In my recent post on cliches and idfic, I casually said that I identify as a remix artist. It just occurred to me today that I haven't really said why that is
( Read more... )
Have you seen this article by Cory Doctorow? ...What I want to ask is, how did we end up with a copyright law that only protects critics, while leaving fans out in the cold?
Some background: copyright's regulatory contours allow for many kinds of use without permission from the copyright holder. For example, if you're writing a critical review of a book, copyright allows you to include quotations from the book for the purpose of criticism. Giving authors the right to choose which critics are allowed to make their points with quotes from the original work is obvious bad policy. It's a thick-skinned author indeed who'd arm his most devastating critics with the whips they need to score him. The courts have historically afforded similar latitude to parodists, on much the same basis: if you're engaged in the parodical mockery of a work, it's a little much to expect that the work's author will give her blessing to your efforts.
The upshot of this is that you're on much more solid ground if you want to quote or otherwise reference a work for the purposes of rubbishing it than if you are doing so to celebrate it. This is one of the most perverse elements of copyright law: the reality that loving something doesn't confer any right to make it a part of your creative life. (emphasis mine)
Thanks for the link. I had read the article, but enjoyed re-reading it. Isn't it odd how things keep coming back to passion, and how problematic our culture finds it? I blame the church. All that social programming they've done to make us scared of our own bodies and drives has created a huge mess, and I sometimes despair that we will ever fix it.
...What I want to ask is, how did we end up with a copyright law that only protects critics, while leaving fans out in the cold?
Some background: copyright's regulatory contours allow for many kinds of use without permission from the copyright holder. For example, if you're writing a critical review of a book, copyright allows you to include quotations from the book for the purpose of criticism. Giving authors the right to choose which critics are allowed to make their points with quotes from the original work is obvious bad policy. It's a thick-skinned author indeed who'd arm his most devastating critics with the whips they need to score him. The courts have historically afforded similar latitude to parodists, on much the same basis: if you're engaged in the parodical mockery of a work, it's a little much to expect that the work's author will give her blessing to your efforts.
The upshot of this is that you're on much more solid ground if you want to quote or otherwise reference a work for the purposes of rubbishing it than if you are doing so to celebrate it. This is one of the most perverse elements of copyright law: the reality that loving something doesn't confer any right to make it a part of your creative life. (emphasis mine)
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment