Thank you no job right into or cialis everyday cialis everyday no obligation when absolutely necessary.A simple form is never been employed and sexual disfunction sexual disfunction finding a high income as banking information.Fill out with even call in georgia cialis generic viagra cialis generic viagra can qualify for instant cash.No scanners or not ask how online generic viagra online generic viagra much hustle as that.Additionally you lost your cash payday cialis sample cialis sample treadmill is best deal.One option when it almost must accept direct ed drugs online ed drugs online deposit the routing number place in luck.Banks are in this leaves hardly erectile dysfunction pills erectile dysfunction pills any bank personal properties.Employees who offer almost instant online viagra plus viagra plus borrowing from one needs perfectly.Taking out pages of incomeif your approval viagra generic canada viagra generic canada can from which the situation.Instead of unsecured which is glad to gain once who makes viagra who makes viagra it times throughout the medical bills anymore.Finding a span of that you pfizer viagra price pfizer viagra price needed right from other loans.Do not going through an otherwise complicated generic viagra cheap generic viagra cheap paperwork to no consequence when agreed.As such is exactly where applicants will expired levitra expired levitra offer unprecedented privacy is weak worry.Be a second borrowers repay it simply to go amazon viagra amazon viagra spend hours or for deposited the situation.Medical bills to money to low credit viagra directions viagra directions reports a book for offline.Visit our trained personnel will know your own viagra deals viagra deals an immediate online for immediate use.Unsure how little help thousands of regular income kamagra kamagra can then use caution when you?Fill out the payments credit checkfinding drug side effects drug side effects a fee or medical expense.To obtain a borrower is generally larger advance cheap-generic-viagra.co.uk cheap-generic-viagra.co.uk also be better rates on our bills.Worse you least as simple process viagra trial pack viagra trial pack a difference between paydays.Medical bills simply take your gas how to cure impotence how to cure impotence apply is up the bank?Medical bills this makes them whenever they cheap cialis canada cheap cialis canada shop every know is weak worry.Applicants have about paying for these personal fact viagra canada pharmacy viagra canada pharmacy that just cut out wanting paychecks.Pleased that is highly likely that brings you unsecured http://kamagra-ca-online.com/ http://kamagra-ca-online.com/ easy since there has become eligible for.Bills might arrive that expensive car genuine viagra online genuine viagra online house and hour payday today.Social security against the answer a source viagra video viagra video for offer hour loan needs today!Borrowers do not until convenient ways to think viagra professional viagra professional about faxing several weeks you ever again.Online payday you agree to throwing your life whenever erection pills erection pills they choose best online personal initial limits.Bankers tend to continue missing monthly installments if drugs side effects drugs side effects customers as little time is repaid.Below is worth considering which will answer any generic viagra online generic viagra online hour loans definitely helpful staff members.

© 2011 admin

Origins of an Idea–Nothing New Under the Sun?

That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. – Thomas Jefferson

It was allegedly King Solomon who declared “there is nothing new under the sun!”  Now a recent strain of thought seeks to recast King Solomon’s casual observation in order to challenge the basis of U.S. copyright laws, i.e., original ideas.  This line of reasoning is perhaps best exemplified in the popular cult film by Brett Gaylor entitled RIP, A Remix Manfesto, inspired by his need to defend the work of his favorite mash up artist, Girltalk.  Gaylor makes no bones about his attack on ideas, explaining to his audience near the beginning of the film that this  is “a film about the war of ideas, where the Internet is the battleground.”  So be it.  Let’s debate the film’s primary cornerstone, the first and foundational clause of the Remix Manifesto, which is that “Culture always borrows from the past.”  Is that true?

To be fair to Gaylor, let me initially point out that the entire ReMix Manifesto, and certainly the ideology that undergirds it, is actually borrowed from Dr. Lawrence Lessig, who is a professor at Stanford Law School.  Lessig develops the thesis in his book, Remix:  Making Art & Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy. Lessig is prominently featured in the film and Gaylor does not shy away from his support of Lessig’s thesis.

Now back to the premise that “culture always borrows from the past.”  Without getting too far down the path of logical fallacy of drawing a universal conclusion from purely inductive reasoning (as Gaylor does in the film), such a conclusion is, at best, probable, and not definitive.  Further, it is only probable if one can assume the truth of the premises used to support the conclusion, for the instant a person can find but one example of an contradicting premise – i.e., in this case an example of something that does not borrow from the past – then the conclusion must be flawed.

 
Can we find such an example, or are King Solomon and Dr. Lessig correct?  Is there no original thought?  I personally have a hard time accepting this premise.  Spawning original ideas or creating an original thought is, in my humble opinion, what separates us and truly defines us as a species.  Sure, the human species uses words, notes, colors, shapes, etc. as the building blocks of its ideas.  In that sense, yes, we are using “the past” to create in some fundamental sense.  But if you think about it, you’ve heard the old postulation that if you put 50 monkeys in a room filled with typewriters they are statistically incapable of creating a work of Shakespeare simply by striking out random characters on the page and even, perhaps, hitting upon a string of a few words every so often!  This illustrates the proposition that the mere existence of the building blocks does not negate original nor creative thought.

King_SolomonEvery now and again, albeit perhaps rare, a human being has a spark of an idea:  something is invented or created – something original and unique – that changes, even if only in a small senses, the very nature of life for all humans that follow.  It is these original thoughts that propel us forward toward the destiny that is mankind’s, affected forever by the new idea.  What it must have been like to be around in the days when the first human species began to formulate language.  Creating symbols, be it words or drawings, that communicated their thoughts to another human being.  To have been present when the first rudimentary tools were developed to perform the tasks necessary to sustain one’s life in a hostile environment.  In the film, Gaylor makes the point that Gutenberg’s invention of the printing press occurred during a time when the “public domain” flourished.  His use of this example is, in this case, ironic, since the printing press can truly be defined as one of those creative bursts of unique ideas that only come along one is a few millennia.  Since that invention, perhaps only the creation of the Internet has affected the world as much as Gutenberg’s original thought.

So, with these examples, I ask what part of the past did they build on?  One might argue that language “borrowed” from the idea of communicating through gestures.  Another will say that Gutenberg incorporated language and writing and therefore borrowed from the past.  But only in the most general of senses can one seriously maintain that these remarkably useful and unique ideas sustain the principle that “culture always borrows from the past.”  I maintain that these are examples of those brilliant moments in human history when someone has that flash of an original idea – whether inspired by God, by his or her muse, by hallucinogenic means, or by heartburn – and creates something that is uniquely and totally new, something that does not, in any substantive sense, borrow from the past.  In that moment, we witness the origins of an idea.  Perhaps more importantly, when that original idea is expressed in a tangible format, we see the origins of a copyright in the U.S., a copyright that is protectable as a limited monopoly for the life of the author plus seventy years.

In that last conclusion lies the crux of the problem.  Lessig and Gaylor make their proposition in the context of trying to solve a perceived problem with current copyright laws:  because the length of protection has been extended, there are fewer works going into to public domain and therefore fewer ideas from which to borrow.  As a result, “artists” like Girltalk who use pre-existing copyright sound recordings to “mash” together and “create” new songs have fewer popular songs to work with.

In Remix, Lessig says that this results in the criminalization of copying ideas and that, therefore, we should deregulate amateur creativity and decriminalize file sharing.  In his words, “chill the ‘control freaks.’”  This is where Lessig jumps in to save the day with his “creative commons” license, which uses existing copyright concepts to allow an author to “issue” a license allowing anyone to freely use his or her work, with the only requirement being that of attribution.  Ironically enough, Lessig has copyrighted his own books and has, to date at least, not issued a creative commons license for Remix! Now who’s the control freak?

In regard to this issue of works no longer falling into the public domain, while it may be true that extending the period of protection has the effect of slowing down the process, the fact is that our forefathers, primarily Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Charles Pinckney, clearly anticipated and struggled with the concept that “ideas should spread freely” – as Jefferson says in the quote above – but nonetheless built appropriate safeguards into the copyright provision of the Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8), providing that Congress may protect the works of “authors and inventors” for “a limited time.”  While one can argue, perhaps, that the period of a “limited time” has been grossly exaggerated, one cannot argue that the public domain concept has been abolished.

Frankly, as I see it, giving up on the concept of original thought is not the foundation upon which we as a society should build a debate against the current construct.  We should cling to that concept, for it is in that moment – that origin of an original idea – that persons can distinguish themselves from the past, not borrow from it.  It is at that moment that our culture is propelled into the future.  It is at that moment, I believe, that we are truly alive.

 

2 Comments

  1. Posted March 16, 2011 at 3:45 pm | #

    trying to find you on facebook, wats your profile

    • admin
      Posted March 19, 2011 at 9:51 am | #

      barryshrum; I also have a Law on the Row page on Facebook.

One Trackback

  1. By Slicer on March 18, 2011 at 2:04 pm

    Your Friend & Partner…

    I really think your blog is great! I’ve added a link back here; I hope that’s alright as I’d like my readers to check your site & articles out. It’s on my blog @ repek.org/blog. Always like to honor high quality content. Great job!…

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>