Number of Creative Commons licensed works (IN MILLIONS), plotted over time

Lessig’s efforts to reform copyright involve two main points:

1.) The law should give up its obsession with “copy.”

In the digital world, “copying” is not a meaningful act, so the law should focus its attention on something more meaningful. There are dozens of proposals for alternative copyright models, which I do not have space to cover here. The essential point is that change is needed in the law. As Lessig puts it:

We need to deregulate a significant space of culture and focus the regulation where it can do some good.

In its current form, copyright law amounts to the regulation of culture, which was clearly not its original intent.

2.) The law should distinguish between amateur and professional copying.

The law should recognize the importance of remix culture to youth culture by distinguishing between amateur and professional copying. Copyright law should encourage both amateur and professional creativity by producing incentives for the professional and promoting freedom for the amateur.

For most of the twentieth century, John Philip Sousa’s worst fears about creative production were true: the “infernal machines” – cassette players, CD players, radio, TV – robbed human culture of its creativity and of its voice. He describes:

Never before in the history of human culture had its [creative works] production become as concentrated, never before had it become as professionalized, never before had the creativity of the ordinary person become as effectively displaced . . .

However, remix culture has changed all of this, once again involving the ordinary person in the creative process. The whole social media scene allows forms of expression that were unimaginable just a few decades ago. It is essential for the law to recognize the importance of a participatory creative culture and seek to protect and promote it at all costs.

The Creative Commons Logo. Awesome!

In his quest to reform copyright law, Lessig started Creative Commons, an alternative license to the standard copyright (©). While the purpose of copyright licensing is to restrict rights to use the content, the purpose of Lessig’s Creative Commons licensing is to explicitly give away rights that the content creator does not want to reserve for himself.

The Creative Commons FAQ describes the idea underlying the organization:

Some people may not want to exercise all of the intellectual property rights the law affords them. We believe there is an unmet demand for an easy yet reliable way to tell the world “Some rights reserved” or even “No rights reserved.” Many people have long since concluded that all-out copyright doesn’t help them gain the exposure and widespread distribution they want.

The effects of Lessig’s work with Creative Commons have been profound. The most recent statistics from December 2008 reveal that an incredible 150 million works are now licensed under Creative Commons, creating a breadth and depth of public domain work that was simply unimaginable in an earlier age.

This high-quality content is free to use, remix, and build off of in new creative works. How awesome is that?

Update: You should read:
Part 11 – Final Thoughts

Related Posts

1. Copying Is Not Theft
2. Free Software Foundation is Awesome
3. Misinterpreting Copyright

Note: This is Part 9 in a series of posts about freedom of speech on the Internet. You should read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, and Part 8 first.

“In 1906, John Philip Sousa traveled to the U.S. capital to speak about the technology which he referred to as the ‘talking machines’ [the record player]. John Philip Sousa was not a fan of the talking machines. This is what he had to say: ‘These talking machines are going to ruin the artistic development of music in this country. When I was a boy . . . in front of every house in the summer evenings you would find young people together singing the songs of the day or the old songs. Today you hear the infernal machines going night and day. We will not have a vocal chord left. The vocal chords will be eliminated by a process of evolution, as was the tail of man when he came from the ape.’” [emphasis in the original]

– Lawrence Lessig, Stanford Professor of Law

Besides the threat of Internet censorship, Stanford Professor Lawrence Lessig also recognizes copyright law as another threat to free expression on the Internet.

He has been an outspoken advocate for copyright law reform, proposing reduced legal restrictions on copyrights and trademarks in the digital realm. Lessig has dedicated most of his career to copyright reform; he sees it as the single most important issue that will define the success of the Internet in the future.

The current copyright situation for digital media. Neither professionals nor amateurs are allowed to copy or remix existing copyrighted works. (Photo courtesy Lessig).

The ideal copyright scenario, after Lessig’s suggested reforms have been implemented. He proposes that amateurs be allowed to remix and modify copyrighted works without limit (free use). Only professional copying is off-limits. The “grey areas” are left up to the copyright owner to decide (Photo courtesy Lessig).

He produces many blog posts, podcasts, and speeches arguing in great detail his reasons for proposing reduced copyright restrictions. Lessig argues that one of the most important triumphs of the Internet is its “remix culture” – a phrase that he coined to describe the widespread acceptance and encouragement of derivative works (works that include copyright protected elements of other works).

A mainstream example of “remix culture” is hip-hop culture, which makes heavy use of music sampling (taking part of a song and reusing it in a different song). The Internet, Lessig argues, has also developed a remix culture; hundreds of examples of Internet videos come to mind that substantiate this claim (see the videos at the bottom of this post for some popular examples).

Remixing and reusing previous work – with or without the permission of the author – is central to Internet culture. This raises obvious questions:

Is this remixing in fact copyright infringement?
Is this remixing ethical?
Should the copyright law change to reflect changes in technology?

A literal interpretation of copyright law contends that any unauthorized copying of copyrighted material (without explicit permission from the owner) is a violation. However, the issue is really not this simple. Lessig argues that the enforcement of copyright, which was originally meant to regulate the physical reproduction of written works, does not make sense in a digital medium, where every access and use of content produces a “copy.”

The architecture of copyright law (that gets triggered whenever a copy is made) and the architecture of digital technology (where every single use of “culture” produces a copy) have combined to produce a radical change in the scope and reach of copyright.

The combination of these architectures means the death to legal creativity and the stifling of much free expression on the Internet.

In print media, amateurs are allowed to remix copyrighted works without limit for noncommercial purposes. Even professionals have the right to remix copyrighted works for parody and criticism. Why do these same rights not transfer from print media into the digital realm?

For example, I regularly quote short snippets of copyrighted work for use in academic papers – indeed, I do so many times — even in this very blog post! – with attribution but without the advance permission of the copyright holder.

Why is this basic academic freedom not translated to the digital realm?

The law is out of sync with the technology.  Copyright law must be reformed so that amateurs have the freedom to exercise their creativity and free speech, even when this involves “copying” (by the old-fashioned definition) of copyrighted work.

For some classic examples of “remix culture” the early days of the Internets, just move your eyes ever so slightly below this text and keep moving them downward until you reach the comments section. While you are there, leave some comments and let me know what you think!

Related Posts

1. Copying Is Not Theft
2. Misinterpreting Copyright
3. Internet Meme Tribute by Weezer