Basskin’s Little Thought

Recently the TV program  The Agenda featured a debate (free on their website) entitled Copyright and Intellectual Property: Whose Rights? Whose Property?  The show featured David Basskin (Counsel to the Canadian Music Publishers Association), Michael Geist (Canada Research chair of Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa), Mathew Ingram (Business and Technology writer for The Globe and Mail), and  Robert Thompson (Canadian Correspondent for Billboard Magazine). The debate centered around the escalating impact of various forms of protest which resulted  in the delayed introduction of new copyright  legislation in Canada.    In particular the debate focussed on the formation of the Facebook group Fair Copyright for Canada.  As of this writing, the Facebook group numbers 31,000 members. While the Facebook group is significant the core issue still remains that of copyright

After dismissing the Facebook group and presuming that they (we) know nothing about copyright, Basskin then states;

”It’s a complex subject, let me reduce it down to a little thought experiment.  This is a piece of manuscript paper and you’ll observe that there’s nothing on here, just some lines and staves and some treble and base clefts. I’m going to leave it here with a pencil for the duration of our chat and see if at the end a song has appeared, because there are some people who would have you believe that they just write themselves.  Well, we’ll see.”

His little thought  experiment  seems to me to be just that, an experiment made up of little thought. I think the point he is trying to make is this… someone picks up a pencil, composes something, writes it on the manuscript paper and that person should then be paid.  His little experiment is problematic and symptomatic,  It is problematic in that  it supports opposing points better than it makes his own point, and symptomatic in that it clearly illustrates a complete lack of understanding of the creative process.

Firstly, musical notation on a manuscript paper is just one way of creating and notating music, but clearly not the only way. Music is a collection of sounds and these sounds can be collected and shared in a variety of ways. Sampling sounds and compiling them on a computer is another way.

Secondly, when waving the manuscript paper in the air, Basskin says,  “there’s nothing there”.   Yet when I see this same manuscript paper I see an inherent system of notation evolved over centuries by musicians, scholars, theorists; I see a language that enables composers  to communicate their thoughts to other composers and musicians in a meaningful and universal way.  A system of universal notation that  enables an infinite amount of creativity to be expressed in a manner that is understood by a vast audience. A system that is free. The idea that this system is free to use by anyone does not mean it is valueless.  In fact, by his action, Basskin inadvertently demonstrates that composers do not create from the void;  they are reliant on and build upon centuries of tradition.  They use that which is already there.

The third point is this; by the end of the show Basskin had already lost his own bet.  The ‘blank’ manuscript document he waved in the air contained not one but three compositions.  Alphonse Allais’  “Funeral March for the Last Rites of a Deaf Man”;  the John Cage composition ‘4:33′;  and the Mike Batts composition  “One minute of Silence”.   All three compositions  consist of ’silence’, and incorporate no ‘notes’ per se.  Certainly anyone involved in copyright law and music publishing must be aware of  the 2002 legal battle featuring the  Mike Batt v John Cage Estate in the UK . Composer Mike Batt settled out of court over  his composition  “One Minute of Silence” which  infringed on the John Cage composition ‘4:33′.    The settlement was for an undisclosed six figure sum (pounds sterling).  The suit was patently absurd.  Not absurd because of the music, ( I am a great admirer of John Cage).  It was absurd because it is very clear that John Cage would never have sued Mike Batt had Cage been alive.  It was absurd because the whole point of ‘4:33′…and the importance and power of the John Cage work is trivialized, not by the actions of Mike Batt but by the actions of the John Cage estate and the legal suit. 

Later, in the TV programme (and in same dismissive tone we hear throughout) Basskin, describes ‘the issue’  as being between those ”who support creativity and those who believe things should be free”.  This is the type of disingenuous, simplistic nonsense that does nothing to move the dialogue forward.  I am a creator, I support creativity.  Copyright as it exists retards my abilty to create.   Further restrictions will make this situation worse and yes I think some things should be free.  Access to culture is one of the cornerstones of our society.  

footnote
The CMPA claim to represent composers, yet their website contradicts this. Exhibiting the music industry ‘our cup is half empty and fans are bad’ approach to reporting, the CMPA choose to describe a successful experiment in downloading music with the headline “Radiohead Record Worth $0 To Fans – Study Shows” and yet Thom Yorke of Radiohead sees the project very differently.

In terms of digital income, we’ve made more money out of this record than out of all the other Radiohead albums put together, forever — in terms of anything on the Net. And that’s nuts. It’s partly due to the fact that EMI wasn’t giving us any money for digital sales. All the contracts signed in a certain era have none of that stuff.