reading response - free culture & permission culture

In the first two major sections of Free Culture, Lawrence Lessig outlines the American social and legal histories of copyright over the past two centuries. Throughout the first section, "Piracy," Lessig draws parallels between the ways the Internet and other digital technologies have challenged public notions of copyright and the ways in which radio, recorded music, television, and film did when they were emerging technologies. All of the aforementioned industries at least partially owe their development to the same kind of "piracy" that media conglomerates are trying to stop on the Internet. However, in section two, "Property," Lessig illustrates a key difference: whereas previous technologies have brought about changes in copyright law that balanced the interests of the content owners and the general public, the conglomeration of media has created a "permission culture" that has unfairly shifted this balance in favor of those who already hold copyright. As a result, the individual freedom to create and transform existing works of art and ideas is now limited more than ever before.

Lessig’s observations have serious implications for contemporary authors. In an age where one may be threatened with legal action for publishing fanfiction, one’s incentive to share creative works (especially if they are derivative) may be outweighed by the fear of punishment for violating copyright law. In cases like this, ideas may therefore be kept to oneself, which is exactly what the Progress Clause in copyright law is supposed to prevent. Or, artists may begin to recognize the legal implications of their work and instead “publish” pseudonymously.

Whatever the response, it is becoming clear that the transformative forms of creativity are checked by corporations. While the Wu-Tang Clan, who has a contract with a major record company, may have the means and connections to sample The Beatles, the majority of us do not. This includes DJ Danger Mouse, whose mashup of the band’s “White Album” with Jay-Z’s “Black Album” was created and disseminated without permission of the content owners. Despite the fact that this was a noncommercial, transformative use of two works, Danger Mouse was threatened with legal action for violating copyright. Meanwhile, the LOVE album—a Beatles remix/mashup album authorized by the estate—has reached Platinum status, won a Grammy, and can be purchased alongside traditional Beatles albums in stores and online.

I am not suggesting that everyone ought to have the same access, but the situation reveals something important about contemporary authorship. We have reached a point at which the genius of The Beatles can be mixed with someone else’s creativity is culturally acceptable if not outright desirable. This might call into question the public concept of how art is created—the product of a single author, an individual genius. Perhaps the LOVE album does this to some extent, but it is underscored by the corporate control of the original works. After all, nobody is going to confuse The Grey Album for a classic Beatles record (although LOVE will probably leave some feeling duped) and thus will not threaten sales or have a negative effect on the work’s value. But such work is technically not allowed, and one of Lessig’s biggest points is that this sort of noncommercial transformation used to be.