It is admirable when someone spends a quarter-century examining every strip of bark on every single tree; they can be an accomplished arborist that way. But that can make it very difficult for that person to see that in fact a forest is comprised of those trees.

I never claim to be a copyright lawyer. I’ve consciously resisted law school for 20 years, despite suggestions (and pleadings) by those close to me. Yet someone who apparently dislikes me greatly (despite having never met me) feels superior to me because of his knowledge of copyright law, and if the discussion is copyright law he should (although I work with plenty of copyright lawyers in the Copyright Alliance who could give him a run for his money).

What Mr. Patry fails to see is that copyright, at its core and in my heart, is not about copyright law or its interpretations here or abroad; it is about encouraging creation, and specifically creators. Mr. Patry lists a long curriculum vitae of his background in copyright law. He mentions nothing of having been an artist.

As I have written before, I spent ten years as a singer, touring with groups across the US. I spent six years self-employed as a freelance writer, negotiating with publishers what rights I would retain or surrender over my work. I spent ten years as a work-for-hire journalist, most of that time with newsletters that were easy to duplicate yet relied on subscriptions for revenue, making them extremely vulnerable to piracy.

I grew up around copyright, as my mother is a journalist-turned-author, who has published 100 books and has with her recent novels made the New York Times bestseller list (her latest, Crossfire, is out in September). In other words, my whole life has involved copyright, and every dime I’ve earned starting with my first internship with a magazine in college, with the exception of my time on Capitol Hill in the 101st Congress working for Harry Reid, has been a result of copyright.

When I talk about copyright, I’m not talking about some obscure legal case and how it should be interpreted thirty years later. I’m talking about how one of my bandmates will get paid for the songs he wrote. I’m talking about my colleagues who stayed with freelance writing (I gave it up when I became a father for a more stable income) and how they are doing in a time when so many publications are struggling. I’m talking about how my mom wants to retire in exactly 297 days (she has a countdown timer on her computer) and I’m wondering whether the royalty statements she’s come to expect and rely on will continue in an era of piracy.

I respect Mr. Patry for his knowledge of copyright law, and for his apparently successful balancing act in keeping separate his personal blog and his corporate affiliations. As far as I know, I have never written a bad word about him, and at his request I helped promote his treatise on copyright back in January of 2007 (he was much friendlier in that request).

Mr. Patry has written about just about every nuance of copyright law, I suspect (every strip of bark). That’s good for Google, I suppose. He also takes time, repeatedly, to attack the Copyright Alliance and me personally. That is his choice. But it willl not deter me from continuing to work for artists, including the ones who are daily paying dues to join our social network one voi©e. Someday Mr. Patry will understand that this cause for me isn’t so much about how copyright is written into law, it’s about how its principles positively impact the creative community.

I get attacked by Mr. Patry about once a month. I hear from grateful artists and creators every day, praising the Copyright Alliance for caring about them and trying to do something on their behalf.

I’ll take that ratio any day.

Share this:

This entry was posted on Tuesday, July 8th, 2008 at 3:20 pm by Patrick Ross and is filed under blogging, copyright law, copyright opponents, creators. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.