Monday, February 19, 2007

“And so it goes. . .”

So, here we have another case of Big Brother as Big Music or Big Publishers trying to assert its hegemony on us with copyright laws that have become more and more restrictive. This was all really Rock and Roll fun, but I was wondering when the discussion would get to “Writing for Electronic Media” until I got to DeVoss and Porter when they made the connection with their “property” and “fair use” discussion. My next novel will be my first as will my next music cd, but I feel important with the knowledge that my every email, grocery list, and other mundane writings (blogs?) are copyrighted. So, if you read this, the lesson of Napster is that you can download it, but don’t share (upload) it. However, the other side says that Disney got Mickey Mouse in part from Buster Keaton, so they can’t trademark Mickey, but they do. Moreover, they are right in saying that all writing is shared; for example, Shakespeare’s plays came from folk tales and other sources – not completely original. We’ll probably have to wait to see how all this “shakes out” (no pun intended).

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I have trouble with any law that says that two, equally liable parties are inherently unequal in culpability. The DeVoss article tells us that it is legal to download music but illegal to upload music. If we changed the crime to anything else, it would sound ridiculous, i.e. it is legal to BUY crack, but illegal to SELL crack.

On the other hand, I can record songs of the radio and play them any time I want... and it is free and legal! (Yes, I used to do this in high school).

It seems that the real problem is enforcement of the law: so many people are on the internet, sharing files across state and international lines that the authorities are unable to even maintain the illusion of control.

Brought to you by ENGL.532 classmate Exile1975 (I am having trouble logging in.)