Hilary Rosen is guest-blogging for our esteemed
chairman, and while it makes perfect sense in
theory — CC is not about tearing down copyright, but about building a
better system within it’s confines — I call bullshit.
Ms. Rosen posits:
I love the Warhol Campbell Soup example. I wonder if Campbell’s
would sue him today. doubt it. in fact that is what is always so
fascinating. the amount of people who face legal consequences for
things like samples or parodies is so miniscule compared to the
amount of their use. Music sample lawsuits, for example are really
only done by successful artists against successful artists because
it just isn’t worth it to pursue. Every once in awhile “artistic
integrity” comes into play, but rarely.
First, I wonder why she thinks Campbell’s Soup wouldn’t sue Warhol
today, especially if he chose to distribute his work in a digital medium
(something that strikes me as plausible, although I’ll admit that
I’m just pissing in the wind here). It seems to me like the atmosphere
has shifted to a more litigous one in all areas, not just copyright. But
that’s not the point — neither Ms. Rosen nor myself can speak for
Campbell’s, of course. The point is with respect to the link she tries
to draw between Warhol’s use of the Campbell’s Soup can, parody and
sampling. And here’s where I call bullshit: if the lawsuits are so few,
the “chillling effect” on creativity so minimal, and the damage to
artists so slight, why not codify the right of artists to reuse, remix
and sample in copyright law? What not provide real statutory protection
for parody and sampling so that judges don’t have to decide how much a
sample is worth, and possibly decide incorrectly.
And we were hung up. Hung up on the very issue you raised. What
would happen when legitimate fair use needs arose and the required
content wasn’t available in upprotected formats? While we knew it
wasn’t a “dreamers” issue and that technology was moving rapidly
enough that protected content could be a reality quite soon, it
wasn’t yet at the time. And several of us, including most
importantly by that time, the Committee Chairman who had heretofore
been opposed to the Bill, wanted to get it done.
So, I pulled out a long used legislative tactic and suggested we put
a “study” in the statute.
Oh, right, I forgot — the Copyright Office and Commerce Department
studied it, and found out its not a real
issue. Thanks for that legislative gem,
Hil — you’re a doll.
PS: Tell ‘Liz to get you a keyboard with a shift-key that works — you
work hard for the money.
| date: | 2005-08-18 14:41:29 |
|---|
| wordpress_id: | 322 |
|---|
| layout: | post |
|---|
| slug: | uh-bullshit |
|---|
| comments: | |
|---|
| category: | culture |
|---|