What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
125 Comments
- Zera, on 01/09/2009, -5/+54We are so lucky to have Lawrence Lessig.
I hope Obama appoints him to do something copyright / internet / tech related. - PseudoThink, on 01/09/2009, -29/+68I tuned in last night when I saw Lessig was going to be Colbert's guest, I was excited for a great discussion on the failures of copyright law, perhaps with some of Colbert's sarcasm highlighting Lessig's main points. Instead, I was "treated" to Colbert's asshat persona in full force, as he completely ignored or mocked Lessig's points with the childish Snoopy drawing remix of Lessig's book. It could have actually been a good demonstration, had it been done with his "ultra neo-con" impersonation. Instead, he did it with an awkward degree of sincerity. He even pointed out that Lessig seemed "tired" and frustrated near the end of the interview...I couldn't blame him at all. Colbet added no value to that interview, and undoubtedly left a lot of potential untapped. Very disappointing.
- winterus, on 01/10/2009, -2/+38"I was excited for a great discussion on the failures of copyright law"
on comedy central? whoa - mastercosby, on 01/09/2009, -3/+37Only 70% are sharing files illegally?
- Hetman, on 01/09/2009, -4/+32I liked the interview. I am sure Colbert agrees with Lessig's main point. I am sure we will see tons of mix ups of this report on youtube. As Colbert pointed out to do. I just feel that Lessig took Colbert way to serious. He was getting frustrated and everything. It is like dewd have you never seen the Colbert report? I mean what did he expect going into the interview? And yes I would love to own a copy of lessigs with Colbert's snoopy. And he should raffle it off on ebay and donate the money to charity.
- Abominable, on 01/10/2009, -0/+27Canadian link:
http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-colbert-repor ... - toshiro7, on 01/10/2009, -1/+27Colbert did his job. If you want a serious interview with Lessig, check out this NPR spot:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story ... - Ecaftar, on 01/10/2009, -1/+25http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0jEvjAlmjU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhmSjXmbbtQ
that went fast. - Zera, on 01/09/2009, -0/+22Lessig knew exactly what Colbert was doing. I don't think he took it too seriously, as this is an extremely important issue that most people don't understand. I think he kept the discussion "serious" in order to use his 6 minute soap box effectively.
He's fighting one of the most important fights the "information age" will ever wage. It's not just for music and video, but books, knowledge, and information of all kinds.
Current copyright laws were never intended for a world with the Internet. - detales, on 01/10/2009, -2/+24The mistake was made when you tuned in expecting a serious debate. But that's your fault. Stephen doesn't try to convince anybody that his show is real news or real discussion. It's a comedy show. Satire. He even tells his guests not to expect a serious platform before they go on the show and they pick the guests based on who they think will make the most entertaining interview.
So don't say it was "disappointing" since what would have been disappointing is if Stephen promised a funny show and delivered a dry debate. - tyrulz, on 01/10/2009, -4/+25it's dude, it's just a comedy show
- r0g3r, on 01/10/2009, -1/+15Our laws shouldn't be created to insure a business model's financial success, but rather to benefit the people of this country. Current copyright law is a determent to the people, and that'st he bottom line. If a law is bad for the people, and a vast percentage of the population has violated said law, then clearly there's a problem.
Copyright law and even the purpose behind copyright have been skewed by the corporate powers who benefit from keeping Mickey Mouse out of the public domain for as long as possible (basically whenever mickey mouse is coming up for expiration, Disney buys off some senators to write new copyright laws).
The actual forgotten reason for copyright is to enrich the public domain. This is done by providing an incentive through temporary monopoly for the creator of a work. Now it's where the creator can be dead for 50 years and sycophant lawyers who weren't even alive when it was created will still be profiting. - marc123, on 01/10/2009, -2/+1530% of american children are too stupid to use a computer FACT
- jmark13, on 01/09/2009, -4/+16I think Colbert is quite serious about his statements. I also agree with what he said. Colbert points out that if you create something, you should have control over who can build off of it and how you profit from it. He also noted that the people making money off of Creative Commons licenses or similar IP licenses are not the creators, but the distributors and service providers. This is a problem of profit and control. I will put a perspective on this. If you create something and don't care who changes it or uses it, then we should all be free to place our work in the public domain space. However, if someone else creates something, you have no right to tell them they HAVE to release it to the public domain. It's a totalitarian policy that TAXES the people doing the work for the amusement of others.
On the other hand, I am a big proponent of open source systems. I use a creative commons licensed photo of my hometown in accordance to the creator's wish to be credited on my website (www.inmanrecords.com if you are interested). I believe in the non-profit, altruistic and sharing that thre open source community believes in, develops and preserves. I also believe, as a creator of music and software developer, that if someone wants to use my stuff, my general policy is, "sure, do what you want, but if you make a dime from it, I want a cut." So, I'll even go further and say, don't even ask me permission to create something, but if you choose to distribute the work or use it for some commercial or marketing purpose, feel free to contact me and we'll figure something out. But this is my personal belief. I have no right to tell Metallica who can use their music and how.
The thing that makes the issue complicated is that many artists lose the rights to their recordings as soon as someone else pays for them. I think the record labels should loosen up a little and give control back to their artists (not to the people illegally downloading that artist music, btw!) Oh and feel free to download the Requiem I wrote in the style of massive attack, sigur ros, radiohead, mozart, etc, but if you like it and can afford it, I could use the nice meal- its up on itunes (search theinformati), and yes, I own the music and recording outright and can do this: www.inmanrecords.com/download/ and no, it is not creative commons licensed, but see my agreement above if you choose to do something with it. - Jowsley, on 01/10/2009, -0/+10Knock yourself out. You'll be able to go to his site and download it yourself soon. "The book will be available under a Creative Commons license from Bloomsbury Academic." Say what you will about his views, but the man practices what he preaches.
http://remix.lessig.org/remix.php - Trynemjoel, on 01/10/2009, -0/+10Maybe it's sort of like the polls about masterbation. 70% say they do it, 30% lie.
- UnknownCzar, on 01/10/2009, -0/+9The other 30% are not sharing files period.
- Spoomeister, on 01/10/2009, -0/+9People have been so yearning for real news, and so giddy when they see flashes of insight or integrity in Jon Stewart / Stephen Colbert interviews, that they now expect Stewart and Colbert to be True Heroes(tm) upholding truth, justice and the American way with every quip.
As other have noted: It's a ***** comedy show. Cultural commentary and deep insights are the exception, not the norm. You're mistaking the spice for the whole sauce, here. - minc727, on 01/10/2009, -0/+9http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvvhDngERXo
- Spoomeister, on 01/10/2009, -1/+8Please go into business, so I can "not-steal" your profits from you daily.
- nickwebb, on 01/10/2009, -0/+7I think you are confusing copyright with trademarks.
- fatsobob, on 01/10/2009, -2/+9If everyone breaks a specific law, how can we still consider it a law?
- mugwumpz, on 01/10/2009, -1/+8Whether or not you liked the interview (as most people obviously did not because Lessig is their cult hero), Colbert made some very solid points, albeit in a somewhat lame way. This is a very complicated issue...and neither fancy arguments nor dull laws will solve it. Some new thinking is required, as is some personal persuasion. The simple fact is...because you can do something doesn't make it OK. On the other hand, at least as far as remixing goes...if there's no profit, neither should there be prosecution. There ought to be a very simple way to resolve that particular aspect. File "sharing" is a lot more complex.
- brickbat, on 01/10/2009, -0/+7Too busy "dating" their sisters.
- Jowsley, on 01/10/2009, -0/+7That he used the Creative Commons version of copyright.
http://remix.lessig.org/remix.php - KyleGoetz, on 01/10/2009, -1/+7All Lessig's books are available under a CC license.
And yes, copyright does need to be reformed. The point is not that the author should be able to license their work under a less-restrictive scheme. The point is that the author should NOT be able to license their work under a more-restrictive scheme than Lessig is proposing.
Lessig is not defending artists' rights. He's defending the public's rights (and, by extension, derivative artists' rights). Culture is not a commodity; it defines who we are. - cicerojnr, on 01/09/2009, -1/+7Lessig made good points to a certain extent, but failed at the interview by becoming frustrated and a little dejected, I thought. Still, Colbert was funny and made subtle gestures in his favour, which Lessig didn't pick up and then started to repeat himself.
- inactive, on 01/10/2009, -1/+7I know it was just Colbert being Colbert, and I like his show, but I wish he could have calmed down just a bit and let Lessig talk a little. True, it's a comedy show. But Jon Stewart manages to do interviews just fine, he listens, then makes jokes, but has a point. Colbert often just babbles over his guests. I kind of felt sorry for Lessig. You could tell he was frustrated. On a positive note, I honestly didn't know who Lessig was before I saw him on The Colbert Report. So, in a way, he should be happy with the exposure that he did manage to get. I will probably buy his book. Win-Win.
- Gregus1032, on 01/10/2009, -0/+6he wasn't expecting a real debate, he was expecting stephen to go into the neo-con impersonation and highlight the points with his "ignorance" like he does in a lot of interviews.
- mugwumpz, on 01/10/2009, -3/+9Typical, indefensible ***** response. It's NOT about the physical property. No one even deals with physical property anymore in regard to music. You are still stealing the artist's work without paying for it. Either it has value or it doesn't. If it doesn't, don't take it. If it does, pay for it. Quit playing worthless word games and pretending that you're somehow being noble. You're a thief.
- inactive, on 01/10/2009, -1/+7Okay.
But you're wrong. - mysticalone, on 01/10/2009, -1/+7***** leechers. PLEASE SEED!
- DaDrake, on 01/10/2009, -3/+9You are playing with semantics also. Saying it isn't stealing is using the "legal definition" and not the "collective view" of what stealing is. And while we all know that typical pirates download much more then they will consume, don't lie to yourself and assume they wouldn't have purchased any of those products if it wasn't freely available. Essentially, you are arguing for a type of political correctness so that piracy doesn't seem "as bad". Either way, it remains illegal in the USA whether you agree with it or not.
- modelcadet, on 01/10/2009, -0/+5Lessig for the Bench!
- malex, on 01/10/2009, -0/+5Or... you know, ARE POOR.
- inactive, on 01/10/2009, -4/+9You steal their expected profit. If they didn't expect to get profit from you, they wouldn't start their business in the first place.
- dhughes, on 01/10/2009, -0/+5 It's ironic to be debating this since only US residents can view the video, Comedy Central blocks non-US residents from viewing any videos on their website.
- OneRottenTomato, on 01/10/2009, -2/+7It's the time and effort that went into making that product, physical or digital, is what you are paying for. These things don't just magically appear out of thin air. If you don't agree, then come work at my company and, how about this, I pay you absolutely nothing. Why should I have to pay for your precious time and effort? Oh, that's right, because that's called slavery.
Funny, the people who are against paying for intellectual property are usually ones who produce absolutely nothing that is worth stealing. - ShoggothDreams, on 01/10/2009, -0/+5I will always respect Colbert, but your points are why I will always be a fan of Stewart over Colbert.
- Jowsley, on 01/10/2009, -4/+9Isn't it time for you to pay your digg membership dues?
- bustaballs, on 01/10/2009, -10/+15Download software isn't "pirating" nor is it stealing. That's a term used out of context to make it sound far worse than it really is. You aren't taking the original physical object. When you purchase software, you are paying for a license. So, a more accurate analogy would be to compare it to trespassing. If someone sneaks into a movie theater or a zoo are they stealing? Not at all. Did the theater or zoo "lose" any money as a result? No.
- cicerojnr, on 01/09/2009, -3/+8Fightin' the good fight! We're not Pirates! We arrrrrrrrrrrr Pirates of the Internets - At Intellectual Property's End!
Colbert '08! - tyrulz, on 01/10/2009, -7/+12yes they did lose money because you didn't pay and technically all those things are stealing.
but ***** copyrights all the same - nickwebb, on 01/10/2009, -1/+5That's one dumb rebuttal, 'Duffy'. Are you proposing that copyright law is to protect the kilobytes - or maybe even the 'mass' of the photons moving about on the fiber of the world?
Copyright law exists for one reason and only one reason: To encourage artists to create more art by telling artists that they are guaranteed to have their work protected - for a period of time - so that they can make a living off of it.
The government originally instituted this law as a means of bolstering culture, which is necessary for the advancement of society.
Since then, a few things have changed. Money, as always, became the low hanging fruit and so copyright terms were extended far beyond what would be reasonable for any artist to profit from (see http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/ , jackasses of digg).
Also, COPYRIGHT IS STIFLING ART RATHER THAN ACTING AS AN INCENTIVE TO CREATE ART.
It is for this reason that I am a bigger fan of violating copyright than I am upholding it, because I believe it is better for artists, and therefore our society. - inactive, on 01/10/2009, -0/+4Now searching for "remix" remixed by colbert on ebay.
- Jowsley, on 01/10/2009, -0/+4Thanks for the link. Makes me wonder what NPR is thinking putting an interview like that up in flash format instead of mp3. I'd listen to it when I walk my dog if it was mp3...
- kenhatesemos, on 01/10/2009, -2/+6why are you people taking an interview on a comdey show so seriously. this is what jon has been campaigning against for years. if you want serious debate, you shouldn't be watching comdedy central.
- KyleGoetz, on 01/10/2009, -0/+4That he allows you to freely download all his books, practicing what he preaches. Also, I'd like to point out that Lessig's real point isn't "get rid of copyright," but "weaken copyright."
Lessig has /repeatedly/ said in interviews (and his books!) that he's a fan of copyright. He just thinks DEATH+70yrs is ridarkulous. - CalcProgrammer1, on 01/11/2009, -0/+4Democracy is where laws benefit the masses. If the masses all break copyright law, that law isn't benefiting them. This is where copyright law is failing, it was intended to encourage art and culture but is instead blocking it, allowing corporate monsters to lock up all the good stuff into a locked vault and shut out the masses, allowing the massive companies to hold monopolies on artistic works for centuries. This is definitely not what it was meant for. It was supposed to protect people so that artists could survive on just making art, but in today's world, any artist who gets in with the copyrighting groups (RIAA, MPAA, etc) doesn't just "survive", they get rich and famous and have 10 mansions and 40 cars and a private jet. This isn't what copyright was all about.
- IceOfDiamonds, on 01/11/2009, -0/+4expectations are relative and mean nothing
-
Show 51 - 100 of 131 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is