Strangely enough, just a week ago my family, while playing a card game, were discussing different Disney movies and which were their favorite or least favorite. One of my least favorite is Pocahontas. The Disney animators created Pocahontas as a stereotypical heroine with the perfect female figure, tall with long slim legs, voluptuous breasts, small-waisted with long hair constantly blowing in the wind. Whereas, her sidekick best friend is an androgynous girl with short bobbed hair. It appears that by Disney standards, only girls with an ideal female image can be a heroine and that my beautiful 5’2″ blond blue-eyed petite daughter does not have chance because she does not fit the mold.
I digress, but there is no doubt, Disney has borrowed from history to create their “own” version of history for years to create a virtually untouchable empire. Reinforcing the adage “there are no new ideas” only ideas remade ideas. Lawrence Lessig uses Disney as an example of how a powerhouse corporation has been able to control and protect their creative products in his book Free Culture. Using Disney as a backdrop, Lessig discusses one of his biggest issues with copyright laws is the current trend for creating legislation is the “who” has the ability to control the laws and how they obtain the control.
As a budding art historian, I am always interested when doing any research about a particular object what evidence an author uses and how they choose to negotiate the evidence to support their argument. Reading Lessig’s book it is clear he is enlisting assistance from the masses by the examples he chooses to defend his claims, four that stand out to me are Disney, his thesis, blogging and AIDS.
As previously mentioned, Lessig uses Disney as his opening example of how pirating ideas is nothing new. By using Disney he identifies a corporation that is a household name, has a beloved character and is a company that has the power to control their medium. Lessig reveals that Mickey’s original character was a purposefully stolen idea. (23) He also reinforces his notion about “commercial creativity” laws were originally focused on the rights of individuals, but now it focuses on a “protectionism” that if to “protect certain forms of business.” (8-9)
Lessig states at his introduction that his book is not about the effect of the Internet, but instead it goes deeper it is about “an effect upon how culture is made.” (7) He continues by asserting, “that the Internet has induced an important and unrecognized change in that process. That change will radically transform a tradition that is old as the Republic itself.” (7) Lessig is claiming that how copyright laws are being made are counter to how our nation was created. A few pages later he argues further that “to build upon or critique the culture around us one must ask, Oliver Twist-like, for permission first. Permission is, of course, often granted—but is not often granted to the critical or the independent. We have built a kind of cultural nobility, those within the noble class live easily; those outside it don’t. But it is nobility of any form that is alien to our tradition.” (11) In other words, Lessig is identifying the current trend that lawmakers are catering to a commercial nobility, like the Disney’s or RCA’s, who have the means to manipulate legislation for their corporate needs without regard to the smaller creative companies, that this is counter to how our nation was originally created and this process should be rectified.
Another example Lessig uses are blogs. Blogs, in his opinion, is a medium that can be a method to create a balanced democracy for the freedom speech. He argues that it is difficult to blog an opinion on public issues without having a counter opinion. The counter opinions can assist in creating balanced ideas or reveal an equitable truth. Because as Lessig claims, it is easy to be “wrong or misguided” in your head, but even more difficult “when the product of your mind can be criticized by others” because you have taken the time to compose your thoughts in an open forum. (45) Continuing he states that it is even harder to for people to ignore if there ideas are proven wrong in writing, that the writing of “ideas, arguments, and criticism” in blogs in the end “improves democracy.” (45)
An underlining theme in Lessig’s book is that to make a difference in the development of copyright laws the ordinary masses need to get involved in the democratic process to create balanced policies. As of right now, large corporations have control because of their lobbying power. While reading the book it took me back to the only thing I remember from an undergraduate political science course I took several years ago that outlined how legislation is being created today—it is by the “squeaky” wheel or the lobbyist interest group who is willing to put in the most money and make the most noise to get their needs met. Lessig gives a compelling argument of how we—the parents, teachers, librarians, creators, authors, musicians, filmmakers, scientists—need to be noisy to make changes. (275) That because copyright laws are currently being created by the “noisiest” individuals or the wealthiest—those that whose power and money can make a difference.
There is no doubt that Lessig is an engaging author. The examples he uses to support his argument are carefully constructed to engross his readers. He begins talking about some of the most influential creators in our nation’s history, the Wright Brothers, Thomas Edison and Alexander Graham Bell. Then he discusses a fairly unknown inventor the FM radio waves, Edwin Howard Armstrong. Lessig uses Armstrong to illustrate how a large corporation, RCA, can squelch an individual by its use of power and money. (3-7) As a reader, I was immediately drawn into the book. Following Lessig’s argument was engrossing because of how negotiated his examples to support his claims and I found myself the more I read the more I was on his side. That is, until the very end, where he chose to compare legislation for AIDS medication for Africa to copyright laws. Every good argument needs to build to a highpoint, but there is a point where it is too much. It at this point in the book where I wanted to say, “Lawrence, dude, breath! It will be okay!”
As Lessig spends his book arguing for an equitable use of power in our democratic process, it is just as important to balance an argument to keep it convincing. Comparing Armstrong and RCA adds to the credibility of Lessig’s argument. Even his points about Disney’s control and blogging allows for accessible tangible evidence for his thesis, however, unfortunately, his use of the AIDS legislation feels too contrived, too extreme, to agree completely with his argument. Not that I am an expert in argument development, but there is a point where an author needs to be balanced in their argument. How can one really compare helping a country get AIDS medication to copyright law making? Lessig ends the section where he discusses this by stating, “We have lost the critical eye that helps us see the difference between truth and extremism.” (261) It is also important, as an author, not to lose a “critical eye” in an argument if you want to ensure your audience will support all your claims.
thoughtful art 