Code & Order?

I personally found Lessig’s argument in Free Culture to be hammered home by a hypothetical situation briefly presented in chapter 10. Lessig is concerned that code is reigning over the domain of the internet, as opposed to appropriate law. On page 161, he frames a perspective by comparing the situation to a system in which vehicles could inform state authorities “the speed at which you traveled at every moment that you drove.”

Sound absurd? Surely there are appropriate times for pushing the pedal beyond legal limits. Perhaps you have someone that needs to get to the hospital, or traffic is moving at a faster speed. However, here’s the problem: code does not allow for leniency. It is incapable of discretion, as mentioned in class. Such a system should therefore not be allowed to regulate internet content. After all, code doesn’t know whether I will use material in a legal manner. The code created by Adobe could not recognize that Lessig was reading his own book on their e-reader, for he was still denied the option to copy, print, or use the read out loud feature on his own property. Unfortunately, technology is heading in this direction where code dominates law in the digital world.

This technological development along with the emergence of the internet is making the call for changes in copyright law even louder. The government has to do something to ensure that they are in control, as opposed to code or five enormous companies. However, the government must take into consideration the indirect effects of their jurisdiction as well, so that our culture will not stifle but rather be allowed to flourish.

Cultural Roadblock

As we’ve been exploring the effects of current copyright laws upon the development of culture, one common theme has struck me as being especially irritating. From what I have gathered, it seems that the major companies that adhere to copyright laws are, in actuality, abusing them. The companies that file lawsuits against individuals who may possibly be guilty of infringement are more concerned with making a hefty profit instead of the theft of originality in the form of unique ideas. For example, Lessig’s Free Culture notes that the RIAA demanded an insane amount of money from the college student that created the search engine for his campus. The figure they asked for rivaled the profits that recording artists, the actual creators of the disputed material, make on a yearly basis. I assume that these artists are more concerned with the theft of their originality, so, hypothetically, if they did not mind, were the copyright laws justly applied? Apparently so, for another case study featured Fox demanding a vast amount of cash for a short Simpsons clip that Matt Groening, the creator of the series, already approved. It seems that copyright laws are being taken advantage of and not employed for the purpose of protecting ideas, for even when permission from the creator is granted, consequences are likely to result.

So why do these companies demand ridiculous amounts of money for potential violations? As the MPAA official stated in the video we watched in class, the purpose is to instill fear in the public. He admitted that the MPAA will never be able to bring piracy to a halt, but they are able to use scare tactics (i.e. lawsuits) to guide society towards what they deem as acceptable conduct. What this official fails to realize, however, is that such behavior by the MPAA deters creativity in our society. Sure, the video featured a number of exceptions from Girl Talk to Brazilian DJs, but the fears and inconveniences associated with copyright demotes creativity and creates an overall negative impact on originality. This use of fear is reminiscent of the tactic employed by the plagiarism statement we explored earlier in class. Was that effective in curbing plagiarism? Is fear really the only way to protect creative property? It seems to me there is more harm than protection.

No Seriously, I Actually Wrote This

This plagiarism experience turned out to be more of a challenge than I had expected. As I mentioned in class, the assignment was rather time consuming, which I found to be ironic. After all, plagiarism is generally perceived to be practiced out of laziness for ingenuity, to cut corners, and to make deadlines seconds before they pass. But this project made me wonder whether I’m wrong. Perhaps stringing different literary works into a cohesive flow really is an art that requires skill and deserves appreciative value. Maintaining a single voice throughout my essay was undoubtedly the hardest part, and I would argue that the ability to pull off such a feat easily should be favorably acknowledged.

Think of all the room there was for creativity. Sure, Scot gave us a specific recipe, but we all created our own signature dish with a different flair of spices (jumbling word order, altering sentence structure, using synonyms, etc.). We weren’t simply reassembling a puzzle straight out of the box; rather, we juxtaposed pieces from a number of puzzle sets so that they would not only fit but also form a new picture of our own. Plagiarism can therefore be an art form, and, in my book at least, deceptive plagiarists (aka those that don’t get caught) have gained a bit more of my respect, though they still trail behind ghostwriters quite a bit.

The key word in that last sentence, however, is “can.” I am still a firm believer that plagiarism should not be tolerated in the university setting. We pay a wealthy sum to exercise an originality of a different kind (that is, unless we are art majors I suppose). We are graded and judged on how well we are able to formulate our own ideas, how well we can create our own puzzle pieces and assemble them for our readers. I stand in support of the idea of having a plagiarism policy, but I still feel that certain changes must be made, which are highlighted here.