Free Culture

Imagine if someone dress like you, walk like you, talk like you, laugh like you, act like you.. Would you think it's annoying? For me, having own identity is important. 

Is copying or imitating someone's property unethical? For me, copying someone's property without permission is unethical. But, I think it is okay if you get permission from the original author and he or her approved. 

Synchronized sound had been introduced to film a year earlier in the movie The Jazz Singer. That success led Walt Disney to copy the technique and mix sound with cartoons.

(Lawrence Lessig) 

Walt Disney has copied the technique of synchronized sound and implemented into cartoons. They have successfully attracted audiences. Here's the question. Why no one will think Walt Disney has copied The Jazz Singer's the technique of synchronized sound? In my opinion, I think it is because The Jazz Singer is a film and Walt Disney is a animation. This is the differences which make them look different from each other.  No one will care Walt Disney has copied the technique but people are concerned how they implemented into cartoon and how they amazed them. And yes, Walt Disney has successfully make the audiences amazed with Disney's creativity. What if this happen in 21st century? I bet it will involves lawsuits. With intellectual property law, a person's creative property such as music, films and more will be protected.  

Let's talk about Doujinshi. I like how Lawrence Lessig describe Doujinshi as copycat comics. It is a best term to use to describe Doujinshi. Of course, according to Japanese law, copycat comics are illegal because they are copying the original work and implement it into different story line. However, Doujinshi has become a norm to Japanese and it has brought up Manga's market. "Everyone would be worse off if doujinshi were banned, so the law does not ban doujinshi", said Lawrence Lessig. Yes, I agree. People now might not so concern about the originality of work but about the entertainment they gain from the work. I feel sad to the author of the works. The author used a long period of time to create an original work and now it has imitated by others. The anonymous might gain much more than the original author.    

Everyone wants freedom, that's why free culture occurs. However, an argument argues that how about original author's right? This is why different kind of laws occur. It protected the rights of authors but at the same time, they provide free contents to the public. For example, public domain. "The public domain is a "lawyer-free zone.", said Lessig. Public can get free software or contents from public domain, the contents are not protected by lawsuits but free for public. This is a good way to maintain the free culture and protect the original property of authors.

To conclude, public 'wants' free culture and original works 'needs' intellectual property law to protect them from imitating. How to balance these two? I don't know. But I'm sure that our world and cyberworld both need freedom and law as well. Without law, our world and cyberworld will not have any limitation and the number of crimes will increase; without freedom, people will not have rights to comment and speak out their own opinions to the public. 

Another question, do face has copyright as well? Found something interesting on Internet.  

Left: Jay Chou     Right: Chen Bo Chun     

  

In case you do not know who is Jay Chou, Jay Chou is a Taiwanese famous singer. The guy on the right is just a ordinary guy from Taiwan and he looks like Jay Chou. For your information, they are not brothers! If faces are protected by intellectual property law, they might involved into lawsuits soon.