Sidetracked: On Fair Use

This post is a bit different from the primary subject of this blog, so feel free to disregard it if you are not interested. I have my reasons for posting this (laziness, primarily), though, so it will be done.

Note to whom it may concern: I did not receive any feedback in my folder, and I figure it is probably too late at the moment to try and get it back in time for the midnight deadline, so I'm going to post it as-is. If you wish me to revise it later, I can come back and edit.

Copyright has been a sensitive issue in modern times as people become more concerned with protecting their creations within the growing competition. With the advancement of technology within the last century, it has become a relatively simple affair to find obscure (or not-so-obscure) works and plagiarize them, or simply make a copy of them without any compensation to the creator. With the advent of the Internet, this has become as simple as a few mouse clicks. File sharing has been portrayed, especially by the RIAA, as the bane of the music industry. I would say that, rather than destroying the industry, it is a step towards a new type of creative culture.

I strongly agree with Negativland's "Tenets of Free Appropriation" in that provided an artist does not copy another's entire work, sampling should be allowed under "fair use". As long as the person who samples the work credits the original author, there should be no issue, even if it is used in a commercial release. In my opinion, however, if an artist would like to sample someone's entire work and turn it into something different, so long as it is a promotional, non-profit release rather than a commercial release, this should also be acceptable. While I have never heard the "Grey Album", I would assume it is a release that falls along these lines.

It seems to me that this is at odds with the idea proposed in "Technorealism". The author of said article proposes that there is a need for greater protection of works, but I disagree with this. Considering the pervasiveness of the Internet in our culture, it seems that protecting every work is no longer possible. Even the RIAA has admitted that stopping piracy and the spread of copyrighted materials is impossible. There are always ways of subverting copy protection schemes, so rather than trying to stop it, we should try to embrace the use of this technology by artists. The Internet remix culture thrives off of using mp3s to create interesting new works, which may offer a new interpretation of the original that contributes to the musical field, sometimes surpassing the original. These works can not only serve as excellent publicity for the remixer, but also for the original creator, so long as the original track is adequately recognizable or the remixer gives proper credit.

In conclusion, I propose that rather than shun or more heavily regulate the spread of art, there needs to be a deeper, conscious move towards ethical use at the user's end. Rather than simply plagiarizing a work and attempting to pass it off as their own (and possibly get away with it), artists who sample should openly give credit. Along with that, artists need to treat their own works as something that is alive and ever-changing, allowing others to create derivative works that may offer a new and unexpected interpretation of themes. It isn't regulation that is needed, but rather a change in the intrinsic thought processes regarding copyright and fair use. With that, legitimate artists would have nothing to fear, provided they reveal the works from which they have sampled.