Bledsoe, Elliott. "Lessig's Use of Flickr Photos: is Creative Commons Really a Community?" Creative Commons Through the Looking Glass.

          Bledsoe's blog was inspired by a comment Lessig made on his own blog about how, after using a photograph from Flickr in a post, the photographer actually came up to him in Hong Kong. According to Lessig, it was "the most amazing fact of the day". This led Bledsoe to question how, or even if, Creative Commons functions as a community since it relies not only on legal permission but on the idea of sharing and the relationships that sharing facilitates. What makes CC different is that things are not directly shared like they would be in the real world. He compares CC to borrowing a cup of sugar from your neighbor, which involves a direction need and interaction. Using a CC license, however, preempts sharing. Even though someone may not need or want to use the work, permission has been granted anyway without any direction interaction between parties. CC also lacks direct membership which even other online communities have. The point here is that with no central hub and no obvious boundaries in the community, it's actually likely that "members" (those using CC licenses) will feel very isolated. CC then becomes a community only in the fact that it facilitates smaller subcommunities which have come to use it.

        This article emphasizes this idea that Creative Commons facilitates communities and, in turn, the commons. Some of the examples of subcommunities that Bledsoe mentions are Flickr and DeviantArt, places that my project hopes to emphasize as models of the value of the commons online and how Creative Commons plays a role in it. Both of them are made possible, at least in part, but the larger CC community. However, the article points out an important distinction. CC itself is not (at least not yet) a community in the same way that Flickr and DeviantArt are. No one has to sign up or login to use CC licenses. No one discriminates against who can and cannot use these licenses and therefore little is shared among users except for their willingness to share. But smaller communities that embrace CC licenses offer the boundaries and distinctions necessary for a community to really flourish.      

On the heels of the Grokster case, Lessig explains that he is not for file-sharing, but that it is a distribution system that needs to be protected because of its potential to encourage and make easier a culture around remixing.

*On the Grokster case: "…if you make the courts the arbiter of whether a technology should be allowed or not, then the courts become a tool, a weapon to be used in the marketplace."

*The purpose of Creative Commons is to create "…a norm around people being free to remix and build upon, to sample out of, to supplement, to criticize content that otherwise."

*Argues that freer licenses under Creative Commons are economic incentives that can drive development – discusses the case of Brazil at length.

*Discusses how young people today think about writing in different ways, ways that are increasingly based not on text but on video and sounds, this makes freeing up the culture around image ownership and licensing all the more relevant and necessary.

Lawrence Lessig Orphan Works Proposal

In the case of orphan works, the copyright law stifles creativity instead of protecting it. Current and proposed legislature is inefficient in dealing with this problem. The Google Book Search settlement will decrease the amount of orphan works in the short term, and limit its growth in the longer term through the formation of the Book Rights Registry. It is, however, only a partial private-sector solution. Far-reaching action from the legislative bodies is needed for a comprehensive solution to the orphan works problem.

This is a movie/ presentation by lawyer Lawrence Lessig in response to the Orphan Works act of 2006. In it, Lessig traces the orphan works debate back to his case Eldred v. Ashcroft. After providing the legal background, and stating the orphan works problem, he goes on to disagree with the Orphan Works act of 2006. His argument is that the bill “goes too far, and not far enough:” that it goes too far in removing copyright protection from the owners, and not far enough by making it extremely difficult for users determine whether a work is orphaned or not. His own alternative is given in the end, in which he suggests a simpler scenario which corrects some of the failures of the proposed bill.

Lessig admits that there are benefits to the legislation. The two of them include (1) the realization that there is an orphan works problem, and (2) the recognition that copyright owners will have to be part of the solution.

The negative elements of the bill are grouped in 3 categories: who, when and by what are copyright owners affected. The 2006 act affects everyone, now. All the owners must always be identifiable. This is unfair to copyright owners, because after the 1976 act, they have not been required to register their work. Suddenly, they are told that they do, with the penalty of losing their rights. It is especially unfair to foreign copyright owners. What must both domestic and foreign rightsholders do to make sure they can be identified, after a “reasonably diligent search?” The bill does not propose an answer. The later is exactly what is going to affect rightsholders: the murky term of a “reasonably diligent search.” Although the bill includes a list of how to determine whether a search is reasonably diligent, the requirements are unclear. This “mush” will be a permanent cost to libraries, and a permanent uncertainty for users.

Lessig suggests an alternative, in which owners have an obligation to maintain their copyright in a way that makes it easy for people to identify and get access to them, after a specified term. Under this plan, the government should provide the protocol for the creation of searchable registries towards which rightsholders are going to turn when they need to be identified. Market forces should keep the cost for registering very low (as low as buying a domain name). This proposal does not extend to foreign copyright holders, because of the Berne convention.

This is an important source because of three reasons. (1) It provides a straight historical connection from Eldred vs. Ashcroft to 2007. (2) It disagrees with one of the solutions to the orphan works problem and shines light on the legislative weaknesses. (3) It provides an efficient counter-proposal. This proposal shows similarities and differences with the Google Book Search approach – elements which will be used in support of my argument in favor of a Google-ized orphan works solution.

 “We could reject the notion that Internet culture must oppose profit, or that profit must destroy Internet culture. But real change will be necessary if this is to be our future- changes in law, and changes in us.” These words spoken by heralded Creative Commons’ co-founder Lawrence Lessig really capture the attitude within which many officials are acting when addressing IPR. Lessig argues that many trials, ranging over Youtube videos to Girl Talk compilations, are responsible for the limitation on creativity of users. Lessig states that the release of the “remix” culture from the shackles of copyright owners could drive extraordinary economic growth. This "create as well as consume" culture can and will inspire a deeper, much more meaningful practice of learning. Lessig further supports that the war in this century is against the pirates and has resulted in a failed effort to get them to stop sharing. His closing statements reveal that it is necessary to decriminalize Generation-X since peer-to-peer sharing has only gotten stronger with technological advances present today.

This article provides a lot of hope for the future of creativity since Lessig addresses that restrictions, such as the ACTA, will inhibit economic advancement. Currently speaking, mashups and compilations of other works appear to be selling well and appeal to the market the most. Lessig’s approach appeared useful in my argument about the future of file sharing since it implied that it is a necessary evil. In contrast to other theorists, this movement towards a more liberalized outlook on copyrighted works can better the economy within reasonable means. Lessig’s article, in addition to being highly engaging, highlights points rarely brought up by other legal system analysts.

argument of the book

analysis

Eldred v. Ashcroft oral arguments.

Lessig, Lawrence. ""Creatives face a closed Net." 28 December 2005
Lessig writes about the recent development of a record company, Wind-Up Records, requesting AnimeMusicVideos.org (perhaps the largest online collection of anime music videos and "AMV" artists) to remove all links to music videos containing music by their artists. These artists included Evanescence and Creed, bands popular among fans and with a large number of music videos on the site, roughly 3,000. He points to the AMV movement as a sign of the growing read-write culture allowed by the internet and computers that new generations are increasingly participating in. Where content owners try to enforce a "Read-Only" environment where viewers/users can look, but not touch, Lessig advocates the development of creativity and benefits thereof for those (often young) fans who take it upon themselves to add to the artistic tableau of a medium. He even relates a personal anecdote about his son, in which the only way he was accepted to a prominent university was by showing them the AMVs he had made as an example of his artistic talent. Lessig sees the struggle between copyright holders and young, artistically motivated fans as the new battle to be fought, and one in which it should be easy to see which side is in the right. Of course, according to current US copyright law (backed by copyright holding corporations) such employment of "Read-Write" culture is illegal. The internet, however, has afforded both an opportunity to put such artistic expression on easy display and an at least temporary hurdle for content owners to leap in order to stomp down on "unfair" uses due to its expanse and level of anonymity.

In this work, Lessig describes how the architecture of the internet was designed to foster creation and innovation, and how recent changes in the law and behavior of the internet are serving to stifle the very creation that has flourished on the internet.

A nine minute student documentary of the Free Culture New York Summit held at Columbia University, January 2006. The film explores a new form of student activism, based primarily on and about the Internet. Beginning with the Free Culture demonstration at the Times Square Virgin Megastore, the documentary covers Free Culture members out to educate consumers on alternative forms of music distribution online (archive.org, ccmixter.org, blogs, etc). It continues the discussion with interviews featuring conference participants (Cory Doctorow, Creative Commons, Free Culture students activists). Finally, using cc licenses for distribution and production, the film acts as an example for other young student filmmakers who are interested in alternative copyright licensing.