aeblog

contributions

I just found this post in draft form from a while back. I never really finished it, and I suppose in some ways, it still isn't finished, but I made a few edits and I'm posting it anyway because, well, I haven't posted in a few days and maybe someone will enjoy it. I think I stopped writing before because the argument really wasn't too cogent, but what the hell...

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Almost everyone contributes to society in one way or another I think. Usually this contribution is primarily motivated by personal gain ahead of societal gain, but nonetheless, society often benefits from the acts of individuals. But these individuals often don't get compensated for their contributions. In fact, they shouldn't always get compensated financially, though the pride and bragging rights are certainly an alternative and valuable form of compensation.

The person who installed lighting on the road through an open field leading to his hotel benefits by increased access and a safer environment, but I, as I drive by, benefit from the beauty that these lights have created in an otherwise entirely dark expanse without paying a dime for it. There are clear mutual benefits to creating beauty in this world without insisting on being financially compensated for it, but our law-makers seem to be forgetting this sometimes.

What about architecture? It is easily argued that beautiful architecture is more beneficial to society than ugly-ass buildings. And I would guess it costs more on average to build a beautiful building than an eyesore. Thankfully their are individuals and institutions that believe this sort of public service is valuable, but sometimes it seems to me that we are moving in a direction of micro-payments being automatically deducted from our bank accounts every time we look at the Chrysler Building.

I believe in copyright; I believe that those who create should have protections in place set by the law that enable them to profit from their hard work and creativity; but I also believe very strongly that these protections should have limits. What if everyone refused to create beautiful things unless there was a guarantee of financial compensation? Is this what we want our society to turn into? One where spontaneity and inspiration are stamped out in favor or pre-planned litigation and negotiation? I find this to be incredibly depressing, but sometimes I feel like we are moving towards this.

We already live in a society where FOX will categorically refuse to let 4.5 seconds of a Simpson's episode be ancillarily used in a low budget documentary about Wagner's Ring cycle stagehands without receiving $10,000. (btw both Matt Groening, the creator of the Simpsons, and Gracie Films, agreed to the film-maker's request) So what happens? Big money wins, of course, and the film-maker is forced to deflate a poignant and telling moment from his piece by digitally inserting something without a $10K price-tag. That sucks. And it makes documentaries not documentaries. It seems that in many situations 'fair-use' has come to mean 'whoever has more money can dictate what gets used where and how'. Yuck.

How is it fair that Walt Disney built a large part of his media empire on the back of the Brothers Grimm, but now, through the power of the strong lobby, the Walt Disney Company still retains the exclusive rights to Mickey Mouse and other icons which in earlier times would have already entered the public domain? They benefit from the public domain, but are doing everything in their power to not contribute back into it. This is deplorable behavior. It embarrasses me that our copyright laws are being twisted to allow this sort of thing to happen. The framers of our constitution made it clear that after a reasonable period of time, creative property should become the property of society as a whole to be built upon and developed and remixed etc etc. This is the lifeblood of our creative culture and sadly the brakes are being put on this train that has propelled America to the forefront of creative expression over the past several hundred years.

Personally, I am just beginning to embark on a lifestyle that will require me to be financially compensated for creative products. I have left my well-paying job for a large corporation, and I am now attempting to sustain myself by writing and recording music and involving myself in a variety of related projects. I do not know exactly what direction this will all take me in, but I am very excited about the prospects. I am proud to be adding my little bit of beauty/culture/whatever you want to call it to our society and I will do it for as long as I can afford to (probably longer). But despite the fact that my ability to continue to create is directly correlated to my ability to be financially compensated for creating, I still feel very strongly that creative property rights should be limited in the name of the greater good.

What would happen if some institution had the power to decide who could and who could not perform any of Mozart's music? You can surely see the political implications that this sort of power would enable. And what if only certain groups that agreed with the ideals of the official Shakespeare Copyright Enforcement Agency were allowed to perform his works? Would this be censorship? I'm not sure that's the right word, but it would no doubt be a major restriction on artistic progress.

OK, enough ranting. I'm amazed you made it through. Let's hope enough energy goes into changing the direction we are headed in before we come to a grinding halt.