It’s Never Been More Clear
Monday, July 21st, 2008 by Patrick RossWant to know why copyright opponents never seem to understand the value of copyright? Because they compare a musical performance that will please generations of listeners to the one-time service of dry cleaning a pair of pants.
I mean, really.
July 22nd, 2008 at 2:40 pm
[...] 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 [...]
July 22nd, 2008 at 3:46 pm
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 arguments? Perhaps instead of your attack 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.
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.
July 22nd, 2008 at 4:11 pm
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.
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:51 pm
1. If it really was unclear, Tim didn’t say an artist should be treated exactly like the dry cleaner. His example was meant as a reminder that getting paid 50 years after doing work is not the norm, but rather the exception, so rather than assume that it’s a “natural right” we should carefully consider the details of the exception made. The question is what term makes sense - 14 years, 50 or 95.
2. If it’s the dry cleaner that bothers you, there are better examples: a surgeon might take decades of work to achieve his ability, but he’s only paid for actually doing surgery, not afterwards; an expert engineer likewise might be hired to design a system but he’s only paid for doing the project, not for the many systems used and sold in the following years; etc. Now try your argument again with these.
Copyright is an exception created for artists because they are different from other professionals; but the difference is certainly not that it’s harder or takes longer to learn to play an instrument than practice any other profession. To make a compelling argument you need to point out the real differences.
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:21 am
“If it really was unclear” — I think at this point interpretive charity is fairly clearly wasted.
July 23rd, 2008 at 2:11 pm
I fail to see why we should have a barely veiled caste system for labor, with highly skilled artisans being in essence the legal Brahmin class. I can think of several good classical liberal reasons why it is repugnant.
July 24th, 2008 at 11:50 am
It’s clear many fail to understand the creative process, and the fact that an artist creates a new expression that no one else could create. This is not disrespecting other professions, it is a statement of fact that we enjoy creative works that would not otherwise exist without that person or persons exercising their own unique creativity. This should not be hard to grasp, but unfortunately among many who view creative works as interchangeable commodities or services, like pants cleaning or toilet repair, it most unfortunately is.