U6945 Item1-A2 Poster-Prof Lessig-V2

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

City University Distinguished Lecture Series Speaker Professor Lawrence Lessig Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership Harvard Law School Democracy — with American characteristics Distinguished Lecture Series on Monday, 8 October 2018 at 4:30 pm at Connie Fan Multi-media Conference Room 4/F Cheng Yick-chi Building City University of Hong Kong Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon Abstract In this talk, Professor Lessig will describe the peculiar way that the idea of democracy has evolved in America, and the challenge that creates for America and the world. Biography Professor Lawrence Lessig is the Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership at Harvard Law School. Prior to returning to Harvard, he taught at Stanford Law School, where he founded the Center for Internet and Society, and at the University of Chicago. Professor Lessig is a founding board member of Creative Commons. He serves on the Scientic Board of AXA Research Fund. A member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the American Philosophical Association, he has received numerous awards, including a Webby, the Free Software Foundation's Freedom Award, Scientic American 50 Award, and the Fastcase 50 Award. Cited by The New Yorker as “the most important thinker on intellectual property in the Internet era,” Professor Lessig has focused much of his career on law and technology, especially as it affects Enquiries: copyright. His current work addresses “institutional corruption”—relationships which, while legal, Ofce of the Vice-President weaken public trust in an institution—especially as that affects democracy. (Research and Technology) His books include: Republic, Lost v2 (2015), Republic, Lost (2011), Remix: Making Art and Tel: 3442 9049 Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy (2008), Code v2 (2006), The Future of Ideas (2001), Fax: 3442 0322 and Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace (1999). Email: [email protected] Professor Lessig holds a BA in economics and a BS in management from the University of Pennsylvania, an MA in philosophy from Cambridge University, and a JD from Yale. Online registration: http://www.cityu.edu.hk/vprt/distinguished_lecture_series/upcoming.htm.

Copy Link

Recommended publications

Intellectual Property and Entertainment Law Ledger
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND ENTERTAINMENT LAW LEDGER VOLUME 1 WINTER 2009 NUMBER 1 MIXED SIGNALS: TAKEDOWN BUT DON’T FILTER? A CASE FOR CONSTRUCTIVE AUTHORIZATION * VICTORIA ELMAN AND CINDY ABRAMSON Scribd, a social publishing website, is being sued for copyright infringement for allowing the uploading of infringing works, and also for using the works themselves to filter for copyrighted work upon receipt of a takedown notice. While Scribd has a possible fair use defense, given the transformative function of the filtering use, Victoria Elman and Cindy Abramson argue that such filtration systems ought not to constitute infringement, as long as the sole purpose is to prevent infringement. American author Elaine Scott has recently filed suit against Scribd, alleging that the social publishing website “shamelessly profits” by encouraging Internet users to illegally share copyrighted books online.1 Scribd enables users to upload a variety of written works much like YouTube enables the uploading of video * Victoria Elman received a B.A. from Columbia University and a J.D. from Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in 2009 where she was a Notes Editor of the Cardozo Law Review. She will be joining Goodwin Procter this January as an associate in the New York office. Cindy Abramson is an associate in the Litigation Department in the New York office of Morrison & Foerster LLP. She recieved her J.D. from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in 2009 where she completed concentrations in Intellectual Property and Litigation and was Senior Notes Editor of the Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of Morrison & Foerster, LLP.
[Show full text]
Remixology: an Axiology for the 21St Century and Beyond
Found Footage Magazine, Issue #4, March 2018 http://foundfootagemagazine.com/ Remixology: An Axiology for the 21st Century and Beyond David J. Gunkel – Northern Illinois University, USA Despite what is typically said and generally accepted as a kind of unquestioned folk wisdom, you can (and should) judge a book by its cover. This is especially true of my 2016 book with the MIT Press, Of Remixology: Ethics and Aesthetics After Remix (Gunkel 2016). With this book, the cover actually “says it all.” The image that graces the dust jacket (figure 1) is of a street corner in Cheltenham, England, where the street artist believed to be Banksy (although there is no way to confirm this for sure) appropriated a telephone booth by painting figures on a wall at the end of a line of row houses. This “artwork,” which bears the title “Spy Booth,” was then captured in a photographed made by Neil Munns, distributed by way of the Corbis image library, and utilized by Margarita Encomienda (a designer at MIT Press) for the book’s cover. The question that immediately confronts us in this series of re-appropriations and copies of copies is simple: What is original and what is derived? How can we sort out and make sense of questions concerning origination and derivation in situations where one thing is appropriated, reused, and repurposed for something else? What theory of moral and aesthetic value can accommodate and explain these situations where authorship, authority, and origination are already distributed across a network of derivations, borrowings, and re-appropriated found objects? Figure 1 – Cover Image for Of Remixology (MIT Press 2016) The following develops a response to these questions, and it does so in three steps or movements.
[Show full text]
Remix My Lit M T: Creative Commons & Text
remix my lit M T: Creative Commons & Text In defining ‘web 2.0,’ Tim O’Reilly espouses the remixing of multiple sources of information, text case studies including the personal, to create rich user experiences (http://radar.oreilly.com/ archives/2005/10/web-20-compact-definition. Aduki Press: Stick This In Your html). Memory Hole 141 Nowhere is user participation in the creation of The Age Blogs 144 meaning more lauded than in the blogosphere. Bloggers are recognised to be among the ANAT Filter 145 first groups truly to embrace the CC scheme, On Line Opinion 148 and remain some of its strongest proponents. As exemplars in this field, Human Resources A New Leaf Media: The Pundit 150 consultant Michael Specht and Malaysian free John Quiggin 152 culture advocate Aizat Faiz build their writings around the desire to foster open source and free Michael Specht 155 content. This advocacy is driven by the desire to cultivate new voices and alternative viewpoints, Mike Seyfang 156 challenging the enduring corporate dominance of Remix My Lit 159 mainstream media, as aided by CC. As blogger Robin Good puts it: Strange Symphonies blog 161 ‘Web 2.0 is turbo-charging our capacity to re-establish this vibrant, participatory, people- Nevertheless, as shown in these case studies, driven, creative culture. But we the use of CC licensing on blogs is not always nevertheless face greater threats uncontroversial. Prominent Australian economist than ever to our cultural liberties, John Quiggin sparked a debate on the value of as corporations in league with CC licences to blogging, when he introduced the legislators dream up new ways licensing on his eponymous blog johnquiggin.
[Show full text]
After Convergence: Youtube and Remix Culture
After Convergence: YouTube and Remix Culture Anders Fagerjord Beyond Convergence In little more than a year, from November 2005 to the autumn of 2006, YouTube became a new media phenomenon. This library of videos uploaded from millions of users is one of the best examples of the complex matrix of new media that are described as convergence (Walther, 2005), convergence culture (Jenkins, 2006) and Web 2.0. (Musser & O’Reilly, 2007). It is complex because the content is unpre- dictable. On YouTube, there are lots of recordings from TV shows and films old and new. Amateur videos of stunts, fiction, parodies and pastiches abound. Professional recordings attempt to market products and artists famous and would-be famous. Regular people put up diary-like recordings of speaking into a camera. Politicians cry for attention in more or less convincing talks, “viral marketing” tries to disguise its commercial message, and fictional diaries pretend to be real. And the declining genre of the music video has found a new life online (Austerlitz, 2007). YouTube is not just a web phenomenon; it is in open contest with broadcast TV. TV shows look to YouTube for newsworthy or entertaining material. As MediaCentre PCs and AppleTVs occupy the place of the TV set and mobile phones are ready to show you YouTube videos wherever you are, YouTube promises to follow you everywhere. YouTube seems to me to be a good example to discuss modern online media with, but first, we need to back up a little. When Nicholas Negroponte resigned from his column in Wired Magazine in 1998, he had written for 6 years about new media technology, and his ideas of what the future will bring.
[Show full text]
Guarding Against Abuse: the Costs of Excessively Long Copyright Terms
GUARDING AGAINST ABUSE: THE COSTS OF EXCESSIVELY LONG COPYRIGHT TERMS By Derek Khanna* I. INTRODUCTION Copyrights are intended to encourage creative works through the mechanism of a statutorily created1 limited property right, which some prominent think tanks and congressional organizations have referred to as a form of govern- ment regulation.2 Under both economic3 and legal analysis,4 they are recog- * Derek Khanna is a fellow with X-Lab and a technology policy consultant. As a policy consultant he has never worked for any organizations that lobby or with personal stakes in copyright terms, and neither has Derek ever lobbied Congress. He was previously a Yale Law School Information Society Project Fellow. He was featured in Forbes’ 2014 list of top 30 under 30 for law in policy and selected as a top 200 global leader of tomorrow for spear- heading the successful national campaign on cell phone unlocking which led to the enact- ment of copyright reform legislation to legalize phone unlocking. He has spoken at the Con- servative Political Action Conference, South by Southwest, the International Consumer Electronics Show and at several colleges across the country as a paid speaker with the Fed- eralist Society. He also serves as a columnist or contributor to National Review, The Atlan- tic and Forbes. He was previously a professional staff member for the House Republican Study Committee, where he authored the widely read House Republican Study Committee report “Three Myths about Copyright Law.” 1 See Edward C. Walterscheld, Defining the Patent and Copyright Term: Term Limits and the Intellectual Property Clause, 7 J.
[Show full text]
1 Remixing Culture
REMIXING CULTURE: LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction Remixed, or mashed up music is a contested issue both within musical communities and the law. The dispute arises when a musician creates a new piece of music by taking apart, re-arranging and sampling the work of another musician to create a new song. These remixed versions of songs are often unlicensed and have not been granted permission by the record label that produced the original tracks. While instances of cultural phenomena have often influenced the development of new works of art throughout history, the digital technologies of the 21st century have enabled artists to directly cut and paste the works of others into their own art, creating controversy both within artistic communities and the legal realms. Methodologically, this literature review will explore the historical context of music evolution, from the performance to the first recordings to the current mp3 format. In addition, it will reference the growing culture of remix music: the artistic practice of pastiching the works of others to create new songs. Finally, it seeks to uncover implications of music as intellectual property, as opposed to a new form of cultural democracy and literacy. The research question that this literature review elucidates is whether or not a remixed song, or a mash-up, is an extension of a phenomenon of culture building, and what implications the digital nature of its production has on the notion of artistic creation and intellectual property rules. Three essential mindsets pertain to the issue of remixed music. There is one group of academics that argue remix is the fundamental cornerstone of human collective consciousness, and law professors like Lawrence Lessig and writers such as Paul D.
[Show full text]
What Comes After Remix?
WHAT COMES AFTER REMIX? Lev Manovich [winter 2007] It is a truism today that we live in a “remix culture.” Today, many of cultural and lifestyle arenas - music, fashion, design, art, web applications, user created media, food - are governed by remixes, fusions, collages, or mash-ups. If post- modernism defined 1980s, remix definitely dominates 2000s, and it will probably continue to rule the next decade as well. (For an expanding resource on remix culture, visit remixtheory.net by Eduardo Navas.) Here are just a few examples of how remix continues to expand. In his 2004/2005-winter collection John Galliano (a fashion designer for the house of Dior) mixed vagabond look, Yemenite traditions, East-European motifs, and other sources that he collects during his extensive travels around the world. DJ Spooky created a feature-length remix of D.W. Griffith's 1912 "Birth of a Nation” which he appropriately named "Rebirth of a Nation." In April 2006 Annenberg Center at University of Southern California run a two-day conference on “Networked Politics” which had sessions and presentations a variety of remix cultures on the Web: political remix videos, anime music videos, machinima, alternative news, infrastructure hacks.1 In addition to these cultures that remix media content, we also have a growing number of software applications that remix data – so called software “mash-ups.” Wikipedia defines a mash-up as “a website or application that combines content from more than one source into an integrated experience.”2 At the moment of this writing (February 4, 2007), the web site www.programmableweb.com listed the total of 1511 mash-ups, and it estimated that the average of 3 new mash-ups Web applications are being published every day.3 1 http://netpublics.annenberg.edu/, accessed February 4, 2007.
[Show full text]
First Amendment Interests and Copyright Accommodations David S
Boston College Law School Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School Boston College Law School Faculty Papers 1-1-2009 First Amendment Interests and Copyright Accommodations David S. Olson Boston College Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/lsfp Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, and the Intellectual Property Commons Recommended Citation David S. Olson. "First Amendment Interests and Copyright Accommodations." Boston College Law Review 50, (2009): 1393-1424. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Law School Faculty Papers by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FIRST AMENDMENT INTERESTS AND COPYRIGHT ACCOMMODATIONS David S. Olson* Abstract: Copyright law exists to encourage the creation of works of au- thorship by granting exclusive rights. But copyright’s incentive function seems in tension with the public’s First Amendment interests to use and freely hear copyrighted speech. Conventional wisdom holds, however, that copyright law serves to encourage much more speech than it dis- courages, and resolves First Amendment concerns with protections in- ternal to copyright law like the fair use defense and the idea/expression dichotomy. This Article argues that the conventional wisdom no longer holds given the unprecedented expansion of copyright’s scope and cor- responding drastic diminution of the public domain in the last three decades. This Article extends the U.S. Supreme Court’s reasoning in El- dred v.
[Show full text]
Remix Theory
~ SpringerWienNewYork Eduardo Navas .000• 00.00 .000. 00000 .000.••••• •••••• 0000 ••0 •• 00.00 0.0.0 00000 .0.0 • 00.00 00.00 00.00 .00.0••••• •••••• 0000 .000• 00.00 0.0.0 00000 • 000. ••••• .000• 00.00 .000. 00000 • 000• .000• •••••00.00 .000. •••••• 0000 •••••• 000• .000•••••• 0.0.0 00.00 • 000• 00.00 00.00 .000.••••• •••••• 0000 .000• .00.0••••• 00.00 00.00 • 000. ••••• ••••• .000• 00.00 THE AESTHETICS OF SAMPLING SpringerWienNewYork Eduardo Navas, Ph.D. Post-Doctoral Research Fellow Information Science and Media Studies University of Bergen, Norway With financial support of The Department of Information Science and Me- dia Studies at The University of Bergen, Norway. This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved, whether the whole or part of the material is con- cerned, specifically those of translation, reprinting, re-use of illustrations, broadcasting, reproduction by photocopying machines or similar means, and storage in data banks. Product Liability: The publisher can give no guarantee for all the informa- tion contained in this book. The use of registered names, trademarks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific state- ment, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. © 2012 Springer-Verlag/Wien SpringerWienNewYork is part of Springer Science+Business Media springer.at Cover Image: Eduardo Navas Cover Design: Ludmil Trenkov Printing: Strauss GmbH, D-69509 Mörlenbach Printed on acid-free and chlorine-free bleached
[Show full text]
Capitalist) Intermediaries: Freedom, Democracy, and Participation in the Economy and Culture
tripleC 14(1): 1-17, 2015 http://www.triple-c.at Skip the (Capitalist) Intermediaries: Freedom, Democracy, and Participation in the Economy and Culture Forrest Perry Department of Philosophy, Saint Xavier University, Chicago, U.S., [email protected] Abstract: A significant parallel can be drawn between a socialist argument about how to regulate property in the means of production and the liberal theorist Lawrence Lessig’s argument about how to regulate property in ideas. The two are particularly alike in the emphasis they place on the kind of participation—and the resulting freedom and democracy—enabled by having access to the means of production. Highlighting the parallel could help socialists and liberal theorists of intellectual property to see how they might advance each other’s causes: socialism could eliminate the threat of privatization of the means of producing culture that liberals like Lessig rightly worry about; if the arguments about ownership of ideas made by Lessig and others like him end up gaining currency, then arguments about ownership of the means of production made by socialist theorists could have more resonance with larger numbers of people than is currently the case. Keywords: socialism, capitalism, Internet, copyright, means of production Acknowledgement: I would like to thank Tony Smith (Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies and De- partment of Political Science, Iowa State University) for his insightful comments on a draft of this article. There is “Communism at the core of our Constitution’s protection of intellectual property” (Lessig 2006, 184). The prominent Internet law theorist Lawrence Lessig makes this claim in his discussion of the “copyright clause” of the U.S.
[Show full text]
Remix Ethics
IRIE International Review of Information Ethics Vol. 15 (09/2011) Vito Campanelli: Remix Ethics Abstract: Occupying the increasingly thin line that separates legitimate appropriation from plagiarism, remix practice raises significant ethical issues. The issue is rendered more complicated by the fact that this line frequently shifts, both in academic debates and in legal. If in large Western nations remix practice is widely considered legitimate, it is still considered necessary to add something personal to one’s sources, and if at all possible to enrich those sources in some way. This is usually considered sufficient to avoid misappropriating someone else’s intellectual work. In the last few years, various legal actions in the EU and the USA have revealed a significant gap between this apparently moderate position, and the position of legislators. The purpose of this paper is to take a look at some of the most controversial positions on the issue of ‘remix ethics’, attending more closely to aesthetic implications than to political consequences 42 . Agenda The Inadequacy of the Legislator ............................................................................................................. 26 Common Sense that Violates IP Law ............................................................................................. 27 Towards a ‘Free Culture’ .......................................................................................................................... 27 A Relativist Ethics ...................................................................................................................................
[Show full text]
A Reconsideration of Copyright's Term
2 GARCIAMCCRARY 351-406 (DO NOT DELETE) 12/4/2019 6:49 PM A RECONSIDERATION OF COPYRIGHT’S TERM Kristelia A. García & Justin McCrary INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 353 I. COPYRIGHT’S TERM & ITS DISCONTENTS ............................................... 358 A. A History of Obsession with Term .......................................................... 358 B. A Single, Lengthy Term with Uniform Protection .................................... 361 1. Term ............................................................................................... 361 2. Protection & Exceptions ................................................................. 362 C. Critique .................................................................................................. 363 1. Economic ......................................................................................... 364 2. Intuitive ........................................................................................... 367 3. Empirical ........................................................................................ 368 D. Support .................................................................................................. 371 1. Economic ......................................................................................... 371 2. Moral .............................................................................................. 372 II. MUSIC: A CASE STUDY ...............................................................................
[Show full text]