Tuesday, April 5, 2011

Blog 11 - Money makes the world go 'round. And gravity.

Lawrence Lessig, halfway through his book Remix, begins a discussion about economics. Normally, such fiscal matters fit poorly when talking about rhetoric, especially of the digital medium(s), however Lessig does a great job making the connection between the concrete and the abstract. Sharing and commercial economies are how he does this.

A commercial economy is probably the most consistently, consciously encountered of the two. A product, be it something from a shelf or a service from a person, is purchased, in exchange for currency. We do this each time we go out to eat, buy a book, or go to the vending machine. This is to be contrasted with a sharing economy, where value, based not in a currency of any traditional sort, is exchanged without the imperative of a 'purchase.' Like Lessig says, if anywhere, money does not belong in a sharing economy.

To me, the differences between the two economies are somewhat silly. I agree with Lessig's argument, which I will touch on, but I feel it useful to interject my own thoughts here. Sharing economies, to me, are social contracts of sorts. While not written on paper, they can be just as binding. Because they have more 'payment options,' there is no less reason to respect them. Respect, my word choice, because money and currency is respected. It is the basis of our society (that would be, like, 10 blog posts there alone, so I will let it be). So why the seperation? Yes, it is weird, but only because we say it is. The difference between these economies is a cultural phenomena. End of rant.

Back to the prompt! So, these two economies play directly into Lessig's discussion of content and copyright. What is valued in our society? Whatever it is, and it is many things, this value is represented by money. I feel, and I think Lessig would agree, that conflict arises when we have created structures such as copyright law, that prevent the classical commercial economy from flourishing. This creates a dam of value, and it leaks over through as a sharing economy.

It is important we create this distinction and learn to integrate both economies into our culture. One or the other just won't do, we need both. Despite their apparent opposition, the two economies can form a balance for the better.

Blog 10

Turns out I did Blog 11 for Blog 10 or some other such. If you want to read what I wrote, knock yourself out. Its at the bottom below the new real Blog 10.

A remix I like is Psychosocial Baby. It is a music remix combining two very popular songs for wildly different reasons. Drawing upon our reading, I see how this video connects to Lessig's Remix in 3 different ways.

First, referring to text on page 59, Lessig asks how one could go about finding anything of interest, when (in the newly forming blogosphere) everything seemed so similar? The idea of uniqueness is tough to describe, as anything new has, in almost all cases, actually been done before. Newness is reserved for content that brings together old pieces in ways that are interesting. It is that intersection that is first noticed in the remix I linked. Each video, on its own, fits with the content managed by the band or producer. But when combined, the immense differences show up and something new is born.

Secondly, on page 70, Lessig describes how a "collage of physical objects is difficult ... and expensive." In Psychosocial Baby, we see two videos combined to form one, however each on its own is a full music video produced with very expensive sets, equipment, and talent. The author of the remix, however, needed none of those things and was still able to create something just as valuable (to the right audience). This is, in part, why remixing is a threat to controlling bodies and especially to those groups that made the investment to the original content.

Finally, on 79, Lessig talks about how our culture of buying has created resentment towards the creation of noncommercial products. SlipKnot and Justin Beiber are both multimillion dollar music group(s) and they sell many millions of dollars in products. For someone to create new content for free, to be disseminated and spread without cost, is an affront (of sorts) to the premise of a commercial economy. Products, generally, are not meant to be free, yet we find with remixes that nothing more is asked than respect for the creation act.










Asked to discuss sharing and commercial economies in Lessig's Remix, the question that I need to reach is 'so what.' First though, a description of these ideas.


Commercial economies are by far the simplest, for no other reason than our active familiarity with them in American culture. Buying products with a form of money is something we grow up with, either at the store with our parents or maybe in one of the many television ads. Lessig describes a commercial economy as this exchange of goods or services for currency. This understanding of how value is transferred creates the necessary base for a sharing economy.


A sharing economy describes the exchange of value using anything BUT currency as a means to make that exchange. It is easiest, as Lessig shows himself, to describe a sharing economy by pointing out what it is not. Helping a close neighbor with some groceries and then being paid for that help is not a sharing economy. Asking a close friend for a backrub and then offering to pay at the end is not a sharing economy. In fact, anything using money to transfer value is almost always not a sharing economy. A sharing economy is where the value expected from a transaction goes beyond money and enters a more abstract realm, such as friendship, love, kindness, and the like.


So what? Well, according to Lessig, the answer to many of our remixing and copyright problems lies in the middle of these two economies, in a hybrid he calls it. He states that finding and earning money through a remix is not bad, as long as the remix adds to a collective value (otherwise we are back at a commercial economy). Lessig does well to use economies to describe remix culture and copyright law, as it is often in our world that money influences nearly everything. Part common sense and part advanced psychology/sociology, the desire for money makes many familiar with how to associate value with it. This knowledge allows Lessig to jump right into his argument, without first trying to show how money is good or bad or what have you. With economies as a starting point, Lessig makes his points quickly and clearly, and the book is better for it.