Technology Reborn

The rebirth of technology over the time has been discussed by Lawrence Lessig. First of all, the author takes into account the law of copyright. Taking the example of a movie director, the author clarifies the clearing of rights. If one is unable to find the original of a piece of artwork, the law of copyright restricts its use. To use some work which is recognizable by anybody, one has to clear the rights and pay. Lawyers check whether the permission could be granted or not. Less control over creativity and copyrighting leads to high costs which is burden for the innovators.

The technological and cultural revolution over the generations has produced the most powerful and diverse urge to innovation of any in modern times. The internet could change its character over time but it’s not going to diminish. In understanding this revolution and of the creativity it has induced, a very important part is missed. Nobody notices as it disappears or removed. There is this blind spot in our culture. This blindness will harm the environment of innovation. Not only the innovation of internet entrepreneurs be effected, but also the innovation of authors or artists. This blindness would in turn bring changes to the internet, undermining its potential for building something new. The struggle against these changes has given rise to the struggle between ‘old’ and ‘new’. Those who prospered under the old regime are threatened by the internet. The environment designed to enable the new is being transformed to protect the old.

A time is marked more by the ideas taken for granted rather than by the ideas to be argued about. There are constraints to innovation apart from economic constraints. Rather, these are created by law such as intellectual property as well as other government granted exclusive rights. Believing we know what makes prosperity work, we change the rules within which the internet revolution lives. If these changes continue, the revolution will end. Although everything would be available but what gets offered will be what just fits within the current model of the systems of distribution. The future that we could have if not like present is not easy to describe because of the fact that nobody can predict how the internet will develop. The elements of this future would be the consequences of falling costs, which would in turn reduce the barriers to creativity. The changes that occur in the costs of production and the costs of distribution would be the result of going digital. Digital technologies create and reproduce reality more efficiently that non digital. These changes would affect every sphere of social life.

Spirit of the times was storytelling with law having no role in deciding who got to tell what stories. Except from some important subject matter constraints law had no role in saying how one person could take and remake the work of others. Digital technology could enable an extraordinary range of ordinary people to become part of the creative process. ‘Consumer’ is not someone who would consume a product. According to Lessig, it is the move from the life a ‘consumer’ i.e. passive and fed to a life where one can individually and collectively participate in making something new. Technology enables a whole generation to create and through the infrastructure of internet to share the creativity with others. This is the art of building free culture. This network would not only keep the barriers to creativity low but also would leave the network open to the widest range of commercial innovation. The open platform of internet has spurred hundreds of companies to develop different ways for the interaction of individuals.

Are we in a digital age, to be a free society? There are free resources available for taking and controlled resources for which the permission of someone is needed before use. Another question arises here, whether the state or the market works best in controlling the resources. Mostly, the market trumps the state. But, twentieth century has taught that the dominance of private over state ordering is better. But today’s concern is whether the resources should be free at all?

A resource is ‘free’ if either one can use it without the permission of someone else or the permission one needs is granted neutrally. Free resources have always been central to innovation, creativity and democracy. People are also of the view that free resources are somehow inferior and nothing is valuable that is not restricted. Resource production and resource access do not talk of each other. Production is different from consumption. Although, normally there is a rule of ‘pay me this for that’, there are a wide range of resources that are made available in completely different ways.

There are some resources that ought to be restricted. These could include resources such as those called ‘mine’. If one didn’t have access to these, one would have little incentive to produce them, including those called mine. Nothing can better demonstrate the importance of free resources to innovation and creativity than internet. It is the simplest reply to those who argue that control is necessary if innovation is to occur.

Features that originally created the environment of free creativity are changing back to the barriers that were originally removed by the internet. The old, is protecting itself against the new by the help of Net. The reason for bringing these constraints is that they enable existing interests to protect themselves against the competitive threat from the internet.