I experienced a copyright synchronicity today. I am studying copyright culture and policy in another class. It was good to have a new context and variant perspectives added to a discourse I am otherwise steeped in. The literature is amazing, insightful, and not at all boring. I will defer to the professional writers on the topic for analysis. But, a few contradictions have been piquing at my interest. They are more likely elucidative of human nature that they are of copyright. Regardless, here they are.
Most original American musical art forms rely on cultures of remixing and revision. Some of the revision occurred with attribution and permission. Most did not. Could Jazz happen today under current copyright law?
The copyright holding industries have made a great deal of profit from the use of materials contracted from creators. They also present themselves to be the representatives and defenders of these creators. I could argue that copyright law has become unwieldy and unkind to artistic creations. It makes it more difficult to create. Yet, major copyright holders push for more and more stringent regulation and enforcement.
Most of the industry lobbied to strengthen copyright, form its origins, made a great deal of profit from its laxity at the time that they were emerging. Thomas Edison, for instance was a great inventor and passionate defender of patent and copyright, but he was also a flagrant copyright/patent thief:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090808045443AAOmUNs
No comments:
Post a Comment