Located at the Cincinnati Public Library this fountain designed by sculptor Michael Frasca and dedicated in 1990 as “The Amelia Valerio Weinberg Memorial Fountain" is located on the Vine Street Plaza in front of the Main Library and is affectionately known as the "book fountain." It is meant to represent the free flow of information and ideas through the printed word. (Photo J.F Schmitz)
To me, it is a moral obligation to provide content to people who are interested in learning just as it is a moral obligation to provide clean water to people who are thirsty. Of course failing to provide water can be an immediate matter of life and death, but failing to provide content, especially when it is desired, can be a “death of a life,” in the long run.
When listening to Lawrence Lessig's TedTalk about the laws that choke creativity, I was reminded how many of us humans living in the so called “free world” have succumbed so easily to the notion that private business has the right to own, and more importantly, profit from all that exists on this planet. Profit is pervasive. When looking at Nestle’s recent proposed contract with the BC Government to pay only $2.25 per 1 million litres of water extracted from ground sources, that in turn, will be sold to consumers at exorbitant rates resulting in millions of dollars in profits, it is not hard to believe that so many of us seem to be indiscriminately accepting the fact that “ownership” has an inherent connection to exploitation. Is this because we can afford our purchases that are products of exploitation, or are we just so much creatures of habit? So long as our lives are not significantly affected by the government supported, crafty practices of some of those in private industry, we turn a blind eye?
I do realize that I have been born into a society that has been been long-based on ownership. And I acknowledge that many of the laws were written in good faith and were made in response to what made sense at the time. Of course this includes proprietorship over the artefacts that a person creates. Copyright law was created in part so that original artists and creators could maintain the right to decide how their work would get represented and to some extent, re-created.
But I also realize that it is not prudent to continue to accept the laws of protection without re-examination when faced with new technologies. The problem with the digital age as Lessig points out (13:00 - 15:20) is that there now exist two sides of extremism that, in his opinion, are both wrong. Those on one side wanting to overprotect the products created digitally and those on the other side who believe that every law restricting digital creations should be ignored. The idea that works can be made for consumption more freely (Creative Commons) is where I think we have landed 7 years down the road from Lessig’s talk, but I’m not so sure what it is that has changed exactly in Copyright law, or for that matter, societal attitude. Have we really paid heed to “common sense revolting” against the idea of old laws standing in place simply because of tradition. Do we embrace Supreme Court Justice Douglas’ exclamation when he presided over the 1945 case that challenged airplanes to be held in trespass when flying over farmers fields when he said that “100 year old doctrines have no place in the modern world?” Do "we the people” demand from our governments that a balance be found between what laws have existed and what laws make sense to exist now?
I look forward to finding out more about what has happened in the last decade not only around what has changed in the law, but how private business attached to the institution of education, may be changing their practices to meet the demand of open content in the context of the digital world.
When listening to Lawrence Lessig's TedTalk about the laws that choke creativity, I was reminded how many of us humans living in the so called “free world” have succumbed so easily to the notion that private business has the right to own, and more importantly, profit from all that exists on this planet. Profit is pervasive. When looking at Nestle’s recent proposed contract with the BC Government to pay only $2.25 per 1 million litres of water extracted from ground sources, that in turn, will be sold to consumers at exorbitant rates resulting in millions of dollars in profits, it is not hard to believe that so many of us seem to be indiscriminately accepting the fact that “ownership” has an inherent connection to exploitation. Is this because we can afford our purchases that are products of exploitation, or are we just so much creatures of habit? So long as our lives are not significantly affected by the government supported, crafty practices of some of those in private industry, we turn a blind eye?
I do realize that I have been born into a society that has been been long-based on ownership. And I acknowledge that many of the laws were written in good faith and were made in response to what made sense at the time. Of course this includes proprietorship over the artefacts that a person creates. Copyright law was created in part so that original artists and creators could maintain the right to decide how their work would get represented and to some extent, re-created.
But I also realize that it is not prudent to continue to accept the laws of protection without re-examination when faced with new technologies. The problem with the digital age as Lessig points out (13:00 - 15:20) is that there now exist two sides of extremism that, in his opinion, are both wrong. Those on one side wanting to overprotect the products created digitally and those on the other side who believe that every law restricting digital creations should be ignored. The idea that works can be made for consumption more freely (Creative Commons) is where I think we have landed 7 years down the road from Lessig’s talk, but I’m not so sure what it is that has changed exactly in Copyright law, or for that matter, societal attitude. Have we really paid heed to “common sense revolting” against the idea of old laws standing in place simply because of tradition. Do we embrace Supreme Court Justice Douglas’ exclamation when he presided over the 1945 case that challenged airplanes to be held in trespass when flying over farmers fields when he said that “100 year old doctrines have no place in the modern world?” Do "we the people” demand from our governments that a balance be found between what laws have existed and what laws make sense to exist now?
I look forward to finding out more about what has happened in the last decade not only around what has changed in the law, but how private business attached to the institution of education, may be changing their practices to meet the demand of open content in the context of the digital world.