So the RIAA is really at it this time.
I don't blame them, on the one hand. Their constituency is the record companies. People are pirating records—STEALING! Some are doing it for fun,. others are doing it for profit. But the RIAA, and the MPAA have shown, time-after-time, that they don't understand the difference between letting the music get out there to cultivate the fan base (many of whom who will eventually buy the record anyway), and people genuinely stealing it, so that they can avoid paying for it. In the early '80s, during the advent of home video/VCRs, the MPAA was certain that home taping, and the new form of piracy now available to any TV watcher, would be the death of the movie industry. They couldn't have been more wrong.
Speaking of "Wrong", stealing is wrong! We know this. But prosecuting students, little old ladies, and others who not only don't have the means to pay outrageous fines, but who can easily play the "victim" card..that's just bad. They can't catch the travelling show that is most "services" that provide a conduit to illegally uploaded files. Not only do these services make it easy for people to download copyrighted material, but many of these "services" lead downloaders to viruses and other nasties that don't belong on anyone's computer.
When George Harrison was sued for copyright infringement / plagiarism, didn't the entire music community just...get a chuckle? George was a prolific, enormously talented composer. He knew the song ("He's So Fine"), acknowledged he knew the song at the time he wrote "My Sweet Lord". Did he steal it? I couldn't see how or why he'd want to. Do they share pitch and rhythm sequences in key parts of the respective songs? Yep. Could George have come up with that on his own? Definitely. Did "He's So Fine" pervade his consciousness enough to come out in one of his own compositions? Sure. Should he have had to pay for that? I don't think so. Doesn't matter. A judge ruled in favor of Bright Music (who owned the copyright to He's So Fine).
I view it as a subconscious version of Variations on a Theme. Many composers have purposely taken an existing melody (their own, or someone else's), and have written entire new compositions based on the original. What Harrison did could, at worst, be similar to a variations on a theme.
But he was a good sport and made an offer to settle the claim of infrigement/plagiarism. Of course, as in all things "big business", it got more complicated than George writing a check.
Intellectual property is an astoundingly important concept. Because we can claim copyright, we allow the great creators among us to be motivated and create new things for the world to enjoy. Intellectual property must be protected, but it must be protected intelligently. Publishers aren't as interested in the work as they are in the revenue that the property generates. Song pimps help the creative people to make a living. But to the publishers, one "girl"'s as good as the next—if they both make money. The "girls" who make the big money are generally treated better, and are defended more vigorously. Exploitation of intellectual property is fine. It's part of commerce, and hopefully, helps the composer, author, visual artist, or whoever, to sustain themselves, and to continue creating new works.
And so, the ridiculous lawsuits continue. More on them later. This post is very old and late.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment