You’ll all be relieved to know that after discussion with my peers and much deliberation, I have decided not to follow Wikipedia by blacking out my blog today in protest to the proposed Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). I do so, not because I disagree with the protection of Intellectual Property, but because I’m not completely sure who actually benefits and suffers from it all.
Whether it’s record and film producers lobbying for draconian measures to shut down file sharing; or Wikipedia sulking with the silent treatment because its access to the all-you-can eat information salad bar is being threatened, I get cautious. Both sides here represent extremes of a pendulum action that will be like driving off the left side of the bridge to avoid driving off the right side.
In a recent Facebook thread, my buddy Levi Leyenhorst pointed me to a TED lecture with Internet expert essayist, Clay Shirky. In it, Shirky suggests that US Government bill efforts like SOPA are an attempt on the part of the Content Industry to guard a monopoly on what and how we watch and listen.
Aurora photographer, Andrew Kornylak, pushes the thread along to say:
Make no mistake: Google, Wiki, Facebook and others are not lobbying on behalf of the individual, no matter how they spin it. The fact is their very existence and success relies on weak copyright laws.
I agree with both points, but I do take issue with Shirky’s use of the term “Content Industry” because there is a huge difference between the big business Music/Film Industries of Los Angeles and independent producers like me and countless others.
This SOPA/PIPA thing really is coming down to the democracy of ideas – what gets said and what gets censored.
The FB thread continues with this link from Newfie photographer, Greg Locke, that points to another TED speaker, Larry Lessig speaking on laws that choke creativity. Lessig is a Harvard Prof and vocal proponent of Creative Commons; which, as I understand it, boils down to the law of “finders-keepers” on the World Wide Web. Lessig’s views are easier to spout when you’re on a Harvard salary than when you’re on your own hook as a freelance content provider.
Here’s my summary take on Lessig’s points:
1) Technology: You can’t fight it. American composer, John Philip Sousa opposed communication technology (the phonograph) because it would replace individual creative expression. Sousa was wrong, but that hardly proves Lessig’s point. The apostle Paul said that everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial. Just because I can down-sample and screen-grab what I want from the Internet, does not make that the right thing to do. If you bake a lovely cake, can I eat it up without your permission?
2) Property Law: You can’t own it all. One’s right to property must be curtailed in the modern age. OK, this may be true in Lessig’s example of a turn-of-the-century farmer who fought for control of airspace over his farm believing that aircraft were inciting his chickens to migrate; but, I’m certainly not ready to extend cut and paste freedom to Intellectual Property (my articles/images) that I create to license/sell to feed my family.
3) Mass Distribution: You’ll enhance quality content. Lessig suggests that the unfettered distribution of content will encourage creators to do it for the love of creation rather than for the evils of money. Here, I think Lessig falls prey to the very romance that he chastises Sousa for back in Point #1. Professional content providers exist because their content is better than average. Independent content providers take substantial risk stepping into the print and online publishing arena and if we fail to protect their right to earn from this, we are left to mine our own gold from crowd-sourced tweets, Facebook rants and blog fodder (like mine here). Not only is that going to be boring, it’s going to be inaccurate! The blogosphere is ripe with rants, unsubstantiated statements and misinformation.
Yes, citizen journalism is part of the modern world and a titillating source for breaking news, but let’s not abandon the glory days of investigative journalism and high art when great masters had patrons to fund their obsession to communicate and with that, high levels of accountability.
Lessig goes on to show several creative, humorous and even blasphemous examples of remixed content that he calls “a literacy for this generation” as young people “increasingly understand digital technologies and [its] relationship to themselves”.
And he concludes by saying [sic] that our kids are going to grab and re-purpose content anyway, so why not make them less guilty by legalizing the activity. Like, great logic dude… (puff, puff, pass).
All this sounds warm and fuzzy, but I would argue that while the democratization of ideas is a fantastic thing, there remains the absolute need for thoroughly researched content on the part of professionally paid, and properly protected artisans; be they writers, photographers, videographers, soundmen, sculptors, musicians, even editors and the like. And the content that they produce merits protection so that they can retain the hope of reward for the risk of putting their ideas out there.
To quote a verse from one of my favorite sources: “…thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.” 1 Timothy 5:18
(c) craig pulsifer – but go ahead and repost with hyperlink to source
