It’s Never Been More Clear

by on July 22, 2008 · 21 comments

Want to know why copyright lobbyists never seem to have any real arguments? Because they describe those of us who defend the traditional contours of copyright law—including “limited terms”—as “copyright opponents.”

I mean, really.

  • Ryan Radia

    Nice comeback.

  • http://www.copyrightalliance.org Patrick Ross

    Speaking of disputing labels, I should point out that while some of my members are registered lobbyists — including folks from the corporations, trade associations, unions and artists’ groups that belong to the Copyright Alliance —- I in fact am not a lobbyist. I hold nothing against those who are, they are exercising their constitutional right to petition the government, and at some point I may register as one. But I do not currently qualify for registration even under even the heightened rules recently applied. My advocacy for copyright is no different than that of your advocacy against the “poor musician” who wants to get paid beyond his initial recording session.

    I don’t have real arguments? Perhaps instead of your feint regarding my label you could actually address my complaint. Please explain how there is a commonality between dry-cleaning pants — a one-time act that can be done with minimal training — and combining the talent and years of training to play bass with Lou Reed and David Bowie to create lasting music that continues to please, and earn money.

    I suspect both of us could quickly learn to dry-clean clothes. I suspect neither of us could ever achieve the musical skill level to perform with top-flight musicians, and I say that after having spent years playing the guitar and performing in public.

  • http://www.copyrightalliance.org Patrick Ross

    It is also hard to see how you could dispute the “copyright opponent” label when you say a musician shouldn’t be paid beyond their initial work. If a bass player lays down some tracks for an album in a studio, your argument would be that he should be paid for that work and nothing else. Then, any albums or singles sold after that would not net him a cent. That would mean that, at least for the artist, copyright did not exist. Perhaps you instead wish that all copyrights would be held by record labels with no obligation of payment to artists for album or singles sales, although that seems inconsistent with your, shall we say, hostility to the recording industry in past writings.

  • Ryan Radia

    Nice comeback.

  • Tim Lee

    Patrick, you might want to read my previous post more carefully. I never said that “a musician shouldn’t be paid beyond their initial work.” I simply observed that there are lots of people who only get paid once for the work they do and suggested this isn’t some kind of grave injustice.

  • http://www.copyrightalliance.org Patrick Ross

    I believe I addressed that in my second comment. If you want all creative works to be work-for-hire, then say so, and also explain how the routine of cleaning pants meshes with the creative process exercised by individual rightsholders. None of my artist friends could work in an assembly-line world.

  • Tim Lee

    If you want all creative works to be work-for-hire, then say so.

    I didn’t say so because I don’t. I don’t know why you’re so eager to put words in my mouth.

  • http://www.copyrightalliance.org Patrick Ross

    Speaking of disputing labels, I should point out that while some of my members are registered lobbyists — including folks from the corporations, trade associations, unions and artists’ groups that belong to the Copyright Alliance —- I in fact am not a lobbyist. I hold nothing against those who are, they are exercising their constitutional right to petition the government, and at some point I may register as one. But I do not currently qualify for registration even under even the heightened rules recently applied. My advocacy for copyright is no different than that of your advocacy against the “poor musician” who wants to get paid beyond his initial recording session.

    I don’t have real arguments? Perhaps instead of your feint regarding my label you could actually address my complaint. Please explain how there is a commonality between dry-cleaning pants — a one-time act that can be done with minimal training — and combining the talent and years of training to play bass with Lou Reed and David Bowie to create lasting music that continues to please, and earn money.

    I suspect both of us could quickly learn to dry-clean clothes. I suspect neither of us could ever achieve the musical skill level to perform with top-flight musicians, and I say that after having spent years playing the guitar and performing in public.

  • http://www.copyrightalliance.org Patrick Ross

    It is also hard to see how you could dispute the “copyright opponent” label when you say a musician shouldn’t be paid beyond their initial work. If a bass player lays down some tracks for an album in a studio, your argument would be that he should be paid for that work and nothing else. Then, any albums or singles sold after that would not net him a cent. That would mean that, at least for the artist, copyright did not exist. Perhaps you instead wish that all copyrights would be held by record labels with no obligation of payment to artists for album or singles sales, although that seems inconsistent with your, shall we say, hostility to the recording industry in past writings.

  • http://linuxworld.com/community/ Don Marti

    You’re both clearly advocating for STEALING the PANTSRIGHT PROPERTY from hard-working pants cleaners. (Skill has nothing to do with it — the sloppiest player from the worst band has copyright, and an artisan with 40 years experience who saved your irreplaceable pants from a terrible stain has none.)

    Pantsright is the pants cleaner’s right: If you wash my pants once, I must pay you again every day I wear them. And, when Congress extends the pantsright, for every day I wear the replacement pants.

  • Tim Lee

    Patrick, you might want to read my previous post more carefully. I never said that “a musician shouldn’t be paid beyond their initial work.” I simply observed that there are lots of people who only get paid once for the work they do and suggested this isn’t some kind of grave injustice.

  • http://www.copyrightalliance.org Patrick Ross

    I believe I addressed that in my second comment. If you want all creative works to be work-for-hire, then say so, and also explain how the routine of cleaning pants meshes with the creative process exercised by individual rightsholders. None of my artist friends could work in an assembly-line world.

  • Tim Lee

    If you want all creative works to be work-for-hire, then say so.

    I didn’t say so because I don’t. I don’t know why you’re so eager to put words in my mouth.

  • http://linuxworld.com/community/ Don Marti

    You’re both clearly advocating for STEALING the PANTSRIGHT PROPERTY from hard-working pants cleaners. (Skill has nothing to do with it — the sloppiest player from the worst band has copyright, and an artisan with 40 years experience who saved your irreplaceable pants from a terrible stain has none.)

    Pantsright is the pants cleaner’s right: If you wash my pants once, I must pay you again every day I wear them. And, when Congress extends the pantsright, for every day I wear the replacement pants.

  • Klein Smith

    I installed toilets for 6 years while I was in college. If only I had the foresight to negotiate some toiletright on those toilets. I bet generations of people will make use of those toilets.

  • Klein Smith

    I installed toilets for 6 years while I was in college. If only I had the foresight to negotiate some toiletright on those toilets. I bet generations of people will make use of those toilets.

  • http://www.codemonkeyramblings.com MikeT

    I believe I addressed that in my second comment. If you want all creative works to be work-for-hire, then say so, and also explain how the routine of cleaning pants meshes with the creative process exercised by individual rightsholders. None of my artist friends could work in an assembly-line world

    A simpler explanation for you would be that a lot of people are sick of hearing musicians complain about how they may not collect royalties decades after the original work, when most people who create a product or service won’t see anything from their work the moment after it is delivered to their customer and the customer pays them. When you get special intervention from the government that allows you to get new forms of revenue without additional work, people will naturally resent the hell out of you if you complain that they’re not enough.

    It also doesn’t help things that most bands today are really not that prolific in producing works, thus they have to milk each record harder and harder.

  • http://www.codemonkeyramblings.com MikeT

    I believe I addressed that in my second comment. If you want all creative works to be work-for-hire, then say so, and also explain how the routine of cleaning pants meshes with the creative process exercised by individual rightsholders. None of my artist friends could work in an assembly-line world

    A simpler explanation for you would be that a lot of people are sick of hearing musicians complain about how they may not collect royalties decades after the original work, when most people who create a product or service won’t see anything from their work the moment after it is delivered to their customer and the customer pays them. When you get special intervention from the government that allows you to get new forms of revenue without additional work, people will naturally resent the hell out of you if you complain that they’re not enough.

    It also doesn’t help things that most bands today are really not that prolific in producing works, thus they have to milk each record harder and harder.

  • Pingback: http://www.YOUTUBE.com/

  • Pingback: 1300 number australia

  • Pingback: bonuses

Previous post:

Next post: