Free Culture

I just listened to Lawrence Lessig's keynote speech at the 2002 Open Source Convention. His arguments were very compelling. Along with his words, he utilized great visuals that really aided in his overall arguments.

I recently posted an entry where I stated that our national tradition of free speech would prevail against any threats to freedom that may arise in history. I still stand by that broad generalization. I do still think that Americans will only take so much trampling on their ability to express themselves in an appropriate manner. Lessig's own speech could be seen as proof for my statement. It is obvious that he feels that innovation and freedom are being curbed by the activities of a few through their savvy use of law and copyright regulations. He is "doing something" as he so often asked his listeners, during the speech, if they were doing the same.

His arguments certainly caused me to reassess these "hurdles" to innovation and ideas. I mean, it does make sense that ideas and future innovation do feed of of ideas from the past, and the "past" always tries to stop the present from utilizing its ideas. A society does become less free when it is increasingly not allowed to gain inspiration. Lessig's Mickey Mouse example was great. He, in not so few words, basically attributes the rise of Mickey Mouse - an his subsequent beloved place in our American society - to the fact that when Walt Disney created Mickey, there were less constraints on the use of past ideas. Apparently, Mickey Mouse was based on an already existing human character in a then present movie.

Its hard to think of the world today without such a popular and pleasing image (I mean, who doesn't like Mickey Mouse?) as Mickey. According to Lessig, Disney's inspiration would not have been allowed today. While I do value Lessig's argument, I do still think that some legal protections must be afforded to those who create. Whether, its a book or a song, the creator should be allowed to benefit from their creation; however, the extension of these legal protections may be too encompassing. A balance must be found that enables incentives for creation to still occur - when I mean incentives, I mean the comfort that comes with some legal protection for personal work through patents and copywrites - while at the same time not limiting the ability of those in the present to be innovative with information or creations that the past so skillfully developed, thus enabling the future innovation.

Even the framers of our constitution, under Article I, section 8, allowed for the protection of intellectual property for "limited times", in order "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." Indeed, it does seem that "limited times" does have a different definition today.