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.
3 comments:
I might be one of the first people to take the corporates stance on this one, but I do not see the need for leniency for file sharing. I can not think of an emergency where you need a certain song and you need it now. There's a difference between speeding towards the hospital and making a last minute mixed CD birthday present.
I sometimes about checks and balances on our population. Yes it is against human will for this to happen on us. But for example if you had a little bit too much to drink and your car thus wouldn't start could save countless lives. On the other end of the spectrum if your speed was rerouted to a computer if you were driving over 5 miles and hour over the speed limit could slow your car down to an appropriate speed. Would your friend or somebody you know have died. Would my cousin have gotten in an accident that put her back to a mental state that resembles a childs? Or would you have seen the name in the newspaper that died in a car accident. Yes checks and balance to do against human nature, but what would the world be like with checks and balances that save lives (and many other examples could be thought of)
Scott I like how you essentially dance around the quandry of how much to trust individuals we don't know. There is a certain amount of trust in fellow citizens that they won't drive drunk, etc. to all the examples. My question is, how would code regulating our society affect our trust in others? If we knew the code would work, then it would increase. But people find ways around codes, and if they do (which someone will), they might act irrationally since they've never had to self monitor.
Like a fat kid in a candy store with a pocket full of cash and no mother.
Post a Comment