Canadian Actor Claims Mashups Are Morally Wrong And Should Be Illegal
from the get-off-my-cultural-lawn dept
It's kind of amazing how frequently those who argue and advocate for more draconian copyright laws show themselves to be totally out of touch with actual culture. In fact, it frequently seems like they want these laws to prevent new forms of culture simply because they don't like (and don't understand) the culture. For example, Michael Geist notes that Leah Pinsent, a Canadian actor, appearing on behalf of the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists (ACTRA), spoke before the government, arguing against a "mashup" provision in the proposed copyright reform, which would legalize non-commercial, with attribution, mashup works. According to Pinsent, this idea is immoral:Ms. Pinsent is fighting to prohibit so-called “mash-ups,” which allow anyone to take elements of works that Canadian artists have created and mix them with other works to create something new. She argues the practice is “morally wrong” and constitutes a form of plagiarism.Of course, plagiarism is when you take someone else's work without attribution (and is separate from copyright law). Under the proposed law, attribution is required, so it's not clear what Pinsent is so upset about, other than that she just doesn't like mashups. But, as we've seen over and over again, this just appears to be cultural snobbery by someone who doesn't know much about mashup culture, no different than past generations who looked down on jazz, rock, rap or any other "new" music that they just didn't get. Nothing in a mashup takes away from an older work. There's this weird belief that someone doing something with your work somehow "damages" the original, but nothing is further from the truth. Mashups quite frequently introduce new audiences to old works and create new appreciations for old works. I know that's absolutely true with me. When I listen to various mashups, I'm always much more interested in hearing the originals. So I'm at a loss as to how it could be immoral or bad.
Of course, Pinsent isn't completely alone in this view. After all, much of the world has "moral rights" built into copyright law, which allow creators to block others from modifying their works on "moral" grounds. In fact, moral rights are required under the Berne Convention (something the US has skirted by granting them in an incredibly limited fashion such that they really don't exist). But I've never understood how there's any actual moral claim behind moral rights. How is it "moral" to block others from creating something entirely new? It seems, once again, to be based on the idea that the new somehow "harms" the old, but I've yet to see an argument for how that makes any sense at all.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: canada, copyright, creativity, leah pinsent, mashups
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Query
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Query
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Query
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Query
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Query
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think homosexuality is morally wrong and should be illegal
I don't care about mashups, but he can get rid of them also. Just as long as we also get rid of the gays...and maybe Muslims too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've heard the maximilists say "You're taking something that doesn't belong to you." to which I think, y'know I can take a picture of the mountain that your house is built on, it doesn't mean that I've stolen your house, your mountain, or the work of the various parties who helped build the home. In fact, I could then use that photograph to create artwork, maybe it's an undersea mountain inhabited by snorks, maybe it's a mountain on another planet inhabited by snorks...the long and short of it is, inspiration is not stealing. Copyright infringement is not stealing, it is breaking an outdated law that has ceased to have any benefit to society and should be rewritten completely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Living culture
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Living culture
This is not true.
There are lots of non-mashup-making artists out there, it's just that no one really likes their work because appreciating it requires an effort.
Most people like the art that they consume to effort-free and familiar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Living culture
Vast oversimplifications, on the other hand, can lead to immorality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mashups create something "new" as your stomach does to food.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mashups create something "new" as your stomach does to food.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mashups create something "new" as your stomach does to food.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mashups create something "new" as your stomach does to food.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mashups create something "new" as your stomach does to food.
How about you go tell that to 3M. "We don't
make the products, we just make them better."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mashups create something "new" as your stomach does to food.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mashups create something "new" as your stomach does to food.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mashups create something "new" as your stomach does to food.
Live with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
To the depths of deg-ra-Day--
I say, first, medicinal wine from a teaspoon,
Then beer from a bottle.
An' the next thing ya know,
Your son is playin' for money
In a pinch-back suit.
And list'nin to some big out-a-town Jasper
Hearin' him tell about horse-race gamblin'.
Not a wholesome trottin' race, no!
But a race where they set down right on the horse!
Like to see some stuck-up jockey'boy
Sittin' on Dan Patch? Make your blood boil?
Well, I should say.
Friends, lemme tell you what I mean.
Ya got one, two, three, four, five, six pockets in a table.
Pockets that mark the diff'rence
Between a gentlemen and a bum,
With a capital "B,"
And that rhymes with "P" and that stands for pool!
And all week long your River City
Youth'll be frittern away,
I say your young men'll be frittern!
Frittern away their noontime, suppertime, choretime too!
Get the ball in the pocket,
Never mind gittin' Dandelions pulled
Or the screen door patched or the beefsteak pounded.
Never mind pumpin' any water
'Til your parents are caught with the Cistern empty
On a Saturday night and that's trouble,
Oh, yes we got lots and lots a' trouble.
I'm thinkin' of the kids in the knickerbockers,
Shirt-tail young ones, peekin' in the pool
Hall window after school, look, folks!
Right here in River City.
Trouble with a capital "T"
And that rhymes with "P" and that stands for pool!
- Music Man - Ya Got Trouble
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LI_Oe-jtgdI
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yeah...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The time involved; finding precisely the right clips from the songs to use, the practice it must have taken to arrange and then perform that live on camera... staggering. Easily equivalent to what any amateur musician does - and I say that being an amateur musician myself.
Yes - attribution is a good thing. Even though many of the songs used in that particular one were not my cup of tea, I still listened to a bunch of them to try to figure out how it had been put together.
How is it morally wrong to make fun electronica using clips of other people's work, if they're correctly attributed? I just don't understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's say I am an activist who is strongly opposed to existing enforcement efforts of copyright laws. I create a video of myself describing how the existing laws harm innovation and prevent new derrivative works from being created. Now imagine that someone who is a proponent of increased enforcement of copyright laws takes my video removes the audio portion and completely changes the message (sort of like a vigilante version of Bad Lip Reading). The audio portion of the "mash-up" makes it look like I am in favor of even more strict copyright law when in fact I oppose this position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, what is your point? If your point is that mashups can be used towards unethical or immoral or illegal ends, so what? Are you asking for debate on that subject? If so, my reply is that I can use a knife for the same or similar ends. Or a hammer. Or an automobile. Or a building. Or a belt. A fist. Ammonia. Water. Wood. Words. Nothing exists that cannot be abused. The very possibility that something can be abused towards unfortunate ends does not mean that there is anything inherently wrong with it.
Mashups aren't even the issue in your example. It's the technology used to make them. The technology required to use audio-visual records show somebody saying something that he never actually said in real life has existed since it was possible to edit audio-visual records. The fact that modern technology makes it easier for the masses to do doesn't actually change anything.
If you want to ban one specific form of modern technology because it happens to be used to make something you personally object to, then I'd say you can probably get pills for that, or some kind of therapy. If you object to all modern technology because it can be abused, then I'd say to go find somewhere more primitive to live, Mr. Luddite. But before you go, answer this: just how far back do you feel it necessary to go before you've eliminated enough potential for abuse to make you safe? Because if somebody gets really pissed off at you they can always hit you with a rock. Good luck banning rocks.
If that's not what you were trying to say then perhaps you might stop with the ad hominem attacks and actually tell us what you're looking for? Because otherwise anything we say could get a response of "I don't understand, that's not what I said, you're a troll. HERP DERP!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Is your point that people could be tricked into believing that people are advocating something that they're not because their work has been mashed up? Sounds pretty far-fetched.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Try making a living as an artist before you go telling them they should have no rights to determine how their performances are used.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Get off my lawn!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.H.O.O.Q.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You might not like it, but actual art critics and others seem to think that this is indeed art. Sure, some disagreed, but Duchamp created art. Sorry, your personal opinion is irrelevant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.H.O.O.Q.
"An entire generation that has been told they are precious snowflakes their whole life."
Should I get off your lawn as well, grandpa? I'm 36 years old, by the way, and having grown up with (among other genres) hip-hop and house music, I appreciate a good mashup as much as any teenager.
"A generation of consumers who are puzzled why anyone would value the artistic integrity of any work."
Citation needed, else I'll just assume you're lying out of your ass again because you can't bear to agree with Mike or anyone else on basic concepts. Again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wait, wrong movie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Would it be any better if I paid for a license and then did exactly what you describe above--mixing up your speech to distort your viewpoint? If you're trying to make a case that "infringement" is the problem, your answer has to be "yes--it's much better, and I condone it."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you bother to think about it
Presumably even Techdirt, whatever it may be, would find it somehow objectionable if its proudly reusable works were to share space with incitements to commit child abuse, stringing up politicians (however popular the sentiment would be here in the peanut gallery) or mass destruction on some unhinged blog somewhere. Roy Orbison's estate sued so his song "Pretty Woman" wouldn't be associated with 2 Live Crew's, er, interpretation of it (which it is -- "pretty woman orbison" in Google returns the Wikipedia article in first place, and "pretty woman song" has the WP link as the first non-video one) -- I may celebrate the resulting fair use doctrine but I don't belittle the estate for caring or say they must be making some insane distinction that I cannot for the life of me fathom. There's a point where "I don't understand how X can believe Y" stops being merely rhetorical and starts evidencing your own lack of capacity, bad faith, or both.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If you bother to think about it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If you bother to think about it
They might find it objectionable. That's probably true. That does not make it IMMORAL to do so, and it also does not mean any kind of legality should be enshrined against it. I'm pretty sure that Mike would argue the same thing.
Nothing you have presented in your post gives any legitimacy to the idea of establishing legal remedies against a problem perceived as immoral. Your Roy Orbison example falls flat - they sued, and lost... do you sympathize with them and think it should have gone the other way, or do you actually "celebrate the resulting fair use doctrine"? Saying "Oh, I'm glad they lost but I don't question why they did it" is flawed - it's hedging for the ability to stand on both sides of a fence.
If you "don't belittle the estate for caring or say they must be making some insane distinction that I cannot for the life of me fathom" - please tell us, then... what is the distinction? Do you understand it? You spend a fair number of words here telling us what you "don't" think... so what DO you think?
Also, 2 Live Crew's "Pretty Woman" is not an "interpretation", as you say - but a legally protected parody. That's a "pretty" big difference.
When it gets right down to it, you seem to be saying (if I may boil it down) that it should be a legal right for a creator to have the ultimate decision about what can and cannot be done with their work. Is that right?
Please present to us a cogent argument that explains why, precisely (and without weasel words), the 'feelings' and 'morals' of a given creator should be enshrined as a legal right to shut down any kind of derivation or building on their work that they happen to disagree with?
Now, for bonus points: Can you do so without resorting to logical fallacies and more vague personal attacks?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If you bother to think about it
Wow, you can't even seem to describe the two scenarios without missing the important parts even when they're there in your own words. See the part in bold? That's the objectionable part when combined with the situation that faces up and coming artists who are forced to use their rights as down payments on the loans they need to get a label to produce for them. It exists in the first scenario, not the second.
"Presumably even Techdirt, whatever it may be, would find it somehow objectionable if its proudly reusable works were to share space with incitements to commit child abuse, stringing up politicians (however popular the sentiment would be here in the peanut gallery) or mass destruction on some unhinged blog somewhere"
Mash-up and defamation are not synonyms. I wouldn't be calling anyone out on their own "lack of capacity, bad faith, or both" while employing such conflations. Not understanding is a right sight better than intentionally misleading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If you bother to think about it
The one above . . . oh, crap--I just re-read. Also just a straight-up idiot. Needs to read something, rather than just trying to remember things he or she has heard somewhere, a while ago about . . . um . . . what was it again? Some rapper and Roy Orbison? Oh, and bonus lost points for conviction in the face of stupidity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well
Ban this woman immediately!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
moral rights
So there you go, the author's moral rights are to protect his reputation and personality contained within his work. The best argument against this random is that he doesn't understand moral rights and mash-up music does not undermine an author's moral rights.
There you go, hope that enlightens everyone. Otherwise, I fully agree with your article, I hate snobby people that try to make intelligent arguments using big words for why not to allow mash-up music. The worst is when those people who think they are cultured (very uncultured if you ask me) don't know the meanings of those words and assume everyone in the game going for the mash-up team is too stupid to outsmart them. ugh. If they don't like the art form then just say so, don't try to make 'smart' arguments that are inherently stupid to justify their hate for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: moral rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: moral rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]