The Ecstasy of Influence
Feb. 7th, 2007 04:27 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackofallgeeksThanks to ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
circuit_four for pointing out This: a very long article about writing and plagiarism and -- I presume because of circuit_four's comments, as I haven't yet finished reading the article entirely -- copyright. It starts out going on and on about how books and movies and music are constantly, and often actively, borrowing from each other. A line here, a phrase there, sometimes whole story ideas, as in the book Lolita, first by von Lichberg and later by Nabokov.
Which, I think, brings up a pertinent point about art, copyright, and plagiarism. Who here has ever read von Lichberg's Lolita? Who here has even heard of it? I'll concede that a number of academics may have, but the article points out that nothing which makes Nabokov's Lolita great can be found in it's predecessor. Even working on the same idea, Nabokov just did it better. He had something von Lichberg didn't. And whatever that something was made Nabokov's writing a classic and von Lichberg's forgotten.
I don't like copyright, and I find it particularly distasteful when applied to so-called intellectual property, almost entirely because of this sort of thing. If Artist A write a song that no one listens to because his style sucks, where is it written that Artist B ought not try his own hand at it? In a less whole-sale example, what's wrong with referencing each other, taking this line or referencing that title? It adds to the art, it doesn't take away from anything. And as much as I hate Vanilla Ice, what was wrong with the fact that he used a certain baseline? The songs are completely different pieces (trust me, you will never, ever mistake 'Ice Ice Baby' for 'Under Pressure' after the first 20 seconds).
I guess there might be some argument for the poor songwriter who can't play worth a dime trying to sell music that other people steal anyways, but... I don't know, maybe I just believe in the "don't be an asshole" rule too much. It at least occurs to me that something as community oriented as music culture (or art culture in general) would do just fine without all the legalistics and grabbing for money, and... -shrugs-
Anyways. When I set out to write this entry, I was just going to point it out, and then give a meaningful look atsurichan who, if she doesn't now, complained for years about how her writing sucked because she didn't have an original thought in her head. I say, that's art. It's not about being original so much as it's about expressing something in your own way, from your own perspective.
And now I'm done.
circuit_four for pointing out This: a very long article about writing and plagiarism and -- I presume because of circuit_four's comments, as I haven't yet finished reading the article entirely -- copyright. It starts out going on and on about how books and movies and music are constantly, and often actively, borrowing from each other. A line here, a phrase there, sometimes whole story ideas, as in the book Lolita, first by von Lichberg and later by Nabokov.Which, I think, brings up a pertinent point about art, copyright, and plagiarism. Who here has ever read von Lichberg's Lolita? Who here has even heard of it? I'll concede that a number of academics may have, but the article points out that nothing which makes Nabokov's Lolita great can be found in it's predecessor. Even working on the same idea, Nabokov just did it better. He had something von Lichberg didn't. And whatever that something was made Nabokov's writing a classic and von Lichberg's forgotten.
I don't like copyright, and I find it particularly distasteful when applied to so-called intellectual property, almost entirely because of this sort of thing. If Artist A write a song that no one listens to because his style sucks, where is it written that Artist B ought not try his own hand at it? In a less whole-sale example, what's wrong with referencing each other, taking this line or referencing that title? It adds to the art, it doesn't take away from anything. And as much as I hate Vanilla Ice, what was wrong with the fact that he used a certain baseline? The songs are completely different pieces (trust me, you will never, ever mistake 'Ice Ice Baby' for 'Under Pressure' after the first 20 seconds).
I guess there might be some argument for the poor songwriter who can't play worth a dime trying to sell music that other people steal anyways, but... I don't know, maybe I just believe in the "don't be an asshole" rule too much. It at least occurs to me that something as community oriented as music culture (or art culture in general) would do just fine without all the legalistics and grabbing for money, and... -shrugs-
Anyways. When I set out to write this entry, I was just going to point it out, and then give a meaningful look at
surichan who, if she doesn't now, complained for years about how her writing sucked because she didn't have an original thought in her head. I say, that's art. It's not about being original so much as it's about expressing something in your own way, from your own perspective.And now I'm done.
