McLeod, chapter 2: Copyright and the folk music tradition The general point, before we note specifics: intellectual property constraints clash with social practices that are intertextual in nature. He will later, of course, leverage this idea with the notion that digital developments are also intertextual... and thereby clash with IP law. And we should note: there IS some folk music that is still in the public domain.

Conceptual claims “Originality” is a notion put forward via literacy and literary work. Oral traditions don’t claim originality. Most folk music has more in common with oral than literate traditions. The US copyright regime problematizes the process of making folk music. Originality joined with intellectual property law emphasizes individual proprietary ownership, thereby “freezing” folk-like practices.

Some of the compelling issues Folks have long copied: many of our (most American) of music practices, like blues, folk, and jazz are steeped in a tradition of copying Folks who were copied have long been ripped off. –Sometimes, even by other poor folks. –More often, by the wealthy business owner, often with racist overtones. IP participants cast traditional borrowing as “stealing” and “lack of creativity.” –tell that to a jazz player Our practices in global venues are pretty Americanized and often denigrate the cultural traditions of the “other.”

When folks copy, the result is often group work, not individual output. Copyright doesn’t protect the group work of traditional cultures. When folk stuff is misappropriated, more than money is lost: the cultural value of the stuff is devalued. So on one hand, protection would be real useful; on the other hand, the notion of “protection” reeks of unfair application.

Two cases Happy Birthday –“the writers” probably weren’t –The item probably should not be protected –The item IS protected, with ferociousness. ASCAP vs camps –Public performance is public performance, for which one has to pay public performance fees. –A major problem with our system is that common people don’t understand and if they did, they wouldn’t like it.

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

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 is not a “natural right” in any sense of natural law, esp. in our version that does not follow the European philosophy of natural rights.

King “copied” The life and work of an African- American preacher are intertextual to the core.

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 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.

Rap/hip hop and sampling Rap/Hip hop could and would not have happened and would not exist under the current intellectual property regime. Enforcement follows the money. It’s seldom got much if anything to do with intellectual property per se. One can sample legally. But the costs and thereby the investment risks are much higher than not paying, so compromise opportunity and innovation. And as we’ve seen in Good Copy/Bad Copy the world doesn’t play by the same rules, which, in effect, is bad for the US both competitively (economically) AND creatively.