Do Copyright Laws Stifle Creativity? – Lawrence Lessig
March 27, 2010 
Bilal Sarwari 
Complete video at: fora.tv Using examples from youtube, Stanford law professor and copyright activist Lawrence Lessig discusses the influence of “remixes” and “mashups” of existing art on culture as a whole, and ponders the fate of participatory media in the face of out-of-date copyright laws. —– What is the future for art and ideas in an age when practically anything can be copied, pasted, downloaded, sampled, and re-imagined? LIVE from the NYPL and WIRED Magazine kick off the Spring 2009 season with a spirited discussion of the emerging remix culture. Our guides through this new world–who will take us from Jefferson’s Bible to Andre the Giant to Wikipedia–will be Lawrence Lessig, author of Remix, founder of Creative Commons, and one of the leading legal scholars on intellectual property issues in the Internet age; acclaimed street artist Shepard Fairey, whose iconic Obama “HOPE” poster was recently acquired by the National Portrait Gallery; and cultural historian Steven Johnson, whose new book, The Invention of Air, argues that remix culture has deep roots in the Enlightenment and among the American founding fathers. – New York Public Library Lawrence Lessig is a professor of law at Stanford Law School and founder of the school’s Center for Internet and Society. He teaches and writes in the areas of constitutional law, contracts, and the law of cyberspace. Prior to joining the Stanford faculty, he was Berkman Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and a professor …
Tags: About Author
you should of stopped talking in the middle of the video.
[Reply]
It’s killing creativity. Just getting inspired would seem like i can get in trouble for copyright = Copyright is alright, just going too far maybe. Everything in creativity has came from somewhere else… It just seems like its getting limited now with all this craziness of copyright jerks. im just upset, a concept for a comic of mine was considered copyright *shrug* oh wait, so is everything else T_T
[Reply]
@Superfoiling
Wrong. Paperclips and shamwow are patentable subject matter (ie “useful arts”), but neither is copyrightable.
Copyright seeks “to promote the Progress of Science.” Ie the goal is to promote creative expression, and really, only a modicum of creativity is necessary to be copyrightable.
[Reply]
Copyright isn’t about creativity…THIS IS A MISCONCEPTION. Copyright is about making something that people need…Anybody could make a paperclip, a shamwow, a U2 song…but did you copyright the work that people asked you to devote your time to is the question?
Creative artists are really a dime a dozen. Much of what you see bought and sold is simple to make…its the demand for something that claimant owns.
[Reply]
im saying this becaues copyrights r dum because theres freedom of speech and freedom of the press,and Congress shall make no law and not even the higest court can make no laws on freedom of speechand freedom of the press.
[Reply]
i agree its stupid they get there panties in ab bunch cause there songs are 8n the background befor google bought youtube there were very few copywright removed videos since then iv lost over 200 people who have been suspended someone should fix it or one day youtube will die
[Reply]
You see, Hufflewaffle, I do not attack others based on their opinion that red is better than blue or their beliefs on big government, universal healthcare, etc.
You have given me the rare oppurtunity to right an absolute wrong. There’s more to this than your baseless opinions on music use – I would see that you learn to respect: children, freedom, love, motherhood, and families.
See previous comment, beginning with “Indeed. Stating that you’re a…”
[Reply]
Indeed. Stating that you’re a “sad piece of work” and a “jerk” does NOT make me right. What makes me wright is your inability to counter any of my points – said points being (in order):
- Artists are paid (See $0.89XY). And that’s not including concerts, live performances, or physical sales.
- You spat on someone’s love for their child, and the institution of the family. Yes, sir – I DO attack the moral integrity of your character!
- How do these videos take away from artists?
[Reply]
watch?v=7Q25-S7jzgs (better than the video above) Larry Lessig: How creativity is being strangled by the law
[Reply]
A new class of mental disorder in the DSM-VIII manual published in the year 2057:
Delusions of copyright infringement: A disorder in thinking caused by a false sense of victimization due to the independent development of media and/or machinery that imitates one’s creation to such an extent that one is convinced falsely that:
He or she was the first one to invent it.
His or her creation was observed, then used to generate said infringement.
[Reply]
Making personal comments like calling me a ‘sad piece of work’ and a ‘jerk’ doesn’t help your argument, or make it more right. If you want to have a discussion, do so without the personal attacks.
The principal that is being put forward in this video is flawed.
[Reply]
The “license,” you say? How does this change the fact that the artist got paid?
You’re one sad piece of work… A musician doesn’t live off of 89 cents – A musician lives off of $0.89XY where “X” is the average number of sales their songs generate, and “Y” is the number of songs they create. Math, kid. Learn it.
The artist is making a fine living, and that the industry shouldn’t be going after people like Stephanie.
So… how did Steph’s video take away from an artist?
[Reply]
She DID NOT buy it. She bought a license to listen to it. period. Music is NOT sold outright because obviously it would only take one person to copy and share it and there would be no incentive for anyone else to buy it. The reason there are laws to stop this is because the musician – who let’s say is also a mother with a young baby, cant live off 89c. So where is HER nice mid class home? She has just as much right to provide for her child as ‘Stephanie’.
But you obviously don’t think so.
[Reply]
@Hufflewaffle
Wow! You’re a jerk – I wouldn’t expect you to think anything…AT ALL. It may be feckless endeavor, but I’ll try to educate you.
Everyone’s paid for their work, except artists, you say? How do you think that woman got the music her child was dancing to? Chances are, she paid for it. What? $0.89? Now; How did her video, with such poor audio quality, take away from the artist?
Congratulations. You just said someone’s love of their child was not important, deep, or meaningful.
[Reply]
aw the cute little dancing baby’s mother has been sent to jail. Who are the greedy monsters who would do such a thing!
Thats what we’re supposed to think, right?
Why does everyone have the right to be paid for their labor except artists? Its an important question we have to ask about the value we place on creativity these days.
Those clips are not very creative. They may be conversations but are they important? deep? meaningful?
Not really.
The’ 21st century’ mother should have used email.
[Reply]
@Queen0fcute I know, you can go to jail for doing what some rich cunt says is illegal. I mean if a rich guy say having breakfast was illegal, than no one can have it.
And what’s the difference between us and them? It’s hypnotic marketing.
[Reply]
@NAEAN And since they know, why don’t they stop whining about a billion dollars instead of a million dollars and just stay in there place.
[Reply]
agreed
[Reply]
As some have said or hinted it, it really is all about the money, sadly. It’s not about personal safety, it’s not about protecting someone’s property or even safe guarding someone new in the music or media industry. It’s all about the money, and it’s just further proof of America’s lack of common sense whenever money gets involved. Maybe it’s why we’re all in debt.
Anyways, that’s a rant, and I just wanted to say I agree with Lawrence and what he’s saying.
[Reply]
I’m curious as to the rest of the video.
If the mother wanted to show the video to her family, why did she broadcast it for all the internet to see? Wouldn’t an email suffice?
Who makes money when people make a great video an upload it to youtube? Youtube does! Do the people who’s creative energy went to create that video earn anything? No!
People who create stuff need to pay their rent too.
[Reply]
It’s just money. That’s all they’re after, but still pulling all these videos is hurting THEIR business, damaging THEIR income. This is supposed to be one of the few places we can express ourselves without worrying about what people think or whatever. And a lot of individual artists weren’t even aware at the beginning that WMG or Youtube was pulling their music from the site. This isn’t going to end until we do something about it.
[Reply]
Lawrence Lessig should be the top head of YouTube, and thrash Warner Music Group to the ground.
No questions asked. Everything he said in this video is correct, and YouTube and Warner Music Group know it.
10 stars to this guy.
[Reply]
It’s sad, really, what society is turning into.
[Reply]
TY 4 speaking out the TRUTH!
I’m so sick and tired if all the copyright this, and copyright that.
And they only remove the popular videos 4 copyrite. The videos that make us all happy.
Niga Higa is a PERFECT example. Soon as 1 of there videos reach 1 million veiws they shut it down! D:
Greedy little things, I wouldn’t have known half the songs I know now if it weren’t 4 Youtube videos.
They should take Youtube as FREE PUBLICITY!!! Not competition.
[Reply]
Copyright = the new censorship.
[Reply]