Copyright disobedience! Huzzah!
In response to all the hullabaloo and kerfluffle surrounding The Grey Album, Downhill Battle is calling for an act of civil disobedience. Next Tuesday, 2/24/04, is going to be Grey Tuesday: as many people as are willing are going to post the mp3s of The Grey Album on their website for 24 hours, in defiance of the wishes of EMI, who control The Beatles’ catalog of audio recordings. For what it’s worth, I’ve decided to participate.
I am persuaded by this effort partly because I think it’s ridiculous for EMI to exercise the full spread of its authority under copyright law to stomp on a mixtape that only pressed 3,000 copies and wouldn’t damage the value of their holdings in the slightest, so fuck them. Much more dastardly, however, is the fact that they have that authority in the first place.
I’m not going to tackle the whole of copyright law here; suffice to say the terms are way too long and just keep getting longer, every time Steamboat Willie is about to slip in the public domain. Going from 14 years (in the Constitution) to life of the author +70 years (today) is a gross distortion of the framers’ intent and kills the public domain, a bit more each day.
However, I’m willing to argue with the current copyright laws as a given. EMI owns the Beatles’ albums, hook, line and sinker. Fine. What we need is a system that forces them to exercise their ownership in a manner consistent with the public good, which I’ll define loosely as furthering the creative efforts of our society. Fortunately, they already have to deal with such a system because they also have a music publishing arm, and in terms of music publishing, there is such a thing as compulsory licensing. It basically means that EMI cannot stop me from including my version of “Yellow Submarine” on my next album; I just have to pay the standard license fee for use of the music. However, if I want to cut two notes out of the same song and turn it into a whole different piece of music, they are free to put their foot in my ass, and they have shown every willingness to do so in the past. Why is it somehow more acceptable for them that I butcher their song with a miserable cover version than if I reuse a small piece of the original recording?
Given that roughly a third of the Billboard Hot 100 albums employ samples from other work, and a much higher percentage of experimental and innovative music does, it seems that we are badly in need of a compulsory sample license for audio recordings. It would at least have to be a sliding scale based on length of sample or some similar metric, such that it wouldn’t be feasible to just re-release someone’s album yourself, and I’m sure there are other kinks that need working out, but it’s an idea whose time has come.
evan :: Feb.19.2004 :: Notions :: 7 Comments »
“Going from 14 years (in the Constitution) to life of the author +70 years (today) is a gross distortion of the framers’ intent and kills the public domain, a bit more each day.”…
…While I agree that current copyrights last too long, I’m a little disappointed that you have fallen prey to the oft-related myth of a constitutionally mandated time limit (I’m not sure why 14 yrs keeps coming up. Was that the original limit set by Congress?). Article III, Section 8 gives Congress the power to set the copyright limits, but doesn’t specify a number of years. If you want to argue constitutionality, go with the part that says only the authors & inventors should get the copyrights, or the part about actually promoting “progress of science and the useful arts.”
Your next paragraph confuses the issue. EMI is not an artistic enterprise that cares about artistic integrity or quality. It is a business enterprise. It protects its property interests to the fullest extent of the law. So your beef is, in fact, with copyright law itself. Thus, your final paragraph (which makes eminent sense in my not-so-humble opinion) is actually the wholesale attack on copyright law you disavowed at the start.
Don’t be scared, man. You speak the trooth (except the part about the Constitution) & there are some out there who might even be listening.
You’re entirely correct to call me out about the Constitution issue. 14 years was indeed the limit originally set by Congress, though it could be renewed for another 14 years once.
I think I stuck to the original scope of my argument, though. I said I wouldn’t tackle the whole of copyright law. Why copyright terms are too long and the rights granted too restrictive is a separate and larger issue. My beef today, and this Grey Album protest, is just to say we need to be able to sample.
oh, ok
Small guy vs big guy.. I want copyrights on my own music to last forever– I don’t want some lazy sunofab1tch to come steal my music and make millions of dollars off it after I’ve struggled so hard to create my own unique, individual sound.
You can claim “oh the record labels have tons of money..” but they really don’t.. CD sales are flagging, and the only thing that makes dough is hip hop music and country music, I believe. Also, it’s a slippery slide. Once we start allowing samples, then anything is possible and corporations will tumble.
I’m not usually siding with the labels, but your post brought out the ol’ devil’s advocate in me.
cheers,
socetew
You’re right about one thing: the major record labels don’t have tons of money. But do they deserve to? They arose out of a world where peoples’ only access to music was through a small number of radio stations and perhaps one local record shop. Distribution and promotion were expensive because of those bottlenecks. Those factors no longer apply. What, for instance, does an artist like yourself need a major record label for? It’s not for the money, that’s for sure.
As for your copyrights lasting forever, all I’d advocate for is the ability of someone to make money off your shit after you’ve had many years to do so, or at least after you’re dead. Copyright law exists only to promote the progress of art; how does it accomplish that by letting you lay back and rake it in because you had a hit song 20 years ago? I bet if you couldn’t make that bank, you might write something else worthwhile to stay flush.
Fair use law permits use of copyrighted published material in academic works; why not push for a similar application for artistic works? (Marc, since you appear to be the resident expert on IPR, I leave it to you to answer this and/or correct any factual errors in my question).
Oh yeah… also the Grey Album kicks ass and screw EMI, I know their VP of New Media, Recorded Music division personally and find him worthy of denouncement.