Why Lakoff still matters: Framing the debate on copyright law and digital publishing

Abstract

In 2004, linguist and cognitive scientist George Lakoff popularized the idea of using metaphors and “frames” to promote progressive political issues. Although his theories have since been criticized, this article asserts that his framing is still relevant to the debate over copyright law as applied to digital publishing, particularly in the field of scholarly journals. Focusing on issues of copyright term extension and the public domain, open access, educational fair use, and the stewardship and preservation of digital resources, this article explores how to advocate for change more effectively — not by putting a better “spin” on proposed policies — but by using coherent narratives to frame the issues in language linked to progressive values.

Three levels of framing

“…Despite the lack of interaction between Goffman and Lakoff, the latter has sometimes been mischaracterized as Goffman's follower. Goffman is frequently mentioned in reviews of Lakoff's work (Ohl et al, 2013; Williams, 2014), and Lakoff's frame analysis is erroneously described as “based on the early work of sociologist Erving Goffman” (Gurman, 2009). The two scholars' work seems to be associated in readers' minds despite its lack of historical relatedness.…”

“…For the past three decades, then, communicative framing, metaphoric framing, and interactional framing have brought the Fillmore and Goffman traditions closer together—to the point where the two traditions have merged in the minds of some researchers (Gurman, 2009; Ohl et al, 2013; Williams, 2014).…”

Learning from inexperience: consumption ‘made strange’ in the digital music economy

“…Firstly, and most plainly, the perpetuation of the artificial scarcity of popular music is absurd from this perspective, and we should remember to point to its absurdity at every given opportunity. File-sharing, of course, was and is a means of pointing to this absurdity (although not without its own flaws), and seemed set to stretch artificial scarcity to breaking point, until powerful vested interests intervened to re-frame the practice (Gurman 2009; Prior 2015). Yet we are reaching a point now where the ‘walled garden’ of Spotify is beginning to feel as natural and inevitable as previous, physical commodifications of music, and their power over playlist curation is increasingly shaping industry behaviour and popular music itself.…”