Most people have become either so numbed or conditioned to the hegemony of the powerful media organizations that they fail to notice what Lawrence Lessig, 2004, has so correctly articulated in Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity. Lessig’s call for a more balanced framing of the copyright laws in the changed environs of new technology is met with skepticism or downright ridicule for envisioning a more balanced copyright law in the creation and regulation of cultural capital. The comment on Lessig’s web log bears this sad and sorry state.
“He’s only talking about the world as it should be, …………..and always pay attention to the distinction between Lessig’s world and ours” (p.267).


I agree with Lessig’s central argument of the book that free culture is necessary for the development and nurturing of cultural capital. In addition, as history demonstrates and as Lessig points out, certain amount of latitude or freedom has served as a catalyst in the past in sowing the seeds of future innovations and creations. For instance, the development of Eastman Kodak’s film rolls is a testimony to the less regulated copyright act. Had the earlier copyright act not been so compliant, photography would have flourished only among the professionals who were able to bear the cost/burden of clearing rights and permissions. Fortunately, however, the earlier decisions were in favor of those who pirated. Therefore, it was possible for the development of photography among the masses. The world would have been poorer if photographic rights were the sole domain of professionals. Nevertheless, with the passage of time the copyright laws have become so restrictive that they have succeeded in creating a “permission culture” (a culture that requires permission) that the laws are liable to stifle the development of future creativity.


In explaining the subtle nuances that have changed the copyright laws over time, Lessig has successfully deconstructed the copyright laws. His model consisting of the four modalities – architecture, norms, laws, and market explain the constraints that operate in restraining the freedom of future innovations or creations. He however, does not explain what steps or actions that can be taken to counter the effects of the three modalities- architecture, laws, and market How can these three modalities- the architecture, the laws, and market be prevented from overwhelming the fourth modality, norms? He recommends actions such as those taken by organizations like the Creative Commons headquartered in Stanford University as a reasonable alternative to the more extreme laws currently prevalent. This alternative helps people to build upon other people’s work by developing a free set of licenses that people can attach to their creative content, these tags then linked to machine readable versions of the license enables computers automatically to identify contents that can be easily shared. The combination of a legal license, a human-readable description, and machine-readable tags form the basis of Creative Common License. The Creative Common License appears to be a laudable effort in this direction but may no be enough to combat the effect of the monstrous copyright law, which it has become in the current times. In addition, this effort may have its own loopholes. For instance, many people may not have access to the new technologies, second certain forms of creative work may not be amenable to being tagged on the Internet, and third people may not be aware of such avenues.


Lessig utilizes an engaging manner in explaining the implications of the copyright laws in reference to the new technology, especially the Internet, however, it would have been more useful if he had first attended to the changes or modifications in the copyright laws with regards to new technology. What is disappointing about Lessig’s Free Culture, is the absence of clearly articulated methods to deal with this monopolistic attitudes of organizations. His description also provides the impression that all the copyright holders are major corporations, which may or may not be the case. It would have provided an interesting perspective if he had included those facts. In the absence of such figures, his descriptions at times borders around being a diatribe against the large corporations. Additionally, it would have been insightful if Lessig had provided details on how international copyrights concerning new technology factor into users dilemma in accessing new technology and clearing such permissions.


Surprisingly enough Lessig does not recommend reducing the validity period of copyright ownership so that creative works may enter the public domain sooner. In my opinion that should be a first step in this direction. This may seem highly improbable or even seemingly impossible but given the stringent control of the copyright owners on their work and derivative works originating from their work, at least an attempt can be made. If it is possible to increase the validity period of copyrighted work it should also be possible to decrease the validity period of such copyrighted works. In the same vein, the fair use doctrine can be made more potent so that it not just an ornamental component of the copyright law. The lawyers have become more powerful than the law that they fail to recognize the fair use doctrine, for instance, the case of filmmaker Jon Else who was asked to pay $10,000 for 4.5 seconds of Simpsons unsolicited use in a documentary. It would be no exaggeration to state that all copyright laws are reserved with the lawyers and until the changes in copyright law hurts the common sense of the common man the implications of the evolving copyright laws will continue to be debated amongst the intellectuals and those most immediately affected by it.