okay, this sermon should've come out 2 weeks ago. to be honest, i've been simply too enthralled with other creative projects to get around to writing it. last tuesday, for example, when i could've been opening up notepad to begin a new sermon, i instead couldn't draw myself away from my latest toy, a granular synthesis program called granulab. i was swept up getting to know the software intimately, like you would get to know a new lover. there are still many beautiful secrets there for me to explore, to rub my fingers along. i'm not going to apologize for the delay; i could, but it wouldn't be remotely sincere. i'm just going to point out that i could be playing around with the program now (in fact it's pretty tempting), but i'm not. i'm writing this instead.

in the past few weeks you might've heard about a little book called the wind done gone. it's a parody of gone with the wind, written from the point of view of the slaves, depicted in the original book as cheerful & carefree (just like anyone who's been robbed of their most fundamental rights). apparently the gone with the wind estate didn't care for it, because it somehow convinced a judge to grant an injunction against publishing the book on charges of copyright infringement.

now don't get me wrong; when i first heard about this i was struck violently ill with alienation regarding what you can convince judges to do (i always have to suspect that hot sex or large bribes are involved, because obviously the judge couldn't have been thinking). but at the same time i almost wasn't bothered at all, because the publisher was large enough to afford appealing the case, & there was simply no way the case could stand on appeal. so there really wasn't a point in getting outraged at the story & fly off the handle, which i have a tendency to do when it comes to first amendment cases.

quite simply, in the almost infinite void of gray that is copyright law, you couldn't find a more black&white issue than this parody case. the copyright has a quite clear provision for parody in the fair use clause. fair use might not be the strongest defense in all copyright infringement cases, but in regard to parody, it's been held up repeatedly by the higher courts, & by the supreme court at least twice that i can think of. in falwell v flint, the supremes ruled for flint, famous publisher of the usually innocuous magazine called hustler, stating in so many words that as grossed out as they were at the thought of revd jerry falwell losing his virginity to his mother in a drunken romp through the outhouse, flint was well within his first amendment rights by publishing an ad parody that said just that. not too many years later, they ruled in favor of the clean-cut hip-hop heroes 2 live crew, declaring that the crew did not have to pay roy orbison's estate for their searing, unauthorized parody of "pretty woman".

parody as an artform simply could not survive if parodists always had to get permission from their lampooning victim. the supreme court knows this; they might not have the best choice in presidents, but they didn't get to where they are by being clueless about the law. who's really going to give you permission to make fun of himr, outside of a friar's roast? some of the cooler, more easygoing people might, but not the people who really deserve to be made fun of. gwbush has already demonstrated long before the election that he doesn't like to be the butt of jokes (makes one wonder why he ran at all...). when asked for comment about a popular bush parody website, dubsy replied "i think there ought to be limits to freedom. there's a lot of garbage in politics, and that's all this guy is, a garbageman." you know he's probably killing himself over the fact that he can't put a stop to the comedy central sitcom that's my bush... regardless of whether he is stupid, his advisors are bright enough to know that speaking out about the show would be counterproductive to say the least. he probably doesn't watch tv at all anymore, for fear of flipping by a program mocking him. but i digress, & i was only trying to give an example.

so if ever there was a copyright case that should've been open&shut, this was it. there was so much precedent that only a judge getting the best orgasms of hisr life could've thought to actually order an injunction... that, or the judge was in cahoots in the publisher all along. maybe he knew that ordering the injunction would only stir up immediate international interest in the book, & that after the inevitable overturn, the controversy would sell far more copies than the book could've otherwise. i'm probably going to buy it. i'm not sure i'll even read it; i never read the original, & while this parody sounds like a far better book, i just don't have that much reading time. i'll probably just buy it as a trophy, as a terrific up-yours to those who've forgotten the entire point of copyright & are trying to turn it into a strongarm tactic to be wielded only by rich.

copyright was never about a dictatorial, micromanager level of control over every slip of a writer's pen or every breath out of a singer's mouth. copyright was created to promote the arts, not to censor the arts. art has always been based on theft. even shakespeare stole the plot for practically every play he wrote. it's like science; only by standing on the shoulders of those who came before can we hope to reach anywhere. copyright was supposed to be about preventing artists from getting screwed by people who would outright steal their livelihoods (much like the riaa does to artists now), so that my ex-roommate couldn't steal my master tapes, sell them to sony, & get millions by putting his name on my record. copyright was never supposed to be a moratorium on creative appropriation. one poet will steal a line from another to craft an entirely new poem. a tv sitcom will have a scene that oddly resembles the airport scene from casablanca, even going suddenly to black&white. a songwriter will sample a beat from james brown & play it back twice as fast. that is how art survives, & anyone who would try to make it illegal simply doesn't understand art (& thus has no business doing business in the art world).