It sounds a LOT like a group called “Bond” but I’ve listened to all their album clips on iTunes and haven’t found any that sound like these.

Any help?

Lessig’s argument seems more like arguing from a conclusion, free is good, backwards. A serious argument would weigh the costs and benefits of all, not assert brokenness.

Yes, I do agree with protecting artists and authors and publishers; I also agree that protecting publishers is Constitutionally mandated. Sometimes, I do have to remind myself that publishers (esp. large media conglomerates) are part of the public, and economic goodness for them counts as “public good”. But I find that emphasizing the method (security exclusive rights for a limited time) over the purpose (promoting science and useful arts) allows the few people around me (still willing to talk to me about this 🙂 to ignore the harm done to the public. It also promotes the mistaken idea that copyright holders have an inalienable right to their creative works as if ‘content’ were ‘property’.

In my mind, if someone agrees in principle that copyrights should expire eventually, then (in principle) that person believes that copyrights are not inalienable; in other words ‘content’ is not ‘property’ The difference with ‘true inalienable rights’ and real* property is stark. The state may not deprive me of my real property or my life or my liberty without due process. Copyright and patents may be removed by simply (smirk) passing a law in Congress. You could imagine the howls of protest if all copyrights on everything currently published were suddenly curtailed to 14 years, with no grandfathering clause. I would not recommend such a change, but I don’t see any legal recourse to the offended; only a political one. Similarly, when my right to perform, view, or extend (all rights controlled by copyright) a work is suddenly curtailed, there are some muffled cries, but no (successful) legal recourse.

I do see people arguing from the perspective of ‘protect the artist!’ as if it were the point of copyright, and I feel strong disagreement. More than that, I want to show people who believe protecting the artist is important, that they should stand against copyrights as they are today. It’s a bit of a digression here, but I believe that copyrights only protect publishers, never artists. The only benefit an artist gains from their content under copyright law is when it is sold to a publisher (or the artist switches hats and becomes a publisher ‘themself’). Perhaps some ‘artists’ like the idea of controlling other people; denying them opportunities to react to the ‘content’ that surrounds them. Copyright allows this, but I believe an entity engaging is this kind of behavior is no long acting in a creative way, no longer acting as an artist. Instead they are acting as a publisher, as a venue, charging admission for entry, but barring any creative reaction to the original.

So with those beliefs and with the will to listen and respond, I hope to change peoples’ minds, even if it is only a little bit, or only for a short time.

Peace,

Ben

*I don’t mean ‘real property’ to mean land here, just in contrast to so-called ‘intellectual’ or ‘imaginary’ property

The point of copyright law, (see ‘Free Culture’ page 131) as I understand Prof. Lessig’s writings, and the US Constitution, is to promote the public good (‘Progress of Science and useful Arts’).”

Ben, I am not necessarily disagreeing with “Free Culture,” and you are correct that the page of “Free Culture” you quote does discuss the promotion of the public good. However, if you look at Page 130, just prior to the discussion of the “promotion” clause, you can see that the method of promoting the public good is “by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” [U.S. Constitution, as per “Free Culture” p. 130.] I read this as giving Congress the authority to grant rights to authors and inventors. There is also historical precedent that one of the reasons why copyright was created was to protect authors and artists.

Whether or not these rights should be transferable, how they apply to derivative works, and what the lengths of a copyright should be are all different arguments. I strongly agree with arguments regarding limiting the length of copyrights and loosening the restrictions against transformative works. I am especially concerned about the hijacking of copyrights by large media conglomerates.

@Ben: “Why SHOULD Mr Knopfler be able (legally) to suppress this amateur’s very powerful political message?”

Knopfler should not and does not have the right to suppress anyone’s speech. However, under current copyright law, Knopfler does have limited rights to control how his creations are used. Making a statement that you cannot re-appropriate my works in their entirety is not the same as stating that you cannot make your message.

The use of the music in the video does not appear to be transformative nor is it even clear that it is amateur. And I am still curious about the definition of “non-commercial.” If a non-commercial work is shown on a commercial website that displays advertisements, is the original work still non-commercial? What if there is a secondary benefit from displaying the video, like boosting site traffic or book sales?

I’m surprised the video made no mention of Obama’s inextricable ties to Penny Pritzker, billionaire subprime mortgage queen. I’m not surprised they left out McCain’s extensive ties to “Foreclosure Phil” Gramm and other scumbags.

Anyone expecting fundamental change from either of these two is probably delusional. When Obama committed an act of treason by signing the FISA bill, I knew the jig was up.

On topic, the use of pop music in non-commercial works is growing rapidly and should of course be fully permissible under the terms of Fair Use.

Already under the current laws, many TV or radio stations and the like have paid for some kind of a blanket license covering their use of copyrighted music. At least one of the songs on that video, Money for Nothing, has been playing on the background of news relating to the subprime crisis and the bailout plan. I doubt Dire Straits was asked for permission – the blanket license should cover it regardless of what political message the news item might seem to convey.

The problem with amateur videos is, there is no personal blanket license to be bought. For that reason the only realistic way to use copyrighted material under the current laws is through fair use and that use should be protected.

It is funny in a quite sad way to see so many people repeat as fact “Copyright was created to protect authors and artists” especially on this blog. This blog is Lawrence Lessig’s blog, a man who has worked very hard on many things, including trying to dispel this myth. I should note that I do not speak for Prof. Lessig, nor do have any deeper insight into his mind than an ordinary person who has read some of what he has written. It is his writings, particularly his book “Free Culture” which is freely readable in its entirety from a link on his home page.

The point of copyright law, (see “Free Culture” page 131) as I understand Prof. Lessig’s writings, and the US Constitution, is to promote the public good (“Progress of Science and useful Arts”). The history of copyright law includes times when wresting control of copyright was a struggle between parliament and crown. Perhaps today it is a struggle between Congress and SCOTUS, as well as a struggle in society between industry groups and ordinary consumers of music, movies, and video games.

Copyright law does not have primary purpose of protecting artists. Perhaps protecting artists is a useful way of promoting the public good but today I feel that artists receive a bit too much protection and the public good is suffering because of it.

The example I can recall most easily for “too much protection for artists” causing “the public good” to suffer is the copyright extension that Prof. Lessig argued against in front of SCOTUS. (*(need reference )*) When the public good is harmed, Congress is unconstitutionally overreaching its power to create copyrights.

Of course it is a difficult judgement to assess whether “the public good” is harmed! Publishing houses, record labels, movie studios and the like (who have copyright on, but not authorship of) content are part of the public and good things that happen to them are a “public good”. I do not mean to imply that anything good for RIAA should be counted as bad for the public. Anything good for the RIAA should be counted as GOOD for the public. But the RIAA is not the entire public(!!!) and if that good thing for the RIAA is inseparable from a bad for me, then remember to count both parts.

@J:

We can agree to disagree…but after rereading, I think we really agree. I thought at first you felt that content creators should be able to say whether their song (in this case) could be used *at all* in support of a political view they disagreed with. But you said that the artist might be pretty cheesed if they used *half* of a song. I would be happy to accept as a compromise that this video using this music isn’t “fair” if only because they used too much, and the video makers could have used, say the chorus, or title lyric, of each of these songs to emphasize their point. We might get into an argument about how “artistic” the use is, and I think we’ve had that already. But I’ll happily lose that argument if I win on the point that the artist can’t say ‘no-not at all’ just because they don’t like the message. I guess I’m in favor of what Prof. Lessig called “statutory licenses” in the book I referenced above: “Free Culture”.

Of course, J, if you think that my collage from kindergarten isn’t transformative enough simply because I didn’t make any kind of change in the original pictures, I’m not happy to lose the ‘artistic’ argument. If you think this video creator didn’t change the music at all, he just ‘clipped it’ so there is zero opportunity for enough artistry, then again, I am not happy to lose the artistic argument. If you just think he took too much, since you agree the lack of clear guidelines is a problem, then you and I are on the same side. I would promote this example as a good use, you would not, but I truly believe that we could find a compromise that would satisfy us both.

Cheers!

Ben

I think fair use of music (and probably images) is harder to manage in this case than text, since the usage can be evocative rather than deliberative. The emotional associativity then becomes harder to disentangle and therefore must be more carefully managed.

But remix is all about redirecting messages anyway, so I don’t know that there’s much viability in saying that “corrupting” a message is a violation.

What recourse should Mr. Knopfler have? Beats me, obviously; I’m not even coherent in a single post. I would think that a nice note saying “please don’t use my work” would be sufficient to get me to take down *my* remix, but I know that there has to be some kind of legal framework.

But a major flaw with Lessig’s argument is that moving the line (between legal and nonlegal) use is NOT the same as eliminating the line (total deregulation).

Lessig, of course, does not advocate piracy, either for financial purposes (for sale) or for noncommercial amateur purposes (just giving a copies out for free online).

If all one has to do is paste “VOTE” (political speech) on a video with a song to qualify as an “amateur remix,” free to copy all music, every amateur/unpaid pirate in the world will do so. Assuming Lessig would agree this should be illegal – the question than becomes where to draw the line, the ever difficult fair use question.

The whole point of copyright law was to protect the creators so that they could continue to create art in all its forms. People like you, heartless and selfish, make me sick. I am a photographer and my work has been stolen from major corporations to kids on myspace (and yes, youtube) for 32 years, People think I’m rich and famous because they see my photos everywhere. I tell them IF only I were paid for all usage!

People simply refuse to believe that I have rights as the creator of these works. These lyricists/composers have rights. And when they give up those rights, it makes it harder for the majority of artists who don’t have the visibility, the money, the legal teams to protect our creations. They are standing up for ALL artists, all the people who enrich our lives with music, lyrics, stories, photos, paintings, movies, etc.

YOU make it harder for artists to continue to create. You should be ashamed of yourself!