is the EFF enough?

The EFF's piece on the DMCA's unintended consequences is both thorough and well-arranged, but it's exhaustive bark unfortunately yields no bite.  This collection of evidence against the DMCA is obviously well thought-out and comprehensive, yet he provides no counter-arguments or evidence and proposes no changes.  In fact, given the meticulous examples, reading through the document left me with a regrettable "who cares" attitude on my part.  I don't think the DMCA thwarting kids who want to do things such as hack into a beach volleyball video game so that their characters are naked goes very far to problematize the legislation.  The EFF's piece seems like empty muckraking, though I do believe completely that the DMCA is thwarting free expression, scientific research, and fair use (among other things).  With new media and technology evolving so rapidly and the resultant gap between legislators and innovation, I think the laundry list of negative side effects listed by the EFF is only a ripple in the unfortunate pond of copyright law and the firewall therein.

Betamax precedent--no longer applicable?

I have to admit that I was rather shocked when our guest speaker nullified the precedent established by the Betamax case. Upon further research of the dispute, it seems to have sufficiently protected the rights of those allegedly violating copyrighted material. Specifically, the concepts of librarying and time-shifting would appear to apply directly to the digital domain. Is the precedent really no longer applicable in the legal realm, or was it simply a matter of opinion?

same, same, same..

As we have seen various times throughout the course, Bollier's "Brand Name Bullies" asks the same questions and discusses the same topics that have been debated time and time again. And once again we can see that no one seems to have the answer to any of these questions. He introduces various different law suites throughout the course of his writing, from the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers who decided it was necessary for summer caps and girl and boy scouts to pay royalties for common and traditional songs they were singing. Although many of the lawsuits, such as this one, sounds completely ridiculous, they all ask many important questions in the world of intellectual property. For example, "what constitutes a private performance?", "Where is the line between being "inspired" by someone's work to "stealing" from someone's work?" And at the same time, demonstrates how hardly anything is unchanging in the world of copyrights and trademarks. Shifts are always taking place. The definitions of "authorship," "original," and "appropriation" are constantly changing, leaving us constantly questioning what is legal and what isn't. Seems it's always better to be safe than sorry, as proven by the example using Andy Warhol.

It seems like this may all be getting way out of hand. I understand companies want the rights to the hard work they have put into their creations, but how much do these companies actually lose compared to what society gains? It needs to be put into perspective. We really need to see what is really worse: less strict copyright laws and more freedom of creativity-- possibly detracting many financial gains from the producers of ideas OR less freedom of creativity due to stricter IP Laws and more financial gains for the producers of ideas. Whatever it be, a decision needs to be reached soon-- before more people are sued for things they had no idea they could be sued for. For creating a statue of a photography on a postcard? For creating fictional lives for Disney characters?

Positivity

I loved Lessig’s analysis the varying effects on commerce in Free Culture. Here, he is primarily looking at peer-to-peer file sharing. As he points out, not all forms of infringement have negative effects and the entertainment industry, therefore, cannot reasonably accuse peer-to-peer file sharing for all the hills of the industry. For example, in situations where a copyright holder as chosen to make their content freely available in the Internet, files sharing can serve as a promotional tool. Especially if there isn’t a large budget to get the word out, people who wouldn’t have purchased it, now serve as free advertisements through word of mouth; perhaps the price of getting it for free. The power of word of mouth in a market place so hopelessly cluttered with cultural products cannot be underestimated. Consumers trust each other more than anything. Frankly, it almost seems unfair that the entertainment industry should think that this publicity should be free for them while the consumer pays for it. There are always going to be people who just cannot afford to purchase cultural products, now with file sharing, it’s possible that they have opened up an entirely new market segment. The people who previously wouldn’t have been able to participate in the commercial fanfare can now do so and unquestionably encourage people who CAN afford it to spend more money in the cultural marketplace.

With all these unending questions, I was reassured by Lessig’s recognition that “balancing has historically been done after a technology has matured, or settled into the mix of technologies that facilitate the distribution” (78).

BRIANA BERRY

"Bullies"

"Bullies succeed by intimidation. When they do not encounter resistance, they push as hard and as far as they can. In copyright and trademark law, large corporations, famous personalities, and well-heeled law firms have prevailed for too long precisely because the public does not have much of a role in writing the law, does not know the rights it may have, and does no have the legal resources to fight back."

-David Bollier, Brand Name Bullies

This quotation from Brand Name Bullies nearly sums up most of Ray Beckerman's main points last week. In fact, Beckerman even told us that he became an copyright/file sharing suit lawyer because he hated bullies and learned how to fight them off at an early age. I found the issue of "bullying" in the IP realm, discussed by both Bollier and Beckerman, incredibly frustrating. Why aren't more people fighting back against these bullies? According to Bollier and Beckerman, the answer to this question is simple: the don't have the resources (economic, legal, intellectual). Furthermore, Beckerman noted that the only people that are fighting back are the people with the fewest resources. But, does anyone have the resources to go up against the large corporations and famous personalities illustrated by Bollier? I certainly would not want to be at the other end of a lawsuit with Disney, McDonalds, or the RIAA. It doesn't seem fair that these corporations have nothing to lose, and can only gain, when the file a lawsuit, yet the person on the other side has everything to lose. 

Parody and Postmodernism

I found Bollier's discussion of parody and post-modernism in Chapter 2 of Brand Name Bullies to be particularly enlightening because I had, up until this point, taken fair use's protection of parody for granted.  I figured its defense would be obvious, and that people would in fact want their work to be parodied to promote discussion and the spreading of ideas.  Have I learned nothing so far? ;)  Obviously this is not the case.  It would make sense that today, with IP lawsuits being thrown around left and right, that artists who create a parody of another work would have to jump through a million hoops to prove their "innocence" in copyright infringement.  Bollier mentions that parody can be easily mistaken for piracy in the courtroom, especially if a judge misses a parody's subtlety or slyness.  But this is particularly problematic when one considers the tradition of postmodernism that many artists adhere to, which is "heavily dependent upon the practice of Appropriationism, which gives contemporary art its unique and irreverent flair.  To the law, appropriation is simply copyright infringement, for which only minor exceptions are allowed through the doctrine of fair use" (Bollier 43).  It's a real shame that this is so.

The (Un)Rivalry of Copyright

"He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me." Thomas Jefferson.

Jefferson's claim in this immortal quote was quite advanced for its time; Jefferson wrote during the dawn of Adam Smith's revolution of the field of economics, demonstrated in The Wealth of Nations; acknowledged as the nascence of modern economics. Smith gave rise to conceptions of monopoly power (which the world had seen manifested during this point in time in the form of greedy booksellers), division of labour (sic), and the modern free market and "invisible hand" theories, but little---if any---attention up until this point had been devoted to distinguishing between types of goods and services.

As such, Jefferson's quote seems especially preternatural and almost anachronistic when viewed in its context. Jefferson had outlined one of the most salient elements of contemporary copyright law: the notion of rival goods versus non-rival goods.

Yes, Jefferson illuminates (pun intended) this concept in far more eloquent language than an average economist ever could, but the crux of his argument is that thoughts, ideas, and what would come to be known as "intellectual property" are non-rival goods. Sharing my knowledge, intellect, and thought with others in no way extinguishes my own knowledge, intellect or thought. In fact, we can undoubtedly assert that the Founding Fathers had intended for discourse and debate to take place in order to FURTHER insights and knowledge.

Jefferson's foresight is a testament to his own brilliance when we examine the role intellectual and copyright law played during the 18th Century. According to Lawrence Lessig's "Free Culture", "In the last three hundred years, we have come to apply the concept of 'copyright' ever more broadly. But in 1710, it wasn't so much a concept as it was a very particular right. The copyright was born as a very specific set of restrictions: It forbade others from reprinting a book" (87).

The specificity of 1710 no longer exists, especially within the realm of intellectual property law. We have witnessed, especially following the 1998 passage of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a hodgepodge of new approaches, techniques, and minutiae devoted to a clandestine strengthening of copyright and intellectual property regulations. We have entered an era rife with scrupulous decision-making, made at the hands of special-interested lobbying groups, and corrupt corporations. And as these politics occur, we find ourselves increasingly
far removed from the original intentions and sentiments of Thomas Jefferson.

We can only wonder, breathless in awe, at what Mr. Jefferson would say right now about lighting his taper.

rewrite the law

While reading Lessig's Free Culture this week I realized,a again, that copyright is problematic and misunderstood since its original creation date and derived from its shaky creation grounds. Since the 1800s, copyright law has been misunderstood, unexplained, and puzzling. It has been continuously changed in order to adjust to the needs and wants of the rich and of the leading institutions. It has since its orginal creation date, given rights to distribution companies and publishing companies, leaving independent artists with little freedom of expression, limiting artistic expression instead of enhancing it.
I believe in order to fix the problems it is extremely important, like any other case, to consider the root of problems, how it was funded, and work from there. If we analyze the problem in the case of copyright, we see that it was created to fit the needs of book publishing companies and has been unfortunately transformed in unfair ways to fit the quickly evolving technologies. In order to make the changes necessary, one needs to rewrite the law, adjusting the necessary requirements of today's needs and growing technological changes.

The two contrasting examples that Lessig gives concerning the acquisition of copyright permission are astounding. I couldn't believe how much Fox was asking for the 4 second clip of the Simpsons. They're taking advantage of the fact that "fair use" is fuzzy and that no one is going to risk going up against their lawyers. It's such a corruption; and such a good example for Mr. Beckerman's indignation over the people who don't fight, they just accept. But it's such an expensive fight that who can blame them? Then there was the example of Alben's compilation of Clint Eastwood works. I think it's just disgusting that it took him an entire year just to get the rights. As Lessig says, it just shows how difficult and expensive the process is even when it's being done by an efficient team of people who know what they're doing. The amount of people who are excluded from the use of material because they don't have the resources seems like a disenfranchisement to me.

File Sharing

The readings regarding file sharing were interested in that they not only advocated for allowing files to be made available online but they also suggested means of instituting a regulated system for file sharing. I generally thought of the free culture movement as one operating more around the idea of freeing up the commons without any sort of regulation involved. I was surprised too this suggestion of regulation. That being said, I don't know that I support it. The authors were quick to cite radio as a system of cultural exchange in which music made available for free to listeners. The authors suggested licensing music to file sharing services and allowing users to download by paying a service fee or via government regulation and taxation. I have some problems with this. Firstly, radio is supproted via corporate advertisement and I'd rather see a system supported in that fashion than one I'd have to pay for. I suspect however that if advertisers can't utilize this medium they might side with the music corporations in keeping it down. This would be a major means of consuming culture free of advertising which would be against their interests. Though premium offerings like XM radio and cable TV exist, they are paid, premium alternatives to free media supported by corporate advertising. If there is no precedent for a premoum medium like there was in TV or radio I wonder if this might not cause a problem. Secondly in my mind, file sharing is very different from radio because the content is kept. If I hear a song on the radio it is ephemeral, a song I download over the internet is not. This is a major difference in my mind. Radio is a way of means of gaining exposure for music that people will probably buy. I agree that many people do use file sharing as a means of trying music before buying it but unlike radio this music remains in their possession after the initial sampling. I think more research needs to be done regarding the habits of file sharers. If people really do go on to buy entire albums after sampling music then perhaps government involvement might mean limiting downloads of tracks from a particular album to a certain number. I also still stand my claim that file sharing should always remain free and that advertisers should come on board if necessary to fund it.

can they be stopped?

The heading can they be stopped refers to both the pirates out there as well as the "brand name bullies." First of all, after reeding Roth's "the pirates can't be stopped," the thought that young students can hack into the MediaDefender's system is hard to fathom. Although, it could clearly can and did happen, it makes you wonder about how one is protected in other aspects if large systems could be hacked. Also, it makes you wonder how easy it is for pirates to make the contents available to us and if so, then should more be done to protect certain works? I'm not sure, but it is definitely important to see all sides taken on piracy and who may actually be the pirates (in this case people who you would never expect to be). On another note, in Brand Name Bullies, Bollier says,"But in actual practice, no one creates a new song out of thin air. Virtually every new creation draws in varying degrees upon musical tradition and the larger culture sometime in highly specific ways. All creators depend upon a cultural commons for inspiration, imitation, and derivation. " (Bollier, 17)
This makes me wonder where the line is drawn, and if there is not a clear line how do people know what is stealing and what is acceptable. Something should be done to make it more clear. Aside from this, I think that it is funny that ASCAP went after the girl scouts and in the end did not want bad press, thus stopping their demand and allowing them to sing the songs as a "privilege" but not by law. What I don't understand is that this is the argument made when we were talking about the gridlock problem and why certain drugs are being prevented and the notion of bad press. Apparently in the case where people's lives would be changed or saved this does not apply but it does when talking about the girl scouts? I don't get it.

shakespeare the thief.

In the introduction to Bollier's book, he brings up the often sited case of Shakespeare stealing from Ovid, Ovid stealing from the tale of Pyramis and Thisbe and all of the poachers who've captured the work since.  This classic example, while being completely cliche, even after only three or four weeks of this class, is for me the quintessential issue of the copyright debate.  No one creates out of nothing, there is no void to come up with songs and literature and paintings from.  Everything is influenced by something and we aren't allowed to create form this aforementioned something than we are all screwed.  No one can create and not be influenced by something.  I could create a wonderful musical masterpiece based on this girl I saw on the subway and instantly fell in love, and could be sued for copying or stealing from her image or some such nonsense.  This is all it is.  Nonsense.  And we'd be better off forgetting it.

Following Beckerman...

Following our guest lecturer on Thursday, I was left with several thoughts and unanswered questions. First, Ray Beckerman's thoughts on "file sharing" intrigued me. His points further emphasized the lag between developing technology and developing law to cover emerging products and their potential or "available" uses. Someone in class brought up the Universal City Studios v. Sony Betamax case, which I thought was pertinent to discussion despite what Mr. Beckerman had said. He claims that case doesn't relate "at all" to the issues surrounding file sharing. On the contrary, I believe it does. Consumers are getting busted for file sharing. Many of the cases concern simply downloading songs on the internet for a consumer's own pleasure of listening to a song without having to pay for it. Universal City Studios claimed that the Betamax was a technology promoting violation of copyright because that technology had the capability of being used to do so. Aren't the issues surrounding systems such as LimeWire the same? Why wouldn't Beckerman take that case into account and apply it to file sharing? Most consumers simply download only to listen, and many are often not aware that when they download a song for listening, that file is then open to be shared with others. Like Beckerman said, there is nothing bad about "sharing" and the word "file" does not hold any legal weight.

Second, I would like to bring up the issues concerning musicians and rights to their songs. Beckerman said there are really only four major companies pursuing legal action against file sharing consumers (I'm assuming Sony BMG, Universal, Warner and EMI). Musicians know that their profit margin on their songs and albums are extremely slim (somewhere between $0.35 and $0.75 per song). Their big time profit making comes from endorsements, concerts and appearances, not from the sale of albums themselves. The sale of albums and platinum titles simply mark popularity and success, but are not the sole avenues of success itself. I understand that bands would want to sign with a major record company that could ensure proper marketing and opportunity not to mention the rights to songs. But musicians also know that whatever they make will be put out into the open for free downloading anyway. So then why is it imperative for bands to sign contracts issuing coverage by a major record label? Why wouldn't more bands go independent? Why not take out the corporate middle man who essentially pockets a large percentage of the profits anyway?

Thin Mints for the Right to Sing

In Bollier’s Brand Name Bullies, he beings chapter one with now semi-infamous story concerning ASCAP’s attempts to ban the Girl Scouts from singing numerous songs on the basis that the songs were still technically under copyright and the camps were not paying big blanket fees to cover this “copyright infringement.” Soon after ASCAP began attacking the Girl Scouts, the battle between ASCAP and Girl Scouts exploded. Realizing how badly this was affecting ASCAP’s image, they backed off, but “did not conceded any legal ground. The free singing of songs by the Girl Scouts remains an ASCAP granted indulgence, not a legal entitlement” (Bollier 16-17).

The idea that the Girl Scouts today can “get away” with singing copyrighted songs is a privilege bestowed upon by ASCAP sounds ridiculous to me. It makes me think of an authority figure saying, “[Activity X] is a privilege, not a right.” In this scenario, it seems ASCAP is simply trying to make money songs that are nowadays, basically not profitable. I mean how often does someone pay royalties to use “This Land is Your Land” or “Puff the Magic Dragon?” I’m guessing not many. The Girl and Boy Scouts, like Bollier points out, probably help keep these songs, that would’ve otherwise be forgotten, alive; so really, the Girl & Boy Scouts could be helping generate future revenues for ASCAP by keeping the songs alive. All in all, this move by ASCAP only succeeded in making them looking greedy and selfish.

But on the other hand, maybe they only wanted to be paid in more Girl Scout cookies....

Bollier and Warhol

I was particularly interested by Bollier’s discussion of Andy Warhol. Of all our readings, the example of Andy Warhol’s art stands alone in that huge companies were allowing someone else to profit off from their trademarks. It’s hard to imagine anybody rejecting the opportunity to have Warhol incorporate their brand images into his work, considering the immense upside. Not only were his works incredible advertisements for these companies, but Warhol was also paying them.

Warhol is always categorized as an artist, but why not ever as a freelance graphic designer? Looking back on past experiences working at creative and marketing agencies, I don’t see much of a difference between the creative work that goes into creating product packaging and advertisements, and the work of Andy Warhol. Even so, unlike Warhol, marketing creatives are never regarded as artists in the true sense, despite their work being equally commercial in nature.

IP APPLIED (Couldnt post) "Flash of Genius"

Flash of Genius is due in theaters a week from Friday. Flash of Genius, based on a true story, tells the story of Robert Kearns' battle with Ford over the invention of the windshield wipers. The tagline is fothe film is "Corporations have time, money, and power on their side. All Bob Kearns had was the truth." After bringing his invention of the windshield wipers to Ford, the corporate giant assumed it as their own and denied Kearns and his family of any credit or rewards. This film brings up many relevant issues (legal, moral, and ethical) involving patent law and corporate power in IP. It will be interesting to see Hollywood's interpretation of this historical story. 

http://www.flashofgenius.net/

Gridlock Economy

The gridlock readings simplified a very complex subject. Heller had such a concise way of putting the confusion that is copyright and patent law, I am shocked (sort of) that politicians don't truly listen, but moreover, apply his method of thinking. I find this topic extraordinarily frustrating, as I am sure almost everyone who encounters it does. Heller addresses, and clarifies the problem, and that is a huge step in the right direction. I think the biggest problem with copyright law is that it is so convoluted, we were discussing in class that you only find out what you cant do, once you've done it--well, that needs to change. There seems to be a disorganized approach to dealing with patent and copyright, and Heller offers a fresh and organized perspective. I think the copyright/patent system is taken advantage of because it is such a gray area, it is filled with loopholes and it doesn't really do what it initially set out to do. Heller definitely clarifies that copyright law is tied up in a gridlock system, but I am still baffled as to how the political system let this confusion get so far.

Does ANYONE Benefit from Economic Gridlock?

One of the most phenomenal features of Michael Heller's theory of the anticommons is how simultaneously commonsensical and yet heretofore unacknowledged it remained. Sure, we have all grappled with the notion of overuse; it's something that has become embedded in our minds, a constant and omnipresent danger that we seek to avoid (albeit, as Americans, our society has lately become characterized by its excessive use). We understand overuse. We know what it looks like, we have witnessed it in some manifestation before, and we have at least a foundational knowledge of how to avoid or combat it.

But what about underuse? Sure, in some economics readings that I have done I have stumbled upon the concept. William Easterly's "White Man's Burden" touches upon the notion of underuse when he discusses the distribution of malaria nets in Zambia, and how their distribution was not effective. But, despite alluding to, teetering on the brink of, and lightly caressing the concept of underuse, no man (or woman)---economist, lawyer, or any profession alike had ever identified this "invisible" dilemma.

And so, the "invisible" dilemma remained even more invisible. First, it is by its nature difficult to see (by identifying it we're attempting to identify something that is non-existent due to excessive privatization) Second, the very concept remained unnoticed---or at least unpronounced.

How can we evade the economic inefficiencies that go hand-in-hand with underuse? How can we BEST utilize our resources effectively, now that we have realigned our goals not to accommodate excessive privatization, but rather "ordinary use"?

If we buy the statistics that Aram Sinnreich presented in "Music and Fashion", then we accept that those who are fostering economic gridlock are the ones who lose the most. To refer to a previous posting of mine, I would like to once again cite Sinnreich's haunting question, "Why is it that, despite its stringent approach to intellectual property, sales of music in America DROPPED (emphasis added) by 6 percent in 2003, while fashion sales in the U.S. GREW (emphasis added) by 5.4 percent?" (8).

This kind of excessive privatization is what causes our spectrum to be 90% UNUSED. It is responsible for impeding our technological developments. And we must recognize that with technology spring forth any number of byproduct advances, and not just in the field of technology. When we sacrifice technological development, we sacrifice artistic, intellectual and medical developments as well.

So who then is really winning?

The simple answer: no one. Hopefully Heller's illuminating publication will convince corporate giants that the lobbying they're doing benefits neither them nor the general public. Of course, if we subscribe to the "prisoner's dilemma" game theory, every man will think exclusively for himself, disregarding the overall benefits to the general populace, and simultaneously digging his own grave. It is only through strategic planning, an intellectual acceptance of the anticommons principles espoused by Heller, and a conscious effort toward ameliorative techniques that we will be able to undo the damage wrought by the "anticommons."

gridlock

Thursdays readings on gridlock made me have never ending arguments with my friends in the economics department. Although it seems that common sense and truth are two ethical aspects of community, it is widely disregarded by most Americans. As it seems, money comes first and it also justifies the means, whatever the means maybe. So money justifies the reason why we are not able to afford the cure of alzheimers. Along with private property, money seems to justify any type of horrible behavior, regardless of its nature. It doesn't matter if i find the cure to cancer because somebody owns the rights and patents to most of the ingredients or research for the cure for cancer. Therefore people will continue to die of millions of life threatening diseases everyday, just because of money; Perhaps it is time to reconsider the society we live in and ourselves as human beings. Or perhaps we should just change our species name from humans to machines, since it seems more fitting and appropriate. 

Innocuous Frustrations Lead to Delusional Torchbearers

Scott Matthews' "Copying isn't Cool" piece for Salon.com does a nice job detracting some credence from the ignorantly appointed and demonized devil's advocate: the RIAA. The future of music shouldn't, can't, and won't come down to the destruction of the scapegoated record labels and a free-music-for-everyone utopia, because all utopias all inherently flawed and ghoulishly unrealistic. Blind revolution isn't the answer, but, unfortunately, it has become the other alternative. Copyright law and the vague jargon therein lead to paranoia, which leads to unbridled vengeance. It's interesting that this article was written in '03, but it's stance is still represented by mere murmurs and worldwide international crises feel as though they've never been worse. With all the file sharing that goes down these days, it's ironic that we're crippled by a public drought of information.

fashion therapy

I thought the article comparing intellectual property in the fashion and music industries was really illuminating. I hadn't really thought about the way fashion approaches the issue, but maybe that's because it isn't really treated as an issue, it's simply natural. That may be changing with the Forever 21s and H&Ms making cheap copycats, but I think that's a completely different story than the constant inspiration, appropriation, and borrowing that designers do all the time. I thought it was really interesting how there's a set of social regulations that sort of guide the way people behave in the fashion industry--it's okay to mimic so long as you give credit where credit is due. I was also thinking what a disaster it would be if fashion were as legally protected as music. It would be a total gridlock--to reference Heller. In fashion, there is a much more finite set of possibilities. Just the thought of one person--or, more acurately, one corporation--having sole ownership over the pencil skirt is horrifying.

Gridlock in IP

In Michael Seller’s Gridlock Economy, Seller speaks how IP, while trying to protect the IP rights of its “owners,” has caused a traffic jam in the realm of discovery and creation because of all the hoops people have to jump through prior to discovery/creation. Personally, I agree with Sellers. I believe that in IP, at times it goes too far—to the point where IP laws are, in my mind, limiting innovation instead of protecting it. However, I realize it’s a tough balance between what’s considered helping or harming innovation. But what’s the use of IP laws if there’s no new innovation to protect?

And the battle continues...

I enjoyed the two articles from salon.com, especially because they reminded me of our class discussions-- where we go back and forth tossing out reasons why file sharing has to be legalized, while realizing reasons why it must remain illegal. The article goes to show how big these issues are and how its not only us, in class, that don't have answers. It's interesting how many new problems have arisen with the advent of the internet, as it has always been with the introduction of every new medium into society. It brings about challenges on every level, in every way. It seems like its going to be a long while before this is all figured out. There are so many ideas being thrown around, but at this point they all seem to have too many holes. Many of them have probably been considered, but until there is one that seems to offer results, we're going to be stuck in this marsh where nobody is satisfied.

Scott Matthew's article, "Copying Isn't Cool," seeks to demonstrate how many of the plans provided by pro-file-sharing organizations and supporters are completely senseless. For example, the Internet tax, which is supposed to collect a tax from Internet users and then divide it depending on how much file-sharing that file is generating. However, John Schlutz's article, "File Sharing Must Be Made Legal," says that there are many more alternatives to an Internet tax-- and that even if they may have some problems, so does the RIAA's current solution-- going after America's 6o million fire-sharers. He refers to the current solution as a "patchwork quilt," therefore not being much of a solution at all. Even the Internet tax, he argues, could work as long as privacy is still maintained, and proposes that it can be handled anonymously. There are people arguing for both sides, finding it impossible to agree on a solution that will satisfy both sides of the copyright spectrum. But as much as we keep talking about it, about how problematic the current system is, we need to propose a proper solution-- one that will take both sides into consideration. But when will that happen?

gridlock

I know I'm not alone in saying that Gridlock Economy made me aware of an obvious situation that has been around for years and frankly, makes me ashamed. Once upon a time institutions were formed for the benefit and protection of the people. I think they've forgotten the mission statement and shifted priorities to the self rather than the whole. The gridlock that prevents cures for cancer and other world-changing advancements is a sad yet true fact. I don't mean to sound naive but how can we live with ourselves knowing this is happening? People are dying everyday around the world and we're too busy fighting over how much the Happy Birthday guy is due in royalties. I don't mean our class exclusively but our species as a whole. We went from a society with the best of intentions to a self absorbed hoard of people who dig their iPods deeper into their ears to avoid others. If there is any hope for us, someone needs to reread the mission statement and try to get back to why these institutions were started.

Fearful & Reactionary IP

James Boyle’s analysis of the commons and the public domain as they have formed and deformed since the first enclosure movement was particularly enlightening. I appreciated his ability to be objective about the many discussions surrounding the issue of defining and regulating intellectual property. He did a great job at presenting both sides to each argument.

I found that the most significant argument in favor of strict legislation that Boyle makes is that “the strength of intellectual property rights must vary inversely with the cost of copying” (42). In other words, as the cost of copying intellectual property has plummeted due to technological development, the need for tighter intellectual property rights has become greater. While I understand the rational behind this argument, I think it is fearful and reactionary as opposed to being insightful or progressive in any way.

The notion of tightening intellectual property regulations because it has become cheaper to copy is particularly popular within industries that fail to reduce the cost of production proportionally to the cost of copying. For example, as many times as we have heard music industry heavyweights cry to their mothers about how the record industry is dead, the cost of making high profile releases hasn’t seemed to go down. If it only costs the customer the same 99 cents to buy a song that cost upwards of $100,000 as it does to buy a song that cost $10 to make, surely the big spender is bound to get defensive. I don’t understand why they don’t stop spending such an exorbitant amount of money so they can minimize damages.

I agree completely with Boyle’s assessment that “our intellectual property system should be audited like any other government subsidy” (51). At this point, I am convinced that intellectual property is a necessary evil in our society. However, its paradoxical nature makes its potentially very dangerous and easily abused. Therefore, constantly compromising and re-compromising the way we define these concepts and regulations as circumstances change is necessary to continue to benefit from intellectual property laws.

BRIANA BERRY

Like Water for Music?

In Scott Matthews' "Copyright Isn't Cool," the author writes, "The EFF's goal, like that of many legal scholars, software coders and media pundits is a new system of compensation for copyright holders that would legitimize file sharing, generally through some new tax on Internet use that would be redistributed to content creators." Matthews speaks out against this practice, arguing that this "bad idea" encourages file sharing and cements the practice before the officials can reinforce the current copyright system.

While I agree in certain areas the taxing of file sharing can inhibit privacy and in some ways freedom of speech, I was more interested in the ideas the article inspired than its actual content. A recurring theme in many of my classes is the open format policy regarding music; the open format downloading is often a subject of Gerd Leonhard, a Media Futurist, whand seems to not only serve as a compromise to both the EFF and the RIAA mentioned in Matthews' article, but terminate Matthews worries regarding privacy and free speech.

In short, open format music downloading is essentially transforming music into a utility not unlike electricity or water. "Flip the switch!" Leonhard often exclaims; the industry must shift from selling copies (cds, cassettes, etc) and begin to sell access. Much time is spent anxiously attempting to control distribution when it is impossible; instead, labels should be looking to monetize the current means of distribution by creating a flat-fee system which "feels free," much like water does. In a recent Leonhard video, the Media Futurist groans about the measly 2 billion iTunes downloads in 2007, arguing that 30, 40 or even 50 billion downloads could be reached if the program were open format.

There are a lot of interesting YouTube videos of Leonhard speaking I would highly reccomend. The videos range from talk show appearances to personal PowerPoint presentations and display a grasp of the industry's future that I think Matthews would approve of.

Yossarian lives

At first glance, Michael Heller's analysis of the anticommons seems to give credence to what the Joseph Hellers of the world have been fussing about for years: the inexorable double bind. No mitigating responses to the gridlock crisis appear to exist. Socializing existing patents by means of government intervention would smother incentive, while further privatization of the commons would only exacerbate our current state. To make matters worse, our attention is overwhelmed by "imminent" yet more elusive "threats" such as terrorism, abortion and gay marriage. As legitimate and as striking as Heller's assessment might be, I fear that little will be done to address the self-serving, inhibiting nature of contemporary patent law.

"A Matter of Law and Morality"

This week, I found chapter three in Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture particularly interesting. Lessig begins the chapter by the telling the story of Jesse Jordan, a Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute freshman who got sued by the RIAA for copyright infringement after he built a search engine for the RPI network. The RIAA claimed that Jesse owed $15,000,000 in damages. According to Lessig, "The recording industry insists this is a matter of law and morality." But Lessig argues, "Where is the morality in a lawsuit like this?" He continues "The president of the RIAA is reported to make more than $1 million a year. Artists, on the other hand, are not well paid. The average recording artist makes $45,900. There are plenty of ways for the RIAA to affect and direct policy. So where is the morality in taking money from a student for running a search engine?" In other words, and I would tend to agree, Lessig argues that this is not an issue of morality, but a matter of legality the ability for large organizations to exercise power and control. In the end, Jesse paid the RIAA $12,000, all of the money he had saved from his summer jobs. Where is the morality in that?

Lessig's discussion of copyright infringement as a legal and moral matter kept reminding me of last week's discussion with Michael Heller. More specifically, it made me think about what he said about creating drugs. In both his book and in class, he discussed the Alzheimer's drug, he drug discovery gap, and how patents make it harder for people to create life changing drugs. This example is not just an example of legality, but one of morality is well. Where is the morality in denying the public of life altering/saving drugs?

Lessig's views on IP + Disney's hypocrisy

First of all I have to note how astonished I was at the "Steamboat Willie" vs. "Steamboat Bill Jr." example that Lawrence Lessig provides in Free Culture, since it just solidifies the hypocrisy of the modern Disney Corp. that we've touched on in class.  We all knew that early Walt Disney films drew upon a shared source of cultural tales, but to read that the first appearance of Mickey mouse in "Steamboat Willie" was "a direct cartoon parody of Steamboat Bill, and both are built upon a common song as a source...Disney added to the work of others before him, creating something new out of something just barely old" (Lessig 23) is mind blowing.  An incredibly important cultural icon came of that first animated film put to music.  Why can't Walt Disney's "descendants" in Disney Corp./incredibly talented IP lawyers (who must be distinguished from Walt Disney himself) loosen their grip a bit, since it's clear that amazing things can come of "shared" cultural resources?

On that note, we can't just hate on Disney: "...every industry affected by copyright today is the product and beneficiary of a certain kind of piracy" (Lessig 61).  With modern technology, we understand that piracy exists, but it is NOT all the same, and that is perhaps the most frustrating.  Lessig points out the differences between republishing someone's work commercially (impermissible piracy) and building upon/transforming that work into something new (permissible "piracy" - if it can even be called that).  We really need to redefine the restructure the way we look at IP and piracy prosecutions.  College kids should not be spending their life's savings because they create an advanced search software for their university that allows people to find music files, among other things (the RPI example).  These lawyers are revolting and make me want to stay far, far away from IP law.  Or maybe I could be one of the good guys?

free culture?

The ideas at the heart of Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture seem to me, to be fundamental ideas to our democracy, our country, and our culture.  He works hard to explain that there is a difference between republishing someone's work and transforming it into something else, and that while originally copyright was only concerned with the former, it is now spending most of it's time messing with the latter.  When you mess with the right of the people to transform what they see into something else, you mess with a right of free speech.  And as Lessig explains, when these types of channels of public discourse are shut down, so too is democracy.

I'll give him as well the distinction he makes between different types of file sharers, as clearly, this is a useful distinction to fully see the harm done (or not) by p2p networks.  Personally, I spend a lot of time in and around the jam band scene.  The vital life force of this scene is the live performances these bands put on.  Now while most mainstream players may heavily guard their live performances under copyright law, especially when the live performances have such a heavier monetary value for the artists than album sales (as figures in previous readings have shown), these artists have specified policies about taping their shows.  Many of the artists give fans express permission to tape and trade (albeit for free or actual trade, not monetary compensation) these tapes.  As Vaidhyanathan calls it, this 'Grateful Dead business model' helps promote the band in unthinkable ways.  Besides the idea of the creativity of a live show changing the music inherently, I can go on to certain websites and find tons of shows by bands who have given their fans express permission to trade their shows in this way.  And this furthers my own need to hear more, and more importantly, to hear it live.  So I have seen some of these bands 3 or 4 times this year when i may not have even heard them once before the year started.  And that's to say nothing of fans that will actually follow these bands on tour.  Now that's loyalty you could never get by withholding the music in the first place.

Taking something for nothing

I particularly disliked Lessig's argument that the Radio was born of piracy. He describes the radio station as getting "something for nothing" when it plays a song in the case that the recording artist is different from song's composer. First of all, they're not getting anything for nothing, because they're still paying a fee for the song. In addition, the recording artist is far from getting screwed in this situation considering he's receiving compensation in the form of personal promotion, as a result of capitalizing on the creative efforts of someone else. In this situation, I thinks it's fair to say that only the composer deserves to get paid, and I think it could be argued that the recording artist not only doesn't deserve to get paid, but should also have to pay the composer.  

On the idea of privatization and property

In Michael Heller's "The Gridlock Economy", the gridlock paradox seems quite logical and inherent, although not so obvious and recognizable. In short, the tragedy of the commons is a phenomenon in which overuse occurs when too many people share a common resource. The solutions almost always implemented to relieve this tragedy of the commons are privatization. Heller suggests that privatization, ultimately leading to market fragmentation, then leads to underuse. Therefore, creating private property as a solution to overuse of commons property only creates the other challenge of anticommons property. Heller applied this fairly obvious model to industries including pharmaceuticals, alternative energy (wind power)to air travel. What interested me the most was his claim that the most underused resource is the airwave spectrum. A good 90% of this available resource is dead, non-utilized air resulting in a at least a $1 trillion dollar loss. I really enjoyed Heller's take on legal fictions in Chapter 4. He claims that "legal fictions are often useful" but bring up several policy concerns. An FCC issued licensed gives its holder the exclusive right to broadcast over a specified set of spectrum within a particular geographical area. Now I understand how broadcast pirates in the 20th century were legally violating policy (often times, pirate radio broadcast would interfere with the BBC broadcast as well as other legally established stations). But would there be any legal violation if the pirate stations broadcasted on a spectrum not "owned" by a station with a license? Or was the entire spectrum owned by some large corporation so that no matter what frequency pirates used, they were stepping into someone else's private territory? And couldn't you say that the very existence of pirate radio for decades displays an overriding of the anticommons tragedy? What would have been an underused resource (airwaves) ended up being used anyway by radio pirates, and quite successfully. Does this mean that the only solution to the anticommons tragedy would be illicit action?

the internet has created a mess...but so did VCR's

After reading the articles by Schultz and Matthews I still do not know where I stand on the file sharing dilemma. Schultz brings up the idea that "there are alternatives..for example, the 'voluntary collective licensing plan' [or]....compulsory licensing." There can be alternatives, but even with these alternatives we pay a price. Each article makes one important point: in this entangled mess do we really want more privacy taken away from us from our government? In general I am going to say no because regardless of the privacy that we lost in the recent years with the "war on terror" there has been an uproar. Now to take more privacy from us to protect (whomever: be it company's, authors, musicians) from pirates may sound ridiculous and extremely infringing on our rights(whatever they may be now). Regardless, I don't know where I stand-yet. Lohmann also made me reevaluate what I believe. Today in 2008, I would not even consider the Betamax VCR as a form of piracy but I completely understand the argument set up by Hollywood but at the same time am able to see the advantages that the VCR brought to Hollywood and thus am still torn.



"But with the birth of the Internet, this natural limit to the reach of the law has disappeared. The law controls not just the creativity of commercial creators but effectively that of everyone." (Lessing, 19)

When the law makers wrote the constitution they did not take into account how certain laws would play out in today's changing society. The same goes for laws today against piracy. The VCR in the 80's is what the internet is today. And just as the VCR was a way to get movies out to the public so the internet is today. (Lessing mentions Snow White and the other Disney classics and with a touch of a key on my computer Snow White was there for me to watch: )
The advent of the internet has made things available on my watch. "The most difficult time is synchronous time. Technologies that enable asynchronous communication, such as e-mail, increase the opportunity for communication." (Lessing, 42)

Label Pressures Lead to Downloadable Diamonds

In the fashion and music piece, I found the irony of Z-Trip's Hollywood Record limitations to elucidate a fascinating foundational contradiction of musical copyright laws; however, I do believe that some restrictions, such as sample limitations, can lead to beneficiary creative struggles. Further, the lack of commercial distribution options for musical collage artists have forced many producers to release their creations to the public free of charge (Z-Trip's website has an extensive free download section). In perhaps the most prevalent case of mash-up controversy, Danger Mouse's "Grey Album" was downloaded and consumed by an enormous number of music fans, and though he made ostensibly no money from that particular record, it became an operative business card that allowed him future artistically and economically successful collaborations with the Gorillaz, Beck, Tony Allen, the Black Keys, and many others (not to mention the Gnarls Barkley project that spawned international mega-hit "crazy"). Additionally, DJ Shadow's landmark "Endtroducing..." record was created completely from sampled material (and holds the Guinness Book world record for being the first to do so), and it was commercially released and is still in stores. In his case, it seems the distributing label reacts to cease-and-desist letters by halting commercial runs until the record can be re-released with the applicable samples cleared -- though this information isn't publicized. All I'm trying to say is copyright restrictions are obviously dangerous to creativity, and that is counterintuitive and oxymoronic, but they have also led to new avenues for success.

rhetoric

Rhetoric and the law have always been two sides of the same coin--whether one should be cynical about that fact or not is open to discussion. It's one of the many things I came to terms with this summer. Working on the Hill was an eye-opening experience. The fact that something is "just rhetoric" doesn't necessarily invalidate it because politics is by nature a game. Whether it started out that way or not, it certainly is now and there's no way around it.
And so law, and the way we talk about law, is laden with rhetoric that shapes the way we perceive things. Take Vaidhyanathan's criticism of the use of the phrase "intellectual property." He argues that by calling it "property," we do not only misconceptualize it legally, but psychologically--property to an American is like candy to a small child. It's MINE. But this kind of mislabelling jargon is common-place. Take the famous "No Child Left Behind Act," or more recently, the SAVE Act of 2008, which sought to drastically up-the-ante on immigration laws; or the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, which is grotesquely misleading--and that's just the title.
We can talk all we want about how inappropriately the law is labelled and discussed, but I'm not sure what to do about it....


I would also like to mention the irony (or hypocracy?) in Mr. Clemens' letter to Helen Keller. He says, "As if there was much of anything in any human utterance, oral or written except plagiarism." Given the Lethem article we read, this should be a complete contradiction to Twain's spoonsorship of strong protection of intellectual property. It reminds me of the countries from the last generation of EU expansion: they received the money, support, and economy of other, stronger countries, and now that it's their turn to give to the new generation of poorer countries, they don't want to. It also reminds me of people who want better public education, but don't want to pay taxes. There's something wrong here!

Appreciating music/fashion

In "Music and Fashion," Sinnreich and Gluck explain that there are great parallels between how the music and fashion industries function in society. They also explain that since both are tied to being creative, they rely on inspiration from previous works and on the recycling of trends and themes. As the article goes on to explain, the fashion industry's leniency with retaining rights is one of the main reasons the industry is booming. This free flow of ideas is spurring on a quicker turnover rate for innovation and creation, which in turn acts as incentive for the public to purchase more product. Creative stagnancy, as witnessed in the music industry, is cutting the legs out from the big corporations that battled so hard for heavier copyright laws.

If the sort of limitations that the music industry imposed was applied to the fashion industry i think we would notice a radical change for the worse in the way the public consumes fashion. Why has there not been a stronger push from the listening public in regard to the limitations on creativity in music? Perhaps the big corporations are able to wield more power because, as explained in "Music and Fashion," Music is fundamentally invisible. Many people that listen to and enjoy music do not necessarily understand the compositional or production details within the recording... and they don't and shouldn't have to. In fashion however, while the common person doesn't know that a certain type of stitch is specific to a certain designer, the details are much more visible and accessible. Only a small group of the listening public will know that melody line in a chorus for one of DJ Z-Trip's songs was taken from a funk classic, but people immediately recognize and identify with logo's and cuts in clothing. Perhaps the public hasn't freaked out about stagnancy in the music industry because the building blocks are harder to discern, that they don't see a problem with stringent copyright. I think once the public has had a taste of a free musical culture, they will never allow things to get as locked down as they are today.

Publishers Take the Cake

After contemplating intellectual property from a modern and mostly theoretical standpoint, it was really helpful to read Vaidhyanathan’s historical account of copyright law. I found it particularly interesting that the American tradition of copyright law has always been rooted in some level of disrespect except where it benefits publishers and commerce. For example, the first statute regarding copyright indicated that author’s “furnish the Public with sufficient Editions”. Siva relates that, “A manuscript is worth nothing on the market until the author assigns rights to the publisher” (40). It would therefore appear that, in order for them to establish a copyright for their work, they would already need to have a publishing deal in which to distribute the work. They had to give up their rights to the work before they even had the rights to their work! To do this implies that at the time, works that were worthy of copyright were actually determined by the publishers. It’s an interesting contribution to the idea/expression dichotomy because it supports the notion that unless the idea is put forth in some tangible expression, it is just an idea and therefore a public good. And at the time, the expression not only had to be tangible, but also economically viable.
After learning about the history of copyright law, I think it is fair to say that the concept is more targeted towards the needs of publishers than authors. Not to say that author’s don’t benefit from the more predictable and accountable commerce created by copyright law, but the whole concept has less to do with cultivating incentives for creativity than setting the terms and price for use.

BRIANA BERRY

Fashion Monopolies

Harold Innis was heavily concerned with the concept of knowledge monopolies forming in society. He feared the control of knowledge by the few. Opponents of stringent copyright law are quick to point out that too heavy of an IP law infrastructure can often lead to the monopoly that Innis feared. In some way, Vaidhyanathan reveals that in some ways American copyright law inherently leans toward this trend. Based on laws from Britain that allowed for the control of information through print media, American copyright law is inherently supportive of knowledge monopolies by means of its basis in laws that were originally tended to do so.
The concern of the knowledge monopoly stood out in my mind while reading Sinnreich's and Gluckman's article regarding fashion and the music industry. Sinnreich and Glucksman point to the non-verbal communicative aspects of fashion and its need to defend trademarks as fashion has been in society a means of communciating status and prestige. That aside though does not the defense of fashion trademarks ultimately rob customers? Though the Burberry check may be trademarked, a Burberry wallet costs a consumer around $300. I hardly think it cosst Burberry that much money to make that wallet. IP law and trademark ultimately allows Burberry to charge these inflated prices. A fake Burberry wallet provides a similar aesthetic at a fraction of the cost. Though one might argue that stricter copyright law in the realm of fashion will defend the works of designers and design-houses I wonder if perhaps looser restrictions might benefit consumers? In order for Burberry to charge $300 for a wallet when a $20 dollar checked alternative is available Burberry might have to use better materials to defend this high price. Strict copyright legislation in regard to fashion allows fashion corporations to maintain their socially constructed images. Perhaps allowing designs influenced by the designs of luxury houses into the market would push luxury houses to truly create luxury products?

"The Balancing Act"

In their article "Music & Fashion: The Balancing Act Between Creativity and Control" Aram Sinnreich and Marissa Gluck argue that the fashion industry enjoys a more efficient balance between creativity and control compared to the music industry. Without the burden and intimidation of thick copyright protection, fashion designers are encouraged to create, design, and explore the realms of fashion design. With this being said, there are very obvious cross overs and concepts shared among designers. For example, as noted in the article, stores like H&M and Zara efficiently and profitably knock off high end fashions and designs season after season. They make these fashions and styles affordable and available to the masses. They are able to legally do this because fashion, unlike music, is functional. People need to wear clothes; they do not necessarily need to listen to or make music. However, at what point do clothes cross the line from functional to fashionable? 

That is the problem with fashion. Because of its cyclical nature, as spelled out by Aram and Marissa, there is no distinct line between what is authentic and what is a replica, copy, or "knock-off." Nearly everything in the fashion world comes from an obvious inspiration. The more important question is should this line be defined? Do fashion designers enjoy enough protection? I have not made up my mind entirely, but I would argue yes. Specific brands, icons, and images are trademarked to assure that Prada and Gucci knockoffs aren't legally sold. Additionally, most high fashion brands are not affordable to the masses. The companies that are "knocking-off" the designs are most often not competitors. They are not stealing business, but making these fashions affordable and available. 

But Does IP Work?

Mark Twain, constantly vacillating in his intellectual property position; his vehement support of intellectual property coinciding directly with the rise of his own popularity.

The Disney Corporation, lobbying heavily for extended copyright protection, just as Disney's most ubiquitous icon---Mickey Mouse---is about to expire his copyright tenure.

Bill Clinton, responding to the demands of lobbyists (namely: high-ranking, money-shoving, corporate lobbyists rife with agendas) by pushing through the Copyright Extension Term Act.

Is it just me or has there been a growing trend in copyright advocates toward self-interested, money-grubbing corporations? Siva Vaidhyanathan, esteemed media scholar and author of Copyrights and Copywrongs eloquently articulated my woes, stating, "copyright issues are now more about large corporations limiting access to and use of their products, and less about lonely songwriters snapping their pencil tips under the glare of bare bulbs" (12).

But wait! Doesn't this corporate-catering philosophy seem acutely at odds with a certain document known by us Americans as The Constitution? Wasn't copyright intended to SPUR creativity; not smother it, leaving room for creativity exclusively for those who can afford it?

Yes. I sincerely doubt James Madison and comrades intended to exacerbate economic disparities and promote monopolies when they drafted the Bill of Rights. Despite this knowledge, however, the system exists as it does; to benefit the wealthiest and most unattainable positions in society, and to stifle and deter any creativity from infringing upon the intellectual and creative manifestations of Corporate America.

If we accept that this creative hierarchy exists, we must question its legitimacy.

Are these corporations actually BENEFITING from the stringent IP regulations that they themselves have implemented?

To answer this question would require an inordinate degree of data analysis, research, and the devotion of many hours of examination. For the purposes of this blog, I can afford none of these, so I must utilize the resources at hand to the best of my ability. As such, I need look no further than the analysis of Sinnreich and Gluck in "Music and Fashion: The Balancing Act Between Creativity and Control".

Sinnreich and Gluck juxtapose two important cultural dimensions of the 21st century: music and fashion. Most noteworthy about these two cultural phenomena is that music employs a highly strict method of intellectual property, while fashion espouses a relatively loose IP policy.

The authors posit the following question: "Why is it that, despite its stringent approach to intellectual property, sales of music in America DROPPED (emphasis added) by 6 percent in 2003, while fashion sales in the U.S. GREW (emphasis added) by 5.4 percent?" (8). These statistics are in keeping with additional analysis Sinnreich had performed regarding Napster, in which he concluded that the strongest factor contributing to the paid consumption of music had been the use of Napster. In other words, promotion and ubiquity (whether it be in the form of free agent Napster, or in the form of a Harry Potter encyclopedia of terms) breeds consumption. And that ubiquity is not feasible when creativity is highly restricted.

These statistics beg the question: isn't strict IP HARMING corporations more than it's HELPING?

This question may not be possible to answer, especially considering the barrage of additional externalities that arise from either advocacy or eschewment of IP. There are simply TOO MANY VARIABLES. Hence, much of the ambiguity that currently exists with regard to cost/benefit analyses of IP.

Of course, to examine music and fashion as two equal and analogous entities would not be conducive to strong academic conclusions, which Sinnreich and Gluck make note of when they discuss how fashion is more utilitarian than music. The functionality factor can not be brushed aside when attempting to elucidate an answer to the age-old copyright dilemma.

At the end of the day, we remain largely unaware of the true effects of IP. IP has been too entrenched as an infrastructure for too long for us to isolate it from the myriad of nuanced factors that serve to contrive it. However, IP certainly warrants closer examination, increased statistical analysis, and perhaps a very important---albeit thus far largely ignored---dose of healthy skepticism.

The Design Piracy Prohibition Act, and various other thoughts

The Music & Fashion article by Sinnreich and Gluck caused me to rethink a lot of assumptions that I'd held prior to taking this class.  Certain parts in particular made me think of the "Design Piracy Prohibition Act", which is a bill currently pending in Congress (it was introduced 2 years after this article was written).  When I interned for a U.S. Senator last summer, this bill was first introduced and he was a co-sponsor.  Even though I was a casework intern, I sometimes did work for the press office when they needed it, and for this bill I helped research and compile a presentation that was shown at a press conference that the Senator had with various fashion designers who supported the bill.  Back then I didn't really think too far into the matter...it made sense to me that fashion designers wanted the same intellectual property rights afforded to other artists.  It seemed "fair".  But now, especially after reading this article, I'm realizing that perhaps the current system that the fashion industry adheres to is the best one out there.  It just seems so rich and diverse, and it certainly fosters innovation based off of the sharing of ideas.  When it comes to the music industry, I agree that it "would do well to heed some of the fashion industry's basic creative, organizational and legal tenets."  I don't know if it could really happen anytime soon, which the article also acknowledges, but there will be a time when the industry will have to start seeking other options.  It's just really discouraging that the music industry cares more about profits than supporting creativity and the artists who make great music.  There are so many musicians out there who aren't well known but are extremely talented, signed to record labels, touring, working so hard, constantly writing/recording...and they don't see any monetary return for their work.  Sure, they have an artistic incentive to create music, but these people need to eat and support their own/their family's lives as well.

In that vein, I also agree with Boyle's belief that IP should be scaled down but still powerful amid a more distributed model of innovation.  Centralized control seems to be the main problem here, and I think we're already beginning to see that crumble.  Slightly.  His example of open-source software was especially illuminating, and it provides a great example of how innovation COULD be (I know this example had been mentioned a couple times before in other readings/in class but his specifics shed a ton of light on the practice).  Which brings me back to the readings from Siva's book last week, and how Europe sides so strictly with producers.  That actually surprised me, and I had no idea that the U.S. still receives outside pressure to afford stronger protections to producers.  But through these readings I'm understanding that the line between producer and listener(/consumer/etc.) has become increasingly blurred...and I think that de-centralization would be an ideal solution for this problem.  I also think that a respectful acknowledgement of inspiration (as in the fashion industry) could provide for continued innovation in a society with thinner copyright protection.

Fashion: The "Mash-Up"

This week's article, Sinnreich & Gluck's Music and Fashion: The Balancing Act Between Creativity and Control, compared and contrasted the music and fashion industries, and demonstrated the differences between the IP laws within each. It does this in efforts to build up to its final conclusion, stating that the perfect future for the music industry would be to be based on a similar system of IP laws to that of the fashion industry. Because the fashion industry does not heavy copyright laws, it encourages ingenuity and innovation, by allowing designers to be inspired from previous designers, previous works, and borrow the source of that inspiration in the creation of their new, creative design. Borrowing is not only tolerated, it just is a part of it. Fashion is a "mash-up," it is a "bastard pop"-- something that is definitely not tolerated in the music industry, as in the example with DJ Z-Trip.

I liked how the article approached the subject, how it compared them, how it went through their histories, and how it predicted the unhappy and unstable future of the music copyright laws leading to their final demise. It also really interested me, because beside the few times fashion has come up in class-- it isn't something your mind darts to when thinking about IP laws, even if just to contrast with the differences between two creative industries. It isn't a comparison I would have ever made, and certainly not an aspiration for the music industry I would have ever thought so. But it's so brilliant. The idea of "watch-dog" shame is a definite possibility for the advancement of the music industry, I just really don't think it's going to happen anytime soon. And also, I really hope that the fashion industry doesn't end up where the music one is now.. with time, and the addition of laws-- it definitely could.

Expanding literacy

Among the early arguments of those in opposition to international copyright, the commitment to expanding American literacy is most compelling. While I have always had a general understanding of the rise in reading proficiency (i.e., its attribution to cheap and therefore accessible reading material), I never considered copyright's role in ensuring that such classics were readily available to the masses. It surely must have been an exciting time, as Twain reckoned. "I can buy a lot of the great copyright classics, in paper, at from 3 cents to 30 cents apiece. These things must find their way into the very kitchens and hovels of the country. A generation of this sort of thing ought to make this the most intelligent and the best-read nation in the world." Although the American literacy rate hovers around 99 percent, many would claim that literary content has significantly deteriorated. What type of incentive might we consider with respect to enhancing the quality of copyrighted material? Would such an aspiration be realistic within the scope of copyright law and first amendment rights?

the implosion of the music industry

The 'Music and Fashion' article we read for this week, was especially illuminating for me.  I know very little about how the fashion industry operates, and I found the idea of a literal free flow of ideas (as long as the inspirational sources get credited) extremely interesting.  Besides which, although I do know a good deal about the operations of the music industry, a lot of the information about the operations of the industry was new to me, and I found to be quite shocking.  Pitting the two together, however, put both discussions in an entirely new context, and set up some major questions that the music industry may soon have to answer.  For me, music has always been a trade off of ideas, mixing up this style and that, combining it all to make something wholly original.  And most artists will acknowledge their influences.  When I talk about music with many of my friends, we'll describe bands in terms of a mash-up of styles between other bands that we all know.  All music comes from somewhere else.  So in the same vein as with the fashion industry, why can the music industry not be regulated with such looser copyrights ideas?  Especially now, as it seems to be imploding in on itself.  This I can't answer, and I doubt anyone can.  We seem so fully entrenched in our older ways that a true revolution of mindset in this field doesn't seem possible.  And so the implosion perpetuates itself, and 83 year old women get sued for downloading Rihanna on a computer they don't even have. 

They're not the same.

Sinnreich & Gluck critically analyzed the fashion industry as one with little ground for legal footing in regards to intellectual property. It is true that the fashion industry is a very cyclical one where an article of clothing codifies expression, social status and cultural identity. Just as society evolves throughout history, items of clothing have been embellished and modified to suit the contemporary tastes of pop culture. In my opinion, I see no reason for room to take legal action against a pattern or design. I am the daughter of a San Francisco based fashion designer, and even my mother sees little need to protect her own designs by law, partially because she acknowledges that her inspiration comes from other creators' works, and partially because a certain design or patter of dress only stays in style of so long. She argues the need for little legal grounds due to the fact that fads come and go on a seasonal basis, and implementing action for copyright "violations" would take too much time and too much money.

The fact that such legal restrictions are not present in the fashion realm creates room for innovation, rather one considers inspired work to be original or not. I suppose the main question is, "What could then be defined as original? Where do we draw the line?" My fashion designing mom believes we don't need to draw the line because fashion is an art based on inspiration from other works, and today's "It" bag will become fashionably outdated by the next season anyway.

Back to my statement about art--many fashion designers do view fashion as an expressive art. If I were to copy a Picasso sketch, my sketch could still not hold the same value as the original by Picasso himself. An interesting thought came to mind about the notion of apparel being indicative of its own value and of its retainer's social status. A Gucci bag, for example, is costly and generally accepted as an item of leisure for those with dispensable income. But indebted college students could easily go to Canal Street to buy a knockoff. I have never been a fan of knockoff for two reasons: 1)I don't care about judgments projected upon me based on such trivial, materialistic things, and 2) if I did want to portray myself as a privileged being able to afford a real Gucci bag, buying a knockoff could never fulfill that need anyway because the knockoff is obviously not of the same value. I couldn't fool myself, although I may be able to fool others. But because I would know that my knockoff is not genuine, the purpose of buying the bag to impress others is lost anyways. The very fact that knockoffs are cheaper and not genuine make them inherently of little value, which means the knockoff bag is not the same as the it's nearly identical Gucci bag meaning there wouldn't be any legal grounds for copyright law to be applied here.

FASHION & MUSIC

So, tonight I went to a concert in Madison Square Garden which essentially was the perfect display of fashion and music. (And just a side note: this artist was so concerned with pictures and images that security confiscated any cameras from people in the audience that were taking any form of videos during the concert. Clearly the artist was worried about people using the name and image in a way they do not approve or even posting the videos on YouTube thus infringing on their trademark.)Regardless, in the last 5 songs the artist had 5 clothing changes all unique and all making a statement." This commodification of fashion historically has interacted with America's social mobility and class competition, in effect producing an almost feverish obsession with fashion among many Americans, particularly women.(Sinnreich & Gluck, 11) In doing so fashion is now not only clothing but also handbags, shoes, accessories. Understanding this brings up a larger issue which is rooted in trademarks. "...design houses that consistently use their trademarks in their fabric patterns, such as Chanel, Gucci, and Louis Vuitton..."(Sinnreich & Gluck, 26).
Class competition/social mobility = Obsession with fashion = Need for important trademarks (such as Chanel, Gucci, and Luis Vuitton). GUCCI BAG = CLASS
"Without the 'thick' copyright protection afforded to the copyright protection afforded to the music industry, fashion depends more heavily on social regulation and a primitive but highly functional watchdog-shame." (Sinnreich & Gluck, 6)
What is interesting about this statement is that this is where music and fashion really differ. If an artist uses another artist's song it is acceptable and even encouraged as long as whatever fees incur are paid. Covers are done constantly and add to the music industry putting a "spin" on something which is already out there and are often applauded on creativity. This is not so in the music industry. If a garment style is copied or reproduced the result is looked down upon unlike the cover of a song because for one there is not much room for due credit and unlike the fees that the singer would pay, the designer does not have the same standard. I'm still not sure of the alternative but the two are not even on the same playing ground.

Fashion as Functional

In the Music and Fashion reading, Sinreich and Gluck mention  "the philosophical refusal of copyright law to protect functional items" in regards to fashion. My question is, is fashion really functional?" Yes, certain aspects of it certainly are, but many aspects are open to debate while others are not functional at all. For example, if a designer decides to print a graphic or a phrase on an article of clothing, that serves no functional purpose whatsoever, and can be seen as an original creative act. 

Over the past several years, its become trendy for clothing manufacturers to print their company trademarks in highly prominent and visible positions upon their products. This can certainly be argued as an attractive feature for some consumers, as the brand of clothing one wears can communicate a great deal about social status, which this trend facilitates. I wonder if this also serves as a means for companies to protect their brand value, by incorporating a design aspect that is protecting against copying. 

Shame on you

In the Sinnreich & Gluck readings for Tuesday, “Music & Fashion: The Balancing Act between Creativity and Control,” the authors point out how two similar industries that both play a large role in most people’s lives presently, have approached the concept of intellectual property in two diverging ways. While the music industry continues to become increasingly stringent on IP laws and what they see as violations of it, fashion remains pretty loose on the IP law front. In the music industry, if they feel that you have infringed on their IP, you will probably sued, but in fashion, so long as you accredit your “inspirations,” it will probably be okay—credit where credit is due. Instead of using lawsuits, the fashion industry has shame.

In my opinion, the fashion industry seems to have thrived in the world of loose IP protection. Like the music industry, there is only so much you can do with fashion and there no way a designer could create a garment totally new without being inspired and borrowing from the ideas of others. If someone, way back when, had gotten the IP rights for the idea of a sleeve (given the rights had no expiration date to enter into public domain), would the rest of the designers have to design sleeveless garments or to ask simply to add sleeves to a shirt? No, that seems silly. As pointed out in copyright laws, things are useless unless they serve a purpose and can be executed. Holding a monopoly on sleeves, while could make you rich, seems useless if no one wants to go through the IP hurdles just to ask permission to use sleeves on their design.

Shame as a regulatory tool to prevent uncredited copying, in some way seems more efficient than lawsuits. Lawsuits take time and money and sometimes can make the plaintiff seem petty and greedy. Shame on the other hand, can make the “guilty” party loose credibility. On a certain level, the shame of copying someone else’s design without crediting is parallel to the guilt of lying to your parents and having them believe you.

endless contradictions

Siva's book continues to amaze me with the amount of contradictions present within the copyright system of the United States. Mark Twain, a friend and foe of the system, portrays a clear example of the outrageous amount of existent contradiction as he confesses to plagiarizing most of his works but fights for the expansion of copyright in the American Legal system. It is true as he says, all our work is plagiarized, and as I said last week, history is plagiarized. We repeat each others' stories over and over again and hence we create tradition not plagiarism. We enrich the knowledge of human race as we build on each others' opinions and discoveries. We are like one constant mind that develops and advances with passing generations, we cannot expect to avoid that which we are taught or that which makes us bright. We are expected to go to school and to learn and then we are expected to place restrictions on that which becomes us. There are endless contradictions...

Facebook Stalk My Image and Likeness

I was delighted but still pissed to find a few days ago that I my image and likeness had finally made it. On-line of course. My friend emailed me a link to coed.com that did a feature on “Girls of NYU” this week. They post a bunch of pictures of girls from NYU to give a clear picture of what we look like (……) To my shock and awe, there was a picture of my roommate and I from freshman year that pulled from, where else, Facebook.

I’m not really that upset about them using my image and likeness without my permission. What I am more interested in is how Facebook has the right to essentially give away the content that is posted on the site to be used without my permission. In their Terms of Use and Agreement section (the document we waive, but so rarely read), it reads:

“By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose, commercial, advertising, or otherwise, on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing.”

If I’m not mistaken, this grants Facebook the right to license the content you put on the site for whatever they want. So the video of you singing Happy Birthday to your grandmother may well be playing in a commercial in Korea every 10 minutes. How unfair! And even if you choose to take down the pictures of yourself, Facebook retains their right to assault your image and likeness

“If you choose to remove your User Content, the license granted above will automatically expire, however you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content.”

Whatever that means. This is particularly troubling for musicians, artists and writers who use Facebook and other social networks with similar trappings. They put their work on these sights because they are one of the main mediums of underground distribution (and youth attention). An independent artist will try and get their work out their by any means necessary. And I hate to say it, but right now, this submission of rights may be unavoidable for the independent artist.

BRIANA BERRY

piracy is theft. plagiarism is just bad manners...

After class yesterday my head was basically spinning on the topic of IP and copyright. I read through Siva's second chapter,hoping it would provide some clarity on the the topic. This chapter focused primarily on Marc Twain, and his--ironically enough--contradictory opinions on the subject. Twain seems to have struggled with his own hypocrisy, and as a result established a distinction between piracy and plagiarism. The entire process of IP Law, and copyright law in general, no offense to the bigwigs in Washington...is a disaster. It is complicated and disorganized, and the reason why I can say that with out being completely ignorant about the topic is, copyright law effects everyone as it stands now. It is so unclear about what you can and cannot do, you could be infringing upon your rights at any moment and never know until the police show up. Amidst my frustration I attempted to work out what I felt, with zero legal knowledge, might be an alright solution....

What if...
piracy, or literally copying the exact work someone else has done but putting your name on it instead...should be completely illegal...and the boundaries of piracy need to be more clearly defined...in terms of the international issue (Twain was tortured his entire life, according to Siva, about Canadians and Europeans ripping off his work and claiming it as their own...but more importantly collecting royalties) anyway for these types of situations artists, or authors can become eligible for Intellectual Property Insurance....Heidi Klum can insure her legs, I'm sure we can figure something out in this regard...I think this exists in the event that a company is threatened for copyright infringement...this sort of Insurance would appraise the value of your work...and compensate you in the event that someone would pirate your work...

plagiarism on the other hand...maybe plagiarism with credit is tolerable, Siva reiterated an important point concerning influence. In class we discussed how it would be nearly impossible to even trace influence...and unless you are literally pirating the idea of another...you are more or less influenced by it...no? I quote work all the time, and I don't pay for the ideas of someone else. Moreover I am often told I need a certain amount of quotes because I need to support my idea better. So I need to support my idea better, with the idea of someone else?...I am not plagiarizing because I site the work. I am also not profiting off of my papers...I think because of the complicated nature of attempting to trace influence, situations where one profits off of work that is strongly influence by another piece (Jeff Koons) they should site, or give credit to the original piece. After my short exposure to the topic it seems pretty clear that one can be original but almost always with outlying influences. So sharing, is a result of co-existing, its what happens when you're part of a society. I am sure there is fault in this idea...its law so its never simple...or maybe this is strikingly similar to what we have now...frankly I don't understand it enough...perhaps this is just exemplary of the fact that theory does not always translate well into practice....but it seems we should give credit if we borrow...pay up if we steal.

Will it blend?

To understand the self we do not look inward, rather we seek to become aware of ourselves within the context of our existence. Becoming aware of each facet of our perceived world is an unending endeavor, but personal growth can be achieved through this reckoning. We are products our surroundings. As such, we are not unique and isolated beings; we reflect and project our perceptions. Every perception is not consciously reflected however, we pass judgments and make choices. Our ability to frame and re-present our perceptions is truly the essence of the self. It follows that our artistic and literary expressions are nothing more than well-packaged reflections of the context of our existence.

As discussed in Lethem's "ecstasy," appropriation, mimicry, quotation, and allusion are keystones of the creative act. The surroundings and influences of the creator are fundamental to the works they craft. Contamination anxiety, as Lethem discusses (or is it Kevin J.H. Dettmar that discusses?) serves to strangle the mélange of influences and inspirations that fuel creativity. We should value the creation that builds upon works of others; in other words, artistic progress as a society should be facilitated rather than stamped out. Encouraging wholly original work (which may or may not exist) is a detriment to expression and will only serve to cut down fresh budding creations. Contamination is king.

Richard Posner explains that the existing stock of ideas and expression is, to a great extent,the raw material from which new intellectual property is fashioned. In this way, we can understand that when copyrights keep intellectual property from the public domain it serves only to deprive the very thing is was created to protect. By limiting copyrights, intellectual property would be better served.

Siva Vaidhyanathan sounds the alarm in Copyrights and Copywrongs. We need to rethink the way we understand copyright so it can better serve intellectual property as a whole. As Siva suggests, a name change to "copyprivilages" may be in order to facilitate a more accurate and useful conceptualization of copyright. Before reading the introduction and first chapter of this book, I realize that i greatly misunderstood what copyright was and all of its palpable and relevant implications. It is strange to think that it has been allowed to get this far off track. We have a right to experience life and be influenced by our surroundings, copyright should serve to protect the public from big corporations that aim to take that right from us.

Catharsis

I feel incredibly defeated after having written a thoughtful entry and losing it all to a dead battery. In any event, I'll try to succinctly reiterate what, from Lethem's thought-provoking opus, carried the most personal resonance. Of the piece's varied themes, one in particular has become a preoccupation of mine in recent years: the concept of unoriginality. 

Commonly referred to as the teenage complex, the nascent individual discovers that what might have seemed like an intimate epiphany has undoubtedly been experienced by the entirety of the human race. Just prior to this realization, he might attempt to record his findings or musings on the given subject, at which point he notices that they inevitably follow, almost verbatim, one of life's innumerable truisms, proverbs, standbys, etc. 

"For substantially all ideas are secondhand, consciously and unconsciously drawn from a million outside sources, and daily used by the garnerer with a pride and satisfaction that he originated them; whereas there is not a rag of originality about them anywhere except for a little discoloration they get from his mental and moral caliber and his temperament, and which is revealed in the characteristics of phrasing."

Having frantically inscribed what I was sure would constitute a novel addition to the existential canon, I can certainly identify with this exciting, yet equally disappointing catharsis. I remain in awe of those, like Lethem, who manage to "recontruct a univocally round world out of disparate streams and thoughts." 

When Plagiarism Met Nietzsche...

I, like seemingly every single other person who has commented on this blog thus far, am going to extol Lethem's "The Ecstasy of influence: A Plagiarism". I guess, given that this is a discourse on plagiarism, the redundancy of my choice should perhaps earn me brownie points.

Lethem's analysis was certainly very interesting, motivated (at least in ideology) largely by the significant Thomas Jefferson quote we discussed in class (which also surfaced in "Copyrights and Copywrongs") that, "He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me." It's a pretty important idea that's conveyed by Jefferson. Lethem really flushes out the concept that we're all copycats, that Homer came long before Disney and that the concept of a beautiful young girl named Lolita had come to fruition four decades before Vladimir Nabokov's famed novel.

And, of course, Lethem does not forget to mention the economic incentives that compel much (and here I am namely referring to the corporate world) pro-copyright law legislation. He certainly hits on some really valid arguments, and of course the amalgamation of his essay is deliciously irresistible and utterly surprising to most readers.

But I think there are some interesting arguments from a certain philosopher named Friedrich Nietzsche that Lethem would have done well to "plagiarize". Sure, Lethem alludes to the condition of "crytomnesia" to attribute to some unbeknownst plagiaristic activities. But I think there is a more holistic argument FOR plagiarism (which actually serves as more of a polemic against the idea of plagiarism in and of itself) that can be made.

According to Nietzsche, (and here, I am interestingly enough plagiarizing from myself, in the form of a philosophical analysis I originally published on facebook in response to "The Dark Knight") the world is a series of chaos, that existence is unreal, and that we only come into existence through the creation of ourselves in artistic form. He believed that it was only through actions that we mold and sculpt the individuals that we become, all the while, enduring the hardships and sadness that fundamentally compose life.

Nietzsche's first book, "The Birth of Tragedy" states, "the truly existent primal unity, eternally suffering and contradictory... needs the rapturous vision, the pleasurable illusion, for its continuous redemption. And we, completely wrapped up in this illusion as the truly nonexistent---i.e., as a perpetual becoming in time, space and causality---in other words, as empirical reality".

According to this excerpt, unity exists in a state of constant suffering, and it is only through pleasurable illusion (which exists as the "truly nonexistent") that we gain "empirical reality". The contradictions are astounding; the illusory becomes reality, not by virtue of being real, but by an inescapable immersion in "reality." We are steeped in the world of illusion; to the extent that we mistake it for reality.

As such, I believe we can claim that "thought" "idea" "concept" are all illusory. They spring not from our own minds or imaginations, but from some cumulative experience of the world around us that has resulted in the very creation of ourselves. No thought is absent from the innumerable external influences of the world that serve to develop it, and to draw distinctions throughout time or space is impossible. There is no end to the lineage of our intellectual evolutionary; there are no means of pinpointing exact and quantifiable moments in which our "intellectual property" sprung, fully formed, into our minds, hearts and souls.

The development of idea is not merely the fruits of intellectual labors. Ideas symbolize the growth that we experience as human beings, and our growth is so thoroughly steeped in layered and complex processes and developmental catalysts that we can really never assert to owning intellectual property in any way, shape or form. At what point can we dissociate ourselves from all of the components throughout our lives that have contributed to the people we have begun? It is impossible. We must recognize that our own ideas and "intellectual property" have arisen not with us, nor with the mothers who raised us, the fathers who fed us, the friends who accompanied us. We must look further back, and continue to look further back until we succumb to the absolute realization that every moment of our lives is inextricably linked with every moment of every person who has lived before us.

Our ideas belong not to ourselves, nor to a University, nor to a patent or law or any legislative mechanism. Rather, they do not belong so much as they exist and are disseminated throughout time and across space, infinitely and eternally.

So I'm Thinking of Becoming an IP Attorney but I Have a Creative Writing and PR Background Meanging I Will Have an Identity Crisis Some Day

The title pretty much sums it up. Prior to my becoming a Communication major I was a Dramatic Writing major. I wrote plays and screenplays and more often than not I drew from something I could be sued over if intellectual property law dated back to the earliest days of mankind. As Lethem points out, art lends itself to the "borrowing" of ideas form those before us... and more often that not this "borrowing" is explicit. I wrote a play about Stolichnaya Vodka based on Poe's "Cask of Antimillado". If stringent copyright law dated back to Poe's days... I'd be sued right now. Let alone let's consider that I repeatedly described a bottle of Stoli Elite in that screenplay without any sort of permission to do so.
Frankly I have to admit that Lethem has a point with what he says. I remember being in a workshop once where a girl used the phrase "coke white". I think she said a beach was coke white. Well in a later poem I said a woman's skin was coke white. Now some attorney somewhere might want to say she could sue me for that (and someday that attorney might be me!). However as Lethem points out more often that not phrases enter into our consciousness. I didn't explicitly seek to unerdmine this girl's writing... I just heard something that gelled with me and it turned up in my writing sometime later.
Let's consider this: I play the oboe and take lessons from my teacher. I try to emulate his sound because he sounds amazing. Can he copyright his sound and charge me for emulating it? I think not but then again if I play a piece and sound like him... have I underminded him as an artist?
This borders on rambling but the PR Pro in me says a lot of the copyright issues artists and media big-wigs sue over are PR boons they're overlooking. Illegal downloading allows for massive exposure for artists and more often than not interpretive communities form around illegal downloading. Illegal downloaders tend to initiate their fellow listeners into new artists. How does my oboe teacher get more students? If I play and someone says I sound great, I can say, "Well Matt Sullivan taught me this, if you want to sound this way study with him." The spread of ideas and of an artists' style and creativity even if through the medium of another artists' work is a PR boon in itself. If Artist X sounds a hell of a lot like Artist Y and admits to it in an interview chances are I would listen to Artist Y's music too and spend money on things related to Artist Y. Loose copyright=strategic PR opportunities... at least in my opinion and of course, artists really just can't help but be influenced by their peers. After all think of artist colonies? Participants may as well as sign legal waivers at the start of their experience if they don't want their ideas being lifted.

An Artist's Freedom to Steal

As a singer-songwriter, I found Jon Lethem’s ideas on appropriation particularly interesting. The other day, I sat down to write a fun, boppy Regina Spektor-ish tune. It was going well until half way through the song I realized; DAMN! It was just a fun, boppy rendition of Radiohead’s “Karma Police”. I had re-written one of my favorite songs, without even intending to do so.
With that anecdote confessed, I definitely agree that what Lethem dryly calls, ‘appropriation’ is a strong part of the foundation of artistic creativity. Art begins with absorbing your surroundings. It’s just a reaction to what is going on around you in contrast with what is going on inside yourself. That would include any other works of art that you have not only been strongly influenced by but that you have also passively consumed. As a natural part of the creative process, I don’t think that artists should be crucified for building off the ideas of other artists. This allowance goes within reason, of course. As soon as I realized I was ripping off Radiohead, I scrapped the idea. It was more than an appropriation or a reference; it was a direct quote. If you are going to appropriate other people’s work to the extent that future viewers will notice the references, make a ‘collage’ of it as Lethem suggests, I think it needs to be a conscious creative decision. In other words, it seems appropriate to tilt your hat to the ‘nascent gifts’ that were awakened by ‘the work of a master’, not just to pass their work off as your own.
Lethem brings up the uncrowned king of creative appropriation, Bob Dylan. The fact is that a great deal of his work is restatement of traditional and classic ideas, stories and concepts. However, you would never know it unless you were a Dylan scholar. And yet, nobody accuses him of unoriginality or copyright infringement. A part of his license has to do with the fact that folk culture is somewhat exempt from more modern notions of creative property, in the same way that Lethem describes the jazz scene. Traditional folk music comes from stories that belong to everyone, so Dylan is free to use the material anyway he wants. I think he also uses these references in a way that are unquestionably original, if for no other reason than their obscurity. But in addition to the seeming randomness of his references, I believe that if you appropriate an idea, but change the context of it, it fundamentally changes what Lethem refers to as the ‘thingness’ of the idea. In other words, it’s possible that Maggie used to live on a ranch, but now that she lives on a farm, she’s a completely different girl.

-Briana Berry

Lethem and Contemporary Art

I thoroughly enjoyed Lethem's contemporary art quip in "The Ecstasy of Influence: A Plagiarism." Lethem writes, quite hysterically, "Today, where we can eat Tex-Mex with chopsticks while listening to reggae and watching a YouTube rebroadcast of the Berlin Wall's fall - ie. when damn near everything presents itself as familiar - it's not a surprise that some of today's most ambitious art is going about trying to make the familiar strange."

Of course, I completely agree. Our lives are indeed overrun by a steady, overwhelming and unlimited stream of media. Yes, I agree, there is simply no reason that I should walk in on my sleeping roommate, laptop open to his left, television on mute, while his iPod dock blares from the bedside table. However, due to Lethem's lack of examples, I had a difficult time understanding how society's relentless dose of media has created an art world in which artists attempt to make the "familiar strange."

In his book "Media Unlimited," Todd Gitlin notes we are constantly surrounded by images, on bilboards, in newspapers, on televisions, in taxi cabs, at airports, above urinals, etc that create a world completely void of reality. These "images," Gitlin writes, "depict or re-present realities but are not themselves realities." If anything, I've noticed that recent artists have responded to Gitlin's statement, and have attempted to make the familiar, whether through collage, minimalism, photo or appropriation, familiar again. If anything, websites like YouTube only help artists establish a firm understanding of past artists, in order to grow as unique, cultured artists themselves.

Damien Cave's "Mickey Mouse vs. The People" brought up an interesting point when the interviewer discussed Steven Speilberg or Steven Soderberg making a blockbuster movie out of a book they picked up. I have noticed a recent trend in best seller books being the ones made into movies whereas I used to be surprised to hear that a movie I saw was "based on a book." The DaVinci Code being a prime example, it was, in my opinion, a wonderful and original book that could be seen in any waiting room and prominently on display in any bookstore. Director Ron Howard became the "lucky" director charged in turning this literary masterpiece into an equally successful movie. He even cast leading Hollywood actor Tom Hanks in the lead role, as if the title of the film wasn't enough of a media boost. The film didn't do nearly as well as it was expected, and with most book based movies, audiences, including myself, "thought the book was better."

As I think over my list of favorite books: The Kite Runner, Marley and Me, The Lovely Bones, The Five People you Meet in Heaven, To Kill a Mockingbird, Like Water for Chocolate, The Princess Bride I noticed that each one has been (or will be) made into a movie or TV special and in most cases, again,  "the book was better."

If this is so, what does it mean that more and more movies are being made by picking a best selling book and adapting it to film? This brought me back to our conversation of "can a movie based on a book win an Oscar?" Well maybe thats why Oscars have separate categories for directors, writers, costume designers, cinematographers, set designers, original AND adapted screenplays, editing, special effects, sound mixing, original score/song, etc. Many of these categories honor entertainment that can only be experienced visually.

And while movies are wonderful and all, there is nothing like reading a book and creating your own costumes, set and theme music.

ps - a simple google search led me to this site, you might be surprised whats on the list:

www.chasingthefrog.com/moviebooks.htm

Derivative Works

Although this weeks readings provided more insight into copyright law, frankly I find myself more perplexed about the application of such laws. I was particularly frustrated about a case involving artist Jeff Koons, which was discussed in Vaidyanathan's book. I cannot understand how the photographer of a picture has any ownership over a sculpture which Koons created. I think intentionality is so important in the discussion of copyright law. So I looked up the Koons' case a bit more, and found that the issue focused around something called "derivative works", which is translating the same image into a different medium. After I took a look at the images I realized Koons might have been abusing his artistic prowess, what concerns me is the sort of precedent set by this particular case. While these arguments and rulings may seem like individual circumstances, they set a precedent for how cases of a similar nature are handled. I would be curious to see how precedent effects copyright law because the law seems both explicit and ambiguous and rulings can create dangerous territory.

Blues and Jazz as an "open source" culture

In Letham's article, his section about "open source" music brought to light an issue I've thought about fairly recently. Blues musicians have a continued history of playing the same songs, or taking existing songs and adapting them to there own. The same can also be said of early rockers. All of the most influential bands of the 60s, the rolling stones, the beatles, the kinks, the who, all recorded versions of songs written and recorded by the former generation of rockers. It seems like in today's world of rock, the art of the cover has almost totally vanished. It's highly unusual to find a recent album in which a band records their own version of a song from rock's former generation. I also can't remember the last time I went to a live concert and heard a cover. I wonder if this is the result of a lost reverence for those who shaped the music genre, or simply because the evolution of the music industry no longer allows for artists to be honored in this way.

Copyright & Trademarks

"Copyright should be about policy, not property." (Copyrights and Copywrongs:p15) This quote was in the introduction of Vaidhyanathan's book and I thought it was interesting. First of all, I immediately think of something being copyrighted as property. It's the author's book and writing. It's the artist's song. It belongs to them, they created it and they own it for however long it might be. But, Vaidhyanathan is right, it "should be about policy, not property" because when one starts thinking about policy, they begin to think about the content in a different light, which in turn may lead to more creativity or a more positive and better outlook towards copyright laws.

Another quote I found interesting from Vaidhyanathan's book was: "Whenever you buy a beverage labeled, 'Coca-Cola,' you assume from the name on the can that it will taste a certain way, and that it will taste just like the last Coke you drank. Although, as legal scholar Rosemary Comb notes, trademarks do nothing to guarantee a product’s quality or consistency. The social value of trademarks is minimal. Their commercial and proprietary value is enormous. (p19) I never even though about this. Although I feel as though Vaidhyanathan and Posner disagree on this subject. Posner states that: "Trademarks are merely identifiers, designed to protect consumers from being misled regarding the origin or quality of particular products or services." (Posner,8) Vaidhyanathan believes that trademarks do nothing to guarantee a product whereas Posner believes that trademarks guarantee a product or quality. Which is is? Do they or do they not? Who is right?

If it's plagiarism, I'd like more of it!

I would like to pay particular attention to Jonathan Lethem's article "The Ecstasy of Influence."  Firstly, the way he integrated the works and borrowing cultures of everything from Nabokov's Lolita to genres of music including blues and jazz was interesting and quite true.  I will often here the opening stanzas of a song only to find myself singing the wrong lyrics some 30 seconds later because melodies are often borrowed and only slightly tweaked.  Lethem's article highlights open source and collage culture.  He delves into the concept of borrowing ideas and elements while questioning the fine line of plagiarism and the idea that culture itself has been labeled as property--intellectual property to be exact.  

His words and ideas made sense to me, seeming perfectly agreeable yet epiphanous at the same time.  Needless to say, I was thoroughly surprised to discover that this entire article was a compilation of excerpts taken from the works of other authors.  My reaction?  BRAVO.  Is this plagiarism?  What is the most exact, most restricting definition of plagiarism?  In our academic society, "copying" qualifies as infringement. Is "copying" all-inclusive?  Must one copy not only words but the exact meaning of those words to qualify as infringement?  Perhaps, and I say that only because thoughts are not exclusive to only one human mind.  Children learn to speak words by copying their parents.  Students are trained to think a certain way as directed by professors.

I believe that Lethem created a novelty, something entirely new.  Although sentences may have been taken from other authors, he constructed them in an almost artistic way and created an argument of his own.  Such a task requires dedication to detail, reworking and restructuring.  And that is the underlying theme of his article, that ideas are inspired by other works and personal experiences.  My favorite philosopher, Johann Wolfgang Goethe once said, "All intelligent thoughts have already been thought; what is necessary is only to try to think them again."  I do believe this to be true and agree both with Goethe's words and Lethem's work of uniquely reworked borrowed words.

Difference between art and commodity?

For me, the main issue in a lot of the talk thus far is the major difference between who the original copyright law was meant to help and who it actually benefits today.  The idea seems to have been echoed in both Posner's and Lethem's articles in different ways, but it seems to me, that the copyright was originally intended to benefit the small artist, the one who needs a degree of payment in order to devote the amount of time he or she needs to complete the piece.  As is such, most of the work in the first place, has been influenced by so many sources, it's impossible to call it wholly original anyway, it didn't just come out of thin air. At the end of the day, this is how all art is produced.  As one of the readings had mentioned, Uncle Walt didn't just come up with the idea of Mickey Mouse all on his lonesome, and at most, maybe god or whoever put mice on earth in the first place should be compensated for their use in Disney's work.  Either way, art in general is made up and influenced by so many different ideas and other pieces of art.  What matters is if the expression of any of it is new, and by the producer's own doing.  More so, in recent years the entire concept of copyright has metamorphosed to completely degrade the smaller up and coming artist, by lessening the amount of work he has at his fingertips to reference, be influenced by, and play with, while empowering the larger companies to basically do whatever they want.  Before we know it the very mention of Mickey Mouse in a non-officially Disney forum could be considered copyright infringement.  Even after all his heirs have died off.

This week, I found Jonathan Lethem's article "The ecstasy of influence: A plagiarism" particularly interesting and thought provoking. In this essay, Lethem explores the idea of influence and what it means to plagiarize, borrow ideas, and infringe on copyrights. At the end of the article, however, we find out that the entire essay is a compilation of excerpts for other authors' works. Lethem carefully and consciously crafts a collage of other people's work into a well-organized  essay that flows as if it was his own. However, from the very beginning, the title is even a borrowed idea. This controversial essay brings up many questions. Is this plagiarism? Does Lethem actually create something new? Is this admirable? In class someone mentioned, could Lethem potentially win the Pulitzer Prize for this essay? I would argue that, yes, Lethem does create something new despite the fact that all of his material is borrowed. In order to make his essay flow as if it was his own, he had to have put a significant amount of time, energy, and thought into organizing, reorganizing, and crafting his inspirations. Yes, the literal words on the pages are not his own, but the concept is quite original and very much his own. In fact, Lethem's entire argument is that all creation comes from inspiration and that all artists borrow from ideas in the past. In class we discussed Girl Talk and "The Grey Album" and Lethem mentions Andy Warhol's work, among others. Although these artists borrow from other works, they all create something new, original, and unique. 

IP's Balancing Act

It's only the first week and I'm already finding myself on the side of "thin" copyright protection. We'll see if that changes. Of the readings due last Thursday, Posner's The law & economics of intellectual property prompted me to think the most about intellectual property, its ambiguity, and the problem of affording IP rights that are too expansive. At the same time, however, a balancing act has to be in place, since zero IP rights would "kill the incentive to create...intellectual property in the first place." For some reason I never thought about IP in the terms that the authors/our class discussion framed it. Living in this society (I'm too afraid to have an illegal downloading program on my computer because of all the silly lawsuits I've read about), and having worked in the legal dept. of a large film company have made me instinctively side with producers. But why? The more I read, the more I begin to feel like my former employers are just bullies. I agree with Posner and Lethem that new intellectual property is built upon ideas already existing, so how do we strike this infamous "balance" between providing enough incentive for artists without interfering with the creation of new IP? Especially considering our ever-improving technology (which Posner also touches upon)...how are the rules going to change? Or won't they? I have a feeling that court cases will continue to rule in favor of producers, and not the 12-year-olds who are being pointlessly sued for copyright infringement. But at the same time, the music industry is in a downward spiral. How can IP grant producers enough protection without infringing on society's right to access this "property"/expression of ideas? I know it's one of the most asked questions in IP, but I'd never really thought about it before.

Copyrights and Copywrongs has already answered some of my concerns, but I'll save that for next week's post. :)

In Damien Cave’s “Mickey Mouse v. The People,” Cave interviews Eric Eldred and Laura Bjorklund, who both have websites that specialize in hosting formerly copyrighted material whose copyrights have expired and have fallen into public domain. Eldred’s website hosts old versions of Hawthorne novels and Frost poems, while Bjorklund, along with her small publishing company, hosts mainly histories and genealogy texts.

At one point in the interview, Bjorklund mentions that she “had a shelf of material from 1924 that was going to be reprinted” but now it must wait. She goes on to say, while the material that she’s waiting to publish may seem boring, there are people who really want to get their hands on it, which is an interesting point.

Most of the time, when I think of copyright, I think about copyright protecting major cultural works, i.e. Mickey Mouse, The Da Vinci Code, etc. These are works many people know; however, besides the largely recognizable things, copyright also protects many other works that fly under the radar and most people ignore. While I may not care about a certain out-of-print book, someone else probably really wants to see it but may have difficulty accessing it since its out-of-print. In a way, it seems shameful that the few people who really want to see it cannot simply because copyright laws are preventing people, such as Bjorklund, to post it online so it can be easily-accessible. A book is no good unless someone reads it and uses its information.

IP MONOPOLY

The readings this week were funner than I expected. Jonathan Lethem's "The Ecstasy of Influence: A Plagiarism" explains in a much funner and wiser manner the way I feel about plagiarism. His use of the word USEMONOPOLY "the idea that culture can be property- intellectual property" made me think of the actual game of monopoly, and I was scared for a moment to think that Copyright will continue to grow as it has for the past years, and ultimately lead to a game of Monopoly, it may even be called IP Monopoly: "The first ever IP MONOPOLY featuring the greatest masterminds and creative works from around the world, as voted by you, is now available at a retailer near you!"
Although it feels like a frightning idea, it may be very possible in the near future as copyright laws and the idea of intellectual property becomes an essential part of the US' culture and GDP.