1. Some Lessons from McLeod, Chapter 3 Copyright, Authorship, and African-American Culture

2. The nature of Intellectual property rights Copyright follows from printing, typography, psychology of the individual, capitalism, and property ownership by establishing plagiarism in the context of intertextuality. The notion of Intellectual Property, as we construe it, – does not follow the European philosophy of natural rights. – has been created as an analog of physical property.

3. ML King “copied” and it’s not at all remarkable The life and works of an African-American preacher, for example, are intertextual to the core. It’s probably also true for non-AA Christian preachers too, though not covered here.

4. First, we digress: the roots for, and branches of rap and “hip- hop” are to be found in DISCO and are to be respected. Ed may own the most complete collection of disco music from 1978-79 of any living human. – He met the future Mrs. Lamoureux in the disco/bar/restaurant at which he was the lead dj/manager. Don’t let anyone who likes modern music tell you that “disco” sucks. No disco, no rap or hip-hop.

5. Rap/hip hop and sampling Rap/Hip hop could/would not have happened and therefore would not exist under the current intellectual property regime. Enforcement follows the money. It’s seldom got much if anything to do with protecting the intellectual property rights of creators per se. One can sample legally, by licensing. But the costs and thereby the investment risks are very high, so going “legit” compromises both opportunity and innovation. If you watch the rest of Good Copy/Bad Copy, you will see that the world doesn’t play by the same rules, which, in effect, is bad for the US both competitively (economically) AND creatively.Good Copy/Bad Copy As illustrated by both films (and many other places), there’s significant (philosophic) question as to whether our regime fosters or blocks innovation and whether it fulfills (or overreaches) the intent of the founders.