how creativity is being Strangled by the law

[joelpatterson]

Okay-- let's get real personal.

Once upon a time, I took the Zapruder film of the Kennedy assassination--which I had illegally filmed off of the tv, when it was shown in 1977--and added onto the soundtrack the James Taylor song "Shower the People."

The effect was-- I hope-- pretty creepy, creepier than either one by itself. As the motorcade rolls on to its destiny, you see pairs of Secret Service agents standing on the running boards, and James Taylor wails, "How can you stand there, with your broken heart, ashamed of playing the fool?" There was... what's the word.. synchronicity!

And I timed the head exploding to happen at exactly the moment James sings "SHOWER the people..." and whole band kicks in. Got into some pretty heavy rotation on public access cable a few years back.

I was using prefabricated materials, but the whole effect and artisty about it was mine alone. This was a new artform. Sue me.

[u b k]

Originally Posted by drBill

Where to people get off thinking that stealing is OK as long as you're not using it for making money.

probably the same place as where people get off thinking that they have the right to control every possible use of something just because they created it and sold it.

this constant strawman where you invoke the stigma of socialism is unpersuasive to me. regardless of what labels anyone wishes to apply to our government, its laws ought to be fair and just to all who fall under its jurisdiction, to maximize the freedoms of the individual while taking into account that every individual is a member of a larger society. we have rights, we also have responsibilities.

you also continously create a scenario where a work of art is stolen and then used for whatever purpose. no one is advocating a right to steal anything; rather, we are asking for a rational re-assessment of fair use in light of the *reality* of the new information technology. law ought to be fair and rational, it ought to also be practical or it will rapidly decay into irrelevance or, worse, abuse.

iow, the cat is out of the bag on this issue, and it will not be put back. you will never be able to control content to the degree you could in the 20th century, because the flow is now 2 way, connection is de-centralized and point-to-point, and the tools to manipulate, create, and express are universal and universally powerful.

the question is, in this new environment, how do we proceed?


gregoire
del
ubk
.

[Companda]

I didn't watch the clip. I've read the arguments and here's my 2 bobs worth.

Beethoven was arguably the greatest composer. If he was around today he would be a millionaire even a billionaire from copyright payments. But instead he maybe had enough to get by.
People have become too engrossed with making money from music, because that's the way it has been for the last 40 or 50 years. Kids have now become too obsessed with being famous, hence the reason 90% of people start forming bands or writing songs etc. This is also one of the reasons Youtube exists. It's a small slice of fame.

Everyone will have a differing opinion on this. Those who have made a living out of being in the music creation process thinks it should stay the way it has been. Personally, when I create music, if I think it's good enough for other people to hear it, I want as many people as possible to hear it and hopefully enjoy it. If they are willing to pay for it then they will more than likely come to my live show. If not, then at least enjoy it from the comfort of their home and not pay. It would be nice to make money out of music, but it's not the be all end all.

I think if someone is using a person's music on youtube then they are only promoting the music. If someone enjoys the music from a clip, they will pursue it and it creates another fan.

Sometimes people are a little too money hungry. If the world had a huge Recession and people could only just afford to eat, they wouldn't be buying music. But you can guarantee it would still be being created, by those who cared about it (not some teenager with a fringe glued to their forehead singing about how bad their life is because their parents bought them a second hatch back instead of a BMW sedan-sorry had to have a stab at emos).

[drBill]

Originally Posted by u b k

iow, the cat is out of the bag on this issue, and it will not be put back. you will never be able to control content to the degree you could in the 20th century, because the flow is now 2 way, connection is de-centralized and point-to-point, and the tools to manipulate, create, and express are universal and universally powerful.

On that we agree. But without a moral compass, an absolute as it were to guide our way, that is bigger than either you or I or whoever, we can't possibly agree or come to an mutually beneficial understanding. If the target is constantly shifting, there is no right and there is no wrong. Only what you feel or what I feel, and if that is our bedrock, then heaven help us.......

For me, (among other things) I believe in personal property, the right to assign it or keep it as my own and a moral absolute. You don't have to feel that way. Most younger generation kids don't. These rights are not (or at least should not be) flexible, they are based on a power higher than either you or I and immutable. They are what our bill of rights and constitution is based on. This issue for me is simple. Maybe not so for you.....

I do agree though that the solution to these issues is not so simple. Sad, because these problems are destroying and tearing apart an industry that I have loved my entire life. An industry that produced and nurtured the benchmark songs and recordings that we all measure what we do against - both sonically and creatively. Dare I say that those days are past, never to be seen again?? Pandora's box has been opened and to quote you "the cat is out of the bag...."




Tonight my son walked in and asked what I was doing and I had to explaiin to him why there would be music that would never exist because his generation thinks that music should be as free as the air they breath. He knows right from wrong. It's inate in his being. I explained to him that musicians need a home and food and medical care. I explained that with people taking what doesn't belong to them, no matter how "right" it might seem to his generation, that the great songs of the future, the ones that we would love, the ones that would cut us to the quick and change out lives - those great songs stand a really good chance of never being written, sung or recorded. Or if they do, you'll probably never hear them.

He grasped the hopelessness of the situation and understood perfectly the paradox which we discuss...................and I saw sadness in his eyes. And he saw it in mine. A poignent moment, and one that I wish never happened.



But the fact that I have to try to explain it here is completely inexplicable to me. I feel like I'm in some bizzare Twilight Zone episode that someone bootlegged, downloaded into their iPod, edited in segments of Bill Maher with a soundtrack from Gilligans Island and posted on youtube. Aaaarggggh!!

[oudplayer]

Originally Posted by pbell

I do believe that artists should be able to maintain the right to not allow people to use their music at all - they do own it.

This point is not made often enough. It really pisses me off that everyone thinks they're entitled to do whatever the f*çk they want with any recording or any song. This has no basis in any form of copyright law that has ever existed. The attitude must shift so that people feel the responsibility to legitimately procure the opportunity to cover or sample a recording, which may or may not involve financial compensation (depending on the artist and work in question, and the intended use). Not everything should be sampled, even if the technology makes it feasible to do so. If you just have to sample it (personal experimentation) without procuring that opportunity, there is no reason you should feel the need or right to distribute that derivative work.

That said, copyright law needs to be grossly simplified and overhauled. The current system is a mess, and larger business interests have found ways to reap a disproportionate amount of the revenue that flows through the music sector.

[vixapphire]

Originally Posted by Sui_City

I believe that there are certain things that should be free.

Not only free, but free of corruption.

Youtube should be one of those things in my books. Or another service like it. A communal place for sharing. Free of advertisements. Where we can communicate without fear of some guerilla marketing campaign by some corporate. It is a way of getting things out there and allowing other people to find it.

i don't care whether corporate interests use a youtube for their guerilla marketing; i'm more concerned that they do so while barring others from freely communicating their own experiences through the medium. this whole "take down notice" craze, which btw is costing the majors huge sums to perpetrate through clever entrepreneurial businesses not unlike the "toner sales" sweatshops of my hollywood rocker days, is just a burr in the buttcrack of the long saddle-ride of free 'n easy commerce.

or something like that.

[vixapphire]

Originally Posted by 3rd world order

**** the law.. do whatever you want.

laws are for children who cant think for themselves.

to clarify, cuz i know the angry mob is gonna come after me, copyright laws only matter if you're making money and "damages" are only a share (or all) of the profits.

if you dont give a **** about making money then no one can touch you...

copyright law has very generous statutory damages provisions. we're talkin' well over $100k per instance of infringement. not chump change, like the "lost profits" off some nobody's CD sales, for instance...

[vixapphire]

Originally Posted by ALL*MYTEE

I can 't listen to this guy. The 20th Century the century when millions of voices were silenced? Was he around for the defeat of communism, the defeat of fascism, women and non-white males getting the right to vote? The spread of democracy around the world? Too much Noam Chomsky drek.

The rise of hundreds of thousands of micro punk bands. Zine culture? The internet? Who on earth was silenced? GG Allin and the Murder Punks? Annie Sprinkle--hell she got government money--they paid her to roll around in whatever shit she chose to roll around. Who is silencing who?

Never before have there been so many artists in history. Sure, most of them blow, and will never be heard, but you can't blame corporations or laws for that. It's because no one want to hear them. Art is not a communal exercise--no matter how many artist seem to think it is. It's ruthless and very few (currently) rise to the level of adding value to a society--mostly because they're afraid to take risks and responsibilities, not because some evil hand is holding them down. Corporations and laws go a long way towards explaining why so many artists have the free time, advanced tools, food, clothing and shelter required to make culture.

No corporations, no private property laws, no copyrights=no recording gear, no patents on circuits, no incentive to develop technology, no reason to bring out new software. Seriously--think about that while you're making an argument for free downloads or an ad free YouTube.

Why should someone else make something and give it to you for free if they don't want to? YouTube took a lot of money and a lot of risk to make. Why should they give it away for free? Why should anyone spend their money to save you yours?

If you think anyone should, then send it the f$#$ to me. I promise I'll use it better than you would. The thing that drives me nuts about the 'creative commons" stuff, is that it almost always is nothing more than a justification for people who for whatever reason, won't even pay .99--the price of a f#$%ing hamburger for a song they listen to over and over and over. A song that adds incalculable value to their life.

If you think it's okay to steal from corporations, please remind me not to do any business with you. Would you steal from one of the many corporations on GS if it served your purposes? Or if you though they weren't "cool" enough? Since when does an individual's opinion of another entity--human or corporate--justify theft?

If you think a copyright is less valid if it comes from a popular artist, or large company, remind me not to play any of music for you. Because I plan on getting popular and as big as humanely possible. Creative commons is more appealing to bad artists--those who don't have anything to say besides sampling other artists. That's not an artist but a DJ or designer. I want the strongest copyrights possible.

Unless, of course, 3rd World Order or one of his comrades will buy me health insurance and tune up my car. :)

It's a luxury to critique private property. A luxury created by private property in our case. We're doing it on technology that people paid to make--we're not sitting around a fire somewhere. Don't forget that human rights, freedom and democracy are interlocked with free markets. When China adapted market reforms it raised 300 million people out of chronic, generations-old poverty.

And that's with very weak copyright laws, obviously--they'll rip off just about anything. Imagine what they could do if they respected an individuals ability to take risks and create new ideas, culture and technology.

+1.

[u b k]

Originally Posted by drBill

Tonight my son walked in and asked what I was doing and I had to explaiin to him why there would be music that would never exist because his generation thinks that music should be as free as the air they breath. He knows right from wrong. It's inate in his being. I explained to him that musicians need a home and food and medical care. I explained that with people taking what doesn't belong to them, no matter how "right" it might seem to his generation, that the great songs of the future, the ones that we would love, the ones that would cut us to the quick and change out lives - those great songs stand a really good chance of never being written, sung or recorded. Or if they do, you'll probably never hear them.

He grasped the hopelessness of the situation and understood perfectly the paradox which we discuss...................and I saw sadness in his eyes. And he saw it in mine. A poignent moment, and one that I wish never happened.

doc, i get the emotion of that moment, you write of it very eloquently, and i always appreciate the perspective you express here. for your own peace of mind, and the outlook your son adopts about his world, i just wish you had more faith than your words convey... faith in the human spirit to always find ways to express itself, meaningfully, powerfully. i have a deepseated conviction that regardless of the state of copyright law and the nature/interpretation of statutes that regulate intellectual property, music will aways flourish and be a deep and abiding presence in people's lives.

the story you tell is, like all things, possible; i could never presume to tell you you're wrong. and... your story is only one of an infinitely large number of possible stories that predict the future, all but one of which must be wrong. it's even possible all would be wrong, and that the future is simply unknowable, unfolding in ways that purposefully defy our attempts to control it. why invest so deeply in a story that defeats your vision of how you would like things to be? why convince your child of it, when you truly have no way of knowing what's in store?

for whatever it's worth, and that may be zero, i believe the sinatras and pink floyds and beethovens and airs of tomorrow will, as all their predecessors have always done, honor their compulsion to collaborate, create, and perform music. how widespread that music becomes is not so important to me, i can survive just fine without megastars. as long as people have the means to seek and acquire the art they desire --- and it appears as though that's more and more the case everyday --- they will find it. there will always be patrons, and commercial successes, and bedroom warriors.

everything is changing at an extraordinary pace; we will adapt, we always have. we will find new ways to carve out the existence we desire, because this world is plenty big to accommodate the relatively infinitessimal requirements of any one human being.


gregoire
del
ubk
.

[drBill]

ubk, i won't argue with you. I'm definately more of a glass half empty vs. glass half full type of guy.

As for the future, of course you are correct. But my observations are not based on the future - they are based on the present and very recent past. Although grim, I certainly hope that you are correct. But in my part of the universe things are quite different. In the last few years, I've seen unbelieveably talented musicians hanging it up because they just can't make a living anymore. Guys that have been in the biz for a couple decades. People need medical insurance, food, shelter. In LA, it's becoming more and more difficult to continue to be a "professional" musician. ie: make a LIVING at it. Not being a superstar. Not being a greedy corporation. Not being a millionaire. Just simple survival. If we loose these guys, we are worse off. No doubt.

Now, you may call being a professional a dirty word. I don't think so, but there's no doubt many here would. For myself, I would define it as a calling. It's a profession that has demanded the most that I could give - one that I view as almost a spiritual undertaking. It's demanded serious practice, the foresight of a prophet, and a steely determination that few can muster. Something I find strangely missing from many in the current generation. Maybe I'm just getting old.

I sincerely join with you in hoping that the situation all works out and those that create "creative content" can be fairly compensated and earn enough to survive.

[pbell]

Originally Posted by drBill

Now, you may call being a professional a dirty word. I don't think so, but there's no doubt many here would. For myself, I would define it as a calling. It's a profession that has demanded the most that I could give - one that I view as almost a spiritual undertaking. It's demanded serious practice, the foresight of a prophet, and a steely determination that few can muster. Something I find strangely missing from many in the current generation. Maybe I'm just getting old.

Nah, you're not getting old, I agree with you. I would concur that the there are those out there who don't put the amount of effort and serious practice into their craft that someone like you has. And maybe in the short term they will have some success, but those who put in the time, the practice, the determination can potentially go on for a lifetime and then some.

C - Heat: "He's such a smarty pants"

Huh?

[jindrich]

it's easy to despise intellectual property and copyrights for skill-less and untalented persons.

those who cannot create, can only steal.


this guy is so full of himself.

[Sqye]

Originally Posted by Led

I think he has some interesting ideas but I also think he speaks like somebody who has never been the creator of original material. I'm never going to sue a schoolkid if they use something of mine, but at the same time I am the originator of it and why should my ownership be taken away, so kids can have the option of taking the easy way out. He mentions 'our kids' a lot, but is that what we want for our kids' future -encouraging them to use other people's ideas as their raw material, instead of taking the time and effort to come up with their own? Obviously with some things it's easier for them, just like sampling audio, because they couldn't afford to do as good a job. So why does that make it ok....?
SO what about the kid that takes a great original piece of film and changes the voice over/sound to turn it into a pro-racism film? Surely the originator of the film didn't intend it to be used to promote racism, but as long as the kid doesn't sell it, then it would be ok under these kinds of law changes. So ther goes your moral right.
There seems to be an awful need to be noticed nowdays, so what...we teach kids it's ok to use somebody else's work to get noticed, as long as you change something in it? Then again I never got the whole Warhol thing with the soup cans. As I say, I'm not a copyright Nazi but my fear is more for the survival of original thought. Copyright protection puts value on that, and changing those laws devalues original thinking. But then again original thinking may be old fashioned and we could be heading towards a world of collage artists.
The bottom line is all these people can use copyright material and re interpret it and show it to friends at home etc, but that's not enough for them. The problem begins when they post it online for millions to see and why? Because it won't get them noticed on a bigger scale and get them there 15 second of fame if they only show it privately to friends. They wan't the adoration of strangers on the other side of the world without the hard work. And that's what they are chasing, not artistic expression.
In my humble opinion. Just my opinion.

just a reminder.

these ideas (original versus copied, incoporated, plagerized, etc.)
are NOT mutually exclusive.

besides, when are ideas almost EVER truly original?
i would venture to say MOST ideas / concepts / IP, etc. are developed over time,
and through cultural and material osmosis and assimiliation, etc.

however, i hear what you're saying with regard to the attitude of the
non-creator versus the creator. and yes, this is fairly typical.
but this does not mean LL's points aren't relevant.
imo, he's right regarding new perceptions of creativity -

i mean, after all, how many of you build your own friggin pianos, for cryin' out loud?!
and if you DO, how many forge your own MATERIALS for building, then??

at what point do you recognize the delineation between creative idea and creative tool?

that said, at what point do you establish the truly orginal idea?

how many of us TRULY use floral counterpoint in some mind-bendingly unique way?

or resonant filters? songform? poetry? after-effects? etc.....


i think ubik's right - it seems silly to be afraid of all the new technology,
and it's effect on our creativity.

that said, i think the old world (and some of us older folks, maybe)
is having a difficult time adjusting to the democratization of creativity
and public expression via the web, as well as content distribution....

let's not forget - there's also LOT of crap out there....
(although i think this is starting to change) -
many kids don't think of art products so one-dimensionally, any longer.

and this is VERY cool. creativity is not as limited as it was a few decades ago -
even a decade ago.


and jindrich - again, i think you are also drawing boundaries of mutual exclusivity -
which are not completely accurate or relevant - if i'm not misunderstanding you -
unless we just don't agree....which is fine

.

[big country]

Originally Posted by Sqye

just a reminder.



i mean, after all, how many of you build your own friggin pianos, for cryin' out loud?!
and if you DO, how many forge your own MATERIALS for building, then??

at what point do you recognize the transition from creative idea to creative tool?

that said, at what point do you establish the truly orginal idea?


.

If only more people did we would have some pretty fuc-in cool pianos

I know I have a couple interesting Ideas

[andsonic]

I don't know exactly where I fall in this debate. I just want to interject a little historical perspective:

Bach, Handel, Mozart, & Beethoven and others who followed were paid by patrons (governments, the church, nobility) to write great music. They were known to "quote" major portions of other composers' work as an homage, or just to finish their 45 min - 3 hour long piece. Heck, Handel took an entire song from another composer and inserted it into one of his most loved/respected works: "The Messiah". What happened? Handel got his paycheck from the King of England & some folks "in the know" checked out some tunes from an obscure (ripped off) italian composer.

Music and creativity have always been "inspired" by what's come before. Only in the past 100 years have we had this legal system that crimnalizes some portion of that process. I think Larry Lessig is trying to point this out.

[Joe Porto]

Originally Posted by andsonic

Bach, Handel, Mozart, & Beethoven and others who followed were paid by patrons (governments, the church, nobility) to write great music. They were known to "quote" major portions of other composers' work as an homage, or just to finish their 45 min - 3 hour long piece.

Music and creativity have always been "inspired" by what's come before. Only in the past 100 years have we had this legal system that crimnalizes some portion of that process. I think Larry Lessig is trying to point this out.

That's because consumer recording and distribution has only been around for a little over 100 years.

The discussion is about SAMPLING ACTUAL RECORDED PRODUCTIONS in an attempt to "create" new content, it is not about performing the same musical movement.

[kats]

He has some good points and some bad points.

However, his analogy of trespass law and the aeroplane is invalid. The aircraft were not stealing the farmer's chickens and re-selling them elsewhere.

As far as copyright and commercial use is concerned...moot point. The private use of legally obtained copyright material has never been enforced - IE, you could photocopy a book (although strictly speaking it's illegal) and as long as you did not distribute or sell it, no one would bother you.

Artist's aren't worried about a guy duplicating a CD to tape, or mp3, or vinyl to mp3 of legally obtained material for personal use . They're concerned about wholesale ripoff and distribution.


The remix of "art" as the saviour of youth's creativity makes me laugh. I used to draw moustaches, cross-eyes, and devil horns on magazine pictures of famous people - an artist this does not make

Perhaps we should encourage these wondefully talented "animators" to collaborate with some equally talented music writers and really create something original. Why encourage laziness, especially if it's a non-profit endeavor created simply for it's own altruistic sake?

[Sui_City]

Originally Posted by kats

However, his analogy of trespass law and the aeroplane is invalid. The aircraft were not stealing the farmer's chickens and re-selling them elsewhere.

His analogy is not invalid, because it is not an analogy. There was a case made in a court with regards to the affect of airplanes on the owners' chickens.

The owners tried to use the property rights laws of the time to remedy their situation.

Not an analogy.

[Sqye]

Originally Posted by big country

If only more people did we would have some pretty fuc-in cool pianos

I know I have a couple interesting Ideas

lol. you said it.

.

[Sqye]

Originally Posted by andsonic

I don't know exactly where I fall in this debate. I just want to interject a little historical perspective:

Bach, Handel, Mozart, & Beethoven and others who followed were paid by patrons (governments, the church, nobility) to write great music. They were known to "quote" major portions of other composers' work as an homage, or just to finish their 45 min - 3 hour long piece. Heck, Handel took an entire song from another composer and inserted it into one of his most loved/respected works: "The Messiah". What happened? Handel got his paycheck from the King of England & some folks "in the know" checked out some tunes from an obscure (ripped off) italian composer.

Music and creativity have always been "inspired" by what's come before. Only in the past 100 years have we had this legal system that crimnalizes some portion of that process. I think Larry Lessig is trying to point this out.

this is what i'm getting from LL, as well.

.

[Clueless]

Originally Posted by Sui_City

His analogy is not invalid, because it is not an analogy. There was a case made in a court with regards to the affect of airplanes on the owners' chickens.

The owners tried to use the property rights laws of the time to remedy their situation.

Not an analogy.

And I suspect that for exactly the same reason some folks on this list don't accept the farmer's claims about their chickens, there are 100M+ kids out there who are having a difficult time understanding how it is that virtually everything in their experience, whether they eat it, wear it, use it, sing it, play it, or think it, is subject to somebody else's claim of creativity. What do you think a kid would have to do to rebel against that?

Again, neither Lessig nor I are talking about condoning the actual theft of CDs from stores, just like the Supreme Court would never have said "Plucking chickens off the farm to resell somewhere else? Well, if you're going to use an airplane to do it, I guess that's OK!". The question is--how far should the rights of the farmer's property extend--to the body of the chicken, the land on which the chicken feeds, or "all the way up beyond the sky". Surely some farmers were disappointed that their loss of air rights meant no great bonanza on selling complex overflight deals to the new airline industry, and it's never been easy to make a living as a farmer, but there you have it: a court decision to balance interests.

[pbell]

I thought the chickens and the airplanes was just trying to point out the phrase "common sense" revolts against the complaint saying that there would be so many lawsuits against airplanes and the fact that airspace could be sold to one airline but not another to travel in, it just doesn't make sense.

[Empty Planet]

??

Is this the line for Stones tickets???

???

[kats]

Quote: