Uncategorized

Copyright Law vs. Art As A Shared Experience

Mike Masnick of Techdirt writes," …While people sit back and claim that remixing is "stealing"
or "lazy" or "not art" at all, that's totally missing the point. Art is
not about just the creator.
Without the shared experience, it's a lot
less valuable – and what we've done with copyright laws is make it
that much more difficult to share that experience
through our own eyes
and our own cultural views. And if you don't see the shame in that,
then you're missing a lot."

This clip from the documentary "Copyright Criminals" illustrates the point beautifully.

Share on:

7 Comments

  1. Long before the advent of digital and sampling, copyright laws existed and had to be adhered to (i.e. there IS a reason why copyright laws exist which you fail to point out. Do you see ANY need for copyright laws? Does your philosophy apply to ALL IP? Or does this just apply to music because you happen to enjoy it?). These laws didn’t stop the public from enjoying those copyrights, making social commentary on them, etc. Just because music is one of a number of products that can be digitized (and therefore stolen), doesn’t give people the right to do anything they want with it without the copyright holder’s permission, unless of course, it meets certain fair use standards or if the copyright holder allows you to do so. Remember,it’s always up to the copyright holder to decide if they want to give their copyrights away for free, allow you to use it for free or, by the same token, sue you. “Free-dom” on the part of the user also includes the “Free-dom” of the copyright holder to invoke their rights and sue you. I’m all for creativity and fun and all that, just make sure you get permission, especially if you plan to monetize your “creativity”. Hey, if you really want to be “creative”, maybe you should write your own hit songs and see how “easy” it is to do…oh yeah…and try to make a living doing it…

  2. Just what exactly is his point? I’m having a hard time figuring it out. Is he saying that I should be able to take your car (along with your family’s cars), without asking you (or them) or paying you (or them) for them, take them home to my neighborhood, have a party with my friends where we chop them up to create a pretty piece of artwork because I’ve created something fun and “transformative” and that this should be perfectly legal? Wow, that’s really nice of him (and you and your family too!). Kinda sorta “giving” and “funloving” of him (and you and your family), wouldn’t you say? Or is he saying that only stealing MUSIC is okay because it’s not a physical, tangible product you can touch like your car or your house or your family?

  3. I seriously doubt the copyright and patent laws are going to disappear anytime soon. I can’t see that it’s going to be a priority in Washington in the near future.
    The people who want to share ideas and content are already free to do so. The companies that have a vested interest in maintaining them certainly aren’t going to lobby for change.
    I don’t even bother getting into the debate.

  4. Mostly, I was making some amateur sociological observations. Not everything is a high school debate round. But insofar as there’s a policy upshot, yes, I’m suggesting that the law should not treat copyright precisely like physical property. Which is not particularly radical, since the law currently does not, in fact, currently treat them in remotely the same way, which would be insane and unprecedented.

  5. What people forget in these debates is that copyright law is a mutable human construct. It is designed to maximize social value: we balance the importance of rewarding creators with the good of society, and it’s all a matter of compromise. For example, you can record, sell, and perform a cover of any song you want under a compulsory license; SNL can parody TV shows, movies, people; one author can quote another; content becomes public domain after a certain amount of time. These examples are accepted purely because they are enshrined in the lawbooks; they are basically arbitrary decisions made in the interest of societal good. There is no black-and-white moral high ground in this debate, it’s only a matter of balance.
    I think the point of ‘Copyright Criminals’ is that the laws we have governing recorded music worked quite well for a long time, but it’s time to rethink them for the digital era. What about making a compulsory license available for sampling and mash-ups? Royalty structures based on the actual income of derivative works? I don’t pretend to have answers, but I think these are the kind of questions that really need to be thought about.

  6. If it is true, as some argue, that copyrights aren’t necessary and, in fact, people will do better if they make their content freely available and encourage others to use it and modify it, then the problem will take care of itself as more people do it.
    But not everyone is convinced that doing away with copyrights or making modifications is a good thing and they don’t have an incentive to do so.
    In other words, if those who don’t enforce copyrights come out ahead, the situation will eventually take care of itself anyway. I think it’s kind of wasted effort to tell people copyrights are wrong. If you believe that, just don’t enforce them in regard to your own work. If you make more money than the people who enforce copyrights, then you’ve made your case.

Comments are closed.