Monday, April 25, 2005
Copyright etc.
Time for my first post to the forum. In his last post, David mentioned Creative Commons, which I checked out for the first time today. I'm curious to hear about what y'all think about copyright and the new realities posed by the technologies that have been emerging over the past decade. I have to say, while I usually have pretty clear opinions about things, this is one subject on which I've flip-flopped more times than I can count. Part of me finds the hippie/hacker ideal of Creative Commons and initiatives like it totally inspiring, especially given some of the frustrations I've experienced while trying to work within the current system. Another part of me is easily distracted by thoughts of shiny money, and insists on protecting my work from the nefarious designs of imaginary musical swashbucklers who would love nothing better than to plunder and pillage my pieces for the sheer sadistic joy of bad music-making. Still another part is skeptical of the whole concept of intellectual property in the first place--why should our CD or our concert be anything other than what it is, i.e. the physical slab of plastic containing digital data or the intangible experience of live performance in a public venue?
Considering your perspectives as both composers and people who work with other art that is not in the public domain (e.g., setting of texts, performing pieces by other composers, working with choreographers, etc.), what do you feel is the ideal level of protection (or, if you prefer, accessibility) for your work? How would you feel if somebody performed your work and didn't tell you about it and didn't pay you royalties (but did a great job and introduced your music to a whole new audience)? How would you feel if a DJ took one of your pieces (for which you were fully credited but didn't receive a penny) and used it as the basis for a remix which ended up selling well on the electronica circuit? How would you feel if a visual artist asked permission to use your work in an installation, charged no money, gave you full attribution, but modified it in such a way that it was completely unrecognizable and extremely unflattering to your reputation? Should there be some sort of "sliding scale" for these things that takes into account how much the copyright holder has to gain or lose from the inappropriate use of their work? (for example, the promotional value of the first scenario would differ greatly depending on whether the composer in question was Elliott Carter or Ian Moss)
I look forward to reading your thoughts.
posted by Ian Moss
11:57 PM
|
