tokens of RO culture

The new machines capable of producing  mechanical reproductions of culture at the beginning of the 20th Century led directly to the creation of todays  RO society. A RO society that has dominated cultural creation for the last 100 years; a culture protected by copyright a culture and a world view now challenged directly by the digital natives and their transmedial response to the culture they are offered.

These new machines worked there magic by creating tokens of RO culture ( records), tokens that could be reproduced and distributed to those who wanted to experience the culture in question. It is the control of these tokens that sits at the heart of copyright law.Copyright is as much about the control of the distribution of these tokens of culture as the creative process itself.

It was the physical limitations of the analogue based RO token that really encourage the development of the RO culture around which todays content industries are based. Content industries which in many ways I would suggest copyright law has been designed to protect.  A copy of the analogue RO token is that not only is it difficult and expensive to make a true copy of the Analogue RO token , but each copy made was inferior to the original , and deteriorated with use. Even consumers sharing of content was not a significant problem to the content industry ( even though as a young man I well remember each cassette tape I brought had a notice on it stating that tape recording of copy written material was killing the recording business !!) again the physical nature of the RO token conspired against the consumer. If I led you my LP I cannot play it myself whilst you have it. Controlling distribution of copies was and is the key to content management.

Although this control over the distribution of copies of copy written material was and is at the very heart of Copy right legislation around the world, Lessig suggests ( and it is an argument that I find very persuasive ) it was the limitations of the RO token that actually allowed the growth of the content industry and not the supporting copyright legislation.

When the analogue token was replaced with a digital version , the old physical limitations of the analogue token were removed and despite stronger legislation and tougher enforcement copyright infringement increase and the content industry wobbled. The copyright owners lost control of distribution. Yes the ease with which the consumer could make copies was increased immeasurably by the introduction of digital tokens, and this was a problem for content owners , but it was the loss of control of distribution networks that really sent shock ways through the content industries.

It was understanding the importance of control of distribution that is according to Lessig central to the success of Apples ipod.
"The technologies of the internet were originally coded in a way that enabled free and perfect copies, and easy distribution, " steve Jobs realised that by changing the coding he could change the tokens characteristics and gain some control over both reproduction and distribution. Jobs through his use of Digital Rights Management Coding (DRM) offered the music industry and new way control content copying and distribution. Although not perfect it gaves the content providers a foothold in the new digital lands...

RW v.RO Cultures Sousa's song

I am currently reading Lawrence Lessig’s book Remix. Within the book Lessig put’s forward a number of ideas/ theories about current copyright regulation and the impact that it has on both the development of creative output , society as a whole and on the individuals who he feels have been wrongfully criminalized by out of date legislation.

Over the next few weeks I hope to blog some of my thoughts and reflections on what I have read. I also hope to be able to relate Lessig’s thoughts and theories directly to my own ideas on copyright / regulation without the transmedial space and more specifically on those creating and consuming transmedial narratives.

Lessig begins by using the story of  introducing the concepts of (Read only) RO and RW ( read and Write ) societies.

“The turn of the century, … brought about an explosion of technologies for creating and distributing music that didn’t fit well within the old model of protection.”

P24 Lessig 2008 Penguin Press.

Lessig is not talking about the turn of the 21^st century and the digitalization of media , he is talking about the turn of the twentieth century and the introduction of phonograh and the player piano. These new technologies allowed the copying and distribution of music in a way that had never been possible before, that was not in fact regulated by existing copyright legislation at the time.

When Sousa’s a famous , conductor and composer of the period appeared before congress to give evidence on the impact of these new technologies.

“ when I was a boy in front of every house in the summer evenings you would find young people together singing the songs of the day or the old songs. Today you hear these infernal machines going night and day . We will not have a vocal cord left. The vocal cord will be eliminated by a process of evolution, as was the tail of the man when he came from the ape”

This is not an attempt by Sousa to describe the effect that he actually feels this new technology will have on the evolution of man, but a commentary on the way in which he fears this new technology will effect the relationship that people have with culture. He feared these new machines would lead away from active participation in the culture we consumed and towards simple consumption of culture.

I would suggest that digitalization and the development of the transmedial narrative presents us the same types of social and cultural change. Change not simply in how we access culture but how we interact with it. The transmedial narrative demands the return to active participation. In fact active participation is central to the success of a transmedial narrative.

In Sousa's world, a world that I am sure he would have argued had been all mankind's world prior to the invention of these new machines capable of recreating music, man's culture was one in which those who consumed culture took a direct part in its creation. Prior to the invention of the phonograph , is somebody wanted to recreate a piece of music they heard they needed to either play it themselves or find somebody to create it for them. Aside from the rich elite who had always been able to higher entertainment, for the ordinary man this meant creating the culture themselves. Reading a representation of the music they wanted to hear ( the sheet music) and then recreating that music by playing the music , or singing the song with their friends. For these people culture was not something you could sit back and simply consume , it was in fact something that you created and consumed. In this world the creation and development of culture was not the exclusive domain of the professional , it is a domain where the professional creators are in fact far out numbered by the amateur creator. In the language of today , a read/write (RW) culture not a Read Only (RO) culture.

The world of the digital narrative is the RW world described by Sousa. Sousa described the young of his time as recreating [culture] using the same tools as the professional  - the pianos, violins, guitars .... isn't this exactly the same situation we have now , with digital natives using the same instruments as the professionals to create culture... Despite that Sousa was a professional creator and an advocate of the extension of copy right , there appears to be two ideas that sit at the very heart of his thinking 1) is the importance of the amateur creative in the development of culture within society and the importance to put limitations on the ability of copyright to regulate this amateur creativity. When giving evidence on the extension of copyright  ( remember always that in his time Sousa was calling for an extension in the protection offered by copyright ) in response to an accusation that the extensions he suggested would stop young people getting together and singing , as this could be seen as a regulated activity , namely a public performance , Sousa said it ridiculous to think it would ever be illegal to get together and sing.

Neighbouring rights a possible way forward.

Copyrights & Neighboring Rights

By David Carnes, eHow Contributor

This is taken from e.how I felt it gave an interesting general overview to copyright and the current ways round it. I am particularly interested in the concept of Neighboring Rights which may well suit the regulation of copyright within a transmedial space.

Read more: Copyrights & Neighboring Rights | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_5427372_copyrights-neighboring-rights.html#ixzz2C7b5QcOF

Copyrights are the fundamental legal device by which certain exclusive rights to original works of authorship are protected. Neighboring rights are rights granted under some legal regimes (such as Japan's) that are extended to non-authors who are closely connected to the production of the copyrighted work.

Requirements for Copyright Protection

In most countries there are only three main requirements for copyright protection: The object of protection must be an original work, it must be artistic or semi-artistic in nature, and it must be expressed in a tangible medium. Books, paintings and music recordings are protected along with maps, drawings, reference works, photographs and software programs, among others. Some countries require registration or copyright notification on published copies.



Exclusive Rights

The holder of a copyright holds the exclusive right to produce, distribute, perform, exhibit and adapt the work. She may also sell or license the copyright to others.



Loopholes

Anyone may use a small part of a work that is copyrighted without paying royalties, as long as they properly attribute the work to the copyright holder (known as "fair use"). It is also permissible to sell second-hand copies of copyrighted works with no need to pay royalties, under the "first sale" exception. An author may sell his copyright to someone else before the work is even created, in which case it becomes a "work for hire" and the buyer is treated as the original author (even if the buyer is a corporation).



Public Domain

Copyrights expire after a certain date, after which the work enters the public domain and may be freely used by anyone. Expiration dates vary according to jurisdiction, but generally extend several decades past the death of the author. If the author is considered to be a corporation, the copyright may endure for a century or more after its creation.



Neighboring Rights

Neighboring rights, which do not exist in every jurisdiction, are granted to certain parties who are not authors of the copyrighted work but who are intimately connected to the work in some way. Neighboring rights are granted to performers, broadcasters, phonograph producers, and electronic transmitters of a copyrighted work. The rationale is that these parties either add original artistic content to a particular expression of a work or participate in the distribution of it, and that these acts are entitled to protection.
Examples of neighboring rights include the right to indicate the name of the performer, the right to control the act of broadcasting live performances, and the right to control the act of reproducing transmitted programs. Neighboring rights arise automatically (without registration or notification) when the act that triggers them (such as a live broadcast) occurs, and typically expire several decades later (50years under Japanese law). The United States has no defined concept of neighboring rights.



Doujinshi – Japanese Copyright protection

Doujinshi – Japanese Copyright protection. A different response to cultural remixing.

WHen looking around for different approaches to the type of copyright infringement so feared in the west and yet so much part of the consumers global response to digital media and in particular the invocation from creators to become involved in the unfolding of transmedial narratives I have looked at the japanese fan fiction.

Akamatsu: Japanese copyright changes threaten fan comics

http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2011/11/akamatsu-japanese-copyright-changes-threaten-fan-comics/

What would happen if I decided to make my own Spiderman comic and then sold it on line? Disney would not be very happy and my attempts at establishing a new publishing empire would very quickly come to a very sticky end.

Well in Japan the mainstream comic book publishers take a very different approach or at least traditionally have take a very different approach. In Japan they are known as Doujinshi (Fan made comic books) and are considered by many to be of central importance to the Managa comic book industry, in the UK and most of the developed world they would simply be called illegal.

Currently Japanese copyright Law allows copyright owners to tolerate a certain level of remixing! 

"Most doujinshi, sell in smaller number, and many observers think that the doujinshi phenomenon is good for the manga market, because it builds interest for the series and characters and provides a training ground for new creators—perhaps the best known being Rumiko Takahashi, creator of InuYasha and Ranma 1/2, who got her start creating doujinshi under the guidance of Lone Wolf and Cub artist Kazuo Koike."

While sales of an individual doujinshi are small, the phenomenon is a big one. Comiket, the Japanese comics market draws over half a million doujinshi sellers and buyers to the Tokyo Big Sight convention center twice a year, consider this to be be the world’s largest comics convention.

If Japan signs the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, e new regulations would have a chilling effect on the doujinshi market. The law would also extend copyright terms to match the terms current in the U.S. None of this is good for the thriving fan culture that has made manga and anime such a phenomenon in Japan. The new rules would allow police and prosecutors to take action against copyright violators without a formal complaint from the copyright holder, this would make such actions much more likely.

 Not everybody agrees - see the response to the article that stimulated this blog:

Comment

Michael P

November 1, 2011 at 1:56 pm

I’ll go ahead and be that guy: Thank *God*. Doujinshi is freaking terrible.

Oh, and as far as changing US copyright law to make publishing fanfic and other such abominations legal: No thank you. I’d rather not walk into the bookstore and see “My Immortal” sitting on an end cap, thank you.

An old story

The turn of the century. I will bought an explosion of technologies for creating and distributing music that didn't fit well within the old model of protection. For the first time in human history........ ordinary citizens could access a wide range of music on demand. The problem for the composers. However, was that it didn't share the wealth from this new form of access.

Copyright at the time, protected the composer and arranger, by giving them exclusive right to control the public performance of their work; any reproduction of sheet music to support the public performance; and any arrangements, other were derived from their original work. This mix of protections was crafted by Congress to reward artists for their creativity by creating incentives for artists to produce great new work.

Doesn't this sound familiar!

This extract from Lawrence Lessing's book Remix , making art and commerce thrive in the hybrid economy published in 2008 does not describe the problems faced by intellectual property right owners at the turn of the 21st century with the digitalisation of music, but rather, the problem at the turn of the 20th century faced with the invention of the phonographic and the player piano.

The challenge presented to copyright by digitalisation is not new in is the same challenge that copyright seems to face each time. There is a leap in technology behind the reproduction and distribution of media output.

.