Suppression of Creativity: Copyrights and Censorship

Creativity thrives in environments where openness and freedom are found in abundance. In a perfect world, ideas would be exchanged freely, resources would be lent openly and there would be limitless possibilities as to what an artist can do. The world today, however, is nowhere near perfect. It is not a secret that creativity is under constant suppression by law. Copyright limits the opportunities in front of the modern artist, telling him that he cannot use one thing or another, because that would be plagiarism.

There is ground for such measures. If an artist were to be the victim of plagiarism, and have nothing to protect himself with, then there is not much point in pursing creativity as a means of sustaining oneself. At the same time, if a creative project is not aimed at gaining profit, but rather expression of passion or emotion, no harm lies in the financial stability of the artist who has produced the original.

This is an issue that has caused strong controversy in the digital age of creative work. Copyright is meant to protect those who have produced original pieces of art by not allowing anyone to take advantage of their efforts without giving them credit. However, laws do not tend to be flexible, and when their effect does more harm than good for the overall culture of a community, something has to change.

Lawrence Lessig touches upon this subject in great detail. In his speech, he demonstrates a complex, but valid argument, on how copyright can be perceived in modern times.

Technology inspires change. More often than not, change leads to conflicting interests. By making a comparison between the issue of copyright and the problem of trespassing of airplanes in private territory, Lessig clearly demonstrates how outdated perceptions and laws are not applicable to changes caused by technology. New approaches need to be adopted. As he puts it, common sense is required.

What he explains is that amateur, but not amateurish, content is how today's generation expresses itself. Instead of being a passive audience, they are active creators who take advantage of the available resources and express their ideas. They do not do it to gain profit, they do it because they enjoy it. And by imposing copyright law over what they enjoy, governments inspire a sort of hatred towards regulations in general. If laws do not make sense, then why should they be followed?

Lessig presses the issue with a very clear argument that modern communities do not benefit from strict regulations which do not take fair usage into account. What is happening, instead, is open creativity being criminalized in the minds of the new generation.

There is nothing democratic about accepting one idea and rejecting another, solely on the basis that it does not benefit someone's interests. At the same time, complete removal of regulation is another extreme action that will lead to no improvement. I agree with Lessig's notion that free usage needs to be accepted from artists themselves, that they lend their work as resources for other creatives, as long as it is not for profit. This will lead to a more peaceful situation where acceptance, respect and appropriate accreditation will be commonplace, giving creativity its much required freedom back.