how creativity is being Strangled by the law

[brokemusician3]

His analogies pretty much suck! They're B.S. that weakly support his socialistic views, I'll bet he has a ton of stolen music on his ipod.

Bottom line is Artists/musicians/studios/record companies make half as much money as they did before the piracy and the internet.

[Sqye]

Originally Posted by 3rd world order

i was going to say norway or iceland for least corrupt..

i KNEW it would be someplace cold!!!!

.....i guess it's not rocket science, is it?

.

[Sqye]

.

btw - i'm wondering if it's CREATIVITY that's strangling the LAW.....

......(lawyers mangling common sense and basic decency.....)...


.

[3rd world order]

Originally Posted by Sqye

i KNEW it would be someplace cold!!!!

yes but in the cold you can practice pranayama and dry your wet laundry outside..

[Sqye]

.

lol....bush should do summuh that sh&t......it might ground him a bit.

.

[Esurreal]

I agree with a lot of the things he said. I don't understand why our society can't adapt to fresh ideas and theories as a basis for new business practices rather than relying on outdated copyright laws. He never says that copyrights shouldnt be upheld. He just feels that creativity should sometimes be unattatched from the exchange of money and commerce and I couldn't agree more (as long as the secondary creator gives credit where credit is due).

Creativity is not only created by guitars and paint brushes. Photoshop is an excellent tool to be creative. If you don't understand that, then you have no right arguing about creativity. Using photoshop is the exact definition of creativity. There are amazing artists that use nothing but samples, and you would never know it. Amon Tobin comes to mind. The latest Panda Bear record comes to mind. Music and art are always evolving and the way they evolve is built upon new technology and older generations of music and art.

His video clips sucked. They were funny, but I don't think they were a good match for his arguement. He should have used music where the sample was not recognized as easily. He then could have gone back and pointed out where and what sample was used.

I think his point about artists letting their music be used for artistic reasons is very valid. To do this artists must own their own music. If some 15 year old kid wants to make a video using my song, thats ****ing awesome. He'll be doing something creative with a piece of my own creativity. I think that's awesome. Now, if he takes that video and sells it within the commercial market, I should be allowed to stop him or have him pay. I think that is what lessig is getting at.

As a musician on a record label, I have to say, that i've had enough of the record label industry. I'd like to see record labels act as nothing more than websites pooling together bands for people to download from. Once the distribution of artwork is figured out, I think we will see more of it. Art and music are going to open the doors to a new way of doing business within the internet. The only thing I'm scared of is the federal government taking control and setting us back even farther.

The whole radiohead donation thing is great. If you want to pay for it, you should. If I download a record and play it 3 times and then never listen to it again, why should I buy it. You don't go blindly into an art gallery and buy a painting only to take it home, open your eyes and find out you hate it. The internet has switched the tables on the record label industry. It allows the listener to hear the music and add value to it based on how it makes them feel rather than trying to justify the quality because 15 bucks was spent on obtaining it. Which is how I think it should be. If something impacts my life or stimulates me in a positive way, i'll be glad to buy it. But, I want to hear and test it first.

Also, if somebody downloads my record, likes it, comes to a show and buys the record or a shirt directly from me, I benefit 100 times more than I would if I sold it in a store. The age of the bedroom producer is coming baby! Can you feel it? Don't ya love it!

[lordmiguel]

I think RAP was the beginning of ruining it all for a lot of what Lessig is talking about. Then the coffin was nailed with file sharing technology and kids were running the candy store.

Paranoia set in - and it is not necessarily unjustified.

"Common sense" is hard to have after this period in music history. Some of his points regarding fair use are valid - but the devil is always in the details.

Instead of taking sides in an uninformed way - why not go to Creative Commons where he is indirectly plugging.

Would you give up the licenses / rights of your songs as laid out in this framework? Why and why not? Its a voluntary decision. If its an excellent idea artists would list their new works. If not.......then there's your answer.

Great tool for exposure of independent artists or wastefully giving away your ideas?

It probably is a bit too much to ask GS community to get informed, but then again that's not too new. C'mon, stop being lazy and get informed!

[u b k]

the guitar shred parodies that youtube yanked for fear of a lawsuit make lessig's point eloquently.

Banned From YouTube: Parody Guitar Videos | The Underwire from Wired.com

these things are hilarious, and dare i say more than a little creative. i remember when, once upon a time, satire was exempt from copyright and libel.


gregoire
del
ubk
.

[lucidproduction]

That Malmsteem parody is beyond hilarious. Couldn't be done to a bigger ******bag.

[BevvyB]

My favourite is Slash during this tour:

Shredded to a Pulp: Slash | Wired Video

[lordmiguel]

Originally Posted by u b k

i remember when, once upon a time, satire was exempt from copyright and libel

no, there is still a defined and sometimes fine (and challengeable) line

funny as it is, youtube has no responsibility to host this stuff on its servers.

it has its own unique set of circumstances (the "commercial" test in fair use copyright) that this guy wouldn't have if he published them on his own website

there is no inalienable right to have youtube host anything. the copyright act sec. 107, or even the first amendment for that matter, did not include youtube servers last time i checked.

[u b k]

Originally Posted by lordmiguel

funny as it is, youtube has no responsibility to host this stuff on its servers... there is no inalienable right to have youtube host anything.

agreed on those points, and for the record i never said or implied otherwise.

from my perspective youtube *was* hosting said material, and would still be doing so, if it weren't for the threat of lawsuits which, on their face, had potential merit. is that desirable for a culture that values free expression? the videos in question are not, imho, the kinds of things the original copyright law was designed to protect creators from. they don't in any way impinge on the commercial integrity or viability of the original songs, it doesn't reduce or divert anyone's revenue stream, it does not steal or plagiarize for commercial gain, nor does its existence have a cooling effect on the creation of new, original works.

otoh, this kind of satirical art is culturally relevant, creative, and --- in a lot of people's eyes --- hilarious. THOSE are the kinds of things i would like to see the law protect with at least as much force as it protects anything else, with a perspective that is fair and balanced. currently, the law embodies neither fairness nor balance when it comes to new media and new forms of expression.

copyright law is a bit of a dinosaur in a world of exotic and rapidly evolving mammals, and it seems as good a time as any for artists, publishers, and policymakers of all varieties to create a new system that is both fair and adaptable. that the law would favor yngwee malmsteen over the shredder parody guy is, imo, not in everyone's best interest.


gregoire
del
ubk
.

[lordmiguel]

Originally Posted by u b k

agreed on those points, and for the record i never said or implied otherwise.

cool.

Originally Posted by u b k

is that desirable for a culture that values free expression?

well that's a can 'o worms. i'm not 100% certain if we are really that culture anymore. or collectively if we even desire to be. i think we (americans anyways) value property over speech (eminent domain, anyone?) and I didn't really see people that moved over sending reporters to jail in the valerie plane scandal - all over an op ed in the times about an unfounded war. people clearly were more interested in Paris and Britney. we don't even read articles more than 200 words, so other than fighting for a nude chocolate jesus sculpture by an artist its hard to believe we are really prioritized on free speech.

Originally Posted by u b k

the videos in question are not, imho, the kinds of things the original copyright law was designed to protect creators from

yes, we are a "letter of the law" culture. in this case, such people will try to use it to avoid humiliation. i will say, i would be a hypocrite if i said i would not have done the same thing. so i'm not going to pass judgement. ironically we seem to have a great time with our humiliation witchunts on TV. quite dysfunctional.

Originally Posted by u b k

copyright law is a bit of a dinosaur in a world of exotic and rapidly evolving mammals, and it seems as good a time as any for artists, publishers, and policymakers of all varieties to create a new system that is both fair and adaptable.

i don't know how well the creative commons idea is working for artists, but i'm not going to touch the politics of intellectual property rights. mostly because i don't feel like hearing another 145 posts on file sharing.

Originally Posted by u b k

that the law would favor yngwee malmsteen over the shredder parody guy is, imo, not in everyone's best interest.

agreed.

[Bob Olhsson]

I have a big problem with the notion that copyright laws are outdated because there is nothing outdated about the idea of people being able to earn a living from charging for access to the things we create.

Technology is just being used as an excuse to rewrite the copyright laws in order to limit how much an individual can earn from selling recordings of their music. If you follow the money behind the rhetoric, it leads directly to the same small group of investment bankers who want to insert one of their pet technology corporations into the middle of every financial transaction between an artist and their fans.

Artists had to fight record labels for a hundred years in order to achieve what little they get today. Rolling the copyright laws back a hundred years in order to finance a new generation of record labels along with BMWs for their investment bankers is lots sleazier than the worst of what the labels have ever done.

[u b k]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

I have a big problem with the notion that copyright laws are outdated because there is nothing outdated about the idea of people being able to earn a living from charging for access to the things we create.

i don't believe anyone would disagree with you on that point. i believe the issue here is not that the very idea of copyright is outdated, just that the current implementation (in the states) 'protects' copyright holders from situations which didn't exist when the laws were written, situations which don't actually merit the kinds of protection the law affords.

this youtube/shredder parody is one such example, it involves form of creative expression that would have been rare and exotic when the laws were drafted, but is common as hen's teeth today. i believe these new forms of expression deserve to be protected too.

at the very least, it seems like a good time to examine the fair use exemption and create a framework within which more expression is encouraged for more people, while also protecting the fundamental interests of *all* creators, financial and otherwise.

the investment banker hypothesis feels a bit too x-files for me, and even if it's all true, it doesn't mitigate the existence of other, equally legitimate complaints about the current state of affairs.


gregoire
del
ubk
.

[lordmiguel]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

Technology is just being used as an excuse to rewrite the copyright laws in order to limit how much an individual can earn from selling recordings of their music.

Hi bob, you know what, i was glad to see with the hollywood writers' strike that the public opinion seemed generally amenable to the concept of writers getting paid what they deserve in the face of changing technology.

I think that sends the right signal to the interested parties in our industry, and personally am not quite as paranoid as I was before. Not that ascap and BMI are unions per se, but i am comforted by what happened there.

[ALL*MYTEE]

Some of y'all are getting creative with the legal system. A creative legal system is like a rational song--not worth a shit.

Sampling has already been decided as an issue. If someone chooses to sample, they must get the sample cleared with the owner. This has been well established in legal precedent. The technology involved has nothing to do with it--if it's easy or hard doesn't matter. Hip-hop already went through this--with people making much better art and with much more disposable and forgotten original samples that today's "mash-up" artists.

Here's the dealeo..

An artist creates new material.

A designer reworks existing material.

The best designers come close to artistry and the best artists are great designers, but only artists move the culture forward.

There is, in my opinion, a very, very slim third category that lives between the two for artists like De La Soul--who made something new and moved the culture forward by using old material. They are the huge exception and most artists using other people's samples use them as a crutch. I believe they are also only relevant at very certain times in history--now NOT being one of them.

And I still believe that this third group should have to negotiate copyright clearances. Or, if they choose not to (and anyone is free to violate any law at any time)--face the repercussions.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is just looking for some powerful material to parasite off. This isn't 1988 and you're not De La Soul. Sampling and mash-ups are more played out every day. And if you're not going to make something more valuable than what's already out there, then you're just a drag on the culture. Forcing better artists to spend time dealing with your petty theft and preventing them from doing what they do best--making more culture.

In the rare event that you are one of the few that will make something better with someone else's materials--shut the f*&k up and go do it. Be a f*&^ing man and stop expecting the law to make it okay to do your art. If you really are that great, then maybe they'll change the law for you. Or you'll sell enough off the controversy to pay for the legal bill.

If you're waiting for mommy an daddy to make it okay to lazily sample some crap so you can be a lazy artist, you will be waiting a long, long time.

As Leadbelly said to Woodie Guthrie:

'I'm not going to teach you that lick--if you want it you're going to have to steal it.' Art isn't about being nice--if you've got to do something go do it. There isn't any law or authority that can stop you. Stop being a internet forum victim and do it already. Creativity isn't being strangled and to suggest it is is fuc&ing idiotic. There are more artists practicing than at any time in history. And most of them blow.

If you've got something to say, who can stop you? Who's stopping you? No one. Say it.

My suspicion is that most who argue for weaker copyrights just don't have anything to say that hasn't already been said. And they want to have someone else saying it in their work to sound cool or whatever--or even more likely, so they don't have to make themselves vulnerable and take risks--as expressing who THEY really are would do. It's easier for the fearful artist to express with canned beats and homoginized and mediated words. Like making a collage out of magazines because you're afraid you don't draw very well.

If you want to make great art at this point in history, you're going to have to be a man. Or a woman.

Suggesting that someone enforcing the copyright on something they produced infringes upon your god-given creativity is being a child.

And means that your art will suck.

Since your art sucks, they will never come after you--you can make all the bad art with other people's sounds that you want. Cause they'll never care.

Or you can sit around on internet chat boards and complain until someone makes a genius song for you.



PS: Someone mentioned creative commons--total bul(*&t. There's even a cliche about how inefficiently and poorly commons serve people's needs. It's called: The Tragedy of the Commons. Great research for any budding socialists. (Or just check into how many citizens are satisfied with life in Cuba).

Zzzzz

[Bob Olhsson]

Making your own video and putting it up is expression and perfectly legal but putting up somebody else's video without permission is copyright infringement.


What's so complicated about that?

[henryrobinett]

I finally watched it. It was quite good. He presented the arguments very well. I completely disagree with his conclusions.