Brett Dustin Diaz Simmons

     As a musician, an idea that I have often thought about relates to copyright laws, and how I have come to consider them as worthless in the music industry for two reasons. First of all, copyright law states that the artist is responsible for discovering instances of stolen work. Artists, however, need more protection than an invisible safety net. Sometimes a multibillion dollar corporation is at fault while most artists cannot afford the expenses associated with a lawsuit, which means the artist receives nothing--no payment and no credit-- for his or her artistic creation.

    Second, and most importantly to me, sample-based music and the plateau it has presently reached is another reason copyrights must end. To explain, the amen break, which is a sample taken from a drum solo section of the song «Amen Brother» by The Winstons, copyright 1969. (for more information, watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SaFTm2bcac.) This drum loop has been used in countless songs since then. It is understood that «Amen Brother» is a near copy of a Curtis Mayfield song, yet nothing has been done about that. It was a violation of copyright in 1969, and curiously again in the 1990’s by Zero-G, who sells sample CD kits that contain the amen loop.

     Musical sampling as an art form has grown from changes in technology and the evolution of culture. Art in many forms is not promoted in school any more, which has led to the absence of interest in original, imaginative creations in children. A generation of copy and paste artists is the result, and many of us enjoy their creations. Some samplists copy others, but many truly work on songs for a long time, sometimes longer than the band that owns the copyright. What samplists do is mix sounds, and find out what notes will work well on top of the music they sample. Some of them, in essence, jam with their own instruments and play along with clips of funk recordings from the 1960’s. For example: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLcxve603-4.) The amen loop starts to play at a timely point in the song.

     Copyrights extinguish this kind of creativity because the nature of the neo-arts draws upon so much common material, which the law makes unavailable. While America places great emphasis on college prep courses and neglects the arts, copyrights restrict cultural expression. Humans need to express themselves to feel the pulse of the universe and be in timing with it. Many great philosophers have written that ideas do not come from the artist, but from somewhere else. The creative process is built upon exponentially through history. The work of one master is observed and enjoyed. Later another creator stands on the shoulders of that master and can make a new work out of something old, something exceptional.(1) This is the nature of sampling—it happens in music, fine art, and literature. Writers call it «intertextuality» and this argument comes down to the notion that creators cannot own and appropriate an idea, image, order and timing in which particular sounds are reproduced. It is argued that they float about in space and come into the proximity of the creator, and then he or she uses it to make something to be shared with other humans. Hence it cannot and should not be owned. However, artists must be able to live and support themselves financially. The copyright was invented so that artists could be compensated for the time they spent creating their art. It has become very clear that the world likes the creations of these people, so I would suggest that a tax for art is the best alternative to the inspiration-restrictive copyright. If people want to take others' songs and make new ones, they can. If a company wants to use someone’s art to make money, they can. The companies will pay the tax and have the right to use it.

     We need an artistic creation tax. All the people will pay the tax and it will fund the Agency of Creative Arts, which will employ artists. Artists contribute to culture and they need to be paid on an ongoing basis. The songs they make can be copied as much as anybody wants. Another opportunity presents itself here due to the advances of technology and the power of the internet: everybody in the world could have an electronic copy for free if they wanted to. With the internet that allows for the transference of text, visual art, and sound, the cost of distribution is not an issue as before when an industry was necessary to produce compact discs, tape cassettes, their covers and cases.

     Intellectual property is a legal fiction that gives artist the right to exclude others from the use of their creations. Real property is physical while intellectual property in itself cannot be seen touched or heard, it is an idea. The expression of these thoughts into a physical media so that they can be shared in the form of a tangible artifact is the result of the artist serving as a conduit of expression to produce a physical manifestation of an idea. For example a musician understands an idea with the mind. It has no audible sound but the musician understands where it has come from. And that idea cannot belong to one artist or another, it can belong to no one individual, it belongs to all.(2) And with the current state of the world one lawyer has said basically whoever pays the most will win, because the one who can argue the most always wins. The financial system is the source of pain and the major roadblock for artists. If they didn't have to worry about copyright rules, both established and beginning artists would benefit-- established artists would benefit because they would no longer be plagued by the thought that somebody is "stealing" their work, and beginning artists would benefit from freedom of expression as they grow and learn in their art.

References

1. Bloom, Harold. The Anxiety of Influence; A Theory of Poetry. New York: Oxford University Press, 1973.
2. Besant, Annie Wood, and C. W. Leadbeater. Thought-Forms. Adyar, Madras, India: Theosophical Pub. House, 1941.

by Brett Dustin Diaz Simmons.