1
00:00:00,057 --> 00:00:03,454
[Bell]
[Announcer] This is Duke University.

2
00:00:05,957 --> 00:00:10,128
(The Center for the Study of the Public Domain presents: "Theft! A History of Music"
17 November 2010 - Duke Law)

3
00:00:10,128 --> 00:00:14,038
[James Boyle] Welcome to this lecture put on by the Center for the Study of the Public Domain.

4
00:00:14,038 --> 00:00:20,047
We bring - as part of our Center, we bring some of the leading figures in intellectual property

5
00:00:20,047 --> 00:00:23,065
to come and speak here and today, the same is true,

6
00:00:23,065 --> 00:00:25,327
but in this case we are introducing one of own:

7
00:00:25,342 --> 00:00:28,924
Jennifer Jenkins is the director of the Center for the Study of the Public Domain.

8
00:00:28,924 --> 00:00:32,630
She is a lecturing fellow, a senior lecturing fellow at the Law School,

9
00:00:32,630 --> 00:00:35,579
teaching classes in Intellectual Property, the Public Domain and Free Speech,

10
00:00:35,579 --> 00:00:37,248
and in music's copyright.

11
00:00:37,248 --> 00:00:40,085
She's also the author of a number of things:

12
00:00:40,085 --> 00:00:45,420
a comic book, which she co-authored with me and another one that she's going to talk about today,

13
00:00:45,420 --> 00:00:52,339
and an article - a very prescient article - on the American system of protecting, or in this case,

14
00:00:52,339 --> 00:00:56,487
not protecting fashion designs in intellectual property.

15
00:00:56,487 --> 00:01:01,850
Jennifer is a frequently quoted academic in the media.

16
00:01:01,850 --> 00:01:05,168
She has recently appeared in the New York Times, Newsweek, and on NPR.

17
00:01:05,168 --> 00:01:13,303
And today, she's going to be talking to us about her research project on the history of music. Jennifer.

18
00:01:13,303 --> 00:01:22,500
[Applause]

19
00:01:24,458 --> 00:01:28,369
[Jennifer Jenkins] Hem... so.

20
00:01:28,369 --> 00:01:35,265
Why did Plato argue that remixing music should be banned by the state?

21
00:01:35,829 --> 00:01:40,498
Why did the Holy Roman Empire encourage the use of musical notation?

22
00:01:41,032 --> 00:01:47,633
What threats were jazz and rock 'n roll supposed to present to society in mainstream culture?

23
00:01:47,647 --> 00:01:54,111
Would the development of genres like jazz and soul even be possible under today's legal regimes?

24
00:01:54,470 --> 00:01:58,887
These are some of the topics I'm going to talk about today, but with a twist:

25
00:01:58,887 --> 00:02:03,600
I'm going to describe to you a research project

26
00:02:03,615 --> 00:02:06,789
that Professor Boyle and I have been working on for about four years.

27
00:02:06,789 --> 00:02:11,041
A project that focuses on the history of musical borrowing,

28
00:02:11,041 --> 00:02:20,360
an over 2000 year exploration of the way that norms, aesthetics, law, politics, technology, economics

29
00:02:20,360 --> 00:02:25,002
have influenced the conditions of creativity in music

30
00:02:25,002 --> 00:02:30,486
and tried to limit the mutability of musical forms.

31
00:02:31,363 --> 00:02:34,591
The project has taken us in some interesting directions.

32
00:02:34,591 --> 00:02:38,829
For example, in 2006, we co-authored with professor Anthony Kelly

33
00:02:38,829 --> 00:02:45,265
who is in this room, a course composed of half law students, half graduate level composers

34
00:02:45,265 --> 00:02:50,507
that examined the way that musicians, on the one hand, and copyright law, on the other hand,

35
00:02:50,507 --> 00:02:53,333
view different types of musical borrowing.

36
00:02:53,333 --> 00:02:58,753
But the component of the project that I'm going to talk about today is a little bit different.

37
00:02:59,584 --> 00:03:05,624
So, as anyone of our students' generation knows, we are currently in the midst of the musical wars.

38
00:03:05,624 --> 00:03:08,869
On the one side, you hear about a whole generation of law-breakers,

39
00:03:08,869 --> 00:03:11,559
pirating and remixing music without authorization,

40
00:03:11,559 --> 00:03:14,114
completely indifferent to authors' needs.

41
00:03:14,114 --> 00:03:17,069
On the other hand, you hear about record companies

42
00:03:17,069 --> 00:03:20,122
resorting to the law to prop up an obsolete business model,

43
00:03:20,122 --> 00:03:25,892
while trying to criminalize new forms of creativity and access enabled by technology.

44
00:03:25,892 --> 00:03:33,055
And what our research showed us is that both of these accounts are both inaccurate and a-historical,

45
00:03:33,055 --> 00:03:36,624
and that the history of music that I'm going to talk about,

46
00:03:36,624 --> 00:03:41,256
can actually teach us a lot about today's debates.

47
00:03:41,994 --> 00:03:46,612
So we wondered, how should we present all of these findings to the public?

48
00:03:46,612 --> 00:03:52,036
So, one of the goals of our Center is - and of the Law School as a whole - is translation:

49
00:03:52,036 --> 00:03:56,862
taking abstruse legal or academic findings and research,

50
00:03:56,862 --> 00:04:01,844
and making those findings available and accessible to a wider audience.

51
00:04:01,844 --> 00:04:09,734
So, the form that we chose for translation in this instance is one that we used successfully in the past

52
00:04:09,765 --> 00:04:14,286
to explain Fair Use and copyright law to documentary film makers, namely -

53
00:04:15,710 --> 00:04:17,073
a comic book!

54
00:04:17,748 --> 00:04:22,736
That's - he's very generous, by the way - that's me, that's Professor Boyle flying in his -

55
00:04:22,736 --> 00:04:27,343
actually this suit looks very much like the one he's wearing here, [laughter] that's amazing!

56
00:04:27,343 --> 00:04:36,675
That's actually Professor Kelly and these are all the warrior zombies. [laughter]

57
00:04:37,352 --> 00:04:40,850
So, the comic book is called "Theft, A History Of Music".

58
00:04:40,850 --> 00:04:46,705
It's being co-authored by Professor Boyle from the Law School, by me and by professor Keith Aoki

59
00:04:46,705 --> 00:04:50,951
who works at the University of California at Davis,

60
00:04:50,951 --> 00:04:55,242
and while I'm going to tell you a little bit about our findings on musical borrowing,

61
00:04:55,242 --> 00:05:00,977
I'm also going to tell you about the adventures, frustrations, delights,

62
00:05:00,977 --> 00:05:05,400
of trying to present 2000 years of history in the form of a comic book.

63
00:05:10,539 --> 00:05:17,432
(The struggle to control music is a very old one)
So my first theme today is that the struggle to control music is a very old one.

64
00:05:17,432 --> 00:05:21,616
There is something different about music.

65
00:05:21,616 --> 00:05:24,617
As we did our research, one of the things that struck us most

66
00:05:24,617 --> 00:05:30,156
was that music arouses very strong fears and very strong feelings

67
00:05:30,156 --> 00:05:36,818
that lead to persistent, repeated attempts throughout history to regulate and control music,

68
00:05:36,818 --> 00:05:40,237
whether legally, aesthetically or culturally.

69
00:05:41,637 --> 00:05:45,121
This is especially true when it comes to remix.

70
00:05:45,121 --> 00:05:47,088
Throughout history, there has been a persistent urge

71
00:05:47,088 --> 00:05:51,670
to police the boundaries of musical forms and genres.

72
00:05:51,670 --> 00:05:56,393
So, to take one example, here is Plato, as promised,

73
00:05:56,393 --> 00:06:02,322
inveighing against the dangers of musical music over 2000 years ago. In Plato's words:

74
00:06:02,322 --> 00:06:05,888
"This is the point to which, above all, the attention of our rulers should be directed:

75
00:06:05,888 --> 00:06:12,088
that music, and gymnastics,be preserved in their original form, and no innovation made.

76
00:06:12,088 --> 00:06:16,173
Any musical innovation is full of danger to the whole state

77
00:06:16,173 --> 00:06:19,287
and ought to be prohibited."

78
00:06:20,687 --> 00:06:28,536
So, Plato's arguing that musical innovation should be banned by the state.

79
00:06:28,536 --> 00:06:33,472
Now, the mixing of ancient musical modes, such as the Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian etc.,

80
00:06:33,472 --> 00:06:39,662
is obviously not the same as ...... to known mashing ups, radio head and jazzy (Jaycee?) radio head, (6:38)

81
00:06:39,662 --> 00:06:42,110
or DJ Earworm mashing up the year's greatest pop hits,

82
00:06:42,110 --> 00:06:45,887
but it's still fascinating to find that over 2000 years ago,

83
00:06:45,887 --> 00:06:50,226
people were still arguing about banning a form of mash-up.

84
00:06:51,949 --> 00:06:55,472
So, why would that be?

85
00:06:55,472 --> 00:07:00,316
(comic: "Remember that to the ancient Greeks, Music was part of a set of universal norms ... a deep logic of the universe which combined geometry and sounds, ethics, politics and beauty.")
Well, if you see music as a reflection

86
00:07:00,316 --> 00:07:03,623
of the order of the cosmos, as the Greeks did,

87
00:07:03,623 --> 00:07:09,478
or as a mode of communication that can jump the firewall of the brain

88
00:07:09,478 --> 00:07:13,688
and communicate directly to the emotions,

89
00:07:13,688 --> 00:07:18,755
then of course, you would worry about remix, because the results of the wrong remix -

90
00:07:18,755 --> 00:07:23,105
(Comic: "Mixing musical forms was actually meddling with ethos, and the order of this cospos. It threatened Anarchy. So Plato did want some kinds of "sampling" forbidden. But not because of "property rights.")
could be dramatic. [laughter]

91
00:07:23,105 --> 00:07:28,359
Star-spangled Banner not being well received by the ancient Greeks.

92
00:07:28,359 --> 00:07:37,703
So now, the Platonist view of music may seem outmoded - pun - so to speak.

93
00:07:37,703 --> 00:07:40,125
Most of us aren't Platonists anymore.

94
00:07:40,125 --> 00:07:46,115
But the belief in music's subversive power, about the danger of crossing musical boundaries,

95
00:07:46,115 --> 00:07:47,915
is an enduring one.

96
00:07:47,915 --> 00:07:52,083
So, these boundaries might be religious as with contrafactum (?)

97
00:07:52,083 --> 00:07:55,191
and sacred-secular borrowing in the Middle Ages,

98
00:07:55,191 --> 00:08:00,046
or cultural, or even racial

99
00:08:00,046 --> 00:08:04,085
(Etude Music Magazine: "Jazz Problem - Opinions of Prominent Public Men and Musicians" August 1924)

100
00:08:04,085 --> 00:08:08,695
So, this is the cover of the 1924 Etude Magazine that was brought to my attention,

101
00:08:08,695 --> 00:08:13,291
actually given to us by Professor Anthony Kelly here, from the Music Department,

102
00:08:13,291 --> 00:08:16,024
featuring the "Opinions of Prominent Public Men"

103
00:08:16,024 --> 00:08:19,085
- there were actually women featured in there, but the cover says "Men" -

104
00:08:19,085 --> 00:08:22,742
"and musicians on the Jazz problem".

105
00:08:23,773 --> 00:08:25,503
What's the problem?

106
00:08:27,474 --> 00:08:30,305
Here is a quote that I'm going to read from one composer,

107
00:08:30,305 --> 00:08:35,995
with rather racist concerns about stylistic mingling. He said, just from this issue:

108
00:08:35,995 --> 00:08:40,621
"Jazz is to real music what the caricature is to the portrait.

109
00:08:40,621 --> 00:08:44,126
Jazz originated from the dance rhythms of the Negro.

110
00:08:44,126 --> 00:08:49,177
It was at least interesting as a self-expression of a primitive race.

111
00:08:49,177 --> 00:08:52,551
When jazz was adopted by the highly civilized white race,

112
00:08:52,551 --> 00:08:56,897
it tended to degenerate it towards primitivity."

113
00:08:56,897 --> 00:09:03,466
So here the boundaries that are being policed are as much racial as they are musical.

114
00:09:03,466 --> 00:09:06,214
And this theme continued, whether it was composers such as this one,

115
00:09:06,214 --> 00:09:10,297
worrying about the corrupting powers of jazz on white music in the 1920's,

116
00:09:10,297 --> 00:09:14,316
or a few decades later, the segreationists in the American South,

117
00:09:14,316 --> 00:09:20,434
that wanted rock 'n roll banned, because they saw it as a subversive crossing of lines

118
00:09:20,434 --> 00:09:22,301
by Black R and P (?) music (9:21)

119
00:09:22,301 --> 00:09:25,163
that might corrupt, among other things, white womanhood

120
00:09:25,163 --> 00:09:31,134
and fill their heads with pounding rhythms and an attraction for African American performers.

121
00:09:31,134 --> 00:09:34,963
(Comic: "It wasn't only Hazz that made people scared... Here's George Wallace's speech writer, Asa Carter, on Rock and Roll...'[Rock is the heavy beat music of the Negroes. It appeals to the base in man; it brings out animalism and vulgarity...'"
These are real quotes - I don't know if you can see them -

122
00:09:34,963 --> 00:09:37,890
from Isa Carter, who was George Wallace's speech writer.

123
00:09:41,182 --> 00:09:46,947
In other words, the segregationists thought that this was a form a musical miscegenation

124
00:09:46,947 --> 00:09:50,377
that would lead to actual miscegenation.

125
00:09:50,377 --> 00:09:55,344
Musical lines were race lines, and crossing them was dangerous.

126
00:09:55,344 --> 00:10:01,002
(Cartoon: "And peddling paranoia was a big business... 'Rock and Roll inflames and excites youth like jungle tom-toms.'")
This is a preacher from the same amount of (?) time, and that's one of his quotes.

127
00:10:01,002 --> 00:10:04,313
'Rock and Roll inflames and excites the youth like jungle tom-toms.'

128
00:10:04,313 --> 00:10:11,701
So, as you can see, Plato has had many strange intellectual companions over the years.

129
00:10:13,547 --> 00:10:16,605
So, another thing we want this comic book to show

130
00:10:16,605 --> 00:10:24,149
is the way that policies lines between the musicals runs as without actually seen as having a vital cultural role (??? 10:23)

131
00:10:24,149 --> 00:10:28,787
Now, related to remix is the phenomenon of musical borrowing.

132
00:10:28,787 --> 00:10:34,672
So these days, certain forms of borrowing - certain forms of music

133
00:10:34,672 --> 00:10:35,616
that relied on "borrowing" in quotations are seen as high culture.

134
00:10:35,616 --> 00:10:39,385
Take classical music.

135
00:10:39,385 --> 00:10:45,134
Here is Brahms, whose First Symphony ..... (?) so many similatities to Beethoven's works

136
00:10:45,134 --> 00:10:49,655
that the conductor Hans von Bülow called it Beethoven's Tenth [laughter]

137
00:10:49,655 --> 00:10:51,251
much to Brams's annoyance.

138
00:10:51,251 --> 00:10:55,403
There is - there are many translations of that particular quote and, you know

139
00:10:55,403 --> 00:10:58,316
I had to chose this one, but I wasn't able to find the definitive translation.

140
00:10:58,316 --> 00:11:01,452
But you get the gist: he didn't like it.

141
00:11:01,452 --> 00:11:04,686
And of course, this is only one of thousands of examples,

142
00:11:04,686 --> 00:11:09,920
because many forms of borrowing were accepted as fundamental compositional techniques

143
00:11:09,920 --> 00:11:13,679
during the various eras of classical music.

144
00:11:13,679 --> 00:11:20,899
There are actually distinct types of borrowing, each viewed as legitimate in its own way.

145
00:11:20,899 --> 00:11:26,141
So, how are we going to present this musical research in comic book form?

146
00:11:26,141 --> 00:11:28,315
We went with the classics

147
00:11:28,315 --> 00:11:35,116
(comics page)
[laughter] Super Mario brothers, except for it is Super Berio Brothers.


148
00:11:35,116 --> 00:11:40,006
Berio is a 20th century composer whose composition Sinfonia borrowed from everyone.

149
00:11:40,006 --> 00:11:45,121
I'll just list a few: Mahler, Schoenberg, Debussy, Verdi, Brahms, Ravel, Stravinsky, Beethoven, Strauss, Bach -

150
00:11:45,121 --> 00:11:47,658
just to name a few composers.

151
00:11:47,658 --> 00:11:49,684
Ehm - Super Mario brothers.

152
00:11:49,684 --> 00:11:52,584
(comics page with types of borrowing)
So in these slides, you see

153
00:11:52,584 --> 00:11:54,859
- we tried, we tried to be faithful to the game -

154
00:11:54,859 --> 00:12:00,255
we describe some of the different types of borrowing, such as modeling, for example.

155
00:12:00,255 --> 00:12:06,503
So, John Williams theme from Star Wars is on Holst's composition "The Planets".

156
00:12:06,503 --> 00:12:15,919
Or quotations: Tchaikovsky's "1812 Overture" conjures the Russian and French armies

157
00:12:15,919 --> 00:12:18,354
by including their national anthems.

158
00:12:18,354 --> 00:12:24,285
So, extensive borrowing has been a part of many genres.

159
00:12:24,285 --> 00:12:30,221
Take Jazz - that's another example where borrowing and quotation were essential to composition.

160
00:12:30,221 --> 00:12:33,386
(Comic: trumpet player saying "You can't steal a gift!")
Dizzy Gillespie - a pretty good rendition, I think.

161
00:12:33,386 --> 00:12:36,090
Famous quote: "You can't steal a gift!"

162
00:12:36,090 --> 00:12:40,702
So, of course now, we see many of these kinds of borrowing as high art,

163
00:12:40,702 --> 00:12:45,548
not as something that is shady or reprehensible.

164
00:12:45,548 --> 00:12:49,790
But years from now, will this also be the fate of today's hip hop art,

165
00:12:49,790 --> 00:12:52,334
whose borrowing through sampling is often condemned...

166
00:12:52,334 --> 00:12:57,933
(Comic: 1. Woman: "But Jazz was just as controversial in its Heyday!" Man: "...makes you wonder how people will be talking about rap in 200 years..." 2. court scene read aloud by Jenkins afterwards )
... as theft?

167
00:12:57,933 --> 00:13:04,245
[Jenkins, reading] "Your honor, what I am doing is really no different than what the esteemed Snoop Dog or Ul' Wayne did in the early days of the 21st century..."

168
00:13:04,245 --> 00:13:09,930
"You dare compare yourself to a classical rapper!!!!!???" [laughter].

169
00:13:10,569 --> 00:13:13,871
We shall see if this is the future we have to look forward to.

170
00:13:13,871 --> 00:13:17,629
So, the first theme today, is the struggle to control music,

171
00:13:17,629 --> 00:13:21,038
it's a long one and has patterns that repeat.

172
00:13:21,038 --> 00:13:27,047
And the struggle frequently has overt political or cultural overtones.

173
00:13:27,047 --> 00:13:30,446
It is a battle over the shape of culture,

174
00:13:30,446 --> 00:13:35,824
and persistent concerns about remixing music, all the way from Plato to the present,

175
00:13:35,824 --> 00:13:41,347
have existed alongside a long and rich tradition of borrowing in music.

176
00:13:41,347 --> 00:13:47,117
So, that's our first theme, leading on to my second theme: technology.

177
00:13:47,117 --> 00:13:51,805
(Technologies are unruly, and we are bad at predicting their effects...)
Technologies are unruly.

178
00:13:51,821 --> 00:13:55,767
So the history of music is bound up with technologies that enable its production,

179
00:13:55,767 --> 00:13:57,952
its reproduction, its distribution.

180
00:13:57,952 --> 00:14:01,371
And I mean technologies in the widest sense:

181
00:14:01,371 --> 00:14:06,943
everything from musical notation to player pianos, grammophones, high quality printing presses,

182
00:14:06,943 --> 00:14:10,351
all the way through to peer-to-peer file sharing.

183
00:14:13,443 --> 00:14:18,742
So one conclusion that emerged from my historical research in this area is that

184
00:14:18,742 --> 00:14:27,460
we, our society, our lawmakers, are remarkably bad at predicting the effects of new technologies.

185
00:14:27,460 --> 00:14:32,116
So, one great example is the process of musical notation itself.

186
00:14:32,116 --> 00:14:37,360
The ancient Greeks and Persians had musical notation of a sort and in fact,

187
00:14:37,360 --> 00:14:38,770
(Greek MS entitled "Song A - P. Yale CtYBR inv. 4510)
some of the manuscripts are remaining:

188
00:14:38,770 --> 00:14:43,540
this is an actual manuscript of early Greek notation,

189
00:14:44,894 --> 00:14:47,939
though there is some debate as to whether we can actually read that notation

190
00:14:47,939 --> 00:14:49,808
and figure out what the music sounded like,

191
00:14:49,808 --> 00:14:54,814
(Comic: "So the Greeks certainly had notation, though it seems to have been used infrequently - as a historical record of songs, not something musicians used every day." "We used to think we'd never know how these tunes sounded - Now, some scholars think they can make a pretty good guess").
This is how we described it in the comic book.

192
00:14:54,814 --> 00:14:56,971
But the skill of notation, after that, was lost in the West

193
00:14:56,971 --> 00:15:01,937
and wasn't reinvented until sometime in the Ninth Century.

194
00:15:02,629 --> 00:15:05,021
(A hand with musical staffs and Latin words under them)
So here is the Guidonian hand:

195
00:15:05,021 --> 00:15:10,138
a Twelfth Century mnemonic device to help singers sight-sing from notation.

196
00:15:11,307 --> 00:15:12,776
Why was notation reinvented?

197
00:15:12,776 --> 00:15:19,912
The Holy Roman Empire played a prominent role in spreading and encouraging the use of notation.

198
00:15:19,912 --> 00:15:27,145
Its goal was a simple one: uniformity and control over sacred Church music.

199
00:15:27,145 --> 00:15:32,357
So, until the reinvention of notation to ensure a standard form of music,

200
00:15:32,357 --> 00:15:34,657
they actually sent around a standard reference choir

201
00:15:34,657 --> 00:15:36,601
to sing in each of the cathedrals of the Empire

202
00:15:36,601 --> 00:15:40,310
to make sure that it was one Church, one Mass, one song.

203
00:15:41,556 --> 00:15:44,377
Notation meant that they didn't have to do this anymore.

204
00:15:44,377 --> 00:15:49,148
It meant that the Church dictates about music - only monophonic music, only the human voice,

205
00:15:49,148 --> 00:15:54,989
no accompaniment, only the approved tunes and chants - could be imposed form afar,

206
00:15:55,004 --> 00:16:00,556
bringing musical uniformity to the breadth of the Empire. Or so they thought.

207
00:16:00,633 --> 00:16:04,265
(Comic: "Though it's not clear how precise the notation was... At first, it was simple signs like this above the words to indicate when the tune went up or down.
But notation actually helped people supplement, innovate... and then preserve an transmit tunes they created)
By the way, we time-travel in the book.

208
00:16:04,265 --> 00:16:06,980
and we do so and the doctor who taught us,

209
00:16:06,980 --> 00:16:11,425
which is hurtling into space there - another one of our decisions in presenting it -

210
00:16:11,425 --> 00:16:16,187
So, in fact, of course, notation did something very different as well.

211
00:16:16,187 --> 00:16:19,890
It allowed composers to experiment in ways that they could never have done before,

212
00:16:19,890 --> 00:16:23,841
particularly in polyphonic music, music with multiple melody lines.

213
00:16:23,841 --> 00:16:29,095
It allowed the sharing and the borrowing of music by people who had never met face to face,

214
00:16:29,095 --> 00:16:31,974
or ever heard the same live piece of music.

215
00:16:31,974 --> 00:16:38,616
So notation, a technology intended to produce uniformity, to squelch experimentation and remix,

216
00:16:38,616 --> 00:16:41,827
actually ended up enabling all of those things.

217
00:16:42,935 --> 00:16:48,513
So, time and time again, our confident predictions about the effects of new technologies and regulation

218
00:16:48,513 --> 00:16:51,701
on music turn out to be outdone by events.

219
00:16:51,701 --> 00:16:56,413
And it's not clear that we're much better today in predicting the effects of technology

220
00:16:56,413 --> 00:17:00,103
than we were in the Holy Roman Empire.

221
00:17:00,103 --> 00:17:04,701
So, a slightly more recent example, from the early 1900's:

222
00:17:04,701 --> 00:17:11,762
(Slide: read aloud by Jenkins:)
Now it seems (?) "When technologies change the patterns of costs and benefits,

223
00:17:11,762 --> 00:17:14,745
incumbents turn to the state for recourse"

224
00:17:14,745 --> 00:17:19,840
So in the late XIXth century, the disruptive technologies of the day were player pianos.

225
00:17:19,840 --> 00:17:22,004
Has anyone ever seen...?

226
00:17:22,004 --> 00:17:25,548
I always talk to my students about that as some people have heard of them, some people haven't.

227
00:17:25,548 --> 00:17:27,941
It's a little mechanical piano roll,

228
00:17:27,941 --> 00:17:33,357
and it actually makes the piano play the ragtime music or whatever it is that you're into.

229
00:17:33,357 --> 00:17:39,853
So, at the time, copyright law only covered the printing and public performance of musical compositions.

230
00:17:39,853 --> 00:17:44,915
It did not cover the mechanical reproduction from making a player piano roll

231
00:17:44,915 --> 00:17:50,565
or a disc or cylinder for phonographs or grammophones.

232
00:17:52,134 --> 00:17:55,304
(Comic: about player piano and Edison's invention of the phonograph)
Here's some of the techology that we are talking about.

233
00:17:57,166 --> 00:18:02,181
So the composers and music publishers, when these new technologies came out,

234
00:18:02,181 --> 00:18:08,269
went to Congress, claiming that these technologies were effectively stealing their property

235
00:18:08,269 --> 00:18:14,178
and demanding that the law - the copyright law - should be changed to reflect that fact

236
00:18:14,178 --> 00:18:19,837
and insure remuneration for every one of the piano rolls or discs that was produced.

237
00:18:19,837 --> 00:18:23,926
So here is composer John Philip Sousa, who you may be familiar with:

238
00:18:23,926 --> 00:18:26,133
His marches, which are played in marching bands,

239
00:18:26,133 --> 00:18:31,062
at least I did - have you been unlucky enough to be subjected to that in high school ? -

240
00:18:31,062 --> 00:18:33,683
(Comic)
So, here is John Philip Sousa.

241
00:18:33,683 --> 00:18:38,524
(Jenkins reading slide) 
"These companies" - the people producing these piano players pianos grammophones -

242
00:18:38,524 --> 00:18:41,911
"take my property and put it on their records.

243
00:18:41,911 --> 00:18:47,244
That disk as it stands, without the composition of an American composer like me on it,

244
00:18:47,244 --> 00:18:49,413
is not worth a penny.

245
00:18:50,510 --> 00:18:55,035
Put the composition of an American composer on it and it is worth $1.50."

246
00:18:55,035 --> 00:18:56,950
Things were cheaper, back then.

247
00:18:56,950 --> 00:19:00,684
"What makes the difference? The stuff that we write."

248
00:19:00,684 --> 00:19:02,976
You should have to pay us for making these things, right?

249
00:19:02,976 --> 00:19:05,824
We should change the law to reflect that fact.

250
00:19:06,297 --> 00:19:11,236
Now, the nascent recording industry, the people who were making these new technologies, disagreed.

251
00:19:11,959 --> 00:19:15,798
First of all, they denied that there was any theft

252
00:19:15,798 --> 00:19:18,398
(Comic: Congress hearing with two quotations read just afterwards by Jenkins) 
going on, and they rejected the notion of absolute property rights.


253
00:19:18,398 --> 00:19:25,928
They argued that copyright was a creature of statute, already reflecting in carefully balanced strucs (?) like Congress (?)

254
00:19:26,744 --> 00:19:31,463
So, here is Philip Mauro of the American Graphophone Company Association (reads from comic:)

255
00:19:31,463 --> 00:19:43,174
"All talk about "dishonesty" and "theft" in this connection, from however high a source, is the merest claptrap, for there exists no property in ideas, musical, literary, or artistic, except as defined by statute."

256
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Second, they did not think that copyright holders should automatically reap the benefits

257
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
of an entirely new market that didn't exist before,

258
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
that had been created by technological innovation, the innovation of the companies that they represented.

259
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So the piano roll industry representative pointed out

260
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
that new tech - new recording were not doing any harm to composers.

261
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
"It is therefore perfectly demonstrable that the introduction of automatic music players

262
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
has not deprived the composer of anything he had before their introduction"

263
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
The composers were still being paid for sheet music, right?

264
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
They are in the status quo, they are the same as before.

265
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Why should we have to pay them for an entirely new market that we came up with?

266
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And here is a quote that's not on there. This is Philip Mauro again, from the Graphophone Association -

267
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
... very awkward back then:

268
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
"The composers and publishers have not contributed in the slightest degree to this change.

269
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Yet the publisher does not scruple to demand radical change of legislation

270
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
in order to give him the entire monopoly of the benefits resulting from these changed conditions,

271
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and has the effrontery to apply vituperative epithets to those who venture to oppose his scheme of greed." [laughter]

272
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Good, ha? So, yes, in this case, the recording industry was siding with new technologies

273
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and the freedom to copy, and against copyright extension.

274
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So, what's fascinating, besides that fact, about these debates,

275
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
is the depth of discussion about how to allocate the new surplus, the new benefits

276
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
that are created by new technologies.

277
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
In this case, before these new technologies,

278
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
if you want to hear a song, you had to sing it or you had to play it, right?

279
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
You didn't intermediary - I mean, it's hard to imagine now.

280
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
But that's how, would you like to hear that song now? (?)

281
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Well, do you have an orchestra? Tey can play it for you. [laughter]

282
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Now, with these, you could actually listen to it without a human intermediary, and that's pretty neat.

283
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And so these discussions actually talked about policy, new revenues that ought to automatically flow

284
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
to the copyright holders or to the technologists.

285
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Right there (?) there was a policy debate that took into account the dangers of monopoly,

286
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
the benefits of technological progress, the public interest,

287
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and the advancement of knowledge and culture.

288
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And ultimately, Congress compromised.

289
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
It issued a compulsory licensing that once a composer allowed a song to be recorded,

290
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
anyone could record it and make one of these piano rolls or one of these discs,

291
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
as long as they paid a standard flat fee: at the time, two cents.

292
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
How did we present this compromise in the comic book form?

293
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
(Comic: [can't read])
We wrote a little ditty. [inaudible: "buzz buzz buzz Boyle"?] 22:30

294
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
We are a little silly sometime in the comic.

295
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
We're sort of very - one of my students said:

296
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
"You're puns remind me of the kind of puns my uncle makes."

297
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And I was like, "Your uncle must be a very, very funny man" [laughter]

298
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
I don't think he intended it as a compliment but I took it as one.

299
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So: first we talked about remix and borrowing, and now technology seems - (?)

300
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Technologies are unruly - we are bad at predicting their effect -

301
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and they change the pattern of costs and benefits.

302
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And when this happens, the incumbents tend to try to grab the full scope of the new surpluses,

303
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
or the new benefits, but externalize the costs.

304
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Now, if I were advising a music clan, I may very well take that position: it would benefit my clan.

305
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
But it's not the only position.

306
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And comparing some of the current debates going on,

307
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
as we speak about new intellectual property legislation,

308
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
to the debates in 1909, it seems as though we might have been more sophisticated back then.

309
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Third theme. We've done remix, we've done technologies, and now we're on to -

310
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Dollar! The most exciting part. I can really race, you know, in a tree, like you put the slowest guy (?) 23:38

311
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Here's the wall, it is actually pretty cool (?) 23:39

312
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
(Slide: text read by Jenkins)
So: "Our generation has a different relationship to musical culture than any other in history."

313
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
When did intellectual property loss start getting involved in this whole scheme,

314
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and regulating music?

315
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Music has not always been subject to copyright protection,

316
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
nor have there always been copyright laws

317
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and the kind of copyright protection we are accustomed today

318
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
has only regulated music for a tiny, tiny sliver of its history.

319
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So now, after the printing press was developed in around Renaissance,

320
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
states did grant -

321
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
(comic: score + texts: "Wait, this music we're in is patented!" "Not the music. Printing musical scores was hard in the 16th century. Petrucci had an intricate but accurate way to do it. He asked for a 20 year monopoly over all musical print in Venice as a reward.")
- look how cool that is: it's early printed music from the early 1500's -

322
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
- they did grant certain printing privileges.

323
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So, the Italian music publisher Petrucci, who developed an intricate,

324
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
laborious and innovative way of printing music,

325
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
actually got an exclusive right for 20 years of all musical printing in Venice.

326
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
[inaudible] that's another one of Boyle's jokes.

327
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
But these printing rights went to the publishers, ok?

328
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Not to the composers, not to the authors.

329
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
(Slide: Statute of Queen Anne)
It was in 1710 - those of you who are taking copyright know -

330
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
that the first copyright law, the Statute of Anne in Great Britain actually gave the rights - OK -

331
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
over their creations.

332
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
But this new law was not applied to music until 19 - I mean, 1777,

333
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
(Comic [copy texts?])
when J.C. Bach, the English Bach -

334
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
he was the 18th, 18th child - busy guy - of J.S. Bach brought a lawsuit.

335
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And the court found that musical compositions could actually be writings that were covered by the Statute.

336
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
But the Statute only covered the reprinting of music.

337
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
It did not cover the kinds of borrowing that we've been talking about,

338
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
that you saw in the Super Berio brothers' example.

339
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
You only needed permission to reprint entire musical works,

340
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
you did not need permission to borrow fragments of musical works

341
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
or even to perform musical compositions.

342
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
(Comic: JC Bach's tombstone center. Texts: "Didn't do him much good. He died penniless a few years later. His creditors tried to sell his body to medical schools to cover his debts" "Wow, I thought the RIAA was hardcore" "So what did these copyrights cover?" "Basically just reprinting. You could perform the music without permission, you could borrow fragmentsfrom the music, you just couldn't reprint the entire work.)
More of our senseless sense of humor here.

343
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
I mean, amazing details when you research these people:

344
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
the poor guy died so poor that his creditors had to sell his body to medical schools to cover his debts.

345
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Man. So even did - he won the case but didn't really do so well in the long run.

346
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
OK. That's sort of a very, very brief run through the history of [inaudible] copyright law, [26.19]

347
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
you know, start swimming in this, and this musical poor.

348
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
In the first place, in the US, there was a blip (?) too,

349
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
our first copyright act was passed in 1719,

350
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
did not explicitly cover musical compositions until 1831, and then, by analogy to books.

351
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So, where are we now? A very different world.

352
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
(slide, read aloud:)
"We have begun to regulate music at the atomic level."

353
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So, as I described, music has a rich and long history of borrowing,

354
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and I talked about classical and jazz, but of course, this is as true across genres and subgenres.

355
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
(Cartoon: no text)
Take the blues, which draws from a rich commons of - oops

356
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
(Cartoon:"It's very difficult for me to talk about Chuck Berry because I've lifted every lick he ever played... This is the gentleman who started it all!" "Bye (?) Keith, if you tried to give Rock and Roll another name, you might call it Chuck Berry)

357
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
(Comic: "It's the DNA of the blues)
of scales, core percussions, standards.

358
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
I think this is a particularly beautiful image.

359
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
This is our - this is our professor Kelly [inaudible "charactered in"?] with Robert Johnson

360
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and the DNA of the blues slowing (?) out oftheir instruments.

361
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
(Comic: same Keith Richards' quote about Chuck Berry as before)
Ehm - or take Rock 'N Roll.

362
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Recognize these guys? One of them just wrote a book, one of them just had a birthday.

363
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Keith Richards and John Lennon celebrating the contribution of Chuck Berry to Rock 'n Roll

364
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and to their music in particular,

365
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and Professor Aoki, our artist, just really [inaudible: "controlled artist"?] 27:33

366
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
I think these are particularly good renditions.

367
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So, across genres, we have seen this long history of musical borrowing

368
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and until relatively recently, for a variety of reasons,

369
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
the law as a general matter has not interfered with these practices.

370
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
But this changed with the practice of digital sampling.

371
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Today, rap musicians, indeed, all musicians, are told to license the tiniest, shortest sample

372
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
when they make songs using fragments from prior ones,

373
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
even though music has relied on borrowing throughout its history.

374
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
What was considered creativity and now may be considered high art,

375
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
is now condemned as theft.

376
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
What happened?

377
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
(Several comic pages with no text)
[inaudible] samples right here (28:17)

378
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
It started in 1991, with a case called Grand Upright

379
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
in which the rapper Biz Markie borrowed quite a bit, actually, from Gilbert O'Sullivan's "Alone Again", naturally.

380
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And the judge in the case -

381
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
(Comic)
- decided the case with the quote "Thou shalt not steal!"

382
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
has been an admonition followed since the dawn of civilization.

383
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
citing to the Bible - always got to cite your sources - [laughter]

384
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Did the judge discuss any copyright law? No. [laughter]

385
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Ten Commandments. Sampling was theft, pure and simple.

386
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So, that was the first case, and the second case at a district circus in 2005,

387
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
was where a Federal Appeals Court famously announced: "Get a license or do not sample!"

388
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So all samples should be subject to license, to payment and to getting permission.

389
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
In this case, the rap group NWA digitally sampled a 2-second, 3-note guitar riff.

390
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So, here is the original guitar riff - George Clinton, but he doesn't own the rights,

391
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
a company called Bridgeport Music owns his rights,

392
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and [inaudible]

393
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
[guitar riff excerpt: wobbling screech]
[inaudible: "that's it, in a loop"?] 29:42

394
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
That's what they sampled.

395
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Now try - try to hear it in the background of the NWA song called “A 100 Miles and Runnin’”

396
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
[song excerpt - words inaudible, accompaniment made of several samples]

397
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Ehm, we cut out some of the obscenities [laughter]

398
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
you know, for the benefit of the audience, there is an unedited version.

399
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
NWA changed the pitch and the tempo

400
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
to the point in which it sounds kind of like a police siren in the background,

401
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
but it's not even recognizable as the original riff, as the original guitar riff.

402
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
They were sued.

403
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And you may think that this kind of appropriation, this kind of taking is too trivial to care about.

404
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And in fact, in copyright law, we have a doctrine called "De minimis",

405
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
which is Latin for "too trivial to care about", [laughter] you know.

406
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So, in this case, you're like well, it was three notes, it was two seconds, right,

407
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
so if anything is going to be "de minimis", this sounds "de minimis" to me,

408
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
but the court said no.

409
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
How much would count as "de minimis" copying?

410
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
The court said: really, one note, maybe, based on the definition of the Copyright Act.

411
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So, what's happening here?

412
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
This level of granularity - licensing 2 or 3 notes - is completely new, right:

413
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
if we look at this history, this is a new kind of regulation.

414
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
IP rights are being applied literally down to the atomic level of culture

415
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and tiny fragments of music come loaded with demands for payment and copyright protection.

416
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And so the result is a king of stratified culture.

417
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
You might say: "But people are sampling all the time".

418
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
They are. Musicians are still sampling and experimenting under the radar.

419
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
But the music being produced by the labels are following industry norms of licensing of samples.

420
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And this actually changes the music that we get.

421
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
It changes the way the music sounds. [31:40]

422
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So the sample-heavy wallops sounds (?) music from groups like Public Enemy in the 80's

423
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
sounds completely different than, for example, whatever his name is, Puff Daddies (?) 31-51

424
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
"I'll be missing you", which has the Police's "Every Breath You Take"

425
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
just leaping up on and on in the background, right?

426
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
There's one sample going on and on, not hundreds or thousands of samples,

427
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
creating this brilliant sonical sound (?)

428
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And so the licensing practices actually are changing, they are changing the conditions of creativity,

429
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and they are changing the way that music that we get, at least from the mainstream outlets,

430
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And the question is, will this kind of licensing practices, will this kind of cases --

431
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
are they going to give us more culture, more art, more creativity?

432
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
After all, that's the purpose of copyright law,

433
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
to encourage and promote the production of art and creativity.

434
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
I don't think so, if we look at this history, which has blues, rock, soul,

435
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
any of these genres have developed the same way as they did under this kind of legal regime?

436
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Probably not.

437
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
(Get a license or do not solo)

438
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
(Unlike prior generations, our contemporaries' music may be legally off limits for us to build on, absent permission or payment)
So, in the last section of this talk, first theme,

439
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
we have these cases that are regulating music down at the atomic level.

440
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
That's one unique feature of our current copyright scheme.

441
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
The other is that copyright will last a long, long time.

442
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
To quote Professor Boyle, we are the first generation in history to deny our culture to ourselves.

443
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
What does that mean?

444
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Until 1978, the copyright term in the US was 28 years, with the option to renew for another 28 years,

445
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and most rights holders did not renew because they were of course not making money anymore (?) 33:25

446
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So, what would be the point?

447
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So after 28 years, works were falling into the public domain, you could freely do any of these things

448
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
without having to worry about it as the works were no longer subject to copyright protection (33:35)

449
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Now, the copyright term is the life of the author plus 70 years

450
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
or in the case of corporate works, works owned, you know, by Disney, by labels, 95 years from publication.

451
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So that's a long time. If people in this room were, say, 30, and you lived to, say, 90,

452
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
if you write something right now, 130 years from now,

453
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
that's when your work is going to go in the public domain.

454
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
That's very different from 28 years.

455
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
As a result, music published since 1923 is presumptively off-limits,

456
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and if you just think about the law in 1978, under the law then,

457
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
most music would go in the public domain after 28 years.

458
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And so, works from the early 80's would be free again.

459
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Even if the term was renewed, works from 1953 forward would be in the public domain.

460
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So, copyright term is much longer than it used to be

461
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and perhaps even more interestingly, these terms have been retrospectively applied.

462
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
(Van marked © stops in graveyard. Big bloke says "He needs more copyright" "Get out the paddles". Applies reanimation paddles to a composer's tomb. Attendant 1: "Still, no response." Attendant 2: "OK, let's give him another 70 years". Bloke with paddles: "yeah yeah".Dead composer: "Don't they know the difference between composing and decomposing?")
not just prospectively,

463
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
to new works that are being created, but to works that are already out there, already created,

464
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
in many cases, applying to dead musicians.

465
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
How did we present that in our comic?

466
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
This is our adventures - you know, we know the stuff, we research the stuff [inaudible] work:

467
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
"Can we come up with a funny way to present it visually?"

468
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
I think "Don't they know the difference between composing and decomposing" is actually -

469
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
that's Boyle again: I do the nerdy research and then he comes up with these brilliant bulls

470
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
but I particularly like that one.

471
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So, two changes: regulating music at the atomic level, copyright term lasts a long, long time

472
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
(Comic: Hand holding egg: "Traditionally we had a thin layer of intellectual property protection surrounding a large and rich public domain." "It didn't cove very much, and it didn't cover it for very long." Hand crushes egg: "Now the balance between what is and isn't protected has been upset, copyright law may no longer serve the interests of creators.")
- this is from our previous comic book, colorized -

473
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
perhaps upsetting the careful balance - we saw the balance invoked in the 1909 debates

474
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
that was built into copyright law, between control of works on the one hand,

475
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and freedom to use those works on the other.

476
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So, if we look around this audience, absent is a conspicuous choice:

477
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
those of you who write music, putting it under a Creative Commons license, for example,

478
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
no piece of culture produced by anyone in this room

479
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
is going to be part of the culture on which you can build - logical matter (?) 35:51

480
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
That wasn't true for Brahms or for Beethoven,

481
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and when you combine the longer copyright term and the increasingly strict licensing practices that I talked about,

482
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
you could say that this also wasn't true for Dizzy Gillespie or Robert Johnson,

483
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
the giants of jazz or blues or rock 'n roll.

484
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And so we do live in very unique times in terms of the legal regime that regulates music.

485
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Now, again, maybe this change is a good one,

486
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
maybe extremely long copyright terms and licensing practices will give s better music

487
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
than that created by all our forbearers, but I'll have to say I am doubtful about that. (36:24)