ross millar

Google just released iGoogle, along with their gadget maker, which allows anyone to make their own gadgets to share with friends on personalized homepages (the new part is the gadget maker). If you haven’t already done so, check it out.

BBC has an article discussing iGoogle along with the $1bn lawsuit involving YouTube. It’s becoming clear that copyright laws do not suit the current trends in user generated content websites, or any media for that matter. Current copyright laws are there to protect corperate America, not there to encourage creativity, or necessarily to serve the artists interests. Take the Beastie Boys for example, they embrace & encourage fans to recreate their work. Let’s not forget what these laws did to WKRP. Imagine for a minute, what could possibly be out there if people were truely free to remix, recreate and expand on any media. Keep in mind that the majority of users do not do it for financial gain. Creative Commons goes a long way in acheiving this. It’s a simple concept: the more exposure a creative piece gets, the more interest the original artist gets.

Think of it this way, with current technologies and the enabling power of the internet, is there any need for big business in the creative process? Come to think of it, what does business have to do with art in the first place?