4. Intellectual Property and the Politics of Plunderphonics
The Issue/Event: From Bad to Dab – delving into the politics of music
In 1989 the Canadian musician, John Oswald, made a record entitled ‘Plunderphonics’ consisting of tracks entirely ‘stolen’ from other artists’ works. Using magnetic tape and a razor blade he edited the original tracks, overlapping them, changing their speed and reorganising the lyrics to create new meanings. Dolly Parton was slowed to a deep baritone and The Doors’ Hello, I Love You became Hello, You Love Me. He printed a thousand copies and began to distribute them for free to libraries, music journals and radio stations.
Oswald was taken to court by the Canadian record company representing Michael Jackson (whose song Bad was remixed to produce Dab and who appeared on the cover with the body of a naked white woman). Invoking copyright laws they persuaded the court to ban the work, and to order the destruction of the three hundred remaining discs and the master copy.
A decade later Oswald began to try to get legal clearance for his music and found that record companies and artists were reluctant to give it. He soon realized that if he paid for all the material he’d used he’d have to sell the record for $150 a copy. In 2001 the anti-corporate musical collagists, Negativeland, ‘stole’ Oswald’s recordings and released them on their own label (to Oswald’s delight). The tracks can now also be downloaded for free from Oswald’s website, www.plunderphonics.com. Oswald continues to defend his freedom to use any sound he chooses as an element in one of his compositions. So far no one has dared to sue.
Sixteen years after Oswald’s original release plunderphonics is the name of a major musical movement, with multi-authored tracks circulating on the internet, being altered and elaborated by anyone who chooses to do so. An organisation called MACOS (Musicians Against Copyrighting of Samples) encourages musicians to put a logo on any recordings they make to tell people that they are at liberty to sample from their music.
New technology has completely changed the way we think about and distribute music, and the music industry is having to radically rethink its entire business strategy. Pop stars speak out against illegal downloads, while using uncleared samples on their records. Napster has become a legitimate business and P2P (peer-to-peer) technology has made musical file-sharing an unpoliceable global phenomenon.
Positions:
-
Intellectual property laws stifle creativity and limit the opportunities for new artists/designers. Popular musical movements like Jungle have only been made possible by the flouting of intellectual property laws, and software designers are finding it increasing difficult to develop new ideas as a result of the patenting of basic tools such as scroll-bars.
-
Intellectual property laws give artists, designers and inventors a strong financial incentive to push ahead with innovative work. ‘The United States has led in creating companies, creating jobs, because we've had the best intellectual property system — there's no doubt about that in my mind, and when people say they want to be the most competitive economy, they've got to have the incentive system. Intellectual property is the incentive system for the future. Bill Gates (1)
-
The record industry is set to collapse as a result of widespread piracy. Record companies can’t afford to spend thousands on records that will only be sampled and downloaded for free. Intellectual property laws need to be tightened in order to protect both the artists’ and the companies’ interests.
-
The threat to the music industry is greatly exaggerated. Record sales haven’t dropped nearly as sharply as predicted. Stars and music business executives have had things far too easy — and at last they are being forced to adapt to a more democratic system. ‘Back in 1967 when FM radio came out, artists complained that people would stop buying records. Then when cassettes came out they complained again that people would stop buying records, but instead records sold more than ever... you see, an accountant looks at a copy and sees it as a lost sale but it's not, it's really just another promotional vehicle...’ Chuck D (2)
Questions:
-
Do intellectual property laws promote or stifle innovation?
-
What is meant by ‘fair use’? Are copyright laws too ambiguous?
-
Should record companies just accept the fact that they have to downsize and stop complaining?
-
Can a sound ever really be owned? What exactly constitutes an illegal sample? Anything that can be recognized? And, if so, recognized by whom? If you distort the sample, do you create a (legally) new sound? Oswald asks: ‘Can the sounding materials that inspire composition be sometimes considered compositions themselves? Is the piano the musical creation of Bartolommeo Cristofori (1655-1731) or merely the vehicle engineered by him for Ludvig van [Beethoven] and others to manoeuver through their musical territory? […] Is a timbre any less definably possessable than a melody? A composer who claims divine inspiration is perhaps exempt from responsibility to this inventory of the layers of authorship. But what about the unblessed rest of us?’ (3)
-
Now that music can be produced and circulated so easily and cheaply, what is the role of the large record companies? Are they guarantors of quality? Or are they just greedy corporations trying to hang on to the obscene profits of the past?
References:
(1) http://news.cnet.com/Gates-taking-a-seat-in-your-den---page-4/2008-1041_3-5514121-4.html
(2) http://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=displaystory&sid=2000/5/13/222627/304
