“Thou shalt not steal!” Everyone should recognize this guideline for life as the Eighth Commandment. It is simple enough to follow…if it does not belong to you then do not take it or claim it as your own. So strong is this Commandment that our society has adopted rules and laws against the act of theft including copyright laws to protect the artistic works of others. However, with the progression of our society into the digital age, the clear cut line of what is theft and what is acceptable use of people’s works is now being distorted and blurred. With the evolution of the internet into what it is today, a high speed mass media and information library accessible by everyone with internet access, the original ethics of copyright and appropriate uses of someone else’s works are now under attack.
In the past artists could take comfort in the fact that they would be paid not only by performance of their works, but also through the sale of copies of their work in the forms of CD’s, tapes, and in recent years digital online files as well. However, with the birth of Napster that second form of income through sales of their work has become jeopardized. For all of those who are not aware of Napster, it is a file sharing program that allows its users to download files, not just music, but movies, software, and music videos from other users at no cost. As you can see it is obvious how actions such as these would be seen as detrimental to the artists and why legal action was taken against Napster to stop this. Since then Napster has now required its users to pay a fee to use their same service so that now the artists can make a profit off the downloads, and has given way to great online music, book, and video stores such as iTunes. Yet despite the legislation and legal action not only taken against company’s such as Napster, but also users who performed illegal downloads as well, there still exists sites such as the Pirate Bay which still allows its users to freely download seemingly anything they want through the use of torrents.
Obviously actions such as these do affect the artists’ ability to make money off their works, and should in fact be illegal; because lets face it by freely downloading songs, movies and books you are stealing from the artist because those same works are available for purchase. However, as illegal as it is there is almost no way to stop it and definitely almost no way to enforce it. The internet is a gigantic network with countless users and to enforce something like this would be way too time and resource consuming. In a way illegal downloads has become similar to the crime of jay walking. Sure it is a law in the books, but how often are people stopped and charged with this? Obviously police would be committing too much time and their resources to stop such a meaningless and frequent occurring crime when other things such as murder and violence exist. The same in a sense can be said about illegal downloading. In no way am I saying that I condone the act of downloading illegally off the internet, but merely am saying that it is almost unenforceable and something we, and the artists must get used to and adapt to. We have already began to see the changes that the digital age and downloading has done to the industry with music retailers such as Sam Goody going under and the rise of digital stores such as iTunes. This change has affected artists in particular in that it has taken away from a major source of their income in actual CD sells. To combat this problem artists must now turn to the actual performance of their works and emphasize on that aspect to perhaps recoup losses from CD sales. The music industry has changed and the way consumers listen to and acquire not just their music, but other art forms such as pictures and written works has changed as well and it is up to the artists to adapt because it seems that illegal downloading is not going away
Another issue with copyright though has come up with the emergence of remixing. Remixing is the act of taking parts of various songs and changing them up to form a new different work. According to “Changing Copyright” by Negativeland the elements of these remixed songs may “remain identifiable, or they may be transformed to varying degrees as they are incorporated into the new creation, where there may be many other fragments all in a new context, forming a new whole.” As Negativeland states, these remixes are in their own new works, with only few, minute similarities to the original work, yet to most production and recording labels these works are still part of the original and in their eyes rightfully belonging to the original artist. An example of this issue can be seen with the artist DJ Danger Mouse. His Grey Album is a mix of vocals from artists Jay-Z’s Black Album and music samples from the Beetle’s White Album. According to the article “I share, you rip off, they pirate” by Bill Thompson The Grey Album is clearly a new work of art, inspired by its two sources in the same way as Cezanne influenced Picasso.” However, despite his work being seen as new and different and the fact that he released his album for free via the internet, the production company EMI legislated against Danger Mouse to stop the distribution of his album stating that it violated copyright law and affected the profitability of the works that he remixed. How can something that is completely different and offered free be detrimental to the original artists, especially if it is not even in the same genre as the originals? It is in this area where copyright law is inhibiting the creation of new art and inhibiting new, potentially talented artists from emerging. According to Negativeland, “collage has now become illegal in music unless the artist can afford to pay for each and every fragment he or she might want to use, as well as gain permission from each and every owner…and those corporately funded collage works which can afford the tolls had better be flattering to the owner in their usage.” Lets face the truth not all emerging artists can afford to pay recording company’s the price they charge to allow the artists the right to use the bits and pieces of their copyrighted songs to use in their remixed works, especially when their remixed works are then being offered for free download. If artists were going out and then using those purchased clips and songs for profit without giving reference to the original works, as in the case of Vanilla Ice and his song Ice, Ice Baby, then the problem would exist and something would have to be done about it. Most artists seeking profit off remixed songs however, do so by giving credit to the original artist as well as compensation, or otherwise face a pretty hefty lawsuit. Yet there exists artists that remix freely without seeking profit, as in the example of artist Pretty Lights who remixes songs and clips from artists such as Notorious B.I.G. He offers his songs free for download for all from his site, with most of his profits coming in the performance of his work or merchandise such as T-shirts. Not only do his songs get his name out there, but also the names and works of the original artists he is remixing. In a way remixing has become a way of free advertising for the original works and artists, but is also giving the remixers a chance to express themselves artistically.
All of these issues with copyright are becoming the future of digital age when it comes to the areas of online downloading and the online sharing of original and remixed works. As a society and user of the internet I am calling for and supporting the change in copyright that supports the issues brought up in this paper. Illegal downloading exists and all we can hope for is that most users are like me and the rest of those who use stores such as iTunes that pay the artists for their users’ downloads. A loosening of copyright law is in order and necessary because our culture is shifting in a way that is currently being inhibited by copyright laws. Artistic expression is being limited and held back by laws claiming new original works using remixed songs as the original work or as competition that is taking away from the profitability of original work. Yes I do believe works should be protected, but not to the point where it inhibits the creation of new art.
With this said I plan to let the guidelines I stated out in this manifesto as a way to govern my actions and beliefs online as follows:
- I will not engage in illegal downloads, despite its ease and existence.
- I will not attempt to gain profit off any one else’s work without credit and compensation
- I will freely use any pictures, videos and sounds I find on the internet to create my own works, unless it is detrimental to the original work or artist.
Leave a Comment
No comments yet.
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
