Vous voulez voir cette page en français ? Cliquez ici.

Have one to sell? Sell yours here
Freedom of Expression (R): Overzealous Copyright Bozos and Other Enemies of Creativity
 
See larger image
 

Freedom of Expression (R): Overzealous Copyright Bozos and Other Enemies of Creativity [Hardcover]

Kembrew Mcleod
4.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (1 customer review)

Available from these sellers.


Formats

Amazon Price New from Used from
Hardcover --  
Paperback --  

Product Details


Product Description

From Amazon.com

What if George W. Bush's much ballyhooed "ownership society" were taken to an illogical extreme, so that each of us owned a phrase or a sound or a gesture that would generate a little income every time it was used? Of course, we could trademark all the catchphrases we like (as, for example, Donald Trump has with The Apprentice's tagline "You're fired"), but most of us are in no position to collect. Corporate entities, however, are capable and quite willing to claim ownership of what until recently would have seemed to be public property, to dangerous ends, argues Kembrew McLeod. The University of Iowa communications professor explores the clash between free speech and intellectual property law in this absorbing and unsettling expose. McLeod eschews the role of the detached observer in favor of a more indignant and even angry voice; indeed, he's trademarked the phrase "freedom of expression" to hammer home his point and makes no secret of his contempt for "overzealous copyright bozos" and their ilk. Trends in intellectual property rights and the free exchange of ideas are serious business, however. The author supports his concerns with an array of examples, from the ridiculous (Fox's attempt to punish comic Al Franken for his satirical use of their "fair and balanced" motto) to the alarming (corporate agribusiness's development of "terminator technology" that makes patented seeds sterile after one planting).

McLeod, who's written extensively elsewhere about music, uses pop culture as a jumping-off point, but deftly ties together the legal threads that hamstring authors, recording artists, and filmmakers with their working scientific and agricultural counterparts. Indeed, McLeod deserves special kudos for demonstrating that the same forces that can be used to crush the seeds of creativity can also be used to literally smother the seeds of life. --Steven Stolder

Books in Canada

In recent decades intellectual property (IP) law has become the handmaiden of transnational capitalism. “Fair use”, at least in the United States, has become a hollow shell: tap it and it shatters into a thousand sharp-edged lawsuits. Two recent books delve into the history of and effects on creativity resulting from globalized IP law. The overall picture for scientists and artists in all media is gloomy. As novelist Michael Chabon concluded, in a recent review-essay on the sources of Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes stories, “Every novel is a sequel. Influence is bliss.” Influence is bliss indeed, at least until it falls under the boot heel of regressive capitalism. Now royalties, licensing fees and corporate secrecy make creative ‘gene swapping’ too expensive for most artists and scientists.
“Influence is bliss” could have been an epigraph for Kembrew McLeod’s Freedom of Expression. McLeod is a sociology professor at a state university and an expert in the study of popular culture-just the sort of academic whom right-wingers love to excoriate as a “liberal” waste of tax money. But Freedom of Expression justifies society’s investment in scholars like McLeod: he is learned, and his book ranges widely over key areas of the copyright and intellectual property wars, and-this is something you don’t hear every day in regard to a scholarly work-it’s funny!
“Overzealous copyright bozos” have drawn battle lines all over the map of everyday life. Mickey Mouse, for instance, should have long ago become the common creative property of we, the people; yet, thanks to the late, great hyperbozo, Sonny Bono, Mickey and most everything else from the early days of the twentieth century on, will be “protected” from creative recirculation for decades to come.
But maybe you don’t care about art and creativity. Perhaps you’ve got a sick friend or family member and the only thing likely to save that person is gene therapy. Thing is, the bozos are at work here too. Scientists have long been champions of the public domain, of the creative commons. The way science progresses, after all, is by Bob repeating Sarah’s experiment and either verifying or modifying the premises upon which Sarah’s experiment was conducted. The process falls flat on its face if Sarah, for whatever reasons, keeps her experiment and her experimental results a secret. Secrecy, though, is the name of the game in genetic research. IP thrives in a state of secrecy; creativity shrivels. When profit-mongering corporations become involved with academic research, the result is inevitable: scientists stop sharing because they’ve been forced into secrecy by non-disclosure agreements and other impediments to creativity. When asked, researcher after researcher concedes that such corporate restrictions are impeding the progress of genetic science. The same lust for privatizing intellectual property goes for medicine in general: “The kinds of constraints intellectual-property laws impose on culture may be bad for music and creativity,” McLeod writes, “but in the case of drug patents it’s literally a life-and-death matter.”
When Act Up, an anti-AIDS activist group of the 1980s and ’90s, said “silence = death”, they weren’t kidding. Thinking globally, drug patents have killed millions of people because such patents “silence” availability by quashing inexpensive generic alternatives.
Is it really the corporate hunger for profit that is impeding creativity? Yes-but corporations don’t act alone. There are, of course, an army of lawyers who file the lawsuits and argue the cases that tear apart the creative commons that we, the people, built. As well, there are “activist judges” who interpret the copyright provision of the U.S. Constitution in favor of corporations and private holdings. “An argument for the commons,” McLeod writes, “whether it’s the genetic commons or a folk-song commons-is an argument for more creative elbow room. But because of our blind faith in privatization, freedom of expression has been limited artistically, socially and scientifically.”
McLeod is good on IP law, but where he really shines is with copyright law and its “protection” of music. For instance, if you go to a public park and sing “Happy Birthday” to your child, you’d better bring along your checkbook. Even though the words were written by a group of school children to an ancient folk melody, the teacher of those children copyrighted the song her students wrote. “Happy Birthday” is still under copyright (more than 100 years later), and a music publisher holds the rights. The public performance of “Happy Birthday” is strictly controlled. Are we supposed to laugh or cry at the absurdity of that?
Perhaps even more damaging is the “overzealous copyright bozos” penchant for suing samplers. Sampling is the art of taking snippets from previously recorded music and recirculating them into a new and original piece of music. Snagging a second or two of a drumbeat from an old James Brown tune should be constitutionally protected fair use. But, thanks to activist judges and hound-dog-greedy publishers, it isn’t. James Brown wants to be paid big bucks for the privilege of sampling “his” music. Never mind that the “godfather of soul” relied heavily on his band-in particular drummer Clyde Stubblefield-to create that music. The sample-license fee all goes to Brown. This is precisely why hip-hop, after an amazing fluorescence in the ’70s and ’80s, has become sickeningly repetitive: it simply costs too damn much to license samples in order to make a richly textured hip-hop tune. According to the music industry, those of us (and I include myself here) who make new music out of old are pirates. The industry has failed to recognize that turntables and samplers are, in fact, instruments of creative production.
If all this sounds hopeless and depressing, McLeod’s book isn’t: he’s funny (or at least sarcastic) throughout, and ends on a hopeful note, at least as regards the arts. There’s a new copyright movement afoot on the Internet, called the “Creative Commons” license, which actually encourages others to reuse (with credit where credit is due) so-licensed work. McLeod’s wit, deep knowledge of the issues, and most of all his love of creative endeavor, make Freedom of Expression a delightful and empowering read.
Brian Charles Clark (Books in Canada)

Tag this product

 (What's this?)
Think of a tag as a keyword or label you consider is strongly related to this product.
Tags will help all customers organize and find favorite items.
Your tags: Add your first tag
 

 

Customer Reviews

1 Review
5 star:    (0)
4 star:
 (1)
3 star:    (0)
2 star:    (0)
1 star:    (0)
 
 
 
 
 
Average Customer Review
4.0 out of 5 stars (1 customer review)
 
 
 
 
Share your thoughts with other customers:
Most helpful customer reviews

4.0 out of 5 stars Curtailing creativity, Mar 7 2008
By 
Steven Teasdale (Markham, ON) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
This review is from: Freedom of Expression (R): Overzealous Copyright Bozos and Other Enemies of Creativity (Hardcover)
The subtitle "overzealous copyright bozos and other enemies of creativity" aptly describes this missive against current trends in intellectual property law that media prankster Kembrew McLeod has launched with this thought-provoking and often humorous book.

A central premise of McLeod's book is that an erosion of the creative commons by continually expanding copyright and patent legislation, rather than encouraging artistic and scientific innovation, has actually had the opposite effect. Moreover, the encroachment of private interests on the public domain via this expanding legislation has made it prohibitively expensive to perform scientific research and cheapened our culture.

Copyright and patent laws were legislative tools originally conceived to foster creativity. The laws allowed the creators of cultural and technological artifacts to exclusive profits for a fixed period of time. Afterwards, the works would enter the public domain, where they could be built upon by the next generation.

McLeod describes how folk musician and political activist Woody Guthrie freely borrowed melodies and lyrics from existing folk and show tunes for his compositions. Many of these tunes were only a few years old at the time Guthrie incorporated them into his music, yet this was not seen as theft. Artists of his era implicitly recognized the concept of the information commons - that they could build upon existing melodies to create something novel. In fact, this methodology goes back to nineteenth century classical music, where composers like Mahler and Dvorak used folk melodies as a basis for many of their symphonic compositions.

Woody Guthrie has been dead for 40 years, and many of his songs are well over 60 years old. Ironically, the current holders of his copyright have been very litigious in their pursuance of any perceived transgression against their "right" to his music. They fail to recognize how the genesis of these songs relied on a freely available pool of existing melodies, rhythms, and lyrics - a creative commons - that they in turn are slowly eroding. The result is that current copyright legislation no longer encourages creativity, but destroys it.

McLeod looks at the effects this erosion of the public sphere in a wide range of areas: sampling and collage in music, trademarks in biotechnology, the use of lawsuits to curtail fair use, and the copyright of common sayings.

There are long-reaching ramifications, including the curtailing of free speech and democratic institutions. If the Watergate scandal occurred this century, could it have been made public, given that documentation produced by outsourced private entities is not freely available? How could the results of voting machines, produced by and managed by private corporations, be independently verified if they are under private control? These and many other troubling issues are raised in this incisive analysis of unchecked greed.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)
Amazon.com: 3.4 out of 5 stars (5 customer reviews)

4.0 out of 5 stars Curtailing creativity, Nov 10 2008
By Steven Teasdale - Published on Amazon.com
This review is from: Freedom of Expression (R): Overzealous Copyright Bozos and Other Enemies of Creativity (Hardcover)
The subtitle "overzealous copyright bozos and other enemies of creativity" aptly describes this missive against current trends in intellectual property law that media prankster Kembrew McLeod has launched with this thought-provoking and often humorous book.

A central premise of McLeod's book is that an erosion of the creative commons by continually expanding copyright and patent legislation, rather than encouraging artistic and scientific innovation, has actually had the opposite effect. Moreover, the encroachment of private interests on the public domain via this expanding legislation has made it prohibitively expensive to perform scientific research and cheapened our culture.

Copyright and patent laws were legislative tools originally conceived to foster creativity. The laws allowed the creators of cultural and technological artifacts to exclusive profits for a fixed period of time. Afterwards, the works would enter the public domain, where they could be built upon by the next generation.

McLeod describes how folk musician and political activist Woody Guthrie freely borrowed melodies and lyrics from existing folk and show tunes for his compositions. Many of these tunes were only a few years old at the time Guthrie incorporated them into his music, yet this was not seen as theft. Artists of his era implicitly recognized the concept of the information commons - that they could build upon existing melodies to create something novel. In fact, this methodology goes back to nineteenth century classical music, where composers like Mahler and Dvorak used folk melodies as a basis for many of their symphonic compositions.

Woody Guthrie has been dead for 40 years, and many of his songs are well over 60 years old. Ironically, the current holders of his copyright have been very litigious in their pursuance of any perceived transgression against their "right" to his music. They fail to recognize how the genesis of these songs relied on a freely available pool of existing melodies, rhythms, and lyrics - a creative commons - that they in turn are slowly eroding. The result is that current copyright legislation no longer encourages creativity, but destroys it.

McLeod looks at the effects this erosion of the public sphere in a wide range of areas: sampling and collage in music, trademarks in biotechnology, the use of lawsuits to curtail fair use, and the copyright of common sayings.

There are long-reaching ramifications, including the curtailing of free speech and democratic institutions. If the Watergate scandal occurred this century, could it have been made public, given that documentation produced by outsourced private entities is not freely available? How could the results of voting machines, produced by and managed by private corporations, be independently verified if they are under private control? These and many other troubling issues are raised in this incisive analysis of unchecked greed.

2.0 out of 5 stars unpersuasive on important subject, plus high book price, Mar 16 2005
By L. Helw - Published on Amazon.com
This review is from: Freedom of Expression (R): Overzealous Copyright Bozos and Other Enemies of Creativity (Hardcover)
Not an academic argument by Mr. McCleod, rather more reads like a transcribed lecture to first year college students complete with wandering asides that detract from the main idea. It's just my opinion, but the book is small on persuasive thought for such a big price.

The issue of time frames re creating vibrant new work with as much freedom as possible while honoring the work products of others and their right to business advantage, is a serious one that deserves a reasoned argument, rather than a clownish one. Would have hoped for a book filled with persuasaive arguments and facts that can appeal to a broad audience rather than the choir already convinced. THe most major issues in this arena are not poetry, music and novels as is often touted, but rather a life and death issue of the with-holding of medicines from cheaper manufacture and distribution because of unreasonably long patent holding and import export limits, way beyond the recovery of r and d costs and even fabulous profits; as well as the criminal misappropriation by academics and others of foodstuffs, ethnographic materials and other resources belonging to non-literate aboriginal people who are in return given no share of the profits, or an egregiously unfair share. Polemics dont help much in the building of cultures that are sustainable by those who live in them. What builds a culture worth living in are wise and visionary people who can speak to the most number of people, not just a small group. There are other books that are far more reaching than this one, far more reasoned, and ultimately, far more persuasive. There will no doubt be other more thoughtful books published in the near future as the subject of proprietariness about life and death matters and resources is seen by many as a social justice issue as elucidated in the best of Catholic, Judaic, and Muslim and other religious social teachings.

1 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars Great humor and informative book, Aug 26 2005
By C. Baldwin - Published on Amazon.com
This review is from: Freedom of Expression (R): Overzealous Copyright Bozos and Other Enemies of Creativity (Hardcover)
I found this book to be a terrific read that was informative, insightful and filled with humor that enlivened the subject matter. In fact, McLeod's quirky sense of humor and obvious delight in the bizarre/ironic is a big part of what makes "Freedom of Expression" such a page-turner. That, and his personal experience with the subject matter.
I'd argue that it's also why his book will probably matter more than 20 purely academic handlings of the subject because it speaks to a larger audience of everyday, uninformed readers (like me) while urging them to become involved.
The compelling subjects of intellectual property and copyright law are complicated and easily baffling, so it helps to read an informal book from an author who can illustrate the issues from an artist's perspective and that of an accomplished academic-without sounding pretentious or overly wordy. Also his economical, no-nonsense writing style helps make this a quick and enjoyable read.
McLeod is no simple lecturer or arm chair pundit-he's out there in the middle of the fray. And while he understandably spends more time on the issues surrounding art and entertainment (his forte) he still provides chilling glimpses at the darker implications in more serious realms of medicine and agriculture. But these are topics for another book entirely.
My only complaint is that I wish there could have been some photo pages included. Knowing that McLeod is a visual artist, I'm sure he would have come up with some memorable images (oh well, maybe next time).
In summary, I would highly recommend this book to anyone interested in copyright/intellectual property law and especially for artists and those concerned about the (near) future of art. Wonderful job, Kembrew-keep `em coming.
 Go to Amazon.com to see all 5 reviews  3.4 out of 5 stars 
 
 
Only search this product's reviews



Listmania!

Create a Listmania! list

Look for similar items by category


Look for similar items by subject


Feedback