Kid Rock doesn't steal, but is there anything original about him?

Speaking of Kid Rock, of course, brings to mind his own appropriation of Lynyrd Skynyrd's Sweet Home Alabama, Warren Zevon's Werewolves of London, and Bog Seger's Night Moves, which can't help but bring back a fond nostalgia for the much maligned decade of my teens (the '70s). I have no doubt, of course, that Kid Rock paid big bucks to the copyright holders of the songs he appropriated (though, perhaps, not to Seger, from whose Night Moves there isn't quite copying), but I'm sure he's made far, far more than he paid.

And could there possibly be a more fitting instance of The Manual's principles in action?

Kid Rock says he was kidding about saying it's okay to download his songs for free.

Kid Rock, "who has resisted selling his music on iTunes and other online stores, tells The Associated Press he was just kidding." (Hope AP doesn't send me a takedown notice!)

Copyright Ignorance from MTV.com

In connection with yesterday's post about Girl Talk's new album, I can't help but mention today's post on MTV.com by James Montgomery. Montgomery writes of listening to the album while flying on a plane along with L.L. Cool J and wondering:

Song seven on the [Girl Talk] record is called "Like This," and it features, in addition to a whole lot of other things, two very audible samples of LL's "Mama Said Knock You Out," two samples that Girl Talk did not obtain LL's permission to use, which means that they appear in the song illegally, which means that LL is not getting paid for their usage, which would probably make LL very upset if he had any idea that this was happening. (emphasis added.)

Then Montgomery writes that Girl Talk's Greg Willis uses "the concept of 'fair use' to shield himself from any pesky copyright suits."

I can't believe someone from MTV.com is writing on these issues from such a state of ignorance. It's far from certain that what Girl Talk is doing is "illegal," and "fair use" is no "technicality" to shield one from copyright infringement lawsuits. It's one's constitutional right.

And, incidentally, D.J. Danger Mouse has not, as Montgomery implies, "left the [musical collage] genre behind.

Addendum: First, according to Will in the comments, Mr. Montgomery should have known better than to think LL Cool J would've been upset by Girl Talk's appropriation because "LL recently recorded a 'mixtape' called 'Return of the G.O.A.T.' featuring a number of freestyles over uncleared sampled beats."

Second, and more important in trying to determine whether Girl Talk's appropriations constitute fair use, Mr. Montgomery's own evaluation of Girl Talk's music basically makes the case that the use is "transformative" and therefore does constitute fair use. He writes: "[Girl Talk's] new album is so great, the kind of thing that could not have existed 10 years ago, an audio time capsule of the era in which we live. The kind of thing that can inspire post-millennial dilemmas at 37,000 feet."

Then again, inasmuch as Mr. Montgomery is a shill for MTV, and MTV is part of a corporate conglomerate with every interest in hiding the realities of fair use from the public, it should be no surprise that he writes with such ignorance about fair use. Here are some posts to try to begin to bring him up to speed.

Is the use "commercial" if you ask for a donation in return?

Girl Talk's "Feed the Animals" is the latest product from Illegal Art that raises the question, posed by the N&VR Journal: "at what point does sampling end, and a new creation with a new 'songwriter' begin?" It's a question posed again and again by musical collage. It is not, as this blog again and again points out, a position that is "anti-copyright." Rather, as Illegal Art's founder, Philo T. Farnsworth, explains:

I should clarify that we are and we aren't anti-copyright. We're against copyright law when it impedes an artist's ability to interact with pre-existing recordings. We're not against copyright protecting artists from someone copying their material and selling it without compensating them.

But, as we all know by now, whether the use of copyrighted material is a fair use requires a holistic consideration of four factors, including the purpose and character of the use, which itself includes a consideration whether the use is commercial or not. "Feed the Animals" raises a question with respect to this factor I have never encountered before: is the use a commercial one if the creator, instead of selling the product, offers it along with a request for a donation? Illegal Art will allow you to download "Feed the Animals" without donating anything; I did so. That's no sale. Under basic contract law, therefore, this deal is no "contract": one can obtain the album without giving or promising anything in return.

Of course, whether a use is commercial is only one factor among many in determining whether it is a fair use; it is not even the entirety of the "nature of the use" factor. But the fact Illegal Art will give away the product for nothing does weigh in favor of its legality.

And, like the video discussed yesterday, the album is there, available on the internet, as yet unchallenged by any of the owners of the material appropriated by it. There is always that vast amount of human behavior that may or may not be illegal but still happens in a relatively unimpeded way. There also too is a vast amount of copyright overclaiming by copyright holders that use there economic weight to stop practices that would, if fought for, be upheld. Law is not always the answer to our questions, particularly when we are dealing, as we are, with a material reality that has changed and is changing as radically as the material reality of information in the digital age.

Digital locks, fair use, and the Constitution

Canada is considering legislation that would make it illegal to break digital protections on copyrighted material (i.e., so-called "DRM" ("Digital Rights Management") protection"). The Canadian bill apparently is intended to override existing rights, including the right to backup or copy digital materials for personal use or for fair use of materials with DRM protection. Apparently too, "mash ups and satire will be criminalized by the bill if they 'distort or mutilate a copyright performance.'" A group of Canadian musicians have severely criticized the bill, stating that "[t]he question is, who gains from this bill? It’s not musicians. Musicians don’t need lawsuits, we don’t need DRM protection. These aren’t the things that help us or our careers. What we do need is a government that is willing to sit down with all the stakeholders and craft a balanced copyright policy for Canada that will not repeat the mistakes made in the United States.”

The group is referring to 17 U.S.C. Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act,(the "DMCA"), which purports to make it unlawful to override a CD or DVD's digital copyright protection even if the copying of the copyrighted material is legitimate, non-infringing fair use.

Nevertheless, I'm not sure a court could impose liability under Section 1201 of the DMCA on someone who evades DRM protection on a CD or DVD if the copying is for a fair use. Fair use is founded in the Constitution, both in Article I, Section 7, which gives Congress the power to "promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries," and in the First Amendment protection of free speech. In other words, fair use is a constitutional right, and constitutional rights cannot be derogated by legislation.

Not everyone agrees. Chris Soghoian writes that the creators of the Hillary's Inner Tracy Flick video are in violation of the DMCA's provision making it unlawful to copy material under DRM protection even if the video otherwise makes fair use of scenes from the movie Election. Soghoian cites to the statement by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Atari v. Nintendo, 975 F.2d 832 (Fed. Cir. 1992), that "[t]o invoke the fair use exception, an individual must possess an authorized copy of a literary work." Thus, Soghoian concludes, if the creator of the video "used DVD-ripping software, its unencrypted, DRM-free copy of the work (which they would have needed to cut and paste bits into their mash up) is in no way authorized. This means, unfortunately for [the video's creator], that it would have no fair-use defense, and could thus face a copyright infringement lawsuit."

I'm not so sure. Congress cannot through legislation deprive someone of using material in a way the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights and Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution permit. Thus, I am confident, a statute that makes it unlawful to copy for fair use purposes any document stating "no copy of this document is permitted by its author for any purposes" would be unenforceable under the Constitution. I do not see why DRM protection, which can generally be cracked very easily, should, for fair use purposes, be treated any differently than such a bare declaration that any copying is unlawful.

The Associated Press Overreaches

The Associated Press, in a blatant disregard of fair use, is purporting to require payment for the quotation on a website of as few as five words from AP articles. The starting price, for five words, is $62.50 (@ $12.50/word). Pursuant to this policy, the AP has issued 6 DMCA takedown notices against the Drudge Retort, "claiming that the users linking to its stories are violating its copyright and committing 'hot news' misappropriation under New York state law." Apparently, the firestorm of protest the AP's new policy provoked has led to some rethinking on AP's part, but, as Michael Arrington of TechCrunch.com, explains:

The A.P. doesn't get to make its own rules around how its content is used, if those rules are stricter than the law allows. So even thought they say they are making these new guidelines in the spirit of cooperation, it's clear that, like the RIAA and MPAA, they are trying to claw their way to a set of property rights that don't exist today and that they are not legally entitled to. And like the RIAA and MPAA, this is done to protect a dying business model - paid content.

According to Columbia law professor Timothy Wu, "'the principal question is whether the excerpt is a substitute for the story, or some established adaptation of the story.' . . . Mr. Wu said that the case is not clear-cut, but he believes that The A.P. is likely to lose a court case to assert a claim on that issue. 'It’s hard to see how the Drudge Retort "first few lines" is a substitute for the story,' Mr. Wu said. "

A digital simulacrum is not creative enough to be copyrighted

In a decision entered today in Meshwerks, Inc. v. Toyotal Motor Sales, Inc., No. 06-422 (10th Cir. June 17, 2008)(pdf), the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed an order granting summary judgment and dismissing the copyright infringement case brought against Toyota by Meshwerks, which had created digital models of Toyota cars for use in Toyota's advertising. As the court explained, "[t]hese digital models have substantial advantages over the product photographs for which they substitute. With a few clicks of a computer mouse,the advertiser can change the color of the car, its surroundings, and even edit its physical dimensions to portray changes in vehicle styling; before this innovation, advertisers had to conduct new photo shoots of whole fleets of vehicles each time the manufacturer made even a small design change to a car or truck." Professor Patry strongly criticized the lower court's decision and will no doubt be unpersuaded by the 10th Circuit's affirmance. The court concluded, however, that the digital models did not have a sufficient degree of creativity to entitle them to copyright protection because

Meshwerks’ digital wireframe computer models depict Toyota’s vehicles without any individualizing features: they are untouched by a digital paintbrush; they are not depicted in front of a palm tree, whizzing down the open road, or climbing up a mountainside. Put another way, Meshwerks’ models depict nothing more than unadorned Toyota vehicles – the car as car. See Appendix A. And the unequivocal lesson from Feist is that works are not copyrightable to the extent they do not involve any expression apart from the raw facts in the world. As Professor Nimmer has commented in connection with the predecessor technology of photography, “[a]s applied to a photograph of a pre-existing product, thatbedrock principle [of originality] means that the photographer manifestly cannot claim to have originated the matter depicted therein . . . . The upshot is that the photographer is entitled to copyright solely based on lighting, angle, perspective, and the other ingredients that traditionally apply to that art-form.” Nimmer on Copyright § 3.03[C][3]. It seems to us that exactly the same holds true with the digital medium now before us: the facts in this case unambiguously show that Meshwerks did not make any decisions regarding lighting, shading, the background in front of which a vehicle would be posed, the angle at which to pose it, or the like – in short, its models reflect none of the decisions that can make depictions of things or facts in the world, whether Oscar Wilde or a Toyota Camry, new expressions subject to copyright protection.

Is it parody if the point is not to make fun of the original?

Little, Brown is publishing “Goodnight Bush,” an unauthorized parody of the 1947 children’s bedtime classic “Goodnight Moon,” written by Margaret Wise Brown and illustrated by Clement Hurd: The cover of “Goodnight Bush” looks almost exactly like “Goodnight Moon — green and orange, with an image of a window and fireplace — and uses a similar rhyme scheme. But there the thematic similarities end.

The authors, Erich Origen and Gan Golan, set their story in “a situation room.” There is no bunny snuggling into bed, but rather George W. Bush, grinning and wearing a “Mission Accomplished” flight suit. Instead of three little bears sitting on chairs, there are “war profiteers giving three cheers.”
Subsequent pages tell of “A grand old party to war in a rush/And a quiet Dick Cheney whispering hush.” The vice president is illustrated seated in a rocking chair — with a shotgun in his lap and bunny slippers on his feet. . . .

The publisher of “Goodnight Bush” is counting on the fair use doctrine, which allows limited amounts of copyrighted material to be used without permission. “Parody as fair use is a developing area of the law,” said Pamela Golinski, an entertainment lawyer in New York, “and as a result, whether a given parody merits the shield of the fair use doctrine is a complex question.”

Little, Brown may have some difficulty in sustaining its fair use defense in light Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc., 109 F.3d 1394 (9th Cir. 1997), in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the re-telling of the facts of the O.J. Simpson murder trial in the style and rhythms of Dr. Seuss's The Cat in the Hat was not fair use. The court concluded the book was a satire, not a parody, because the book did not poke fun at or ridicule Dr. Seuss. Instead, it merely used the Dr. Seuss characters and style to tell the story of the murder.

Readers of this blog will not be surprised to know the parody/satire distinction seems a tenuous one. Every parody makes a point independent of its ridicule of the original, and every satire requires recognition of the original to accomplish it's artistic intent. Do the copyright holders to The Cat in the Hat own its metrical scheme?

YouTomb

YouTomb is a research project by MIT Free Culture that tracks videos taken down from YouTube for alleged copyright violation. More specifically, YouTomb continually monitors the most popular videos on YouTube for copyright-related takedowns. Any information available in the metadata is retained, including who issued the complaint and how long the video was up before takedown. The goal of the project is to identify how YouTube recognizes potential copyright violations as well as to aggregate mistakes made by the algorithm. Who is behind YouTomb? YouTomb was built by MIT Free Culture, a student organization at MIT. Active Free Culture chapters exist at many schools and universities; they work together to promote open access to knowledge and culture.

What's recently been taken down?
John Lennon's #9 Dream, which had originally been posted on September 2, 2006, and was taken down today.

Gee, do you think today's move has anything to do with pique over the decision rejecting Yoko Ono's motion for a preliminary injunction and allowing Expelled to be distributed with the 15 seconds of "Imagine" remaining?

Copyrighted recordings are subject to fair use too, but too few act that way

Finally, perhaps, the RIAA and ASCAP's reign of overclaiming copyright by asserting the fee simple ownership of every last component of every last copyrighted recording and song is coming to an end.

I've never understood why recording artists tolerate a regime in which they pay to use the sample of another recording, no matter how brief. Art thrives on recognizable quotation. It would be pointless for art to quote something unrecognizable. Recognizable notes carry meaning and connotations that are the very product of their recognizability, and art depends on evoking large meanings from small pieces. Nor can anyone argue that the brief sample of one recording in another deprives the original of sales; if anything, bringing the old song back into consciousness through the effective "quotation" of one of its recognizable parts could only conceivably help sales of the original.

Then again, perhaps I do understand the toleration of the licensing system that exists for the use of prerecorded samples. They bow to the RIAA, which (mis) states that "generally speaking, the use of any part of a song requires a license." (emphasis added) Thoughtless court decisions have endorsed the RIAA's position. As previously noted on this blog, paying for every last sampled note from a copyrighted song became industry practice after Judge Kevin Duffy in Grand Upright Music, Ltd v. Warner Bros. Records, Inc., 780 F. Supp. 182 (S.D.N.Y. 1991)(Duffy, J.), in a decision that did not even consider issues pertaining to fair use, enjoined the distribution of Biz Markie's third album because one of its songs sampled three words and the accompaniment ostinato of Gilbert O’Sullivan’s schlock hit “Alone Again, Naturally.” Duffy wasn't satisfied with a mere injunction, however: he referred the defendants to the U.S. Attorney's office for criminal prosecution and wrote in his opinion, like a preacher from the pulpit,"Thou shalt not steal." [Exodus, Chapter 20, Verse 15] has been an admonition followed since the dawn of civilization. Unfortunately, in the modern world of business this admonition is not always followed."

Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films, 410 F.3d 792 (6th Cir. 2004), compounded this folly, holding that the defendant had committed copyright infringement by using in his own musical recording a two-second sample from an earlier copyrighted recording, lowering the pitch, and looping the sample to extend it to 16 beats. Again, the court failed entirely to consider the First Amendment rights that must be balanced against maintaining the composer's incentive to create, the very core of the fair use doctrine.

The Biz Markie case, Grand Upright Music, is generally considered the reason industry practice is to pay for any and all recorded samples. Record companies certainly have no interest in challenging the existing regime. The recordings they own are held inviolate too, so why challenge the right of another recording company to require payment for any sample, no matter how small, no matter transformative its use is, and no matter how little impact it will have on the market for the sampled piece? Artists who would challenge the existing regime hardly have the financial wherewithal to challenge the industry and the enormously successful artists who benefit from it. Thus, as Jonathan Lethem has written, "[a]lthough sampling was just a technological extension of the age-old process of learning through imitation, producers who use samples now pay up instead of trying to set precedents for fair use. "

This all goes in part to explain, I suppose, why I am so adamant in my support of the producers of Expelled, despite my contempt for their message and my respect, admiration, and love for their adversaries in their copyright litigation. Free speech is free speech. I even supported the rights of Nazis to march through a community full of Holocaust Survivors (as, of course, did the U.S. Supreme Court).

Maybe, however, times are beginning to change:

Just when it seems like mashups are played out — or playing dead, thanks to litigious record labels — along comes Girl Talk (nee Gregg Gillis). For last year's album Night Ripper, the laptop mixologist used more than 250 samples from 167 artists. Raps by Ludacris rub up against a Boston riff, the Ying Yang Twins whisper over the Verve's "Bittersweet Symphony." As the album became an indie sensation, Gillis resigned himself to the inevitable cease-and-desist order. But it never materialized. "Labels are starting to realize that something like Night Ripper isn't going to hurt their artists," Gillis says. "If anything, it will promote them."

Yes, it's smart business. But business should not define the rights of artists and writers to use the resonant pieces of our culture to express their own points of view. It is absurd to repeat the oft-repeated canard that "[i]t is well established that using just a few seconds or bars of a musical composition violates the copyright in a work if the piece taken was the "hook'' or 'essence' of the original song." If the sample does not in fact evoke the original, there's no point in using the sample. It's the sample's very recognizability and its cultural resonances that make it a usefully compressed sign in the appropriating work.

If we depend on business to determine when sampling is permissible and when it is not, we'll never have samples in works the original artists don't like. If you support the teaching of intelligent design and you leave it to business to define your rights to sample music, you'll never, ever be able to use a John Lennon piece, no matter how seminal you believe it is in expressing the views you abhor. If you are Biz Markie creating a new work that rejects the sentiment and sappiness of Gilbert O'Sullivan's ouevre, you'll never be able to sample a Gilbert O'Sullivan work.

I wish I could tell Judge Kevin Duffy that "Thou shalt not steal" does not exhaust Old Testament wisdom.

The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. -- Ecclesiastes 1: 9 (KJV)

Write in Mickey Mouse for President if you don't like your candidate

Mickeyforpresident.com is a new online campaign, backed by conservatives, that offers a way for Republicans to vent their anger at John McCain: write in "Mickey Mouse" for president. In most states, write-in candidates that reach a certain threshold are reported as percentages just like the normal candidates are. The group's plan is for Mickey Mouse to reach that point, as a way for voters to visibly and effectively demonstrate their disgust. The site is very careful to point out that "'Mickey Mouse'" is a registered trademark of Disney Enterprises, Inc. Fair Use applies."

Disney does tend to be very touchy about the use of its characters. One of my students this past semester once worked at Baskin & Robbins. He explained that one day Disney representatives appeared like Men in Black to determine whether the ice cream shop was making any cakes with unauthorized Disney characters on them.

The use of Mickey Mouse as a write-in candidate to express dissatisfaction with the candidates on the ballot is, however, a time-honored practice. One writer claims Mickey received 400 votes in Florida in 2000, a point I don't believe was mentioned in Bush v. Gore.

And no doubt Jimmy Cauty's (one half of the KLF) extensive use of Mickey Mouse in his current artwork is a big fat raspberry directed Disney's way.

Finally, as much as I hate to admit it, I remember Pat Paulsen's campaign for the presidency in 1968.

Court denies injunction against use of Imagine in film advocating for intelligent design

Last week the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the request for a preliminary injunction by Yoko Ono against further showing and distribution of the movie Expelled, which, as I wrote last month, criticizes evolution, promotes the teaching of intelligent design, and in the process uses 15 seconds of John Lennon's song "Imagine."
In a twenty-three page memorandum opinion and order issued today, the Court held that the producers and distributors of Expelled are likely to prevail on their fair use defense and denied Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction in its entirety. As I wrote, If the filmmakers had tried merely "to capitalize on the film as soundtrack material that would be attractive to an audience would likely not be fair use, but, if, as seems likely, the song is quoted to criticize its atheism, that use would likely constitute fair use, regardless of whether Ono finds the users' message objectionable." The court, apparently, thought similar things (citations and footnotes omitted; hyperlink added):

Defendants’ use is transformative because the movie incorporates an excerpt of Imagine for purposes of criticism and commentary. The filmmakers selected two lines of the song that they believe envision a world without religion: “Nothing to kill or die for/ And no religion too.” (“Imagine lyrics, Ex. D to Weber Decl.) As one of the producers of “Expelled” explains, the filmmakers paired these lyrics and the accompanying music to a sequence of images that “provide a layered criticism and commentary of the song.” The Cold War-era images of marching soldiers, followed by the image of Stalin, express the filmmakers’ view that the song’s secular utopian vision “cannot be maintained without realization in a politicized form” and that the form it will ultimately take is dictatorship. The movie thus uses the excerpt of “Imagine” to criticize what the filmmakers see as the naïveté of John Lennon’s views. The excerpt’s location within the movie supports defendants’ assertions. It appears immediately after several scenes of speakers criticizing the role of religion in public life. In his voiceover, Ben Stein then connects these sentiments to the song by stating that they are merely “a page out of John Lennon’s songbook.” In defendants’ view, “Imagine” is a secular anthem caught in a loop of history recycling the same arguments from years past through to the present. We remind our audience that the ideas they just heard expressed from modern interviews and clips that religion is bad are not and have been tried before with disastrous results.” (Sullivan Decl. ¶ 21.) The filmmakers “purposefully positioned the clip . . . between interviews of those who suggest that the world would be better off without religion and an interview suggesting that religion’s commitment to transcendental values place limits on human behavior. . . . mak[ing] the point that societies that permit Darwinism to trump all other authorities, including religion, pose a greater threat to human values than religious belief.” (Id. ¶ 20.)

Defendants’ use of “Imagine” is similar to the use at issue in a recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in which fair use was found, Blanch v. Koons. There, the visual artist Jeff Koons copied photographer Andrea Blanch’s photograph from a fashion magazine without permission and incorporated a portion of it into one of his paintings. 467 F.3d at 247. . . . As in Blanch, defendants here use a portion of “Imagine” as “fodder” for social commentary, altering it to further their distinct purpose. Just as Koons placed a portion of Blanch’s photograph against a new background, defendants here play the excerpt of the song over carefully selected archival footage that implicitly comments on the song’s lyrics. They also pair the excerpt of the song with the views of contemporary defenders of the theory of evolution and juxtapose it with an interview regarding the importance of transcendental values in public life. Plaintiffs contend that defendants’ use of “Imagine” is not transformative because defendants did not alter the song, but simply “cut and paste[d]” it into “Expelled.” As the foregoing discussion illustrates, however, this argument draws the transformative use inquiry too narrowly. To be transformative, it is not necessary that defendants alter the music or lyrics of the song. Indeed, defendants assert that the recognizability of “Imagine” is important to their use of it. (Sullivan Decl. ¶ 16.) Defendants’ use is nonetheless transformative because they put the song to a different purpose, selected an excerpt containing the ideas they wished to critique, paired the music and lyrics with images that contrast with the song’s utopian expression, and placed the excerpt in the context of a debate regarding the role of religion in public life. Plaintiffs also contend that defendants’ use of “Imagine” is not transformative because it was unnecessary to use it in order to further the purposes defendants have articulated.

Determining whether a use is transformative, however, does not require courts to
to decide whether it was strictly necessary that it be used. In Blanch, although certainly Koons did not need to use Blanch’s copyrighted photo, as opposed to some other image of a woman’s feet, in his painting, the Second Circuit did not suggest that this lack of necessity weighed against a finding of fair use. Similarly, in Bill Graham Archives, the Second Circuit found a transformative use in the defendants’ unauthorized inclusion of several of the plaintiff’s images—principally concert photos—in a coffee-table book about the musical group the Grateful Dead. 448 F.3d at 607. Although the defendants manifestly could have proceeded without the plaintiff’s , which constituted only a small part of the book, this posed no obstacle to a finding of fair use.

As I said, I think the use of "Imagine" by the filmmakers without permission is legitimate fair use. Nonetheless, Lennon, and "Imagine" in particular, are being misrepresented. Lennon's song imagines a world unpolluted by religious sectarianism, not exactly a radical view in light of the issues of the day. But that's not a view many can find tolerable, even in the U.S. of 2008, and they'll resort to misrepresentation to support their intolerance. Today, the Wall Street Journal ran a story with the headline The Case Against John Lennon. The quote that highlights the column?

Nothing to live or die for — what a nightmare.

Mike Thomas points out that the line is "Nothing to kill or die for" and asks:

What is going on here? Why is the WSJ promoting a column with such a provacative title and using a misquote to mislead readers into a negative reaction against John Lennon? The column itself is a mess. It is poorly written, jumbled and fails to adequately explain how John Lennon or his song “Imagine” has anything to do with what the column appears to be about. Here is the pertinent section that mentions Lennon:

"Mr. Sharansky has a new book, titled Defending Identity. It would be equally accurate to call it The Case Against John Lennon. Or, more specifically, the case against 'Imagine,' Lennon's anthem to a world with 'no countries . . . nothing to kill or die for/And no religion too.' For Mr. Sharansky, a nine-year resident of the Perm 35 prison camp, that's a vision that smacks too much of the professed beliefs of the ex-Beatle's near namesake, Vladimir Ilyich.'

What the hell? Does he think he’s being clever or something? Lennon sounds like Lenin. Get it? So obviously they must be related or they must think alike or something right? Nevermind that “Lenin” was actually an alias for Vladimir Illich Ulyanov, while the surname Lennon dates back hundreds of years to old Ireland.

No, they sound alike so there must be a connection. Right? Kind of like how Obama sounds like Osama so they must be related too. Yeah. That’s the level of reasoning that the column sinks to.

Absolutely pathetic.

And of course he never goes back and explains how V.I. Lenin’s brutal and dictatorial ways have any similarity or correlation to Lennon’s ode to world peace. But fortunately for the cretins who run the WSJ editorial pages, John Lennon is dead and can’t defend his classic work against their asinine columnist’s offhanded smear.

Here's Ken Miller, a biologist from my alma mater speaking at Case Western Reserve University, where I now teach, speaking on intellligent design, evolution, and religion:

Viacom's continuing claims against Google about YouTube

In its lawsuit against Google seeking one billion dollars for the alleged copyright infringements committed and being committed on Google-owned YouTube, Viacom claims that it "has records of more than 150,000 unauthorized clips uploaded on the popular web site." That's an interesting, and very carefully crafted, statement. Viacom isn't claiming there are 150,000 instances of copyright infringement. Fair use only arises as an issue when the use is unauthorized. If use is agreed to, it's use is enforced by contract law. How many of those 150,000 "unauthorized clips" are really infringements? There's no way to know. Whether the unauthorized use of copyrighted work is fair use or an infringement requires too complicated a balancing of competing interests to distinguish among the 150,000 instances in an intellectually sound way.

Google claims it does more than is legally required as the owner of YouTube to control the use by individual uploaders of materials that might infringe. As I previously have pointed out, Google's policy on these matters seems to me a thoughtful and genuine effort to balance the opportunities for speech and creation created by the internet against the need for copyright ownership to provide sufficient incentive for creativity and invention.

And where in the world does the number of "unauthorized" uses come from?

standing on the shoulders of giants

As awesome as Julia’s images are, I can’t help but wonder why the place -Madurodam- isn’t credited in her publicity, since I feel like she’s standing on the shoulders of the people who crafted those amazing models. I feel a bit miffed at the ol’ fine art vs craft presumption. Or am I being pathetically modernist and is it perfectly legit for her to sample in this way?

The Manual and creativity

Plainly, the KLF feel and express in a number of subtle and not subtle ways that what passes for art in the marketplace is nothing more than the rehashing of old tropes. They're not artistic nihilists, however; as they explain in The Manual

So why don't all songs sound the same? Why are some artists great, write dozens of classics that move you to tears, say it like it's never been said before, make you laugh, dance, blow your mind, fall in love, take to the streets and riot? Well, it's because although the chords, notes, harmonies, beats and words have all been used before their own soul shines through; their personality demands attention.