The Smiley Smile Message Board

Without reading the specifics or any legal document which was filed, my first reaction is Van Dyke seems to be right on this, especially if nothing was agreed prior to the display and sale of this art. A person cannot use copyrighted material which someone else owns to make a profit, no matter how much of a fan they might be. Someone here could make a "Smile" T-shirt using the official logo or image for themselves and a few friends and it would be fine: As soon as you print a few hundred using a copyrighted logo and publicly offer them for sale and profit without a contract or agreement to pay royalties or whatever, it becomes a legal issue.

One other thing to remember: Frank Holmes did the official Smile artwork. His work is associated with the Smile project and his interpretation of the lyrics is the "official" version to go with the box set release. I'm wondering if perhaps there was a legal agreement or contract with Frank Holmes saying that his art is the exclusive artwork which is connected to those lyrics and the songs.

I'm probably missing the big issue here but after reading the article I was just thinking out loud...and thinking VDP shouldn't be criticized for this if the facts are what they are.

I mean, that article really makes me feel for the painter, but I do see VDPs side of things too.

VDPs should just ask for a painting to use on one of his new record sleeves and call it even ;D

Who knew Van Dyke wrote so much lyrics for "Fire"?  So much for a wordless "Elements" I guess.

LOL. IP is an unnecessary evil, a residual of the middle ages from which free market societies emerged, a holdover
of the days when governments and royalty granted monopolies to favored courtiers. VDP does not own those words any more than I 'own' the words you are reading. Read http://mises.org/resources/3582/Against-Intellectual-Property if you have an interest in IP (an interest that isn't predatory).

A discussion/debate on this seems necessary, but hopefully staying clear of sarcasm, sniping, attacks, etc...

The thoughts about VDP "owning" or "not owning" those words and lyrics struck a nerve. Maybe some of the published authors and songwriters on this board can chime in both pro and con. But I feel that the notion of ownership over something you create - whether it be music or words - is a rather basic concept worth protecting, especially for the "creator". If upon the completion of that work, defined as "Intellectual Property", the work no longer has an owner but is instead somehow floating in limbo between being "ours for the taking" and "free", doesn't it create a scenario which borders on anarchy? If Van Dyke does not own those words, then can anyone feel free to take them and use for their own purposes? Or misuse the words? Or change the words? That doesn't even mention the legality of profiting from those words.

Mr. Kinsella is a learned man, with challenging theories. However, breaking it down to a basic question, what does he do to earn money? What is his product, or what does he produce? How does he draw a paycheck, and make a living?

Kinsella is paid for his thoughts, his ideas, and the writings and lectures which people seek out when they either see him in person or read his words. He is an economist, legal scholar, and also a theoretician of sorts. Therefore, the product which he is paid to "produce" is mostly his thoughts and his words. He doesn't necessarily make anything concrete to sell or buy, his words and ideas are his product. He also signs his writings with his name, suggesting a basic level of claiming ownwership over what others are about to read or see.

Is the concept of a thinker and scholar like Kinsella "owning" his words that different from a lyricist like Van Dyke Parks "owning" his words? Kinsella is paid to speak and to write, expressing his thoughts and theories...should anyone then have a legal or even intellectual claim on those words and be able to take them away from Kinsella?

I will bet the artists's real sin is not reaching out to clear it with Van Dyke first.  Now, Van Dyke may have refused flat out if asked,  if there is  an exclusive license to EMI (etc.).  But since Van Dyke went out of his way to say he commissioned "free art" from Frank Holmes and others for his 45 releases (I assume they retain their copyrights in exchange for their work being featured), it may have offended his own sense of etiquette for someone else to just do this and not clear it.

I own all the music I compose. I choose to give it away for free mostly, but I still own the copyright and publishing rights. Otherwise, what is to stop someone else saying they wrote it. The money isn't really an issue. It's owning the right to be identified as the creator. As most artists have HUGE and delicate egos, I'd say that was a necessity.

A discussion/debate on this seems necessary, but hopefully staying clear of sarcasm, sniping, attacks, etc...

The thoughts about VDP "owning" or "not owning" those words and lyrics struck a nerve. Maybe some of the published authors and songwriters on this board can chime in both pro and con. But I feel that the notion of ownership over something you create - whether it be music or words - is a rather basic concept worth protecting, especially for the "creator". If upon the completion of that work, defined as "Intellectual Property", the work no longer has an owner but is instead somehow floating in limbo between being "ours for the taking" and "free", doesn't it create a scenario which borders on anarchy? If Van Dyke does not own those words, then can anyone feel free to take them and use for their own purposes? Or misuse the words? Or change the words? That doesn't even mention the legality of profiting from those words.

Mr. Kinsella is a learned man, with challenging theories. However, breaking it down to a basic question, what does he do to earn money? What is his product, or what does he produce? How does he draw a paycheck, and make a living?

Kinsella is paid for his thoughts, his ideas, and the writings and lectures which people seek out when they either see him in person or read his words. He is an economist, legal scholar, and also a theoretician of sorts. Therefore, the product which he is paid to "produce" is mostly his thoughts and his words. He doesn't necessarily make anything concrete to sell or buy, his words and ideas are his product. He also signs his writings with his name, suggesting a basic level of claiming ownwership over what others are about to read or see.

Is the concept of a thinker and scholar like Kinsella "owning" his words that different from a lyricist like Van Dyke Parks "owning" his words? Kinsella is paid to speak and to write, expressing his thoughts and theories...should anyone then have a legal or even intellectual claim on those words and be able to take them away from Kinsella?

Well, something tells me VDP wasn't adequately compensated in the whole TSS release--hence, his silence on it, and his fairly bitter-sounding comment on Saturday (at Freakbeat) that TSS was "redundant merchandise".

Well, Kinsella of course is getting paid, but he is not using the force of the Government to make sure he gets paid. In other words, the desire to have the state use force to enable your copyright claim to be 'protected' is the objection, not that a person shouldn't be paid for his work.
BTW, its always hilarious when folks who for sure own music that they didn't pay the artist for still fall for the old state-monopoly line about IP.

It might work in theory or on paper, but in the real world, what else would be in place to make someone pay for anything? Let's say Kinsella writes, edits, designs, prints, and distributes his own book, free of any notion of copyright or any other law enforcing anything in the process. Taking the theory to an ultimate extreme, if he himself sets up a table in the middle of a parking lot somewhere, and has stacks of his books for sale at 25 dollars per copy, what would stop me from going to his table, grabbing a copy, and saying "I'm taking this and I'm giving you 5 dollars." What recourse would he have against me if not the legality of me taking his book and in a true free-market system, giving him what I (the market) feels the product (Kinsella's words in the book) is worth?

And what force could he use if not the legal system against me, the consumer, if I undercut his price by forcing him to take what I want to pay versus what he wants to pay? And if he refuses my offer, what force could he then call on if I were to grab his book and run away without paying anything? How different at a basic level is the enforcement of a copyright law from the enforcement of a law against outright theft of physical property, or should they be different at all?

If the theory relies on human nature and goodwill (i.e. the notion of 'doing what is right') to ensure an artist gets paid, it's going to fall short. Again, not saying the current system is flawless or even efficient or fair, but how far do we go with some of the alternatives?

Your analogy falls short, good sir. You are conflating the idea of intellectual property with physical property. You would still be stealing a book, as in the physical object, even if the IP inside the book was public domain.
 
For instance, there are many companies that specialize in distributing public domain films and TV shows (likethe Three Stooges) on DVD. Just because that material is public domain does not mean you can steal those DVDs from the dollar bin in your local Rite-Aid.

Unfortunately, copyright is way out of control in the USA and there seems to be a similar climate much of the world over, with the ACTA treaty ratified, et. cetera. Major media cartels are spending a lot of money on laws and regulations that will not amount to much in the end; people will always copy material. If the media companies invested all that political bribe money in a superior content distribution system with reasonable prices, they would be ensuring their future in a more sustainable and tangible way, with the bonus of not generating additional consumer enmity. As it is, the cartels are shoveling barrels of money at the US house and senate for very little long-term gain.

Moreover, with the constant copyright extensions and the recent Supreme Court decision that says public domain material can be re-copyrighted, we are headed further down the road to information lockdown. What if I created derivative wrks using public domain material? Do the people who re-coyrighted the material now own my derivative work? All of this has a stifling effect after a while.

Like others here, I own my own songs and masters and I like being able to have control over them... But control realistically only lasts until the moment you put the product out there. Then, it belongs to the world, and can be copied an unlimited amount of times - it takes on a life of its own. Of course, I hope nobody steals any of my songs, and would pursue them if they did, but I am also constantly writing. That is the key - continually generating new, compelling content, which the film and music industry are able but unwilling to do, preferring to play it safe with middle-of-the-road BS, remakes and reboots.

All the DRM and laws in the world can't prevent this proliferation. It is just natural. Thus the key difference between the concept of intellectual property and real property - real property belongs to one person at a time, and to acquire it, one must necessarily deprive the person who owns it.

Well, something tells me VDP wasn't adequately compensated in the whole TSS release--hence, his silence on it, and his fairly bitter-sounding comment on Saturday (at Freakbeat) that TSS was "redundant merchandise".

Without reading the specifics or any legal document which was filed, my first reaction is Van Dyke seems to be right on this, especially if nothing was agreed prior to the display and sale of this art. A person cannot use copyrighted material which someone else owns to make a profit, no matter how much of a fan they might be. [this is simple not true.  Fair use law includes many for-profit uses.]  Someone here could make a "Smile" T-shirt using the official logo or image for themselves and a few friends and it would be fine: As soon as you print a few hundred using a copyrighted logo and publicly offer them for sale and profit without a contract or agreement to pay royalties or whatever, it becomes a legal issue.  [That is because that particularly kind of commercial use does not fall under fair use doctrine.  The artist in question, however, does]

One other thing to remember: Frank Holmes did the official Smile artwork. His work is associated with the Smile project and his interpretation of the lyrics is the "official" version to go with the box set release. I'm wondering if perhaps there was a legal agreement or contract with Frank Holmes saying that his art is the exclusive artwork which is connected to those lyrics and the songs.  [This is, from a legal perspective, sort of absurd.  You can not have an exclusive right to artistically interpret, be inspired by, or build on another work of art.  Now, if this artist was using his artwork to try and sell bootleg copies of Smile, that would be different.]

I'm probably missing the big issue here but after reading the article I was just thinking out loud...and thinking VDP shouldn't be criticized for this if the facts are what they are.

These paintings very, very clearly fall under fair use, for the following reasons:

1. The purpose and character of the work is clearly transformative rather than derivative.   Park's words are put in an entirely new medium and context with clear artist purposes.  This is the first of the four major criteria for deciding fair use cases under US law. 

2.  The nature of the copied work (in this case Smile) as a culturally important and easily available to the public work of art.  If Van Dyke's work had not yet been published, then the artist could be accused of "stealing his thunder" so to speak, but that is clearly not the case here.  This is the second major criteria for deciding fair use under US law, although probably the least important.

3. Although the artist is quoting van dyke parks directly, those quotes are only small portions of the original work.  The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole is another of the four major fair use criteria. 

4.  Finally, although the artist is making money with his artwork, he is not interfering with Van Dyke Park's ability to make money with Park's artwork, and his paintings in no substantive way devalue Park's original work, which is the last criteria for deciding fair use. 

Thus, under US law at least this artist's work is clearly 100% legal, and Van Dyke Park's scare tactics (using the threat of lawsuits and court fees against a poor and relatively inexperienced artist without the financial means to easily defend himself) is very low indeed.

Nice argument for the defense, BJL!  But the big question to you and filledeplage is:  who has the stones to pay the lawyers to find out who's right?

Van Dyke's claim is colorable enough to survive a motion to dismiss; it might even be enough for an injunction to issue until the issue is finally decided.  Maybe at the end it would be deemed de minimis infringement or fair use.  Or not.

That's where a lot of these fights are won and lost.  Who is willing to pay to be found right.  And be ready to pay more if found wrong.  (In copyright cases, the loser pays the winner's attorney fees).

Which is why I suggested the real sin was the appropriating artist not just asking Van Dyke first: he may have been OK with it.  

These things cut both ways.  Remember the kerfluffle between the culture-jam group Negativland and Island Records, label to U2?  Island got the court order, but eventually Negativland won the P.R. war, U2 were embarrassed, and Negativland reissued their little "U2" LP as  a "bootleg" with Universal pretending not to look.  But it cost Negativland $50K to get there.  So who was right?

Absolutely right. Van Dyke is protecting his intellectual property which has been used unlawfully.

LOL. IP is an unnecessary evil, a residual of the middle ages from which free market societies emerged, a holdover
of the days when governments and royalty granted monopolies to favored courtiers. VDP does not own those words any more than I 'own' the words you are reading. Read http://mises.org/resources/3582/Against-Intellectual-Property if you have an interest in IP (an interest that isn't predatory).

I'm disappointed in Van Dyke. I thought he was more progressive than that.

Intellectual property laws is what protects state capitalism, big corporations and rich people in general. Without copyright laws, patents and trademarks there wouldn't be such a big gap between rich and poor people. Big corporations wouldn't even exist, because it would be impossible for them without the government's protection. In a free society, no one would get rich off an idea which would make it unnecessary to protect your idea. The important thing would be to be the first on the market with an awesome idea, before everyone else starts competing with the same awesome idea.

Artists and musicians have always been progressive about this. Art is something free. You can't own it, you can't touch it. It's meant to inspire people and create something inside you. Reach people's hearts and souls.

A few observations:

1. For those bemoaning the fact that Van Dyke did this, that he was supposed to be more progressive, more open to the ideas of the evils of copyright law and how art should be free, does the man as the creator of those words have any say at all in how his words are used, who uses them, and who profits from them?

Assume a political group who Van Dyke or his fans would disagree with decides to create an advertising campaign around one of his songs or lyrics, and use them in a manner or in a context which he and his fans would find offensive. They would do this without permission, without context, and without compensation. How would this work if there were no legal means to call on to cease and desist? It seems to happen every political season. What if?

2. It is ridiculous to suggest abolishing copyright law, the notion of intellectual property, etc. entirely. Throwing the baby out with the bath water, in other words. Are there problems with the current system? Sure.  Has anyone arguing against these current copyright laws and intellectual property definitions offered ANYTHING as an alternative? What would be the alternative, or who would oversee and enforce the rights of a songwriter, lyricist, or poet if current definitions of copyright law and intellectual property were abolished?

I'm waiting for the answer. It's great to have a theory, but to see it progress into the real world, what would be the alternative? No protection at all?


On a personal note, as a musician it offends me to read theories that all art should somehow all be free for the taking.

Tell me, within that philosophy, how someone who works as a musician, songwriter, lyricist, arranger, etc. is supposed to make a living? Am I and my friends who do this for a living supposed to give everything away for free so people out there don't have to pay? How goshdarned selfish can someone be to expect others to give their creations away for free, why, so they can enjoy the fruits of the labor and not have to pay for it? Seriously? Or is it more high-minded and philosophical than that, where the need to "pay the bills" and support a family is usurped by theories and philosophies about art being free for the masses or whatever it is.

Anyone who thinks that any kind of art, music, literature, etc should be given away for free, give me the names and addresses of the places where you work or where your family and friends work or run businesses and I and some friends who have earned money through music will stop by and demand the goods and services for free. That should even it out, in theory. Especially if someone runs or works in a really nice seafood restaurant, it will be nice to get something others have created which I enjoy and not pay anything for it, in the name of "free".

Maybe artists and musicians aren't supposed to make a living, instead working "day jobs" to pay the bills and devoting every free moment to creating art to be given away and enjoyed by those too cheap or too high-minded to pay. Free concerts, free gallery exhibits, free albums, free sculpture, free poetry readings, free books, free 'merch'...

If an artist or musician wants to give their art away, they have every right and I respect their decision. Someone who makes a living with it shouldn't be vilified or compelled to offer their creations and talent for free.

If you don't want someone else to copy or do whatever they want with your art, keep it to yourself. Because once your art or idea reaches my head, it's mine too. Because I have it inside of me.
Of course you can't walk around stealing others CDs and paintings and stuff, because that's something you can touch. You can't put the CD inside your head, but you can keep the notes and rhythm there.

 ;)

Artists and musicians have always been progressive about this. Art is something free. You can't own it, you can't touch it. It's meant to inspire people and create something inside you. Reach people's hearts and souls.

The issues of copyright and personal use were argued in the cases involving home taping, most prominent in the Sony Betamax case where the recording and film industry were concerned about giving the home consumer the ability to, as you said, make infinite copies of something broadcast on TV or on the radio, in their opinion creating a market where less physical copies were actually purchased and more "free" material was made available. This case can be read about in many sources, the exact details aren't worth posting a long screed here, but the arguments in that case are worth reading and some continue to reappear in cases like Napster and others.

Needless to say, the VCR survived, the cassette deck survived, and the recordable CDR survived. There was not a stoppage nor extensive licensing or fees/taxes applied to the blank media or the machines when a consumer bought them.

I believe you misunderstood my analogy: We expect a government agency (the police) and a legal body (the court system) to step in if someone were to "steal" a physical copy of that hypothetical book. Yet we don't think other branches within that same system should step in if someone were to steal the "intellectual property" contained in that same book?

I'd like to pose a hypothetical situation, and I'm really interested to hear what the responses may be.

Assume the notion of "intellectual property" in the context of copyright and ownership were to be dismissed, taking it as far as Kinsella's theories may want to take it.

Say you were to write a novel, as a hobby from your love of writing, and you were to make rough copies for a handful of friends and family...as a gift, not for sale or general publication. What if one of those friends were to take that copy, claim it as his or her own work, and pass it to a bigger entity who would then go on to publish it. It becomes a massive success, generating wealth and profit, yet you know you wrote it from the original idea to the finished novel.

If there is no definable and enforceable concept of "intellectual property" in the court system (the government), what options do you then have as the author who had his work stolen? What would be in place to deal with a situation like this if the legal system no longer recognizes intellectual property rights, claimed by the creator of that work?

I like the way you express this concept.  I remember being frustrated when this here internet thing started taking off, and I started seeing photographs and films of mine copied and re-edited into other peoples work.  I quickly realized that, as long as it was for the purpose of another persons artistic expression, and wasn't going to reap them financial rewards, that I should consider it a compliment; (although it is still frustrating not being credited for it!  However, even directors that license my work prefer not to give my images a screen credit, thus blurring the lines of who originally created the work.  Try to distinguish whose work is who from 20 different 'archival' credits in the end credit roll...)
I have accepted, however, that once an image is 'out there', it's value can & often is diluted - ergo the reason why some of my best work from those halcyon days of the past has yet to be seen...
However, I've also been witness to some extremely talented people, (Sly Stone immediately comes to mind), whose paranoia has caused them to 'keep it to themselves'.  So it's a double-edged sword to deprive the world of worthwhile art.

I'm disappointed in Van Dyke. I thought he was more progressive than that.

Intellectual property laws is what protects state capitalism, big corporations and rich people in general. Without copyright laws, patents and trademarks there wouldn't be such a big gap between rich and poor people. Big corporations wouldn't even exist, because it would be impossible for them without the government's protection. In a free society, no one would get rich off an idea which would make it unnecessary to protect your idea. The important thing would be to be the first on the market with an awesome idea, before everyone else starts competing with the same awesome idea.

Artists and musicians have always been progressive about this. Art is something free. You can't own it, you can't touch it. It's meant to inspire people and create something inside you. Reach people's hearts and souls.

If you don't want someone else to copy or do whatever they want with your art, keep it to yourself. Because once your art or idea reaches my head, it's mine too. Because I have it inside of me.
Of course you can't walk around stealing others CDs and paintings and stuff, because that's something you can touch. You can't put the CD inside your head, but you can keep the notes and rhythm there.

 ;)

But you've got it backwards, or sideways, maybe. Progressives LOVE the state and constantly beg their rulers...er, I mean favorite politicians, for more and more laws that 'protect the poor' which, when any state (meaning government) becomes involved always does the exact opposite (see the Great Society). Of course conservatives also love the state for its ability to make slaughter a laudible job), so maybe its time the whole go-to-the-government-to-force-your-will-upon-others thing is put to rest. The lesson is if you use force (definition of all governments ever) to get your way  it will never be a fair transaction. Make something I value and I will pay you for it. That's how everything else works (grocery store, clothing, etc.). If you make crap 'art' that I listen to on the internet or a friend gives to me and I can't stand it, don't expect any cash. All of these worst-case-scenarios about one's amazing art being stolen by the big corporation (which can only exist because of the state) are laughable. To me, anyway...

I know that americans like to flip it around and say that anti-authoritarianism is conservative and the opposite is progressivism (or liberalism), but that's simply because the USA was founded on extremely progressive ideals, so being conservative has become being liberal.
I don't see why I should subscribe to that idea though. My ideology is called socialism and is basically about reforming the government to the point where it doesn't exist anymore. Decentralizing, removing laws and giving power to the people is what's going to make this world free and equal, and that's what socialism and progressivism traditionally is about.

Well, something tells me VDP wasn't adequately compensated in the whole TSS release--hence, his silence on it, and his fairly bitter-sounding comment on Saturday (at Freakbeat) that TSS was "redundant

One wishes the record companies would just do the right thing and pay everybody what they rightfully deserve for their work. But I know how it goes.

I know that americans like to flip it around and say that anti-authoritarianism is conservative and the opposite is progressivism (or liberalism), but that's simply because the USA was founded on extremely progressive ideals, so being conservative has become being liberal.
I don't see why I should subscribe to that idea though. My ideology is called socialism and is basically about reforming the government to the point where it doesn't exist anymore. Decentralizing, removing laws and giving power to the people is what's going to make this world free and equal, and that's what socialism and progressivism traditionally is about.

I don't know if ironic is the right word, but it's odd that there are those posting theories about art being free in discussions against intellectual property and copyright law, yet I think the big reason why this particular artist got involved in a legal dust-up with Van Dyke was because he was selling his art!  :) If this guy had offered it for free as an online wallpaper or something, or had done the work as a fan tribute and not hung the canvases in a gallery for sale to the public, maybe it wouldn't have been an issue.

Agreed very much with the two posts above.

Keep in mind that Van Dyke Parks has been fiercely loyal and dedicated to Frank Holmes' visual contributions to Smile receiving due credit: financially, historically, and artistically.

I am certain that Van Dyke Parks will handle the issue with dignity and honesty, and in a courteous manner. That is his very nature.

I don't have any insight into the legal issues involved. But, had I been an author or lyricist, I would certainly not like it to see my own texts, or parts thereof, suddenly appearing at an exhibition, and having been put up there with commercial intentions. Regardless of the artistic quality, I must add. I would have been wanted to be informed beforehand, at least.

What is very important to note here, and what I haven't seen yet in this thread: Van Dyke Parks has a lifelong and faithful habit of making absolutely sure that royalties and other forms of remuneration related to copyrights are paid in full to the people he worked and works with, and the artists whose works he performs on record and in a live setting. That is not as common a practice as many people think. Should he owe you just one dime for something you created 50 years ago, he would pay you that dime.

He is not a greedy or a jealous man. He's not in his business to get rich. He's the definition of a true artist.

I think he's sensitive in the right way, here. IIRC he once advised potential customers to stay away of the Edsel re-releases of his classic first three albums - precisely because that company hadn't treated him properly with regard to royalties. That is a justified protection of your own interests, in my book.

Keep in mind that Van Dyke Parks has been fiercely loyal and dedicated to Frank Holmes' visual contributions to Smile receiving due credit: financially, historically, and artistically.

More than you imagine, and recently.

I could way off here but would it have something to do with Frank's images appearing in the MiC booklet? I'm not saying this was part of the delay on the boxset, I'm just being inquisitive!

You'll never get him to tell. its a secret.

Anyone know the outcome of this dispute?

Thanks!

When the US Consititution was drafted, largely by Jefferson...

These things usually take a few years to litigate.


Not to be pedantic, but Jefferson was off in France when the Constitution was drafted and more or less ended up disliking it.
(quote)
Not to digress too far, but large sections (Declaration of Independence - US) were "borrowed" from Rousseau...they say that, "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery," but the words of Rousseau returned to his homeland, when France wrote a comparative "Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen de  1789. But Jefferson was a strong supporter of intellectual property for the Constitution and to promote "science and the useful arts." It's been a while since my Siècle de Lumières course...And many of our law concepts come from England.

There is a reason for transformative works inclusion, and deritivative classes, and parody.  I don't know how long this case, beyond the equitable relief provided by an injunction, has taken (more than a year at this point) xand whether it became a permanent one, and whether a remedy has been fashioned if the claim was found meritorious. 

Any good BB tribute that is an educational tool is a great thing in my book, having bought the vinyl on the day of release.  I felt it could almost (where I put on my flack jacket) be analogous for the more obscure work, to what the TV cameos via John Stamos did for the more popularized work.

And, not looking at the overall benefit conferred by a relatively later-generation artist is short-sighted, especially for the more obscure and marginalized work.  And this depends upon whether it is transformative/derivative/parody, etc., or whether there's "substantial similarity." That is a question for the court.

 This is not a linear process.  It seems like  a set of concentric rings.  I hope I don't sound like a "pseudo intellectual," I'm just a hard working "B" student.   ;)

These things usually take a few years to litigate.


Not to be pedantic, but Jefferson was off in France when the Constitution was drafted and more or less ended up disliking it.


I'm a philosophical anarchist, so I would love nothing better than the elimination of the state.  But I can't agree with the ha-ha hee-hee dismissiveness of Grillo.  And I'm sorry I missed this discussion when it was current, by the way.

By way of the grocery store example, ideally yes, I would be willing to pay the grocery store what the groceries are worth to me.  But if I steal a loaf of bread, either because I can't afford it, or I just don't really feel like paying for it, what is the grocery store's recourse in a stateless construct?  Is that simply the price of a truly free market?  Do we hire bounty hunters to track down thieves and extract the replacement cost of the bread?  In any case, it's no utopia.  Doesn't there always have to be the threat of a stick somewhere?