What do you think?
Rate this book
Freedom of Expression: Resistance and Repression in the Age of Intellectual Property
Freedom of Expression® covers the ways in which intellectual property laws have been used to privatize all forms of expression—from guitar riffs and Donald Trump’s “you’re fired” gesture to human genes and public space—and in the process stifle creative expression. Kembrew McLeod challenges the blind embrace of privatization as it clashes against our right to free speech and shared resources. Kembrew McLeod is professor of communication studies at the University of Iowa, author of Owning Authorship, Ownership, and Intellectual Property Law, and coproducer of the documentary Copyright This Is a Sampling Sport. Lawrence Lessig is professor of law at Stanford Law School. This book’s documentary companion will be available through Media Education Foundation.
392 pages, Paperback
First published February 15, 2005
7 people are currently reading
300 people want to read
About the author
Kembrew McLeod
13 books42 followersKembrew McLeod is Associate Professor of Communication Studies at the University of Iowa. He is the author of Freedom of Expression: Resistance and Repression in the Age of Intellectual Property and Owning Culture: Authorship, Ownership, and Intellectual Property Law, and co-creator of the documentary film Copyright Criminals.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
April 24, 2009
People who never think about copyright issues at all should read this book, because the avalanche of facts and anecdotes will crush your ability to deny that we have a serious problem with our intellectual property laws and their enforcement in this country. You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll write your congressman. Seriously, read it. It's a great book for undergrads.
However, if you're already convinced, if you're already a member of the opposition, if you already have a clue ... well, McLeod has a million stories and you probably have heard half of them, and the other half are more of the same. And also he knows a lot of pop stars. And he'll sort of ramble from each story to the next in a free-associated stream of academic-hip cleverness, throwing a new paragraph indentation in every now and then to disguise the fact that this writing in fact has no structure at all, and a poorly delineated thesis.
Which is too bad, because he has some very nuanced views of not just the problems of copyright, but also some reasonable-sounding and very specific solutions. And it's not even that his views are poorly argued, they're just buried, in a cluttered, messy book. Probably if he's your professor in college and gives lectures like this, it's mind-blowing. But a book needs to have a purpose and a structure, if it wants to make a difference.
However, if you're already convinced, if you're already a member of the opposition, if you already have a clue ... well, McLeod has a million stories and you probably have heard half of them, and the other half are more of the same. And also he knows a lot of pop stars. And he'll sort of ramble from each story to the next in a free-associated stream of academic-hip cleverness, throwing a new paragraph indentation in every now and then to disguise the fact that this writing in fact has no structure at all, and a poorly delineated thesis.
Which is too bad, because he has some very nuanced views of not just the problems of copyright, but also some reasonable-sounding and very specific solutions. And it's not even that his views are poorly argued, they're just buried, in a cluttered, messy book. Probably if he's your professor in college and gives lectures like this, it's mind-blowing. But a book needs to have a purpose and a structure, if it wants to make a difference.
November 4, 2008
The subtitle “overzealous copyright bozos and other enemies of creativity“ aptly describes this missive against current trends in intellectual property law that media prankster Kembrew McLeod has launched with this thought-provoking and often humorous book.
A central premise of McLeod’s book is that an erosion of the creative commons by continually expanding copyright and patent legislation, rather than encouraging artistic and scientific innovation, has actually had the opposite effect. Moreover, the encroachment of private interests on the public domain via this expanding legislation has made it prohibitively expensive to perform scientific research and cheapened our culture.
Copyright and patent laws were legislative tools originally conceived to foster creativity. The laws allowed the creators of cultural and technological artifacts to exclusive profits for a fixed period of time. Afterwards, the works would enter the public domain, where they could be built upon by the next generation.
McLeod describes how folk musician and political activist Woody Guthrie freely borrowed melodies and lyrics from existing folk and show tunes for his compositions. Many of these tunes were only a few years old at the time Guthrie incorporated them into his music, yet this was not seen as theft. Artists of his era implicitly recognized the concept of the information commons – that they could build upon existing melodies to create something novel. In fact, this methodology goes back to nineteenth century classical music, where composers like Mahler and Dvorak used folk melodies as a basis for many of their symphonic compositions.
Woody Guthrie has been dead for 40 years, and many of his songs are well over 60 years old. Ironically, the current holders of his copyright have been very litigious in their pursuance of any perceived transgression against their “right” to his music. They fail to recognize how the genesis of these songs relied on a freely available pool of existing melodies, rhythms, and lyrics – a creative commons – that they in turn are slowly eroding. The result is that current copyright legislation no longer encourages creativity, but destroys it.
McLeod looks at the effects this erosion of the public sphere in a wide range of areas: sampling and collage in music, trademarks in biotechnology, the use of lawsuits to curtail fair use, and the copyright of common sayings.
There are long-reaching ramifications, including the curtailing of free speech and democratic institutions. If the Watergate scandal occurred this century, could it have been made public, given that documentation produced by outsourced private entities is not freely available? How could the results of voting machines, produced by and managed by private corporations, be independently verified if they are under private control? These and many other troubling issues are raised in this incisive analysis of unchecked greed.
A central premise of McLeod’s book is that an erosion of the creative commons by continually expanding copyright and patent legislation, rather than encouraging artistic and scientific innovation, has actually had the opposite effect. Moreover, the encroachment of private interests on the public domain via this expanding legislation has made it prohibitively expensive to perform scientific research and cheapened our culture.
Copyright and patent laws were legislative tools originally conceived to foster creativity. The laws allowed the creators of cultural and technological artifacts to exclusive profits for a fixed period of time. Afterwards, the works would enter the public domain, where they could be built upon by the next generation.
McLeod describes how folk musician and political activist Woody Guthrie freely borrowed melodies and lyrics from existing folk and show tunes for his compositions. Many of these tunes were only a few years old at the time Guthrie incorporated them into his music, yet this was not seen as theft. Artists of his era implicitly recognized the concept of the information commons – that they could build upon existing melodies to create something novel. In fact, this methodology goes back to nineteenth century classical music, where composers like Mahler and Dvorak used folk melodies as a basis for many of their symphonic compositions.
Woody Guthrie has been dead for 40 years, and many of his songs are well over 60 years old. Ironically, the current holders of his copyright have been very litigious in their pursuance of any perceived transgression against their “right” to his music. They fail to recognize how the genesis of these songs relied on a freely available pool of existing melodies, rhythms, and lyrics – a creative commons – that they in turn are slowly eroding. The result is that current copyright legislation no longer encourages creativity, but destroys it.
McLeod looks at the effects this erosion of the public sphere in a wide range of areas: sampling and collage in music, trademarks in biotechnology, the use of lawsuits to curtail fair use, and the copyright of common sayings.
There are long-reaching ramifications, including the curtailing of free speech and democratic institutions. If the Watergate scandal occurred this century, could it have been made public, given that documentation produced by outsourced private entities is not freely available? How could the results of voting machines, produced by and managed by private corporations, be independently verified if they are under private control? These and many other troubling issues are raised in this incisive analysis of unchecked greed.
Read
June 8, 2012Briefly: If you're already familiar with copyright foibles, this book isn't terribly revolutionary, but I appreciated the section on copyright and folk music. It's true that folk music is historically improvisational, borrows from preceding works, and is public/communal in spirit, not privatized. As McLeod points out, this same attitude can be found in the blues and hip hop, making it all the more strange when copyright holders freak out over sampling.
March 29, 2007
i really enjoyed the parts on music and copyright. a fan of folk music, i had never really considered how that genre would have been affected had copyright law existed earlier. also, i hadn't given much thought to the impact copyright law has had on hip hop, it's completely changed that genre of music.
July 12, 2009
I'm not certain Kembrew is the writer all the creative commonistas have been waiting for, but this is perfectly readable on material and verve alone. There's the hobbyist irregularity of a Greil Marcus book, but also the trainhopping enthusiasm of investigative poetics: compost, samples, station-to-station mischief, zigzag wanderlust.
October 12, 2009
This book should be more widely read and discussed, because it pinpoints so eloquently the issues we're facing in the digital age about the "ownership" of information. What McLeod discusses in this book will be issues of debate for quite some time.
November 2, 2011
I simply adore this book. McLeod has a fantastic sense of humor, is massively knowledgable about his subject material, and it's a great combination for learning something that's usually pretty daunting!
February 4, 2011
Hilarious and horrifying at the same time. The current copyright situation in this country should terrify everyone in their right mind. Very entertaining and informative. Drags toward the middle with an over abundance of music industry-related anecdotes, but still a good read.
October 16, 2013
While the author has some excellent points to make, he does go on and on, too often with anecdotes, rather than providing more substantial evidence, which I believe exists. Also, the examples are now rather dated, even if the issues remain perennial.
January 22, 2008
Has some interesting historical vignettes on the interplay of copyright law and artistic creation, but not as good as Lessig's Free Culture.
October 31, 2008
Amazing book. I could quote the whole thing. American trademark and copyright law have moved far from their origins and are terribly destructive in their current form.
Want to read
May 18, 2009Check out author of WQ review on same topic
June 7, 2010
Interesting look at copyright and it's relationship to freedom of expression.
May 14, 2013
Worth reading, though at times, a little too anecdotal.
October 5, 2016
Very well written discussion of intellectual property issues. Snarky when it needs to be, funny when it needs to be, but always smart and well backed up. Great stuff.
June 12, 2014
Enjoyable, informative, and more impoartant eye opening.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews