a world saturated by media (film, tv, commercials, radio, youtoob, etc) but nobody is teaching them the skills to deal with all this information--and those skills are crucial, because MEDIA works real hard to tell us what we should be thinking (mostly so we know what we should be BUYING) and if we aren't able to consciously decipher these messages and become aware of how loaded our entertainment/information is, we might not even notice the ways in which our perception of reality is shaped by such media. (we get played, son.)

It seems like (at least Lessig argues) this sort of youth program works real good, but honestly I'm at the point where ANYTHING--any kind of education about media/technology/INTERnet--is better than nothing.

Um, then Lessig says some junk about political stuff, but really he's just talking about blogging, and how it allows more ppl to talk, and so more pplz=more democracy, and less bias and whatever. Kind of standard stuff.

Then he talks about the open source stuff, which is kind of interesting (i think Will covers it pretty good, so y'all can check out what he said). Cuz basically it allows, like, extreme collaboration (and democracy or whatever), but what's cool to me is that there's no freaking out about "HEY THAT'S MY CRAP YOU CAN'T HAVE IT, IT'S MINE YOU R STEALIN MY JUNK MAN QUIT IT" which I think is kind of annoying and counterproductive a lot of the time.

BECAUSE this attitude, the obsession with "ownership," is stifling to creativity and (apparently) education. And this attitude is becoming more and more standard, even expected: "If you've created something YOU GOTTA PROTECT IT MAN."

I especially like Lessig's statement that "this tinkering with culture teaches as well as creates. It develops talents differently, and it builds a different kind of recognition. Yet the freedom to tinker with these objects is not guaranteed." It seems pretty evident that the ways in which we USE other people's "creations" (whether it be writing, film, music, etc) are more and more frequently being limited by copyright, which is basically about MONEY. Copyright, the way I understand it, is not about creativity (or anything else). (It kind of REMINDS ME OF HOW DOGS, LIKE, PEE ALL OVER THE PLACE TO MARK THEIR TERRITORY)

And when you have people who are afraid they might be infringing upon someone else's (copyrighted) junk, their creativity is limited. That's what that fear does. People are gonna be less likely to sample someone else's song if they think they're gonna get a big fat fine.

BUT I do understand where this attitude of extreme protectiveness comes from, and YEAH, I wouldn't wanna get screwed over either. If I had just written a novel, and then someone copied and pasted that novel and printed it out and sent it somewhere and it became a best-selling novel and they got to GO ON OPRAH--I would be pissed (BECAUSE I WANT THAT MONEY DUH I WANT THAT FAME GIMME THAT).

But that's the human part of me that grew up in a society where that's JUST WHAT YA DO. And all I can see (as a non-rich, non-famous, non-author) is that my creativity is being stifled by copyright. So who knows. I certainly think that a lot can be learned by messing with (I'm sorry but I HATE the word "tinker" it is so lame) "sources" provided/created by others--by taking things apart and putting them back together in some different way--and this in itself is a form of creation that is valuable (a remix is NEW).

I guess I can see both sides.

So, HERE is an interesting article about copyright and writing (I am an English major, and in all this internet-ing and technologizing, I still like those book things). I just like the idea that starting with something pre-existing and then taking it apart and examining it and integrating it with other previously created "things" (or completely "new" things) RESULTS IN SOMETHING NEW--a product that still requires creative thought. I haven't read those books the article mentions, though. So maybe they're just crap.