Lessig, in his book Remix, contrasts two types of culture: read only and read and write. He points out the current situation in which young people are engaging in an illegal activity that they deem ethical, such as music downloading. He argues the idea of a war on piracy has calcified our position to go hard and go all the way. However, he believes the effort should be aimed at finding the right balance between protecting certain rights while allowing the development of culture through individuals that choose to take part in the writing (and rewriting) of culture. Lessig argues that as new generations construct their idea of culture, they are more open to the idea of texts that are not fully and permanently controlled by their creators.
I think the whole picture of this book is based on what we call Confucian ethics as it highlights the relationships in society above the individual. Well, I would even say not so much above as determining. There is no individual without relationships. There is no ethics if it is not exemplified through actions within a social context.
When it comes to creation and culture, a Confucian approach would value the sharing on insight and shared knowledge above whatever wealth or fame a person may receive from hoarding the rights over their text (be it a song, a book, a program, etc). Many people find this to be a clearer picture of the digital reality we live in. Ess mentions FLOSS (free/libre/open source software) as evidence that many people, particularly younger generations, ascribe to this type of thinking by believing that it is much more enriching to the whole of society to release one’s rights over a certain element than it is to cling to one’s capacity to scream “MINE!” like an out of control toddler.
I do see value in his argument, but I have my doubts about how this would work as a general rule (and not like an exception) in our present society were ownership is so closely tied to the capacity of a person to achieve happiness (thanks Locke).
I’ve not read the book, but I’m compelled to comment on this topic as it’s been on my mind the last couple of years.
The key is likely in the very last statement, where Happiness is a function of ownership. Until we retool our definition of Success & Happiness, we’re doomed to a number of things, including “mine”, but there’s hope. Pride and Greed would appear to be two main obstacles in retooling “mine” ownership.
Pride:
We need to understand that the notion of “My Idea” is a fallacy. Our “original thoughts” or “creations” are actually self-generated compilations of previous experiences, conversations, teachings, etc… Ignited by some externally triggered inspiration, our imagination takes all of these things and assembles a “unique creation”. However, rest assured, this “unique creation” is composed of “my knowledge” which is actually 95% post consumed stuff (experiences, conversations, teachings, etc. from other people). It’s like we’re just funnels remixing our knowledge to apply it to the situation at hand. Everything we’re putting out there as “my idea” is a remix of some kind. In essence, it’s an asynchronous collaboration. Once we understand this, we’re less resistant to remixing yet again with others via the true real-time of a brainstorming session or in near real-time across the Web (both being relatively synchronous collaboration). A special chemistry of respect, crewmanship, and mutual trust need to exist before the uninhibited magic of collaboration can flourish.
Greed:
I have never seen a collaborative work that recognizes multiple contributors transition smoothly when said work starts generating money as a commercially viable product. Ask any start-up with multiple “partners”. The persons that feel they are contributing more value will feel they deserve a bigger piece of the pie. Though it’s a natural phenomena, it’s a terrible thing to see. Of course these things are usually worked through, but often they’re not. People quickly forget their sources of inspiration when money is on the table. Their ideas quickly become “Mine” without homage to the source of inspiration or knowledge/experience. If one is merely releasing their rights of ownership to society without financial reward, Greed never sprouts. The best way I’ve seen to facilitate this is Creative Commons licensing. One type of license is the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike which essentially states that you license others to create derivative works from your work as long as they give you credit and as long as they’re not selling it.
So what is to replace greed and pride? Love for the common knowledge, or community development? Is there a contemporary society that truly exemplifies such principles?
PS: You can read the book here: http://digital-rights.net/wp-content/uploads/books/Remix.pdf
In the Preface, Lessig talks about how the consequences of treating our children like criminals (with regards to illegal downloading). Are there similarities with the arguments he makes here and virtue ethics? Do you agree that the law, which Lessig sees as unjust, is harming the character of a generation?
Yes, in fact that was how I started writing my post, but then I focused on something else. I thought that was one of the most interesting arguments. What if something that I considered habitual was labeled illegal. Would that make me a criminal or would it simply diminish my respect for those that set the rules. And if either of those happened, how would I then feel about other illegal things that I had, until then, not thought through? Wouldn’t I be more willing to do something illegal if I am already doing something reproachable?
I wouldn’t go as far as saying that the character of a generation would be corrupted by the illegalization of music download, though. As Lessig uses the example of speed limits, I believe that people that speed do not necessarily have a weaker character than those who don’t.