Revised Remixing Good Reads for the Better

Charlie Mitchell

10/25/11

Internet Studies

Remixing Good Reads for the Better

The most elementary purpose of education today, is to teach students how to read, listen, and write. Children are encouraged to use these tools to create something original and creative. As a whole, Children learning these new tools are completely ignorant to the copy right laws in the United States. Let’s just say ignorance is bliss. They are not taught, according to the law, it is illegal to draw their favorite cartoon character, or record their own version of their favorite song. It isn’t until their high school years that they are taught about copyright. Today’s youth in high school are also well acquainted with current technology and can easily create and/or remix videos, music, literature and any other art that is applicable to copyright law. They learn that building upon our culture is forbidden and anyone who uses technology to remix work is a criminal. Do you like a song that you believe you can make better? Well if you attempt to do this, you are breaking the law. Copy right law is important to maintain for it credits accomplished artists, but needs to be reformed so not to define our youth as criminals.

Current copyright law discourages the Read/Write culture. Lawrence Lessig, author of Remix, defines the Read/Write culture explaining, “Ordinary citizen ‘read’ their culture by listening to it or by reading representation of it. This reading, however, is not enough. Instead, they add to the culture they read by creating and re-creating the culture around them” (28). The technology today enables us to remix our culture by taking clips from our favorite movies, songs, and books and creating something completing different and original. Unfortunately, US copyright law has not evolved as quickly as technology has, and makes these creative works illegal.  

If reading is a hobby of yours, then the social media site, Good Reads is for you. Good Reads has a database of books, from all genres, that have been reviewed by its users. Basically, the site allows its users to review books they have read and recommend ones they liked to their friends. When you have created a library of books that you have reviewed, the site will recommend other books that people with similar tastes have enjoyed. Good Reads is a great site to chat with others who have a passion for reading, and discover new books that you may have not heard of otherwise. The site has around three million members and eighty-million books added to the site and continues to grow.          

            The site Good Reads, seems extremely aware of the current copyright law. The creators of the site seem to follow current copyright regulations and know they cannot copy other people’s work, and then pass it on to its users, like Google Books has done. Instead, they work with the authors by promoting their works on their site. Good Reads only gives its users a short description of the books stored on their site. The rest is up to the members. They can then review and comment on the books, which will then be passed on to other users. Books that may have gone unnoticed otherwise are now standing out on Good Reads. Authors and publishers should have a positive attitude towards this site and think of it as free promotion. If the site continues these trends, they will never get in trouble with copyright. Publishers will not make the same mistake as Warner Brothers did when they tried to sue and threaten children for contributing their own offshoots of the popular children’s series, Harry Potter.

A young teenager and Harry Potter fanatic named, Heather Lawver, created a social media site, The Daily Prophet, which allowed people to send in stories involving the Harry Potter franchise. The site encourages the Reader/Writer culture and the creativity that is enveloped in the concept. When Warner, J.K. Rowling’s publisher, heard of this, they attempted to police it by sending out letters to the contributors, threatening to sue them for copyright violation. Lawver was informed about these letters and organized a boycott of all Harry Potter products, gaining the attention of the media. “The teen debated Warner Bros. representatives on MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews. Newspapers around the world started picking up on the fight” (Lessig 207). The two parties settled the matter and Warner Bros. began to realize that they were threatening their fans who were purchasing Harry Potter products. Warner Brothers has now changed their attitude and encourages fans to form a community to discuss their interests.

Good Reads embraces the idea of a hybrid economy. The site doesn’t charge any money for people to become members, but they do make money from advertising and investors. They are successful in doing this because they understand what Lessig believes is the only way hybrid economies can survive; they created a community for the users to control. Lessig gives us three steps to creating a successful online community. “First, you must give the community ‘respect.’ Second, you must give ‘responsibility…’ Third…you have to ‘give people a sense of being part of something that has meaning’” (Lessig 184-5). Good Reads accomplishes this by giving its users the respect and responsibility to write reviews, create groups, comment, and have their own page, which gives them a reason or meaning to continue to be a part of the Good Reads’ community.

In the book Remix, Lessig gives his readers five changes to the copyright law that would reform the law for the better. Three of these changes would specifically benefit the social media site, Good Reads. First, is Lessig’s belief that we need to deregulate amateur creativity. By deregulating, Lessig means, “exempting ‘noncommercial’ uses from the scope of the rights granted by copyright” (254). This would allow users of Good Reads to create groups where they would share their own sequels to their favorite books, or write an alternative version. Like in the Harry Potter example I gave, this just allows the fans of a book to be creative and have fun with their favorite works. This would only help the author, not hurt. Lessig’s second reform is a notion of a clear title in the copyright process. Currently, when someone publishes a work it is automatically protected under copyright law for the next 75 years, after the creator has deceased. This means that there are books that were written a hundred years ago and all out of print that people still can’t remake or remix. In fact, the vast majority of books protected under copyright law are currently out of print. By creating a new system, where only works making a commercial profit are protected under copyright, people could build on artists’ past work and potentially make it better. Forgotten novels could be turned into epic movies or television. In other words, users of Good Reads could participate even more by recreating past works and collaborating to make the story even stronger. The third change Lessig wants is to simplify copyright law. With today’s technology, everyone has the ability to create videos, music and pictures. The problem is that copyright law has not adapted to this progression. Lessing explains, “We thus have a system of technology that invites our kids to be creative. Yet a system of law prevents them from creating legally” (266). Children today are born in a culture where the majority of people are breaking the law in one way or another. Breaking these laws have become an accepted standard and are not looked down upon because of their minor potential repercussions. By simplifying copyright law, users of social media sites like Good Reads, will be able to easily understand what is allowed and what is prohibited.

Even though Good Reads isn’t participating in the remix culture of taking people’s work and building on it, they are still contributing in the progression of copyright change. The site shows us that by allowing people to talk about someone else’s work, you are only helping the publishers and writers. In no way, can Good Reads take away some of the commercial value of these books, but instead they are doing the opposite. By allowing a large community, with similar tastes, to think critically and discuss certain books, you are allowing others to join in the conversation, making the commercial value of these books much greater. Hopefully in the future, Good Reads can expand its site, allowing the users to remix past works, thus creating a true free society.

 

Work Cited

Lessig, Lawrence. Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy. New York: Penguin, 2008.