I just ran across a very well-written article defending Roger Ebert’s position on whether games can be art, written by a game developer, no less. I still take issue with the, to me, arbitrary distinction between art and Great Art, but it’s a great read, nonetheless.
Hey Gang,
So this week we’ll be discussing copyright, DRM and other intellectual property issues, especially as they effect young people and creativity. Lawrence Lessig’s most recent book, Remix, deals specifically with how the current copyright regime is impacting the next generation’s to be creative without running afoul of the law.
Cory Doctorow, an author whom we have discussed because of his YA novels, also lectures about these issues, and a recent talk given at the Melbourne Writers Festival sums up his views nicely. He is speaking primarily to professional creators, but what he has to say impacts amateur creators–as most young people are–as well.
I’d like you to read the INTRODUCTION to Remix, and watch a video of Doctorow’s talk in Melbourne. The talk is in two 25-minute chunks, so if you’re pressed for time, you can skip the first 11 minutes as they deal more directly with DRM, though I encourage you to check out the whole thing. There are mp3s of the talk here and here, if you’d rather stick them on your iPod and listen on the go.
If you want to dig a bit deeper, check out the rest of Remix, and this recent episode of the Search Engine Podcast, which discusses the group Anonymous, and and some reasons for creativity that go beyond monetary compensation.
As you’re reading / watching / listening, here are a few questions to think about:
Scott Nicholson, one of my Librarian / Boardgaming heroes, has a VYou channel as well. If you want to take a look at a topic-focused, rather than purely personality-focused take on online identity, check it out.
I’ll add that I appreciated Baym’s approach here, as well, especially her insistence on comparing contemporary issues to how people responded to technological change in the past. The more I look into these issues in technology and new media, the more I see that things aren’t really all that different.
Technology has always had unintended consequences, and really that’s not saying very much. It would be pretty hubristic to claim that the impact of anything but the simplest of technologies can be accurately predicted. For example, computers are essentially super-efficient copying machines. I’m sure, however, that Babbage and Turing and friends couldn’t have anticipated the widespread copyright violation that would occur on account of their inventions, which in turn would lead to the de-facto criminalization of an entire generation.
Hey Folks, sorry I’m a little late getting this post up. The day sort of got away form me.
I was six months before the end of Generation X, according to Tapscott’s timeline, but I think I relate more with his description of the “Net Gen”. That’s probably because I’m generally a pretty geeky guy and as such was a bit ahead of the curve growing up. It’s also because these generation divisions are pretty blurry and it’s easy to make generalizations that aren’t terribly accurate.
I have to agree with previous comments that the stereotypes that Tapscott carts out kind of rub me the wrong way. I’ve spent a lot of time working with young people over the last several years, and they come in a huge variety of personalities and learning styles. I understand why Tapscott is using these generalizations to illustrate the shift that is going on in the way young people live and think, but he does seem to go a bit far some times.
Brains create technology which in turn affects the brain. This is nothing new, and I think that the written word had at least as profound an effect on the human brain as the internet age will have. We, especially as the “book people” we are, automatically assume that the rather anti-social behaviour of a family sitting together in a room, each reading his or her own book is healthy, while each person staring at his or her own screen is somehow perverse. I would argue that to an oral culture, both are equally unnatural.
I appreciate Tapscott’s passion on this topic, and I think he’s a necessary counter-balance to the fear-mongering that seems to go on so much these days. I also agree with his concern over privacy issues, though it does seem a bit strange that this is his only big concern in his otherwise positive view of the effect of digital technology. Perhaps he digs into this issue a bit more later in the book.