More on Larry Lessig’s book Code v2….this time on a couple ideas from the book that I have a hard time agreeing with.
I agree with many of Lessig’s points. In particular, he is a staunch defender of fair use and is concerned about the effect of technology in limiting fair use. He sometimes goes too far in my opinion, both in terms of what he considers fair use and in ideas for remedying the situation. (Many of these ideas involve extreme machinations, instead of just clarifying what fair use is and making sure such uses are legally protected.)
At one point in the book, Lessig makes the case for preserving what he calls “amateur culture.” This is the culture of those who do things not for money, but for the love of what they do. It includes all of us who write, make music, draw, paint, etc. just because we love to do it.
Lessig makes the case that it is important to preserve this culture and then jumps to the conclusion that such culture should be able to use copyrighted works to an extent that far exceeds anyone’s conception of fair use. Lessig seems to feel that such use is not “piracy.”
Lessig says that “this kind of cultural remix has historically been free of regulation,” and goes on to say that we have always been able to “tell a joke around [our] dinner table” that includes copyrighted material. Surely the difference between this and broadcasting copyright-infringing videos worldwide is evident though. Apparently, not to Lessig though. He says that such infringement has “just one real effect: to promote the the underlying artists’ work.” I would strongly maintain that this is a decision for the copyright holder to make.
Another issue I have with Lessig is his use of extreme language. I think the cases for most of what Lessig argues for — protection of fair use, protection of various liberties and privacies, etc. — are fairly straightforward and relatively easily to establish. But rather than making the case in a simple, logical way, Lessig often resorts to extreme language and emotional appeals. Language like “profiling,” “manipulation,” “segregation,” and “discrimination” is designed to evoke emotional responses. I think Lessig’s causes would be better served by less emotion, more direct arguments.
I read “Free Culture” by the same writer last week, and I noticed a similar emotional attitude and passionate feelings towards his proposal of an absolutely necessary intermediate position between the two extremes of property on the one hand and anarchy or piracy on the other. Probably, for cultural reasons, I find this attitude more congenial to my personality, even though I have to admit that sometimes a more “detached” attitude can be more effective and acceptable to an audience that you must convince of your ideas.