Knowing Copyright and Pretending Knowing Copyright

The first piece I will post on the WPU Music Dept. Blog is an adaptation of the beginning of a plenary address I gave to the Music Library Association. I began that presentation by starting with my conclusion. Placing the conclusion at the beginning caused a mild shock as the statements initially seemed bold. In addition to bold, they concluding statements needed to be discussed further. I discussed them further at my MLA Plenary Address but will not do that here. Maybe I’ll expound upon these points over time on future blog posts.

I formally learned the “start-with-the-ending” trick from a lawyer I was working with in a copyright case in Dallas. She asked me if I would mind inserting my conclusion at the beginning and calling it the “Bottom Line.” I loved her suggestion! This Bottom-Line-at-the-top is something a judge will usually value as she/he can understand our (the Defendant’s) point quickly and read on to determine if what follows adequately supports our side. In addition to being the name of one of my favorite Art Ensemble of Chicago’s recordings, the “Bottom Line” makes sense to me and every time I can use the Bottom Line in Court, since the time I first did in that case, McKinley v. Raye et al in the Northern District of Texas, I do.

So, here is my Bottom Line:

The basic points:

We need to know the U. S. Copyright Act.

We need to fake like we know the U. S. Copyright Act.

We have to have opinions on the U. S. Copyright Act.

Let’s pretend these opinions are based on intelligent analysis.

Let’s give of these opinions when asked.

Let’s act confidently.

And MOST IMPORTANTLY we have to err on the correct side in copyright issues. The correct side is the U. S. Constitution.

Copyright is primarily for the benefit of library patrons and not library authors. Authors and inventors are important but their needs HAVE TO BE secondary to the needs of the public. Copyright creators are given a monopoly so that the public domain will be enriched. And these creators and inventors would not be so good if they did not have a rich public domain to inspire them.

Now, just a few more basic points and conclusions, and then I’ll start demonstrating points using music, video and visuals (as well as more talking/writing).

We act ethically, not legally.

We break the U. S. Copyright Act.

We will continue to break the U. S. Copyright Act.

We will continue to respect the U. S. Copyright Act.

When we do not perfectly understand the U. S. Copyright Act we need to be daring and err on the side of the U. S. Constitution.

These statements likely require more words, but they won’t happen now. To be continued….

E. Michael Harrington