Changing Attitudes and Sustaining Economies

Lessig's examination of economy types--commercial, sharing, and hybrid--offers an interesting starting point to discuss the potential of the digital culture market. He problematizes the popular notion that business models must function in the general ways that they have for decades--prosecuting “free-riders,” avoiding disclosure, essentially keeping the product and practices on lockdown. Lessig also identifies a few solutions--generally described as hybrid economies--to these current problems. In discussing the potential of these solutions, he notes how market incentives alone will not be enough to transform these economies, and he suggests that policy changes are necessary as well. However, in creating this binary, of the economic and the political, he overlooks the influential sociocultural sphere that is often resistant, or at least claims to be, to such transformations—and a good example of this exists in current debates over the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.

Of the many examples Lessig has cited as evidence for the possibility of new IP policy, generally of the willingness to share creative work freely among a community, he has thus far failed to acknowledge the intense opposition that this would elicit among many consumers in the U.S. (not just corporations). Whether or not this opposition is sincere in its condemnation of commons, collectives, or social services, as we’ve seen with recent health care legislature, there is a sizable portion of American culture intensely opposed to these types of things (though we know that media piracy knows no political boundaries). For some of these groups, the collective, common, and social are dirty words, too closely associated with Collectivism! Communism! Socialism!

The recent public discussions surrounding health care (no doubt heavily influenced by corporate interests, perhaps most by corporate media) show how nasty this opposition can be. During recent Republican debates, crowds applauded the idea of denying health care to dying citizens instead of sharing the burden of that cost. On principle. A recently proposed federal budget demonstrates this belief as well, cutting social services and the shared burden of those services seemingly out of respect for the principles of individual responsibility and economic freedom. Whether or not these protests acknowledge the idea of decades of corporate welfare is a moot point, because they are influential and they are used to dictate and defend government policy. In fact, many public figures on the left, most notably Van Jones, have argued that the failures of the first two years of President Obama's administration were the result of failures in motivating/activiting the people, and governing from above. For those seeking to change attitudes, popular beliefs and established cultural norms are major hurdles.

Furthermore, much of the popular culture consumed and shared (or stolen, given your perspective) contributes to this culture. Rap has become an avenue for many in the U.S. to wealth and leisurely living, or escape from poverty and menial labor, and not coincidentally, much popular rap glorifies these things (30 seconds or so should suffice):

                                               Fat Joe, feat. Lil Wayne "Make it Rain"

The same can be said about much of popular culture. Whether it glorifies the consumption of drugs, people (generally women), or everything, the appeals of popular culture often draw from the desires for easy living and conspicuous consumption. In a sense, much of the artistic output of our culture perpetuates notions of ownership, individualism, and consumption, and this creates something of a self-fulfilling prophecy concerning American attitudes toward culture and those who contribute to it. Many of them would and do say, do we really want to put Fat Joe and Lil Wayne in a position where they might not make it rain?

Add to this dilemma the extravagant culture that has become the norm among the culture industry—mansions, private jets, $25 million dollar salaries, $250 million dollar movie budgets, and so on—and current discussions of the American economy that ask “When will we return to pre-recession levels?” without considering for a moment that those pre-recession levels and practices were likely the very unsustainable cause of that recession--as many economists have noted...before being dismissed as socialists--and you can clearly see how much work needs to be done to reshape popular beliefs concerning IP in America.

So, to resist my inner Adorno and continue this rant, I’ll stop and ask my question:

What do you think is the most effective  way to go about enacting the types of changes in IP that Lessig seems poised to suggest (either in terms of influence, immediacy, or length of time)? In the legislature? In the courtrooms? In the classrooms? In the public commons, as a grassroots effort? All of them? Or something else?