I'll go one further. Rather than trading the current insanity for one where educational materials are all encumbered in a tangled web of Creative Commons licenses, all educational use of copyrighted materials should be simply be considered fair use.

I propose that the first thicket to be cut should be the ever extending tendril of Mickey Mouse.

<Comment removed by moderator>

You're helping convince me that the first thicket of evil that should be cut might be Lawrence Lessig and Harvard. Copyrights are good. At worst, the terms could stand to be tweaked.

Hmmmmmm

Let me make sure I have this correct...

Britney Spears should create her product and then let anyone use it for any reason they see fit without compensating her.

Is that his point?

Why don't we do something like this....let's have all of the people that go out and earn money through their creativity, investment and hard work allow someone else to take what they earn for any reason they see fit. No wait a minute...we already have that system.

Is Lawrence Lessig a politican too?

unfortunately, U.S. copyright law, for the past 15 years or so, has been where creativity has gone to die -- and I say this as a sometimes freelance writer with an obvious financial interest in the rights to my own work.

Large corporations -- yeah, Mouse, I'm talking about you -- have simply bought unwarranted copyright extensions from Congress. Others have sought to wall off research from the public even though it was at least partially funded by the public. This is not the way to foster creativity.

I hear continual criticism of copyright but other than licensing solutions like Creative Commons and other licensing agencies such as Copyright Clearance Center, I never hear a plausible solution. It's always nonsense as Lessig espouses here, All uses should be free - i.e. Fair Use", or "Information wants to be free". What're the odds that Professor Lessig get paid for his screeds?

I generally agree with Lessig's comments, but what a strange example to use as the 'face of good'... John Philip Sousa was quite opposed to the sale of the phonograph, believing that it would initiate the end of live, public performances. He said further, "The time is coming when no one will be ready to submit himself to the ennobling discipline of learning music. Everyone will have their ready made or ready pirated music in their cupboards." Funny enough, people continued to attend concerts and learn to play music despite owning phonographs, just as people now continue to attend concerts, learn to play music, and purchase music too, despite the existence of legal and illegal sharing.

This is why we should teach history!

I think university presses would be happy to support Larry Lessig's campaign for recognition of "transformative" use as the "heart and soul" of fair use, as Judge Pierre Leval once called it. But in return we'd appreciate his support for regarding sheer reproduction of originals with no value added as piracy pure and simple, as in the suit against Georgia State University. The commentator who blithely supports the idea that all educational use should be fair use (a position explicitly repudiated by the Supreme Court) has two choices: either convince the universities that operate presses to pay all costs up front so that their publications can all be "open access," or else be willing to accept the demise of university press publishing. --- Sandy Thatcher, former President of the Association of American University Presses

About the Britney Spears and John Philip Sousa examples: Timloyd asks if Lessig meant Ms. Spears should create her product and then let anyone use it without compensating her. Not at all. Lessig makes a distinction between "professionals" (Spears) who make money from their creativity and thus need some copyright protection, and people who do not create for profit, like educators and scientists. Lessig cited John Philip Sousa as a representative of an opposing principle--to address the historical point raised by "please"--precisely because of his opposition to the phonograph. He fretted before Congress that these "infernal machines" would end this scene: "When I was a boy... in front of every house in the summer evenings you would find young people together singing the songs of the day..." He was, Lessig says, defending this amateur collaboration as an essential part of our culture, and worrying that recorded music would cause people to stop singing together, and to lose their vocal cords. (Really, he said it.) Lessig's argument is such non-profit sharing of creative work should not be driven out by laws intended to protect the professional. You can hear Lessig's Educause talk yourself, for free, here: http://educause.mediasite.com/mediasite/SilverlightPlayer/Default.aspx?peid=b84be1d5613841aaae441aac8272e2e7.

"Not at all. Lessig makes a distinction between "professionals" (Spears) who make money from their creativity and thus need some copyright protection, and people who do not create for profit, like educators and scientists."

Educators and Scientists do create for profit. The ability to get invited to talks, get tenure, etc... all rely on your reputation as a researcher. If you have something that gives you a leg up in your research field, say a simulation code that works particularily well, you want to protect that information so that you can get more publications out.

By providing access to your work, such as via a Creative Commons license, it is virtually certain that your work will gain greater recognition and your reputation will build faster. Protecting the information, which presumably means not sharing it, as prevent_fraud suggests, is a sure road to obscurity. With CC, you keep your copyright, so there is no loss of ownership involved.

Regarding earlier comments about moving towards all educational uses as "fair uses," I have commented on that elsewhere (http://bit.ly/4c6P3t).