The copyright topic raises a lot of grey-area questions… and while there is still much head scratching to be done, this week’s readings leave little doubt in my mind that our current copyright and patent laws are outdated, and as such are what Lessig might call ‘culture strangling’. It’s a rather romantic notion to say that these laws exist exclusively for the benefit of artists, musicians, programmers, etc. when you consider that the bulk of creative folk are managed by a handful much larger companies. These “agents” – what some might call copyright hoarders - are still cashing in on royalties 70 years after the artist who was signed to them passes away.
John Perry Barlow, founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, comments poignantly that “kid’s down own their own culture”. This statement is given a tangible quality in the face of Lessig’s Walt Disney example. Lessig says in his own blog that Walt’s style was “rip, mix and burn”, but if Walt was around today, none of that would have been possible. In fact Lessig guesses ironically at the consequences of applying the same rip, mix and burn ideology to one of Disney Inc.’s current releases.
While unfettered file sharing practices – my own included – can’t be heralded as great bringers of culture (and does cost an already struggling Australian arts economy greatly), it’s the use of these files by artists like GirlTalk that should be allowed to continue freely. The mashups, spinoffs, and interpretations of other people’s work enrich the artistic landscape, so I can’t help feel that our copyright laws speak more to the economic profit of large corporations than to the protection of “the fruits of invention and creativity”. The Free Culture Movement has the right idea....
As a musician I really like the whole idea of sharing music for free and what not. I actually had a DJ friend remix one of my previous bands singles as a way of not only gaining exposure for my own band but also for him as a DJ. We allowed these remixes to be streamed and downloaded for free, actually I'm pretty sure they might still be on soundcloud. However, I also look at the other side of the coin in that being an independent musician, DJ, etc is a job and if it is that persons sole job then they need to make some sort of income from it to live and survive. As many of you may or may not the music industry in Australia is extremely poor to say the least and in fact most independent musicians struggle to make income (in fact they usually run at a loss) from live gigs. Payment in the form Royalties is just another avenue that helps support the struggling muso. You are right though that much of it does go to the larger corporations, record companies, etc that look after the bigger name artists and musicians. Again the question comes down to should we be able to own intellectual property.
ReplyDeleteIt's funny, I think that if i had to make it official, I would still be on both sides of the copyright debate. I am all for protecting individual's personal content to prevent unrightful claims, but sometimes copyright could not frustrate me more. Without the copies, spin offs and parodies of media content, our internet landscape would honestly be extremely drab (especially youtube).
ReplyDeleteI think it is frustrating when a corporation determines for us (the consumers and audiences) the line between being able to view and download content freely and being only able to catch snippets of views. Being an avid design and photography follower, I couldnt count the amount of times I have clicked on a image, and the watermark has covered the most important part... So frustrating, especially if it is an image of me (ahh official photography!)
I strongly believe in giving credit when credits due, but if producers of media content cut back too far on the possibility of viewing, i think that really - it is just going to affect them more in terms of exposure, than the audience who can just go somewhere else.
I also think it would be a hugely difficult decision to make, and am on the fence myself, however I would feel easier about choosing to reduce the length of copyright ownership. Of course musicians need to be able to make a living, but once they're gone copyright lingers.
ReplyDeleteIt would be good if royalties could be made payable upon asset assessment or something like that. Say if your an up and coming filmmaker and you can't afford to pay $400 000 for the rights to a song, than it should be priced accordingly.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that current laws are outdated and I think that Walt Disney would be thoroughly disappointed at the fact that his company has actually become known as a stifler of creativity. Walt's 'rip, mix and burn' style would fit well within youtube's own remixing culture. Some of the most interesting and worthwhile works I've come across are remixes of other people's work. This doesn't make them any less original, it just means that the artist started from a different place, and that the inspiration was another artist.
ReplyDeleteJust like you, I hope to see the artistic landscape continue to deepen through the freedom to create whilst standing on the shoulders of those who came before. I think that, as is evident from people like Pogo (who remixes disney movies into songs); bigger companies are starting to catch on that people won't stop using their copyrighted content creatively, and that there are advantages to allowing this. Seeing well-made songs based of a disney movie, is more likely to make me appreciate the original work, and therefore maintain a positive attitude towards the company.
Not sure I agree that music/movie downloading is to blame for the struggles of the Australian arts scene. Bollywood movies must be the most heavily pirated pieces of entertainment content out there, and yet Bollywood is the very definition of vibrant entertainment economy.
ReplyDeleteIt's an interesting concept to see the use of anthers idea as an "interpretation" of it. Sometimes I think it's a genuine effort on an artists part, especially in music. I do believe that music has multiple interpretations, and artists have a right to rework it as they see fit. Personally I love the Glee version of "I Want To Hold Your Hand" by the Beatles.
ReplyDeleteAnd I agree with Ted, that music and movie downloads, while they don't help the industry, they're not to blame for the struggles involved in rising in the industry. File sharing has been around for over a decade now, but that hasn't stopped properly good artists breaking through.
I didn't say that pirating was entirely to blame, I mention that the arts scene is already struggling and that piracy hurts the economy of that industry. Mainly I call our copyright laws into question, however surely there is no argument that illegal downloading means loss of profit
ReplyDeleteI 100% agree that the patent and copyright laws are out dated. To be cashing in on royalties 70 years after the artist who has signed them has passed away seems quite ridiculous. I am not sure how this would work but maybe the patent should die with the person?? It makes complete sense but who am I to know or argue with people that are receiving money for a dead persons talent?
ReplyDelete