Are the Fine Arts Exempt from Copyright Lawsuits?

While groups like the RIAA and the MPAA do everything in their power to stamp out creativity in the name of protecting some glorified sense of intellectual property, it looks like painters are having no problem profiting from work that clearly borrows the images of previously copyrighted content.

A great example of this is the Crazy 4 Cult 3-D Artwork show put on by Gallery1988.  All the work in the show was based on a number of cult film favorites including “Edward Scissorhands” and “Pee Wee’s Big Adventure.”  Below is an example of one of many paintings based on “The Big Lebowski”

Now, there is absolutely no question that this is The Dude himself and one highly doubts that the artist, Misha, would have been able to sell the painting for $800.00 if it was just some random guy, instead.

So, here’s the question: why is this work protected but not, say, the work of musical mashup DJs?  Both are creating original work from existing content and both benefit from the public awareness of the underlying works.  Or how about the ridiculous case of J.D. Salinger suing to stop publication of a book that explores the character of Holden Caufield as an old man?

The point is that we’ve truly lost our way in terms of copyright law.  While creativity and technology have come together to allow for an exponential growth in the reach of diversity of new art the lawyers and those paying their wages are doing everything in their power to shut down the whole process.

Better Options, Not Legal Threats, Curb Music Piracy

A recent report is showing that the prevalence of P2P music file-sharing is on the decline but it turns out to have little to do with groups like the RIAA suing music fans:

The plethora of legal music options online has prompted Internet users in the UK to cut down on their P2P ways. According to an annual report from media and technology research firm The Leading Question, monthly file sharing has dropped among all users since the last national survey in 2007. The drop is particularly significant among teens, where file-sharing has declined by a third.     LINK

So where are teens going for their music?  To legal streaming sites like Last.FM, Pandora and Slacker.  See, as soon as there is a useful, accessible and easy option to P2P services, users are more than happy to make the switch.

Instead of spending all their time and energy suing music fans, the music industry needs to focus their resources on creating true competition to piracy. That is the only road to sustainability for the industry.  While this shift will mean a huge shake up in the current power-structure it beats losing everything to those dastardly pirates.

The Music File-Sharing Dilemma Revisited

So, here is a simple example of why groups like RIAA and groups like, say, the general public, are butting heads in and out of court over the issue of “sharing” music.

Let’s rewind to, say, 1986.  I was a freshman in high school.  My buddy was trying to school me on some more alternative tunes and made me a mixtape of stuff including things like The Dead Kennedys and Captain Beefheart.  Cool stuff.  Really opened up my idea of popular music.

Now, RIAA would not have liked my friend’s behavior but because it happened in a physical exchange between two private citizens there isn’t much anyone could or would do about it.

Cut to today.  You just heard an amazing band and you want to tell all your friends about it.  You buy a copy of their album and immediately put up a link to your favorite song on your Facebook feed.  Bam!  You are now an illegal file-sharer under the eyes of the current law, at least as the RIAA would like it to be interpreted.

Far from trying to undercut record sales, you were just trying to help promote a band you love.

That’s where heads start to butt.  Where do we draw the line between the very human (and economically beneficial) act of sharing and the clearly illegal line of distributing content to which you do not hold the rights?

This is a battle we are going to see fought in the music world first, but the same discussions hold true for film, TV and even the mainstream press.

The internet has made the act of sharing, sometime with millions of “friends” as easy as pressing a button.  The thing is, most people still feel that when they do that it is just sharing and nothing more.

Michael Jackson SELLS 2.6 Million Digital Downloads

I’ve never really given much value to the absurd figures thrown around by the RIAA when it comes to revenue lost due to piracy.  Aside from being based on guesses and estimates, it always fails to take into account revenue generated due to the same piracy (increased sales for concerts, etc).

Most importantly, with iTunes going DRM-free and the general accessibility of legally accessible music on the rise, I just don’t believe that piracy is the real problem at all.

One good example of this is:

…based on preliminary sales numbers from Nielsen SoundScan, 2.6 million Michael Jackson (his work with Jackson 5 and the Jacksons included) digital downloads were sold in just one week.   LINK

Yup, even though Michael Jackson’s music is readily available on all the major torrent sites, it looks like most people just went ahead and paid to download the music.

Why? Well, first, they knew exactly what they were getting. Unlike trying out a new band and wishing you didn’t need to plunk down the better part of $20 just to check them out, everyone buying Michael Jackson tunes did so with full knowledge.  Second, they wanted it immediately and the truth is that, for the vast majority of computer users, the intricacies of bittorrent are just too complicated.

So, while I am sure plenty of people downloaded themselves some free Jackson this past week, it doesn’t look like they are going to bring down the whole system.

Girl Talk Deconstructed Makes Strong Case as Original Work

Wired has created a really cool graphic that deconstructs all of the tracks sampled in a single song created by “mash-up” artist extrordinaire Girl Talk.

If the old-world gang of the RIAA et. al. would like you to believe that this combination of samples is, in fact, a copyright infringement of every single artist sampled and that Girl Talk should be stopped, sued and probably drawn and quartered.

If one can’t see how this re-use of existing materials hasn’t resulted in a wholly new piece of art then all art will have to be classified as theft.  I mean, if I use the 2×4 I got at Home Depot to build a stool, should I pay a royalty to Home Depot in addition to the original cost of the wood I rightfully purchased?

Dear RIAA, Shut Down PS22 Quick! They’re Evil Thieves!

There is a heartwarming story making it’s way around the webosphere about an adorable elementary school chorus that sings covers of pop songs, including works by Coldplay, Survivor and Fleetwood Mac:

It turns out that this particular video make it all the way to Stevie Nicks herself:

Just got word from Stevie Nicks tour manager that she was completely blown away by the PS22 Chorus rendition of her song “Landslide!” He said she asked him to replay 2 times afterwards, crying each time she watched! Talk about humbling!! And the kicker?? She invited the PS22 Chorus to sing the song at Madison Square Garden for the upcoming June 11th Fleetwood Mac show!! Holy cow!!! Thanks must go to Perez Hilton for getting our video out there and making this incredible opportunity happen for the kids! Unbelievable!! LINK

Wonderful, right?

However, this seems like a video ripe for takedown by the RIAA.  These kids did not get the rights to perform this song and they are now spreading their cover for free!  This is just the sort of activity the record industry seems to keen on stopping – whether it is a chorus of school-kids or a couple of people doing a karaoke version of the latest Beyonce tune.

Of course, the idea that this video could somehow create a direct negative impact to the sales of Fleetwood Mac songs is simply absurd.  That won’t stop groups like the RIAA from spitting out takedown notices and DMCA claims faster than you can say, “hey, that was cute.”

Admittedly, the world of copyright law is beyond complicated but we need to find a way to let people legally play with all the content released into the world.  People are going to play with it no matter what so it’s really just a question of whether or not energy is spent prosecuting people or facilitating them.  I wonder which choice would make more money in the long run.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Cutest Chorus Ever: PS22 Chorus Sings “Landslide” by Fleetwood Mac (neatorama.com)

TweetMic Should Give RIAA Nightmares

There is a cool little iPhone App called TweetMic that I read about in Mashable earlier this week.  The App allows you to easily publish live recording to your Twitter followers:

The interface is simple: click on “record,” talk (you don’t really have to talk, you can play an instrument, a lute, for example), click “publish” and that’s it.

Cool, right?

What I really found interesting, however, was how the Mashable reviewer thought that he might use this handy application:

While I don’t record audio too often, I must admit that having the possibility to quickly record something and tweet it while you’re on the go is very interesting; being an avid concert goer, I might just start using TweetMic for those special “awww, they’re playing my favorite song” moments.

Now, a normal human being reading that might think, “Hey, what a neat idea,” because, hey, that’s a neat idea.

Of course, it probably never occurred to either the reviewer or our normal human being that this was just the sort of dangerous thinking that could DESTROY MUSIC FOREVER!

You see, if you were a lawyer for RIAA you would understand that giving a concert-goer the ability to immediately upload and broadcast their personal concert-going experience, why that’s simply stealing! By sharing how awesome the concert it with friends you are single-handedly murdering music! (don’t try to follow this logic – it is like religion, you just have to accept it and move on)

Interesting, isn’t it, that the reviewer never even considers that his idea is both illegal and likely to kill that which he loves? I wonder why that is…

Now, you have to ask yourself, do you want to side with the RIAA, who want to stop you from being able to share a one-of-a-kind awww moment and who’s longterm goal appears to be suing anyone claiming to be a fan of music or would you rather work to reform our outdated and misguided copyright laws?

MPAA Teaches Teachers to Pirate with Video Cameras

The MPAA is one of the most revolting associations I can think of (yes, RIAA also comes to mind).  Not only do they do nothing to increase the artistic or creative value of film but they are anti-consumer and anti-viewer.

The lastest example of the MPAA’s wrongheadedness is their advice to school teachers who would like to use pieces of DVDs in their teaching.  Instead of doing the simple, cost-effective and flexible thing – rip the DVD to a usable file format allowing it to be quickly and easily incorporated into the lesson plan – the MPAA is actually telling teachers that they should videotape the monitor showing the DVD and use the resulting tape.

What?!

Not only would that seem to send the message to students that videotaping a copyprotected screening of a movie is ok – something the MPAA goes to nearly criminal lengths to prevent – but it’s incredibly more time-consuming and complicated than simply ripping the file.

We’re not even talking about the rights of a consumer to rip a DVD they have already purchased but the rights of a teacher to create a dynamic lesson plan – a clear example of “fair use.”

The only silver lining is that the more boneheaded the MPAA reveals itself to be the more likely they are to hasten their own extinction.

LINK

RIAA Will Have To Sue Them All – Who’s Next?

If the recent court decision against The Pirate Bay is any indication, it looks as though groups like RIAA and MPAA are going to be able to sucessfully sue anyone who provides links to copyrighted content, especially if providing that access is the key purpose of the site.

I’ve already discussed how this, theoretically, opens Google up to a big ol’ lawsuit, but what about the thousands of other sites out there.

For instance, I recently read about a site called Just Hear It:

Enter a song title or artist’s name, and Just Hear It returns a list of possible matches–including not only audio tracks, but also YouTube videos.

Gee, that sounds great, and highly suit-worthy.  Now, the CNet article notes:

According to the “About” page, the site is legal–it pays for licenses from the three major organizations, BMI, ASCAP, and CESAC, and it apparently pays publishers royalties based on the number of plays they receive. But although paying publishing rights is sufficient for traditional (“terrestrial”) radio, Internet radio stations must also pay performance royalties, which are owned and managed by a completely different group of bodies.

Wow, that is pretty complicated.  So many hoops to jump through, licenses to obtain and organizations to pay just for helping people find music they want to hear.  Even if Just Hear It believed it was doing something “legal” there are still plenty of grounds for challenging that legality.

That’s why even CNet seems to think the site won’t be around for long.  Of course, another clone will pop up quickly since it turns out people like being about to listen to a specific song without paying $1.29 for the privilege.

This is the endless goose-chase that groups like RIAA will be on until they finally realize that they will never win this battle in the courts and begin to truly innovate – or just DIAF.

LINK

Appeals Court Says RIAA Trial to Remain Shrouded

In what is currently the most high-profile P2P case in the US courts, Joel Tenenbaum and his lawyer, Harvard Law professor Charlie Nesson, had requested that the trial be webcast so that everyone could see just how abusive and dangerous RIAA had become.  The judge in the case agreed:

Judge Nancy Gertner believed that she had the discretion to allow recording in particular cases. She wanted to open the proceedings to the country at large, as did Nesson, who has repeatedly spoken about how the Internet permeates the lives of Americans today and how using the ‘Net to bring a case like this to the public would be a tremendous educational opportunity.

Of course, RIAA objected and now the Appeals court has sided with RIAA, blocking the webcast from going forward:

The Appeals Court held that Judge Gertner did not have the discretion to allow the recording, and they said that this did not affect the public’s ability to access the trial. “While the new technology characteristic of the Information Age may call for the replotting of some boundaries,” said the decision, “the venerable right of members of the public to attend federal court proceedings is far removed from an imagined entitlement to view court proceedings remotely on a computer screen.”

This is disappointing on a number of levels. First, it truly would have been a hugely educational experience for any and all who chose to follow the trial.  Second, RIAA has always claimed that it pursued these abusive cases as a way to deter others from piracy, so it is odd that they wouldn’t want every potential pirate out there to see just what happens if you fight them all the way to court.

Finally, it is hard to understand who would be hurt by opening up the trial for the world to watch.  This isn’t a rape case where sensitive or even offensive content might be revealed.  This is a civil trial about issues effecting every single person who goes online.

It is only a matter of time before all court cases are webcast – it’s too bad this won’t be one of the first.

LINK

Related articles by Zemanta

• Tenenbaum file-swapping case gets seriously funky (arstechnica.com)
• Judge calls RIAA objections “specious,” will stream hearing (arstechnica.com)