| null | |
|---|---|
Scrivener's Error |
Law and reality in publishing (seldom the same thing) from the author's side of the slush pile, with occasional forays into military affairs, censorship and the First Amendment, legal theory, and anything else that strikes me as interesting. |
link to: 10:20 [GMT-6]
The unlaid plans of mice (and men) aft gang awry, as in the last few days here at Casa de Lawshark. Two sleepless nights in the last four, an inquiry on HathiTrust that I have to finish up (hopefully today) before continuing to blawg on that monstrosity, and the usual variety of nonsense make for a particularly underdone platter of link sausages.
I do beg to differ with one aspect of the prevailing analysis of droit de suite, though, and recorded music provides a hint of the problem. The Copyright Act concerns itself with the right to copy; everything else in and around it is (or, to the cynic, is peripherally related to) concerned with ensuring that such a right — but not obligation — remains with the creator of a covered work. Musical compositions are a special case, though; the statute recognizes that there's a difference between a performance of a piece of music — something that can be technically copied only for the ear — and the composition itself. Unfortunately, the cooptation of ASCAP and BMI by recording companies, or by "music publishers" with substantial recording interests, has too often led to improper conflation of these distinct interests. One might argue that book publishers are trying to do the same thing with e-book rights, but that's neither new (given publishers' insistence on controlling derivative works like audio rights) or quite the same thing (as arguing over the form of a reproduction is still an argument over the essentially-unaltered reproduction).
In any event, it's a fascinating blog entry that fails to grapple with the "copy versus original" problem at the root of droit de suite... which is not surprising, as droit de suite itself fails to grapple with that problem, largely by assuming it away based upon technological copying capability at the time droit de suite (and related measures, such as the California provision being discussed in the blog entry) became committed to print. Then there's the philosophical question of the relationship between a copy of a work of visual art and the "original"... and whether that matters. As an obvious example, comparatively few people have ever visited the Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina SofĂa in Madrid and actually seen Guernica; the "meaning" of the original, though, does not seem to relate all that closely to, or be limited to, a quarter of a square meter of canvas.
Labels: arts, copyright, culture, intellectual property, life, politics, publishing
Ritual disclaimer: This blog contains legal commentary, but it is only general commentary. It does not constitute legal advice for your situation. It does not create an attorney-client relationship or any other expectation of confidentiality, nor is it an offer of representation.
All material © 200312 except where otherwise indicated. All rights reserved. This blawg does not use the Creative Commons License, although I'm usually pretty good-natured about permissions for attributed reuse.
I approve of no advertising appearing on or through syndication for anything other than the syndication itself; any such advertising violates the limited reuse license implied by voluntarily including syndication code on this blawg, and I do not approve aggregators and syndicators whose page design reflects only an intent to use the reference(s) to this blawg without actually providing the content from this blawg.
Sausages?
Internet link sausages, as frequently appear here, are gathered from uninspected meaty internet products and byproducts via processes you really, really don't want to observe; spiced with my own secret, snarky, sarcastic blend; quite possibly extended with sawdust or other indigestibles; and stuffed into your monitor (instead of either real or artificial casings). They're sort of like "link salad" or "pot pourri" or "miscellaneous musings" (or, for that matter, "making law"), but far more disturbing.
I am not responsible for any changes to your lipid counts or blood pressure from consuming these sausages... nor for your monitor if you insist on covering them with mash or sauce.
| Archives |
|---|
Warped Weft
Now live at the new site. I have arranged some of
the more infamous threads that have appeared here
by unravelling them from the blawg tapestry (and hopefully eliminating some
of the sillier typos). Sometimes, the threads have been slightly reordered for clarity.
Links of Interest
Links open in a new window.
Other Blawgs, Blogs, and Journals
These may be of interest; I do not necessarily agree with opinions expressed in them, although the reasoning and writing are almost always first-rate (and represent a standard seldom, if ever, achieved in "mainstream" journalism). I'm picky, and have eclectic tastes, so don't expect a comprehensive listing.
A blawg is sort of like a blog on legal issues, but usually has a lot more links to outside resources (other than other blogs) than does a typical blog. Scrivener's Error is a blawg, not just a blog. You can find other blawgs at < ? law blogs # >.