Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity (published in paperback as Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity ) is a 2004 book by law professor Lawrence Lessig That Was released on the Internet under the Creative Commons Attribution / Non-commercial license ( by-nc 1.0 ) on March 25, 2004.

This book documents how copyright power has expanded since 1974 in five critical dimensions:

  • Duration (from 32 to 95 years),
  • Scope (from publishers to virtually everyone),
  • Reach (to every view on a computer),
  • (“Derivative works”), or any derivative works, or any derivative works,
  • Concentration and integration of the media industry.

It also documents how this industry has successfully used the legal system to limit competition to the major media corporations through legal action against:

  • College students for close to $ 100 trillion , because their improvements of search engines made it easier for people in a university to find copyrighted music placed by others in their “public” folder.
  • Lawyers Who Advised That They HAD reasonable grounds to believe an MP3 streaming uploaded by a customer only to computers que la HAS customer is logged-in for the service is legal, and
  • Venture Capitalists who funded Napster.

“The Progress of Science and the Arts,” the Constitution of the United States . Mickey Mouse, Mickey Mouse, Mickey Mouse Mickey Mouse, Mickey Mouse Mickey Mouse Mickey Mouse Mickey Mouse Mickey Mouse Mickey Mouse Mickey Mouse Mickey Mouse Mickey Mouse Mickey Mouse Mickey Mouse Mickey Mouse Mickey Mouse Mickey Mouse Mickey Mouse Mickey Mouse Mickey Mouse Mickey Mouse Mickey Mouse Mickey Mouse Mickey Mouse Mickey Mouse Mickey Mouse Mickey Mouse Mickey Mouse


The law professor Lawrence Lessig

This book is an outgrowth of the US Supreme Court decision in Eldred v. Ashcroft , which Lessig lost. Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution says, “The Congress shall have … to promote the Progress of Science and Discoveries. ” Several times in the past century, congress has extended the copyright law in several ways. One way was to extend the term “on the installation plan”. [1] Another was to broaden the scope to include not only copying but creating “derivative works”. This is broader than it is broadly based on a wide range of copyright portfolios. For example, the Recording Industry Association of America sued a freshman at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) for $ 10 million for Improving a search engine used only inside RPI . [2] Lessig cites another example where Fox demanded $ 10,000 for a second video clip with The Simpsons . [3]Anyone producing a collage of video clips can potentially be similarly sued on the grounds the collage is a “derivative work” Of copyrighted or that the collage contains a shot that is copyrighted. The Constitution of the United States of America; The Supreme Court ruled that Congress has the constitutional authority to properly balance competing interests on cases like this.

In the preface of Free Culture , Lessig compares this book with a previous book of his, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace , which propounded that software has the effect of law. Free Culture ‘s message is different, Lessig writes, because it is “about the consequence of the Internet to a part of our tradition that is much more fundamental, and as a geek-wanna-be to admit, Much more important. ” (Pg. Xiv)

Professor Lessig analyzes the tension that exists between the concepts of piracy and property in the intellectual property realm in the context of what he calls the present “depressingly compromised process of making law” which has been captured in most nations by multinational corporations The accumulation of capital and the free exchange of ideas.

The book chronicles aussi His prosecution of Eldred and his attempt to Develop the Eldred Act , Also Known As the Public Domain Enhancement Act or the Copyright Deregulation Act .

Lessig concludes his book by suggesting that as society evolves into an information society that is free or feudal in nature. In His afterword he Suggests That free softwarepioneer Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation’s model of making happy available is not Against the capitalist approach That HAS allowed Such corporate models as Westlaw and LexisNexis to-have Subscribers to pay for materials That are Essentially in the public Domain but with underlying licenses Creative Commons.

He also argues for the creation of shorter renewal periods of copyright and limitation on derivative rights, such as limiting a publisher’s ability to stop the publication of copies of an author’s book on the internet for non-commercial purposes or create a compulsory licensing scheme. Ensure That royalties for creators live obtenir Their works based upon Their usage statistics and Some kind of taxation scheme Such as suggéré by professor William Fisher of Harvard Law School [4] That is similar to a longstanding proposal of Richard Stallman.


Introduction and Identification of Cultural Shift

Lessig defines “Free Culture” not as “free” as in ” Free Beer “, purpose “free” as in ” free speech “. [5] A free culture supports and protects its creators and innovators directly and indirectly. It directly supports creators and innovators by granting intellectual property rights. It indirectly supports them by ensuring that the creators and the innovators remain as free from the creators of the past by limiting how extensive intellectual property rights are. A ” permissions culture ” is the opposite of a free culture; In a permissions culture, Creators and innovators are only able to create and innovate with the permission of creators of the past – whether they are powerful creators or not. [6]

Dualing cultures. Lessig presents two examples that provide some insight into the nature of these dueling cultures. In the first, an example of “free culture”, he describes how the landowner did not have the right to forbid overflight. [7] In the second, an example of a “permissions culture”, he describes how David Sarnoff , president of RCA , managed to persuade the government to delay the deployment of the rival broadband FM radio, invented by Edwin Howard Armstrong . He describes this as an example of how the inventor of a new invention can be forced to request permission from a previous inventor. [8]

The disparate features of a culture and culture. In a free culture, innovators are able to create – and build upon past creations – without the worry of infringing upon intellectual property rights. In a permissions culture, innovators must first request “permission” from past creators in order to build on or modify past creations. [9] Oftentimes, the innovator must pay the past creator in order to obtain the permission to proceed. If the past creator refuses to grant permission to the innovator, the past creator may appeal to the government to enforce their intellectual property rights. Typically, intellectual property rights protect culture that is produced and sold, or made to be sold. This type of culture is commercial culture , [10] and the focus of the law is typically on commercial creativity rather than non-commercial activity . Initially, the law, “protected the incentives of creators by granting them exclusive rights to their creative work, so that they could sell these exclusive rights in a commercial marketplace.” [11] This protection has become far more extensive, as is evident in the Armstrong / RCA example.

Lessig argues that we are fast becoming a permissions culture, though he sees the internet as a modern day Armstrong: it challenges the traditional innovator and seeks to break free of any permissions or strict regulations. [12] The internet can provide a vastly more vibrant and competitive innovation culture, and this is troublesome for any large corporations that have invested in fortifying their intellectual property rights: “Corporations threatened by the internet Noncommercial culture are made and shared by lawmakers to use the law to protect them. ” [13] The internet has facilitated the mass production of culture, both commercial and noncommercial. Corporations that have traditionally controlled this production have reacted by pressuring legislators to change the laws to protect their interests. The protection that these corporations seek is not protection for the creators, but rather protection against certain forms of business that directly threaten them. [14] Lessig’s worry is that intellectual property rights will not be protecting the right out of property, but will instead come to protect private interests in a controlling way. He writes that the First Amendment protects creators against state control and copyright law , when properly balanced, protects creators against private control. Expansive intellectual property rights to dramatically increase all regulations on creativity in America,

Free Culture covers the themes of Piracy and Property. A free culture, like a free market, is filled with property. The property of a person who, in the course of his or her life, has a right to a fair share of the property, [15]


“How free is this culture?” [16] According to Lessig, bears have been but decreasingly a free culture. Free cultures. Purportedly, this is not a new practice, but one that is increasingly challenged, mostly for economic reasons by creators and industry. The conflict or “war against piracy” [17] emerges from efforts to regulate creative property in order to delimit the use of creative property without permission. As Lessig sees it, “the law’s role is less and less to support creativity, and more and more to protect certain industries against competition.” [18]

This new role of law is meant to protect copyright owners from ‘pirates’ who share their content for free, effectively ‘robbing’ the creator of any profit. [19] Lessig acknowledges piracy is wrong and deserving of punishment, however he is concerned the concept, as it appears in the context of ‘ internet piracy ‘, has been used inappropriately. This problematic design follows a certain chain of reasoning: creative work has value; When an individual uses, takes or builds on someone else’s creative work they are appropriating something of value from the creator. If someone appropriates something from a creator without the creator’s permission permission, then this is the ‘pirating’ part of the creator’s work, and this is wrong. [20] Rochelle Dreyfuss, an NYU Professor of Law, has termed this conception of piracy the “if value, then right” theory of creative property – “if there is value, then someone must have a right to that value.” [21]

First defining and then pointedly critiquing a prevalent “if value, then right” concept of creative property, [22] Lessig emphasizes that American law recognizes intellectual property as an instrument. [23] Lessig points out that “if value, then right” is correct, then film, recorded music, radio, and cable TV each is built on a history of piracy. [24] Lessig details the history of these four “pirates” [25] as examples of how pervasive has been the practice of making use of others’ creative property without permission. Importantly, Lessig points out, throughout human history, “every society has left a certain bit of its culture free for the taking.” [26] This free culture has historically been deliberate, and widely appreciated. In fact, “creators here and everywhere are always on the creativity that went before and that surrounds them now.” [27]

Lessig goes on to suggest that the advent of the Internet has changed our culture, and along with the expectation and acceptance of creative piracy. In particular, the internet has brought about a war against piracy. At the heart of the heat is a question about the reach, benefit and burden of copyright law. The internet is a bold challenge to the “natural limit to the reach of the law”, [28] and Therein lies the quandary. The presence of the internet instigates and the flames of the piracy war by virtue of its inherent ability to very quickly and indiscriminately spread content.

Ultimately, Lessig leaves us to deliberate “even if some piracy is plainly wrong, not all is piracy.” [29] Finding the balance is a process of law; [30] Internet use, as exemplified by peer-to-peer (p2p) file sharing pushes the envelope.

For centuries, copyright holders have complained about “piracy”. In 1996, the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) sued “Girl Scouts for failing to pay for the songs that girls sang around Girl Scout Campfires.” [31] The following was a public relations disaster for ASCAP, and they dropped the following. If, however, you have a copyrighted song in public, you are legally required to pay the copyright holder.

Copyright © 2010, All Rights Reserved. All rights reserved. All rights reserved. Copyright copyright. Today it also covers

“[W] he law’s […] [edit] [add listing] [edit] Translations [edit] Translations The role of the industry in the development of industrial competitiveness. ” [32]


Lessig explains that copyright is a kind of property, but that is an odd kind of property for which the term can sometimes be misleading-the difference between taking a table and taking a good idea, for example, is hard to see under the term ‘property’. [33] As late as 1774, publishers believed a copyright was forever. A copyrighted copy of the book has been published. It did not cover, as today, other rights over performance, derivative works, etc. [34] Modern technology allows people to copy or cut and paste video clips in creative new ways to produce art, entertainment, and new modes of expression and communication that did not exist before. The resulting potential for media literacy could help ordinary people not only communicate their concerns but also make it easier for them to understand when they are being suckered into things in their interests. (1) the vagueness of “fair use”. (2) The costs of negotiating legal rights for the creative reuse of content are astronomically high. “You have to pay a lawyer to defend your fair use rights.” [35] (1) the vagueness of “fair use”. (2) The costs of negotiating legal rights for the creative reuse of content are astronomically high. “You have to pay a lawyer to defend your fair use rights.” [35] (1) the vagueness of “fair use”. (2) The costs of negotiating legal rights for the creative reuse of content are astronomically high. “You have to pay a lawyer to defend your fair use rights.” [35]

Drawing on an argument Lessig made in Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace He applies the model of four different modalities of regulation that support or weaken a given right or regulation. The law of the market, architecture and norms. [36] These four modalities constrain the target group or individual in different ways, and law tends to function as an umbrella over the other methods. These constraints can be changed, also a restriction imposed by one constraint may allow freedoms from another. Lessig maintains the Internet with these constraints, in balance with each other in regulating copying of creative works. [37]

However, government support of established companies with an older form of doing business would preclude innovation induced competition and overall progress. Lessig says it best ‘it is the duty of policy makers to ensure that it does not become a deterrent to progress’. [38] He specifies that his argument is not justification for the protection of copyrights. In the face of the Internet. In this regard, the DDT has been used as an alternative to the DDT. Next this allusion he calls for an environmental awareness for the future of the creative environment. [39]

Copyright has changed from just a few books, maps and charts to any work that has a tangible form. Today, it gives the copyright holder the exclusive right to publish the work and control over any copies of the work as well as any derivative work. Additionally, there is no requirement to register a work to get a copyright; It is automatic, whether or not a copy is made available for others to copy. Copyright law of a duplication or piracy. The change in copyright scope of the law, the authors, simply because they are all capable of making copies. Before the internet, copies of any work were the trigger for copyright law, But lessigs should be taken from the trigger, especially when considering the way digital media sharing works. [40]

In 1831, the term of copyright increased from a maximum of 28 years to a maximum of 42; In 1909 the renewal term was extended from 14 years to 28. Beginning in 1962, the term of existing copyright was extended eleven times in the last 40 years. After 1976, the author of the book, the author of this book, According to Lessig, the public domain becomes orphaned by these changes to copyright law. In the past thirty years the average term has tripled and has gone from about 33 years to 95. [41]

are uses of copyrighted material that may involve copying law. Fair use law for the public. The internet shifts the use of digital creative property, which is now regulated under copyright law. There is almost no use that is presumptively unregulated. [42]

Relatively recent changes in technology and copyright law have dramatically expanded the impact of copyright in five different dimensions:

  • The duration Increased from an average of 32.2 years to 95 (for copyrights owned by corporations) entre 1974 and 2004 [43] and it May yet be extended further, in violation of the constitutional requirement que le exclusive rights be “for limited times” .
  • The scope has increased from just regulating just about everyone. [44]
  • The reach HAS expanded, Because computers make copies with every view, and thesis copies are presumptively regulated. [45]
  • The control of the copyright holder has an extensive use of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to prosecute people with software that could defeat the limits. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to e-mail us at. [46]
  • Increases in the concentration and integration [of] media ownership provides unprecedented control over political discourse and the evolution of culture. “[F] ive companies control 85 percent of our media sources … [F] our companies control 90 percent of the nation’s radio advertising revenues … [ T] in film studios receive 99 percent of all film revenue. [47]

Lessig argues that some of these changes benefit the society as a whole. However, in the case of a violation of the constitutional justification for copyright law, The negative impact on creativity can be seen in numerous examples throughout this book. Saddam Hussein’s Weapons of Mass Destruction during the Period of the US Supreme Court Decisions that give stations the right to choose what they will and will not run. [48] Lessig claims this kind of environment is not democratic [49] and at no point in our history have we had fewer legal right to control more of the development of our culture than now. [50]


The following summarizes the different sections of the book.


Lessig insists que le future of our society is threatened This being white by recent changes in US law and administration, Including decisions by the US Federal Communications Commission That allow Increased concentration of media ownership . Lessig claims to defend a free culture that is balanced between control – a culture that has property, rules, and contracts pertaining to which it is enforced by the state – and anarchy – a culture that can grow and thrive Build on the property of others. However, this culture can become puzzling and perplexing when it comes to property rights. [51]


Lessig provides two examples that portray the difference between a free culture and a permissions culture – two themes that will develop throughout the book. (See Introduction and Identification of cultural Shift )

Chapter 1. Creators

Lessig devotes the first chapter to defining creators as “copycats” who borrow and “build on the creativity that went before and that surrounds them now …” [52] Throughout the chapter Lessig develops a theme that “all cultures are free to some degree,” [53] by expounding on key examples from the American and Japanese cultures, namely Disney and Doujinshi comics, respectively.

The first commercial success of Mickey Mouse came with Steamboat Willie , released in 1928. In part, it parodied the silent film Steamboat Bill, Jr. , released earlier that year by Buster Keaton . Under current US law, Steamboat Willie might be challenged for copyright infringement as a “derivative work” of Steamboat Bill, Jr. HOWEVER, under copyright laws in 1928, this kind of cultural output Was unproblematic. This change has had a chilling effect on creativity, serving to reduce competition to the established media companies, as suggested by the subtitle to the original hardback edition of Free Culture .

Similarly, in the vigorous Japanese comic market, where “some 40 percent of publications are comics, and 30 percent of published revenues from comics”, [54] is a kind of technical copycat. Doujinshi are plainly ‘derivative works.’ “The doujinshi artists almost never get the permission of those who own the works they modify, though their To contribute to the overall cultural production.

This illegal, though culturally significant, market flourishes in Japan because it helps the mainstream comic creators. The mainstream market flourishes as well the derivative doujinshi market. Fighting this burgeoning illegal market would spell trouble for the mainstream market as well; These two systems for creating have learned to live somewhat harmoniously with one another, to each other’s benefit. [55]

Lessig concludes with a thought that “bear was a free culture.” [56] So, would the US have a more vibrant industry in creating comics if the small business competitors to the big business producing comics?

Chapter 2. “Mere Copyists”

Chapter 2 is a discussion about the influence of technology on culture, and the legal environment that impacts its reach. Lessig recounts George Eastman ‘s invention of Kodak as a technology that advanced the invention of photography, and brought about a significant social change by giving the average citizen access to what began as an elite form of expression. Lessig traces the simultaneous legal environment that permits its genius: Given the challenge of deciding whether photographers would need to get permission before taking, the legal system decided “in favor of the pirates … Freedom was the default.” [57]

Lessig presses to suggest that, had the legal atmosphere been different, “nothing like the growth in a democratic technology of expression would have been realized.” [58] Democracy of expression is a main theme for this chapter, as Lessig examines various examples of the technologies that are developed to promote so-called “media literacy”, the understanding and active use of media for learning, living, and communicating in The twenty-first century; [59] he describes media literacy as a tool for empowering minds and reversing the digital divide. [60]

The Internet is a prime example of a technology that develops the culture. For Lessig, the Internet is a “mix of captured images, sound, and commentary [that] widely spread practically instantaneously.” [61] With e-mail and blogging, the Internet creates a dimension for democracy of speech that is widespread and far-reaching. Lessig’s lamenting is that the Internet and similar technologies offered are increasingly challenged by the restrictions that are placed upon them through laws that “close down that technology.” [62]

Chapter 3. Catalogs

In chapter 3, Jesse Jordan, a 2002 freshman of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), who has made a significant contribution to the free culture debate through research, notes, movie clips and A variety of other RPI network materials. When Jesse became an activist for free culture, he became a member of the Association of America (RIAA).

Chapter 4. “Pirates”

In this article, we present a series of articles on the history of piracy in the United States. ” [63] This includes the film industry of Hollywood who used piracy in order to escape the controls of Thomas Edison’s patents. [64]Similarly, the record industry is a pervasive and unpredictable phenomenon. [65] Radio also grew out of piracy since the radio industry is not required to compensate recording artists for playing their works. As such, ”

Selon Lessig, “every industry affected by copyright today is the product and beneficiary of a some kind of piracy … Every generation Welcomes the pirates from last … until now. [67] ‘

Chapter 5. “Piracy”

Lessira ‘piracy’, ‘piracy’, ‘piracy’, ‘piracy’, ‘piracy’, ‘piracy’ and ‘piracy’. [68]

Lessig compared the examples of piracy that were previously treated:

hut Whose value was ‘pirated’ Response of the courts Response of Congress
Recordings composers No protection Statutory license
Radio Recording artists N / A nothing
Cable TV Broadcasters No protection Statutory license
VCR Film creators No protection nothing


Bringing the discussion to an up-to-date example, Lessig gives an overview of Napster’s peer-to-peer (p2p) sharing and outlines benefits and harms of this kind of piracy through sharing. He should be careful to ensure that he is not injured. According to Lessig, [t] he question is a matter of balance. The law should seek that balance … [70]

Lessig emphasizes the role of copyright law, pointing out that as it stands, copyright law impacts all kinds of piracy, and hence is a part of the piracy war that challenges free culture. On the other hand, copyright supporters indiscriminately recognize the same attributes as tangible property. On the other hand, creators shun the notion of having their intellectual property at the disposal of pirates, and so agree to delimit commonality through strict copyright laws. Ultimately, Lessig calls for changes in US copyright law that balance the support of intellectual property with cultural freedom. [71]


A copyright is an odd kind of property, because it limits free use of ideas and expression. Chapters 6-9 offer four stories to help illustrate what it means to say that a copyright is property. [72]

Chapter 6. Founders

In the majority of European countries, copyright law begins with the efforts of the spiritual and temporal authorities to control the production of printers. [73] This was often done by granting monopolies. “Henry VIII granted a patent to print the bible”. [74] In England, the Crown’s practice of handing out monopolies became quite unpopular and was one of the issues that motivated the Civil War of 1642-1651. [75]

As late as 1774, publishers believed a copyright was forever. This statute of Anne [of 1710 tried to limit this by declaring] that all published works would have a copyright term of fourteen years, renewable once the author was alive, and that all Works already published … would get a single term of twenty-one additional years. ” [76] (A copyright At That Time Was more limited than it is today, only Prohibiting others from reprinting a book, It Did not cover, as today, other rights over performance, derivative works, etc.) [77] In Spite of The Statute of Anne, publishers still insisted they had a perpetual copyright under common law. This claim was controversial. ” Many Believed the power the [publishers] exercised over the spread of Knowledge Was Hanning That spread “. [78] In 1774 the House of Lords, functioning like the Supreme Court of the United States today Determined That in Granting a copyright,” The state Would protect the exclusive right [to publish], but only so long as it benefited society. ” [79] ” After 1774, the public domain was born. [80] The public domain was born. [80] The public domain was born. [80]

Chapter 7. Recorders

A movie made by Jon Else in 1990 includes a 4.5 second segment with a television in a corner playing The Simpsons . Before releasing the film, Else contacted The Simpsons ‘ creator, Matt Groening for copyright permission. Groese agreed but asked Else to contact the producer, Gracie Films . They agreed to ask Else to contact their parent company, Fox . When he contacted Fox, he did not know what he was doing. The Simpsons , and Fox wanted $ 10,000 to allow him to distribute his documentary with The Simpsons playing in the background of a second scene. “Else was sure there was a mistake. Rebecca Herrera, Vice President for Licensing. She confirmed that copyright permission would cost $ 10,000 for that 4.5 second clip in the corner of a shot, and added, “And if you quote me, I’ll turn you over to our attorneys.”

Chapter 8. Transformers

In 1993, Starwave, Inc., produced a retrospective on compact disc ( CD-ROM ) of the career of Clint Eastwood , who had made 50 films as an actor and director. The retrospective included short excerpts from each of Eastwood’s films. Because it was not obviously ” fair use “, they needed to get clear of those who could film, actors, composers, musicians, etc. CD was a new technology, not mentioned in any of the original contracts with the people involved. The standard rate at which time was $ 600. A year later, they had had signatures from everyone they could identify in the clips they had, “and even then we weren ‘

Similarly, in “2003, DreamWorks Studios announced an agreement with Mike Myers and Austin Powers [to] acquire the rights to existing motion picture hits and classics, write new story-lines and – with the use of state-of-the-art digital Technology – insert Myers and other actors into the film, creating a new piece of entertainment. ”

These two examples expose a major threat to the creativity of our society: modern technology allows people to copy or cut and paste video clips in creative new ways to produce art, entertainment, and new modes of expression and communication that did not exist before. The resulting potential for media literacy could help ordinary people not only communicate their concerns but also make it easier for them to understand when they are being suckered into things in their interests (as indicated in chapter 2 of this book). (1) the vagueness of “fair use”. (2) The costs of negotiating legal rights for the creative reuse of content are astronomically high. ”

Chapter 9. Collectors

Lessig complained, “While much of a twentieth-century culture was constructed through television, only a tiny portion of that culture is available for anyone to see today.” Lessig suggests that this is a violation of the spirit of the letter of the constitution: Early American copyright law. Copyright owners to deposit copies of their work in libraries. “These copies were intended both to facilitate the spread of knowledge and to ensure that the copyright expired”.

However, starting with film in 1915 the government has allowed copyright holders to avoid depositing a copy permanently with the Library of Congress. As a result, most of the copyrighted material from the twentieth century is unavailable to the public in any form.

This is starting to change. In 1996 Brewster Kahle founded the Internet Archive , a non-profit digital library to provide universal access to all knowledge .

However, congress continues to extend the copyright period. In 1790, a copyright lasted 14 years, and owners could get a 14-year extension for a fee. Since then, the copyright period was extended in 1831, 1909, 1954, 1971, 1976, 1988, 1992, 1994, and 1998 . The media industry that got the previous extensions can be expected to try for another extension. [82]

Chapter 10. “Property”

Duration, Scope, Reach, Control, Concentration.


Chapter 11. Chimera

A chimera is an animal (eg, human) with double the standard DNA formed by the fusion of two embryos . Chimeras were discovered when genetic testing of mothers failed to match the DNA of a child. Further testing revealed that the chimeric mothers had two sets of DNA.

[In] the copyright wars, ‘… we’re dealing with a chimera. [I] n the battle over … ‘What is p2p sharing?’ Both sides have it right, and both sides have it wrong. One side says, ‘File sharing is just like two kids taping each other’s records’ … That’s true, at least in part … But the description is also false in part. [M] y p2p network [got anyone] access to my music. [I] t stretches the meaning of ‘friends’ beyond recognition to say ‘my ten thousand best friends.’

The section then goes on to describe how, according to the RIAA , downloading a CD could leave you liable for one million and half million. It then suggests that the owners are gaining a level of control they never had before. [83]

Chapter 12. Harms

In this chapter Lessig describes three consequences of what he terms a “war”. This property has been sold by the property owner.

Constraining Creators : This section explores how the current law makes the use of new digital technologies, such as e-mailing a Comedy Central clips, “presumptively illegal”. He is on the verge of becoming a member of the RIAA team . He is a member of the RIAA team . [84] He states “[F] air use in America” [85]

Constraining Innovators : In this section Lessig describes how the innovators are being constrained and amongst the examples. In 2000 this company launched a service that would allow users to have a “lockbox” to which they could upload their music and access it anywhere. Vivendi against is a registered trademark of Vivendi . A year later Vivendi bought [86] He also describes how the innovators are hampered both by the uncertainty in the law and the content industry. [87] Also in this section he describes how, When new technologies are invented, Congress has attempted to strike a balance so as to protect these new technologies from the older ones. He Suggests That this balance HAS changed and now uses as an example Internet radio qui Suggests he has-been burdened by regulations and royalty payments That broadcasters have-nots beens. [88]

Corrupting Citizens : Here Lessig Describes how, selon the New York Times, 43 million Americans HAD downloaded music in 2002 THUS making 20 percent of Americans criminals. [89]


Chapter 13. Eldred

This chapter summarizes Eldred v. Ashcroft . The lead petitioner, Eric Eldred, wanted to make public domain works freely available on the Internet. He Was PARTICULARLY interested in a work That Was slated to pass into the public domain in 1998. HOWEVER, the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) Meant That Would not this work be in the public domain up to 2019-and Not Even then if Congress extended the term again, as it had eleven times since 1962. [90] Further extension is likely, because it makes good business sense for organizations. Extend the terms even further. [91] “Copyrights have not expired, and will not expire, So long as Congress is free to be bought to extend them again. [92]

Lead council in Eldred c. Ashcroft was Lessig . He lost this box due, he says, to a strategic blunder in arguing That repeated extensions Effectively Granted perpetual copyright in violation of the constitutional specificationThat copyrights and patents be “for limited times”.

This was a high-profile case, and many different groups had filed briefs.

[T] he Nashville Songwriters Association wrote in which the public domain was nothing more than ‘legal piracy.’ ” [93] One Nobel prize winners. [94]

Lessig believes that this extension has been given to the US economy and culture, as many people had advised, he could have won. Lessig insists that, “The real harm is to the works that are not famous, not commercially exploited, and no longer available as a result.” [95]

The structure of current law makes it exceedingly difficult for someone who might want to do something with an old work to find the copyright owner, because no central list exists. Because these are works that are long lived commercially viable to the copyright holder, many are deteriorating. Many old movies were produced on nitrate-based stock, and nitrate stock dissolved over time. They will be gone, and the metal canisters in which they are now stored with nothing more than dust. ” [96]

Chapter 14. Eldred II


In conclusion, Lessig uses the disproportionate number of HIV and AIDS victims in Africa and other poor countries to further his argument that the current control of intellectual property in this case, patents to HIV drugs-defy “common sense.” AIDS is no longer a mortal illness for individuals who can afford between $ 10,000 and $ 15,000 per year. Lessig cites drug company lobbying in the United States to prevent the revolt against this injustice. In 1997 the US government threatened South Africa with possible trade sanctions if they attempted to obtain the drugs at the price at which they were available in these few other poor countries. In response, Lessig calls for a ” But we need to encourage people to invest in the research. He points out, however, that offering AIDS drugs at a much reduced price in Africa would not directly impact the profits of pharmaceutical companies. But we need to encourage people to invest in the research. He points out, however, that offering AIDS drugs at a much reduced price in Africa would not directly impact the profits of pharmaceutical companies.


In the afterword, Lessig proposes practical solutions to the dispute over intellectual property rights. His ideas include emulating the structure of the Creative Commons in complement to copyright; Invoking more formalities for the exercise of creativity online (marking copyrighted work, registering copyrights, and renewing claims to copyright); Limiting the role of the Copyright Office in developing marking systems; Shorter copyright terms (enough to incentivize creativity, but no more) and simpler language; And moving the issues of copyright out of the purview of expensive lawyers and more into public sphere.

The balance of this book maps out what might be done about the problems. This is divided into two parts: what anyone can do now and what requires help from lawmakers.

Us, Now : If current trends continues, ‘cut and paste’ will become ‘get permission to cut and paste’.

Them, Soon : This chapter outlines five kinds of changes in law by the analysis of this book.

1. More Formalities : It is suggested that all rights should be registered. [97] He further suggests that a worker should have a complaint. [98]

2. Shorter Terms In this section it is proposed that copyright terms should be shorter. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us.

It should be (1) short, (2) simple, (3) alive (ie, require a renewal), and (4) prospective (ie, do not authorize retrospective extension). [99]

3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use : Lessig suggests that what constitutes a derivative work should be narrowed. [100]

4. Liberate the Music -Again : Here Lessig argues that the law on file-sharing music should be reformed and that any reforms what attempts to limit file sharing in place of purchasing must also do not hamper the sharing of free content. He also suggests to the necessity of sharing the music of the media. [101]

5. Fire Lots of Lawyers : Lessig opines that the costs involved in the legal system are too high and that only works for the top 1% and that a cheaper system would be more just. [102]

Critical reception

In a review in The New York Times , Adam Cohen found Free Culture to be a “Powerfully argued and significant analysis,” where Lessig persuasively Argues That we are in a crisis of cultural impoverishment. However, this article does not describe the implications of the “lessig” and “impractical and politically unattainable.” [103]

David Post argues that Lessig shows that “free culture” has always been a part of our intellectual heritage and illuminates the tension between the already created and not yet created. Although Post allegations with Lessig’s argument, it does not matter which copyrights are property rights and “property rights, as a general rule, a good thing” and that Lessig does not do enough in his book to address this side of the debate. [104]

Derivative works

A day after the book was released online, blogger AKMA (AK Adam) suggéré That People pick a chapter and make a voice recording of it, Partly Because They Were allowed to. Users who commented on volunteered to narrate certain chapters. Two days later, most of the book had been narrated.

Besides audio production, this book was also translated into Chinese , a project proposed by Isaac Mao and completed a collaboration of many bloggers from mainland China and Taiwan. Other translations include Catalan, Czech [1] , French, Hungarian, Italian, Polish, Portuguese [2] and Spanish .


  • Lessig, Lawrence (2004). Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity (US 1st hardcover ed.). Penguin Press HC. ISBN  1-59420-006-8 .
  • Lessig, Lawrence (2004). Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity (PDF ). Free Culture (free ebook download) . Retrieved Feb 18, 2012 .
  • Lessig, Lawrence (2005). Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity (US 1st paperback ed.). Penguin Books (Non-Classics). ISBN  0-14-303465-0 .
  • Lessig, Lawrence (2015). Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity (US paperback ed.). Petter Reinholdtsen. ISBN  978-82-690182-0-2 .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *