Lawrence Lessig presents an interesting study and analysis of creativity, culture, copyrights, property and intellectual property in his text Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity.

     Lessig offers many arguments against giving authors complete control over copyrights and intellectual property.  At first, it seems like he is against giving authors any publishing control over their work.  But he starts the text explicitly stating, "We live in a world that celebrates 'property'.  I am one of those celebrants.  I believe in the value of property in general, and I also believe in the value of that weird form of property that lawyers call 'intellectual property'."  (p. 28) In addition, further analysis of his text reveals he is actually unveiling both sides of the perspective, author's and creator's as well as the public's.  Not only is he describing both perspectives, but also he is drawing logical conclusions about what is going to happen in our culture due to the changing technology, the copyright laws, and the affects these have on the public in general.

     Lessig begins describing one of the central issues of intellectual property by using Disney as an example.  In 1928, Buster Keaton created a silent movie called Steamboat Bill, Jr.  Before the release of this movie, Disney had been experimenting with music and animation in its short cartoons.  Upon the release of Keaton's movie, Disney released a short animated feature called Steamboat Willie, starring an unknown Mickey Mouse.

     The point in using this example is that in 1928, intellectual property was not a big issue as it is today.  If it were, Buster Keaton could have sued Disney for this creation.  The idea is that Disney used creative elements exclusive to Buster Keaton's creation Steamboat Bill, Jr, that Keaton as author had control over.  If intellectual property was an issue during the period, the creativity that spawned such works as Cinderella, Snow White, Alice in Wonderland, Peter Pan may not have occurred.  His theme is that if this occurs, "Free Cultures are cultures that leave a great deal open for others to build upon; unfree, or permission, cultures leave much less.  Ours was a free culture.  It is becoming less so."  (p. 30)

     I believe what he is saying is that he fears that our culture and creativity will suffer if people are not allowed to add on and adapt to other people's creations.  He doesn't believe it is fair for society as a whole.  I am not sure I entirely agree with his point.  I hope I am not stepping on anyone's toes, so to speak, but I am going to go with a much more conservative viewpoint than I believe others who read this book will take.

     I believe in the right of every American to make as much money as they want to, without interference from the government.  Some may say, "Well, how much money is enough?"  Some may call this a "sleazy, capitalist" viewpoint.  "Enough" money is a subjective point of view.  There is no rational, scientific viewpoint for "enough" money.  I refuse to make that judgment on anyone.  Further, if I were in Mr. Lucas shoes, I cannot say that I wouldn't want to make as much money off of Star Wars as I could too, so how can I judge him?  Let me give an example, if I am George Lucas, and I create a highly profitable intellectual property called Star Wars, I have every right to make as much money as I want to off this creation.  (On another note, I think Lucas is a lousy filmmaker and writer; he had only one or two good ideas for films, the rest were flops.  I believe he is just an excellent businessman and marketer, and at most an average filmmaker.)  I recently saw that George Lucas is making an animated television series called Star Wars: Clone Wars.  Let's say for argument's sake, using an analogous situation that Lessig refers to above with Disney and Steamboat Willie, that another creator five years ago (does not even have to necessarily be Disney) wishes to create an animated series using some creative elements from the Star Wars franchise.  Mr. Lucas says no, or charges an enormous amount for permission to use these elements.  Maybe the creators of the animated series did not even ask Mr. Lucas and he sued them for damages.  Using the arguments that Lessig puts forth, these "animated creators" are just adding to free culture, adding to our culture's creativity.  But how do we, as the public, or the animated creators, know that Mr. Lucas did not plan on creating his own animated series based on Star Wars?  Should not he have a right to do so if he wishes?  He eventually did create a series.

     Lessig also uses an example of how a documentarian friend of his created a scene where a television was playing four seconds of an episode of The Simpsons.  He goes on to tell us that Fox (who owned the rights) refused to allow him to use the footage without paying an exorbitant fee.  While I believe and feel that Fox is essentially not being fair, they have every right to make as much money as they want off the creation they own.

     This may lead some readers to go back to the argument that creativity and culture suffers.  I don't entirely agree.  If people are not allowed to use other people's creations, it doesn't necessarily follow that NOTHING creative will be added to our culture.  Isn't it possible that instead of people relying on other people's creations to make art that they create something new and ingenious?  Further, copyright and intellectual property laws aren't refusing creators from adapting other people's creations to make something new.  It is only forcing creators to get permission.  While there are some creators who will say no for no logical reason, or some creators will charge fees that make it impossible for us to adapt their copyrights and intellectual property for our use, I believe that the majority of authors will be reasonable and either give permission or only charge a fair, market price.

     Lessig is right though; Congress must find a balance between the public's fair use, and the author's right to make money off his creation.  If authors have no financial incentive for creation of art or addition to culture, then free culture definitely suffers.  Overall, I think some of Lessig points seem hyperbolic, especially since some examples he uses seem dated.  For instance, the Napster example he uses I believe is settled.  The technology cannot be outlawed.  Pirating movies and DVDs is a crime.  Congress established this a few years ago and I agree with their decision.  I believe that he chooses examples and scenarios that paint a "black and white" picture of the situation.  For example, choosing the situation where his friend the documentarian had issues with Fox for using four seconds of an episode of The Simpsons.  Are analogous situations prevalent amongst authors and publishers of copyright and intellectual property?  He doesn't really prove that to me, and I am not sure he could convince me even if he tried harder.

Others may have differing viewpoints; I look forward to hearing from them here or in class.