home / subscribe / donate / about us / books / archives / search / links / feedback / events
|
|
|
Alexander Cockburn's India Journal: Travels with Sainath Fakers and fakirs of the Indian neoliberal disaster, from the Indian elites to Bill Gates to Bill Clinton to the New York Times; heroes and villains of the Indian press; 5,000 suicides in Andhra Pradesh and the rise and fall of Chandrababu Naidu, World Bank posterboy; what the British did to India, from Warren Hastings to the Falkland Road; what Indians did to architecture, from the Taj Mahal to the dawn of concrete; making weight in upland Kerala; why America needs south Indian cooking; homage to the great peasant rebellion of 1857; can India recover from "reform"? Get the answers you're looking for in the latest subscriber-only edition of CounterPunch... CounterPunch Online is read by millions of viewers each month! But remember, we are funded solely by the subscribers to the print edition of CounterPunch. Please support this website by buying a subscription to our newsletter, which contains fresh material you won't find anywhere else, or by making a donation for the online edition. Remember contributions are tax-deductible. Click here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe Now! or write CounterPunch, PO BOX 228, Petrolia, CA 95558 |
|
Other Lands Have Dreams: From Baghdad to Pekin Prison by KATHY KELLY  Today's Stories June 7, 2005 Greg
Moses / Susan van Haitsma Michael
Neumann
June 6, 2005 Stew
Albert Paul
Craig Roberts Nicole
Colson Ali
Khan Jason
Leopold Charles
Walker Poff Ramzy
Baroud Rep.
John Conyers Evelyn
Pringle Gary
Corseri Website
of the Day
June 4 / 5, 2005 Alexander
Cockburn James
Petras Robert
Fisk Patrick
Cockburn Rev.
William Alberts Saul
Landau Mario
Lamo Jimenez Dave
Lindorff Lance
Selfa Tom
Crumpacker Joshua
Frank Fred
Gardner Michael
Dickinson Roger
Martin Reza
Fiyouzat Ben
Tripp Graeme
Greenback Poets'
Basement
June 3, 2005 Paul
Craig Roberts Joseph
Massad Jeff
Halper Tom
Barry Bruce
K. Gagnon Joshua
Frank Mickey
Z. Gary
Leupp Website
of the Day
June 2, 2005 Paul
Craig Roberts Forrest
Hylton Mike
Whitney Brian
Cloughley Mazin
Qumsiyeh Russell
D. Hoffman Norman
Madarasz Norman
Solomon David
Price Website
of the Day
June 1, 2005 James
Petras Justin
Delacour Edward
Jay Epstein Omar
Barghouti / Lisa Taraki Dave
Lindorff Kevin
Zeese Jason
Leopold William
S. Lind
May 31, 2005 Sen.
Mike Gravel David
Krieger Tad
Daley Joshua
Frank Richard
Gott Norman
Solomon Tom
Segev Walter
Brasch Diana
Johnstone
May 28 / 30, 2005 Alexander
Cockburn Richard
Lichtman Sharon
Smith Paul
Craig Roberts Dave
Lindorff Ramzy
Baroud Brian
Cloughley Fred
Gardner Lee
Sustar Joshua
Frank Justin
E.H. Smith Jackie
Corr Michael
Kimaid Toufic
Haddad Justin
Taylor Amir
Butler Ben
Tripp Poets'
Basement
May 27, 2005 Gary
Leupp Daniel
Estulin Kevin
Zeese Robert
Fisk Dave
Zirin Website
of the Day
May 26, 2005 Yuki
Tanaka Ray
McGovern Arthur
Mitzman Jack
Random Britt
Bailey and Brian Tokar Rebecca
Rush Jorge
Mariscal Paul
Craig Roberts Website
of the Day
May 25, 2005 Camilo
Mejia Dave
Lindorff William
S. Lind Chris
Floyd Brian
Cloughley Lenni
Brenner Sean
Cain Karl
Shepard John
Ross Website
of the Day
Dave
Zirin Michele
Bollinger Winslow
Wheeler Uri
Avnery Michael
Donnelly Joshua
Frank Stephen
Dunifer Paul
Craig Roberts
May 23, 2005 Esther
Sassaman / Thomas Nagy Mike
Whitney Ramzy
Baroud Michael
Dickinson Walter
Brasch Dick
J. Reavis Maria
Tomchick Norman
Solomon Kevin
Zeese Website
of the Day
May 21 / 22, 2005 David
H. Price Gabriel
García Márquez Oren
Ben-Dor Gary
Leupp Laith
al-Saud Elaine
Cassel Greg
Moses Fred
Gardner Dave
Lindorff Alan
Maass William
Blum Tom
Crumpacker Niranjan
Ramakrishnan Doug
Giebel Evelyn
J. Pringle Carolyn
Baker Chris
Floyd Frederick
B. Hudson Ben
Tripp Poets'
Basement
May 20, 2005 Dave
Lindorff Kevin
Zeese Paul
de Rooij Christopher
Brauchli Mark
Engler Joshua
Frank Robert
Jensen Jeffery
R. Webber
May 19, 2005 Bill
Forman Stan
Goff Neve
Gordon Michael
Dickinson Karyn
Strickler Andrew
Freedman Paul
Craig Roberts
May 18, 2005 Jean
Bricmont Laura
Carlsen Mike
Whitney Joshua
Frank George
Galloway Manuel
Garcia, Jr. Dwight
D. Eisenhower Dave
Lindorff
May 17, 2005 Mickey
Z. Petuuche
Gilbert Paul
Craig Roberts Ramzy
Baroud Robert
Jensen / Pat Youngblood Stan
Cox Dave
Zirin Diana
Barahona Website
of the Day
May 16, 2005 Michael
Gillespie Jason
Leopold Jesse
Muldoon Norman
Solomon Robert
Cray Patrick
Cockburn Website
of the Day
May 14 / 15, 2005 Alexander
Cockburn Saul
Landau Gary
Leupp JoAnn
Wypijewski Ben
Tripp Brian
J. Foley Tom
Barry Mitchell
Verter Mike
Ferner Dan
Smith Mark
Scaramella Don
Fitz Diane
Farsetta Michael
Dickinson Ron
Jacobs Fred
Gardner Farrah
Hassen Douglas
Valentine Poets'
Basement Website
of the Weekend
May 13, 2005 Tom
Stephens Patrick
Cockburn Mike
Whitney Chris
Floyd Jenna
Orkin Dave
Lindorff Joshua
Frank Website
of the Day
May 12, 2005 Paul
Craig Roberts Uri
Avnery Greg
Moses Carolyn
Baker Pat
Williams William
S. Lind Jack
Random Gary
Leupp
May 11, 2005 Patrick
Cockburn Kevin
Zeese Christopher
Brauchli Zalman
Amit Robert
Shull Mike
Whitney Dr.
Teresa Whitehurst Norman
Solomon
May 10, 2005 Richard
Drayton Dave
Zirin Jackie
Corr Dave
Lindorff Michael
Donnelly Reza
Fiyouzat Scott
Parkin Stephen
Babcock Alan
Farago Michael
Neumann Website
of the Day
May 9, 2005 Louis
Proyect Robert
Fisk Kevin
Zeese Joshua
Frank Sasha
Kramer Andrew
Wimmer Jeffrey
Webber Jeffrey
St. Clair
May 7 / 8, 2005 Alexander
Cockburn Gary
Leupp Saul
Landau Joe
DeRaymond Daniela
Ponce Heather
Williams Gregory
Elich Anis
Memon John
Chuckman Mike
Whitney Ron
Jacobs Colin
Kalmbacher Lance
Selfa Fred
Gardner Ben
Tripp Mickey
Z. Richard
Joseph Dr.
Susan Block Poets'
Basement
May 6, 2005 Patrick
Cockburn Erin
Yoshioka Sam
Husseini Dave
Lindorff Kevin
Zeese Joshua
Frank Dan
Bacher P.
Sainath
May 5, 2005 Carles
Mutaner Carl
G. Estabrook Farrah
Hassen Kevin
Zeese Michael
Leonardi Bennett
Ramberg Ray
McGovern Norman
Solomon Nicole
Colson Brian
Concannon, Jr.
May 4, 2005 Colin
Kalmbacher John
Walsh Greg
Moses Ali
Khan Chris
Floyd Linda
S. Heard Dave
Zirin William
S. Lind Gary
Leupp Website
of the Day
May 3, 2005 Dave
Lindorff Brian
Cloughley Ira
Kurzban Seth
Sandronsky Gilad
Atzmon Michael
Donnelly Alex
Sanchez Peter
Linebaugh
May 2, 2005 Ron
Jacobs Stan
Goff Karyn
Strickler Joshua
Frank Kevin
Zeese Vicente
Navarro
April 30 / May 1, 2005 Alexander
Cockburn Gabriel
Kolko Jennifer
Loewenstein Lee
Sustar Saul
Landau T.W.
Croft Nikolas
Kozloff William
Blum Dave
Lindorff Joshua
Frank Doug
Giebel Steven
Erlanger Fred
Gardner Mike
Whitney Kurt
Nimmo Joe
DeRaymond Michael
Dickinson Mickey
Z. Justin
Taylor Poets
Basement Website
of the Weekend
Hot Stories Alexander Cockburn Subcomandante
Marcos Norman Finkelstein Steve Niva Dardagan,
Slobodo and Williams Steve
J.B. Sheldon
Rampton and John Stauber Wendell
Berry CounterPunch
Wire Cindy
Corrie Gore Vidal Francis Boyle
Subscribe Online
|
June 7, 2005 Sharing MusicProperty Gone WildBy MICHAEL NEUMANN No one is so naive as to think there's something intellectual or creative about 'intellectual property rights'. They protect even the worst Britney Spears wannabe from Britney-Spears-wannabe wannabes. Music company lawyers may talk about protecting an 'artist's works' against debasement or corruption, but the 'protection' of intellectual property is also a licence to debase and corrupt. For those who don't posses them, intellectual property rights do indeed protect the 'works' against debasement, or for that matter ennoblement. Those that do possess the rights to a work - not necessarily the artists themselves - can debase and corrupt it as much as they like. I'm pretty sure I've heard a composition by Little Walter, one of the three or four true giants of the blues, used to advertise tampons. Whoever came up with that had no doubt intellectual property in the music. On the other hand, the composition techniques central to classic blues, which involve extensive borrowing from others, now count as piratical. Today, Robert Johnson or Blind Lemon Jefferson would be looking at fines or lawsuits for their work. Most debates on intellectual property focus on its limits, which have been stretched as far as lobbyists can stretch them. Few people now remember that the original notion of music or literary 'piracy' was copying for resale: a 'pirated edition' was not just any copy of a protected work, but copies printed for commercial use. Today, every hall-monitor type has bought into the notion that non-commercial copying is 'theft', no matter how often commentators remark that, when theft occurs, the victim doesn't normally retain what is stolen. And a whole generation of suckers is learning that, when they buy a CD, they aren't buying those tracks to do as they please with - heavens no! - but a licence to use those tracks, one which does not extend to such enormities as giving music away. Sharing music is not theft
or piracy. Is it harmful? Certainly it is, to some people.
So are many impeccably legal practices, like automating production
lines, or sharing clothes or cars or apartments, or amateur entertainment,
or do-it-yourself home repair. Any of these activities can
destroy someone's livelihood, though none so much as free competition
itself: this great god of business ideologues of course very
frequently eliminates the jobs at less In addition one might ask: are the music and film industries really contributing something vital to our intellect or civilization these days? If so, how exactly is this contribution to be managed? Since so many products of the music industry have nothing much to do with art, blanket protection of commercial musicians would be a pretty inefficient way to protect art or artists. And if these non-artists are essentially in business, and technology eliminates most of their profits, well, say hello to market forces. Protecting every last penny Britney might possibly make does not do a whole hell of a lot for the many acknowledged masters of popular music now living in poverty. They were ripped off by the very industry now so desperate to protect artistic achievement. Protecting genuine artists, one would think, is most efficiently achieved by direct rewards for artistic merit, judged by their peers or by whatever other procedure seems to make sense. And if someone comes along to proclaim that none of us can judge artistic merit, what's all the fuss about? How do we know that any music is more than a merely commercial product, whose value has no more claim to be protected by technology than horses and buggies? There are more basic questions as well. Odd, with all the endless talk of technology bringing 'new paradigms', that 'paradigm' which most obviously needs renewal is never discussed - that of property itself. The current unrepentant popularity of filesharing indicates that the alleged property-rights of rock stars and music companies no longer command much respect. On the other hand, there is some concern that legitimate holders of these rights, artists who have not become corporate cash cows, are poorly served. Technology is the catalyst rather than the cause of these reactions. The cause is the conflict between property rights as currently conceived and the ideas underlying those rights. Many people feel that current systems of property rights, though imperfect, are nevertheless essential; without them civilization itself would collapse. But these systems, as the mp3 controversy indicates, get into trouble when they exceed by too much the justifications that underlie them. What underlies them cannot be a body of law: it should be obvious by now that, since laws are often unjust, the mere fact that something is law provides no even moderately compelling reason to respect it. It can be right or wrong to obey the law, and to make it right, the law must have some moral foundation - even if the foundations of morality itself are debatable. Only a law widely perceived as right can have some claim to be respected. What then are the moral principles that underlie property? They are not the laws of contract or transfer, because these presuppose rather than create a property in things: someone must already own something for it to figure in contractual arrangements. What is it, then, that would entitle someone to have something in the first place? This question has attracted remarkably few answers. There is the radical theory that we have rights only to what we truly need. This theory is often thought utopian, or dangerous to the social order, and therefore rejected. Suppose for the sake of argument that this rejection is justified. Still, the foundations of property will be a lot shakier than usually supposed. Really, theorists present only two reasons - other than contractual or 'social fabric' reasons - why anyone morally ought to acquire a property in anything, and the two reasons nearly converge into one. I can deserve something through my merit, or because I have worked on it. Sometimes merit seems to predominate, which is why more talented athletes or musicians or engineers are thought to deserve more money than their equally hard-working but less talented counterparts. Sometimes work seems to predominate, as when everyone on an assembly line is paid the same even if the more experienced workers have more skills. Often we're unsure about the relative weights of merit and work. Both the merit and the work justifications of property involve special cases of the broad notion of desert, or what you have coming to you. They make desert a function of some valuable efforts - valuable because on the one hand they are skilled or creative or daring, on the other because they are diligent and persistent. When John Locke justified property because someone had 'mixed his labour' with the soil, the idea was that this person deserved 'the fruits of his efforts', which suggests both that the work and the skills involved had some value in some way transferred to their objects. (Locke also seemed to think that my property rights should not deprive others of what they need, but that's another story). So far, so good, but there is an elephant in the room. Desert itself is not infinite. It has limits. There are at least two ways of expressing these limits, in money and in time. We use neither, because our notions of property, contrary to all logic, ignore these limits. We allow, for example, labor to give us title to land forever, no matter how great a value that land may come to have. Consider homesteading schemes where working the soil gives you title to the land: my labour of, say, several months may reap a multimillion dollar 'reward' for my descendants. Similarly, my talent in composing a song may get a payback in the millions. Moreover there is no proportion here. Someone whose labour or talent is equal to mine may eventually, due to the vagaries of the market, get far less. Not every homesteader's land eventually becomes a key parcel in some huge urban development, and not every great song gets promoted into a hit. This lack of proportion is especially glaring today, when no one would claim that the earnings of a song correspond to either the work that went into it, or its merit. Property is therefore all but detached from its foundations. Theories of property haven't addressed this problem largely because they are rooted in an ancient concern, how to establish a property right over unoccupied land. This is a question remote from the concerns of contemporary consumers, as were the older intellectual property fights about copyright and patent. But the mp3 revolution raised new concerns: what? I suddenly can't share the music collection I built up over the years? No one ever said I couldn't give away my clothes or my books or my car. A system of property supposedly enshrining the 'right to be selfish' now goes further; it makes being unselfish a crime. If this doesn't seem to make sense, it's because property rights now extend too far beyond their foundations. Yes, Metallica certainly does have a property right in its music, a right proportionate to some combination of the work they put into its composition, and the merit or skill attached to that work. But this work and merit does not entitle them to every penny that can be made off the work, much less to every penny that can be made if they go after file-sharers. How much does the band deserve for a single famous track? A good deal less, I'd imagine, than Little Walter deserved for 'Juke', and probably not a lot more than what the really good bar bands in your city deserve for their best numbers. Whatever the amount, it needs to be specified, and once that money is made, Metallica no longer has any property right whatever to that track. This approach simply expresses in dollar terms something like what copyright law expresses in terms of time when it makes the property in a song expire after a certain number of years. The problem is that, in the case of music, copyright should be tied to earnings as well. Earnings can outstrip desert long before current copyright properties expire. Of course it is impractical to assess each track of each artist on its merits, and to determine the appropriate extent of property rights on the basis of those merits. But it's also unnecessary. Proportioning property rights to merit is no more or less difficult than proportioning wages to work, or crime to punishment, or welfare to welfare recipients, or taxes to incomes. In all these cases, societies use rules of thumb, and makes exceptions in individual cases. That's how a society would devise appropriate rules for 'intellectual' property. A song should be someone's property for a standard period of time or until a certain amount of money is made from it, whichever comes first. In cases of exceptional merit, these limits could be extended, and this too can involve both rules of thumb and judgement of particular cases. Maybe the great R&B artists who got ripped off by their record companies would get extended copyright; Britney probably wouldn't. These suggestions don't describe a solution but they prepare the ground for one. A society might decide that every artist really does deserve exactly what we have in the US today: a property in his productions lasting seventy years after his death. But society's decisions aren't necessarily right, and individuals might correctly believe that other arrangements would more closely correspond to the appropriate rewards for artistic effort and merit. For example, one might suppose that, by default, no one was entitled to more than $100,000 for a song, which should become public domain once this mark was passed. As for artists who don't have big hits, their recordings might be protected for much less time than now, say two years, unless some standards body decided , in a particular case, to extend that period. Protection schemes might be replaced by a musicians' association which paid certain categories of artists for their work. These funds might be sustained by the association itself, by a regular government budget allocation, by a media tax, or by some combination of these alternatives. But one thing would change for certain: no longer would those who challenged current notions of intellectual property be stigmatized as 'thieves'. Whatever the law, whatever the social consensus, there just isn't any way some third party has a moral right to make money out of Little Walter tampon ads. If the law says otherwise, the law is an ass. Michael Neumann is a professor of philosophy at Trent
University in Ontario, Canada. Professor Neumann's views are
not to be taken as those of his university. His book What's
Left: Radical Politics and the Radical Psyche has just
been republished by Broadview Press. He contributed the essay,
"What is Anti-Semitism", to CounterPunch's book, The
Politics of Anti-Semitism. In September 2005, CounterPunch/AK
Press will publish Neumann's new book, The Case Against Israel.
He can be reached at: mneumann@trentu.ca.
|
