Artists In The US Want To Get Paid Multiple Times For A Single Work

from the not-this-again dept

Another day, another plan to try to expand "intellectual property rights" into ridiculous arenas. We had thought that the idea of resales rights for artists was a complete non-starter in the US. Resales rights are a ridiculous concept, which effectively destroys the right of first sale and that harms artists but it is often pitched as being for the benefit of artists. The idea is that if you buy the work of an artist, and then later resell it, the artist gets a cut. Every time you resell the work... the artist gets a cut. The simplified and economically clueless rationale for this is that artists often sell their works cheaply when they're unknown, and then it's the collectors down the road who reap the benefits when that artist becomes famous.

This may sound appealing, but it leaves out the much bigger picture. First, this punishes those who invest in young artists by making it more expensive and more difficult to ever resell their artwork. This also means that people will buy less artwork as an investment, because you've automatically cut out a significant chunk of any profit. Limiting the market for a new artist is not a way to help that artist. As for the story of the "poor artist" who gets cut out of the appreciation of his own work... that's also hogwash. Sure they may sell early pieces for less, but the fame does not preclude them from making new works, and charging appropriately for them based on their fame (some of which may have come about because of the risk that early buyers/supporters/patrons took).

Can you imagine if this expanded to other areas? What if you had to pay back the furniture builder when you sold your old sofa? Or the home developer when you sold your house (oops, someone's trying that, too).

The whole thing is a bizarre and counterproductive concept. In past years, we've seen both the UK and Australia look to set up resale rights. Australia eventually put in place a watered down version, which isn't quite as bad, but still has problems.

Anyway, after not hearing a peep about such an idea in the US in years... it appears that there's a new lobbying campaign for a resale right in the US. Of course, it's being pushed for by the Artists Rights' Society, the main copyright licensing agency for artists in the US. Realizing that art galleries have freaked out about this in the past, ARS is trying to get this approved by exempting art galleries from this, not realizing how much worse that actually makes this for artists and for individual patrons of the arts. Now galleries have a favored position regarding terms and individual patrons have to pay an extra tax.

It appears that ARS has hired Bruce Lehman to be the main lobbyist on this issue. Does that name ring a bell? Lehman is the guy who constructed the DMCA. A few years back, Lehman admitted that the DMCA had been a disaster and said that we'd be better off entering a "post-copyright era." Of course, he didn't take the blame himself, but rather blamed the recording industry execs for failing to get digital. He also seemed to think that the DMCA's overreach was a huge surprise, despite the fact that many, many critics brought it up at the time Lehman was pushing it -- and Lehman's response at the time was to threaten to "rip [the] throat out" of James Boyle, who had warned of problems of the DMCA. Lehman also sought to get Boyle denied tenure at the university he was teaching at for pointing out why the DMCA was a bad idea.

Given that history, I'm at a loss as to why he should be trusted when it comes to any form of new copyright-related policy.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Aug 5th, 2011 @ 12:19pm

    Mike, you're an idiot on this one. Of course he would be the best person for this. After all, he's done this shit before, therefore he's an expert on the subject.

    Why are you so anti-law, Mike?

    [/Troll]

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    gorehound (profile), Aug 5th, 2011 @ 1:08pm

    More and More Copyright Greedsters............
    I am an artist with a bunch of Vinyl,CD,and Cassette Tapes put out since 1978 released to public.
    I do not want this to happen.It is out of control.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    :Lobo Santo (profile), Aug 5th, 2011 @ 1:16pm

    Re: ;-P

    (very nice with the [/Troll] tag!)

    I'm sorry, but I can't grade this trolling higher than a C-

    You just didn't have me believing you had an irrational belief in your statement. Next time, try putting it forth as an indisputable fact--handed down from God to Reagan to Rush Limbaugh and finally to you. Ya got to really sell it.

    Good effort though, I'm sure with practice your trolling will improve.

    ;-P

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    hmm (profile), Aug 5th, 2011 @ 1:16pm

    Revenge

    I say we put electronic handcuffs on Bruce Lehman with an (obvious) electronic flaw.

    Then when he tries to escape we stitch him up like a kipper for violating the technical security parts of the DCMA.

    Revenge is a dish best served cold (with beer and chips where possible)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Bob, Aug 5th, 2011 @ 1:18pm

    What's the big deal? You keep reprinting your articles and selling ads next to them.

    What's the difference? You got paid when you sold the ad next the article the first time. Why do you keep reselling ads next to it each time someone else comes along.

    Oh wait. I'm going to hear more sophistry about how this is different. But it isn't. If content creators can get second, third, fourth etc sale money, they can charge less up front.

    The fact is that the first-sale doctrine makes life difficult for book owners. THey've got to capitalize ALL of the costs. Students have to pay their own cash up front and then get some back at the end of the semester. The students have to come up with extra capital and we know how tough that can be for them.

    I understand the idea behind the first sale doctrine, but it just gets in the way of innovative financing agreements.

    The fact is that when content creators can spread the costs out fairly and evenly, everyone pays a small, fair amount. Piracy and first-sale issues are just some of the impediments.

    But we know how you feel about innovation. Anything but free is bad.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    :Lobo Santo (profile), Aug 5th, 2011 @ 1:21pm

    Re: What's the big deal? You keep reprinting your articles and selling ads next to them.

    A-

    Very nice!

    Your trolling is the best I've seen all day.

    Keep up the good work.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 5th, 2011 @ 1:21pm

    Re: What's the big deal? You keep reprinting your articles and selling ads next to them.

    Students are learning NOT to cough up their cash, but instead to use the electronic version. (And *my* students have learned to just use the online materials I point them to, thus reducing their expenditure to $0.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 5th, 2011 @ 1:21pm

    Re: What's the big deal? You keep reprinting your articles and selling ads next to them.

    If content creators can get second, third, fourth etc sale money, they can charge less up front.

    But they won't.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 5th, 2011 @ 1:22pm

    I don't agree with resell rights, but the furniture analogy is retarded.

    Someone (not even on a record label) invests $30,000 in the production, promotion, marketing, recording, mastering and distribution of an album.

    Sorry, but they're gonna need to get paid more than once to come close to recouping that, unless you think they can sell one download for 30k.

    You have an MBA, so I know this is just more of your transparent willful blindness to reality.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 5th, 2011 @ 1:24pm

    I think Masnick must have been raped by an artist as a child. Nothing else could explain his rabid hatred of them trying to earn a living.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    Chosen Reject (profile), Aug 5th, 2011 @ 1:26pm

    Re: What's the big deal? You keep reprinting your articles and selling ads next to them.

    What stops anyone else from putting their content online surrounded by ads? Nothing. If Mike wanted to release techdirt in book or movie format once a year or so and try selling the books/DVDs, more power to him. I still wouldn't think he should get a cut out from resells.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 5th, 2011 @ 1:28pm

    Mike, have you considered that what they are trying for is a conditional sale, perhaps better described as a "lease" of the art work rather than an outright sale? A rights owner can sell any or all parts of the rights to their work, at their discretion.

    The setup as described would be perfectly legal today, although complicated by a lack of standard procedures and such. It might also create some issues regarding things like insurance and inheritance taxes, example. So getting a formal legal description and outline would be perhaps the easiest way to get things done.

    The artist also wouldn't get "paid more than once" for the same work, as selling the work under restricted terms (not an outright sale) would likely generate less money up front. So the artist would get paid their full amount over time, perhaps more, as they might give up 20% now, but those resale rights might generate more in the long run.

    There is no indication that the artist would get paided fully twice for the same work, is there?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 5th, 2011 @ 1:30pm

    Re:

    >>Someone (not even on a record label) invests $30,000 in the production, promotion, marketing, recording, mastering and distribution of an album.

    So you don't think they market, promote, design, or prototype furniture?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Nicedoggy, Aug 5th, 2011 @ 1:36pm

    Re:

    IKEA may disagree with you.
    Do you have any idea how much and industrial designer cost today?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 5th, 2011 @ 1:37pm

    Re: Re:

    Of course they do, and that cost is recouped after their first sale.

    Unlike a record album.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    icon
    Joe Publius (profile), Aug 5th, 2011 @ 1:39pm

    Whatever happened to my right as a consumer to own the crap I bought fair and square?

    Early adopters, or fans you might say, of a particular artist are the who are responsible driving the commercial value of the art by buying it in the first place. The fans validate the work and its monetary value, and that is a great contribution.

    Why punish that?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    Ima Fish (profile), Aug 5th, 2011 @ 1:40pm

    Of course this is a stupid law. But what I really find disturbing is that this is just another excuse for yet another collection society.

    There will need to be such a society to keep track of ownership and to dole out money. The collection society will take its huge cut to pay the salaries of its employees. Of course smaller less successful artists will not see any money at all, i.e., the vast majority of artists.

    This is just a huge scam for some rich and connected people to sit back and collect money while doing absolutely nothing. Congress will jump right on this.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Nicedoggy, Aug 5th, 2011 @ 1:42pm

    Re:

    Well so everybody inside society should have this "lease".

    How about your carpenter having a lease on the things he did inside your home, how about a mechanic having a lease on the work he has done in your car, how about car manufacturers having a lease on your car.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    Joe Publius (profile), Aug 5th, 2011 @ 1:45pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Unlike a record album.

    Yeah, but few would invest that kind of money and expect to sell only one album.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    trish, Aug 5th, 2011 @ 1:48pm

    art

    Who does the Devil go to for tips on being evil?

    LOBBYISTS.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    icon
    iamtheky (profile), Aug 5th, 2011 @ 1:51pm

    Re: What's the big deal? You keep reprinting your articles and selling ads next to them.

    Is there a physical good that can be used to represent the type of market you describe? While it is well versed (and im a huge fan of properly defended opposing viewpoints), I am at a loss to think of any actual substance to back it.

    Selling ad space = paying the creator multiple times for a single physical good?

    Rest assured that discrepancy will not be overcome with subtlety.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    icon
    AG (profile), Aug 5th, 2011 @ 1:51pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Ha ha ha ... you were joking, weren't you?

    if you weren't joking, then obviously you don't have an MBA, or any common sense. Recouped on first sale? Every piece of furniture sold incurs "real" physical material costs, which you can't create for free... unlike virtual goods (movies, music etc.) that cost close to nothing to replicate after the initial development costs and can be packaged in virtually limitless ways.

    Where do you think it's easier to recoup the money?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    PRMan, Aug 5th, 2011 @ 1:51pm

    Software Engineer?

    Software Engineer?!? I'm changing my title to Software Artist!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    icon
    Overcast (profile), Aug 5th, 2011 @ 1:52pm

    Seriously PRMan - and I'm now a 'Server Artist' instead of a Server Analyst!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 5th, 2011 @ 1:56pm

    Re: Re:

    Well, if you ever make it out of Mom's basement, you would realize that there is such a thing as a "rental" house, and you can "lease" a car. You can even buy a house (or build an industrial building) on leased land, the rights of which (and everything on it) reverting to the owner at the end of the land lease.

    We also do many things on credit, which effectively is a lower payment now, and payments later, payments of which come due when the good is actually sold to another party.

    Not everything outside of Mom's basement is so straightforward. It's something you learn after 9th grade.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Aug 5th, 2011 @ 1:58pm

    Re:

    And were you raped by common sense? That would explain a lot more than your idiotic analogies.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Nicedoggy, Aug 5th, 2011 @ 1:58pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Please you get out of your basement first then I will fallow(maybe no promises though).

    But you can't force others to lease or rent anything can you stupid f.?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    icon
    Joe Publius (profile), Aug 5th, 2011 @ 1:58pm

    Re:

    But what I really find disturbing is that this is just another excuse for yet another collection society.

    Oh, that's a great idea. Who wants to get in on the ground-floor with me on this?

    I even have a snappy official sounding name for it.
    The
    Collection of
    Artist
    Dues
    Society

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 5th, 2011 @ 1:59pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    That's horse shit. The first piece of furniture off the line is not the 'break even point.' Not even close.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Nicedoggy, Aug 5th, 2011 @ 2:00pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    This is not a rent, this is not a lease this is a forced tax.
    Nobody pay the original builder of anything why should some stupid artists have that power?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 5th, 2011 @ 2:00pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Maybe he's not joking. Maybe he's really really overpaying for his furniture.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 5th, 2011 @ 2:04pm

    Re: Re:

    I was raped by an anonymous coward once . . .

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Aug 5th, 2011 @ 2:05pm

    Re:

    Mike, have you considered that what they are trying for is a conditional sale, perhaps better described as a "lease" of the art work rather than an outright sale?

    There is nothing stopping artists from doing this right now.

    What this bill will do, is make anything but a "lease" illegal.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    rubberpants, Aug 5th, 2011 @ 2:07pm

    Re:

    Troll Score Card

    [x] Anonymous Coward
    [ ] Saying "I just don't see it" or equivalent
    [x] Addressing Mike by has last name
    [x] Mentioning rape or other sexual subject
    [ ] Accusing MIke of saying something he has never said
    [ ] Using the term "Freetard"
    [ ] Implying that being critical of over-reaching intellectual property laws is the same as wanting no intellectual property laws
    [x] Accusing Mike of hating and/or wanting to kill a person or group of people
    [ ] Using a straw man like "Why are you anti-choice?"
    [ ] Claiming to know something that you can't possibly know, IE someone's thoughts, intentions, or motives
    [ ] Suggesting that it's a lost cause for people to try and communicate with their elected representatives
    [ ] Claiming that the only reason someone could be critical of intellectual property laws is that they "want free stuff"

    Summary: You can do better. I hope to be able to write "has made significant improvement!" on your next score-card.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    icon
    :Lobo Santo (profile), Aug 5th, 2011 @ 2:07pm

    Re: Software Engineer?

    Sir, you disgust me.

    Software is neither engineered nor "artisted", but hewn forth from the raw chaos of the cosmos and hammered into logical form with intellectual heat and hammer and anvil--it is a craft.

    A programmer is a logic-smith and is as much an artist and engineer as his spiritual predecessor the blacksmith; but ultimately he is practicing a craft, the result being something which has been assembled with care--a universal oddity in that it is a hand-forged singular creation which can then be copied nigh infinite times.

    Never forget--you carry on the tradition first passed down from the Gods of old to Hammurabi; the ancient tradition of mastering the one and the zero.

    Wield it with care, wield it with pride.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 5th, 2011 @ 2:12pm

    Re:

    Why would artists not insist on this now? There is a reason that this is not standard even though it is possible under contract law. No one in a free market would agree to those terms for the art (a lease on an apartment and a car have way different attributes to be analogous), so they must be forced. An artist can already do this, so we don't need a new law.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Aug 5th, 2011 @ 2:13pm

    Interesting statistic

    While browsing the Art Newspaper article Mike linked to, I came across a pretty interesting statistic from commenter "John Walker, Canberra Australia:"
    In the UK nearly 50% of all of the money collected has been paid to just 20 individuals.

    Can anyone confirm this? I've used the ol' Googler, without joy.

    If true, it's a pretty damning statistic.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    icon
    Squirrel Brains (profile), Aug 5th, 2011 @ 2:13pm

    Re: Re:

    This was me. I forgot to sign in.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Aug 5th, 2011 @ 2:19pm

    Re:

    Someone (not even on a record label) invests $30,000 in the production, promotion, marketing, recording, mastering and distribution of an album.

    This is about paintings and sculptures, not music.

    Furthermore are you honestly implying that there are not production, promotion, marketing and such costs on other goods?

    Anyway, this article has absolutely nothing to do with musicians making money for each sale, so not even sure why you bring that up. In that case, they're doing it as a license.

    If you want a better analogy involving recording artists, it would work like this: an artist signs to record label "A". Record label A is then sold to Record Label "b". If a resale right is in place, then the cost for Record Label B is much higher because they *ALSO* have to pay all the artists *again* because they've bought their copyrights in a second sale....

    If you can't understand why the economics of that is prohibitive and harmful, I'm not sure we can explain much else to you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    identicon
    Joe, Aug 5th, 2011 @ 2:22pm

    Art as an investment

    So if I support a young artist and buy a piece for 1,000 and five years later, the piece is worth $10,000. The artist wants a cut of that in the form of a transaction fee. What if the price goes down? The way this is structured, the makes money every time the work changes hands and also profits if it increases in value. But if the work devalues over time (think Batman soundtrack by Prince) then they still have no risk. Solid floor and no ceiling. That's one hell of a deal.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 5th, 2011 @ 2:26pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    No asshat, if desired, all the costs of producing a piece of furniture can be recouped after one sale.

    Not so with a record album.

    Are you fucking dense?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 5th, 2011 @ 2:35pm

    International IP right Equalization

    The Omega vs. Costco case gave foreign artists resale rights to art originally obtained overseas. This endeavor will just give our American artists more equal footing.

    (Why doesn't equalization ever work the other way?)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Aug 5th, 2011 @ 2:40pm

    Re: What's the big deal? You keep reprinting your articles and selling ads next to them.

    What's the difference? You got paid when you sold the ad next the article the first time. Why do you keep reselling ads next to it each time someone else comes along.

    Um. Wow. That's dumb. I'm not reselling anything. When we sell ads, we're selling *ATTENTION* and it's different attention each time.

    Oh wait. I'm going to hear more sophistry about how this is different.

    Reality isn't sophistry, bob.

    The fact is that the first-sale doctrine makes life difficult for book owners.

    You do realize that without the first sale doctrine, it would make life MUCH MORE DIFFICULT for book owners, in that the books they sell would be less valuable. A study a few years back showed that the fact that you could resell books was a major factor in people accepting the upfront sale price of a book. Take that away and people are less willing to buy books.

    I understand the idea behind the first sale doctrine, but it just gets in the way of innovative financing agreements.

    How? Nothing in the first sale doctrine says you cannot create innovative financing agreements? Why are you making stuff up?

    But we know how you feel about innovation. Anything but free is bad.


    Please point out where I said that. I never said that. In fact, I discuss how to MAKE MONEY all the time. I've also argued in places where "free" doesn't make sense. My whole point is understanding when free makes sense and when it doesn't.

    Only an idiot would interpret that to mean "anything but free is bad."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Aug 5th, 2011 @ 2:43pm

    Re: What's the big deal? You keep reprinting your articles and selling ads next to them.

    > I understand the idea behind the first sale
    > doctrine, but it just gets in the way of
    > innovative financing agreements.

    And anything that gets in the way of Big Copy's money flow must be eradicated.

    That about sum it up?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Aug 5th, 2011 @ 2:43pm

    Re:

    I think Masnick must have been raped by an artist as a child. Nothing else could explain his rabid hatred of them trying to earn a living.


    Wow. So all the time I spend helping artists make more money? All the time I spend celebrating artists who embrace new business models to make tons of money?

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091119/1634117011.shtml

    Read that and then tell me I hate artists trying to earn a living. Are you serious? Is that the best you can come up with?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 5th, 2011 @ 2:44pm

    Re: Re:

    I don't get it, Masnick. What did you mean by saying, "Any artist should be able to recoup all their operating costs from their first iTunes sale?" How can any of you freetards think an artist can get by on $1 a track? Why do you want to rape all the hard working artists? I know you freetarded people are just sitting behind your keyboards all day thinking "how can I justify this" as you download what you think should be free content. Of course you don't want any IP laws at all, that's why everyone comes here to be part of the "big oppressed group of hippie freetards" so they can commiserate over why their congressmen aren't returning Captain Insane-o phone calls.

    Also, Nazi's.

    [/I think I got 'em all]

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 5th, 2011 @ 2:44pm

    It's already the law in California

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    icon
    NotMyRealName (profile), Aug 5th, 2011 @ 2:46pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    *bows*
    I'd like to thank AC's everywhere for the inspiration.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    icon
    crade (profile), Aug 5th, 2011 @ 2:48pm

    "Artists In The US Want To Get Paid Multiple Times For A Single Work"
    Umm... duh!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Aug 5th, 2011 @ 2:49pm

    Re: Re: What's the big deal? You keep reprinting your articles and selling ads next to them.

    > Take that away and people are less willing to buy books.

    The great scam they had going, though, was that their particular market-- students-- didn't have a choice but to buy the books. And even with a captive market, they still bitch and whine about students selling their old books at the end of the semester, and did everything they could to get around it, usually by changing a few paragraphs and printing a 'new edition', thereby making the old books less valuable.

    That's why text-book publishers have been quick to embrace the e-book concept. They think with DRM, they can do things like make textbooks 'expire' within a few months of purchase, so that not only can they not be resold, but the person who bought them can't even keep the book *themselves* to use in the future.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    icon
    Ron Rezendes (profile), Aug 5th, 2011 @ 2:50pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    To Kill a Troll

    Step #1: Look for blatant put down of original premise without reason: "I don't agree with resell rights, but the furniture analogy is retarded."

    Step #2: Look for the follow up bad analogy regarding physical good compared to digital media: "Someone (not even on a record label) invests $30,000 in the production, promotion, marketing, recording, mastering and distribution of an album.

    Sorry, but they're gonna need to get paid more than once to come close to recouping that, unless you think they can sell one download for 30k."

    Step #3: Find one of typically several level headed questions that should theoretically end the troll thread: "So you don't think they market, promote, design, or prototype furniture?"

    Step #4: Watch the troll bury himself with his own answer: "Of course they do, and that cost is recouped after their first sale."

    Step #5: Troll Gets called out for being a troll: "Ha ha ha ... you were joking, weren't you?

    if you weren't joking, then obviously you don't have an MBA, or any common sense. Recouped on first sale? Every piece of furniture sold incurs "real" physical material costs, which you can't create for free... unlike virtual goods (movies, music etc.) that cost close to nothing to replicate after the initial development costs and can be packaged in virtually limitless ways."

    Step #6 Watch troll implode and lash out all at once! Typically they provide some scenario that quite honestly wouldn't make sense in a world created by Syd and Marty Croft:
    "No asshat, if desired, all the costs of producing a piece of furniture can be recouped after one sale.

    Not so with a record album.

    Are you fucking dense?"

    (I always imagine their office/computer chair spinning at 78RPM while steam pours out their ears and their Mom's voice coming from upstairs "Honey, are you OK? Do you want me to make you a sandwich?")

    Step #7 Starve the troll and move on. Unfortunately, I was unable to do this on this article, hence my reply. My bad.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Aug 5th, 2011 @ 2:53pm

    Re:

    > Sorry, but they're gonna need to get paid
    > more than once

    They do get paid more than once. They get paid for every copy of that album that gets sold.

    If not enough copies are sold to make them money, well, that means they made a bad business decision and people just didn't like the music enough.

    Their bad decisions do not justify requiring everyone who sells that CD down the road to kick in a tithe to the record company.

    You seem to be operating from the basic assumption that every record company has a moral right to automatically make money on every investment they make. No one else in society has that right. Why should a record company or a painter or a movie studio be given investment insurance that none of the rest of us have?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 5th, 2011 @ 3:04pm

    Re: Re: Software Engineer?

    The overt care you've taken to write this post is nauseating.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    icon
    Ron Rezendes (profile), Aug 5th, 2011 @ 3:07pm

    Re: Re:

    You left out the battle cry "But the law is the law!" and the "safety of children depend on this legislation/law/idea/action."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    icon
    Vic B (profile), Aug 5th, 2011 @ 3:09pm

    it's a tax question

    I suspect that behind this isn't a concern for the artist or art resellers but only about government's ability to tax a transaction that today is pretty murky (unless purchased at auctions). Because of his interest in it, the artist would be the defacto enforcer of the transaction's legality and openness while the government would be the silent collecting middle man. Rich people will have to find another way to avoid the taxman's reach, possibly skipping art works and moving to other products that may appreciate with time.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    identicon
    Nicedoggy, Aug 5th, 2011 @ 3:16pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Visibility: 0%

    So IKEA can recoup the cost of design of a chair selling one chair for $14.99?

    Wow!

    Not to mention the costs of the store, transport, employees and so forth.
    http://www.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/products/00155964

    Can IKEA now claim they need to get paid for everything somebody bought from them and try to resell?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 5th, 2011 @ 3:24pm

    Re: Re:

    You think the majority of people buy Trent Reznor's music because he connects with fans? People buy music because it makes them feel good - his popularity as an artist has nothing to do with the overtly vague "business model" of CWF + RTB that's touted around here as gospel.

    Mike, let's face it, you're a rooster who's claiming credit for the dawn, and it's absolutely hilarious to see you do it with such ignorant pride. Please, keep it up, I love to watch pseudo-intellectuals wallow in their own satisfaction; it's quite enjoyable, you should try it by looking in a mirror.

    But let's get to the facts, according to multiple stat compilers, TD getting about 25k unique global visitors a day. Considering there's over 300 million people in the US alone, you'd better start taking your own advice. You're traffic is stagnant, just like you're old, tired ideas that you tout as new and innovative.

    /nailed it

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    icon
    Duke (profile), Aug 5th, 2011 @ 3:36pm

    Resale Right in Europe

    The whole thing is a bizarre and counterproductive concept. In past years, we've seen both the UK and Australia look to set up resale rights.

    The UK (via the EU, via France) already has a Resale Right. However, so far it has been confined to limited-edition artwork sold in auctions. The particularly scary part is that the money is taken by the auction house automatically, (rather than by the author) and cannot be waived or circumvented. [I wrote something about this a while back, when I stumbled across it.]

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    icon
    iamtheky (profile), Aug 5th, 2011 @ 3:39pm

    You think the majority of people buy Trent Reznor's music because he connects with fans?

    ummm... no, they buy all the other Null Corporation branded material and products because he connects with fans. They download his music for free.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Aug 5th, 2011 @ 3:47pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    /nailed it


    Indeed... best one yet.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 5th, 2011 @ 3:51pm

    Can already do that - Don't need a new law.

    Stock, people. It's exactly like stock.

    The company issuing stock ONLY makes money (directly) on the initial sale of the stock. All the people reselling it in no (direct) way benefit the company. However, the stock increasing (exactly) causes the value of the company to increase, which has all sorts of benefits that can be capitalized on.

    Anyway, what people are purchasing is an artifact, not art. It doesn't matter who created it, why, or what process. And artifact has a market value. And an owner.

    If artists want to loan their artifacts, they are currently at liberty to do that. You could easily build a business based on "artifact loaning" under current law. There are companies that do that for other "scarce" artifacts. Or for people who do not have the money to buy. I think most people will notice that the preference of consumers is to outright *own* something.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 5th, 2011 @ 4:08pm

    Re: Re:

    So, You hate artists making a living. Unless they're making their living from selling secondary merch. Yeah, that bone's a little too well chewed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 5th, 2011 @ 4:12pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "If you don't like the law then change it!"

    Changing laws are really easy to do. All one needs is a legislative body, for example the United States Congress, and a political class that is willing to work together to affect the needed change in order to benefit everyone.

    See: Debt Ceiling debate.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 5th, 2011 @ 4:28pm

    Sounds as if some outside of California have taken note of California Civil Code Section 986, which has been on the state's books for quite some time.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    icon
    Chargone (profile), Aug 5th, 2011 @ 5:00pm

    Re:

    ignoring that last line, that is actually quite likely to be part of the logic.

    (here, used to be that he'd be completely unemployable in such a role if the first one was such a disaster... but only if it was a disaster for the people who hired him to do it and/or the people who are looking at hiring him this time. )

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    icon
    AR (profile), Aug 5th, 2011 @ 5:13pm

    If second, third, and fourth sale royalties are what they want

    If thats what they want, go ahead and let them have it. For any of that to work then they would need a signed contract with the buyer to make it possible. If anyone is dumb enough to go along with it thats their problem. Its just another reason NOT to complete the first sale. People will just wait for "funeral sale" prices. After all most "artists" dont become famous until AFTER they die.

    Wait, there is a new business!! An art gallery at the funeral home. While people are grieving, they might be more willing to pay higher prices.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67.  
    icon
    AG (profile), Aug 5th, 2011 @ 5:18pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    By the same reasoning, you *could* also sell your fucking album for xxx dollars and recoup all the costs in one sale. Or are you too fucking dense to get that?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Aug 5th, 2011 @ 5:40pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Also, Nazi's.

    Now that's what I call bringing your A-game. Nicely done.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  69.  
    icon
    BeeAitch (profile), Aug 5th, 2011 @ 7:38pm

    Re: What's the big deal? You keep reprinting your articles and selling ads next to them.

    "innovative financing agreements"

    What a nice way to say "screw the artist and the customer".

    Hadn't had it put that way before...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  70.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 5th, 2011 @ 11:56pm

    Re: Art as an investment

    It would depend on the way that you purchased the art 5 years before. If you bought it under a "shared future profit" model, then yes, the artist might be entitled to get paid.

    If you purchase it outright, then you own it and there would be no issue. There isn't any simple legal method to go back and slap an "artist tax" on something you have already paid for.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  71.  
    identicon
    chris, Aug 6th, 2011 @ 12:41am

    I'll support this but I think the artists should pay a cut whenever they steal an idea that ends up in their work.

    Paint a beautiful landscape? You own $50 to the parks department for every painting you sell.

    Record a song about Vietnam? Half the profit on every record sale is taxed and goes to the DOD.

    On second though, maybe this whole IP concept is dumb and we should stick with "you bought it you own it".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  72.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 6th, 2011 @ 12:45am

    Re: Re: Re:

    When did you stop raping your wife?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  73.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 6th, 2011 @ 12:46am

    Re: Re: Re:

    When did you stop raping your wife?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  74.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 6th, 2011 @ 12:47am

    Re: Re: Re:

    When did you stop beating your wife?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  75.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 6th, 2011 @ 5:19am

    The resale right for artists is just another marxist Pro-IP attempt at "fairness"

    And yet they'll still claim to be free martketers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  76.  
    icon
    indieThing (profile), Aug 6th, 2011 @ 7:09am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I'll bite: Depends on how much it cost to design, market, manufacture and store. You could be a carpenter at home who doesn't pay for design or marketing and knock it out for £100 say to a friend or passerby. However, most furniture sellers spend money on design and marketing etc.

    And it's exactly the same for music, you can spend £30,000 on making an album, or you could spend £100.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  77.  
    identicon
    bob, Aug 6th, 2011 @ 7:55am

    Re:

    Don't worry. You may lose $30k producing a film/song/book/whatever, but somehow the people will rise up and pay your rent and your dinner bill just because they like you art. And little elves will work all night to help edit it too!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  78.  
    icon
    Jesse (profile), Aug 6th, 2011 @ 8:07am

    Re: What's the big deal? You keep reprinting your articles and selling ads next to them.

    I'm a lifeguard. I want a cut of all downstream income for every snot-nosed kid I save. They wouldn't be making that income without me! I need an incentive to keep saving them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  79.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 6th, 2011 @ 10:32am

    Great Idea...

    But why stop there. The maker of the paint, the canvas, the landlord that provided the space in which to paint, the baker that provided the bread to eat should also get their cut of the resale. /Snark

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  80.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 6th, 2011 @ 11:26am

    Re:

    I want the deal to be reciprocal: I buy it for 100 bucks, then can only sell it for 50, artist owes me the difference.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  81.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Aug 6th, 2011 @ 12:29pm

    Re:

    Someone (not even on a record label) invests $30,000 in the production, promotion, marketing, recording, mastering and distribution of an album.

    Sorry, but they're gonna need to get paid more than once to come close to recouping that, unless you think they can sell one download for 30k.


    If that download came with all the rights that they had then yes - they could expect a sum of that magnitude.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  82.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Aug 6th, 2011 @ 12:42pm

    Re: Re:

    I want the deal to be reciprocal:

    That would actually mena that whenever the artist spends some of the money you paid then you would get a cut - and whenever the person that took the money spent it you would get a cut - and so on - after all a banknote is an artwork isn't it?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  83.  
    identicon
    john r walker, Aug 6th, 2011 @ 6:50pm

    @ Mike Masnick and Resale Royalty
    I am a Australian visual artist. Resale royalties are, for all but a handful of artists who have sold a lot of artworks in the FIRST place, a useless/crap/harmful idea for artists. It is nothing more than a compulsory right to management fees for the collection societies that endlessly lobby for it. And extra supplementary payments to those artists already most favored by the market.

    It is also repeatedly claimed by the lobbyists for these schemes that 'over 50 countries worldwide have already adopted the scheme'. The EU's official Europa website on this matter states that as of May this year, no non-EU country has adopted a scheme that meets EU standards.
    See: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/resale-right/resale-right_en.htm

    The advocates are mired in moral hazard, conflict of interest and are shameless liars.

    I ask you all to read our post on Professor Jeremy Phillips 1709 blog
    http://the1709blog.blogspot.com/2010/12/artist-resale-royalty-harmonisation-and.html

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  84.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Aug 7th, 2011 @ 9:34am

    Re: Re:

    I think you should add "The Wild West phase of the internet is coming to an end, enjoy it while you can".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  85.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Aug 7th, 2011 @ 9:43am

    Re: Re: Art as an investment

    But this law would make it illegal to purchase it outright. You would always owe something back to the artist.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  86.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Aug 7th, 2011 @ 9:44am

    Re: It's already the law in California

    Wow, I wonder if art sales in California have gone down.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  87.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Aug 7th, 2011 @ 9:47am

    Re: If second, third, and fourth sale royalties are what they want

    For any of that to work then they would need a signed contract with the buyer to make it possible.

    No, that's what's needed today. If this law were passed, you would be violating the law to not pay back to the artist when you resell the work and the artist could sue you for damages. No contract necessary.

    I assume this would result in a new black market for art.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  88.  
    icon
    Any Mouse (profile), Aug 7th, 2011 @ 5:04pm

    Re:

    I'll pay $10, now, and use it as kindling at the next bonfire. Oops, guess they don't get anything else.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  89.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 12:12am

    Re: Re:

    Don't worry. You may lose $30k producing a film/song/book/whatever, but somehow the people will rise up and pay your rent and your dinner bill just because they like you art. And little elves will work all night to help edit it too!

    So I destroy your logic, and you can't respond, but then you post a strawman instead? No one has argued the above. Because that's not what we've said at all.

    What amazes me is how people don't bother to read what we write and then make up things they thought we said. And then they wonder why they're failing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  90.  
    icon
    WysiWyg (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 6:15am

    Re: Interesting statistic

    I know that here in Sweden the money is divided based on how often a song/artist is played on the bigger radio-channels.

    So it wouldn't surprise me if such a small number of people got most of the money. Especially since, if I understand it correctly, only Swedish artists gets paid in Sweden. Would think the same applies in the UK.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  91.  
    icon
    Thomas (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 6:38am

    How in the world..

    would you keep track? I buy a painting direct from an artist and pay him $500. Suppose a year later I want to sell the painting to a friend for whatever reason. The friend offers me $550, and I accept it. How could anyone know I've sold the painting? What if the artist is no longer around?

    Dumb idea.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  92.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2011 @ 8:38am

    If an artist wants a cut of second sales, I would like a cut of future first sales. After all, it was my hard earned money that put food on his table and purchased the paint for those later works!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  93.  
    icon
    DannyB (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 10:55am

    But one of the Anonymous Cowards told me . . .

    . . . that the one who takes the risks should get the rewards.

    We were talking about copyright work for hire. I was arguing that there should not be any work for hire. The rights stop at the artist.

    The AC told me that the one investing in the creation and taking risks should get the reward.

    So here, I think, the collector who invests in collecting the work of unknown artists should reap the reward if that artist becomes famous.

    The artist's own fame will enable him to get reward for further works he creates.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  94.  
    identicon
    john r walker, Aug 8th, 2011 @ 4:24pm

    Re:

    In the UK/EU (but not under Australia's scheme) the resale scheme affects the resales of artworks that were bought decades before buyers knew about the future introduction of the scheme.

    I.E 'Paid fully twice' is exactly what happens, for DEAD artists.

    Effectively the scheme is a sort of inheritance/wealth tax.
    The only artists who really benefit are those who sold lots of art decades ago and are now mostly dead.

    for living artists it simply reduces the offering prices/demand for new art

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  95.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 5:54pm

    Re: Re:

    The only artists who really benefit are those who sold lots of art decades ago and are now mostly dead.

    Mostly dead, eh?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbE8E1ez97M

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  96.  
    icon
    AR (profile), Aug 19th, 2011 @ 7:21pm

    Re: Re: If second, third, and fourth sale royalties are what they want

    I know this is way late but hope you see it anyway. The comment was pointed sarcasm. the point I was trying to make was "Its just another reason NOT to complete the first sale."
    In other words iF you are going to buy art wait until after they are long dead (If at all). If the sales stop maybe they will learn the ridiculousness of what they are asking for.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This