By now you may have seen Kirby Ferguson’s series “Everything is a Remix.” He’s back with a fourth edition and we highly recommend you put your headphones on and watch in its entirety. If you’re one of the many people who has already viewed part four, Sasha, Francesca and Len wanted to offer you a play by play to expand on the nuances of this wonderful video.

Minute 1 (Len): Memes and genes are compared here in terms of evolution, though one is a biological process, and the other is psychological. The latter also obviously happens at a far more rapid rate. Memes appear, change and die (on the web) in a course of days and I would argue that they leave a smaller footprint on humanity in the short-term. My biggest question would be, how do memes collectively leave long-lasting impressions on our world? If we consider events like Arab Spring, the nature of Presidential Elections, and protests against legislation like SOPA, one could argue that “survival of” the web’s “fittest” plays a huge role in the direction of our species.

Minute 2 (Sasha): Good call here by Ferguson with the conflict between the system of law and the iterative nature of idea generation but in my opinion he does not go far enough. The reality is that the entire human system, growth-oriented capitalism, is in conflict. This leaves us with the unenviable task of asking ourselves the question of how private property, in this case ideas, fits. Much like boundaries between cities, states, countries and continents the effects of our activity in one idea space is never confined to just it. This first step into the fight over copyright is the first of many that will dictate precisely the system we build for ourselves in the near future.

Minute 3 (Francesca): “Original creation can’t compete with the price of copies” In the creative industry- fashion, design, advertising- the best creative ideas are born out of inspiration from other creative work. In fashion specifically great designers take their inspiration from street style and vintage material that they replicate in creations- fiercely protected once they are produced. But till this day there is no intellectual property in the fashion industry outside of trademark protection and that’s because it is virtually impossible to demonstrate it http://tinyurl.com/22kyn2m. Now if it is true that “without ownership there is no incentive to innovate” we could not explain why to this day the fashion industry keeps innovating and prospering- despite the absence of copyrights to protect its work.

Minute 4 (Sasha): Personal / System conjecture and contradiction, when rooted in loss aversion, seem to be presented as normal by the active agent when presented in these examples. There actually is some interesting neuroscience research that has been done in the area of threat, fear and loss and it’s emotional access to protectionist human behavior. It is also quite unremarkable to see the amplification of this innate human trait being magnified in today’s system. While Romney’s “company’s are people too” comment is quite hilarious when thought of in the civil rights context, when rooted in corporate behavior and profit they are quite legitimized through senior people’s choice biases.

Minute 5 (Len): “When we copy, we justify, when others copy, we vilify.” I believe our culture is following a bell curve when it comes to acceptance of borrowing from the public domain. We create art today based on inspirations from the past because there’s little memory of media that came before us. As radio and television came along, innovation was spread quickly through the world and we became to associate certain “creators” with work even if they borrowed much of the idea from the past. Those creators sought and continue to seek ownership of these ideas and products because they spent the time in making them icons. Now with the internet, it has become increasingly easy to remix and borrow from popular culture. Literally anyone with an internet connection can do this, but the battle rages over what is considered public domain and what is not. My theory is that over time, the protectors of scarcity will eventually lose out (whether legally or logistically) against the millions of people who create through remixing.

Minute 6 (Sasha): Trade agreements are an interesting international device that circumvents the public debate. Like classic military intelligence dealings the networking of goods are quite quickly festering in the private domain which will most likely benefit the few and cost many. With regards to the internet’s role it is becoming increasingly clear that groups like Anonymous will begin to play a bigger role as a check on the balance of power and projects like TOR will grow in importance.

Minute 7 (Francesca): ’Trade agreements’- Despite a global recession and competition from emerging markets like China, the US have so far preserved their economy by nurturing their innovation capital- people, inventions, entrepreneurial spirit. In this regard it is understandable why the land of Google and Facebook is trying to protect their competitive advantage. However if I have to identify the main element that will help the US to preserve a position of leadership in the future is less in the protection of the output of innovation as much as in the investment in the input. Innovation comes from constant incentives and rewards to students and pioneers on behalf of the entire society, from a system that welcomes and hosts innovators from other countries, one that offers a platform of opportunities for self-expression.

Minute 8 (Francesca): 62% of all patent lawsuits are now over softwares. The estimated wealth loss is half a trillion dollars”. Among the vast majority of law firms that prosper in this wastage of resources there are some who are actually trying to make some sense of it. http://creativecommons.org/ is a group of experts that helps innovators to navigate the law in order to achieve the full potential of open innovation. “Lawyers with guilty conscience”- as one of the founders Lawrence Lessigdefine himself- they start from the assumptions that “the most fundamental technology of the XXth century were either by accident or intentionally free”. The computer, for example. The fact that it was free allowed other people to create patents on top. In the XXfirst century, instead, this rush to patent every technology is actually limiting the amount of progress- both in innovation and economic- that can be achieved. Let’s hope people like CC will not be the only ones to lead this change of mentality.

Minute 9 (Len): “Opportunistic litigation” scares the hell out of me. So many Western Nations can’t compete any more when it comes to manufacturing or resources. They focus on services and innovation. Innovation is often thwarted when people and organizations are sued (or scared to be sued) out of existence. While in some cases the intent is to make sure artists are getting paid for their hard work, these law suits generally only pertain to a single country. Piracy is not going to stop in China or Russia because of a lawsuit that takes place in California. As much time as lawmakers are putting into crafting laws to protect Hollywood, I’d like to see the same kind of effort towards protecting people from predatory lawsuits that will perhaps prevent them from becoming the next Mark Zuckerberg or Mike McCue.

Minute 10 (Sasha): It’s quite clear that the intended effects of private property protection have gone far beyond the scope of its original intent. It’s application space to support growth-orientated capitalism was right for the times when expansionism was appropriate. The reality is that expansionism is no longer possible EXCEPT in the infinite virtual space. This is why the wars are being fought most fiercely in the software / internet space. But we must understand that the very nature of the internet is non-capitalist and much more representative of our biological features. We can either choose to violate our biological function to prop up a system in crisis or we can choose to reform and move forward as the interent does.

Minute 11 (Francesca): Copyright Act = an act for the encouragement of learning; Patent Act= an act to promote the progress of useful arts. We live in the era of open innovation. It is a leapfrog from the individual innovation that was encouraged in 1790, one that has been made possible by the internet and digital technology. Science is already benefiting tremendously from video technology to accelerate experiments, ideas are connected more than ever before. The legal system needs to be revisited to re-balance the never-ending tension between the individual and the collective good- specifically in relation to innovation. It’s is time to create a public debate around a system of laws that encourage the benefits of technology- not just restrict them by leveraging public fears.

Minute 12 (Len): Kirby argues that the daunting problems we face today will be best solved by unfiltered innovation. A creative commons that people can use for the common good, instead of for simply making money. I appreciate this sentiment and would love to see the next stage of our cultural evolution to be in the form of using our intelligence to benefit each other, but I’m not sure we’re wired for it. This may be a situation where the collective knows the best thing to do is to make information and creative thought free, and we just need our government to reinforce those behaviors, instead of siding with those that reward the very few who know how to take advantage of the system.