Comments on: Stealing Culture: Plagiarism, Music, and Text

By: thorn

thorn — Fri, 15 May 2009 16:41:21 +0000

“[...]academic writings have something that music lacks — formal acknowledgments.” and music has something academic writings lack: heaps of glittering lucre.

this is a really difficult question. i agree completely that new work necessarily builds on what has gone before, and should be permitted to do so. the tough part, is the details. is ‘building on’ plagiarism if we can recognize the original? what really distinguishes between an ‘inspired by’ piece and a cover? how far away from ‘cover’ does the new creation have to be, in order to be construed as ‘inspired by’?

and: if the result isn’t that great — and it could be argued that the coldplay song *isn’t* that great — are we more likely to side with the original creator of a hook or melody phrase; and more likely to side with the ‘inspired’, if the result is entirely great?

that’s the purpose of laws in general. we say ahead of time what the law should be, and purport to expect it to be enforced with an even hand.

i know this is totally superficial, but: it would really be funny if the heart of the argument were to turn out to just be about which musical composition we like more.

By: David Crotty

David Crotty — Thu, 14 May 2009 15:31:36 +0000

Ran into this article today, which covers similar material, but adds an interesting note. Fair use is much better established, and much more supported in our courts if the use is in criticism or parody than if it is in homage:

The upshot of this is that you're on much more solid ground if you want to quote or otherwise reference a work for the purposes of rubbishing it than if you are doing so to celebrate it. This is one of the most perverse elements of copyright law: the reality that loving something doesn't confer any right to make it a part of your creative life.

By: Philip Davis

Philip Davis — Thu, 14 May 2009 14:44:09 +0000

It reaffirms our cultural sense of information-as-property. A different metaphor (such as information-as-cultural-resource) would result in a different outcome, sans IP lawyers.

By: Kent Anderson

Kent Anderson — Thu, 14 May 2009 14:29:38 +0000

The sad part in this is that the proverbial “line” separating appropriation and inspiration has been erased. Everything is now appropriation. It has a huge chilling effect.

The absurdity of the 3:1 plagiarism ratio in the Coldplay situation shows how ridiculous this has become.

By: David Crotty

David Crotty — Thu, 14 May 2009 14:06:00 +0000

“Stealing” is a really loaded word to use these days when discussing intellectual property. It’s been appropriated by the likes of the RIAA and MPAA, along with words like “theft” or “thief” to describe people who infringe copyright. It’s not an appropriate word–it describes a different crime, just as you wouldn’t call murder “arson”. It’s used to inflame emotions more than to accurately describe what is happening. Theft/stealing implies depriving someone of physical property, which is not the case for infringement. Infringement is in many ways a much more serious crime, with more serious penalties.