« MAKEing Copyfighters |
Main
| Signal or Noise 2 »
March 18, 2005
Anyone got a stake handy?
Posted by Alan Wexelblat
Seems we can't be rid of Cartel sock-puppet Hatch quite so easily. As I wrote a bit ago, Republican rules forced Hatch to relinquish the chair's seat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. However, there was widespread speculation - now proved right - that new Chair Specter would create a special subcommittee on intellectual property. Specter needed to do something to rescue himself from his remarks on judicial appointments and he really doesn't care about intellectual property. Hatch does. Or rather, Hatch cares about protecting the monetary interests of the Cartel. His actual concern for creative individuals is doubtful at best.
Comments (2)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Laws and Regulations
- RELATED ENTRIES
- › Like YouTube for Business Documents
- › No You Can't
- › Like A Stack of Books 348 Feet Tall
- › How Much Potter Does Rowling Own?
- › Like Hope, But Different
- › It's More Complicated, And More Interesting
- › Can E-Zines Succeed?
- › Bye Bye (Buy?) Baidu
1. James on March 18, 2005 7:51 PM writes...
"Hatch cares about protecting the monetary interests of the Cartel. His actual concern for creative individuals is doubtful at best."
This is an example of substituting invective for an actual examination of the facts. Hatch actually does fancy himself a "creative individual" -- he bills himself as an "[e]xceptional Singer, Songwriter and Composer." His stuff isn't exactly my cup of tea, but to each her own:
http://www.hatchmusic.com
http://www.orrinhatchmusic.com
As for the charge that he "cares about protecting the monetary interests of the Cartel," what your post doesn't point out is that, for example, music publishing companies (are they in the "cartel"?) despise his championing of a new termination right under 17 U.S.C. § 304(d), which gave songwriters and composers (among others) an additional chance to recapture their copyrights from the big, bad "cartel" members to whom they had previously assigned them. As should be obvious, a music publisher who has expended significant resources exploiting a song for decades isn't thrilled when an author suddenly yanks it back.
Here's a pretty good explanation:
http://www.ivanhoffman.com/termination.html
I'm sure it's fun to write phrases like "Cartel sock-puppet," but name-calling is a poor substitute for fact-gathering or analysis.
Permalink to Comment2. drwex on March 19, 2005 7:24 AM writes...
I believe there is good in the worst of us, but the fun of being a cranky blogger is that I can use phrases like "Cartel sock puppet" rather than the more neutrally coded "one of the entertainment industry's most powerful congressional allies," which is how Hatch gets depicted in the more mainstream press.
As for whether "a music publisher who has expended significant resources exploiting a song for decades" I think it's trivially obvious that the fraction of music that gets promoted for decades is vanishingly small. Of the tens of thousands of CDs published each year, less than one percent are still in (mega)store racks a year later. (Thus a major advantage to online stores.) Less than one percent of that fraction receive any publicity or support from the publisher, and that usually only if the artist has a new CD out and the promoter is trying to catch some tailcoat sales.
Permalink to Comment