how creativity is being Strangled by the law

[6dyslexicelephnt]

awesome argument. this guy sees clearly

please dudes can we not get into a retarded, generic political/philosophical argument in which both sides don't really know what they're talking about and aren't listening to eachother?

[loudmusic25]

Originally Posted by 3rd world order

all that legal stuff takes time, money, effort... which is why bit torrent will never die.

if they shut you down in one location then you just pop up in another... with a re-direct thru amsterdam.

eventually they get tired of chasing because it's ultimately futile.

if you dont care about money then there's nothing they can do.

if you want extremism i advocate dissolving all corporations and returning human responsibility to the marketplace... until then anarchy.

going after the lil guys is stupid... the problem comes from the top of the pyramid, not the bottom. i have no problem with ppl stealing from corporations.. they're all corrupt anyhow. amerika is the most corrupt nation on earth, take what you can get i suppose.

the corporation must be abolished before any real change happens... if you wanna focus your anger and resolve on something there it is.

I suppose this includes Gibson, Fender, Roland, Yamaha, MOTU, Avalon Universal Audio, Great River, along with all the companies making medicine that has saved countless lives. Or World Vision, which has provided food, medicine and housing to millions of people across the universe.

Your post is about the stupidest thing I've read on this forum. Ever.

Perhaps you'd like Stalin's version of free speech. A helluva lotta music came out of his non-corporate empire.

[vodka gimli]

amerika is the most corrupt nation on earth, take what you can get i suppose.

Nah. Some of us are still pretty good guys. Why, just today I helped out this kind and generous Nigerian fellow with his banking problem.

Oh....Can I steal your microphones and laptop?

I'm feeling creative.

[Sqye]

.

so, jooc, if america is the MOST corrupt nation in the world,
(and i'm not NECESSARILY disagreeing with you here),

then which, of the 194 nations, is the LEAST corrupt nation in the world?

jooc?

'cause i'd REALLY like to move there, except that i'm afraid it might be REALLY COLD
(just guessing what your answer might be.....)

.

[u b k]

i'm tempted to put up one of my songs in a remix contest with a decent cash prize and specific re-cycling requirements, just to see how well the folks in the 'sampling is not nor ever will be creative' camp do. presumably, if they can put their money where their mouth is, they will crush the competition merely by throwing their own authentically creative genius into such a decidedly second-rate hack-infested uncreative pursuit, all the while knowing none of the results will merit the badge of 'art'.

it's also fascinating to me how many people go ad hominem on lessig and completely sidestep anything substantive. i couldn't care less how much he actually knows about creative commons, or how tasteful his presentation is compared to jobs, because i'm not inclined to accept or reject an idea based on its source.

i believe this guy is touching on something truly important, and the force of the responses here would seem to support that. that alone is enough to merit a discussion of the message rather than the messenger. i appreciate those who are weighing in on the dirt, whether or not i agree with you... lots of perspectives here that got me thinking in all kinds of directions.

thanks .


gregoire
del
ubk
.

[Sqye]

Originally Posted by dissolva

"copying" is not and will never will be the same as true creativity.

speaking of the "issue", why don't you give an example of "true creativity", then.

just so we can ascertain here that MOST people are not capable of this -
simply because the logistics are nearly impossible.

.

[3rd world order]

Originally Posted by Sqye

speaking of the "issue", why don't you give an example of "true creativity", then.

just so we can ascertain here that MOST people are not capable of this -
simply because the logistics are nearly impossible.

easy.

"true" creativity is a jackson pollock painting

until he came along everyone else was just dripping paint

[Sqye]

.

so he took us from dripping to angrily heaving?

nice. lol. ok, i'll buy THAT for a dollar. ...


next?

.

[3rd world order]

Originally Posted by Sqye

nice. lol. ok, i'll buy THAT for a dollar. ... next?

talent borrows, genius steals.

[Sqye]

Originally Posted by 3rd world order

talent borrows, genius steals.

touche....but what about me? i'm BUYING.....i guess i'm the audience...

.

[3rd world order]

Originally Posted by Sqye

touche....but what about me? i'm BUYING.....i guess i'm the audience...

just remember, when you're getting the best entertainment $1 can buy, that the rotten fruit you throw to exercise your displeasure could feed starving ppl in afrika...

[ALL*MYTEE]

Originally Posted by u b k

it's also fascinating to me how many people go ad hominem on lessig and completely sidestep anything substantive. i couldn't care less how much he actually knows about creative commons, or how tasteful his presentation is compared to jobs, because i'm not inclined to accept or reject an idea based on its source.

gregoire
del
ubk
.

Hi Gregoire,

Just for the record, I enjoy your posts describing monitor qualities, among other things.
But I completely disagree with you on this one. Lessig offers nothing substantive--none of his examples have or ever would make money for the creators. Why didn't he at least pick De la Soul--or one of the numerous instances where the re-created work is more valuable at the time than the original. It's also easy to say that others offer nothing substantive, but I don't see any facts or depth in your own post. Many here on the "pro" side seem to be content to hang their agreement on Lessig's rather weak examples and arguments.

None of Lessigs examples would be worth watching without the value created by the original artists. At least when De La sampled the Turtles, the Turtles were worthless (Goodwill, .10 for the whole album) and De La were one of the most valuable and innovative (and valued) artists currently practicing (as determined by those who judge all financial value--the consumers.

In philospophy, what Lessig is doing is called a straw man argument. You erect something tangential, flimsy and only partially relevant and then blow it out of the water to try to prove a larger, but ultimately unrelated, point. The truth remains that these teenaged mashup YouTube goofs are not what are or will be moving western culture forward. People won't buy them and the only one that gets any money from them is YouTube. I don't think anyone sees them as at risk or a danger. Is ASCAP even going after them?

Would it matter if the world had no Donna Summer/Jesus in diapers getting hit by a truck mash-ups? Yo can say it's art, but me having a F*&^ing Lexus and a pair of Ausburgers would ba art too--so either Lessig has to be a dictator or I do. Otherwise, we have freedom and empowered individuals who are free to negotiate how what they produce will be used. When you buy a song it says in the contract you agree to that you will only use it in certain ways. These so-called "artists" are violating those contracts that they freely agreed to. Artists don't have to make available every possible use of their work. They don't owe us their songs and videos. Similarly, an inventor doesn't have to make available every use of his or her invention. They can sell different uses for different amounts to different people. This not only protects their human rights but allows cultural, technological and financial value to grow at a more rapid rate than it would otherwise.

I'm a little surprised a guy with a job like Lessig has the time to find this drek. I guess he gets paid to do so. Not a bad gig all things considered. If I had it I'd argue for it and me looking deeper into it as well. :)

If an artist makes something valuable with pre-recorded work, they can always cut a deal. I wouldn't call the authors of these videos artists and I wouldn't call their work culturally very valuable. Neither would the market. Neither does the public. You can't go to Wal Mart and buy a "Best of 2007 You Tube Funnies" DVD. Cause no one would. Why the F$#@ shouldn't James Brown get paid for the Funky Drummer if it's the beat for 200 new songs?

The Creative Commons is already available for any artists who choose to use it--what Lessig and many of the posters here seem to want to do is RETROACTIVELY apply weakened copyrights to OTHER people's very valuable work. Which is a rip-off--as those people have already agreed to the terms under which they would sell their work. This is why so many people here chime in saying things like Lessig's argument is just a bunch of kids who want to justify all the MP3s and MPGs that they've already stolen. Which is what it often seems to be to be honest. I don't often see someone saying I never download but I think copyrights should be weakened. You may not feel like upholding the contract you agreed to when you bought a song or video--but so the f&^% what? I don't feel like paying my rent. Tough toenails, dude. Having people that are worth their word and live up to the contracts they freely agreed to are an essential part of enjoying a peaceful and orderly society. Go try to start a business in India and then come back and tell me you don't like all the rules and regulations here. Or that creativity is being "strangled" by copyright laws.

You won't find any copyright laws being enforced in China or Turkmenistan--but you don't see many artists moving there do you? No, people risk their lives to get here--legally, ilegally--any way they can. I had people in Egypt offering to marry me (she was actually quite beautiful) to get out of the country. Imagine what that would mean--never seeing your family or friends again--and then ask yourself what relaxing the rule of law and an individual's protections really means.

Hell--go try to drive four miles in India and come back and tell me you don't understand how valuable even our traffic laws are. (Just for the record, I truly love India for reasons other than their legal system and business climate. That doesn't mean that they're not f(*&ed in a number of ways, though--including the caste system, their treatment of women and girls, etc. etc.)

If you want to use Creative Commons--then by all means do so--no one is stopping you. Anyone is free to give THEIR OWN work away. But why try to weaken copyrights that protect artists who don't want to be a part of it? Lessig is a cultural critic--an armchair thinker, not a creator. Why should we grant him authority to rule over the many artists who have fought tooth and nail to protect their copyrights and their work? And tel me why this wouldn't make him (and everyone who agreed to it) fascists--or at best authoritarian socialists or "vanguard" communists?

Why should one person ever labor and take risks to enrich someone else when they don't want to? (In the cases of welfare and other government benefits--we agree to those as a group through representatives and have protections to not make it impact any one individual disproportionately. Though it certainly raises similar issues.)

Just saying that it's a complex topic and that inspirations and influences are difficult to determine doesn't mean that it's not incredibly valuable--both financially, creatively and culturally--and/or morally right to have strong protections for an individual's unique creations. Technology and culture flourish where they enjoy the strongest protections. Just like bank accounts flourish where they enjoy the lowest taxes and monthly service charges. Just like corruption and authoritarianism flourish wherever people allow fuzzy thinking and questionable behavior to slide.

If past artists should be forced to add to your artistic and financial value without being compensated and without agreeing to it, then why wouldn't that be authoritarianism? If they should, then how is that any different than me flipping burgers and not getting paid for part of what I do? Or slavery where people are physically forced to add to the value of others? Or inventing something and getting ripped off? Or A songwriter getting a song stolen and changed and not getting credit? Or having a verbal contract with someone and spending time and money based on what you think they will do and then having them change their mind, flake out and you losing money?

I don't see any determinant difference.

The question is: does the second artist make something more valuable through the combination or is the second creation relying on the value of the original to carry it? The first is De La Soul, or Kanye West--the second is these You Tube goofs. The market is very clear about which it values and which it doesn't. One is free and happens to sell a few ads when people hunt for better stuff, the other makes millions and people around the world crave it constantly.

If the second artist makes something more valuable, then he or she and the first artist are free to negotiate for the use of the first artists' creation. If the first artist thinks that their contribution is worth more than it really is, then the second artist is free to show him or her that it isn't--by replacing it or cutting it out. It's the same as a business firing an expensive employee who loses them money.

It's simple math.

Interestingly, I agree with 3rd World's last post on this one. Like Leadbelly said--if you want it you've got to f*&^ing steal it. Be a F*&^ing man--own up to what you've done and face any and all consequences--legal, moral, financial and social. If an artist really wants to push the culture forward, this is what it takes. Going headfirst into what society most fears--but secretly wants. It's not a job for the faint of heart and it's never going to be approved or socially acceptable. Which is why I know that indie rock is dying--because it's it's own very powerful culture now and is completely socially acceptable within that culture. To change, artists will have to leave that comfort and go out and explore. And they'll be hailed as heros when they succeed. Or they'll die failures. :) That's par for the course in art.

The state is never going to say "it's okay" before the brutal work is done. Mommy and Daddy are never going to say it's cool. Your buddies are not going to get it. Moving the culture forward isn't anything that one can do by following "approved" paths. This is what Jesus meant when he said if you don't hate your family--don't follow me. He meant that you have to love so much that you hate all that's already been done as a dirty, dingy diving board. And you've got to want to fly (or hit that water) more than anything. Lessig wants it all to be okay beforehand. The truth is you have to take your influences and reconstitute them--make them your own and man up. (Or woman up.)

You have to own them. Take full responsibility artistically, legally, and financially for any and all repercussions.

Become an authority. Your own authority.

If you become one more valuable than the existing authority, people will follow you--and what you have to say will be absorbed. Just like they have valuable artists for years.

If not then you fail.

But the road will never be paved. If a construction company had already been there--if permission had already been granted--you wouldn't be doing anything new.

That's why art is dangerous and politics is safe.

Which is why great art is universally powerful, efficient and effective and politics is (for the most part) universally weak, inefficient and relatively ineffective. The good that politics does is usually from pressure outside the system. (But not always. Neither is art's power universally beneficial from any individual standpoint.)

Great art isn't kids stuff. And it's not going to be made okay or "allowed" by the creation of new laws.


>>>

On the whole corruption thing--I live in Chicago where it's literally corrupt and cops beat people, steal and sell drugs, shake down hookers for blowjobs, etc.. And politicians give their positions to their kids who are only marginally qualified. And, interestingly, the Democrats preside over it all.

And I'll still say that we in the developed world have it so good we don't even know. And that it's ignorance mixed with a fluffy and intellectually lazy luxury to call the US the most corrupt nation in the world. We may be sold out *****s iwhen viewed from certain angles, but the free speech we take for granted wouldn't be tolerated by OUR FAMILIES in most places in the world, let alone the government, the police or anyone else.

We have the luxury to sit on the newest computers and type whatever we want at the moment. Try that in China. Then imagine what actually standing up and criticizing a governmental policy would get you. You can work at a Starbucks and get health insurance with blue hair and piercings. You'd be unceremoniously thrown out of most traditional societies for less than half that.

In rural India, the police and government regularly and continually require bribes and shake people down. In Chicago, as wack as it is, it's still--usually--the exception--and the bad guys still--often--get caught. In India it is common that female children are fed less food than male children, many wives are forbidden to leave the house except to gather water. This is seen as a sign of status. In Saudi Arabia, women are sentenced to beatings for being raped. --For "asking for it".

It's fun to throw around superlative and extreme statements, but if it has no basis in reality, it seems a little disrespectful to people who are actually up against real corruption. In places like Burma the government will take you out and murder you, no problem. Try getting a fair trial (or election) in Pakistan. Or Iran. Or North Korea. Or any of the places where no matter how smart, talented or committed to human rights you are your voice means absolutely nothing if you aren't from the right family, a leader in the right church, the right gender, the right caste, or a member of the right political party. There's plenty of arbitrary violence in the world, and I'm not saying that the US isn't responsible for any of it. But if you want to talk substance and degree, let's do that. And probably in the Moan Zone.

Life is cheap in these places. And it's not here--no matter how we feel about our current government and the corporations that provide us with a first class standard of living. We are privileged to live under a well-designed and overwhelmingly fair system of government because of the struggles of generations and generations of people. Criticize what you want, but admit what you have and your words will have a lot more power.

Best,

[Sqye]

.

i'm not exactly sure what your point is, eben, but nice post.

.

[superjc]

1st of all the amount of people here seduced by communism is scary.

Great video.

John Phillip Sousa was right: America is a place where music is thought of as something that "other" people do. No more pianos in every home and slashing of music education has led to the masses accepting and adoring pure shit such as __________ (you fill in the blank, just turn on your radio)

[oudplayer]

Eben, watch out, you are treading the dangerous waters of making a relevant, intelligent, and well-thought out post.

[mtstudi@pacbell]

Originally Posted by pbell

Man this is great stuff! It really opened my eyes to looking at things from new angles. I do have a question which I must raise.

People use youtube.com as a means for distributing their "amateur" works. Now if my song is on these amateur works, I agree its no worries to me. But, youtube.com makes money off of the advertising on their website, people advertise on youtube.com because people are viewing the material. My works have now been made part of the viewing material - should I be compensated as a profit is being made?

Personally I figure if its amateur, I probably don't need to be, but if people are putting up music videos of something that has been done by an artist then some compensation might be required. This is probably a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo for lawyers to figure out, but an interesting question nonetheless.

Sorry if I kind of hijacked the thread, just my first reaction.

A good point that I have been pondering.

Blue Thumb Productions-Audio Production Facilities

[Sqye]

.

great. here comes appalachia, banjos in hand!

people, can we PLEASE remember that these examples are NOT mutually exclusive?!

so you're STILL free to bang on your old out of tune piano, if you prefer...




.

[drBill]

Originally Posted by oudplayer

Eben, watch out, you are treading the dangerous waters of making a relevant, intelligent, and well-thought out post.

Ditto. Thanks Eben. Its good to know there's someone out there with more than half a brain that can think, reason, and extrapolate that into a relevant position that relates to music and audio without just parroting back something they read on the internet. Bravo!!!

Makes me proud to be an American. Not the American that CNN and the news portrays to the world, but the ESSENCE of what America was founded on and is essentially all about. Sure, there's problems galore, but the stunning amount of people that want to immigrate here pretty much says it all. With all the complaining, I'm not seeing the rush to leave. It's not like people trying to get out of the USSR in the 70's......

And as for your thoughts on creative commons and Lessig, I think you pretty much nailed it.

Although slick and impressive on the outset, there was something kind of smarmy or fishy about his presentation. And I think I finally figured it out. A scientist (at least a good one) doesn't take a bunch of variables and put them to the test to prove his thesis. He (she) takes the facts and sees where it leads them in an ultimate search for truth, and THEN forms their thesis. I feel like Lessig is trying to prove his own agenda. And that leaves me unsettled and feeliing kind of dirty. It should have been obvious from the beginning when I heard that he was a lawyer.... (cheap shot, I know, but worth it!!!! )

Thanks for the post. I know it took a long time to type out. Great substantial deep thoughts.

bp

[EstateMatt]

a few NON TALKING POINTS to add. which leads me to my first point.

• If I've heard your argument before, please don't reiterate it in a derivative manner. Saying something twice doesn't make it twice as meaningful contrary to what you may have learned from ads between segments of lost. How do you know if I've heard it before? Well, I just ask that you take some caution. It's no hard and fast law. Saying something in a novel way might drive it home more. but calling it communism or fascism is noise not signal.

• I think this argument is framed poorly on both sides. The context we're arguing in is that music as either enslaved by FASCISM or devalued by COMMUNISM. Or it's somewhere between. If the logical conclusion of your argument ends on a point in this spectrum, you may want to rethink something.

• With regard to taking parts of things and mashing them up. Despite everyones agreed hatred of postmodernism, you can't say to me that a 10 second clip of Dr Phil berating the a guest spliced in with marilyn manson and george bush somehow gives away marilyn manson's music. To say that mashups are somehow stealing any part of the original is to say that your music is no more than the sum of it's parts. It's saying that if I rearrange a I Have a dream to say "I have a little sadly crippled negro boy" I'll get the same thing from it. It may be a comment on I have a dream. But it's worth zero dollars if sold as footage of the I have a dream speech. Limiting this NON STEALING ACT is literally limiting freedom of speech under guise of protecting it's value. This value is, at the very least, diminished by HUGE amount by placing it in another context. This is not a black and white issue but certainly youtube makes no money off the value of the original. rather it makes money from giving a space to create something new. (even if it is a boring and silly way to express one's self)

• I personally see mediums converging rather than traditions being somehow ruined. If your an artist relying on tradition, you're place is in museum gift shops. I truly believe that just as if I hear a pure rock record now and want to blow my head off, if I hear pure music in 20 years I will at least be conscious of the fact that its just pure music. You don't see interactive or multimedia installations being ripped off somehow. Both art and entertainment are as much a product of circumstance as they are of inspiration. Especially for a lot of the people on gearslutz (myself included) who just want to make the great american rock record. In ten years, our great american rock record will have the value of pottery or woodwork to most people. (to me it does now) Is it an art form? yes. But it's more craft that creativity. You may be able to make money at it, but usually not a living. (to me its like that now, it's just what I do for a living) Old things decrease in value. popular things decrease in value less.


• I'm no expert in the arts, but I've read about a movement lately in which sculptors create sculptures which are intentionally unsell-able. The idea is that it's an ultimate **** you to the gallery system which many artists see as disrespectful and hurtful. I don't understand the system enough to really interpret it literally, but I can certainly internalize it. I think it's proof that you don't need to be paid directly to make serious artwork. The world is changing and as musicians, we are artists first who chose the medium of vibrating air. As recording engineers, We choose the medium of recordable information. Recordable information can inherently be copied. No one chose to become an artist for the money.

• This one is more of a general "reason not to support labels" speech. Economically, the less original your music is, the less it's worth. Why? The infinite competition for being unoriginal drives the price of unoriginality down infinitely. One reason large labels are losing right now is because their business model is based on homogeneity. If theres one thing we can all agree upon it's that record labels are piddly little sacks of primordial ooze in the market of derivative drivel. Why? Because thats what the internet was made for! Myspace generates more boring drivel in a second than a label could in 20 years. so when you have the microsoft of myspace and the incumbant apple of the labels, your "great american rock record" is functionally worth zero dollars to me. Thats right Celine Dion's writers, there's a new entity in town which will do horrible for free.

[Sui_City]

I have said this before in other discussion related to this issue, and that is:

The thing, i personally believe, that Eben, Oud, DrBill, et al, are missing is the fact that this shit is changing no matter how hard you try to fight for your rights.

We've had a particular system that has run for a few decades. Some people have made money out of it. Some people have designed their business around it. The problem is is that the market and its expectations have changed.

So, using words like fascism, communism, theft, blah, blah, blah, does not change the fact that the market has changed and continues to do so. On this point i agree with EstateMatt. Those words are just noise.

No matter how sternly you insist on maintaining your view, the world around you is changing. You can have all the value judgements you want with regards to people's behaviour or opinion. But the truth is that the change has and is happening.

What i appreciate about Lessig's argument is that there would hopefully be some sort of middle ground.

I do believe that corporates, in their greed for every last dollar, have taken property rights too far. We all know that there are companies patenting ideas, not because they want to develop those ideas, but because they don't want someone else developing those ideas. And that is how law is stifling creativity.

Capitalism has benefitted some, and fukked up others. Same goes for communism, fascism, and a whole bunch of others isms.

We should be trying to look for a solution that benefits as many people as possible. That is where you will find a middle ground.

At least for a while.

0.02

[EstateMatt]

Originally Posted by Sui_City

The thing, i personally believe, that Eben, Oud, DrBill, et al, are missing is the fact that this shit is changing no matter how hard you try to fight for your rights.

because something is here to stay, does not mean that it's ethical. for that reason, this commonly used argument might not be too convincing.

[Clueless]

Originally Posted by ALL*MYTEE

[...]
Interestingly, I agree with 3rd World's last post on this one. Like Leadbelly said--if you want it you've got to f*&^ing steal it. Be a F*&^ing man--own up to what you've done and face any and all consequences--legal, moral, financial and social. If an artist really wants to push the culture forward, this is what it takes. Going headfirst into what society most fears--but secretly wants. It's not a job for the faint of heart and it's never going to be approved or socially acceptable. Which is why I know that indie rock is dying--because it's it's own very powerful culture now and is completely socially acceptable within that culture. To change, artists will have to leave that comfort and go out and explore. And they'll be hailed as heros when they succeed. Or they'll die failures. :) That's par for the course in art.

The state is never going to say "it's okay" before the brutal work is done. Mommy and Daddy are never going to say it's cool. Your buddies are not going to get it. Moving the culture forward isn't anything tha