Lawrence Lessig's new book goes on sale October 16. Pre-order today.

Lawrence Lessig, the reigning authority on intellectual property in the Internet age, spotlights the newest and possibly the most harmful culture war—a war waged against our kids and others who create and consume art. America’s copyright laws have ceased to perform their original, beneficial role: protecting artists’ creations while allowing them to build on previous creative works. In fact, our system now criminalizes those very actions.

For many, new technologies have made it irresistible to flout these unreasonable and ultimately untenable laws. Some of today’s most talented artists are felons, and so are our kids, who see no reason why they shouldn’t do what their computers and the Web let them do, from burning a copyrighted CD for a friend to “biting” riffs from films, videos, songs, etc and making new art from them.

Criminalizing our children and others is exactly what our society should not do, and Lessig shows how we can and must end this conflict—a war as ill conceived and unwinnable as the war on drugs. By embracing “read-write culture,” which allows its users to create art as readily as they consume it, we can ensure that creators get the support—artistic, commercial, and ethical—that they deserve and need. Indeed, we can already see glimmers of a new hybrid economy that combines the profit motives of traditional business with the “sharing economy” evident in such Web sites as Wikipedia and YouTube. The hybrid economy will become ever more prominent in every creative realm—from news to music—and Lessig shows how we can and should use it to benefit those who make and consume culture.

Remix is an urgent, eloquent plea to end a war that harms our children and other intrepid creative users of new technologies. It also offers an inspiring vision of the post-war world where enormous opportunities await those who view art as a resource to be shared openly rather than a commodity to be hoarded.

From the archive:

All mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so translated. ...

-- John Donne

Jonathan Lethem wrote this 'remix' in the February 2007 issue of Harper's Magazine.

He elicited a response from Larry Lessig in the April 2007 issue:

In his beautifully crafted February criticism, "The Ecstasy of Influence", Jonathan Lethem teaches more about the importance of what I call "remix" than any other work I have read. Certainly more than my own work.

Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy

U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Office of International Trade announced today that the domestic value of counterfeit and pirated products seized by CBP and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement increased by 2.7 percent in mid-fiscal year 2008 to $113.2 million compared to $110.1 million in mid-FY 2007.

The number of large-scale seizures also increased: rising from 296 IPR seizures with a domestic value equal to or greater than $100,000 in 2008 compared to 266 such seizures in mid-FY 2007. The first half of the fiscal year extends from Oct. 1 to March 28.

CBP Releases Intellectual Property Rights Seizure Statistics for Mid-FY2008

The future of both law and technology will require reconciling users' desire to self-disclose information with their simultaneous desire that this information be protected. Security of personal information and user privacy are potentially irreconcilable with the conflicting set of user preferences regarding information sharing behaviours and the convenience of using technology to do so. Social networking sites (SNSs) provide the latest and perhaps most complicated case study to date of these technologies where consumers' desire for data security and control conflict with their desire to self-disclose. Although the law may provide some data control protections, aspects of the code itself provide equally important means of achieving a delicate balance between users' expectations of data security and privacy and their desire to share information.

Data Control and Social Networking: Irreconcilable Ideas?

How relevant is it to declare oneself to be “for” or “against” copyright? Neither the stabilization nor the abolition of the copyright system seems within reach. All we see is a seemingly endless assembly line of new extensions to the law being proposed and enacted. The most recent is the proposed “Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement” (ACTA) [1], to be tabled at next month’s G8 meeting in Tokyo, including a clause known as the “Pirate Bay killer” that would force countries to criminalize services that may facilitate copyright infringement, even if not for profit. This is just one example of how copyright law is mutating into something qualitatively different than what it has been in previous centuries.

A very condensed version of copyright history could look like this: texts (1800), works (1900), tools (2000).

The Future of Copyright

Against the background of an unprecedented number of cybersquatting cases in 2007, the evolving nature of the domain name registration system (DNS) is causing growing concern for trademark owners around the world. Last year, a record 2,156 complaints alleging cybersquatting - or the abusive registration of trademarks on the Internet - were filed with the World Intellectual Property Organization’s (WIPO) Arbitration and Mediation Center (Center), representing an 18% increase over 2006 and a 48% increase over 2005 in the number of generic and country code Top Level Domain (gTLDs and ccTLDs) disputes.

DNS Developments Feed Growing Cybersquatting Concerns

Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976 establishes the affirmative defense to copyright infringement of “fair use,” by far the most enigmatic doctrine in U.S. copyright law and by far the most important. Without it, much of our economic and communicative action would constitute copyright infringement. Yet despite the importance of the fair use defense, and despite the enormous amount of scholarly attention that it has received, we continue to lack any systematic, comprehensive account of our fair use case law and the actual state of our fair use doctrine. Instead, our conventional wisdom derives from a small set of conventionally agreed-upon leading cases. This Article presents the results of the first empirical study of our fair use case law to show that much of our conventional wisdom about that case law is mistaken. Working from a data set consisting of all reported federal opinions that made substantial use of the section 107 four-factor test for fair use through 2005, the Article shows which factors and subfactors actually drive the outcome of the fair use test in practice, how the fair use factors interact, how courts inflect certain individual factors, and the extent to which judges stampede the factor outcomes to conform to the overall test outcome. It also presents empirical evidence of the extent to which lower courts either deliberately ignored or were ignorant of fair use doctrine set forth in the leading cases, particularly those from the Supreme Court. Based on these descriptive findings, the Article prescribes a set of doctrinal practices that will improve courts’ adjudication of the fair use defense.

An Empirical Study of US Copyright Fair Use Opinions, 1978-2005

A performance-right for recording artists would correct a needless exception in U.S. copyright law, states Tom Sydnor in, “A Performance Right for Recording Artists: Sound Policy at Home and Abroad,” a Progress on Point released today by The Progress & Freedom Foundation. In addition, Sydnor concludes, the Passage of the Performance Rights Act would harmonize U.S. copyright law with those of other countries, benefiting both U.S. recording artists and the U.S. economy.

In the paper, Tom Sydnor, Director of the Center for the Study of Digital Property at The Progress & Freedom Foundation, explains that lack performance rights for over-the-air broadcasts is an exception in U.S. copyright law. He counters two often cited arguments for the discrepancy: promotional value for the recording artist and the public interest obligations put on broadcast platforms. Sydnor explains that if one party invests in and creates a resource with value to the public, “governments should not let others appropriate that resource for their own commercial gain just by showing that the creator might therefore derive some incidental benefit.” While airplay may indeed have some promotional benefit to the recording artist, the recording artist also confers benefits to the radio broadcasters by producing songs that people want to hear. Therefore, one party should not possess property rights while the other does not. Moreover, the artist now has multiple channels to exploit for promotional purposes, bringing to question the actual promotional value of the broadcast medium. Sydnor also addresses the argument that over-the-air broadcasters should be exempt from performance rights because they are saddled with public interest obligations that other platforms are not. The author explains that the burden of public interest obligations should cause policymakers to re-think broadcast regulation, not punish performers.

Performance Right Would Harmonize Copyright Policy

This seems pretty basic: even primates watch each other and copy (or, if you will, "ape") each other, so when one monkey figures out how to improve a potato by dipping it in salt water, the whole gang follows suit.

We copy each other to learn and to improve - it's one of the things that makes us human, because we're a lot better at it than chimps.

It's time to overhaul copyright law

Yes, you too can find out what anyone (relatives, friends, neighbors, that girl you are stalking) has bought at Sears provided you have their name, address, and phone number. And you can do it anonymously.

Sears Roebuck and Privacy

When college kids make mashups of Hollywood movies, are they violating the law? Not necessarily, according to the latest study on copyright and creativity from the Center for Social Media and American University’s Washington College of Law.

The study, Recut, Reframe, Recycle: Quoting Copyrighted Material in User-Generated Video, by Center director Pat Aufderheide and Peter Jaszi, co-director of the law school’s Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property, shows that many uses of copyrighted material in today’s online videos are eligible for fair use consideration. The study points to a wide variety of practices—satire, parody, negative and positive commentary, discussion-triggers, illustration, diaries, archiving and of course, pastiche or collage (remixes and mashups)—all of which could be legal in some circumstances. Aufderheide and Jaszi are appearing at the Consumer Electronics Show, the largest such trade show in the world, on Jan. 7 to discuss the research.

On review, this seems like a lot of nothing, or rather, a publicity ploy for this Center.

New Study Shows Remixes Could Be Quoting Copyrighted Material Legally