the latest news

I think Lessig makes a good point- everything we do seems to revolve around the Internet, or something to do with computers. But we're not using something that we've created; we're using this technology to advance us in our studies, or work, by putting someone else's inventions in our projects and presentations. I don't think this is necessarily wrong, however. His point towards music is correct- we would never have any new sound on our air waves if dj's or producers didn't copy/paste clips from songs and mix them together. This reminds me of the copy right dilemma- we're tkaing bits from others and making it our own, we may not be "citing" where we originally heard this music from but we're creating our own out of it so it's not a bad thing. We're not taking someone's ideas and slapping our name on it, we're evolving the sound. He answers his own question by basically saying that they'll still be getting paid for it, even if it's only 1 percent. I don't really know how this is a great realization however because I feel that if someone has taken something and created something brand new out of it, it isn't the way it was therefore why do you have to pay royalties for it?

I agree. Lessig answers his own question about cutting and pasting by stating that something new is being made from something old, but the new stuff being created never gets released because of all the copyright red tape. As a result, it would make sense to change the law, allowing the original creator to still receive financial credit for their work, even if it only is 1 percent of the net revenues. Credit is still being established (financially) to the creator, and "new" work is flowing more freely.

We haven't moved in that direction because those same creators don't want us to, nor do their publishers/producers. They fear losing too much of their own profits from new works that sprung from older original works. So, they fight to keep the copyright laws as harsh as they are.

But yes, we should move in that direction. I'm so tired of listening to the same music and watching the same movies because an artist/director somewhere is not free to experiment with works already created.

I want something slightly new. (Not entirely new since new and experimental music confuses me [like for example, Prick]). But sometimes covers are just better than the originals. Amy Lee's version of Korn's Thoughtless is beautiful and sung with more soul than Jonathan Davis, I thought. Nonpoint's Phil Collin's cover (from what I hear) is much heavier and faster than the original.

My point is some things are better than their originals (for those of you who have seen Donnie Darko and remember the ending song sung by Gary Jules, "Mad World", that was a remake of a really, really, really terrible '80's no name band).

But people are already going in that direction and succeeding. How many recent thriller/horror movies end when the hero discovers that he's the killer/bad guy? (Hide and Seek with Robert DeNiro was the last one of those movies, but I can't remember the first. Was it Fight Club?). Wasn't Deep Impact and Armageddon pretty much the same thing?

We're already going in that direction with ideas that are already becoming repetitive. This repetition bores me and I want something new. Lessig is right; we really should be taking bits from other works until something completely new is the result.

When it comes to who owns the rights to what and how much they should be compensated for those rights if their work is used, the answer seems to become obscured in different ways to fit the different technologies. Of course, the internet is the easiest way to innovate off of material that is already out there. Yet, it seems no matter what we may use off of the internet, it's for the most part illegal.

The proposition that Lessig explains in chapter eight does not seem like such a bad idea. Artists cannot expect to make huge profits off of someone interested in using a small portion of their work. The fact that they are making any money off of it anymore should be pleasing enough. From the other side, it also seems like a reasonable price. So, overall, this may not be such a bad idea.

Since no interpretation of the law can ever produce clear results, I'm sure we'll be spending years struggling over this issue. No rights will ever be completely secure and no rights will be completely safe. Always, another issue will come along that involves interpreting the present law, and it is up in the air whether you will keep or lose your rights. Everything is situational.

I think it is important to resolve this issue so that new, better media can be created. Innovations off of old material have great potential. But if the law consistently prevents this, we will miss out on some wonderful entertainment.

I had a conversation this weekend about a topic very similar. Art; music, film, writing - almost all forms of art that we cherish today were created from a seed that was planted in a work done years earlier. Inspiration is achieved when we look back on the works of the past. The masters of generations past, the milestones of eras all lead us and motivate us to create something more powerful and personal. It is important for cyber-rights like this to become reality. To deny an artist, legally, from devoloping or borrowing from other works is stifling to all realms of creativity. Red tape should never hinder and blind artistic vision. Art will always be created and cherished no matter what the circumstances are, yet, if such rights are granted, art will truly grow and move in new directions in the 21st century.

The idea of a cut and paste method of creation is interesting; while it might limit actual creativity among the creators, it alos gears minds towards a more exestentially-oriented method of look at art.

By taking bold symbols and images and applying them to something new, people are seeing more how the pretty but pointless 'wow' factor of art is not where its at, but rather that composition and contribution to one larger thing is whats really important.

Morgan, I think you need to elaborate a little more on what you've said. I believe I understand, but I also believe that there are some nuances that are lacking in your description.

As an example, if I made a picture by conglomerating a soup can from Worhal, a flower from O'Keefe, and a squigly man screaming, what have I done aside from ripping off three artists? I mean, it sounds like your idea is reminiscent of a patchwork quilt, taking parts from old quilts and clothing and creating a new one, but that idea goes both ways. On the one hand, you have created something new and unique (borrowing from things of the past) and arranged them in a way that would be artistic and creative, but on the otherhand, the only thing you provided new was the stitches.

I guess I just need clarification to see how it would lean more towards one side than the other.

Our age is retrospective. It builds on the sepulchres of the fathers.
-Ralph Waldo Emerson

Kevin, your example about making a picture from pieces of three different artists' work makes an excellent point. Is someone really creating something on his own if he uses only pieces from others' work? Should this be legal?

Although I was first leaning toward answering no to these questions, I think that with a little thought and Lessig's suggestion about the royalties of 1% of all revenues, the answer should be yes.

Someone creating something, regardless of whether or not it is entirely made up of others' works, is still creating something new. And, it should be legal because all the different pieces put together create something new, something different from the original inspirations. And, in addition, 1% of all revenue is going back to the person from whom the pieces were borrowed.

This, to me, sounds like an excellent idea, for some of the best pieces of art (songs, movies, stories, poems, etc) come from re-makes or re-mixes. Most people are opposed to direct change, but a little spice into the things they can already identify with can really make them appreciate the piece of art. For example, a completely new song may take listeners a while to get used to, but a mixture of beats from songs they are already familar with and like will probably allow them to more quickly appreciate and like the song.

Why aren't we moving in this direction? As I mentioned before, our society is so focused on money. The orignal creators, composers, etc. probably think that 1% profit is hardly comparable to the creativity and originality of their work. They want more.

The greedines won't change, but hopefully the copyright laws will, making the 1% of revenue the standard royalty to all originals.

I think everyone has had really insightful comments. Teddie really summed up my thoughts with his quotes by Emerson. I think in a way, there is really nothing new to this world... just new experiences built on old ideas and vice versa.
I think when a different person builds on an old idea, it does add different character, background, and stories to it. In Kevin's example of the 3 painting, I think that it does ultimately become that artist's own creation. He found the three paintings and had the artistic design to put them together in a certain format; he had a reason for fitting together those three and it, in someway, had to be an expression of his--whether it meant something deep and profound to him, or whether it was done at random to prove a point, it was still an expression. The fact that he brought together three pieces just over exemplifies what we all do--bring together other ideas to form our own expression. When we build on other's ideas, often we are adding our own experiences to it and it becomes a completely different idea.
It's a fine line between adding to, and expressing ourselves, and simply, copying. To what extent is something fully copyed? How can we know? I think there really can't be a defining answer to that question. I get annoyed when people copy my ideas, but in the back of my head I know that I have probably gotten a certain extent of that idea from someone else--and just added my own experience to it.
Brenden had it right when he said, "Since no interpretation of the law can ever produce clear results, I'm sure we'll be spending years struggling over this issue. " There really can't be a straightforward answer to this... just closer and closer agreements to something that we are all willing to live with.
In the end, I feel it necessary to ask if anyone out there feels that I have copied them. I quoted a few people and agreed with a few people. In other words, I took their ideas. And then I added my own experiences and ideas to theirs. Have I enfringed on anyone's rights? Should you all be paid due to the fact that your comments spurred me to think even further?

Grand emplacement ! J'ai trouve cet emplacement apres avoir surfe le google ce qui un emplacement inspirant fortement et consacre !