Disqus - Latest Comments for Patrick Ross

Re: When Markets Outgrow Copyrights

Patrick Ross — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 09:15:21 -0000

Tom, interesting approach. I think a couple of the comments focused on the area that troubled me, that copyright will be outgrown by the "market." Copyright merely grants (some) rights to the creator; if demand increases, or if a new demand arises, nothing prevents the artist from meeting that demand. Copyright is not a barrier for the rights holder, they'll go after more money if it's there!

As for technology, it does empower both copyright owner and ultimate user, but I think, Steve R., it requires a fair amount of hubris to believe that while all of the revolutionary technological changes of the last three hundred years did not negate copyright, a computer and an Internet connection does. The history of copyright is one of rightsholders adjusting to disruptions from technology; creators are always behind, because naturally there's no reason to change the business model when it's working, but they always change, and we're seeing that change now.

Tom, I would hope your paper would look at the incredible licensing arrangements and partnerships between copyright holders and technology companies currently occuring on an almost daily basis.

Re: More Authors, Less Copyright

Patrick Ross — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:13:59 -0000

While an interesting analysis, it seems to take an economists' assumption that this is a widget market, i.e., that creative works are relatively equal, regardless of the creator(s) behind them. This is especially true in the focus on marginal costs, ignoring discussion of initial production costs, but also by ignoring that intangible element known as "talent," which can't be quantified. Among the assumptions:

If marginal costs decrease sufficiently, not-for-profit works will find a broader audience. False. The potential is there, but there's an implication that the reason these works aren't being more widely enjoyed is one of cost and distribution obstacles. Perhaps the problem is a lack of interest in that body of work among those appreciative of art.

With more art produced, copyright is less relevant. False. Yes, copyright is not incentivizing the creation of those not seeking profit from it, but it will always motivate those who do seek to profit. I could produce twenty paintings a day but no one will buy them, and frankly no one will download them even if I digitize them and post them, because they'd likely be pretty poor. I'm not a painter. But if I did have talent in this area, and I faced a world where perfect reproductions of my paintings could be made and distributed at little or no cost, would I keep making them? Certainly not at the volume I could if I were earning a living from it. That is a loss to me, but also to culture.

Many artists are content giving away their works. True and false. Some are probably happy to never be renumerated, and those often will be ones who will never have a real chance to be whether we have copyright or not because their works won't hold sufficient value to others. But many who start out giving away their works are clearly hoping that at some point they will catch on with the public. They further hope that when that happens they will be able to make money. Look at Matt Parker and Trey Stone of South Park as an example of people playing around with construction paper who made it big; I suspect they like being paid for their work.

The market treats all copyrighted goods equally, only distribution is a barrier. False. Personal taste drives the market for creative goods, and tastes vary from person to person. I never saw a single "American Pie" movie because they looked like a waste of my money, but I was clearly out of step with much of the US population on that one. What drives "consumption" (such a base word) of creative works is not simply their availability but their individual appeal to a particular consumer. Bottom line, as a population grows so will its artistic output, but that doesn't mean that one particular output is substitutable with another.

My apologies for the length of this post.

Re: The Technology Liberation Front » Archive » It’s Never Been More Clear

Patrick Ross — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:03:51 -0000

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.

Re: The Technology Liberation Front » Archive » It’s Never Been More Clear

Patrick Ross — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:11:56 -0000

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.

Re: The Technology Liberation Front » Archive » It’s Never Been More Clear

Patrick Ross — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:35:15 -0000

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.

Re: Property Rights, Patents, and American Flag Clip Art

Patrick Ross — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:26:10 -0000

Hi Tim,

Thanks for the shoutout, even if it wasn't meant in a positive way. I haven't heard from you in awhile! Nice to see you're still on your property rights crusade; I happen to like that label myself, hope you don't mind if I use it too.

I've never written about Bilsky to my knowledge, and if you read the rather old link of mine you include you'll see I am not attacking fair use, but rather the claim that it is a "right." The law doesn't stipulate it like that; people have a right to view it that way in the abstract, but under current law it is not in fact a right.

That said, I invite you to explore our web site, our writings, our videos, our blog, and you'll see I view fair use as a critical safety valve. All property rights, real and intellectual, have limits on them for the good of society, and I wouldn't want to live in a world without such limits. I just happen to feel that our current balance between rights and fair use is a good one; I recognize many in the digital space disagree with me, even if this isn't something most citizens feel is a critical issue in society right now.

Also, I was intrigued that you took issue with the tone of Klemens' piece (which I have to admit I have not yet read). I strongly welcome your call for civility and enthusiastically support your campaign. You might be interested in my thoughts on the subject here and my commitment to civility: http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2009/01/dream...

Patrick Ross

Re: RealNetworks' Glaser On Dueling Lawsuits

Patrick Ross — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 00:54:53 -0000

It's simple how it's on the opposite side of consumers. Real is undermining the multitude of business models available to consumers now, most of which didn't exist a few years ago. By opening the door to copying DVDs without the authorization of the copyright owner, it puts us on a path to having creative works sold with all rights available at one price, even if we don't need all of those rights and wish to pay less. http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2008/10/reald...