Blathering about stuff

This was a rant I posted on a thread at slashdot.org about software copyright.

———————————————————————

We live in a very connected world and the tools necessary to create media are inexpensive and plentiful. The opportunity to generate revenue from media is also becoming pervasive.

This is also a post-modern world where media is lifted from it’s original context and reused to the point where the original work rarely has meaning anymore. Everyone has seen the Mona Lisa, but very few people have actually seen it in person. People make judgments on the Mona Lisa as a work of art after having seen it reprinted in books, magazines, on websites… you name it. They have opinions on the work of art without ever having actually seen it in person.

To remove copyright and place all artistic creations into the public domain would be a huge social and economic shift. If any artistic creation goes into the public domain and anyone can use and re-use artistic works not of their creation for monetary gain, you would see less creation of works of art. Artists would still do their artwork because they need to scratch that creative itch, but their output would be far less frequent and the quality would probably be lower as they would not hone their technique as much because they are busy working day jobs.

Worse yet, the public probably wouldn’t see or hear any of this because it would displayed only for friends and family only most likely.

In a capitalist society, people want to make a buck for the least amount of effort. With the ability to copy, deconstruct and redistribute creative works so easily, the masses of creatively untalented people with computers could very easily manipulate the works of artists, repackage it and make money off of it while the artists themselves make nothing or very little.

Decry copyright all you want, but if creative types can’t protect their work from other people making money off of it with them seeing nothing in return, the incentive to create and publicize your work diminishes drastically.

Where do you separate art from commerce? Does a commercial photographer who does food shots have to release their work into the public domain just because it’s a photograph? Does the client who purchased the photographer’s services and product not claim a right for the sole use of those images?

Why should an artist ever lose control of their work during their lifetime? To enrich society? Maybe I’m just jaded, but why would I want to hand over the use of my works of art to a culture so enamored of disposable pop music, pituitary cases running after balls and fast food?

Why should someone with a computer and some software be able to take a I song, a painting, a photograph that I wrote and redistribute it without my knowledge and make money at it?

Going back to original intent of copyright and state’s rights and all that is fine as a historical study in governmental theory, but what everyone (I’m looking at you Ron Paul) needs to realize is that the Constitution and many of the “protections and societal guarantees” we enjoy come from a very old document that has not been overhauled in a very long time and is getting long in the tooth due to over-legislation.

Art is not like a road or any type of infrastructure that is used by the public. It’s goal is to enrich society and if we make it so that artists cannot protect their work and put a roof over their heads and stay fed, well, what is the incentive to create art AND make it public.

A patron style system won’t really work either as patrons tend to hoard art and only the patron, the artist and the family and friends of the patron benefit from the creations. While I believe public, government support of the arts is a worthwhile endeavor, I don’t believe it can be the only incentive and protection for creative work. If that’s the only incentive, it becomes a job and only a certain few will be able to reap any sort of monetary reward from their works as they will need to be chosen by a bureaucracy. Nothing more could de-incentivize art than that… having to get into a popularity contest.

Again, I believe the copyright system is busted and needs to be reworked from the ground up, but claiming that getting an artist’s work into the public domain from day one will hinder the growth of the creative arts considerably as it removes incentive to do it as a career because someone else could take your work and run with it… and worst of all… claim it as their own… worse than not making money at it.

Credit needs to be given to the creators of works of art and in a capitalist styled society, rewards befitting the quality and popularity of the work created are due to the creator.

So, I put it to you, you believe in the original intentions of copyright, but believe they need to reworked or removed entirely and that the creative works of individuals belong to the public domain. How do artists make a living making art with no protections and why should they be forced through the lack of copyright to give their work to the public domain? Why does the public, who typically tends to look down on the class of people know as artists, DESERVE our work for free?

Artists are not public servants.

Mr. Bungle - Mr. Bungle
Host - Critters Buggin
Undertow - Tool
Nevermind - Nirvana
Ten - Pearl Jam
Subtle Ways - Maktub
Pork Soda - Primus
Live in Amerika - Kultur Shock
Colma - Buckethead
Shallow Water Blackout - Dieselhed
The Construction of Light - King Crimson
Skin - Psychefunkpaus
Transmutation (Mutatis Mutandis) - Praxis
0+2=1 - Nomeansno
Psalm 69 - Ministry
Houdini - The Melvins
Frizzle Fry - Primus
Angel Dust - Faith No More
Badmotorfinger - Soundgarden

That is all.

1984. Van Halen. Jump.

Lots of us were up in arms over this because this brought one of the true rock ‘n roll legends closer to that dung heap we called New Wave. Metalheads in the 80’s considered just about anything with synthesizers as the primary musical instrument in it to be New Wave or pop garbage. Granted, a lot of us were into old 70’s rock and prog that utilized keyboards, but there was a level of talent involved with the players behind the keyboards.

The 80’s was Reagan’s time. Many of us in the suburbs felt the angst of the times. Our parents weren’t loaded, so we didn’t enjoy the freedom and decadence that a lot of our peers did. We had enough to live quite comfortably, but we didn’t have the cash to live in the mansions that were popping up on the hillsides. It was a mix of jealousy and resentment.

It also seemed like the kids with the wads of cash were the ones who listened to Depeche Mode, OMD, DOA, etc. That overly synthesized, borderline dance crap that was all the rage. Then there were the Poison, RATT, Motley Crue, Dokken, Whitesnake, White Lion, Extreme fans. The “rock ‘n roll all night and party every day” crowd. The metalheads couldn’t relate to that crap either. It had the distorted guitars, but it’s attitude was decadent and petty.

Punk rock was much more of an urban thing. Springing out of discontent with urban conditions and the politics of the time. Out in the burbs, we were isolated from this. We felt the same discontent and angst, but it was more the result of boredom than it was outrage.

So those of us that felt isolated tended to gravitate toward metal. Slayer, Anthrax, Megadeth, Metallica, Motorhead, Voivod, Prong, etc. Bands that SOUNDED angry. Played LOUD! Played FAST! Music we could bang our heads to to relieve the stress, relieve the boredom. Feel alive. It was much more about the sound and the energy than it was about the meaning… because let’s face it… even though many metal bands approached politics in their lyrics, James Hetfield, Scott Ian and Dave Mustaine just don’t have the same level of insight into politics that say Jello Biafra, Frank Zappa or Bono have.

Metal was visceral. It was cleansing. It came from the gut rather than the frontal lobe or even the heart. It was mean.

And that’s how the metalheads felt. All the feel good pop music of the time, all the “I’m so depressed” nonsense, all the “I’m not sure what gender I am” drivel was completely foreign and petty in our minds. We wanted to rock. We wanted to “rage against the machine” before the band of the same name existed. We wanted release that no other music really offered.

Now, many metalheads are also meatheads. You can’t spell metalhead without meathead! A parking lot at a Metallica show is one of the scariest things I’ve ever seen. So much denim and spikes and big hair and mullets and bad mustaches and cheap ass beer and people pissing in the streets. Metalheads, such as myself, who were capable of critical and independent thought, saw this and were appalled. Why did our musical scene have to be populated by such unwashed trailer trash from the sticks?

Now, I had very little in common with your average Depeche Mode or Poison fan, but the urge to pound them into hamburger never crossed my mind. Go to a Metallica or Slayer show wearing a t-shirt of a band other than a real metal band was like painting a target on your forehead and taunting Dick Cheney. You were asking for trouble.

This is where I parted ways with the metal crowd. I couldn’t “get” them either. It was just music after all. very important music to us, but still…

Metal is quite often lambasted by music critics and teenage girls. Is there a connection? Critics would go apeshit over any punk band that approached the mainstream, but stayed far enough away so as not to be commercial. A metal band who gained any recognition was immediately relegated to the dung heap by Rolling Stone, etc.

I think it comes down to a journalist’s inherent fascination with words and meaning. Punk rock is very lyrically driven. Very message oriented. It has to be. If it’s weighed on musical talent or ability, it all falls apart as the best punk rock out there was usually so moronically simple even I could play it.

Metal suffered from the fact that sometimes bands would tackle politics in a very primitive way. Yes, it was the 80’s and Reagan’s cabinet was doing a great job beginning the American Alienation of the World. Russia had their missiles. We had our missiles. Nuclear war was a possibility. Many metal bands wrote about this and not with any particularly deep insight.

What made metal important was that it was visceral. It was emotive music played by some genuinely talented musicians. Alex Skolnick? Dave Mustaine? Cliff Burton? Very talented players who had a beast inside that needed release.

I’m meandering wildly now, but I want to conclude with a final thought. Corrosion of Conformity. DRI. Ministry. Suicidal. Glenn Danzig. They all started out punk or outside the wall that contained the metal hordes. But where did they all wind up eventually? You guessed it, embracing and playing metal. Punks who know eventually learn how to play their instruments with a certain level of skill stop playing punk and steer toward a more metal songwriting approach.

Aside from all the music that Brendan introduced me to in ‘86-’87, 1987 was a relatively flat year for musical discovery. I would discover more Metal bands like Testament, Death Angel, Voivod, Flotsam & Jetsam, King Diamond etc., but these were just metal bands, good metal bands, but just metal bands.

Summer 1987
During summer break though, while my head wasn’t under water… which wasn’t terribly often… I heard this song called “Welcome to the Jungle”. Not metal, not punk, not flat out rock ‘n roll, but a wonder mishmash of all three. Original was really the only way to describe it. Metalheads could dig it because it was flat out heavy at points. Classic rock fans could get into it because it had grooves reminiscent of early Aerosmith and the Rolling Stones. Punks could dig it because of the pissed off attitude. It had something for just about any fan of any sub-genre of rock.

1988
1988 was filled with more discovery of more good, yet somehow forgettable metal bands. Metal Church,  Vio-lence, etc. Great live shows, but they blended in with all the other metal bands. In 1988, only one band stood out. Jane’s Addiction. Much like G ‘n R, they blended together the best of a lot of sub-genres of rock music, including new wave and gothic, to create a unique sound. When a friend of mine played “Mountain Song” for me, I was hooked.

1989
1989 will be a post unto itself, but here is the list of what I was introduced to that year. not all of these bands “broke” this year, but I was introduced to them nonetheless.

• Soundgarden
• Nomeansno
• Ministry
• Mr. Bungle
• Faith No More (with Mike Patton)
• Prong
• Sepultura
• Primus
• Psychefunkapus
• Fungo Mungo
• Limbomaniacs
• The Residents
• Tom Waits
• Nirvana
• Mudhoney

What a frickin year indeed!