LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  January 2003

ARSCLIST January 2003

Subject:

NYT: The Owners of Culture vs. the Free Agents

From:

Premise Checker <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 18 Jan 2003 14:49:22 -0600

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (133 lines)

The Owners of Culture vs. the Free Agents
NYT January 18, 2003
By EDWARD ROTHSTEIN

The Stanford Law School professor Lawrence Lessig called it
the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act." And even though Mickey
himself does not figure in the law or in the Supreme
Court's 7-to-2 decision to uphold the 1998 Copyright Term
Extension Act on Wednesday, the smiling rodent still has a
starring role in discussions of the case.

This is partly because the act, which expanded copyright
protection for intellectual property another 20 years, was
actively supported by major corporations in the
entertainment industry. Indeed, without the copyright
extension - which protects corporate copyrights for 95
years, and individual copyright for 70 years after the
creator's death - the Disney mascot, whose squeaky-voiced
endorsements are associated with the corporation's films,
resorts, cruises and amusement parks, would have been
entering the public domain next year. He would be a free
agent.

But there are other serious issues involved in addition to
serious commercial interests. And opponents of the act, led
by Mr. Lessig, who took on the case pro bono and argued it
before the Supreme Court, see this defeat as the first
battle in a major war. On one side they see corporate power
and quashed possibility; on the other, creativity, openness
and the possibilities of the Internet. In a speech last
summer (oreillynet .com/pub/au/1015), Mr. Lessig declared,
"Ours is less and less a free society." Far from being
free, he argued, "culture is owned."

Mr. Lessig, an activist in the area of copyright and
intellectual property law, advocates a radical weakening of
its protections and a dramatic strengthening of the public
domain. He has also argued that the Internet, which began
as a free and open network, is in imminent danger of
similarly becoming a constricted arena molded by corporate
and governmental interests. This perspective was
influential in shaping the ideological direction of the
Berkman Center for Internet and Society at the Harvard Law
School (cyber.law.harvard.edu), where he taught before
leaving for Stanford and founding the Stanford Center for
Internet and Society at the Stanford Law School
(cyberlaw.stanford .edu).

Mr. Lessig's arguments in his books ("Code and Other Laws
of Cyberspace" and "The Future of Ideas") even have
countercultural overtones, with their invocations of an
earlier, more natural world disrupted by corporate power
and misused technology. And his notion that copyright is
crushing artistic creativity is actually an inversion of
the traditional view of copyright, which was seen as an
incentive and protection. Mr. Lessig argues that this has
occurred because copyright itself has changed. It has been
extended to cover so long a period that it has ceased to
serve as an incentive. In 1790 it lasted for 14 years and
was renewable for 14 more; now it affects grandchildren.
Mr. Lessig is hoping authors and creators will sign a
Founders' Copyright contract (creativecommons.org), which
will voluntarily limit copyright to just 14 years and then
place the work in the public domain.

But copyright controls have expanded over time for a
variety of reasons: people live longer; commercial
enterprises have evolved that are closely linked with
specific images and stories; authors and publishers have
different needs and expectations; international commerce
has required equivalent protections. In fact the 1998 law
Mr. Lessig challenged was intended to match the kinds of
copyright protections already offered by the European
Union.

Yes, there are sometimes absurd problems incurred in
obtaining permissions. Yes, there are also examples of
abuse and intolerable schemes to prevent the copying of
music and software. The 20-year extension may also be too
long (as the Court seemed prepared to grant). But the
recurring argument that culture is now "owned" and must be
freed and that creativity is being stifled as a result is
overwrought. What innovations, for example, are being
thwarted by corporate control over Mickey Mouse?

In a lecture in August, Mr. Lessig gave a kind of answer,
suggesting that today's rules would never allow Disney to
flourish in the same way. Walt Disney required the public
domain to create his films, drawing on Grimm's Fairy Tales.
Mickey's first major cartoon ("Steamboat Willie") was based
on a new Buster Keaton film, "Steamboat Bill." Today, Mr.
Lessig asserts, the public domain is poorer and such
imitation restricted.

But the public domain is larger now than in 1928, not
smaller, and the continuing influence of copyrighted works
should not be underestimated. Even Disney had to purchase
rights to "Winnie the Pooh." Moreover, his Mickey cartoon
was hardly, as Mr. Lessig joked, a matter of "rip, mix and
burn," resembling the actions of today's compilers and
copiers. It was an innovative parody. And courts have
tended to allow this kind of enterprise (witness the
publication of "The Wind Done Gone," Alice Randall's
African-American version of "Gone With the Wind.")

It may be that one reason passions have flared so high is
that a dominant style of popular culture in the 1990's was
pastiche, which is indeed hampered by copyright. But if
cultural health were really affected by whether Mickey and
his contemporaries were in the public domain, there may be
other, more serious problems to consider first - like why a
truly creative culture can't find other ideas to work with.


There really are copyright issues to discuss, but not as
part of the kind of ideological romance that has grown up
in the current debates. A problem is posed by technological
innovations that allow easy copying and transmission; there
are dangers to the incentives copyright establishes. So new
forms of control develop and those controls, in turn, pose
dangers. But this is not the war that Mr. Lessig and his
colleagues have in mind.

As it turns out, the extension of 20 years means that
copyright law has held off for a while what will be a
large-scale entrance of television and movies into the
public domain. In the meantime, the absence of a public
domain has not hampered creativity in either medium. And it
will give Mickey and Minnie and Goofy plenty of time to
prepare for becoming public figures.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/18/arts/18CONN.html

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager