DTC 356 Copyright Criminals

Technology advances and so do we. So do our laws. However, we are at a stage where our copyright laws have not yet caught up with the evolution of our culture. We have a culture that is ready to create, ready to invent new things but often this means borrowing or sampling from other works. The problem isn't our culture's ability to create, it's the ability to create and actually not get sued once something is completed. Lessig mentions "Technology means you can now do amazing things easily; but you couldn’t easily do them legally" (105).

            In the past few chapters Lessig has illustrated several problems with copyrights' duration and scope. The duration has increased repeatedly until now where many copyrights will outlive the generation that made the work famous. I think the problem isn't the duration of copyright as much as it is the scope. Lessigs states his main purpose for this book "My claim is that the Internet should at least force us to rethink the conditions under which the law of copyright automatically applies,17 because it is clear that the current reach of copyright was never contemplated, much less chosen, by the legislators who enacted copyright law" (140). I believe this point is shared by the video Copyright Criminals. It is what people and companies are doing with their copyrights.

            The biggest argument for sampling is that it is part of our culture. Lessig gives endless references to big name companies that demonstrated this creative thievery (most notably Disney), although these same companies will allow no one to use the same practices. Lessig notes "Every e-mail, every note to your spouse, every doodle, every creative act that’s reduced to a tangible form—all of this is automatically copyrighted." It struck me that technology is actually restricting the creativity of people as much as it is enabling them to create. The problem is that work that is essentially irrelevant in today's culture can be reused easily using technology. However, the original artist can then sue someone even though their work would ahve never resurfaced. Lessig comments that the average life span of creative work is just a couple of years. The law should be able to reflect relevant works differently than those would never make a comeback on their own. 

            Stealing and sampling without attribution is more or less wrong and most people can agree that the original artist should receive some sort of compensation. However, this doesn't mean a company should have the right to sue a teenager for hundreds of millions of dollars. Why not a one time fee, decided by the courts in order to use a sample. 1% of sales or whatever then the more samples you use, the less you make but everything is legal. And then it won't cost too much when you don't have any money. As you make more, you are able to pay your 'inspirations' more. Also, a person should only have to pay once his work results in X amount of dollars made. I'm sure people have thought of a similar solution (and probably much better ones), but why hasn't anything been done yet? As a society we need to recognize these issues and solve them as a culture with laws that reflect our culture's practices. The most striking line from the movie is that it was cheaper to cover an entire song than sample three seconds of it. Seriously? How is America ok with policies such as this?