I find myself quite convinced by Lessig’s argument that a major reconsideration of copyright is needed for the internet age. Our class’s previous discussion of how servers work certainly highlights a major reason why the notion of copyright is simply not the same in the digital realm as it has been in print or other traditional media: in a very real sense, every time a work is accessed on the web, a new copy is made. This copy, however, in no way diminishes the available supply of other copies of the work and frequently, one might argue, does not even result in a loss of profit for the work’s creator and is not motivated by a desire for profit on the part of the “copy-maker.” (When the means of production and reproduction are expensive, profit may rightly be assumed to be a motive for copy-making, but when they are cheap or free, purely creative or other kinds of motives may more easily come into play.) Lessig’s discussion of the original purposes of U.S. copyright law is also an excellent reminder for anyone concerned with copyright law in public policy. And I think that libraries – just as they have frequently taken up the open-source movement – should become invested in this as an advocacy issue. As we have seen with this past summer’s enforcement of government-mandated anti-piracy procedures at colleges receiving Title IV funding (http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20009386-261.html), institutions can be held responsible for the actions of their users. A more reasonable and flexible policy stance on copyright might forestall many management headaches within libraries.
(As an aside, I found especially interesting the tax-based forms of compensation Lessig proposes in this new hybrid economy. Several European countries have instituted similar programs as early as the 1990s (for example: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FXG/is_9_12/ai_63500579/?tag=content;col1).)
On a more personal level, I must admit I had not even considered plagiarism issues regarding code before reading the articles on how to avoid it. Because it is not a finished work itself, one might almost think that the coding of a website might would more under patent law than copyright – I guess I tend to think of it as being more like a tool. But of course upon further reflection it is clear that the code is just the finished product before it has been translated by a web browser. I can imagine that, as a web designer for a library, I might be tempted to grab a neat feature from the site of another organization. Fortunately, in a profession in which knowledge-sharing is the goal and the norm, it may often be very easy to reach out to the creator of an admired site for guidance or permission.