Levine, a former Billboard executive editor who has also contributed to Rolling Stone, Vanity Fair and the New York Times, asks, effectively: Can the culture business survive the digital age? It’s a welcome reconsideration after the cheerleading that has greeted the Web and the structural changes in the U.S. economy. We spoke to the Berlin- and New York-based Levine about how we got here and where we go next.

The Internet has caused a revolution, and in any revolution there are winners and losers. How do you think that’s worked out here? Who’s won and who’s lost, so far?

I think the revolution is still ongoing. The short-term losers are media companies. The short-term winners are technology companies. The long-term loser is everyone. I don’t think anyone wins. The premise of my book is that most online companies rely for their content, and hence for their money, on traditional media companies. If they destroy that business model, it’s unclear what they’re going to have to distribute. If you look at YouTube, eight of the top 10 videos are major-label music videos. If the major labels shrank to the point where they can’t make videos, YouTube isn’t much of a business. It’s still a great social phenomenon, but it’s not much of a business.

Was this inevitable, or were there policy choices that led to this state of affairs?

Oh, I think it’s all policy choices. It’s inevitable that there would be a problem, but technology creates uncertainty and regulation solves uncertainty. When the car was [created], no one knew how fast you were allowed to drive. We came up with speed limits and that solved some of the uncertainty – didn’t solve it perfectly, but it made the roads safer. As copying technology evolved, we came up with other copyright laws to regulate it. Media companies thrived. Technology companies thrived. And despite not liking each other, they thrived together. A VCR isn’t very valuable if you can’t rent any good movies. Movies aren’t very valuable if you can’t watch them on a VCR. Then [Congress] came up with the DMCA, which I think was sort of the original sin. The idea was we have to say something before you want to take something that infringes on copyright down…

And DMCA is?

I’m sorry, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The important provision was notice and takedown. You have safe harbor from copyright liability if you follow this notice and takedown procedure. It turns 300 years of copyright law on its head by making it an opt-out system instead of an opt-in system. Dozens of sites will use this interview until you specifically tell them not to. That’s very different from “they can’t use it until they ask for permission.” What that does is it destroys the market.

One of the desirable things that copyright laws do is create some kind of market for intellectual property. We’ve had that for 300 years. That should change and it should evolve, but what we’re doing now is we’re dismantling that market. I think that’s really scary, because, first of all, you are going to see a lot of job loss. Secondly, I think you’re going to see the quality of things get affected. You see that happening with newspapers already. Third, I think the whole system suffers. Google News is not as useful if there’s not as much news to Google. I mean, Google is an information search tool, right? It’s not a moral issue. But the problem you’ve created, you create a very powerful incentive for somebody to create a better search engine. You eliminate [the] incentive to create better journalism. That is a problem.

Music was one of the first businesses to get hit hard. What happened there? Was it all piracy?

This is one of those questions that is hard to answer. It’s very hard to say exactly what caused what, and I would argue that separating those things out is impossible. Right now, the single biggest problem with CD sales is all the stores where you used to buy CDs are closed. Well, what caused that? Well, people started buying songs online. That became a problem because people were only buying singles instead of albums and they weren’t spending a lot. Well, why did that happen? Because piracy put so much downward pressure on prices that you have to take any deal, whether it’s a good deal or a bad deal. It’s very hard to separate these things. Any study where people say this has nothing to do with piracy is a bunch of bullshit.

When the Internet emerged, we thought we would be dropping the middleman out of this, that musicians and artists would connect directly with their fans.

The middleman hasn’t been eliminated. There’s a new middleman. YouTube is the new middleman. YouTube, just now, was giving professional content creators advances against future royalties. Is it a good middleman? I don’t know. YouTube has a lot of good technology. They obviously have other advantages. It could be a smart deal. It depends on the advance; it depends on what you want. But I would say that the idea that YouTube is fundamentally different from a record company is silly. YouTube probably has a higher percentage of the market for online video than all four major labels combined have of recorded music. Who’s stopping their market power? No one, and everyone is saying it’s a progressive thing.

Europe has responded a little differently to piracy and assaults on copyright. What effect has it had?

Well, I think it’s two things. One is, in continental European law, there’s a different tradition of copyright. One of my problems with the “copyleft” is that you don’t hear that. If you read Lawrence Lessig and Tim Wu and all those sort of copyleft books, and there are 25 or 30 of them, you’ll see copyright is a limited monopoly and a balance between the author and the public interest, if you will. That is very true. It’s the roots of Anglo-American copyright law. What you rarely hear is that the French tradition – and this applies, to varying degrees, to a lot of other countries in Europe – copyright is a fundamental right. It is your work and you have a fundamental right to it. What’s interesting is you have a lot of people talking about the right to remix. In Europe, not only is there very little legal support for a right to remix, there’s a decent amount of support for a right not to be remixed. You have a right to the paternity and the integrity of your work. It’s a moral right. So someone says, “I want to remix Rob Levine’s book so that every 10 words it’s going to say: Rob Levine eats stinky poo” – by the way, I’m fairly certain that somebody would call this an art project – I can say, “No. I have a right to my work.” I think a lot of people would find that very reasonable.

The idea that the Internet is somehow immune from law or regulation or the protection of people’s rights has been seen as a progressive idea. It’s the “free and open Internet.” But if you really think about that for a second, that’s not a progressive argument. It’s a libertarian argument, because the same regulations that annoy you might be the regulations that protect me.

From the beginning, hasn’t the Internet been framed as the second coming of the Wild West?

I think it’s been framed as the second coming of Jesus H. Christ in full 3-D Cinerama Smell-O-Vision. Look, a lot of very smart people believe the Internet will change things that won’t change because they come out of human nature. Like people look at Wikipedia and they say, “See. People will all work together. We don’t need regulations.” I think that Wikipedia is a great thing but I wouldn’t want to change my system of government based on the 10-year track record of Wikipedia. Right? It gets a little wacky. People like to cooperate; people like to give things away. Yes, but people also like to violate the rights of other people. I want certain kinds of protections.

Your book is about several industries. You talk about the music industry, the movie industry, publishing, etc. I wonder if there is a common mistake that you saw most or all of these industries make along the way?

Yes. Listening to people who don’t have your interest in mind – they have their own interest in mind. When Google says newspapers should be free on the Internet, they may really believe that, but you also have to keep in mind that it’s a huge help to them. Right? I was on a panel a couple of weeks ago and this guy from Creative Commons said:  “You should concentrate on art; you shouldn’t worry so much about these contracts.” That’s exactly what any artist should never do. The record company guy does not want to make you money; he wants to make him money. Same with your concert promoter. Same with Google. They are not on your side. They’re on their side. I don’t think that’s a bad thing, because Google’s greed and self-interest has led to the creation of a valuable company, and many jobs, and some really remarkable technology, but it’s the government’s job to make sure they don’t trample the rights of other people.

How often is free speech used as a cudgel against copyright that claims free speech?

Several times a minute. Free speech is very important in the U.S. It’s a more important value than copyright. In most countries it is. But there’s an argument on the other side. There’s a great quote by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor that says: “The Framers intended copyright itself to be the engine of free expression. By establishing the marketable right to the use of one’s expression, copyright supplies an economic incentive to create and disseminate.” That’s a pretty powerful argument on the other side.

Her argument, which I think is yours, is that copyright doesn’t inhibit free speech, but encourages free speech.

I think it does both to different degrees. It’s not that simple. Let me be clear, I hammer on that Justice O’Connor quote because it’s not something you’ll see in a lot of other books. But this is a complicated issue. Copyright often encourages free speech. It sometimes inhibits free speech. The idea that copyright is the be-all and end-all of free expression is simplistic. The idea that it inhibits free speech is simplistic. I think this is true of politics in general, but everyone argues about stuff like a 4-year-old.

Entertainment companies talk about digital theft. In my mind, that’s not a useful way to talk about a problem. The problem is copyright infringement. If you download my book illegally, I’m not angry. I hope you don’t. If a lot of people do it, I’ll be angry. The idea that someone is going to download my book illegally doesn’t bother me. The idea that someone is selling advertising against that transaction and profiting from it really does upset me. There’s just a lot more nuance there. You have one side calling it digital theft and saying that downloading things is a moral wrong. You’d have to ask a philosopher. Then you have another side saying you have the right to see movies. Well, that’s even dumber. I don’t think anyone is going to go to hell for downloading “Iron Man 2.” But saying you have the right to download it is also pretty silly.

We need to look at what copyright was meant to do. It was not meant to inhibit the copying you do at home. It was meant to give you monopoly that’s limited in scope and that’s limited in time to profit from your own work. That’s what I want. I want to have a monopoly on profiting from my own work. So, if you lend my book to a friend, God bless you. If you put it on the Internet and distribute it to 100 people, even if you are not benefiting from it directly, that goes against what we’re talking about on a very basic level. You can hire expensive lawyers to parse this in all sorts of ways, but let’s get real here. Mass distribution of stuff like this is really a problem. That’s what I’d like to see: a nuanced legal solution to solving and a nuanced discussion of what’s going on.

If you look at countries with functioning copyright systems and countries without functioning copyright systems, who creates more culture? That’s not a question. Cory Doctorow gave a speech at the New America Foundation about how copyright endangers democracy. That’s not a responsible comment. That’s just a bunch of bloviating. Democracies tend to have copyright. Countries with copyright tend to be democracies. I’m not suggesting a causal relationship, but to suggest that copyright endangers democracies – it doesn’t even meet the laugh test.

Let’s look to the future. You say in your last chapter: “Over the next decade, we will choose between two competing visions for the online world: media companies want the Internet to work more like cable television, while technology companies want cable to run more like the Internet.” Tell us what you mean by this.

If you think about the cable system, it’s closed. You can’t publish or broadcast without permission; you can’t receive or consume without paying. On the Internet it’s the opposite. Anyone can publish or broadcast; just about anyone can consume without paying. And again, sorry to keep hammering on this, I would say that those are two absolutes. There’s a lot of problems with the cable system. It leads to monopolization. The prices keep going up and there’s a lack of diversity of points of view. But there’s also good things about it. Television has never been better. We enjoy better TV. If you say, “Oh my God. Look how my cable bill rose in the last 10 years,” what you get is completely different. It’s a revolution of quality. Now let’s look at the Internet. It does a lot of things as well. You’ve got free expression. It’s a great thing. The Internet is very valuable. You get an incredible diversity of opinion. It’s very cheap. There’s a lot of good things about it. There’s also some bad things about it. It resists regulation in a very fundamental way. You have some people saying the Internet must be cable-ized; you have other people saying that cable must be Internet-ized. Is that really the best we can do? My argument is that we deserve better. I don’t want to choose between “Breaking Bad” and the skateboarding bulldog.

I would like to see the advantages of both. I would like to think the technology would allow that. And I’d like to think we can regulate smartly to encourage that.

What would you like to see happen? What’s the best-case scenario for the situation we’re in now? Because some things aren’t coming back totally. Newspapers, publishing, probably not coming back.

I’d like to see enough law applied in a smart way that we can bring back a market. U.S. publishing is never coming back, but I think we can enforce enough law to create a market, and that’s what we need. There’s obviously problems with the market. I’m not one of these “worshiping at the altar of the market” kind of dudes. But the market for intellectual property has served us very well both in terms of job creation and in terms of art. And I think that that is very important.

We’re so accustomed to thinking of copyright as the foundation of a writer’s livelihood that it’s difficult to imagine how authors could survive without it. Yet we may need to start doing just that.

Our current copyright laws and (often ham-fisted) attempts to enforce them have many critics, but you don’t see a lot of people advocating their complete eradication. They don’t really need to. The biggest threat to copyright comes from the advent of digital reproduction, which has made piracy much, much easier. Reform could well be beside the point; copyright seems poised to die the death of a million cut-and-pastes.

If that happens, and authors can again expect to make nothing from the sale of their books, how will they get by? The majority of authors, of course, can’t make a living from book sales as it is. They teach or work for the phone company or scrape together enough grants and fellowships to keep a roof over their heads. It’s possible that writing books will become a hobby rather than a profession — like, say, golf — for all but the tiniest minority of superstars, people so famous they can charge fees to make personal appearances.

Writers are understandably dismayed by this scenario, but readers ought to be, too. The eight hours or more per day that your favorite authors will spend servicing air conditioners or drafting marketing reports is time they won’t have to devote to writing their next book, the one you’re so eager to read. That means fewer books from some of our most talented novelists, and perhaps fewer yet from historians and other nonfiction writers; the research for their work can take even more time than the actual writing.

If this comes to pass, we may indeed see a revival of the patronage model Greenblatt describes, with wealthy fans supplying the writers they admire with the funds they need to concentrate on their work. In truth, we already have an indirect version of this in the form of arts foundations underwritten by private donors. The notion of a writer being personally sponsored by a rich individual may strike the contemporary American as distasteful, but as Greenblatt points out, unless you want to dismiss the entire corpus of Western literature written before the 1700s, you have to admit that the arrangement can produce great books.

Still, it’s a system inclined to serve the interests of the rich, and it’s not like we need any more of that. Recently, the technology that led to this dilemma has also offered a potential solution in the form of crowdsourced patronage. The best-known of these new funding platforms is Kickstarter, a website that allows people to raise money for all kinds of projects, including books (and magazines and bookstores). The would-be creator presents a proposal consisting of a written description of the project, a list of premiums awarded to donors depending on the amount they pledge, and, most important, a video pitch. The creator sets a funding goal and a closing date for the proposal. If the full amount isn’t reached by the time the proposal expires, the creator gets nothing.

The donors to a Kickstarter project don’t own any rights to the results, but their donations can win them such unusual benefits as having characters named after them in a forthcoming novel. The author may promise to write an ancillary short story about the supporting character of their choice. Other authors provide special signed editions of the book or, in a few cases, even a chance to offer input while the work is in progress.

On Kickstarter, book proposals have attracted from as much as $85,000 (for a memoir about psychedelic visionary Terence McKenna, to be written by his younger brother) to as a little as $324 (to commission original cover art for a self-published e-book). The more modest the goal, the more likely it will be met. At the very least, a Kickstarter project looks like an excellent way to cadge money from friends and family without having to face them in person with your hand out. The average successful proposal seems to run a few thousand bucks — not as much as a traditional hardcover book advance, certainly, but more than what many writers might get from a small press.

This fundraising method is perfect for modest projects aimed at a limited, but still keen, readership. The earnest confessional poetry of Anne Jackson, for example, would never find much favor in the poetry establishment, but there are enough investors moved by her story of creative struggle following a close friend’s death to contribute a total of $11,700 for an e-book of “poetry, photos & stories behind them.” Quite a few traditionally published poets would regard that as a decent advance. It helps that Jackson already has a following as a result of the spiritually oriented self-help books she wrote for a traditional publisher — and that she’s young and personable.

Many aspiring writers fantasize about the audience they’d find if interlopers like publishers and agents would stop coming between them and the reading public. Publishers, they complain, fixate too much on superficial assets like a mediagenic face or personality, influential connections, an established name or a promotional “platform” instead of just concentrating on literary merit.

To judge by what works on Kickstarter, however, democracy won’t offer any improvement. Those flashy garnishes are exactly what the public cares about. The most successful book projects have an already-established audience, an attractive creator, a high-concept premise and/or an affiliation with someone famous. Above all, as Rob Walker observed in the New York Times, a stand-out video presentation is crucial to sealing the Kickstarter deal.

April Winchell, the founder of the humor site Regretsy.com, for example, raised an impressive $65,ooo to publish a book of fake Finnish folklore and pay for a trip to Finland by calling on her established fan base and putting together a hilarious video. Does anyone really care much about the book — or, for that matter, about an edition of “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” in which every instance of the word “nigger” has been replaced with the word “robot”? Probably not. Yet both pitches are amusing enough to elicit a surprisingly large number of small, what-the-hell pledges.

A classic midlist novelist who published two books with small presses but couldn’t place his third, Scott Morris managed to raise $12,700 to help him keep working on it. Would he have been as successful if he didn’t look like the popular conception of a ruggedly sensitive writer, or if his video didn’t feature several handsome and vaguely familiar actors (the guy who played the Winklevoss twins in “The Social Network”!) talking him up? Hard to say.

Whatever the merit of these individual projects, it’s hard for a reader to get enthused about a system in which the worth of a writer’s next book is judged by his or her ability to make a catchy video. The correlation between those two skills is far from obvious, as Jonathan Franzen demonstrated in the promo video he was obliged to make for “Freedom.”

With primarily visual works — comics and art or photo books — Kickstarter seems a great way to solicit the extra cash needed to produce top-drawer work. Comics creators have flocked to it, hoping to finish discontinued series or add color to black-and-white books. But can it bring us the next Ann Patchett or Robert A. Caro? Or is that another part of our future that will be determined by billionaires?

See, for a while now the characters in “The Wizard of Oz” have been considered public domain, which is why there are so many strange adaptations  (“Return to Oz” being the most terrifying), since no one has to pay any royalties on the story. But the circuit is now clarifying that this doesn’t include the iconic imagery that was created for the Judy Garland film:

We agree with the district court’s conclusion that Dorothy, Tin Man, Cowardly Lion, and Scarecrow from “The Wizard of Oz” … exhibit “consistent, widely identifiable traits” in the films that are sufficiently distinctive to merit character protection under the respective film copyrights … Put more simply, there is no evidence that one would be able to visualize the distinctive details of, for example, Clark Gable’s performance before watching the movie “Gone with the Wind,” even if one had read the book beforehand. At the very least, the scope of the film copyrights covers all visual depictions of the film characters at issue.

Considering all the times a version of “Oz” has been remade for stage and screen (and I’m thinking particularly of “Wicked” here, which has Elphaba’s skin the same emerald hue as the witch in the Warner Bros. movie, not specified in the books), and the fact that there are several “Wizard of Oz” projects floating around Hollywood right now,  this ruling could have bigger implications outside the Raimi project.

Luckily, Oz interpreters have a little bit of wiggle room: There are at least 44 major changes in the Warner Bros. movie from the Frank Baum book, though it’s doubtful any of them will be iconic to viewers as “Oz” material, precisely because the famous film omitted or altered them. (Luckily for him, Raimi’s plot already sounds way different from anything we know of our beloved Wizard and his relationship to Oz.)

But even outside the Yellow Brick Road, this ruling could potentially affect any films that are based on other sources but have more famous movie predecessors. Luckily for directors like Tim Burton (who has remade both “Alice in Wonderland” and “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory), there is usually enough original material left on the cutting room floor of the influential predecessors to create entirely new imagery from.

In the sequel, Ed Helms’ character, Stu, wakes up before his wedding with a design that is clearly supposed to be taken from Tyson’s own tat (the boxer appears in both “The Hangover” and its sequel).

In case you haven’t memorized what Mike Tyson’s facial tattoo looks like, here is a refresher:

The judge ruled that although Whitmill may have a copyright case, he couldn’t delay the film’s release, which Warner Bros. has already paid $80 million to promote. U.S. District Court Judge Catherine D. Perry did agree that Whitmill had a strong case, however, but that the film’s delay would hurt third parties such as movie theaters and distributors.

It will be interesting to see how this case plays out when Whitmill sues, since we will finally find out if a tattoo can be copyrighted, whether or not it’s considered “art” (your parents certainly don’t think so), and if it is, who owns it: the person whose skin the tattoo is on, or the person who actually created the tattoo? According to Whitmill’s lawyers, The lawsuit isn’t about Tyson at all:

“This case is not about Mike Tyson, Mike Tyson’s likeness, or Mike Tyson’s right to use or control his identity,” reads the suit. “This case is about Warner Bros. appropriation of Mr. Whitmill’s art and Warner Bros. unauthorized use of that art, separate and apart from Mr. Tyson.”

But if Tyson willingly agreed to be in the movie, and the tattoo on Helms’ face is a reference to Tyson’s character, then is it actually “separate and apart” from Tyson’s image?

The story, according to Azi Paybarah, is that in 2008, Padraic Sheridan, owner of Murphy & Gonzales restaurant in New York, wanted to advertise that his establishment would be playing the 2008 vice presidential debate. So on his restaurant’s website, he put up the official portraits of Palin and then-Senator Joe Biden.

In 2010, Sheridan received this letter from an attorney claiming to represent “Alaska Stock LLC,” the owners of AlaskaStock.com, the copyright-holder of Sarah Palin’s official state portrait. They sought tens of thousands of dollars. Sheridan paid. Then they sought a gag order to prevent him from telling anyone that he was sued for putting Sarah Palin’s official state portrait on his website.

The original image can be seen clearly on this archived copy of the official Alaska state government Palin bio page, and a Google Image Search for “Sarah Palin official portrait” turns up numerous versions of the same picture. The owner of AlaskaStock.com is apparently the guy who took the picture, along with lots of other Palin pictures. Palin is attempting to trademark her name, but there’s no indication that this money went to her — it could just be this guy making a living by selling the rights to her image. (Because what else would you go to “AlaskaStock.com” for? Pictures of snow?)

So be careful out there, bloggers.