Protecting Artist Rights

...is not even vaguely the same as protecting the rights of record and publishing companies to make millions off legally distributed product.

I'm surprised--and a little delighted--to note the Chicago Tribune hires at least one non-wanker (it's Greg Kot, the Tribune music critic), mentioning Obama's "copyright czar" and her conviction that we have to get rid of all illegal downloads...some nonsense about how the majority of Americans don't want to download things illegally (yeah, because we loooove being surprised by a song that only sounds good for thirty seconds and turns into absolute shit! I do generally buy things from Amazon now, especially because they've told DRM to go fuck itself, but so far I've only picked up stuff I heard in full and of course cheap albums by artists I like that I've already mostly heard.)

But Obama's argument for preventing it is the 'protection of intellectual property'...uh, what?

I remember hearing back in the heyday of Kazaa that artists on average only got 10 cents for every album they sold, and since albums then were around $14.99, ...yeah. Artists don't actually get very much from the current system. If this were really about protecting and encouraging creativity, it should be the legitimate producers that come under scrutiny.

I still like Obama, but he really needs to get some experts on board to deal with issues like healthcare reform and intellectual property. The man's horrifyingly intelligent for a politician, but that doesn't make him an expert on anything.

No comments: