I completely agree with Richard Boyle. In the interview conducted by NPR Boyle stated that even though a book is out of print, the publishers are closed, and the author has passed then why can’t the book be open to everyone online? There is no money to be made out of someone obtaining a copy of the book so there should be no reason that it cannot be available. The only way to access the book is to search through all the catalogs of the Library of Congress and request to view a hard copy, which can be a long and arduous process. The only reason one cannot access the book through easier means is the ever powerful law of copyright. They refuse to digitize the book due to copyright infringement. The law stands for 70 year after the death of the author. Most material printed and copyrighted long ago in the past will not last this long. Most of the materials sitting in the library of congress will disintegrate instead of being saved by digitizing them. This law is taken too literally to protect the works at the risk of them being lost. Once these works are lost the authors work seems to go to waste since no one is able to enjoy it anymore. It just seems absurd that this law lasts this long. It’s a shame that the law will let these works be lost in the name to “protect” the work from it being stolen.
-TBC
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Response to Steve Albini’s “ The Problem With Music”
After having read Steve Albini’s “ The Problem With Music” I became very surprised at how manipulative the entertainment industry really is. Albini describes, what I understand to be, record labels as “faceless industry lackey”, which made me imagine organizations that are able to avoid and divert all responsibility, and thus all blame. For instance, Albini discusses the A & R reps and how record labels strategically select young, hip, relatable, “warm” individuals for these positions, as a means of tricking the musicians into thinking that the A & R rep is worthy of their trust. The A & R rep is “as naive as the band he's duping. When he tells them no one will interfere in their creative process, he probably even believes it.” If that is the case- that the A & R rep is not to blame, and the record company is “faceless”, then who is responsible?
Albini discusses the process through which bands sign with record labels, which was by far the most appalling to me of all. The band meets with the deceiving, yet naïve A & R rep, and signs a letter of intent on the spot. Although shocking, the letter of intent does not actually translate to an intention to sign, but rather an obligation to sign. Albini writes “once a band has signed a letter of intent, they will either eventually sign a contract that suits the label or they will be destroyed”, because the band has given up the right to sign with another label or put out its own material.
At one point Albini discusses how the label has the upper hand, since there are plenty of other bands who would die for the opportunity to sign with them. One must then analyze why this is the case. If record labels are so manipulative, then why are their services in such demand? The answer is money, or rather the illusion of money. We see in “The Problem With Music” that record labels emphasize the projected or actual income figures, yet neglect to stress the cost of expense. In reality, the band member income is very low, especially in comparison to that of the record company. We discussed a potential solution to this problem in lecture today. It was suggested that record companies will be obsolete in the future as technology eliminates the middleperson. After reading Albini’s essay, I not only agree with this transition even more (record companies deserve extinction!), but I also understand that investing in the services of a record company are, in the end, not even that profitable.
Albini discusses the process through which bands sign with record labels, which was by far the most appalling to me of all. The band meets with the deceiving, yet naïve A & R rep, and signs a letter of intent on the spot. Although shocking, the letter of intent does not actually translate to an intention to sign, but rather an obligation to sign. Albini writes “once a band has signed a letter of intent, they will either eventually sign a contract that suits the label or they will be destroyed”, because the band has given up the right to sign with another label or put out its own material.
At one point Albini discusses how the label has the upper hand, since there are plenty of other bands who would die for the opportunity to sign with them. One must then analyze why this is the case. If record labels are so manipulative, then why are their services in such demand? The answer is money, or rather the illusion of money. We see in “The Problem With Music” that record labels emphasize the projected or actual income figures, yet neglect to stress the cost of expense. In reality, the band member income is very low, especially in comparison to that of the record company. We discussed a potential solution to this problem in lecture today. It was suggested that record companies will be obsolete in the future as technology eliminates the middleperson. After reading Albini’s essay, I not only agree with this transition even more (record companies deserve extinction!), but I also understand that investing in the services of a record company are, in the end, not even that profitable.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Overprotective Copyright Law
The creativity of amateurs is being suppressed by overprotective copyright laws to a ridiculous extent. According to Lawrence Lessig, the “copyright war” of the last decade is to blame. The “copyright war” is most easily described as the music labels’ and government’s attempts to stop kids from downloading free songs from peer to peer file sharing programs like Napster or Limewire. And like any war, the “copyright war” has its collateral damages. This collateral damage is the stifling of creativity for everyday people. Take for example the story of Stephanie Lenz.
Last year Ms. Lenz uploaded on YouTube a video of her daughter dancing to a vaguely discernable Prince song in the background. Within a few months, Prince’s record company, Universal, demanded that YouTube remove the video from their website claiming copyright infringement. The idea that Universal would pay thousands of dollars for a group of extremely expensive lawyers to challenge YouTube and threaten to sue Ms. Lenz over such a meaningless video is almost humorous. It is obviously an inefficient waste of resources and perfectly exemplifies how much the “copyright war” has gotten out of hand.
The main issue is why people cannot quote others in the name of creativity. Lessig puts it best when he says, “writers with words have had the freedom to quote since time immemorial, "writers" with digital technology have not yet earned this right. Instead, the lawyers insist permission is required to include the protected work in anything new.” Like Lessig, I believe amateur creators should have the right to quote artists in a digital medium without the possibility of lawsuit or criminal infractions. The digital revolution of YouTube and Wikipedia has brought back the voice of the amateur. And for this voice to be heard to its full extent, drastic changes in copyright law must be made.
Last year Ms. Lenz uploaded on YouTube a video of her daughter dancing to a vaguely discernable Prince song in the background. Within a few months, Prince’s record company, Universal, demanded that YouTube remove the video from their website claiming copyright infringement. The idea that Universal would pay thousands of dollars for a group of extremely expensive lawyers to challenge YouTube and threaten to sue Ms. Lenz over such a meaningless video is almost humorous. It is obviously an inefficient waste of resources and perfectly exemplifies how much the “copyright war” has gotten out of hand.
The main issue is why people cannot quote others in the name of creativity. Lessig puts it best when he says, “writers with words have had the freedom to quote since time immemorial, "writers" with digital technology have not yet earned this right. Instead, the lawyers insist permission is required to include the protected work in anything new.” Like Lessig, I believe amateur creators should have the right to quote artists in a digital medium without the possibility of lawsuit or criminal infractions. The digital revolution of YouTube and Wikipedia has brought back the voice of the amateur. And for this voice to be heard to its full extent, drastic changes in copyright law must be made.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Spinello defines intellectual property as “’intellectual objects’, such as original musical compositions, poems, novels, inventions, product formulas, and so forth”. Intellectual property, or intellectual objects, is so much more difficult to protect, literally and ethically, than physical objects because they are nonrival goods. With the invention and expansion of the internet not only are nonrival goods being created, but goods, such as music, which had been solely a rival good in the past, are also becoming nonrival. I agree with John Locke, who believed that people should have a natural right to the fruits of their labor. I do not think, however, that intellectual property rights, which forbid others from benefitting from another’s work without proper compensation, are necessarily the answer. It was mentioned in last week’s lecture that, for the most part, the only people who are being significantly hurt by the lack of protection of intellectual property over the internet are the large corporations, which are sufficiently well-off to begin with. The smaller musicians, on the other hand, are benefitting from the internet and the spread of their music or intellectual property, as it can only bring them more popularity. I do agree with John Locke, yet John Locke lived and philosophized during the 17th century and, although, I agree with the idea that one should deserve reward as a result of his/her labor, I do not think that, that reward must always necessarily mean the right to the result of the labor. The young, unpopular musicians, for instance, lose the ability to forbid individuals from accessing their music once it has entered the internet. Their reward is not the right to forbid others from listening, but rather the opportunity to acquire more fans, which will indirectly make them money. I do think that their needs to be some protection of intellectual property, though. One needs to find a balance, which will allow individuals enough access to the intellectual property of others to encourage growth and progress within the culture, but at the same time protect those holding the intellectual property rights so they feel sufficiently compensated, and thus want to continue creating, which is what Lessig is getting at.
In a world fueled by money, one has to wonder why media corporations and record companies bother to prosecute most “copywrite violators.” In cases such as that of Stephanie Lenz (the mother who posted a clip of her baby dancing to a poor recording), the video will not prevent record companies from making money on the song. That is, no one would find the song clip to be such an acceptable substitute that they would refrain from buying the song.
Girl Talk creator Gregg Gillis has admittedly sampled many popular songs. But while he has used the intellectual property of others, no one is going to stop from buying the original songs. In many cases of individuals basing artwork off of the work of other individuals, the original piece is still being sold and is still profitable to artist and the artist’s company.
As such, one must wonder why record companies would spend thousands or millions on lawsuits in order to prosecute someone who is probably not detracting from their business. Are they spiteful? Proving a point? Given that many so-called violators are ordinary citizens, record companies could not possibly expect huge monetary settlements out of them. In short, record companies waste time and money prosecuting people who are not harming them.
Furthermore, one might argue that all music, film, etc. is in some way based on past work. In this day and age, it is nearly impossible to create something completely and totally original. Therefore, it is rather hypocritical of record labels and music companies to prosecute artists for plagiarism while it is probable that their own artists have in some way plagiarized other artists.
To sum up, I think it is completely ridiculous that record companies hypocritically waste time and money trying to crush something that is doing them no harm.
-JB
Girl Talk creator Gregg Gillis has admittedly sampled many popular songs. But while he has used the intellectual property of others, no one is going to stop from buying the original songs. In many cases of individuals basing artwork off of the work of other individuals, the original piece is still being sold and is still profitable to artist and the artist’s company.
As such, one must wonder why record companies would spend thousands or millions on lawsuits in order to prosecute someone who is probably not detracting from their business. Are they spiteful? Proving a point? Given that many so-called violators are ordinary citizens, record companies could not possibly expect huge monetary settlements out of them. In short, record companies waste time and money prosecuting people who are not harming them.
Furthermore, one might argue that all music, film, etc. is in some way based on past work. In this day and age, it is nearly impossible to create something completely and totally original. Therefore, it is rather hypocritical of record labels and music companies to prosecute artists for plagiarism while it is probable that their own artists have in some way plagiarized other artists.
To sum up, I think it is completely ridiculous that record companies hypocritically waste time and money trying to crush something that is doing them no harm.
-JB
Where is the line drawn?
Where is the line drawn?
What exactly is intellectual property? According to Merriam-Webster online, intellectual property is defined as: property (as an idea, invention, or process) that derives from the work of the mind or intellect; also: an application, right, or registration relating to this. It is interesting to see here that it is listed as a right of some sort similar to what was discussed in class and what Macpherson says that property is a right. Intellectual property just seems like a game that one plays to see who can think of a certain principle or way of thinking first, document or patent it, and claim it as a right of their own so that no others can use it, without consent.
There is a very thin line to where one must ask for consent and can go about doing things without consent. Where is the line drawn to where we can use things without asking for consent? If one must ask for consent for simply having record, a picture or movie, of a trademarked good mostly all of us would be in jail due to copyright infringement. I have seen in many instances on Facebook pictures and videos of trademarked items that if similar to the case of Stephanie Lans (the YouTube mom who was asked to take her video down because her child was dancing to a Prince song that was copyrighted), the people on Facebook would be prosecuted. This law can be stretched to cover many things such as titled of the goods. It is ridiculous that anything could be considered copyrighted if someone gains a patent to it. The “intellectual commons” is shrinking day by day as people claim right to certain thoughts and beliefs. It seems to me that sooner or later we are going to have to ask for consent for everything we write and say because someone will claim that it is the title of their work or related to it.
-TBC
What exactly is intellectual property? According to Merriam-Webster online, intellectual property is defined as: property (as an idea, invention, or process) that derives from the work of the mind or intellect; also: an application, right, or registration relating to this. It is interesting to see here that it is listed as a right of some sort similar to what was discussed in class and what Macpherson says that property is a right. Intellectual property just seems like a game that one plays to see who can think of a certain principle or way of thinking first, document or patent it, and claim it as a right of their own so that no others can use it, without consent.
There is a very thin line to where one must ask for consent and can go about doing things without consent. Where is the line drawn to where we can use things without asking for consent? If one must ask for consent for simply having record, a picture or movie, of a trademarked good mostly all of us would be in jail due to copyright infringement. I have seen in many instances on Facebook pictures and videos of trademarked items that if similar to the case of Stephanie Lans (the YouTube mom who was asked to take her video down because her child was dancing to a Prince song that was copyrighted), the people on Facebook would be prosecuted. This law can be stretched to cover many things such as titled of the goods. It is ridiculous that anything could be considered copyrighted if someone gains a patent to it. The “intellectual commons” is shrinking day by day as people claim right to certain thoughts and beliefs. It seems to me that sooner or later we are going to have to ask for consent for everything we write and say because someone will claim that it is the title of their work or related to it.
-TBC
Saturday, January 24, 2009
The right to "quote"
[Warning: this is a monster blog entry. Better grab a snack.]
Lawrence Lessig, in his essay "In Defense of Piracy," makes a very interesting observation about modern copyright policy:
In Lessig's article, he mentions the case of Stephanie Lenz, a woman who has become involved in serious legal proceedings as an indirect result of her posting a video on Youtube. The dispute is between her and the copyright holders of a song that can be heard - was quoted, if you will - in the background of her video. While the focus of her film is not the music itself (this is a home movie), Prince's "Let's Go Crazy" can be heard, albeit briefly and indistinctly, in the background.
One may well ask, "why would anyone want to take this video down?" Due to the abbreviated nature and poor sound quality of the music, virtually no one could conceivably watch this video as an alternative to enjoying Prince's music. On the contrary, the primary effect of this movie on its audience will be to make the song more endearing, more associated with the good things in life, and therefore more successful on the music market. There is one way in which this case could improve a record company or musical artist's profits, and thus perhaps be justified. The motive here is to set a precedent... to draw the line clearly enough in favor of big media interests that cases in which the result might actually matter finds the law unquestionably on their side.
Something more along the lines of this type of situation is one case that involves me personally. This very week, one of my Youtube videos has been muted due to what may be a copyright violation. Well, I suppose it is. The song that Youtube has informed me (on behalf of WMG) "may" be in the film - "Bad Day" by Daniel Powter, is actually listed in the credits at the end! A good chunck of the song is there, and in fairly good quality, so I could see why the media company might have a good case. However, I still think that we should look at what this movie with its 1200+ views was actually doing for or against the producers of the song. Once again, we find that the song in question is placed incompletely, inconveniently, and in low enough general quality (considering how it is worked into the film) that virtually no one would consider watching my movie as an serious alternative to buying and listening to the song. Also as in the case of Ms. Lenz's film, the music is presented in a humorous manner that is more likely to increase revenue for the music industry than to damage it.
All of this begs the question, are there cases where Youtube or other media sites / databases are "quoting" audio or other digital media in such a way as to actually harm the legitimate owners of said media? To continue or motif of youtube videos and my personal experience, let's consider the latest album of the dark rock band I am Ghost. After loving their first album, Lovers' Requiem so much, I immediately wanted to preview their second one when it came out. Rather than buying it, however, I was able to use youtube to listen to complete rips of each track on the disc. Furthermore, I decided I didn't like it all that much and decided not to buy - so in a certain sense, Youtube did contribue to a loss of profit for the band or its publishers. Even so, the issue is debatable; Youtube was also a major reason that I became a fan of the band and bought their music in the first place. Thus, the availability of listening-quality music (or video for that matter) is a double-edged sword and media companies should have the ability to regulate this content if they so desire. They should take heed, however: by removing themselves from the Youtuber's line of sight, they risk a heavy loss in profit due to lowered recognition.
Getting back to the quotation from the beginning, though, let's take a quick look at remixing. This is another issue that involves me personally, as I am a huge fan of OverClocked Remix and hope to contribute to their database myself one day. It's basically a video game music arrangement community with an open-source feel. Many of the songs on this site quote directly (sample) from their source material (games), and the ones that don't are still melodically or otherwise based upon the source material from video game music composers. These composers, in turn, are credited on the web page of each song and thus gain recognition that they, the unsung heroes of the gamer's musical world, might never otherwise achieve. To my knowledge, a game company has never once taken action against any remixer. While in most (but not all cases) game soundtracks are not sold directly anyway, it would seem that the "intellectual property" of the game developers is being taken and used with just as little authorization as Prince or Universal had given Ms. Lenz. The difference in this case is that the profits come from the purchase of the games themselves, and the people in charge of these games realize that by allowing people to express their love of this media in creative and constructive ways, they are really doing themselves - and the world - a big favor.
JMA
Lawrence Lessig, in his essay "In Defense of Piracy," makes a very interesting observation about modern copyright policy:
"[W]hile writers with words have had the freedom to quote since time immemorial, "writers" with digital technology have not yet earned this right."In this blog entry, I will attempt to address a few situations where this statement applies, and how the truth of it has affected me personally.
In Lessig's article, he mentions the case of Stephanie Lenz, a woman who has become involved in serious legal proceedings as an indirect result of her posting a video on Youtube. The dispute is between her and the copyright holders of a song that can be heard - was quoted, if you will - in the background of her video. While the focus of her film is not the music itself (this is a home movie), Prince's "Let's Go Crazy" can be heard, albeit briefly and indistinctly, in the background.
One may well ask, "why would anyone want to take this video down?" Due to the abbreviated nature and poor sound quality of the music, virtually no one could conceivably watch this video as an alternative to enjoying Prince's music. On the contrary, the primary effect of this movie on its audience will be to make the song more endearing, more associated with the good things in life, and therefore more successful on the music market. There is one way in which this case could improve a record company or musical artist's profits, and thus perhaps be justified. The motive here is to set a precedent... to draw the line clearly enough in favor of big media interests that cases in which the result might actually matter finds the law unquestionably on their side.
Something more along the lines of this type of situation is one case that involves me personally. This very week, one of my Youtube videos has been muted due to what may be a copyright violation. Well, I suppose it is. The song that Youtube has informed me (on behalf of WMG) "may" be in the film - "Bad Day" by Daniel Powter, is actually listed in the credits at the end! A good chunck of the song is there, and in fairly good quality, so I could see why the media company might have a good case. However, I still think that we should look at what this movie with its 1200+ views was actually doing for or against the producers of the song. Once again, we find that the song in question is placed incompletely, inconveniently, and in low enough general quality (considering how it is worked into the film) that virtually no one would consider watching my movie as an serious alternative to buying and listening to the song. Also as in the case of Ms. Lenz's film, the music is presented in a humorous manner that is more likely to increase revenue for the music industry than to damage it.
All of this begs the question, are there cases where Youtube or other media sites / databases are "quoting" audio or other digital media in such a way as to actually harm the legitimate owners of said media? To continue or motif of youtube videos and my personal experience, let's consider the latest album of the dark rock band I am Ghost. After loving their first album, Lovers' Requiem so much, I immediately wanted to preview their second one when it came out. Rather than buying it, however, I was able to use youtube to listen to complete rips of each track on the disc. Furthermore, I decided I didn't like it all that much and decided not to buy - so in a certain sense, Youtube did contribue to a loss of profit for the band or its publishers. Even so, the issue is debatable; Youtube was also a major reason that I became a fan of the band and bought their music in the first place. Thus, the availability of listening-quality music (or video for that matter) is a double-edged sword and media companies should have the ability to regulate this content if they so desire. They should take heed, however: by removing themselves from the Youtuber's line of sight, they risk a heavy loss in profit due to lowered recognition.
Getting back to the quotation from the beginning, though, let's take a quick look at remixing. This is another issue that involves me personally, as I am a huge fan of OverClocked Remix and hope to contribute to their database myself one day. It's basically a video game music arrangement community with an open-source feel. Many of the songs on this site quote directly (sample) from their source material (games), and the ones that don't are still melodically or otherwise based upon the source material from video game music composers. These composers, in turn, are credited on the web page of each song and thus gain recognition that they, the unsung heroes of the gamer's musical world, might never otherwise achieve. To my knowledge, a game company has never once taken action against any remixer. While in most (but not all cases) game soundtracks are not sold directly anyway, it would seem that the "intellectual property" of the game developers is being taken and used with just as little authorization as Prince or Universal had given Ms. Lenz. The difference in this case is that the profits come from the purchase of the games themselves, and the people in charge of these games realize that by allowing people to express their love of this media in creative and constructive ways, they are really doing themselves - and the world - a big favor.
JMA
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Info
Vanderbilt University
CS 151.02 - Spring 2009
TEAM RED:
Josh Altonji
Allison Baschnagel
Jessica Bonds
Trushar Champaneria
Brian Delaney
CS 151.02 - Spring 2009
TEAM RED:
Josh Altonji
Allison Baschnagel
Jessica Bonds
Trushar Champaneria
Brian Delaney