How copyright could be killing culture

[Darat]

Well, someone will have to go back in time to bitchslap William Shakespeare, who borrowed the plots for most of his stories from others. That's just one example.

Throughout most of the history of art, there were no copyright laws. People freely borrowed from earlier artists, mostly re-casting previous ideas in current idiom. The genius of most of these artists is almost universally recognized not to be their originality of content, but their ability to render their ideas clearly and concisely.

And that is still allowed under most current copyright laws.

Which is why it's so funny to watch a company like Disney, whose entire success is predicated on films made of recycled source material from the previous century, continue to fund the enactment of ever more restrictive copyright laws.

What is being created with intellectual property laws is not a new economy or an original society. It's a cultural black hole. Artists who successfully protect their works from being copied can expect to be forgotten by the time the term of their copyrights expire.

Yet Peter Pan is still well known, so is Winnie, so is Mickey, so is the song "Happy Birthday". Copyright currently does not seem to be restricting the propagation of "cultural memes" anymore then it ever has.

The issue I believe we do face today that is related to copyright and is often mistakenly conflated with it is the rights I should have when I buy something. e.g. I buy a music piece, but I can only play it on one of my computers or device.

 

[Matabiri]

The issue I believe we do face today that is related to copyright and is often mistakenly conflated with it is the rights I should have when I buy something. e.g. I buy a music piece, but I can only play it on one of my computers or device.

And, in concepts like Copyleft, the options are already there for any creator who feels that it is important that future people should be able to be derivative on his or her work can make it so.

I have strong feelings about corporate ownership of copyright - I think it's a bad thing - but it does strike me that frequently those making the loudest noise about the Evils of Copyright are not those creating things.

 

[Darat]

And, in concepts like Copyleft, the options are already there for any creator who feels that it is important that future people should be able to be derivative on his or her work can make it so.

I have strong feelings about corporate ownership of copyright - I think it's a bad thing - but it does strike me that frequently those making the loudest noise about the Evils of Copyright are not those creating things.

I also have reservations about corporate copyright. (Despite working in a industry that it is very important in.) I believe copyright should always be held by the artist that created a work. That doesn’t mean a corporation can’t control or license an artistic work. (And it would mean that some companies would have to ensure that all employees’ contracts automatically assign a licence to the company they work for. )

 

[a_unique_person]

You have to love Disney, they pillage the past, and lock up their 'property' for perpetuity.

 

[Iconoclast]

Furthermore, Mickey Mouse the cultural symbol is vanishing into a black hole.

You're making this rubbish up as you go along aren't you? Last year Mickey Mouse was the highest grossing fictional character on the planet, I'd hardly call that "vanishing into a black hole". If your kids have never heard of him then it certainly isn't Disney's fault.

 

[jj]

I find the shape/size of WWII fighters an especially interesting issue. Maybe I'm wrong, but Berne wasn't in effect then, was it?

Then there is the problem I have with USENET articles and articles posted to web sites like this. While it would seem that there might be implied consent, etc, that's not part of Berne, and frankly I think there's a huge idiocy waiting to be plucked by some industrious sophist.

 

[crimresearch]

<SNIP>
In some cases, sampling artists display more creativity. If this is just rote work, why are newspaper editors considered so important? When you get right down to it, isn't "editing" just a fancy name for "sampling"?

Not if it is done without permission.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
I had no idea that the music business PR had gotten so bad , but the posts here claiming that artists like Hendrix didn't create their own sound, or didn't play their own versions of covers is apparently the current state of understanding...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who is saying that?

The discussion was about modelling amps, where a 15 year kid buys a piece of stock equipment, pushes a button and immediately gets the exact same sound as Hendrix, and one poster's claim that Hedrix did essentially the same thing.
In fact, Hendix spent many hours modifying his stock equipment himself, until he had a sound that was *different* from almost anyone else's at the time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What's sad about it? Is a mediocre piece of work that resulted from lots of hard work better than a wonderful one that was created by a machine?

The comparison was not about the best and most creative uses of sampling versus sucky original artists.
It was about the notion that buying a piece of editing/sampling equipment out of the box and cutting and pasting someone else's work without paying for it, or getting their permission, should be considered creativity, and that the copyright laws somehow stifled that creativity.

 

[Batman Jr.]

Throughout most of the history of art, there were no copyright laws. People freely borrowed from earlier artists, mostly re-casting previous ideas in current idiom. The genius of most of these artists is almost universally recognized not to be their originality of content, but their ability to render their ideas clearly and concisely.

Well, you have it partially right. The genius of a great artist often involves taking the old and using it in a new, interesting way, to fit with his/her personal idiom, in his/her work. But simple execution of the techniques already available, no matter how good that execution is, doesn't cut it.

But I do agree that big companies constantly pushing for copyright extensions to make a few more dollars do stifle creativity. Many artists as a result have greater difficulty drawing from their pasts as others have in the last few centuries.

The Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig has a lot of interesting things to say about this topic, and even wrote several books on it. His book Free Culture deals most directly with the subject.

 

[crimresearch]

"But I do agree that big companies constantly pushing for copyright extensions to make a few more dollars do stifle creativity"

So do I...I just disagree that it is the copyright laws that are causing this. I think it is the companies.
And doing away with copyright protections isn't the answer.

 

[Art Vandelay]

If you are trying to show that the current laws DO NOT increase the output of the authors they purport to protect, then why do you suggest looking at someone who has been dead almost 40 years?

Because that's who they purport to protect. Who benefits more from a law extending the limit from seventy years to eighty: someone who just finished their work, or someone who owns the rights to a 69 year old work? And if the purpose really is to protect the former, why are the laws retroactive?

crimresearch

The comparison was not about the best and most creative uses of sampling versus sucky original artists.
It was about the notion that buying a piece of editing/sampling equipment out of the box and cutting and pasting someone else's work without paying for it, or getting their permission, should be considered creativity, and that the copyright laws somehow stifled that creativity.

How is the legality at all relevant? If I steal some paint from a store, and use it to make a beautiful painting, is it any less "original" because it was made out of stolen material? If I make a completely derivative work from copying other people, does it somehow become more "original" if I get them to give their permission? Is "Candle in the Wind '97" somehow improved by the fact that Elton John was ripped off by himself, rather than someone else? Does the fact that "I Think I'm in Love with You" was cowritten by Mellencamp make it more original?

 

[crimresearch]

<SNIP>How is the legality at all relevant? If I steal some paint from a store, and use it to make a beautiful painting, is it any less "original" because it was made out of stolen material? If I make a completely derivative work from copying other people, does it somehow become more "original" if I get them to give their permission? Is "Candle in the Wind '97" somehow improved by the fact that Elton John was ripped off by himself, rather than someone else? Does the fact that "I Think I'm in Love with You" was cowritten by Mellencamp make it more original?

How does a law preventing you from 'writing' a song called 'Candle in the Wind', and 'creating' it by dubbing a copy of Elton's song, with you warbling along, and then selling it as 'Art's Greatest Hits', stifle creativity?

 

[seayakin]

Copyright in the end is about a balance between the creator right to earn income off their creative work and the public good of access to information and creative works.

Unfortunately, the balance seems to be swinging to the copyright holder (even if the original creator does not benefit). If you look at the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) it is extremely restrictive for users. The scarier thing for me is that if organizations like the RIAA get there way, everything will be pay per view.

For more informatin see the DMCA Overview. Or view the legislation yourself at DMCA.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

How does a law preventing you from 'writing' a song called 'Candle in the Wind', and 'creating' it by dubbing a copy of Elton's song, with you warbling along, and then selling it as 'Art's Greatest Hits', stifle creativity?

I suppose it would depend on whether that law also prevented you from publishing derivative works with merit.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

When copyrights started to protect anyone but the authors is when things started to go downhill (for us consumers) and uphill for some "money oriented" people.