Today my hackles are up about copyright law. If you've ever read my blog before, you know I'm no big fan of patent law. Actually, that's not true. It's not the law I dislike, but rather how we go about enacting it. As far as I'm concerned, we hand out too many patents to things that ought not be patented. But that's not my point today: today I take on copyright law.

This story begins with my buddy Ian and I talking about a book he read on music copyright. Ian is a musician and a pretty darn good arranger, and he was interesting in making his arrangements legitimate so we could perform them. He started by telling me that before you make an arrangement you have to contact the copyright owner to get permission, which will usually entail some arranging fee and a per copy fee for distribution (and that doesn't even begin to cover performance rights). I objected, because why would I go drop a few hundred dollars on permission for an arrangement that is still in my head? It may suck on paper, and then I'd be out the money. All the same, Ian is right, the law is very clear that it is a violation of copyright to make and distribute an arrangement without permission of the holder, even if the distribution is one lonely copy that he hands me to look at, we never perform it, and he never makes a penny on his derivative.

So where does this put us, the arrangers? First off, this violates the spirit of the law, which is meant to protect the copyright holder when it comes to making money (a reason I like, because I like music, and I want musicians to have employment so they can write more music, especially the ones that write good music, so they can make more money than the hacks). Since the holder has no financial incentive in my arranging hobby, because I don't distribute the work, then the law seems to be stretching things a bit. Even still, I'm a farsighted thinker, and what if one of my friends kept an arrangement, and years later decided to use it? Ultimately the buck stops with me - the instigator - because I enabled the infringement y distributing my unliscensed work. But where do we draw the line? What if I'm just humming a tune, or humming some harmonization to something playing on the radio, and somebody hears and makes a recording, which gets around and pretty soon everone is doing it? The harmony is still my work, even though I didn't write it down. Am I still the cause of the infringement - the 'enabler' - because I didn't bother to get the holder's permission before humming along?

The next thing he brought up was that, after he made the arrangement, it would be the property of the copyright owner. I said that can't be right (turns out it is), but here was my reasoning:

A patent attorney once told me this anecdote about derivative works (which arrangements certainly are). Imagine you lived ten thousand years ago, when a lot of patentable stuff had yet to be invented. One day you come up with this clever idea to sharpen the edge of a rock or bone, which you use for cutting. You call your idea 'knife' and patent it. Along comes another cave dweller and sees your idea and says to you (in a series of clicks and grunts) that he'd like to liscense the rights to 'knife' so he can manufacture and distribute them. The two of you come to an agreement (more grunting), and production ensues.

Later, your caveman friend and liscensee stumbles across a new concept for 'knife' that doesn't require sharpening. He patents his derivative work 'serrated knife.' Unfortunately for him, he can't make 'serrated knife' without your approval, because a derivative is still protected by the original patent. Besides, without the original concept of 'knife' he probably never would have made the leap to 'serrated knife.' However, you can't go out and make serrated knives, either, because that's the intellectual property of the other guy, and his patent prevents you from taking advantage of that derivative. So for any serrated knives to reach caves everywhere, the two of you need a cross-liscensing agreement.

Not so with copyright. Apparently a derivative work becomes the property of the copyright holder. So after you discuss your intentions, pay for the arrangement liscense, and pay for copies after that, they can sell your work. At first I thought this can't be right - it must be that you don't have the right to sell your arrangements without permission from (i.e. commission to) the original copyright holder. (That is, the 'knife' guy doesn't have any rights over 'serrated knife' but to prevent their distribution). But no, the law states that your intellect is their property. It just doesn't seem right, does it?

You'll note that I haven't even taken on the topic of defining derivative, and I'm not going to, either. I hate subjectivity - it's too squishy for me. But their are some things I'd like to know, just for the record. I think we can all agree that if you keep the text and tune from a song in an arrangement, then it is a derivative. Even if you keep the text but drop the tune I'll consider it derivative, because the text on its own is a poem. But what if you change the text but keep the tune? Will Smith has done this a number of times with his songs like "Just the two of us" and "Wild, Wild West" (the melody and accompaniment is almost identical to songs by Stevie Wonder). One of Jessica Simpson's first hits, "I think I'm in love," totally took the popular riff from John Cougar's "Jack and Diane," but the melody was completely different, as was the text. Which (if either) is derivative work? My wife claims that the melody is more important than the words (so when you're in an elevator, you still recognize the piece), but she also never understands the words anyway, so she's hardly a fair judge (I actually heard her sing, "Hold me closer, Tony Danza" to Elton John's "Tiny Dancer"). To that end, I listen to stuff by Alan Menken (of Disney's Aladdin and Beauty and the Beast fame) and hear four-bar excerpts from Leonard Bernstein and Andrew Lloyd Weber. So do we call "A Whole New World" a derivative medley?

Ok, I'm done ranting. But realize, all of you computer nerds out there, that if this copyright crap applies to music, it probably applies to code, too. Keep that in mind when you're polishing a bit of Microsoft code to do your job better. In essence, you're giving Bill Gates something more to sell, only you're paying him for the priviledge.

I'm reading this article about how a California judge struck down a law that would ban movie rental stores from renting violent video games to children under 18. His reasoning was, sure, shooting a schoolgirl in the knee, setting her on fire while she limps around, and then urinating on her as she writhes in pain can certainly be labeled deviant, but there is no data from the psychological sciences to show that what children see on TV or games will influence their behavior.

WTF!?

For starters, there IS data to show kids LOVE TO MIMIC WHAT THEY SEE ON TV! When I took freshman psych we watched the infamous "Bobo the clown" video. A bunch of kids were shown a video of other kids playing in a room full of toys and games, and then were turned loose on the same room. Right in the middle of the room is Bobo the Clown, an inflatible cylinder painted like a clown with a weight at the bottom, so when you cock-knock him he pops back up. When the video showed the kids playing with the plastic stove or little scooter, the viewers ran into the room and started doing the same thing. But when the video showed other kids kicking the piss out of Bobo, man, those little video watching rugrats tore Bobo a new asshole. And we don't think what they see has any effect on their behavior.

But that's not the half of it. Why do we restrict minors from renting rated R movies? Similar reasons, right? Inappropriate material. So why the double standard with video games? I say let the fifteen-year-olds rent all the porn they want. Hell, give them first rights to the adult video closet.

The last thing that really grinds my gears is how freakin' judges play this card when it's convenient. Last week a read an article about Supreme Court nominee Alito, and his abstention from the (New Hampsire?) case that has everyone 'examining his pro-life stance.' That case struck down a state law that said women would have to notify their husbands before getting an abortion. Their reason was it placed an "undue burden" on the women, i.e., the justices dreamed up a million ideas where a pissed off husband may do bad things to his wife because of her getting an abortion. I'm sorry - can't we dream up a million little kids pissing on flaming school girls? Isn't it the same damn thing?

We're not talking about the realm of reality here, we're talking about possibility. Any judge can say, "oh, I forsee this law making bad stuff happen" and strike it down. They can likewise say, "possibility or not, there is no hard evidence to support these claims."

Evidence or not, we're all at the whim of the Man.

I'm reading today about big oil defending their actions, citing the rise in American energy usage and the turmoil in the global market. They also complain about the restrictions placed on them by the government with respect to exploration and expansion. I'm going to have to cry flaming bullshit on pretty much all of that.

Now I'm no economist, but I can look around as well as anyone else. Do I see that we're using more oil? Sure. Do I see an increase in consumption that remotely reflects the huge increase in gas prices? No! In fact, I've seen indicators that show a very steady increase in energy use for many decades. If big oil did good business, wouldn't they be scaling their production to meet this demand? Tell me why oil prices are so much lower now than three months ago. Remember, the ships that set out of the Persian Gulf then are just now pulling in to port, and recall THAT's when costs per barrel were setting records. So how is it, with our increased consumption (even now, during winter), combined with the cost have resulted in new low prices? I don't buy the increase in consumption argument - they knew as well as anyone how usuage would increase, and they took the chance to profit off of it. That's price gouging.

How about the way the price fluctuates by about 10%, even on a daily basis? Am I really to believe that all of the different oil execs for all of the different companies are really so in touch with the market that they can niggle things around that precisely? Even they admit, when asked about "rigging the price of oil," respond that the answer is "extraordinarily complex." I'm impressed. If they can do that well negotiating such a complicated system, they'd probably make a killing in the stock market.

Then again, there is the other possibility that they just tinker to see what the market will bear. The airlines do it, why not big oil? In the modern age of information, you raise prices a dime, you see consumption fall, you lower it a nickle and watch it rise. You play around, keeping everyone on their toes enough that they can't count on the price not being worse tomorrow, and you make your buck.

And finally we come to the exploration. If you were in power, would you let some oil company that just got done raping its consumers to go out and rape the contryside? Not a chance. Besides, it's well known that there is not sufficient oil reserves in the US to make a difference for more that a few years. At least while we have reserves, we have a card to play against foreign markets. No, drilling here at home would only mean the oil companies can cut out the price they pay overseas, so they can make more money with less work.

I should probably admit, I don't mind the cost of oil being high. In fact, I'd like to see it go up a little more. Call me crazy, but I buy the argument that says alternative energy will only see more action when it is fiscally comparable. What I don't like is being kicked in the nuts by ANY company I deal with, and then have them lie to me about what they're doing. Goodyear did it when Firestone was Fords whipping boy - they raised their tire prices, then eighteen months later had to lay off a bunch of people because (surprise) everyone had forgotten why they were avoiding Firestone. Some people just don't realize that you don't pee in your Cheerios.

My electic bike should be here in the spring. I'm content to let this play out, to see oil prices soar, and see the oil companies crumble because they haven't bothered to diversify (ENERGY companies, anyone?). That's just good karma.

Back home (in Washington, the state of), our movie guy had this slide projector that ran through stills of local businesses while you sat and waited for the movie to start. I thought, hey, good idea. Come curtain time, though, the lights went out and the previews began. (Side note: previews do not fall under the category of crappy commercials). Not now, though. Showtime's at 7:30? No COMMERCIAL time is at 7:30. Showtime's 7:45.

But I'm a bright guy, so I just started going late. I got rolling in down to a science, just as the last retarded ploy to sell Diet Coke ended and the previews began. So what did the movie bastards do? They started mixing the commercials in with the previews!!

This, I must declare, shall become the mother of all backfires. Now I don't even bother to catch any of that crap. I just show up in time for the movie. So I don't know what is coming out, what anything is about, and pretty much have no desire to go to the movies any more. Sometimes the trailers were the only thing worth seeing at the movies, and I don't even get that now.

I'll I have to say is that the poster in the hall had better be pretty damn appealing, because that's about all the exposure I'm going to get to your flick. And I swear to god, if I so much as see a diet coke ad within ten feet of a Harry Potter poster, I'm going to loose it.

I read this article today,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/22/AR2005062201895_pf.html. I'll summarize: Headline = Vote problems in Ohio, Body Text = Not actually voter problems in Ohio.

The first sentence, "More than 25% of voters and half of all black voters experienced problems at the polls...". I'm thinking, problems? I have problems all the time. Every time I go to the poll I can't remember if I'm supposed to go to the N counter or the V counter. My street belongs to one, and there's even a map to tell me which.

But nobody bothers to hang up the map. Sure, there are a couple of copies under some tables, but nothing on the wall, by the door, where it would be useful. Why? Obviously because nobody at the poll thought of it. Sure, it's a dumb thing to forget, and these forgetful folks are my neighbors.

So I'm reading the rest of the article, and it turns out the "problems" are the same old shtick, long lines and polls staffed by untrained types and idiots. If anyone out there is unclear on this, those idiots would be your neighbors.

I mean, after I figure out the N-table/V-table thing, I sign my name, get a ballot, wait, and punch some chads. The pollsters have to assist in precisely two of these tasks (the name signing and ballot distribution). Is that really that hard? I mean, the people I see at my poll have one foot in the grave, so they must have voted a million times before. If other polls are the same, you'd think they'd have figured things out by trial and error already.

Other genious quotes include the Ohio DNC saying they want to find "the extent of problems and possible solutions." Well, I can answer that one. The extent would be national, as there are idiots everywhere. If idiots had wings, they'd block out the sun. And the solution would be to destroy neighborhoods, thus eliminating "neighbors," placing the idiots at a good fifteen minute car ride.

If you have problems at the poll, chances are you'll have a chance to chat about it at your block party. Cheers!

Here's a message for all of the record labels out there who want to blame illegal file sharing for flagging sales:

If you want to sell me something you first must make it worth buying.

I'm pretty much going to give up hope that the recording industry will ever wake up and embrace new technology. I just read some articles about new CD encryption schemes, like Sony's XCP, that restrict what users can do in the realm of copying CD or burning them to mp3 (or similar) format. These things all have different aspects - some let you copy only once, others let you burn only to DRM protected WMA files - but the end result is the same: removing our rights as license holders.

I suppose there are two things here that really piss me off. First is the ability of recording labels continually miss the techno boat, and second is their willingness to continually subvert what is holy and good.

Let me clarify the second point first. Sometimes I go to the library and pick up a book that has printed on the front cover, "This book has been copied onto acid free paper," or something entirely similar. Once upon a time, a million years ago, the library bought a book that was printed on paprus bleached white with acid. Now, in the present, the pages start to crumble and fall apart. So it begs the question: what did the library buy, the information in the book or the pages on which it was printed?

The information, obviously (otherwise all books would cost the same, or at least reflect their number of pages they contain). Just because the vessel falls apart doesn't mean we forfeit I right to know what is inside. So they copy the book and dispose of the original.

Right about this time my favorite CD, a recording of Saint-Saens' Symphony Number 3, started to skip (too many scratches). I polished it and burned a copy, which came out skip-free. I also ripped all the songs to mp3. My beef was the same as the library's: I didn't buy the piece of plastic, I bought the music on it. If the technology isn't capable of a little wear and tear then I'm going to find a medium that's a little more robust.

Then I took the time to rip everything else I owned, just in case.

The beautiful thing is this is prefectly legal, for many of the reasons I outlined above. But say you want to extend this arguementto DVD's. Turns out that's illegal. Not because you didn't buy a DVD or have a license to it's contents, but because the info is encrypted. You have to decrypt to burn, and that's against the law.

In summary: burning = OK, breaking encryption = not OK.

What a crock. This means that anyone can sell a CD, claim that its encrypted with a 0 bit scheme (i.e. all the ones become ones and the zeros become zeros), and it's suddenly illegal. What a crock. And all just to subvert my ability to demand that their POS plastic disks hold up a little better.

Of course, Sony wants to take it one step further and make it hard on copying, which brings me to my first point. Instead of trying to QUASH digital technology, why not try to embrace it?

I remember when my uncle Mark bought a CD player, back when they were four rack units tall and weighed half a ton. He had Madonna's "True Blue" album. I thought it was crap - you couldn't record to it like a tape deck, there wan't one in your car, and you weren't supposed to touch one side of the disk. About the only redeeming quality was the ability to skip to any song, instantly. (I was nine. The concept of digital quality still elluded me).

Advancements have answered most of these problems, but CD's still are not perfect. Disks still skip when jostled, they still scratch, and they still only contain one artist. That's what makes an mp3 player superior.

So why don't CD's come mixed mode, including the mp3's to expedite the process of porting them over to your mp3 gadget? I remember the shock and awe of a buddy coming to my dorm room to burn a copy of a live Phish album that he bought. It was only released as an mp3. He paid $7 or something for it, downloaded it, and tossed in on a CD to take home. I thought, WOW! Somebody releasing music as an mp3. Great idea!

But no, the only market for mp3's are total crap like iTunes and MusicMatch, along with all of their bogus restrictions on how many devices they can be put on, how long the license lasts, blah blah blah. I don't want to rent a song. I want it to be there in ten years when I'm in the mood for a little ol' timey stuff. And only being allowed to put it on five different devices - who the hell came up with that number? Do I really need to think of six perfectly plausible places I can possible want to hear a song in one day?

I try to be baffled by the apparent lack of common sense, but its just too hard. I know why they do it, to make money. They're married to this stupid album concept that just perfect for CDs. The reality of the situation is most recording artists are only good for one decent song anyway, and the other seven on the disk are total crap. But you can't charge $15 for one song, so you need some filler. I say let the one hit wonders shine. It adds variety.

Now that I've sufficiently vented my frustrations with the music market, let me reiterate: you want me to buy it? Make it worth buying. Ashley Simpson does NOT fall in that category. Stop recording her albums and use the money for something useful.

PS. No offense, Ashley. I'm sure you're a wonderful person, and I'd hate to ruin my chances with your sister, should that whole thing with Nick not last...