What effect have recent copyright cases had on musical innovation and creativity? Discuss with reference to Chris Cutler 's concept of plunderphonia.
Copyright in the "music" industry is increasingly becoming a subject of discussion, both online and in the media (word "music" is in quotes is not by chance, the music in this very industry remains negligible). Some are trying to show us the many mothers, which record companies fined millions of dollars. Other supposedly want to protect the poor, hungry musicians who allegedly caused by users of p2p-networks, and torrent-are deprived of the last piece of bread. Still others are just used to buy CDs «TOP 200 EUROHIT» for $ 100 to the metro, and believe that copyright issues - it just across the ocean, and only for very rich people. The fourth (and their absolute minority) bought the license for the CD 300 - 900 rubles (totally inadequate price in comparison to the cost, even the ocean). But they do not because they are afraid of the alien or the owners of organizations with strange names such as RIAA, but because they know that their favorite band who spent in the studio two weeks, will receive the money from at least some part of it.
The vast majority of music today does not belong to the authors who invented them, composed, performed and recorded. "Copyright" * (* again, no coincidence that in quotes) they belong to different record companies and their associations, supervisory organizations, committees, and media corporations.
'Until the mid 1970's, in order to claim a composer's copyright for an improvised or studio originated work, one had to produce some kind of score constructed fromt the record – a topsy turvy practice in which the music created the composer' (Cutler, 2004, 142)
Let's return to the past. For example, to the sixties of last century. When the musicians were absolutely no opportunity to record their works at least in any decent quality, for even the most simple equipment worth just prohibitive. They also had no opportunity to declare itself the world, because neither of any global communications when no one had heard nothing. All they could - it is to sing in the go-go-bars, restaurants and discos.
But since the world has changed. Missing this "crazy" demand, technology has stepped forward, a host of new channels of communication. Now, anyone can arrange at home even though the budget, but still the studio to record whatever he wants, and put it somewhere on my space or on last.fm. Then distribute the link to friends and ask them to write something about yourself (the author) in blogs and social networks. You can buy some PPC advertising, you can send a demo tape to Internet radio stations and so on and so forth. Provided that you are doing a good (or at least not too bad) music, if the effective use of all available communication, you can easily recoup their creativity.
But now there are unpleasant paradoxes. The Verve has recorded one of their hits, using the monsters of rock music - Rolling Stones. The Verve, did not hide it, but were forced to transfer 100% of fees received for the performance hit to the treasury of Rolling Stones. Little-known composers over the years in the courts uphold their rights to such international hits as the Lambada and Makarena. But there are absolutely damning examples - the record company decided to charge royalties for the Boy Scouts Boy Scout version of songs, the rights are owned by the company. The owners of the rights to the famous novel by Margaret Mitchell's "Gone With the Wind" have blocked the publication of the novel "And the wind took them," where they describe the story of Scarlett O'Hara in terms of black slaves, because the product used in the plot lines and characters created by Mitchell. Similar debates are held periodically between the software companies: in the late 1990s, Microsoft has agreed to pay Apple's solid compensation for the fact that some ideas Apple has used in creating Windows.
'Steal it, steal it away, steal and steal and steal some more and give it all to your friends and keep on stealing' (Trent Reznor, 2007)
Another reason is Plunderphonia by Chris Cutler. According to his book 'Audio Culture readings in modern music' we can tell that is' art of taking exciting recordings and technologies and using technology to bend, break and reassemble them' (Cutler, 2004, 149). Also, John Oswald released an EP and CD called plunderphonic with fully acknoledged the 'stolen' material and read 'This disc may be reproduced but neither it, nor any reproductions are to be bought or sold'. Apart from economy of the single procedure of controlled deceleration, which is , as it were, played by Oswald, no modifications have made to the original recording. However, although the source is plainly fixed and given, the choice, treatment and reading of this source are all highly conscious products of Oswald's own intention and skill.
In fact, no author can not be sure that his work can not be considered plagiarism, because something like that were created several decades ago. The reason for this is to long terms of copyright. Implications are playing a big role in copyrighting. That is an increasing trend to chase the copyright offenders can only harm the creation of new work. What is more, young artists won't take the risk or experiment with new ideas for fear of either using copyrighted material or replicating something that has gone before, so people that are suffering are the innovators.
Today's musicians record companies do not need (it is all clearly shown Radiohead), and certainly do not need bureaucrats gone mad with greed like the RIAA.But the record companies want band, very much needed.Because otherwise they will have nothing to sell.There is a phrase as "relative ratio of greed."So for the record companies, he has long been off scale.Of the money that we pay for the music to those who wrote, gets negligible.But in the pockets of "owners" settles a big part of it.
The arrangements for payment for purchases over the Internet already and they are quite reliable.Is it time to authors and the audience begin to use them actively.Musicians who sell their works for "donations" are not as many, but they are there.There is a trend.In the future, in any case we should expect a complete collapse of the entire music industry.Instead, the model "musician> recording studio> listener" would be more simple, open and fair model of the "musician - the listener."
To sum up, as I already said that the action of copyright is based on a simple principle: "If you can not defend what belongs to you - so it does not belong." According to this, government need to make more rules, to make more music. Otherwise, music will be the same.
1)Chris Cutler, 'Plunderphonia' in Audio Culture, readings in modern culture, (2004) pp.142-144
2)Lawrence Lessig, ' The Future Ideas', (2002) pp. 134- 145
3)Paul Theberge,' Technology , Creative Practice and Copyright' in Music and Copyright(2004) pp. 123- 134