Masudul Biswas
Lawrence Lessig has identified the disconnections between digital culture and the law in Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity. Throughout the book, Lessig has defended “free culture” as "a balance between anarchy and control” (p. xvi). He recognizes that a “free culture” is a culture with property and it is a culture where artists get paid. A culture that does not have property and does not give recognitions to artists is “anarchy” to him. He compares free culture with free market. A “feudal” nature of a property can misuse the practice of free market, and "extremism in the property rights” can discourage free culture. He supports the copyright law for recognizing the works of artists, but not for protecting a business interest that eventually promotes “permission culture” for accessing the Internet content. That is why he takes a position in between “anarchy” and “control.” By taking this position, he supports the need of a law to protect rights of the innovators or creators in a way that will not seize the public domain from the ordinary users. He argues that regulatory measures sometimes elevate the “permission culture” at a level where permission is not granted to the critical.
In my discussion, I have mainly highlighted two issues - the gap between digital culture and the law, and Creative Commons model for reforming the existing copyright law. Lessig argues for a reform in the existing copyright law and refers to the initiative of Creative Commons in liberating the increasingly controlled environment of the Internet.
Lessig has pointed out the increasing disconnection between law and digital culture. Digital technologies coupled with the Internet can develop more vibrant market for building a participatory culture. But the law has no concern for that. Lessig is not against the copyright law. But he is against the irrational and excessive use of the law. He mentions that the Congress extended the copyright terms to 95 years under the 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. Corporate-controlled media have found the democratic potentials of the Internet challenging for their profit-making business. Lessig says that “big media” have pushed the lawmakers to enact laws to serve their business interests in the name of protecting “commercial creativity.” “Extremism in the property rights” has the power to thwart the flow of critical thoughts from citizens. Lessig comments, “There has never been a time in our history when more of our ‘culture’ was as ‘owned’ as it is now” (p.12). Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) President Jack Valenti expressed his concern about the “piracy” of movies online. Lessig also sees that the law should take action against those who are involved with piracy, which is a “wrong” practice. But he cautions that the law should restrict itself to a certain extent so that it cannot impose more control over the Internet content in addition to curbing piracy. Lessig is also critical of the discriminatory legal system in which a teen faces a damage of $150,000 for downloading a single song without permission while he faces a maximum fine of one thousand dollars if he steals a compact disc from a record store. The government is trying to control the Internet radio by putting additional financial burden, which includes paying recording artists for every webcast of a song. On the other hand, a terrestrial radio is not bound to make from such payments. It is another example of protecting business interest in the name of copyright law. Again, the law ignores the potentials of digital technology.
Attempts are on to liberate the Internet public domain from the grip of “big media.” One is Creative Commons, housed at Stanford University, which gives creators more freedom in managing and sharing their digital works. Lessig says that the goal of Creative Commons is not to compete with the rights of authors, but to make it easier for authors and creators to exercise their rights. Creators can choose license options from Creative Commons. They can choose a license that permits any use, “so long as attribution is given,” or only for noncommercial use. This type of licensing helps to build a “layer of content" by allowing others to build more content on an issue or a topic (p.283). This is how Lessig has put forward the notion of a “responsible copyright law.” By doing this, Creative Commons can help rebuilding a public domain. Creative Common’s licensing policy is something different than the “All Rights Reserved” or “No Rights Reserved” extremes, but it carries “CC” mark. It is an example of copyright that allows certain freedoms to the users. There are many who mark their content with a Creative Commons license because they want to maintain the notion of “Some Rights Reserved.” As Lessig argues, the aim is not to fight the “All Rights Reserved,” but to complement them.
Lessig has also called for shortening and simplifying the copyright law. He proposes three important formalities. They are: “marking copyrighted work, registering copyrights, and renewing the claim to copyright” (p.288). He suggested keeping the last two steps out of the government’s control. He argues, copyright should not come into play in case of personal use, but only when someone wants to use a copy for making a profit. The book Free Culture is available free online. Anybody can read the book online free. Anybody can critique the book and develop content around the theme advanced by Lessig. But the users have no permission to use the book for commercial or profit-making purposes. This is very much in line with the practice of Creative Commons.
Lessig has made an apprehension. The law is shaping in the way that may create an environment where all use of the Internet content will require permission. That is why Lessig stands for the middle ground “Some Rights Reserved,” neither “All Rights Reserved” nor “No Rights Reserved.” He concludes that the law should not extend its wing to everywhere; rather, it should focus on certain areas of a culture and with good purpose.
No comments:
Post a Comment