Sampling Lawsuits Continue

As reported in a number of places, Drive-In Music has been bringing copyright infringement suits related to songs produced and distributed in the early 1990s. Overviews of the situation can be found at http://www.allhiphop.com/stories/news/archive/2010/09/13/22385540.aspx.

For the suit against Leaders of the New School, the conplaint can be found at
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/09/07/HipHop.pdf.

The complaint in the case against Cypress Hill can be found at http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/09/13/Tunes.pdf.

What interests me in this case - and is probably interesting more generally - is Drive-In Music is claiming that they were not aware of the infringement for nearly 20 years. The statute of limitations in copyright infringement cases is three years from the date of the infringement. (See 17 U.S.C.A. sec 507). Recent cases about sampling disputes, such as Williams v. Curington 662 F. Supp 2d 33 (DDC 2009) have held that diligent copyright owners have a duty to protect their rights. Courts, however, have allowed copyright owners to re-coup damages from the previous three years before filing. I suspect that the court will eventually limit any damages to the last three years.

I do wonder if Apple or Amazon (co-defendants in these cases) will be able to find success in that they that had relied, in effect, on the "tolling" of the statute of limitations and should be protected against any lawsuits.

For hip-hop studies, these cases are reminders the extent to which hip-hop, and the role of deejays, was forced to change radically because of how copyright get applied to hip-hop.

For those interested in intellectual property law, it shows how the current IP regime actually harms innovation and rewards copyright trolling rather than creative activity.

Homework as an end in itself

Because I increasingly believe that college ought to be as much about instilling certain habits of mind as it is reaching levels of proficiency or knowledge, I find myself assigning and grading more homework assignments than ever before. I like written homework because it forces students to keep up with the reading and come to class prepared. Class discussions are better and students tend to say all or most of the interesting things that I was planning on saying. My job then is more about organizing their analysis and/or supplementing their comments with additional and background information.

Homework also allows me to provide some regular feedback about progress. While this feedback cannot be too detailed, I can save students from significant errors and give them lots of positive encouragement.

I have come to believe that regular homework might be more important than tests or papers. The one challenge with this is helping students understand that the homework is for them, not me. What I mean by this, is students occasionally want to turn in the homework late (after we have had class discussion), submit it by e-mail (rather than bring it to class), or turn it all in at once. In these conversations, they sometimes suggest that the most important thing about homework is that I get to grade it. I try to tell them that homework is their way to see if they are getting the gist of things and heading in the right direction. It also allows them to formulate their ideas so that class is more meaningful and their paper ideas can germinate longer.

In other words, homework is not really a "means" for me to grade their progess, but an end itself. Doing it, being prepared for class, askig questions by yourself, formulating your opinions before class discussion and creating good work habits is the "end." I have come to realize that by my grading it, I increas the likelihood of instilling the habit.

Justin Bua

Justin Bua is featured at The Source this month. See the article and the slide show at http://www.thesource.com/articles/20250/Groundbreaking-and-Internationally-Known-Artist...Justin-Bua/.

It is great to see his work getting featured. I like how the article focuses on his work in design and advertising, in addition to his canvas work. Bua's work really brings a hip-hop sensibility to a wide range of visual arts. I hope that some art historians and other visual culture types begin looking at his work and considering how he blends realism and irony in his work. I think he fits within the post-soul aesthetic and he shares some traits with Kehinde Wiley, Kerry Marshall, and Ellen Gallagher.

The Allegory of the Cave Re-visited

One of the nice parts about being a college professor is that I get to re-read Plato's "Allegory of the Cave" every fall with my freshmen class. While the selection we read is fairly short (only about 7 pages), it remains such a provocative piece. I am looking forward to what the class has to say tomorrow.

What really struck me today is how Plato is both deeply committed to truth and the obligation to share that truth with your fellow citizens. This idea remains revolutionary (and such a popular metaphor) because it refuses to accept popular, easy, or conventional answers. Moreover, the Republic is anything but sentimental, romantic, or patriotic as it places truth and wisdom above a fake or illusory common sense consensus. I wonder how our factured poliltics would look (e.g. the Mosque controversy or the Glenn Beck rally) if folks really applied Plato's approach.

Do yourself a favor and re-read it!

Mosque Controversy

I have not really waded into the NYC mosque controversy because I don't really know all the facts. It does seem like there are a couple of potential critical thinking problems with the reasoning of those opposed to the mosque (This is not say that the other side is not making some of its own errors).

First, it seems like that many commentators and people are equating Al Queda with all Muslims. While Al Queda claims to be a Muslim group, a very small percentage (less than a percent) of Muslims are connected with Al Queda. In a related vein, many are confusing the fact that some (again a very small percentage) Muslims advocate for a version of Jihad that is defined by political and violent confrontations with the idea that ALL Muslims hold similar values. The Imam in the center of this controversy is a Sufi. I don't claim to know everything about this form of Islam but I do know that it is distinct from the Sunni, Shiite, and Wahabism. It seems like critics of the mosque out to demonstrate some familiarity with the immense variety of versions of Islam.

Second, it seems like many folks who oppose the mosque do so on the grounds that it is an affront to "American" values and the memory of the victims. From what I have read, 10% of those who died in the WTC disaster were Muslim. For some reason, their memory does not seem to part of this discussion. Also, it seems like somehow people are forgetting that Muslims can be "Americans." Again from what I have read somewhere between 2.5 and 8 million Muslims are live and are citizens of the U.S. On its face, it seems contradictory to somehow suggest that these folks do not possess "American" values.

Third, just because an individual - in this case Al Queda terrorists - does something, it does not necessarily follow that they did so for religious reasons. For example, just because Christians or Jews regularly commit murders, rapes, and thefts in the U.S., it does not follow that these individuals did so out of religious reasons. While Al Queda frequently relies on religious symbols and rhetoric, Al Queda is much more of a political organization than a religious one. Its leaders are not called imams because they are not really focused on religious per se but pursuing a particular political projecte (albeit a very dangerous and violent one).

Fourth, as the picture above notes, there are many other potentially more demeaning buildings and businesses around the WTC than this mosque. I am not sure how pubs, strip clubs, fast-food joints, and lingerie shops help memorize the victims of this tragedy. It seems a bit idiosyncratic to attack this mosque if you are not going at these other businesses as well.

Fifth, I keep hearing that the Imam has potential radical ties with and/or has not been critical enough of certain groups (e.g. Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood). After doing some web searching, I cannot imagine someone who has a greater history of inter-faith dialogue and a geniune connection to Lower Manhattan. Given his extensive political ties to both parties, he seems like precisely the kind of Islamic leader than many politicians have been asking for! I believe I read that he has led services for something like 20 years in that area. This is not some "fly by night" operation, nor does he appear to use this space to be anti-American or to some denigrate the memories of the WTC bombings. Things are not adding up for me here as I would think that some folks would like that "moderate Islam" is trying to challenge "radical Islam" and present a model for how to be good "Islamic Americans."

While there might be a debate about its location (Are four or ten blocks a better "buffer"than 2?), I guess I am having hard time to see any nuanced argument why a pretty moderate Muslim group shouldn't be able to build a community center in Lower Manhattan. The arguments against the mosque don't seem to add up, especially when I consider that much of this criticism has come from folks who tend to want the United States to endorse or support religion more frequently. Frankly,I would think most Americans would prefer a community center/house of worship there - no matter the religion - more than the New York Dolls Strip Club or an Off-Track Betting Site. (BTW, I believe there was a Dunkin' Donuts across the street or within 2 blocks from the Holocaust memorial in Berlin in 2006!)

I also think that the fact this Imam has held services there before and after the WTC attack - with little fanfare or controversy - leads me to believe that this controversy is probably more manufactured than anything else and more an artifact of other partisan debates in American culture than anything else.

Innovation and its Inverse Relation to Intellectual Property Law

A friend forwarded me an interesting article from Spiegel Online, which can be be found at http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,710976,00.html. It basically argues that German innovation exploded in the 19th century because its relative lack of copyright allowed ideas to flourish and grow, enabling its industrial revolution. The article contrasts Germany with Britain whose relatively strong copyright laws allowed printer monopolies caused books to cost more. If the author would have included the United States in his analysis, he would have likely noted how the American Industrial Revolution was highly dependent on that relative laxity of copyright and trademark in the young republic.

I also think there is something interesting here in relation to the Ipad, the kindle, and other e-book readers. I have wanted to buy one but I have hesitated because I am not sure which format will work best for my combination of scholarly, textbook, and pleasure reading. As content (i.e. books) gets cheaper, it seems like there is a greater corporate investment in intellectual property law regimes that confer monopolies to their owners. The result is that picking an e-reader limits your reading rather than unleashing it. It seems like the growth in I.P. law might be hindering the flourishing ideas. Of course, I am not the first person to oberve this. Nonetheless, I just keep seeing the negative effects of IP laws expansion!

Analysis and Application vs. Critical Thinking

Students, faculty, administrators, critics of higher education, and its proponents all seem to be questioning everything about higher education from its cost and public funding to the future of tenure and shift toward more professional majors. While many things underlie these debates, one unspoken issue is whether universities should be teaching students to become skilled in applying or analyzing a fairly narrow range of issues or problems that relate to a particular field (sometimes called a major) or become good communicators, critical thinkers, and engaged citizens (what Andrew Mills calls the swiss army approach to education - see http://faculty.otterbein.edu/Amills/MillsCollegeEssay.html).



Of course, by framing things in this way, I have created a false binary. The reality is more complex than this simplistic either/or. However, the public dialogue seems to also rely on this binary when approaching the question of the purpose of higher education, mostly because the graduates skilled in certain kinds of analysis or application possess identifiable and relatively easy to market skills.



Consider professional majors, such as accounting, architecture, or education. These majors claim to provide students with the ability to apply basic principles in those fields. While many folks have tried to get these fields to focus on communication, citizenship, and critical thinking, the meat and potatoes classes in these majors are focused on how to solve concrete problems facing practitioners and function as members of the profession. Moreover, based on what I have heard from my traditional-aged students is that they like this kind of "hands on" focus. To succeed in these programs, students need to learn how to analyze problems and how to apply. From my own experience in law school, developing the ability to "think like a lawyer" was probably the most difficult academic task I ever experienced and made graduate school relatively "easy" by comparision to law school.



Yet, this is not the same thing as becoming a critical thinker. A critical thinker goes beyond analysis or application and interrogates the existing categories, structures, paradigms, and procedures. (I don't want to rehash all the great stuff about critical thinking at criticalthinking.org/. Their stuff is great - you should check it out). A critical thinker respects the immense value of being able to apply a concept or engage in a specific kind of analysis, but also explores the limits of a given paradigm or approach. Critical thinking considers the approach's assumptions and consequences. It looks for what gets omitted or neglected. It also asks questions about who benefits from the standard approach.



My own journey to a Ph.D. in American Studies, I think, reflects my allegiance to a broad area of inquiry over a specific disciplinary allegiance. In other words, by choosing an interdisciplinary program, I explicitly rejected the idea that only one method, discipline, or paradigm can produce adequate knowledge. For better or worse, this has left me a "jack of many trades but master of none." I realize that not everyone shares my assumptions or my values, so I hesitate to foist it upon the masses.



That being said, I find it odd that many partisans in the debates about higher education want higher education to become an either/or kind of place where students either analysis/application or critical thinking. From my point of view, the application/analysis seems to be winning this debate, but I think at a huge cost. I am not sure that we can afford to focus only analysts or folks specializing in application. On the other hand, focusing on critical thinking or citizenship without some sort of specialized skill or knowledge does not produce the kind of creativity, entreprenurial sprirt, or engage citizens we need. It seems like we need to create institutions of higher education that can do both and do both well.

For students, I think this means coming to grips with the fact that college is both about learning employable skills and the awareness about their limitations and/or flaws. As I tell my students, high school is about identifying the difference between "black" and "white," while college is about navigativing in the "grey area."

For professors, administrators, and pundits, embracing the difference between analysis and critical thinking and valuing both is probably the only way to strengthen our institutions and help students achieve their goals.