Trailer: tinyurl.com/b3k62q
Full length: tinyurl.com/co4ktr

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvvhDngERXo

New to the site (can you tell;)

Yes, I do. Here's why:

If I want to remix a track and get the best quality possible, I need to buy a CD. This used to be called "sample-quality" aka 44.1 KHz 16 bit audio.

> If people want digital creators to stick around, they need to get paid
True.

> That means stopping filesharing, and it means NOT legalizing filesharing.
FALSE. That's called a non-sequitur; but tell your corporate sponsor you tried your bestest.

"Home taping is killing music" and the record companies are much poorer than their artists.

Lessig talks about two different points: First, he argues that filesharing should be legalized, then he says that remixing should be legalized. I disagree with both of his points.

The problem with "remixing" is this: it's easy to take an existing product, make a minor modification to it, and then sell it. For example, say I buy an X-Box game, bundle it with my own "cheat-guide" and then burn and sell 10,000 copies of the game for $50. Should that be legal? What if I'm Walmart? Another example: Let's say that I'm Walmart, and I like Britney Spear's new CD, so I put a subtle (almost inaudible) drum track under her songs and sell it at full price in Walmarts all over the world for full price. Should that be legal? In both cases, I say no. It's ripping off the artist. Lessig's "remixing" argument shifts power away from the artists and to the distributors and mega-corporations.

Lessig's second point that filesharing should be illegal: I also disagree. People work hard creating digital content. If we take "legalize filesharing" seriously, then the worst case scenario is that an artist (i.e. musician, author, software developer, etc) has a million listeners/readers/users, but only makes one actual sale. The internet is everywhere, and seriously threatens to undermine the ability of artists to survive off of their work. If people want digital creators to stick around, they need to get paid. That means stopping filesharing, and it means NOT legalizing filesharing.

In the end, Lessig doesn't understand the full implications of what he's advocating.

—————————————-

I'm not trying to come off as anything. I'm simply stating what I believe was glossed over in the interview.

Most people don't get what Lessig is saying. Most people believe what Colbert was saying (perhaps sarcastically) on his program: that copyright should be effectively *forever.* Copyright was never intended to allow someone to profit from one creative work for the rest of their life, it was meant to promote creativity.

And, yes, I admit I don't watch Stephen Colbert at all so, perhaps, I don't see the separation between character and actor.

As I said in my response to "Colby" I hadn't considered that he was trying to prove Lessig's point by using sarcasm. To someone familiar with the show or with Colbert, I suppose it could be taken that way.

"As a person with a college education, and a post graduate degree, I think you fit the bill of the 'uneducated'. I hope I get a response here."

Now who's trying to come off as an intellectual?

Since you brought up the subject of education, I have a Bachelor of Science in Computer Science from the University of Maryland at College Park and a minor in Psychology. I've done post-graduate work at Johns Hopkins University and I'm getting ready to go back to UMCP for my pHD in Computer Science and Mathematics.

My apologies for insulting Stephen. As I said in my response to "Colby".. I admit that, perhaps, I misread his motivations. As with many technical types, sometimes I take people too literally. I, however, stand by the rest of my original posting.

Sincerely, GC

WHO CARES!