A Moral Epidemic?

As I settled down to read Lessig’s book about copyright and artistic value, I was prepared to endure many pages of dry, legal jargon. Instead, I got pages and pages of the emotional, gushy language you would expect to find in a teenage girl’s diary. Lessig had turned copyright infringement into a passionate and meaningful subject of morality akin to the abortion or global warming debates, or any other standard procedure that should be technical but ends up being very emotional. I have to admit, I never thought of copyright laws as affecting the future state of the world’s children. I know that a college kid gets busted from time to time, but does that really make entire generations into criminals?

Copyright infringement is obviously a big deal and is costing the entertainment industry millions, if not billions, of dollars. We should discuss it and scholars (or how about some high paid corporate geek?) do need to figure out a system that works in order to save a dying industry. However, I don’t know if couching it as a moral catastrophe is the way to approach the topic. To me it seems a generational problem that will work itself out. There are millions of videos out there on YouTube (or wherever) that incorporate “remixed” artistic products and I don’t see a big deal being made of them. Take for example the “guilty dog” video on YouTube that has recently gone viral. I saw the video on Good Morning America broadcasted to thousands of viewers, and there were no copyright issues. Is this still a problem? If so, is it really the intense moral issue that Lessig is trying to make it? This paragraph is kind of a rant because I can see being passionate about your topic of choice, but to make it about your kids and the future of the world’s kids seems a bit much to me.

It is true however, as Lessig explains, that artistic products create local culture when the product “comes to have a very specific and local meaning for people according to where it is that they’re hearing it. What goes hand in hand with the moment of reception is a dimension of personal translation.” Ok, true. This quote reminds me of last year’s debate between the people of Louisiana and the NFL over the Saint’s phrase “Who Dat?” The franchise tried to ban the great people of Louisiana from making t-shirts and bumper stickers with the famous phrase on it the year that the Saints won the Superbowl. Louisianans would have nothing to do with it, as they maintained the phrase was a part of their culture and a product of their own. Nevertheless, if I remember correctly, the people of Louisiana prevailed.

So yes, there is an important “war” going on here between the entertainment companies and collective cultures. Remixing products does serve to educate and to unite communities, so it needs to be protected from silly lawsuits like that of the dancing 18 month old baby. Still, like many scholarly books, what does Lessig do to help solve the problem? Very little. His quote in the conclusion states: “Let’s get on to the hard problem of crafting a copyright system that nurtures the full range of creativity and collaboration that the Internet enables.” No duh, Lessig. Don’t you think corporations have been working on this for years now? Thanks for the help, buddy. Oh, and I very much enjoyed reading your emotional collection of sappy anecdotes that clearly visualize what a life or death issue copyright laws have become.