A Good Question
on 10/26/2011 at 11:22 PM
This is just such an interesting topic. I take exception with
.also favor the pirating of music and literature stating that “information wants to be free.” Never mind the labor that went into the creation of the work, or the artist’s desire to pay rent or keep the art to him/her-self.
First of all - the DMCA is an abomination of the original copyright/trademark intentions. I agree with an artist getting his/her fair share from the sale/use of his/her product. I do not agree with his/her great-great-great grand children also receiving royalties on said product. That is just plain greedy.
Secondly there were/are better ways to handle the massive changes from art on a canvas and a song written on a piece of paper to today with the internet able to bring up just about anything instantly than a blanket squelching of any/all ‘sharing’/listening/viewing possibilities.
And lastly - artists of the music/tv/movie - sign a contract (mostly) with a recording/tv/movie company and usually sign away so many rights - that it isn’t the artist making the highest percentage of the royalties but rather the company. Talk about unfair and greed.
I remember the old Tech Tv show with Leo Laporte hosting a round table (two for - RIAA and 3 other people (I only remember that one guy was from the group One Trick Pony)) on the ‘copyright’ and downloading issue. A woman stood up and said that her daughter downloaded (past tense) from Napster and how was that any different from her (the Mom) copying songs to her cassette tapes, the RIAA guy actually said - well the quality back then was terrible - so it didn’t matter! And I also remember that after that stunning statement - the guy from One Trick Pony actually said he was changing his position and against the RIAA stance.
All that has nothing to do with the original question other than I as a Conservative do not support draconian laws whether they originate with Rs (RINOs) or Ds. A law to protect copyright/trademark yes - but come on 50 years is more than enough and figure out a sane way to deal with the modern problems not a toe-in-the-door to complete and utter government intrusion into everything you watch/listen to. Typical of Congress - see a problem, enact legislation that makes the whole situation worse. And they keep doing it again and again and again. On issue after issue after issue.
I consider conservative to be about Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness as laid out within the confines of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights - probably less than half of the remaining Amendments (if that) are viable and, in my mind, Constitutional. Fail or succeed on your own - not anyone getting a break (financial or otherwise) or penalized by the Federal Government. As we see where we get - When an R is in power some things go up - others go down (a little, they no longer even have the guts to cut the wasteful spending) and when a D is in power - well all hell breaks loose and the percentage of Americans working for a living (and paying taxes) goes down even more.
STOP THE INSANITY - oh damn, a useful phrase screwed up by a lying, greedy moneymaker (probably a liberal).
I’m gratified that wardmama did what I suggested: she poked around and read the comments. That guy has a separate post on copyright laws. He tried to sneak it into the definition of a conservative. Did he succeed? I’m with wardmama:
I do not agree with his/her great-great-great grand children also receiving royalties on said product. That is just plain greedy.
No, the grandchildren, much less any great-grandchildren, should stand on their own. Maybe create something as good or better than grandfather.
Okay, I’ll admit I haven’t read the article or the comments - yet. I will when I get more time. But since when did being uninformed mean one can’t express an opinion. Just look at the OWS loons. Anyway…
I must respectfully disagree re: the issue of royalties being passed on to successive generations. How is that different from someone building a business or making wise investment decisions, amassing a substantial estate, and passing that on to his or her descendants? If I write a hit song, or start Apple, or invest in Berkshire Hathaway, I should be able to do whatever I wish with the proceeds. To me, that’s one facet of conservatism - the ability to keep and control what I make or earn.
One could even make the argument that depriving me of my property, be it through royalty or copyright restrictions, death taxes, higher taxes on the ‘rich,’ or whatever other means might be employed, smacks of socialism.
As to whether successive generations should stand on their own ‘for their own good,’ well, that’s a different argument than asset distribution. I tend to agree with Christopher in principle, but not enough to support laws or regulations that prevent me from leaving as much of my estate as I wish to my offspring.
There’s a difference between leaving tangible (money, property, business) and intangible (songs, books, movies) properties to posterity. Just an example, there’s a push to allow copyrights to chess games. We are now getting into the ridiculous area. If that became law, then I’d not be allowed to play those moves in a chess game unless I paid royalties.
Even the tangible - if you don’t toe the right legal/financial line - can’t be passed on down to the families without great financial costs. And yes, there is a difference between hard tangible and a ‘artistic’ creation.
50 years isn’t enough?!? - that is more than 2 generations. Yes we live longer now - ok - push it to 75 years - but come on - as Chris showed - we are entering the idiotic arena.
The tax code is convoluted and punishing to any success - a dollar should be taxed once and only once. That alone would explode this economy wide open. That estates above a certain amount are highly taxed is another proof of the desire to punish success.
Since (like insurance in healthcare) the majority of artists have agents/representatives and work for ‘companies’ - the problem isn’t ‘artistic’ protection - it’s generating more money for all the greedy little hands reaching into that ‘artistic talent’ pot.
Get ‘em out and watch costs go down.
There is one area of healthcare that hasn’t risen wildly - cosmetic surgery - why - because Insurance won’t cover it. Get it - take a hand out and look - COSTS STAY DOWN.
we are entering the idiotic arena.
Hi Wardmom ... May I suggest we aren’t entering but may well be in it already.
Over here, as I understand it but have no personal evidence, if you have a radio playing
while holding a yard sale or in a barber shop, you are in effect “entertaining” the public with copy written music and so might be responsible for payment of royalties to the Brit version of ASCAP or BMI .And speaking as you and Chris were of royalties. The major names do rake it in and the big money for the major players, not the small fry, is in the publishing. Everybody wants the rights to publishing. If you’re a writer and you think you’ve written a good song and plug it to an act, they will ask for part or all the publishing rights.
Here’s a good example of how much publishing can be worth, to the majors.
By some error or typo, I once received a check made out to me for $10,000. It belonged to Anne Murray’s publishing company, and the money was for ONE cut on an album recorded by (I think but not sure) John Denver. I can’t recall the name of her company. Mine was New Forest Music, and the check was made out to that name. But the song, just an album filler, was traced to her publishing company and so I sent the check to Canada. They never even said thank you. But think about it. Not a hit tune, an album cut and not a single on an album by a major act, and the return was 10g. If you look at LPs from the past on any major record company you will be able to find the publishing listed along with the writers. Successful writers often have their own publishing (like Ann Murray) and even singers who do not write.
10/29/2011 at 06:22 AM
