Audio Spectral Travel

Thursday, January 12, 2012

Ready to Share

I have argued for a long time that copyrights and patents are hindering the expansion of human consciousness, but my arguments had lacked comparative validity until now. I stumbled across some information from the Norman Lear Centre that compares the fashion industry with other creative industries. It sums up what I've been only able to hint at for years.

Here is an excerpt from their site:

The music and film industries have argued that financial ruin awaits anyone who lets creative work be freely appropriated. They’ve argued that creative works must be strictly controlled through technology and copyright law. These efforts have a direct effect on artists, musicians, writers, researchers and filmmakers – unlike fashion designers, they cannot freely sample from the creative products that surround them. 
Whether inspiration comes from fellow designers, vintage patterns, street kids or royalty, fashion designers openly pay homage to their influences through appropriation. Each new wave of designers depends upon its predecessors. And, because fashion (like DNA) is recombinant to its core, no one presumes that they can own design elements such as the Dolman sleeve, the trench coat or the pearl neckline.

Reuse, repurpose, redefine, recreate, recombine – any way you look at it, the genius of the fashion industry is its ability to thrive in a system built upon borrowed inspiration. As long as there is no trademark infringement, designers are free to roam the creative landscape, sampling what they wish. Just imagine if it were the same in other industries.

What else can be said? Imagine if the music industry could thrive like the fashion industry instead of being stifled like it is now. Musicians would have to create works that were harder to copy instead of making musical pablum and relying on copyright protections to get paid.

Copyright law is actually doing the opposite of what its proponents argue for. And the diversity and size of the fashion industry seems to support this idea.


  1. Father of the AuthorJanuary 12, 2012 at 4:39 PM

    Dwell on the good, the positive. the changes you seek are already complete.... but you just cannot yet see them..align your will with that of God as you seek him and trust me copy righted music and the fashion industry are exactly as they should be.....How do I know this....because it is as God wants it...why do i say this?...because "Nothing happens in Gods world by mistake absolutely nothing. Everything amd I mean everything you can imagine or concern yourself as it should be.To doubt this is to doubt God...we need concetrate on not so much what needs to changed (in copyright laws)but in me and in my attitudes

  2. Amen,Brother!
    I agree.

    And regarding this quote...
    " one presumes that they can own design elements such as the Dolman sleeve, the
    trench coat or the pearl neckline..."

    I'm so glad the "Nehru Jacket" isn't listed :}

    ps: Nice, classy, high blog, Jamie.
    Well Done!

  3. There is a lot to say about the entire idea of Copyrights not being a practical institution in the future. Keeping information sufficiently controlled depends on Artists and Executives outsmarting Computer Scientists at their own game. This doesn't seem like a fair match for them. But as a musician, I wouldn't morn the institution of intellectual property one bit. Making art for profit is not the historical norm. Recent years have been a profitable time for some art-forms, but the continuation of this intrinsically temporary condition is dependent on many factors that we can't continue to assume. The benefits of a so-called "free culture" are well evidenced. Consider how much better free Firefox and Linux are than for-profit Internet Explorer and Windows. The future is clearly open-source. (Devon)