POST #2
“I can't say that I agree with the copyright laws or the definition of what is and is not fair use, but I am sure that the laws were set up with the best of intentions. Seventy to a hundred years seems excessive. …
“Creative Commons is like a flashing red light in the middle of the night. It doesn't mean you don't have to obey the law, it just adds a little common sense to the situation. Creative Commons is a good solution for all those concerned. Most of us want to share our work, but we don't want to be taken advantage of. CC makes it possible to share, but still retain some control over your work. It would be wonderful if more artists would voluntarily submit to this common sense approach.”
Dear Anne,
I’m surprised that I was surprised that we both wrote about intentions, not to mention our shared emphasis on common sense! Leggis’ example of the farmers and the airplanes illustrated that our culture has developed in ways unfathomable to those original law-makers. You’re right; the Creative Commons approach balances protection for the original artist with cultural and creative freedom for the artist who interacts with the original work.
It’s so tempting to make the corporate music structure the villain here, but it’s an establishment that worked for everyone—artists, listeners, investors. I have to confess to a deep pang of nostalgia when I saw the “Tower Records going out of business” sign! Change is a force of nature—and this change in the accessibility of publication, from a years-long battle with infinitesimal chance of success to an instant exposure for anyone who can click a mouse, has been more like a tornado than a cleansing rain. It’s understandable that the establishment would resist the onslaught, especially when the precipitousness of it gave little chance to recognize it and evolve.
But the kids have hacked into the system and set the stop light to blink in the middle of the night. And the cops can instigate a big old manhunt… or they can acknowledge that the kids have got the clearer view, and withdraw with good grace.
:<) Debra
POST #2
“I can't say that I agree with the
copyright laws or the definition of what is and is not fair use, but I am sure
that the laws were set up with the best of intentions. Seventy to a hundred
years seems excessive. …
“Creative
Commons is like a flashing red light in the middle of the night. It doesn't
mean you don't have to obey the law, it just adds a little common sense to the
situation. Creative Commons is a good solution for all those concerned. Most of
us want to share our work, but we don't want to be taken advantage of. CC makes
it possible to share, but still retain some control over your work. It would be
wonderful if more artists would voluntarily submit to this common sense
approach.”
Dear Anne,
I’m surprised
that I was surprised that we both wrote about intentions, not to mention our
shared emphasis on common sense!
Leggis’ example of the farmers and the airplanes illustrated that our
culture has developed in ways unfathomable to those original law-makers. You’re right; the Creative Commons
approach balances protection for the original artist with cultural and creative
freedom for the artist who interacts with the original work.
It’s so
tempting to make the corporate music structure the villain here, but it’s an
establishment that worked for everyone—artists, listeners, investors. I have to confess to a deep pang of
nostalgia when I saw the “Tower Records going out of business” sign! Change is a force of nature—and this
change in the accessibility of publication, from a years-long battle with infinitesimal
chance of success to an instant exposure for anyone who can click a mouse, has
been more like a tornado than a cleansing rain. It’s understandable that the establishment would resist the
onslaught, especially when the precipitousness of it gave little chance to
recognize it and evolve.
But the kids
have hacked into the system and set the stop light to blink in the middle of
the night. And the cops can
instigate a big old manhunt… or they can acknowledge that the kids have got the
clearer view, and withdraw with good grace.
:<) Debra
POST #2
“I can't say that I agree with the
copyright laws or the definition of what is and is not fair use, but I am sure
that the laws were set up with the best of intentions. Seventy to a hundred
years seems excessive. …
“Creative
Commons is like a flashing red light in the middle of the night. It doesn't
mean you don't have to obey the law, it just adds a little common sense to the
situation. Creative Commons is a good solution for all those concerned. Most of
us want to share our work, but we don't want to be taken advantage of. CC makes
it possible to share, but still retain some control over your work. It would be
wonderful if more artists would voluntarily submit to this common sense
approach.”
Dear Anne,
I’m surprised
that I was surprised that we both wrote about intentions, not to mention our
shared emphasis on common sense!
Leggis’ example of the farmers and the airplanes illustrated that our
culture has developed in ways unfathomable to those original law-makers. You’re right; the Creative Commons
approach balances protection for the original artist with cultural and creative
freedom for the artist who interacts with the original work.
It’s so
tempting to make the corporate music structure the villain here, but it’s an
establishment that worked for everyone—artists, listeners, investors. I have to confess to a deep pang of
nostalgia when I saw the “Tower Records going out of business” sign! Change is a force of nature—and this
change in the accessibility of publication, from a years-long battle with infinitesimal
chance of success to an instant exposure for anyone who can click a mouse, has
been more like a tornado than a cleansing rain. It’s understandable that the establishment would resist the
onslaught, especially when the precipitousness of it gave little chance to
recognize it and evolve.
But the kids
have hacked into the system and set the stop light to blink in the middle of
the night. And the cops can
instigate a big old manhunt… or they can acknowledge that the kids have got the
clearer view, and withdraw with good grace.
:<) Debra
@font-face {
font-family: "Times";
}@font-face {
font-family: "Cambria";
}@font-face {
font-family: "Chalkboard";
}@font-face {
font-family: "Colonna MT";
}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }
POST #2
“I can't say that I agree with the
copyright laws or the definition of what is and is not fair use, but I am sure
that the laws were set up with the best of intentions. Seventy to a hundred
years seems excessive. …
“Creative
Commons is like a flashing red light in the middle of the night. It doesn't
mean you don't have to obey the law, it just adds a little common sense to the
situation. Creative Commons is a good solution for all those concerned. Most of
us want to share our work, but we don't want to be taken advantage of. CC makes
it possible to share, but still retain some control over your work. It would be
wonderful if more artists would voluntarily submit to this common sense
approach.”
Dear Anne,
I’m surprised
that I was surprised that we both wrote about intentions, not to mention our
shared emphasis on common sense!
Leggis’ example of the farmers and the airplanes illustrated that our
culture has developed in ways unfathomable to those original law-makers. You’re right; the Creative Commons
approach balances protection for the original artist with cultural and creative
freedom for the artist who interacts with the original work.
It’s so
tempting to make the corporate music structure the villain here, but it’s an
establishment that worked for everyone—artists, listeners, investors. I have to confess to a deep pang of
nostalgia when I saw the “Tower Records going out of business” sign! Change is a force of nature—and this
change in the accessibility of publication, from a years-long battle with infinitesimal
chance of success to an instant exposure for anyone who can click a mouse, has
been more like a tornado than a cleansing rain. It’s understandable that the establishment would resist the
onslaught, especially when the precipitousness of it gave little chance to
recognize it and evolve.
But the kids
have hacked into the system and set the stop light to blink in the middle of
the night. And the cops can
instigate a big old manhunt… or they can acknowledge that the kids have got the
clearer view, and withdraw with good grace.
:<) Debra
Debra,
ReplyDeleteIs it surprising that we chose to write about the same things? I guess I could just say, great minds think alike, but I think that it is more than that. It goes back to the topic of copyright and fair use. We build upon the ideas of others. While I agree to an extent with the ideas of copyright protection, I believe that the laws infringe on the rights of creativity.
You touch on one other idea that needs further consideration, change. Change is inevitable, but never before has change taken place at such exponential rates due to the proliferation of the Internet. We have more access to the works of others than ever before. That access allows new ideas to be created and evolve at viral rates into even more new ideas.
Corporate music producers are not the villains, nor are they the victims. They found a way to make a ton of money, but the world evolved and they can no longer make money doing the same thing in the same way. With change comes loss. Is it sad? Yes, but we can't grief forever, either we adapt or we get left behind.
As teachers we want to educate our young people, but we also want to preserve our culture. The copyright laws restrict that ability, where fair use and the creative commons have found a way to adapt to change without completely turning our society into the Wild, Wild West of new ideas. Should teachers have more latitude with the copyright laws? Sure, but consider now the changing classroom environment. What defines a classroom is no longer bricks and mortar. So where do we draw the lines in the virtual classroom? Again, it is about change. I would like to think that we have reached a leveling in the speed of changes, but that is probably wishful thinking. In the book, The Art of Possibility, Zander and Zander discuss rule #6, "Don't take yourself so g...d... seriously." As change erodes the ideas of yesterday, this is a rule that we should all try to remember.