April 7, 2006  ·  Lessig

wired_nypl.jpg

So last year today was the event at the NYPL with Jeff Tweedy. In my continuing effort to tinker with podcasting like technology, I’ve synchronized the slides with the audio from that event. The file is available as a torrent.

(How to use a torrent)

Also available on:

YouAre.TV: Who Owns Culture?

(Very cool re YouAre.TV: Built in CC licensing in the upload engine).

Google Video: Who Owns Culture?

YouTube.Com rejected the video — too long.

  • http://www.a4fs.net Matt C

    permission denied: ‘lessig-LessigNYPL’
    ?

  • Ron Bell

    Thanks for posting this. Have you considered the use of an app like Ambrosia Software’s Snapz Pro X to make the videos? Not sure if it would be iPod friendly but would save you lots of time in trying to line up video with audio.

    Ron

  • http://mayamoose.blogspot.com miss moose

    Hi,
    Thanks for the great audio slide show. Do you have something similar for the NYPL debate on Google Print (I only have the audio that was posted a while ago on your Blog, but it would be great to see the slides aswell)

    Thanks, Miss Moose

  • Longbow4u

    Could you please make these slides available in the free Ogg Theora video format please. Quicktime nowadays forces everyone to also install iTunes, which not everyone wants. Also, this format would be compatible with other free websites and linux OS.

    Thanks in advance, Longbow4u

  • http://freedomforip.org/blog.html Sarah

    Hello,
    My name is Sarah. I was inspired originally to join EFF and fight for free culture by your OSCON 2002 lecture. I’ve since helped to build an organization called Freedom for IP.
    You start this lecture off by explaining how courts have rightfully upheld the rights of “pirates” to use culture in new ways that don’t necessarily require compensating artists. You even go so far as to call these new ways “napsters”. Yet, later in the lecture you specify very clearly that you are against pirates. You don’t say why you are against pirates, and the only reason I can come up with is that mainstream society won’t listen to your points unless you subscribe to the common ground that pirates are bad.
    I support pirates, and I think that listening to a song at will is not theft. I believe that sharing digital culture should be unregulated use. So, I guess I’d like to know what you mean by “piracy” when you say you are against it and why.

    ~Sarah

  • http://delicategeniusblog.com Delicate Genius

    Folks, I’ve uploaded the video to Google Video to make it more accessible to the masses.

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6122403781064290619

    -dg

  • http://poptones.f2o.org poptones

    Saeah, what is “digital culture?” Where is the “analog culture?” Digital technology is just a tool – saying you believe “digital culture” should be unregulated and free is a noble ideal, but it’s really pretty meaningless – you’re actually saying ALL culture should be freely accessible and unregulated.

    Let me challenge your ideals with this: DRM is enabling dissidents and child pornographers alike to subvert the tyranny of the majority. I believe all restrictions on speech are inherently toxic to society, and so in a world without this toxicity these uses of DRM would have no relevance.

    How “unregulated’ would you be willing to allow “digital culture” (whatever that means) to become?

  • http://www.freedomforip.org/blog.html Sarah

    poptones,
    You’re right. sharing culture should be unregulated use. I do not think that there should be no regulations on creating culture. Slavery, sexual or otherwise, for example, is not justified by the higher purpose of creating culture.
    To be more clear, copyright and patent laws are the areas that I think should become unregulated, or (realistically) extremely less regulated. I don’t mind the fact that it’s illegal for me to give a copy of my copy of MILF Hunters to a child. I mind the fact that it’s illegal to give it to a consenting adult.

    ~Sarah

  • ACS

    Sarah

    We seem to see the “property is theft” view quite often here. I agree there is no problem with sharing in the name of culture. The stealing is, with what, I disagree.

    There is a fundamental disrespect to artists to use thier works without thier permission.

    Do you believe that a creator is not entitled to respect, even if that infringes your ability to use a work?

  • http://poptones.f2o.org poptones

    Slavery, sexual or otherwise, for example, is not justified by the higher purpose of creating culture.

    So all child “porn” is slavery? What of motive? What of the child’s rights? What if it’s not a “child” but a sixteen year old who wishes to share images of himself? That’s present;y illegal too, and it’s because we have adopted a societal model that approves of declaring what sshould be allowed for everyone regardless of motive.

    To be more clear, copyright and patent laws are the areas that I think should become unregulated, or (realistically) extremely less regulated. I don’t mind the fact that it’s illegal for me to give a copy of my copy of MILF Hunters to a child. I mind the fact that it’s illegal to give it to a consenting adult.

    See? So you are embracing restrictions on speech just as you (indirectly) accused the prof of doing. In your argument this is a copyright and speech issue – in mine it is a liability and speech issue – what of simply affording children who feel to have been harmed by speech of others (ie images of them taken without their consent or through coercion) to seek retribution like any adult who was “damaged” in such a way?

    It’s not called a slippery slope for nothing, you know.

  • http://www.freedomforip.org/blog.html Sarah

    ACS,
    You make a great point. I do not think that creators works should be published without their permission. I think that creators should have to opt-in to publishing. However, once they opt-in, they should not have the right to exclude others from distribution.
    Commercial distribution is an area where I could see a valid use of regulation. I don’t want my song used to draw fundraisers to the Republican National Convention. I should be able to legally regulate that use as an artist.
    I don’t see non-commercial distribution of a non-rivalrous property that has already been published as disrespectful.

  • http://poptones.f2o.org poptones

    I think that creators should have to opt-in to publishing. However, once they opt-in, they should not have the right to exclude others from distribution.

    What? I thought you were about “digital culture?” All “published” means now is that I took two seconds to click “post” on an image. Publishing is sharing, and sharing is expression and speech.

    It really seems to me your stance on this is just as antiquated as some others who frequent this place. Ironic, given your intial remarks about “digital culture.”

    I see you avoided my challenge regarding limitations on expression. Intentional? Because both are equaly relevant in this “digital culture.”

  • http://www.vishnurao.com vishnu

    unfortunately torrents and download sites are blocked in my university network.. if there any other way i could get this slide show?

  • http://h1.ripway.com/ultimatum4/ Niki

    I’m a human and I have to say that torrent transfer is the fastest way to transfer files, data from one computer to another and reliable too. I, myself use BitComet to download information.

  • http://dagnyhemingway.blogspot.com Jan

    Dear Professor Lessig,

    Didn’t think how else to make you aware of footage taken at your lecture in Second Life this January past but to post a link here – hope you don’t mind.

    See Professor Lessig in Second Life.

  • http://gnuosphere.blogspot.com Peter Rock

    Sarah says:

    I do not think that creators works should be published without their permission. I think that creators should have to opt-in to publishing. However, once they opt-in, they should not have the right to exclude others from distribution.
    Commercial distribution is an area where I could see a valid use of regulation.

    Assuming I understand you clearly, I absolutely agree.

    One of my favorite characters on this blog is the 3 Blind Mice. The mice have a way of cleverly spinning and twisting the issues in order to favor the copyright holder privileges above the public interest. The Mice get me to think. I like that. However, I would like to ask the Mice, or anyone, the following question -

    Is it ethical to prevent human beings from sharing published scientific information or culture?

    Of course, “sharing” implies non-commercial distribution. This question is about as direct of a question that I can think of. Can the Mice squirm out of this one or will they simply have to answer “Yes”? And of course, the Mice and others are free to answer “yes”, but I would hope the mass majority of thoughtful, rational human beings, would be absolutely appalled. And if the Mice answer “no”, then much of what the Mice have ever said on Lessig’s blog is vacuous.

    Most likely, the Mice buy into the belief that restrictions on non-commericial sharing are necessary to provide incentive. That is, the Mice likely believe that progress in the arts and sciences will virtually grind to a halt and society will suffer without All Rights Reserved copyright law. An insane belief, but commonly used to defend the All Rights Reserved mentality.

    And of course, that will be the end of it. Belief is the ultimate conversation stopper.

  • three blind mice

    Peter Rock: Is it ethical to prevent human beings from sharing published scientific information or culture?

    well Peter Rock, say we have scientific information on a) how to build an atomic bomb, b) how to cook meth, c) how to bypass the encryption on satellite broadcast signals, and d) where to download justin timberlake’s latest CD.

    it seems to us that it would be ethical, if not imperative, to use the law to prevent us mice (not to say human beings) from sharing information a) and b). the mice are libertarians, not pollyannas.

    it would seem to us that there are cases where society’s interest is best served by some form of prohibition on the distrubution of information. the question, perhaps, is where to draw the line and not should there be a line.

    we think it is both ethical and imperative to use the law to discourage the sharing of other information – such as copyrighted digital files and certain “scientific” information – as well.

    dupont should not have to give away for free every new formula they develop simply because it is “scientific information”. similarly, artist and authors should not have to give away their work for free simply because others adopt it as “culture.”

  • http://poptones.f2o.org poptones

    I am relieved to realize there is finally a point where our paths diverge, mice.

    Information is information. Information on how to cook meth can be useful to parents, landlords, and basically any citizen who wishes to be aware of the “warning signs” of a meth cooker moving into the house next door. Similarly, information on how to build an atom bomb could prove very useful in regards to other forms of scientific research.

    If you want to prevent people from making meth and building atom bombs, there is a ready avenue to that end – don’t let them buy all the required ingredients. Similarly, if you don’t want your troop movements broadcast on cnn, make sure you don’t let cnn know.

    There is no excuse for censorship – period. None. The instant you draw that line in the sand the winds of change begin moving it – and inevitably, that wind blows against liberty.

  • http://poptones.f2o.org poptones

    dupont should not have to give away for free every new formula they develop simply because it is “scientific information”.

    Any innovations dupont produces will be protected under patent. If they wish to keep it a trade secret rather than a patent that should be their right – but only so long as their “innovation” does not present a possible health risk to the public. For that reason – openness and accountability – atents are the preferable method for protecting the riights of the publishers of this sort of “information” as well as the public.

    More information, not less.

    However, peter rock, no one is saying the ability of indiviudals to access “culture” should be outright denied. Even if every p2p system were shut down tomorrow I could still borrow cds from friends and the library, exchange discs with friends, etc.

    Communities of like minded individuals seems to me the answer. Encryption to protect privacy and small groups of “friends” exchanging files present no threat to the legacy publishers – in fact, this is how new markets are created. And the online realm is already responding in this manner – newsgroups filled with encrypted posts, IM clients that support strong encryption and creating “communities” rather than just large anonymous “rooms,” and artists increasingly moving from the old school system to exploiting these new paradigms in “sharing.”

  • three blind mice

    There is no excuse for censorship – period. None. The instant you draw that line in the sand the winds of change begin moving it – and inevitably, that wind blows against liberty.

    well, poptones, that is the difference between the idealistic and the practical.

    *mice yell “fire” in crowded lessig blog, make quick escape through wainscotting*

  • ACS

    Is it ethical to prevent human beings from sharing published scientific information or culture?

    Ethical????

    It is the basis of our scientific development under the patent system – which works quite well – and by the way people are not prevented from seeing the ideas in a patent specification only from reproducing the invention.

    Copyright on the other hand only prevents the reproduction or dealing with a work in a “Substantially material form”. Look at the Da Vinci Case. There is nothing stopping a person listening to a legitimate work and then creating thier own. It is the mere act of dealing without the creators permission that has been withdrawn by statute.

    Honestly there can be no argument in favour of sharing without permission. This is why Prof Lessig and others came up with the Creative Commons concept in the first place.

    The statement: “I do not think that creators works should be published without their permission. I think that creators should have to opt-in to publishing. However, once they opt-in, they should not have the right to exclude others from distribution. Commercial distribution is an area where I could see a valid use of regulation.” seems ridiculous in that it envisages a “published author” losing the rights to commercial distribution. That is attacking the very reason for protecting copyright in the first place. Honestly people – why would you publish a work if as soon as it was published it would be public domain?????? Why would sony bother to pay an artist at all??????

    If someone wants to “opt-in” to a creative common then I am fine with them alienating thier rights, but dont put that same standard on everyone. There is a valid statute here in Australia and in the US as well and there is no cause for alteration of our interpretations of that statute without legislative consent.

  • http://www.freedomforip.org/blog.html Sarah

    why would you publish a work if as soon as it was published it would be public domain?????? Why would sony bother to pay an artist at all??????

    For the beauty of culture. Res ipsa loquitur.

  • http://www.commonsmusic.com/blog Commons Music

    Sarah:

    That’s a nice idea, but not practical. For instance, how would one fund something without a way to make their money back and make a living from it later? The Lord of the Rings, three of the best movies I’ve seen in a long while (though, admittedly, not on my top ten list), cost over $300 million to make, not including ad and publicity costs. They made their money back and then some, and that’s because people paid to see it and buy it on DVD. Did the downloads hurt? Eh, I dunno. I’d say possibly yes, probably not, but artists deserve to be paid for things they make and people want to see, listen to, or experience. Without that, we’re saying that artists aren’t deserving of the same kind of money for their work as anyone in a non-artistic field.

    If I, personally, had no hope of making money from my artistic endeavors, I’d still do them, but more as a sort of hobby, and never put the time and effort into them that they deserved, likely because I wouldn’t have the time because I’m working a “regular” job.

  • http://gnuosphere.blogspot.com Peter Rock

    The Mice say:

    dupont should not have to give away for free every new formula they develop simply because it is scientific information

    As expected, the Mice squirm away by either faking ignorance or not listening to the question. Here is what Dupont can do: Dupont can choose not to publish their formula. I would not favor a law that forces publication any more than I would favor a law that forces me to publish my own personal diary.

    ACS says:

    Honestly there can be no argument in favour of sharing without permission.

    I’ll give you one and it should be enough. If we want to create a society that isn’t destructive – as it is currently – we need to cooperate. Cooperation is meaningless unless it is global. That is, not “us” cooperating while “they” look on. Not “we” the artists cooperate while “they” the listeners look on. Not “we” ((fill in country name here)) cooperate while “they” ((fill in other country name here)) look on. Not “we” ((fill in religious identity here)) while “they” ((fill in other religious identity here)) look on.

    There are many ways in which we can cooperate as human beings to build the best society possible for all. Part of this involves finding out what privileges should be granted in order to produce what is best for the whole of society. Perhaps restrictions upon commericial use may be OK depending on the work – but my question was not dealing with that aspect. The restriction of access/distribution of published works is mercantilist and void of any sense of decency toward fellow human beings.

  • three blind mice

    For the beauty of culture. Res ipsa loquitur.

    from the point of view of the observer, sure, the beauty of an artistic creation might speak for the motivation behind its creation.

    but from the point of view of the artist who has to eat (pay bills, support a chemical dependency, etc.) the motivation is decidedly more pecuniary. oliver twist isn’t an inferior work because dickens wrote it under contract with a newspaper: it might not otherwise exist.

    there has to be room for both motivations, sarah. destroying copyright makes room only for one. (and unfortunately it is the one of lesser value to society: the artists who don’t need legal protection to prevent their work from being copied because it sucks so much no one wants to. there is a reason why most obscure indie bands are indie and obscure.)

  • http://gnuosphere.blogspot.com Peter Rock

    The Mice:

    but from the point of view of the artist who has to eat”

    That artist should then find another way to earn a livelihood until it becomes possible for them to live entirely off of their artistic endeavors.

    Why should this artist be given absolute control (All Rights Reserved) over the public? Was not the public also responsible for such art to come into existence? Where is the balance?

    As well, perhaps I misunderstood Sarah’s post, but I got the impression that Sarah – like myself – thought there was room for the possibility of commercial control over works. But that we agreed that to prevent others from sharing an already published work is not healthy for society either scientifically or culturally. Please correct me if I have misinterpreted you Sarah.

  • http://www.commonsmusic.com/blog Commons Music

    Peter:

    “That artist should then find another way to earn a livelihood until it becomes possible for them to live entirely off of their artistic endeavors.”

    That’s all well and good, but if one is never paid for people to enjoy their work, then how can artists ever reach to the level of a livelihood?

    For instance, let’s look at this from a specific perspective. I’m working on getting my documentary distributed and earning my investors back their >$20k they’ve put into it. I’ve spent three years working on it, and have traveled to many places in order to get the information and footage I needed.

    So, what rights should I and should I not have in regards to my documentary? I’m not being rhetorical, I’m genuinely curious.

  • http://gnuosphere.blogspot.com Peter Rock

    Lawrence Lessig says:

    I am against piracy. Piracy is wrong. I do not support the right of people to take other people’s content without paying for it.

    Lawrence, I have a question for you as the above statement needs clarification. I too, do not support the right of someone to “take” what you refer to as “content” without permission beforehand. That is, if I have some “content”, you should be asking for my permission (if I haven’t by default given it) if you’d like to have that “content” or make a copy of that “content.”

    Now let’s say a work has been published. I have legally acquired this work meeting all of the demands of the copyright holder – paying for it if necessary. I now have some “content.” I then chose to copy this “content” onto my server. I explicitly state on my server that I give permission to the whole world to copy this “content” for themselves if they wish to.

    The RIAA and MPAA call this “piracy.” Are you against this as well? Or do you reject their biased metaphorical terminology in this scenario as I do?

    I am curious to hear your response as you have chosen to use the language of the RIAA and MPAA. Of course, you are free to do so but you must then expect to be asked for explicit clarification as to how you define “piracy.”

  • http://gnuosphere.blogspot.com Peter Rock

    Commons Music asks:

    That’s all well and good, but if one is never paid for people to enjoy their work, then how can artists ever reach to the level of a livelihood?

    Why would an artist “never” get paid? To believe that requires an overly-pessimistic view of humanity, no?

    So, what rights should I and should I not have in regards to my documentary? I’m not being rhetorical, I’m genuinely curious.

    Perhaps you may consider the right to attribution. In fact, I would strongly suggest it. Having your name on a work is essential. It may take two or more films to get out of the red. I think to approach the work of a filmmaker or author or whatever in terms of each book at a time is a mistake. Do you want to make one film or be a filmmaker?

    You may want to restrict commericial use of your work. I would think that would depend upon your intent. It may mean looking at your situation very specifically. I could see it being a positive or negative depending on the particular situation.

    A derivative work restriction is another right that would have to be considered depending upon your intent. Allowing derivation might increase awareness of your film and potential income possibilities when combined by a non-commercial restriction.

    Perhaps a good person to ask is Brian Flemming. I understand his documentary “The God Who Wasn’t There” is released under a creative commons license. And last I checked it was selling on Amazon.com. I do not know, however, what the terms of the license are. I find it interesting that the terms are not explicitly stated. Perhaps I’m simply not looking hard enough. It is important though – as there are licenses (such as the sampling licenses) which do not allow sharing – which is a tragedy but still “appropriate” considering the CC has not taken a stance on this issue and prefer to define the “spectrum” of rights between the public domain and ARR.

    Does anyone know what the CC license for “The God Who Wasn’t There” is specifically?

  • http://www.commonsmusic.com/blog Commons Music

    Peter:

    If the norm becomes copy copy copy and no buying, then it won’t work. Buying copies of a work is the way artists make money. I understand CC (I use it on all of my music, in fact, and my group’s music), but I haven’t seen any CC work that would succeed like that. If you give people permission to copy and distribute, you’re essentially saying that you work off donations from now on. Knowing from experience, that isn’t going to work.

    Brian Flemming released portions of Nothing So Strange under a CC license. The film itself is under full copyright. I believe, but don’t know, that this situation is the same for TGWWT.

    As for money, here’s what he’s said about it: “…my best-case scenario for The God Who Wasn’t There is to break even on marketing expenses (production costs are already written off, gladly, as a loss). All of my indie-film work and free-culture activism operates in the red, subsidized by the Hollywood work-for-hire assignments I take that also pay my rent.”

    Also, your position assumes a pessimistic and, frankly, exploitative view of artists. Yes, if you buy a book, you own the book. You don’t own the right to make a copy and upload it to your server so everyone else can download it. The missing part there is that publishing does not equal remission of rights. When you’re sold the book, you’re sold the book. Your position is like saying that because I sell you a copy of a painting, then you can reproduce that painting at will.

    For instance, I’ve given DVD copies out (“screeners”) to a few people, including the good professor (which should be arriving soon, if it hasn’t already). My saying full copyright, I’ve asserted that I don’t want these things gracing file-sharing networks and whatever else. Sure, the people I’m sending the DVDs to are trustworthy in my eyes, but it’s still something to be aware of.

    Also, there are other issues here. I am not planning on putting the doc under a CC license, for a few reasons. One is that many awards and other prestige which could help promote the film depend upon not broadcasting it, including online. If I just rolled over on that, I lose any chance of those things. Perhaps it’s wrong of them, but I still need it.

    Also, no distribution company would touch a film without copyright fully on it. I’m not planning on DRM or any of that crap, but copyright seems to be a way for artists to now say, “Please, pay for this.” CC is a way to say, “Thanks for downloading, pay if you like.” I widely prefer the first one.

  • http://gnuosphere.blogspot.com Peter Rock

    Commons Music says:

    If the norm becomes copy copy copy and no buying, then it won’t work.

    Why would anyone believe that “no buying” would become the norm? There is no boogeyman in the closet.

    Buying copies of a work is the way artists make money.

    No. It is a way artists make money.

    If you give people permission to copy and distribute, you’re essentially saying that you work off donations from now on.

    No. I’d say that might be closer to the truth if you released your work to the public domain. The restriction of commericial use of your work is hardly puts you into a position to say you are working purely from “donations.”

    Also, your position assumes a pessimistic and, frankly, exploitative view of artists.

    My view is that All Rights Reserved is exploitative toward the public and corruptive of the artist. Frankly, I am concerned about a filmmaker’s way to make back expenditures used to create a film. However, I refuse to say that this concern is best addressed through oppressive law. If I buy your movie, you should have no right to stop me from making non-commericial copies of that movie and sharing it with whom I wish. For one to even suggest that it is ethical to stop me from sharing the copy I legally got from you with others is outrageous.

    If you can’t generate enough money to do the project without taking away my inherent right to share and cooperate with other human beings, then you should not do the project.

    And of course, this is where the mice and other behaviorists chime in with their absurd extremist belief – “Well then nothing will be made.” Yes, perhaps it will be a while before we see billions of dollars generated to produce the effects needed for Terminator 17, but I’d argue humanity is better off that way.

  • three blind mice

    For one to even suggest that it is ethical to stop me from sharing the copy I legally got from you with others is outrageous.

    well all three of us will suggest that it is not only ethical, it is what jesus would do! “thou shalt not steal” and all that jazz.

    sharing implies that you are giving up your copy so that someone else may enjoy it. like sharing a book you purchased. there is no digital analogy, Peter Rock, what you are doing when you upload copyrighted files to your server is not sharing: it is copying. you never surrender your original. you suffer no loss. what if everytime someone made a copy, your original disappeared and you could no longer enjoy it? wouldn’t you feel like you were robbed?

  • http://www.commonsmusic.com/blog Commons Music

    Peter:

    No. It is a way artists make money.

    The main way, I would have to say. That, and tie-ins with their work, or subsidiary ways (like advertising for television). Of course, those depend on other methods. The point here is that someone is paying. But let’s move on.

    No. I�d say that might be closer to the truth if you released your work to the public domain. The restriction of commericial use of your work is hardly puts you into a position to say you are working purely from �donations.�

    As I said, I have had some experience working with CC material. I’ve heard rave reviews from people for Tryad and even my music. Tryad’s work has been downloaded something to the tune of 50,000 times (and that’s just the ones I can track). How much money have we made off of this? Not much. In fact, we’ve broken even on the CD costs (we’ve sold about ten), which is where most of the money is from. A few scattered donations, but that’s pretty much it.

    It’s not that people wouldn’t, I’d say, it’s just that since we’re offering it up for free, there’s no real reason to go, “Hey, I should pay for this.”

    Why would anyone believe that “no buying” would become the norm? There is no boogeyman in the closet.

    As I said, it’s a mental thing. If people’s perceptions shift to, “Make copies of everything I own and mass distribute it,” how is that even approaching fair to the artist? If they want to do so, then that’s fine, but what gives you the right to control how they distribute their work? If they wanted to sell in e-book form, then they can sell in e-book form. If they wanted to go only paperback, then they can only go paperback.

    J.K. Rowling went only paperback with the Harry Potter books. I think it was a stupid manuever, and ignored an important market, but, again, that’s her decision. She wrote the books, made up the universe of characters, and I wouldn’t begrudge her those decisions.

    If I make screener copies to send out, shouldn’t I, who made the film, who put all that time, effort, and money into it, be allowed say in how people see it? What if I decide the quality of online video is shitty and would rather people see it on DVD or in the theater? In your world, I’d have that taken away from me, and then any content becomes a free ride situation.

    For one to even suggest that it is ethical to stop me from sharing the copy I legally got from you with others is outrageous.

    Ah ha! Yes, you can share the DVD copy (that’s covered well under first sale law), but what you’re talking about is making further copies beyond that. Essentially, everyone gets to see the film without the filmmaker getting anything for it.

    What? Publicity? Please. Publicity is nice, but making a living is better. If even half of the people who downloaded Tryad’s music paid in half a dollar (hell, a quarter!), then, I assure you, we’d be moving much faster on the second album (likely because we wouldn’t have to keep working elsewhere). I do it because I enjoy it, yes, but I’m also of the hope that it will lead to working wages.

    What do you do for a living, Peter? I’m asking out of plain curiosity.

  • http://www.commonsmusic.com/blog Commons Music

    Actually, I think I’m done here. I’ve been in these round-robin discussions previously, and they never go anywhere. I’ve said my peace.

    Cheers, all.

  • http://gnuosphere.blogspot.com Peter Rock

    Commons Music says:

    In fact, we’ve broken even on the CD costs (we’ve sold about ten)

    Of Tryad’s album “Public Domain”? That’s unfortunate. That makes me 20% of your sales (I bought one for a friend of mine as well as for myself). However, I believe this can change. The current structure of the music industry (e.g. RIAA) doesn’t make for a good environment to promote the sales of CC-released music. I applaud you and others who release their music this way. However, just because the current structure is archaic, this should not be used as an excuse to prevent people who have legally obtained “content” to then allow others to make copies of that content non-commericially.

    Yes, you can share the DVD copy (that’s covered well under first sale law), but what you’re talking about is making further copies beyond that.

    Yes. Sorry I wasn’t clear.

    Essentially, everyone gets to see the film without the filmmaker getting anything for it.

    That’s a gargantuan jump.

    What do you do for a living, Peter? I’m asking out of plain curiosity.

    I’m a teacher.

  • http://gnuosphere.blogspot.com Peter Rock

    Commons Music,

    I was curious to know if you had read Promises to Keep by Terry Fisher? There was extensive blog talk here about it last year when Terry visited. I bought the book last summer and found it interesting and informative. Anyway, I was curious to know what you thought of Chapter 6 which is available on the web – An Alternative Compensation System.

    I understand where you are coming from but cannot agree to using the law to prevent those who obtain content legally from making non-commercial copies to give to whomever they wish. That is not the kind of world we should be creating.

  • http://www.freedomforip.org/blog.html Sarah

    Peter Rock,

    You beat me to the punch on bringing up Terry Fisher’s Promises to Keep. I’m very much in favor of his ‘arts as public utility’ model.
    Also, there’s a band here in Seattle called Harvey Danger who released their most recent album, Little by Little… in it’s entirety for free through bittorrent or direct download, in addition to selling cds. From their explanation page:

    “However, it’s important that people understand the free download concept isn’t a frivolous act. It’s a key part of our promotional campaign, along with radio and press promotion, live shows, and videos. It’s a bet that the resources of the Internet can make possible a new way for musicians to find their audience – and forge a meaningful artistic career built on support from cooperative, not adversarial, relationships.”

    There is also an mp3 of our local NPR station interviewing one of the band members about the free distribution strategy. He is in the second segment, 24 minutes in.

    ~Sarah

  • http://www.freedomforip.org/blog.html Sarah

    Peter Rock,

    You beat me to the punch on bringing up Terry Fisher’s Promises to Keep. I’m very much in favor of his ‘arts as public utility’ model.

    Also, there’s a band here in Seattle called Harvey Danger who released their most recent album, Little by Little… in it’s entirety for free through bittorrent or direct download, in addition to selling cds. From their explanation page:

    “However, it’s important that people understand the free download concept isn’t a frivolous act. It’s a key part of our promotional campaign, along with radio and press promotion, live shows, and videos. It’s a bet that the resources of the Internet can make possible a new way for musicians to find their audience – and forge a meaningful artistic career built on support from cooperative, not adversarial, relationships.”

    There is also an mp3 of our local NPR station interviewing one of the band members about the free distribution strategy. He’s in the second segment, which starts 24 minutes in.

    ~Sarah

  • http://www.freedomforip.org/blog.html Sarah

    Oops! Sorry that posted multiple times, the blog gave me a “movable type error” so I assumed it hadn’t worked and tried it again…

  • anonymous

    “very much in favor of ‘arts as public utility’ model”

    great idea!

    why stop there?

    how about, um, teaching, and lawyering, too?

  • http://poptones.f2o.org poptones

    I cannot believe, Peter Rock, after all the exchanges we have had here, that you would now be here hawking that DRM system outlines in the paper you linked!

    AI only browsed through it, but I read enough to read things like “unique file name that would allow tracking (naive in the absurd – so now I cannot rename a file?) calculation of stuipends owed individuals depending on “reuse” of their work, etc.

    The only difference between the system I have been proposing and the one outlined in that paper you linked is liberty – I say leave people free to choose and the economic system will adapt on its own accord; the system in the paper denies this truth, instead creating a gigantic new government subsidy system to underwrite only published works that have been registered.

    The more I hear from you peapl screaming about “freedom” the more I am convinced you want nothing of it. for years I said this isn’t about a ree ride, it’s about free speech – but to many of you it is apparent to me it really is just about having a free ride… or, in this example, a free ride on everyboyd else’s dime.

  • http://hackwrench.tripod.com Robert Claypool

    Property isn’t theft. However, trying to force things that don’t have the features of physical property into structures that were designed to regulate physical property is.

    Here are my analogies to help illustrate that fact:

    Imagine that someone is planning to demolish their building. A demolition crew comes in unasked, and only does part of the job. Not only do they demand payment for the job they did, they demand payment from anyone that attempts to finish the job. The only difference between them and the record industry is that the words “You have Intellectual Property rights” is replaced by the words “You’re in violation of the RICO act”

    The music industry is like a man who buys land upstream and caps the river, bottling and selling the water, and explaining that they charge the fee because they deserve to be paid for the job of capping the river and bottling the water. The people downstream are out money, fish and a place to swim.

  • http://hackwrench.tripod.com Robert Claypool

    Why stop there?

    Some lawyering and teaching are public utilities, so those are bad choices. Ever hear of the Prosecutor’s Office, or Public Schools. That is where we want the Lawyering and Teaching to be done without having to have to find clients that will pay them before doing any work. Otherwise, lawyers and teachers don’t work until AFTER someone comes and pays up.

    The way artists work these days is that they do the artistry first and then demand payment from anyone who wants the art and even deriviations thereof. How far would lawyering and teaching get if lawyers and teachers had to pay the first person who came up with a teaching or courtroom technique everytime they used it?

  • three blind mice

    The way artists work these days is that they do the artistry first and then demand payment from anyone who wants the art and even deriviations thereof.

    while some artists and authors work this way, others sign agreements first and receive money to “do the artistry” up front. an advance goes a long way towards providing the circumstances under which “culture” can be created. what gives authors in particular the ability to negotiate an agreement is their copyright – and the fact that they can assign these rights to a publisher/distributor. copyright allows authors to exercise their liberty.

    It’s a key part of our promotional campaign, along with radio and press promotion, live shows, and videos. It’s a bet that the resources of the Internet can make possible a new way for musicians to find their audience …; and forge a meaningful artistic career built on support from cooperative, not adversarial, relationships.”

    but Sarah, copyright is still important to the band. the arctic monkeys weren’t considered successful until a few hundred thousand of they copyrighted CDs were sold. they didn’t make ALL their music available for download; they needed the protection of copyright to become a success – the internet was a sideshow.

    it is a mistake to craft laws around a sideshow which destroy the business case for the main stage.

  • http://gnuosphere.blogspot.com Peter Rock

    Sarah,

    On the Harvey Danger site, it says that the album can be downloaded and then says that “please share it with friends.” However, I don’t know if that is valid legally. Does it not have to be stated in the copyright and not just in an informal statement on a web-page? There is no mention of what the license is exactly. I appreciate them offering their album for no cost, but I’m not interested in getting music for no charge. I want free speech, not free beer.

    Poptones says:

    I cannot believe, Peter Rock, after all the exchanges we have had here, that you would now be here hawking that DRM system outlines in the paper you linked!

    Could you please point out to me where it says in the paper that the music would be burdened by technology that hampers its use by the downloader? That is, I assume that when you say “DRM” you do not mean to use it as an umbrella term (which would confuse us), but mean DRM as a technical measure used to restrict the downloader from making copies of his/her file. Obviously that is the way the term “DRM” is being used in this discussion.

  • three blind mice

    I want free speech, not free beer.

    we see you, Peter Rock, hiding behind free speech whilst you confiscate the property of others.

    you don’t want free beer. Peter Rock, please. you propose nothing but free beer. it is free beer – and lots of it – that lubricates your free speech. without the ability to copy and distribute other people’s expressions at will, you apparently have nothing to say.

  • http://poptones.f2o.org poptones

    Peter, there is no way for ANY of that stuff outlined in the paper to work without DRM. Tracking files by filename alone is utterly stupid – online publishers already know this and went past that hurdle long ago. If you track everything by filename then all I have to do to create a “pirated” work is rename the damn thing and now none of the licensing tracking works – it’s become “unlicensed.” In order to actually, effectively track works you must WATERMARK them, and that’s a DRM technology.

    Now, let me say right off I realize you didn’t actually advocate any of this, that you really only asked a question of another poster and provided a citation of the source. I was being deliberately confrontational to challenge you, to hopefully get you to state how YOU feel about the ideas in the paper, but I see the didn’t work so I still don’t know this, or even if you have actually read the whole paper and comprehended the technical requirements such a system would require. But given your previous statements here I simply cannot believe you would be endorsing this – and if you are endiorsing it, then why you would reject my ideas, which are eerily similar save for the intervention of governmental meddling.

    The paper you linked also talks about the requirement for registration of creative works for them to be protected. So what happens when this all knowing, all seeing board decides certain works CANNOT be licensed? Dont say it can’t happen, it’s already happening in the spiral of censorship laws and weakening of the protections afforded professional journalists in this country.

    And it talks at some length about a system wherein the creator of a derivative works “assigns” one of several licenses and acknowledges all the original works used in his remix, and doles out government subsidies to those creators based on the amount of their work appearing in yours, and the popularity of it. it talks about a system to track downloads as a measure of popularity so that the money can go to the people actually being downloaded.

    In short, it talks about DRM being applied pervasively to online media – only rather than connect to Microsoft or Sun or even joeblow.com to get an authorization srting, you’re connecting to government servers.

    So now the government not only has final say over what speech gets protection, in order to be protected the media must be watermarked and the media player must have a way of telling the official copyright servers that you have it – the govvernment now knows to the last IP address who is accessing any specific work.

    Oh yeah, that just screams to me of Freedom – only in this case it’s freedom’s last dying gasp.

  • http://poptones.f2o.org poptones

    Oh, and TBM – I think you are being far too critical of some of this simply based on you own tastes. Remixing is a valid art form – I personally love Shirley Bassey, and I discovered how much I love her through remixes and reuses of her work like the selection on the Propellorhead’s first album. It seems to me you don’t care for hip-hop works and so criticize at every turn the legitimacy in this reuse of works.

    I point this out only because ti seems to me the one detail where you and I differ on reuse of existing works. I think reuse of works should be attributed and only with permission of the creators of the original work (and no matter what song she’s singing, no one has Shirley Bassey’s voice -and you can’t really “learn” how to sound like Shirley Bassey no matter the lessons). This often weakens your very good arguments because it leaves you sounding like a grumpy neighbor sitting on his porch, screaming at the kids walking by to “turn down that damn music…”

    This isn’t an attack on you, only an observation. I liek reading your comments, and I say these things only to make you aware of them so that you might make your points in even more convincing fashion. If you don’t even “:get” the art then few are going to care about your criticisms of the system that leads ot its creation.

    Peter, regarding Harvey Danger – you have, on their website, written permission from the creator of the work to download and redistribute to friends. Note they are not saying you may remix the work without permission, or post it to p2p networks (that’s not “friends” that is “everyone”). It seems likely they would welcome the p2p redistribution as well, but since they don’t say this specifically I wouldn’t tread there. But there is no requirement for complicated licenses and such – all it takes for a copyright owner to remove themselves from a select bit of their exclusive rights is written permission – and there you have it.

    This is the way it’s supposed to work. And I will point out there’s no reason an artist could not do this exact same thing even in a world of ubiquitous DRM.

  • http://poptones.f2o.org poptones

    Commonsmusic, I hope you’re still milling about here, I have a question and comment. Have you offered your work to magnatune? I have bought several works there and I “shop” there often so I know it works – I’ve also seen some of their offerings posted to newsgroups (in fact, it was a usenet download of “Shiva in Exile” that led to my very first purchase from them), so I know I’m not the only one listening. It seems to me if you’ve only sold ten CDs (magnatune sells “CDs” in the context of offering lossless downloads) then you simply have very bad marketing and need to hire the services of someone more skilled in that area.

    I’m listening now to “Witness” and I like what I hear – and even “music that sucks” can find larger audiences than what you describe. Go pitch your stuff to magnatune; even half of a six dollar download is better than all of nothing.

  • three blind mice

    I think you are being far too critical of some of this simply based on you own tastes. Remixing is a valid art form – I personally love Shirley Bassey, and I discovered how much I love her through remixes and reuses of her work like the selection on the Propellorhead’s first album. It seems to me you don’t care for hip-hop works and so criticize at every turn the legitimacy in this reuse of works.

    this is a valid criticism poptones – and partially true. we are of the opinion that one purpose copyright should serve is to spare society from the endless loop of hip-hop mediocrisy that has dominated pop “culture” for the past decade. one obvious benefit of copyright’s monopoly on copying and re-use is that if forces other artists to DO SOMETHING ELSE. the african american Jazz and R&B crowd used to be the engine of musical culture, now they are sitting in the caboose. it seems to us that the lax attitude toward re-mixing “a sure thing” is a huge contributor to this catharsis. no one is taking any risks.

    poptones surely you (as we) have spent enough time in bars to know that competent bands play covers and good bands write original music. it is original artists with original thoughts and new ideas who advance culture. we are not ready sacrifice originality on the altar of the commons so people with (IOHO) LESS talent can make a living for themselves.

  • http://poptones.f2o.org poptones

    one obvious benefit of copyright’s monopoly on copying and re-use is that if forces other artists to DO SOMETHING ELSE.

    Actually, it doesn’t do that at all – it only ensures the artists who do get sampled get paid for their contribution to the new work. “Ice, Ice baby” would have been absolutely nothing without the hook it was based on, and those original contributors should be well paid – hell, they should have earned more from that remix than vanilla ice!

    the african american Jazz and R&B crowd used to be the engine of musical culture, now they are sitting in the caboose.

    Wow, that’s a phenomenally ignorant view to be coming from you, TBM. I’m not calling you a bigot, only pointing out that “hip hop” isn’t just about “black music” at all, and remixing definitely not just part of “black music.” Ever heard portishead? They use theremins and loops and all sorts of stuff, they are a PHENOMENAL presence onstage, and they are about as far from “R&B” as you can get. The turntable is every bit a musical instrument and it takes a good dj to really do something with it. I enjoy watching the portishead dj almost as much as the incredible vocalist, both are obviously quite talented.

    The Propellorhead’s first album was pehenomenal, a collection of new works employing many jazz classics. It had a an original sound and introduced many who would otherwise have never heard of artists like Shirley Bassey to the “classics.” And techno, though you may not like it, is filled with samples and beats lifted from other artists – just like charlie parker and dizzie gillespie and myles davis lifted riffs from each other.

    When they first arrived on the scene, the old school didn’t consider the theremin an instrument either – it was a novelty used for nothing more than eerie effect in bad science fiction and horror movies. Then Clara Rockmore arrived onstage and proved to everyone the theremin was an legitimate instrument that could be mastered with virtuosity. When synthesizers came on the scene the old school again balked, then Wendy Carlos, and later Stevie Wonder and Larry Fast and Joe Zawinul and Return to Forever proved the naysayers wrong yet again.

    Have you listened to any Oakenfold? That might appear to be just a dj spinning one disk after another, but in fact there’s a LOT more going on – he’s spinning multiple disks, mixing a bass riff from one song under another, adding choruses and “hooks” from still others, with drum machines and sequencers and synths all being overlayed in real time onstage. It takes just as much virtuosity to do what he does as Keith Emerson displayed decades ago, hammering keyboards and swapping patchcords with the fury of a musical Steve Austin. Another DJ, a local legend from the area where I grew up (and hung out with other now legendary figures of house music) is now engaged in a deal to play his old shows on one of the satellite radio networks! He was known as electrifyin’ mojo, and his late night shows melded kraftwerk and parliment and third world and devo in a way no had ever heard before. Those shows were incredible, and they were “live” – no in an arena, but live and in realtime just the same.

    Remixing and sampling very much is a valid art form – the old school of jazz did it all the time as well, just with different instruments. For example, I have a CD here that contains no less than six different versions of Charlie Parker performing his well known classic “Kim,” and in every one of them he at times “samples” himself and many of his contemporaries. I would encourage you to, rather than dismiss it outright, do a bit more research into this culture, and perhaps you might even find something there you enjoy. I dare say, that would certainly help you in discussions like this, as in this area you come across uncharacteristically uninformed – so much so it at times a causes pretty glaring weakness in your argument.

  • http://poptones.f2o.org poptones

    By the way: let me add that I find far more originality in oakenfold’s remixes than I have ever found in the countless string of “bar bands made big” like Hootie and the Blowfish and, as John Lydon called them, “Bruce Hornsby and the Fucking Range.”

    Classical music has a language, and understanding this language deepens one’s understanding of the music – certain combinations of brass and percussion, woodwind and tringle, etc: these are all “patches” employed over and over by every composer. They had to be, because they were part of the language. This same fact applies to old school jazz, whether it was Charlie Parker interjecting “happy birthday” or Myles interjecting a line from “Rhapsody in Blue,” these quotations add meaning – humor; mourning; joy.

    In synthesis the same truth applies: Keith Emerson might have been the first to add a new synthetic verb with his “Minotaur” patch – the swooshing, mournful durge that became the “hook” for the song Lucky Man.. There is not a synthesist worth her salt who does not know how to reproduce this patch, and it has been reused over and over in the decades since its invention. Techno and hip-hop again share this – there are certain patches and even instruments (TB303, Minimoog, the unmistakable and steroetypical screech of a Korg filter sweep that makes a piece instantly recognizable as “techno”) whose applications in various contexts have specific meanings – just like Dizzie adding a riff from “happy birthday” in the middle of “Someone to Watch Over Me.”

    It’s language. And criticizing a language simply because you don’t understand or speak it, I say to you with all respect, is not emblematic of an informed or open mind.

  • three blind mice

    And criticizing a language simply because you don’t understand or speak it, I say to you with all respect, is not emblematic of an informed or open mind.

    c’mon poptones. you can’t argue language in the context of copyright. we all agree individual letters, words, and notes – the basics of language – can not be the subject of copyright.

    in the context of copyright, the only subject under discussion are specific original unique expressions of language; not the language itself.

    no doubt miles davis played many of the same note as others, but when he did it, it sounded like they were being played for the first time – expression poptones – not content. that is what copyright protects.

    vanilla ice riding on the success of queen’s “under pressure” is not language, nor is it mr. ice’s “freedom of speech” to express himself using brian may’s recognizeable riff.

    and as this example shows, copyright is no hinder to making bad music. you just have to pay for the priviledge.

  • http://poptones.f2o.org poptones

    c’mon poptones. you can’t argue language in the context of copyright.

    I’m not – I’m saying copyright needs to keep up with the language. Right now it’s divorced from it. We never before had instruments that could do what instruments today can do.

    we all agree individual letters, words, and notes – the basics of language – can not be the subject of copyright ….no doubt miles davis played many of the same note as others, but when he did it, it sounded like they were being played for the first time – expression poptones – not content. that is what copyright protects.

    Oh, really? Have you seen the Clint Eastwood produced film about Charlie Parker, Bird? It won an oscar for music (or sound production, I can never keep that straight) as it featured many compelling “live” performances where bird and diz and baker all shared the stage performing works that never actually existed- they were created, “virtually,” combining existing works and new works performed by a certain well known contemporary who is, shall we say, better known for his technical virtuosity than his innate creativity and “soul.” In other words, the works were mimicked so as to convey bird and diz and baker.

    Helen kane, the “boop boop be doop” girl actually sued fleischer studios on the grounds they had stolen her fans. She lost the suit, and fleischer claimed in court any similarity was unintentional, but it’s been acknowledged by others involved in the creation of betty boop that kane was in fact an “inspiration” for the character.

    Does this prove anything? Not really, but both are very good examples of previous precedents being set regarding “mimicking” of existing works. And what are recording devices, but very good mimicks? They are certainly not capturing the person’s actual voice – and hey, what if they are? if I can record Bob Goulet and be sued for infringement when I sell without his permission, what if I record him, use those “samples” to create a formant synthesis engine that can reproduce his voice at will saying anything I wan him to say with any inflection I can invent… does he still have rights to it?

    This is exactly how many audio codecs ALREADY work: they don’t just chop the speech up into discrete bands or samples and blast it out the other end – they actually “sample” characteristics of the speaker’s speech, encode them, then recreate those characteristics on the other end – the sound is synthesized as much as it is “sampled.” So now does the choice of codec I use to sample an artist affect copyright? What if I alter it? How much do I have to alter it? Consider this humorous example of bush parodying himself at the mercy of a clever sound engineer – how much do I have to change it before it’s no longer the same? What if I sample two artists and combine the formant characteristics of both? The line is far from black and white, and copyright as it exists does not resolve the issue.

  • three blind mice

    We never before had instruments that could do what instruments today can do.

    for at least 30 years we have. the only difference now is that you don’t need to be frank zappa or rick wakeman or robert fripp to own one.

    poptones you make some good points and have certainly given us mices pause to think.

    our position is that there ARE lines to be drawn in copyright, but we do agree with you that the dividing line is fuzzy. as it should be.

    it seems to us that the rip mix and burn “culture” wants a right of trespass over any line however drawn. their answer to “who owns culture?” is that no one owns it – otherwise artistic expression must concern itself with and be constrained by trespass. this view is congruent with people like Peter Rock who claims the right to copy and distribute “his” purchased property however he sees fit. this is, in our humble opinion, the extremeist view.

    both are very good examples of previous precedents being set regarding “mimicking” of existing works.

    and both are very good examples that copyright is not an electrified fence that incurs an immediate and painful penalty everytime you brush up against it. properly drawn, copyright borders more resemble shoreline than barbed wire.

    anyway, getting back to vanilla ice… it seems clear to us that that cracker should not have been able to rip, mix, and burn queen’s riff without the permission of queen. free culture says he should be able to – once released into the “culture” queen could no longer claim any right in the riff from under pressure. we view this as insane fantasy.

    on the other hand, some of the “language” examples you describe above do not so clearly derive from easily recognized prior works as the previous examle. here, yes, it is a little less clear if this is, or should be, considered as a fair use, or even as a copyright infringement at all. the line is fuzzy, but this does not mean that there is not a line!

    this is one of the problems with DRM solutions: DRM draws hard lines where fuzzy ones exist.

  • http://poptones.f2o.org poptones

    for at least 30 years we have. the only difference now is that you don’t need to be frank zappa or rick wakeman or robert fripp to own one.

    Rick Wakeman could only dream of today’s synths when he was journeying to the center of the earth. And Robert Fripp’s “Frippatronics” was only a primitive precursor to – a faint, shadowy glimpse – of todays acidic garage band. Software now can separate many distinct properties of speech and encode them each individually – the vocal cord vibrations amount to little more than a carrier wave for speech, and a very good formant synthesis engine can make Frank Sinatra scat like Ella Fitzgerald or Madonna sing with the inflection of Louis Armstrong. And even these marvelous inventions are but shadowy glimpses of what lies just around the next corner.

    And an exclusively DRM solution might not be the answer to that particular case of vanilla ice and his skirt tail ride to the top – but then again, maybe it would. If a DRM technology existed that encoded usage rights into the file itself – say, you may sample this track at a rate of one tenth penny per second published – then the fact the sample was “looped” would have no bearing on final costs… three minutes would still cost the remixer 18 cents for each track sold, thus ensuring a quite fair royalty to the surviving members of Queen – enough, in fact, to perhaps have encouraged “Ice” to find a more affordable track to sample, or perhaps even (shudder) hire musicians to create a new loop track for him.

    I think we both well agree on the principle of providing attribution (even monetary, if they so desire) to the originators of a work. But it gets shadowy very, very quickly – and thus far, neither of us have actually commented on THE alleged topic of this panel: the professor’s presentation. I am interested in your thoughts on that; here are mine…

    I love this presentation more than any other I have seen here. My ego tells me the good professor has actually heard my voice here, though modesty presumes it was not my voice, but perhaps many other voices out there whom I have never heard, who actually share my views. This gives me encouragement.

    But I think the prof is still being a bit too diplomatic, or perhaps just politically correct. I hear him encouraging artists of the “free” mindset to actually produce something and contribute it to the truly free commons, but this is still wrapped in politeness and indirection to the point I fear that message may be lost on all but those who actually do think like myself.

    There are scads of “free” creative works out there – the series welcome to the scene being one of my favorites thus far. It’s a fantastic show, produced about a slow budget as one can imagine, built entirely upon this “new media,” but the license permits only sharing of the show as a whole and forbids any “remixing.” This sort of licensing does not give back to the creative community in any more substantial fashion than Vanilla Ice or Madonna – it only permits me, as a “fan,” to help spread the word about a show I happen to enjoy.

    What is needed is more truly free work; a show that might become populat enough to become part of the language of our culture, but providing free use of those language elements in the same way as I can “remix” Mozilla or VirtualDub (which has spawned at least three very good competitors). I would like to see the prof make even more direct pleas to this community to step up and put their creativity where their mouth is, so to speak. This presentation is the single best beginning to that dialogue I have heard yet, and I definitely look forward to the next. More importantly, I look forward to seeing results from this beckoning.

  • http://garmahis.awardspace.com Michael Garmahis

    It’s amazing story. I was really surprised to read it.

  • http://www.stephenjudge.net Stephen Judge

    Hi,

    I have only come across this “Who’s Owns Culture?”, video recently. I was keen to download the Bit Torrent version of the video but the Torrent Tracker at http://www.prodigem.com were Mr. Lessig had his Torrent stored is now gone. As is the tracker listed at http://wilcoworld.net/wired/. Does anybody still have the original Bit Torrent video file that could be upload to the Azureus Vuze http://www.vuze.com ,they host and track video torrents for free.

    I would appreciate if someone would do this and make this video file available again.

    Steve

  • http://www.100dimensions.com ps

    You can watch Lawrence Lessig – Who owns culture? on 100dimensions

    http://www.100dimensions.com/intl/en/ch/ch3300/ch.html