home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.music
- Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!att!dptg!ulysses!allegra!princeton!nimaster!news
- From: ramirez.Princeton.EDU!penrose (Christopher Penrose)
- Subject: Re: Casey Kasem wrote and boy is he pissed...
- Message-ID: <1993Jan22.235017.22363@Princeton.EDU>
- Originator: news@nimaster
- Keywords: copyright is an anachronism
- Sender: news@Princeton.EDU (USENET News System)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: lucille.princeton.edu
- Organization: Princeton University
- References: <1993Jan19.033912.26449@icmv>
- Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 23:50:17 GMT
- Lines: 60
-
-
- Copyright is an anachronism. Originality, among social beings, is always
- shared. If you disagree with this sentiment, produce an example of isolated
- originality.
-
- First U2:
-
- U2's work is based upon thousands of years of effort, by millions of
- individuals. U2's song "products" are dependent upon the English
- language. They did not develop this alone. A U2 song is dependent
- upon musical instruments that they did not develop themselves. U2's
- musical content is dependent upon a harmonic language which they did
- not themselves invent. Under current law, U2 can have economic rights
- to a particular configuration of information within an information
- context that is distributed among a vast history of effort. Here is a
- self-quote from an essay concerned with originality:
-
- "Originality in other words, is simply a connection mapping of
- history. All creative efforts and products are affected by histories
- which are greater in scope than the isolated history of the credited
- "creator"; thus, a creator is but an *endpoint* in the history of a
- particular creation. All restrictions upon information, through
- institutions based on the notion of ownership are bunk. There is no
- justification for isolated ownership of information as its
- teleological field, and thus its ownership, is distributed through
- human history. Copyright law cannot be justified in its present
- terms."
-
- U2 has no right to restrict their own configurations of information;
- their music is based upon theft (in their terms) or appropriation (my
- terms). Though I have not been allowed (through commercial channels)
- to hear the song in question, Negativland seems to have used U2's work
- in the same appropriating manner that U2 has used instrumentation,
- song structure, harmony, touring, and other cultural gifts. U2 is
- blatantly exploiting our antiquated copyright laws for economic gain,
- and they have damaged the efforts of Negativland to engage in cultural
- exchange.
-
-
- Kasey has an interesting case, but it is more fun to roast him:
-
- All I can say that he let the cat out of the bag. I see no legal
- precedent for his neurotic want to confine his public and private
- selves. If someone manages to hear him say: "Golly! I wish I could
- say 'fuck' and really mean it!" then it is too late. Lighten up
- Kasey! Even George Bush, the grand wizard of whiners, managed to
- invite Dana Carvey to the White house. Remember, we will have the
- technology, sooner or later, to imitate human voices. Uh oh.
-
- We cannot own our words: diaries, voices, etc., if they are heard by
- others; the ownership is implicitly shared among those who listen.
- Otherwise, people would have the legal right to delete their presence
- in other people's minds through brain surgery and psychiatric drugs.
-
-
- Civilization is an information community, not an information prison.
-
-
- Christopher Penrose
- penrose@silvertone.princeton.edu
-