DTC 356 Developing Piracy

As we discussed in class, memory was the foundation that kept the language of the drums alive. People were required to know what different beats meant as if they were different symbols. The drummers aid people using definitions, often using specific details to provide context. Although these lengthy messages seem like a waste of time, Gleick mentions that "Redundancy - inefficient by definition- serves as the antidote to confusion" (25). He goes on to mention that while the meaning message may be the same, often a drummer will add his own individual flair to the context. They must use or 'copy' the original meaning, even if they repackage it. This seemed to be a mutual practice but after reading Lessig's "Free Culture," I can't help but wonder if this method of repackaging violates copyright law.

            This analogy may seem kind of farfetched  but it gets the root of the problem with copyright these days. The Lessig chapter makes me doubt whether any thought I have is actually original. What if the first person to label a house: "The house on the hill that watches the valley," decided that he owned the rights to that definition. What if another person modifies the definition: "The house on the hill with the view of an eagle." Does his definition copy enough of the original to be considered an act of piracy? Or did the new simply build on the old in a new way and both definitions can still exist? This is the problem that Lessig goes into great detail about. How do we define what is copied versus what is borrowed in order to create something new?

            The first step is defining what is actually an original idea. While memory is essential to understanding culture and expanding on existing ideas, it could be said that memory is the foundation of piracy. When I read a book or looked at an image the information is stored. Schools rely on our memory to prove that we can learn and without memory we would never develop new skills or technology. However, Lessig would suggest that with modern day copyright laws, I wouldn't be able to use a majority of the information stored in my head.  If I draw a cartoon character, I'm probably influenced by a multitude of movies and t.v. shows that I've seen over the years. In "On Ideology," Louis Althusser suggests that we are never free from ideological apparatuses that shape our every action. If copyright law used this logic, then we would have to pause creativity for a hundred years and burn every book.

            Thankfully that isn't the case...yet. In the modern information travels faster and is growing at a much faster pace than in the past and it seems as though copyright laws are in hot pursuit. In high school  The trick will be to find a balance between "Disney creativity" and piracy. As a culture we may need to find an outlet like the Doujinshi. It's awesome that an entire subculture is allowed to exist merely for the enjoyment of the people. We see a similar trend in music when a song is remixed. I don't know the specific details of the industry, but there are millions of remixes, some highly successful and I have to believe that not all of them got permission from the original author. Lessig mentions a quote from a lawyer that " regulation by law is a function of both the words on the books and the costs of making those words have effect" (27). One of the problems in this country is that a large portion of creative content is owned by just a few people. Just because these corporations have the abiltiy to sue anyone and everyone doesn't mean that they should. Clearly they aren't hurting for cash. (See pic below).

            The analogy of theatres doing their own versions of Shakespeare was great. I think it illustrates that many worlds can exist through the sharing of information. This is not advocating piracy in the illegal downloading sense. Taking a product that most people are required to buy is different than using a beat in that song to create your own. If the remix makes more money, it's because that person beat you. Maybe it's the competitive side in me that relates to that kind of mentality. The problem arises when someone creates a virtually identical product but claims the idea for their own...they should be sued.