Week 1 - Copyright Material Comments

There was a day when I wanted to be come a copyright lawyer. I do not regret the decision I made except for the money I would have made. Oh well. But, that’s not the reason I almost went to law school, it was because I really think intellectual property is a fascinating subject. But the way it’s interesting to me, is the same way I rather studied psychology and religion instead. I love the gray areas, the compromises and adaptations we humans have to make to survive.

“Laws” always cause trouble, but prevent it as well. Interpretation is always necessary. Always. That said, this week’s material on copyright was deeply engaging for me and I stand in the gray area in between the lawyers/musicbiz people and the artists. One of the lawyers said “you need copyright law as an incentive to create.” (Really????? I think.)

The other side, the artists say they need freedom to create, and all of the producer types say that the artists “don’t care about copyright”, they want to share, play and be exposed. In essence, art is that, exposure of the self, and when the self is less defined, it is usually valued more highly as ‘art’, a view into what’s hidden, obscured by culture, or an indication of what is come. If it’s a popular self, an easily identified, common self, it is valued by all as an indicator of the culture as it is, a way into being part of the community, a way of belonging; the force of budding individuality and urgent belonging clash in this debate.

The Tecno Brega movement in northern Brazil, I think, spot lights the urgent belonging over the power to freely create for the sake of it. Here, we can see that the producers do not want to do the distribution, they leave that to the street vendors, who in fact, use the CDs as a promotion device the real deal, and the is the Tecno Brega party! This is exactly the same role that record companies and distributors have. So, for mass community consumption, the need for layers is key. Freedom to use the material in the first place by the producers is about the scarcity of resources to work with and be inspired by and why freedom to share what already exists is vital for them.

Freedom to share form what already exists is key for an artist. Humans need conversation, and we can’t help be in dialog, with everything we encounter and we want to share what we’ve experienced, whether for the mirroring support or just the shear joy. Without knowing what is, we cannot get to what will be or can be – reacting is vital. But more vital to a society is the ability to integrate what is with what can be. Every generation has this challenge – this updating of human experience and reality is our constant. If we can’t show what we are in conversation with we are like a tree falling in the forest for no one to hear – does it exists? Perhaps, the squirrels ears are enough for the tree, but its not for us.

Fair Use is a testament to the necessity to be an urgently sharing society, and Creative Commons is a testament to the individual artist who deserves the recognition of the new, and the respect form all of us for them sticking out their necks to find it, be it.

It’s not about use, it’s about permission. Permission to create is more important than permission to use. It comes first, and without it, use would not be. Permission is larger than use and the artist is a higher place than distribution.

By the way, you may copy the graphic above that I created to illustrate my point for whatever reason, I don't care.