In the book Free Culture, Lawrence Lessig discusses the effect that copyrighting has on creativity and cultural production.  He explains that in the good old days there was a kind of uneasy balance between the rights of the creator to protect their work and those of the public to experience it.  People were more able to build upon the work of others to create bigger and better things.  However with cases such as Eldred v. Ashcroft copyright protection can be extended far longer than before. The case challenged the constitutionality of the 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA).  The act itself proposed to extended the existing copyright terms of the Copyright Act of 1976 by 20 years.  However, depending on the date that the work was created it could be extended by 95 years, or the life of the author plus 70 years.  This would affected both new and existing works.  The Rehnquist Court ruled 7-2 that the CTEA was constitutional.  When this law first came out there were numerous ways for the public to get around copyright laws.  However now because technology has changed the way we share information the effects of this law are much more prevalent.  The book goes on to talk about the heavy fines that are imposed on those who break the CTEA and download copyrighted material.  I tend to agree with Lessig on this point, and many others, that the extent of the fines are absurd. 

Because copyright laws are becoming more and more stringent Lessig is concerned that creativity will be stifled or at least people will not be able to use technological advances to their full advantage when creating.  And I think that he is probably right.  I am not promoting the elimination of all copyright laws, and of course neither is he, but I do think that everything is a trade off.  As a consumer, I would love to rewind time to the days of downloading free music on Nabster and Kazza. However as a wanta be author and someone who knows how little most people actually make from their work, I enjoy the peace of mind that my work will not be “stolen”.   There has to be some level of balance between having everything be public where the creator can make little to no profit off of their work and having to pay exorbitant fees such as for a 5 second clip of a popular TV show. 

Lessig offers several suggestions for how to create more balance between the public and private domain such as shorter copyright terms and registration requirements.  Personally, I tend to think that these are good ideas.  If you create something and you want it protected than great but if you don’t have it protected than it is free to enter the public domain.  I believe that there is a fine line between using someone’s work as inspiration and stealing it and that that line is difficult to define, although many have tried.  But I agree that art, no matter the form, is a culmination of many people’s works.  We build upon, change, and adapt to create something that is our own.  Without the opportunity to access and learn from the works of others, I think that creativity will indeed be hampered. 

What do you think Lessig would think of the recent ruling against the the founders of The Pirate Bay?

A recent study found those branded as "pirates", people who download music illegally are 10 times more likely to buy music.  Why do you think this is?

This book was written in 2003, that is also the year that the iTunes Music Store opened. Since, it has sold over 6 billion songs. How do you think easy modes of distribution have changed the media landscape? Does this work for all forms of media? What other changes have happened since 2003?

This book was released under Creative Commons on the internet, along with a free audiobook. How do you think copyright needs to change to address the internet after reading Free Culture?

Lessig repeatedly referred to Walt Disney creativity, or creating from ripping elements from previous works. Isn't this how everything is created? Why has our culture grown to reject this?

When do you think the internet will reach the freedom that Lessig describes radio, tv, and movies have as a medium? What will it take for it to establish its own common understanding in our culture?

In 2007, critically-acclaimed English rock band Radiohead released "In Rainbows." Fans were given the option to pay whatever amount they wanted, including nothing. Though some detractors felt Radiohead was erring in giving the album away for free, it worked out very well for the band.


Cover art for Radiohead's "In Rainbows"


The principles behind Radiohead's decision to release its album essentially for "free," is an idea that Lawrence Lessig would probably agree with. Lessig, a legal scholar from Standford, argues eloquently in his book "Free Culture" about the nature of cultural production, its history, and how digital technologies have transformed how it is distributed currently. Lessig's arguments, unsurprisingly, center around the legal history of cultural production as he explains how recent copyright laws are anathema to freedom of expression.

Lessig does a brilliant job of introducing the reader to the main issues surrounding copyright laws and how the Web has complicated things. This is not to say the Web is to blame. Quite the contrary. The Web is a great facilitator to sharing ideas and content, Lessig says, and I agree. However, the author is quick to point out that piracy in its conventional sense-- the act of stealing from those who produce or distribute content is wrong-- Lessig explains that file sharing and other methods of sharing information online are not so clear-cut. Lessig points to history to support his claims.

According to the book, copyrights have not always been so clearly defined. While copyright law today encompasses things that written, songs that are recorded, computer programs that are developed, videogames that are designed, and other cultural artifacts, early English copyright law only protected books. But these early copyrights were designed with the aim of protecting the distribution of books, and not the artists.

Lessig connects this argument to today as he explains that artists still reap little of the reward their works produce. Drawing from the work of various artists of various kinds, they are always happy with the way copyright laws work either. Unsurprisingly, it is the MPAA (A body responsible for producing motion pictures) and the RIAA (the lobbyist arm of the recording industry) that are the biggest culprits.

The author's arguments rotate between examples drawn from legal history and philosophical arguments supporting the notion that spreading culture is important. After painting a nuanced, detailed sketch of the problem, Lessig recommends a remedy for the copyright issue: a new way of legislating copyright concerns. Lessig feels that the creative properties of artists should be defended against those who would try to profit wrongfully from other's work, but at the same time, appeals for the importance of sharing work that is culturally significant.

Sometimes, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Lessig understands this, and his assessment is thorough and well-reasoned. Coming into the reading, I expected this to be simply an assault on the importance of copyright law, but Lessig's work is much more than that. It is an appeal to all thinking people to reconsider how copyright laws are harming the spread of knowledge and culture and aims rectify the problem. As media outlets become increasingly more powerful, it is important for thinking people to stand up and take notice. Lessig's work caused me to take notice.

     About a month ago, Adam Wilson thought of a Tweet, and "poof", it magically appeared to his followers.

     Of course, as we grow up, most of us stop believing in magic.  We learn that there is an explanation for what fools our eyes.  Adam Wilson and his associates have been studying pieces of technology that interpret people's thoughts in an effort to glean communication from those who cannot speak, such as patients with (ALS) brain stem stroke, and upper spinal cord injury.

     Recently, moving a cursor on screen has been an effective scientific exercise for patients with lock-in syndrome.  But their concern is communication.

     Wilson believed that Twitter provided a good test interface for new apparatus he uses.  In essence, all the letters are displayed, and flashing.  Then the letter "R" stops flashing, then appears and starts flashing.  The brain recognizes that something is different about this letter, and this brain activity can be scanned.

I am not going to do it justice attempting to explain it more.  One can find more about this interesting article here.

After reading Lawrence Lessing’s Free Culture, I decided to further read on the subject of “free culture.” I found an organization, FreeCulture.org: Students for Free Culture, devoted to advocating and pushing the Free Culture movement. On the organization’s Website, they have a blog space where I found a blog on the work of Tim Hwang.

In Tim Hwang’s speech It’s Tough Out There for a Geek: The Changing Battlefield for Online Freedom, he discusses the history and activism of digital freedom and the way in which the movement is affected by present day digital standards.

When I first heard that we were going to design and create our own fonts and color palettes in class, I was excited by the project. I have always had an appreciation for font and color design, but I had never had the opportunity to develop my own.

I was not familiar with the Web application FontStruct, and I assumed it would allow me to create a font containing curvaceous letters. I began sketching a font that I thought represented my screen name moniker “aheartofstars.” The font was to have thick crescent moon and heart like curves accompanied by a random star.

When I tried to mimic my sketch in FontStruct, I was forced to abandon my font. FontStruct is a great application, but it does have limits. One such limit is that it can not replicate extended curves properly. I felt disappointed and discouraged, but the assignment needed to be completed, so I tried to think of another way I could represent my screen name while conforming to the limitations of FontStruct.

I decided to make a novelty font that could only be used as a heading. It breaks many of Lupton’s rules as the letters are contained within a heart shape. The heart maintains a static cap and x-height, and it always rests on the baseline. I am not satisfied with the overall font.

I did enjoy creating my color palette in Adobe Kuler. As with my font, I built the color palette around my screen name. I used red as the base color as it represents the heart. I used a deep dark blue/purple to represent both the night sky and veins in the heart. The yellow, grey, and white represent stars, clouds, and other heavenly objects.