If you haven’t watched Lessig’s fantastic, passionate keynote yet, watch it.
(link to the video, in case it gets stripped from the RSS)
It’s worth it, if for no other reason than to get your own Certificate of Entitlement, signed by Lawrence Lessig:
7 thoughts on “Lawrence Lessig’s EDUCAUSE Keynote”
Comments are closed.
Whether CC actually changes culture has yet to be seen, though there are some interesting signs that it is having somewhat of an impact. I think it will end up pretty much like Open Source Software with a few hits, and tons of alpha stuff, that will be a part of a sub-culture. When artists actually start becoming successful, I can hardly see them using unrestricted CC for their content (or their record companies allowing them to do so), even artists which have used it have not allowed people to profit from their work. As for new aritsts that are nobodies, it does give a library of stuff to remix, but to go from that to a career where one can profit from their work is still a large chasm.
I actually found Lessig’s solutions rather lackluster at the end of this presentation. He did a fine job setting up the issues, but his solutions seemed rather inconsequential given the import for our culture. No chance of changing law, CC (not so sure that will do anything about the culture we can;t access), and some kind of loose idea and under theorized idea of action. I found the ending of this talk kinda like the end of Crime and Punishment, the moral dilemma at the heart of the issue is by no means tied up by something as neat as CC. It’s far too horrific when you real think about it, and I understand the push for solutions, but it becomes apparent that even the best thinkers can see their way out of it from within the institution of copyright that they want to reform (not eradicate) and therein lies many of the issues and contradictions of such a talk.
The only way Lessig could really achieve his objectives in our society is if he can prove using a model in economics that the wealth created by loosening the copyright noose is greater than the wealth created by tightening it for the owners of the said copyrights. That is not very likely, as loosening the noose does create wealth, but not for the owners of the copyrights. For the owners of the copyrights it destroys a source of cash flow, which is likely worth billions of dollars. They will continue to lobby the government, because they are in the business of making money, and royalties are worth millions, and the fact that they are difficult to obtain only increases their value. As good old Milton said, they have no obligations to society, only to their shareholders. I think these days governments think the same way. They think about their shareholders, and that is not us.
Also, letting the common public have content for free destroys a method for generating wealth and thereby reduces taxes for governments – so don’t ever, ever expect the government to introduce laws that destroy sources of income for them. Ultimately, I think this issue hinges on this fundamental question, which in our society is always about how the wealth is created and distributed and to whom… There is nothing more to the issue. That is one fundamental rule on which our society, policies, etc, are based around. You can argue all night long about how much a tragedy it is, that the culture is not open, and that new works of art are not being created because of the difficulty, and how unfair the system is, but ultimately who cares? If wealth is not generated in the process, and especially for the incumbents, then there is nothing to discuss. Open culture in our sort of society is in a world irrelevant.
Recording industry profits for 2009 were around 5.4 billion dollars USD. That’s a lot of money (to tax), and a lot of jobs. Reforming the system to introduce some price ceilings probably destroys value, and there are many arguments against such practices. Further, it is also a method of control – in that the culture is one of the mediums we inhabit… and it is a method whereby what messages get out are controlled.
Probably an improvement that could be had is streamlining the process of acquiring rights to produce more materials, but that does not mean price – just the speed and the efficiency by which such rights might be acquired. It is the only one that the powers that be might listen to, but it depends on convincing the stakeholders of the wealth created by such change and how it is good for them (the politicians, record industry, etc). If one cannot, then there is no chance of changing a damn thing.
One idea that comes to mind is “culture rich, dollar poor” and that’s what Lessig wants. The government finds “dollar rich, culture poor” acceptable. The optimal solution I guess would be “culture rich, dollar rich”, but in this debate I don’t think that’s an option. I don’t know if the culture is found in the music or pictures, it’s found more in things that are out of our control. Things like television commercials, their content, the medium through which we are educated. That culture is the culture that actually matters, this other culture that Lessig wants to own gives its owners no power just wealth.
You should see Educause’s recording of the event: http://educause.mediasite.com/mediasite/SilverlightPlayer/Default.aspx?peid=b84be1d5613841aaae441aac8272e2e7
I sat in the 5th row, and Lessig blew my mind. His screen recording doesn’t quite capture the feeling behind the presentation.
When Lessig says “it’s hopeless to change the law” (speaking about ACTA around minute 101) I think he’s goading the masses, rather than professing truth as most others seem convinced. I don’t think he’d be so passionately speaking and pushing for copyright reform if he thought it was a hopeless effort.
Yes, his speaking to this audience was just another drop in the bucket, but a drop of knowledge into this captive audience of university managers and CIOs could go a long way. And that’s his point – that academia can lead, and should be at the head of this effort. However since they’re not (yet), let’s at least provide a supporting platform for those who get it, and for youth, who will soon occupy and permeate (or perhaps bypass entirely) the culturally restrictive environments of universities and bureaucracies.