| By Gavin Chait,
on 20 April 2007
|
 Just because you can ... These measured, and deeply insightful comments, encapsulate many of the fears held not just by companies but also by entire nations faced with the prospect of systematic change envisaged by the open-source technology movement. “With great power comes great responsibility,” as Spiderman would have it. Professor Lawrence Lessig, founder of the Creative Commons movement, will have nothing of these namby-pamby sentiments. He believes that everything is fair game and that remixing – as he calls it - must be encouraged. Presenting video-clip examples of what he means during his presentation at the University of the Western Cape’s Digital Freedom Expo he struck hard and vicious and deep. Jesus Christ sits on a rock, in his toga with his crown of thorns and sings the opening bars of Diana Ross’ “I will survive”. “First I was afraid, I was petrified,” then he flings off his toga and struts through malls and American streets pouting and camping it up before suddenly, and shockingly, being run down by a bus.
Lessig mentions the word “culture” a lot, tossing it liberally like a vegetarian with a salad fetish. He demands that “culture” should be free to share, free to reinterpret and free to distribute. Despite the impressive visual effects of his presentation, Lessig is vague on detail and terribly vague on definitions of what it is he actually is for. Culture, according to my Pocket Oxford, is the “customs and civilization of particular time or people”. Under that definition why are we even arguing? The great fusion kitchens of the world depend on this type of cultural mixing. Because what Lessig means by culture is copyright. But even here he has a point. In 1998, Walt Disney, who faced losing their copyright of Mickey Mouse in 2003 after 75 years of massive profits, supported the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act in the US to increase their trademark an extra 20 years. This is disgraceful and shameful. And Lessig sprang into action. He lost. South Africa has experienced similar cultural protectionism when the EU refused to trade with us until we renamed our Shiraz, Champagne and Grappa wine products. Lessig has a point, certainly. He is especially expressive when it comes to the way in which remixing can be misused: “Writers regularly see their work being rewritten and incorrectly interpreted. Why is this not allowed in other areas like music or film? Should we use the legal system to defend the use of our work? I may not like being associated with what you do with my work but as long as the association does not mislead you into thinking I endorse that view then I accept your right to use it.” This is magnanimous. It is also fair comment. I do – as I have done throughout this article – have the right to include other people’s quotes here. As long as they’re correctly attributed there are no problems. However, if this were a video or sound clip and I chose to include other videos or music in it I would be guilty of serial transgressions and liable for punishment. Clearly this is an inconsistency in the law that must be fixed. And Lessig is right to champion this and bring it to our attention. However, in the debate over freedom of speech you are unlikely to win support via a disturbing and intrusive case of Tourette's Syndrome; swearing and cursing to demonstrate that freedom – like a baby’s soiled nappy – is messy. The central difference between a commercial product and open-source is one of distribution. Microsoft needs you to buy their product and will do everything possible to make that process as straightforward and enjoyable as possible. Demanding of people that they believe, haranguing their stupidity when they don’t, and incorporating your opponents’ best arguments against you front-and-centre in your own speech does little to assist that selling process. The open-source movement needs you to believe in their philosophy and can offer nothing more than the fire and brimstone of an old-style evangelist, promising damnation if you don’t and heaven if you do. |
