In 2006, the Danish tabloid Ekstra Bladet investigated the links between the Icelandic bank Kaupthing and tax havens. Kaupthing’s managers did not like what they read, but failed to persuade the Danish press council that the paper had done anything wrong. The bank sued for libel in London instead. The newspaper pulled the articles and apologised because English lawyers ran up costs that were beyond its editor’s worst nightmares – £1 million, and that was before a case had gone to court.

Kaupthing went for the paper in England not just because it wanted to kill the original story, but because it also wanted to deter others from spreading the idea that Iceland was not a safe place for investors. The English legal profession obliged. Newspapers’ lawyers thought once, twice, one hundred times before authorising critical stories. A few months later Kaupthing collapsed – along with the other entrepreneurial, go-ahead Icelandic banks – and British depositors lost £3.5 billion. By allowing libel tourists to fly to London and use our repressive laws, the English legal profession had also stopped the British investors from learning of the danger in investing in the country’s banks.

You no more hear writers and broadcasters admit that they are frightened of investigating investment banks than you hear them admit that they are frightened of challenging the founding myths of Islam. We cannot puncture our own myth that we are fearless seekers after truth, even though, if we honestly owned up to our limitations, we might force society to confront the fact that modern censorship does not conform to old models. It is a mistake to think of repression as repression by the state alone. In much of the world it still is, but in Britain, America and most of continental Europe the age of globalisation has done its work, and it is privatised rather than state forces that threaten freedom of speech.

This passion for freedom of expression is part of what drives my passion on behalf of appropriation artists and against Patrick Cariou in his copyright infringement case against Richard Prince. One of Cariou’s purported motivations in bringing the lawsuit was to vindicate the offense taken by the Rastafari (the subjects of Cariou’s photographs that were appropriated by Prince) at Prince’s images. As the Caribbean Rastafari Organization put it in its “Statement of Protest and Demand for Cancellation” of Prince’s exhibit:

[Prince's exhibit] is egregiously disrespectful of Rastafari culture and peoples, and reflects racial stereotyping that is morally offensive and that has no place in the 21st century. So-called artistic license cannot permit the trivialization and abuse of a people still marginalized by race and gender to evoke images of subordination and exploitation of Africans and women. This is a legacy of the European colonial enterprise that continues to have a negative impact on African peoples in the Americas and it is a legacy that the Rastafari have resisted and condemned for nearly 80 years. Rastafari at the vanguard of Pan-African Liberation ceaselessly demanding justice based on truth and right, find the Canal Zone exhibit distasteful, insensitive, insulting and totally unacceptable.

Smolar begins his column stating, “Just because something is commonplace doesn’t always mean it’s legal.” I would counter that with this: just because the record companies made a decision back in 1991 that they each would pay for permission to use recorded samples of each other’s music doesn’t mean that payment is required.

Smolar also seems to imply that because fair use is used as a defense to copyright claims and can be characterized as an “exception” to the real rule that any use of a copyrighted work constitutes infringement it somehow has little importance. One could just as easily characterize fair use in this way: Under the First Amendment to the Constitution, we can express ourselves any way we want, even in ways that “steal” your own forms of expression, unless there’s a good reason to stop us. In short, copyright is an exception to the foundational right to free expression.

But Smolar isn’t interested in being accurate — he appears interested only in scaring anyone off of unlicensed sampling. He and his ilk haven’t been too successful in that effort. But then why would he be successful in scaring people if he misrepresents the law as egregiously as he does when he states that “[sampling fails to meet each and every one of the four prongs of the" statutory elements courts consider in determining whether the use of copyrighted material constitutes fair use. It's a whole lot more complicated than that. First, of course, the four-part test does not call for an "either-or" determination on each factor. So it's just plain wrong to write "[t]he use must be for non-commercial purposes.” It’s not true either that “[t]he nature of the copyrighted must be in the public interest.” The mere fact someone samples the identifiable part of a song does not make the sampling an infringement either. Finally, Smolar states that sampling damages the market for the song from which the excerpt was taken “because the new song may be purchased for as much as the original.” I’m not sure what that means. He can’t possibly mean that if I get Girl Talk’s “Triple Double” I therefore wouldn’t buy “Steppin’ Out” by Joe Jackson. But all he might otherwise mean is that if Girl Talk’s songs are so good that people are willing to pay a lot of money for them (though they can get them for free), that can’t be right. The more the appropriation is valued in its own right, the more “transformative” it is and, therefore, the more likely it constitutes fair use.

But Smolar isn’t interested in the law. He’ just interested in scaring people into believing they’ll be sued by the record industry if they sample anything.

Addendum: For an good discussion of fair use and its complexities (in a context entirely divorced from music), see “Fair Use Controversy: The Gift That Keeps On Giving.”

The opinion announces and perpetuates a shallow, simplistic understanding of the First Amendment, one that actually undermines one of the most basic purposes of free speech, which is to protect democracy. The nerve of his argument—that corporations must be treated like real people under the First Amendment—is in my view preposterous. Corporations are legal fictions. They have no opinions of their own to contribute and no rights to participate with equal voice or vote in politics.

ADM has, top it mildly, been the subject of considerable ire, criticism, and even criminal prosecution for price fixing (the subject of Matt Damon’s recent film The Informant and Fair Fight in the Marketplace, an excerpt of which appears below’s Woertz’s blathering), political corruption, destruction of the rainforests, and the forced labor of children.

A couple of days ago I posted on my Facebook page what I thought was a hilarious edit of the Woertz video in which some of her original words were retained and many were dubbed over to make it appear as if she were speaking openly on behalf of an evil multinational bent on the gross and horrific exploitation of the world and especially of multinational food markets. I thought it was hilarious piece of political critique. No one could have mistaken it as an “official” ADM production, but plainly it hit a nerve at ADM.

Today I noticed that when I click on the video on my Facebook profile a message appears that it is “no longer available due to a copyright claim by Archers Daniel Midland Company” and that if I click through to YouTube there’s no page for the video at all, not even a page with the same empty video box and takedown message.

This is outright copyright abuse. Criticism is fair use. When anyone asks whether in fact fair use is grounded in the Constitution’s guarantee of free speech, all you need is to think of a situation like this — one can appropriate copyrighted works to criticize and parody the copyright holder. And to use the copyright laws to silence that critique has nothing to do with protecting intellectual property and the rights of a creator to profit from his, her, or its creation: it’s unconstitutional censorship! (Peter Bouchard wrote a good summary yesterday on ” The Battle against Bogus Takedowns, a topic I’ve touched on in the past.”