There are many similarities, and connections between Lessig (225-252) and the documentery RIP. On page 226, Lessig discusses how artists participating in a sharing economy make sure to distinguish themselves as "sharers". They post free digital downloads, create works on their own terms and conditions, without record label and corporate interference, and, cater to a different audience (the technologically savvy youth). This example of sharers wanting to be seen as sharers is also seen in RIP. Radiohead (the band) released a cd to the web for free download, which prompted people to remix their own work with radioheads songs and videos. They were participating in a sharing culture and made a place for them selfs within it just through advertising.
Another point Lessig makes relates to the power and control the corporations have over intellectual property. Lessig says they maximize the controls they have, including intelectual property itself (228). This reaches all they way to WB owning the rights to one of the most well known songs in the world, Happy Birthday (RIP). The fact that this song is illegal to sing in a public or private place is completely insane. This example alone shows how far reaching copywrite laws are, and how restricting they can be.
Lessig also goes on to questions if sites like youtube "ride" on your work for free, or if you "ride" youtube for free (235). This idea made me think alot about how people generally dont realize the implications of interacting with specific texts. This is usually because they are blinded by the "free" services they are receiving. In relation to RIP, and the artists that girltalk incorporates in his remixes ... are the artists getting more play time and familiarity with fans or is girl talk receiving payment through the use of their material? it is similar to the question, which came first the chicken or the egg? who is profiting the chicken or the egg?
I like your point about Youtube using users or users using Youtube. Nothing is 'free', even if you don't pay in cash, you are offering information or other forms of data in return. But a lot of time, this free exchange of services for information makes the service better. By allowing more diversity (remixing), it would seem to follow that more information could be collected and used by companies for their benefit. I feel like that would an incentive for companies to loosen copyright but so far, it hasn't happened.
ReplyDeleteIs "a technically savvy youth" the only one they have to cater to though? I know that a lot of the "older" crowd is just as interested in this material.
ReplyDeleteI still can't believe that the Happy Birthday birthday song is copyrighted, it just seems so ridiculous for such a popular song to have these laws applied to them. I'm afraid of singing it now.
I really like the way you described the way people are "blinded" by the free services we get, I definitely agree that it's the case, sometimes I feel like I'm blinded by those services until I think about it and realize I should be careful what I get into.
Originally the relationship between YouTube and its users was a two way, symbiotic relationship. Both parties benefit from each other, and neither could exist without the other. However, I personally think that the relationship is slowly changing to YouTube using its users. Just look at the massive amount of ads on the site these days. It is disgusting.
ReplyDelete'Sharers wanting to be seen as sharers' is a really profound statement to me. It may not seem it at first, but the idea that our values are shifting away from just money based (values that created concepts such as copyright law in the first place) and towards respect and individual worth is awesome. It may be simply a sign that we, as a society, has been able to provide better living standards to more people, but regardless, it is a change for the better.
ReplyDelete