Is Dave Chappelle the Metallica of Comedy?
- Chief Noise Maker
- Dec 22, 2020
- 3 min read
In the past month, Dave Chappelle released a special where he discusses not being properly paid for the use of Chappelle show. He begs fans to boycott the Chappelle Show. This soon to be forgotten episode, claws back memories of Metallica suing Napster. It is undeniable that Chappelle's plea was effective, as the Chappelle Show has been pulled from platforms such as Netflix and others. The question I can't get away from each time an artist "fights the good fight" of "Intellectual Property" is simply: Does the artist actually own any property?
Intellectual Property really relates all the way back to a more agricultural society. Our intellectual property laws seem to be rooted in the very concept of physical property. Ownership of property can be transferred from one person to another. For instance, when I sell my home. However, intellectual property does not have this fundamental quality. When an idea, melody, joke, or "intellectual property" is given from one person to another both individuals end up with the property. Another point of contention is the fact that Chappelle Show was not a solo effort. The show carried Chappelle's name, but he was not the only person who wrote and acted on the show. While we have no idea how other show members contracts were structured, the idea that Chappelle is the sole creator and owner of the digital content is not accurate. So who is the owner at that point?
I can guarantee you numerous people have retold Chapelle jokes to friends, family, and co-workers. Another example from years ago is when Stevie Ray Vaughan attended a Jimi Hendrix concert and the following night played a version of Jimi's new song from the night before. This copying was homage to Jimi, and we are all the better that Jimi Hendrix didn't serve Stevie Ray Vaughan with papers right on the spot. Should Chappelle, Metallica, or other artists go after each individual? Undoubtedly, most will fail to retell the joke or play the song with the same timing, expression, and skill as the original artist. Does this subtle transformation make it the persons own? Or does it still 100% belong to the artist. There is a lot to be gained when creatives see all of us as creatives who are seeking inspiration to raise our game just like they are.
At the end of the day, technology is the ultimate culprit. Technology allows for us to have the concept of "owning" a piece of art. But technology has the natural bias to make copies of everything it captures. Imagine how many copies of Chappelle Show are copied on servers all over the world. This strange phenomena means that technology ultimately makes all digital media a commodity given enough time. Commodities tend towards a value of zero over time. Commodities have their most value when they are new and lots of attention are paid to them. Overtime the commodity becomes widely disbursed and available to the point of being like water. No one marvels at the "value" of water even when we literally can't live without it.
So what in the world did poor poor artists like Mozart or Beethoven do before the technology to record beyond just plain old sheet music? Let's think about just how of a raw deal they got. Many of those artists essentially made money in a couple of ways. They taught rich people's kids to play music. They might have been supported by a wealthy person's patronage. They held concerts in people's homes or chambers. They might have been commissioned by a government or church to produce an artwork. In reality, all of these forms of making money still exist. In fact, they exist at a much larger scale than ever before. Artists can sell merchandise at concerts. They can receive patronage from fans directly online. They can hold live concerts in massive venues or even online zoom concerts.
It feels strange that artists are so committed to dying on the technological hill of digital recordings. Artists would be much better served by recognizing that the past, present and future is all about experiences. They are being paid for providing experiences not digital content. The digital content is a combination of relatively free marketing for live experiences and record of the artists prolific legacy. Even to this day Metallica's legacy is somewhat overcast by their ill fated lawsuit with Napster. I'm sure Chappelle will not suffer the same fate as he has asked for a boycott and not gone for a lawsuit that could adversely impact fans as the Metallica lawsuit did. Keeping potential fans away from their digital content seems like a strange misguided way of maintaining ownership of things that no one can truly own.
Comments