"The fixation need not be directly perceptible so long as it may be communicated with the aid of a machine or device." (2)
What the hell does that mean? Is that meant to include grooves in a record, electronic files, etc.?
I wonder about how copyright, with its focus on things being "fixed," interact with the constantly changing world of the Internet, where almost nothing is "fixed" in a traditional sense? The article said copyright applies to works in progress in that the part done is the part copyrighted. But that presupposes some final, fixed state that we're just working toward. What if that's not part of the plan -- what if continued evolution is the plan?
Even that question isn't something radically new: how many editions did Leaves of Grass go through as love-of-my-life Walt Whitman revised it throughout his life? And what if he'd had fans, or apprentices, to keep revising past his death? At what point can you say something is really "fixed"?
Or "published," for that matter? That was fascinating: apparently, publication has to do with distribution by transfer of ownership (or rental, lending, etc.) to the public. I'd never thought about the word that way: public-ation. But what if nobody wants your books? What if, a la AOL CDs of the late 90s, you can hardly give them away as coasters? If no one buys or borrows your work, can you really be said to have published it? Totally irrelevant, but interesting.
Y'all are the best!
14 years ago
I think you hit the nail on the head. Copyright law emerged out of and attempted to govern creative work bound to a largely print-centric culture. Thus the issue of what happens when print and other forms of expression go digital is really something copyright hasn't come to terms with yet.
ReplyDeleteThe issue you raise about how do you copyright material that is not really fixed is interesting. Copyright seems to me to be anchored to the need for personal identity, a recognition of originality in a sense. The proliferation of words on the web really raises questions about originality, about singularity. Will the individual voice be subsumed into the vast pool of Wiki's? Of affinity groups? Of a community of writers? With the fan fiction sites, I do see the concern of the originators--both book and movie producers. At what point does one draw the line? I think domain has to be respected. Like your point about dissolution of writing in an earlier blog, could the same thing happen or is it happening? Is identity of authorship dissolving?
ReplyDeleteTom