When Copyright is defined as "an exclusive right," it just doesn't sound right. An idea on an object (for example a song on a CD) is a complex thing to get credit for, much less sell. When the CD is sold, whatever is on it is sold as well. BUT, according to John Feather and copyright laws, "ownership of the object does not confer ownership of the content." Simply put, just because someone buys the CD does not mean they own the rights to song. This is simple, but the use of the song other than personal enjoyment can be complicated. If Jane goes to buy something, and hands over the proper amount of money for it, doesn't she get ownership? Is Jane allowed to learn songs that are recorded on the CD that she bought? Yes she is. Can she mangle the song on the CD to represent her view of the world/ideas in her head? Technically, she can, but lawfully... well, lets look at a scenario: Lets say Jane records said song and makes some money off of it. However, if Jane's song sounds too much like the song that inspired her to pick up a guitar in the first place, well then, Jane will most likely have legal action levied against her. That inspirational song is owned by someone. In today's age, it is owned by many people. Now, being inspired begets a lawsuit.
If something is directly stolen - the CD that Jane bought for example - then it is understandable that charges can be pressed. But the idea? the song itself? Songs, music, lyrics, are all expressions of a writer. Ideas put down on paper or played on an instrument. The definition of an idea is "A concept or mental impression/A suggestion as to a possible course of action/an opinion or belief/a feeling that something is possible or probable." Suggestions, mental ideas, opinions, beliefs, and feelings are not tangible things. Therefore ideas are not physical, however, they can become a reality. When ideas become a reality - the manifestation of a song, for example - the only physical representation of that song is sheet music and the medium of recording (i.e. vinyl, CD, cassette tape, 8-track). Sound can't be grabbed, but it can be made. Ideas can be expressed, but not owned.
But can ideas be credited? Is there a difference between ownership and credit? Its a vast, grey cloudy plane of the unknown. Granted, Ideas can't be owned but, for example, a song can have an author, and that author can have credit for making it. Say Bob writes a song. Then Jim takes that exact same song and plays it note-for-note and claims it to be hi own song. That is unfair. But if Jim acknowledges that the song was originally Bob's or if Jim alters the song to make his own version of it, then that should be fair game.
All these fine lines and shades of grey are confusing. I honestly don't know where to go from here. If i think of anything else to say, I'll post before monday, but for the mean-time I'm going to pirate some movies.
EDIT: Lars Ulrich is a bitch.
Anthony, brother, I had a four paragraph response typed, and was just about to post it, when this treacherous Mac contraption here in my lap, pulled one of those indescribably infuriating "Safari has quit unexpectedly" hustles on me, at which time it took every ounce of will power to not hurl this treacherous Mac contraption off of the balcony of my apartment, where I am currently sitting, as I attempt to communicate what was in the original post...for crying out loud...
ReplyDeleteSo, first things first, it is funny to reflect that the dude from Girl TAlk is JUST NOW confronting the problems surrounding smapling, because for those of us that bought classics like Criminal Minded, Three Feet High and Rising, and It Takes A NAtion of Millions To Hold Us Back, when they came out, we know that the issue of sampling--and thus, copyright in music--is an old one. In fact, a really old one.
If musicians are going to take these corporate juggernauts' money, and sign their contracts, than, musicians have little--or no--right to complain about how fucked these corporations are (in my eyes, this would include Radiohead, despite what attempt to be righteous they have displayed.
If there is genuine tragedy in all of this, it is the very fact that the musicians have willfully rendered themselves so powerless against these corporation that own their creations. That musicians are powerless to make good decisions, and be generous to other.
Of course, I believe sampling should be allowed...but...I still feel there should be some kind of communication between the artists themselves, if for no other reason, out of respect, and to keep a degree of civility in the community.
For some reason, Madlib keeps coming to my mind. Blue Note let Madlib take a bunch of old Jazz songs form their label, and rework them, and likewise, so did the old reggae and dance-hall label, Trojan (which, if you haven't heard them, I strongly recommend). I know legal agreements were of course made, but nevertheless, letting a young and pioneering artist like Madlib have unfettered access to their archives, seems like a mutual show of respect on all fronts, and I think it indicates what would happen if the power was truly in the hands of the artists themselves. I know in one of the intros to one of the Blue Note songs, the original artist ( I think it was Wayne Shorter but I don't remember exactly) says something like, "this is Wayne Shorter for Blue Note records, for Madlib, and honestly, I'm just curious to see what he is going to put on there." Or something like that--nevertheless, it was a sign of genuine respect between different artists, and different generations, that can only exist between artists, and labels as down to earth as Blue Note...I guess...
I could go on, but I'm cold, and need to go back inside. Nevertheless your post is stirring, and I agree, the issue is a tough one to take any one stand on...
Don't forget Paul's Boutique!
ReplyDelete:D
-M.C.
Scott, im sorry about your computer. My mac is 3 years old and I'm in the same boat with you. My hard drive crashed last summer and thankfully i had my music on my external hard drive, but i had all my photos on the hard drive that crashed. Apple makes computers that last 3 years - coincidentally its just as long as their warranty plan...
ReplyDeleteBut, I completely agree on the aspect of mutual respect. Madlib is named Madlib for a reason and Blue Note has been around since the 1950's, so this label and this artist both have each other's trust to keep the dignity of the tracks and not, for example, hand them over to Lil Wayne.
Like you said "the musicians have willfully rendered themselves so powerless against these corporation that own their creations," but i feel like the very laws that these corporations have enacted to keep the integrity and respect of the musicians is doing just the opposite. Music, like any art, is usually based in a counter-culture demographic, and those demographics aren't exactly associated with going along with the law. All art will always progress and these laws have to progress with them. Unfortunately, this probably wont happen.
First: Your comment about Apples lasting 3 years is encouraging, because if this thing lasts three years, it will get me through this particular degree, and that's all I hope and expect from it. To tell you the truth, I have kind of this romantic vision of hurling this thing off of somewhere high off of the ground, after I get this degree anyway--sort of a drunken ceremonial kind of spiel...
ReplyDelete...but anyway, with regards to the labels and the "very laws that these corporations have enacted to keep the integrity and respect of the musicians," well, I think that is an optimistic outlook on the laws, and the corporations, and the labels. I don't think they have ANY CONCERN WHATSOEVER about lofty ideals like respect and integrity. I think it is all about the protection and control of what the artists have willfully made them the owners of.
In a Radio Birdman interview, in Thrasher magazine, I remember dude saying something, in the process of answering a question, that went along the lines of, "yeah...but that was back when the people that owned and ran record labels, actually were young, and actually liked the music they put out..."
Well, NOW the labels lack any type of interest in the music they put out. I've tried to avoid this but i guess its inevitable: Look at Nickleback. They are the definition of what the industry has become - an overproduced, redundant, idiotic, shallow, steaming bag of shit that somehow sells CDs and concert tickets (no offense if you like them). Up until the 80s/early 90s bands had to stand out.
ReplyDeleteLook at Dylan:
He as an artist has a distinct sound, but if you compare The Freewheehlin' Bob Dylan (one of his albums) to highway 61 or blonde on blonde, they're a progression of music. And the labels LOVED that. Even today his music has changed and progressed, but most of the hacks out there stick to one sound and they are a sloppy, one-night, leave-you-with-half-a-bj band. The laws were created back then to give an artist what was theirs monetarily, but they didn't give a shit. I don't think Woody Guthrie sent Dylan a cease and diciest letter telling him to stop writing music.
Woody Guthrie was a heavy-weight...no doubt about it...labor organizer, agitator, revolutionary, and so on...he stands in a class of few, with regards to musicians...
ReplyDeleteLars Ulrich is undoubtedly a bitch, and it is my firm belief that copyright law needs to be revised for the 21st century. It is clear that even with the possibility of punishment, people continue to file-share. I am also a musician, and I want my music to be available for free, because attempting to fight the file-sharing community is a pointless war. Have you ever gone to opsound.com? It is a community of musicians who have their art online for free, and one can download a song, make adjustments to it, and upload it back onto the website. Cool stuff!
ReplyDelete