AFF's Doublethink

Victor Morton — February 13, 2010 at 4:23 pm

I blame Vanilla Ice — no wait, Duchamp’s moustache.

Actually there is a distinction between those two that explains something. Duchamp in that he openly “plagiarizes” the Mona Lisa in order to comment on it (in a rather juvenile way, but that’s an artistic failure not a moral one). Duchamp is not stealing from Leonardo; indeed, his work presupposes the knowledge of Leonardo’s.

But a small-d democratic society, where people recognize no authority except himself (and a wanting is a warrant) that distinction between “commentary” and “use” was never going to last in practice because it requires a critical (and self-critical) vocabulary.

I actually think Hegemann is right in a certain — hers is a nihilistic generation that has no use for, and will find bad-faith justification against, anything that stands in the way of “I want —–”

Sonny Bunch — February 13, 2010 at 4:27 pm

I think the sense of entitlement is what gets me. It’s my main beef with the IP pirates: You will hear a certain portion of them argue “If the publisher makes this CD/ebook/DVD is too expensive, I will simply download it for free. Hey, it’s their fault for charging too much: The laws of economics state that this stuff should be free!” It kind of blows my mind that they think stealing is the appropriate recourse when a luxury item that they covet is too expensive. I honestly don’t know what to make of an ethos like that.

Julian Sanchez — February 14, 2010 at 4:07 pm

Actually, I was at the Free Culture X conference this weekend, and someone referenced the very article you quote (or “steal from,” if you prefer) as an obnoxious attempt to conscript FC rhetoric on behalf of plagiarism. Though it’s not nearly as pernicious as the far more common tendency to lazily apply the rhetoric of physical theft to the very different question of copyright infringement.

Sonny Bunch — February 15, 2010 at 11:16 am

Thanks for the (mildly catty) reply. A few thoughts:

–I think your word choice is kind of interesting…”obnoxious,” as opposed to wrong, or incorrect. I’d be interested in reading a full refutation of that young author’s attempt to couch her plagiarism in the broader context of “free culture” or “remix culture” if you could point one out. Because it seems to me that this is the logical endpoint when you make a stand against author rights in favor of freedom to recreate that author’s work any way any random person sees fit. If the author doesn’t matter, then why does it matter if you steal* their words.

–If you could point to an instance of me arguing against fair use as it is commonly understood — quoting from a story, parody, etc. — I’d appreciate it. Otherwise “quote” will work just fine instead of “steal from.”

–I suppose perniciousness is in the eye of the beholder, but do you really think that describing the taking, making use of, and enjoying of an item that is produced explicitly to be purchased** without paying for that thing as stealing* is really as pernicious as an author being praised for plagiarizing?

*steal: 1 a : to take or appropriate without right or leave … c : to take surreptitiously or without permission.

**In other words, if someone wants to give their production away on YouTube, fine, it’s their’s to do with as they please; if someone wants their production to be paid for and another person uploads it to YouTube for free then it’s not fine, because it’s not that second person’s intellectual property to upload. In other words, noncommercial vs. commercial culture.

Julian Sanchez — February 15, 2010 at 1:51 pm

Plagiarism is primarily an offense against the reader, not the source. I don’t think anyone imagines it would make the slightest difference, qua plagiarism, whether the original was published two years ago or two centuries. Or, for that matter, if the plagiarist has found a brilliant story spontaneously emerging by sheer coincidence on a strip of magnetic tape and claimed credit for it. Plagiarism is an offense of deception. Quotation with attribution may or may not be infringing, but it is never plagiarism. And I am not seeing anyone but the author herself claiming that her deception is defensible, either by appeal to the principles of remix culture or any other.

And yes, it is more pernicious, because it contaminates discussion of copyright policy with the paradigm of physical property, with consequences for social welfare dramatically more destructive than a few undeserved laurels for some German poppet. Watch archive footage of Jack Valenti debating copyright sometime; sane discussion of the appropriate balance between private incentives and the public domain is totally precluded by his unshakable (though ultimately unargued) insistence that IP rules must precisely resemble physical property rules.

Mark — February 15, 2010 at 3:55 pm

To me, the defining characteristic of plagiarism is the lack of attribution, not the use of someone else’s work in your own. Without attribution, you’re passing someone else’s work off as your own, even if you’ve heavily altered it or appended to it. With attribution, you’re creating a derivative work, to be sure, but it’s still legitimate. I’m certainly no expert in “remix culture” but to me, the best examples are the ones that can distinguish themselves from their sources. For instance, Danger Mouse never hid his sources on the Grey Album (then again, how could he?), but that album has certainly been met with critical success, and it has its own identity despite being a mashup of The Beatles and Jay Z. Of course, it’s completely “illegal” too, but I think it’s a good representation of remix culture.

I don’t think there’s anything “wrong” with the Grey Album from an artistic sense because it clearly acknowledges its sources and it adds to or extends what already exists. From a legal standpoint, it’s wrong because it used copyrighted material without permission (or without the appropriate clearances, etc…), which is a distinction that probably should be made here.

Ms. Hegemann, on the other hand, did not attribute her sources, and I do think there’s something wrong with that. If she had, I think a better argument could be made for her representing remix culture… but since she didn’t, I think it probably represents some sort of plagarism…

Victor Morton — February 16, 2010 at 12:58 pm

Plagiarism is primarily an offense against the reader, not the source.

If that’s the case, then Ms. Hegemann is correct, simpliciter. After all, the reader unfamiliar with the original (and that would be pretty much “all” in her case) couldn’t possibly be offended or wronged if he is unaware that plagiarism is occurring. Further, the very fact that the plagiarism was only partial is exactly what puts her work in the remix category.

Further, you simply cannot isolate contempt or relativize taboos. If we decide as a matter of principle that copyright doesn’t create real property rights because it’s not physical stuff like a donut … and on that basis decide copyright can be infringed, the cavalierness needed to plagiarize others’ copyright (not doing it presupposes a respect for others’ property) is merely an i-dot or t-cross away.

I am not seeing anyone but the author herself claiming that her deception is defensible

For now …

What defines a society is “the matters it considers debatable” and “the premises it absolutely accepts,” not how it acts on those debatable matters. There was a time (before the first time I heard “Ice Ice Baby”) when remix culture was considered contemptible per se (I remember having that reaction and its being a thoroughly ordinary one). Now the remix culture isn’t and we merely debate its bounds.

Like “plagiarism” …

yes, it is more pernicious, because it contaminates discussion of copyright policy with the paradigm of physical property

One man’s contamination is another man’s food. Ms. Hegemann’s case is precisely relevant because it’s where the refusal to acknowledge real property in copyright must end.