Monthly Archives: March 2013

Sampling

1 Reply

In this work, Vaidhyanathan is arguing for “thin” copyright protection (as opposed to “thick”) or copyright doctrine that is just strong enough to encourage the creative industries in art and business but also “porous” enough to allow for free flows of information and rich democratic speech. I think that this is the best way to view copyright law.

When it comes to sampling, like any other music sampling, it can be done incredibly well or used blatantly poorly. MC Hammer’s “U Cant’s Touch This” borrowed lengthy hooks and choruses from Rick James “Superfreak”, downgrading his song from a sample to a copy of the original. Sample- based music is not to be confused with piggy- backing on old music to create mega- hit, but the art of utilizing technology to remix and share music in new and innovative ways. Recording artists such as De La Soul, Public Enemy, and Beastie Boys used multiple brief samples that were often left completely unrecognizable to construct songs.

Music in Restaurants

1 Reply

I recently came across this article which talks about copyright infringement.  BMI, Broadcast Music Inc., files copyright infringement lawsuits against restaurants and bars who fail to get licenses for playing music without paying royalties. I was surprised to learn that many of these lawsuits are not initiated by the artists themselves but rather, are initiated by BMI.  I was also surprised by how high and costly penalties can be.  It seems smart to splurge on the cost of subscribing with BMI or another organization like it because you may end up saving thousands later on.  I was left with the impression that companies like BMI don’t actually care about protecting an original artist’s rights or copyright but rather are taking advantage of restaurants that fail to get licenses solely for monetary gain.

Arabian Nights

3 Replies

I thoroughly enjoyed last night’s performance at the Williams Art Center. I knew nothing about the play beforehand and was not sure what to expect. It was a great play about the power of storytelling. The cast brought the stories to life while adding personal comical bits to their roles. Each cast member had to play multiple characters, as the storytelling narratives call for, and they did a great job moving in between these different roles.

When I went to pick up the tickets for the performance the teller made a joke about our VaST class title. “So I guess you didn’t have to buy any books for the class”. The play demonstrated the power that stories and knowledge can have. We have viewed many different kinds of narratives from scrolls to book arts in this course. It seemed very logical that a performance as a form of storytelling, on the very subject of storytelling, would come next.

 

The Limit That May or May Not Exist

6 Replies

When it comes to parodies or covers, is there a certain point where the cover is considered to be an original piece? I have thought about this before. What if in 3000 years, every single possible combination of musical notes has been put together, so there would not be any more original music. What would copyright laws do then?

Music Videos From Tuesday’s Class

3 Replies

I was pretty intrigued by Kelsy’s comment in class about the reasoning behind the creation of Gotye’s video- Somebodies: A Youtube Orchestra. There definitely is a difference between creating the video for the sake of just sharing creative covers and creating the video in spite of the artists who made the covers- kind of giving them a taste of their own medicine.

I was pleasantly surprised when I revisited the youtube video on my own computer and noticed this: “Reluctant as I am to add to the mountain of interpretations of Somebody That I Used To Know seemingly taking over their own area of the internet, I couldn’t resist the massive remixability that such a large, varied yet connected bundle of source material offered.” This is a quote from the description of the video signed from Wally (Gotye) himself. Although at first he comes off a bit negative, towards the end of the quote his tone changes to be more lighthearted. He goes from sounding annoyed and offended to sounding happy to spread cool music around. Thus, I’m not exactly sure what his official motives were behind making this video. However, at least they do not come off as all bad.

Patents

Leave a reply

There seem to be three categories of intellectual property, as far as the law is concerned. Copyright is a law of authorship, trademark concerns commercial ventures, and patent law protects inventions. I have already blogged a lot about copyright, and once about trademarks, so let’s give patents a share. The Constitution requires that the government promote the sciences by a way we have since adopted as patents. In a similar way, copyright also encourages creation of the arts by offering many benefits to being a creator.  Unlike copyrights, however, a patent cannot logically forbid anyone from using a copy of the patented product. Inventions are meant to be used by the public, or by a manufacturer depending on what the invention is. Patents are perhaps less restricting elements than copyright; it protects royalties and such for the inventor, but it does little to limit the exchange of the invention. After all, even more than copyrighted materials or trademarks, patented inventions are meant to be used for the public good.

 

Beyond the Individual: Copyright Works for Us All

Leave a reply

More and more, I am getting the sense that copyright is not just some old prude’s law, its sole purpose hording texts for no greater good than money. Instead, copyright policy is working for the proliferation of culture, although some would see it as a stagnating force. According to one critic, lawmakers write copyright policy to encourage the creation of cultural works. Giving certain rights to the creators give them an incentive to create. However, should these laws become too protective, they will make censors out of creators. Vaidhyanathan in his epilogue to Copyrights and Copywrongs admits that cultural production flourishes on its previous productions; should creators censor their own work in other media, they run the risk of impeding the artistic proliferation of newer artists.

Royalties and Copyright

2 Replies

At my internship this past summer, I got an interesting inside look at the publishing world.  Someone in the office made a joke that the company ran entirely on the royalties it made off of one extremely popular piece.  When I inquired into this, I learned that in the music business, royalties must be paid (to the artist/composer/publisher/recording company, etc.) every time a song (or part of a song) is used in a commercial setting.  This included commercials, web advertisements, soundtracks, public performances – you name it.   This idea was supported by Goldstein’s comment that “copyright is about money” (Goldstein 4).  Goldstein also discusses the concept of royalties when he mentions compulsory licenses, which legally force artists who cover another artist’s song to pay $0.08 for each recording of the cover (Goldstein 15).

This article offers an example of a company, Kobalt Music Group, that focuses on delivering royalty payments to artists.  Kobalt acknowledges that the digital age has made tracking the royalties due to artists more difficult, but also understands that royalties are a large portion of artists’ revenue.

More on Plagiarism

1 Reply

While researching for my previous blog post, I found this 2010 article from the New York Times.  I felt that it needed its own post, as it deals with plagiarism in a slightly different way.  This article focuses on the role of technology in regards to plagiarism.  The author examines plagiarism in college and how digital media is blurring rules of plagiarism, as more and more students fail to cite their sources from neglect and ignorance.  Students are also more often directly copying from websites and other digital sources, as the internet has made this even easier, with a simply “copy” and “paste” command.  The author writes that the internet is changing how students “understand the concept of authorship and the singularity of any text or image.”  The author includes shocking statistics, such as one that states that “the number [of students] believed that copying from the Web constitutes “serious cheating” is declining — to 29 percent.”

It’s a pretty interesting article.  This relates directly not only to this class, but to our lives as college students, as we continue our undergraduate educations and technology continues to play a larger role in this education.

Plagiarism in Colleges and Universities

2 Replies

In Copyright’s Highway, Goldstein briefly touches upon a concept that is brought up so often on college and university campuses: plagiarism.  Goldstein writes, “True plagiarism is an ethical, not a legal offense and is enforceable by academic authorities, not courts” (Goldstein 8).  Lafayette has a strict policy against plagiarism and is found in the Student Handbook, the Faculty Advising Handbook, and on the website of the Dean of the College, to name a few sources.  I was shocked to discover that this concept, which I had for so long believed to be illegal, was not in fact supported by any court, but rather only upheld by academia.

What do you think? Should plagiarism be illegal, or is the upholding of rules against plagiarism by colleges and universities unnecessary, as it is technically considered legal in the United States?