Lawmakers Propose Resale Right For US Artwork To Harm Young Artist & Help Already Successful Ones

from the droit-de-suite-should-be-dumped-tout-de-suite dept

Wed, Dec 28th 2011 5:29am — Mike Masnick

Over the summer, we wrote about a ridiculous new lobbying effort, led by the author of the DMCA, Bruce Lehman, to create an artist resale right in the US. We've discussed similar plans found elsewhere, and there's no way to describe them other than as a ridiculously bad idea. It's basically an attempt to have artists get paid multiple times for the same piece of work, without anyone planning these things by talking to an economist about how badly that will backfire. Either way, it looks like the lobbying effort has succeeded so far, as Rep. Jerrold Nadler and Senator Herb Kohl, have introduced bills to create such a right across the US in both the House and the Senate.

Basically, the idea is that after an artist sells a work, if the work is later resold, the artist gets a piece of the proceeds. The economically clueless thinking behind this is that artists sell works off when they're unknown and starving for little money... but then when they become famous, it seems only "fair" that the artist should get a cut of the multi-million dollar sale of their artwork. Except that ignores common sense and reality (is it any wonder that it was easy to find two politicians to support such a plan?). First of all, artist resale rights harm artists. That's because it now makes it more expensive for anyone to invest in art, knowing that they get less on every resale, because some has to go back to the artist. Any time you make it more expensive for people to invest in young artists, you harm those artists.

More importantly, this only helps already super successful artists, because they're the only ones who make money off of this. The Nadler and Kohl bills only apply to sales of artwork over $10,000. If an artist has works that are selling for that much they're already super successful and can make a lot more money by simply making new art and selling it themselves. In other words, once you've reached the stage where your old art is selling for $10,000, you shouldn't be relying on an artist resale right anyway. You should be making new art and selling it for a lot of money directly and cashing in.

So, to recap: this kind of right harms new artists by making it more expensive for anyone to invest in their art, and it only helps super successful artists who can already make a ton of money from their art. It seems like the exact and total opposite of what would be smart policy on a copyright issue.

What's amazing is that these bills keep popping up. The UK and Australia recently passed these laws, and California already has one -- though it's widely ignored. You would think that politicians would be concerned about introducing legislation that hurts young up-and-coming artists and only helps the superstar artists, but apparently that wasn't a concern for these particular politicians or for Bruce Lehman, who was lobbying on behalf of... the Artists Rights Society, whose main goal here is to be the middleman to collect these fees (not exactly an altruistic position).

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: artwork, bruce lehman, droit de suite, herb kohl, jerrold nadler, resale right, us

145 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

abc gum, 28 Dec 2011 @ 5:37am

Hmmm, and I thought there were plenty of starving artists already. I would be inclined to avoid a purchase knowing that resale was encumbered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2011 @ 5:39am

who decides who qualifies as an artist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Spaceboy (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 5:51am
  
  Re:
  Why the Accredited Art Industry of America Association. Or the AAIAA as they like to be called.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ben (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 6:08am
    
    Re: Re:
    My first thought too. A giant middle man raking in the future sale fees for those poor artists.
    
    What's that you say? Art accounting means they get nothing while the AAIAA keep all the fees? Wow. Didn't see that coming.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 1:14pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I keep seeing AAIAA (visually) as a bunch of fat men surrounding a poor, thin man in the center, blocking him from getting out, intercepting and keeping any incoming resources for themselves.
      
      That's what AAIAA really stands for, right?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2011 @ 7:28am
  
  Re:
  The eye of the beholder.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2011 @ 8:26am
  
  Re:
  I guess I just need to make a painting of my computer code...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2011 @ 5:43am

/facepalm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rex Rollman, 28 Dec 2011 @ 5:47am

Speaking as someone who occasonally buy original comic art, what a horrible idea!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MAJikMARCer (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 5:53am

Just how many people does this bill "help"?
I'm not suggesting that minority groups shouldn't have laws narrowly focused on them, but I wonder just how many people this bill would actually affect and how many of them are actually for it?

As some one who used to dabble in the arts I can't help but understand this bill to a degree. If I'm just starting out and one of my early pieces sells for a few hundred dollars and then a couple years later I'm a big shot and my original piece is being resold for a much larger sum, sure I'd want a cut of that!

But is that fair/reasonable? I sold that piece of art. It's no longer mine. Sure I created it, but I don't 'own' it any more. Why do I deserve a cut? The person who bought it, made a good investment. Of course the art could have just as easily not appreciated in value. At the time of original sale I didn't care about that. I was making a sale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2011 @ 6:00am
  
  Re: Just how many people does this bill "help"?
  Artists want a time machine.
  If that is not possible they want a time machine like law that will enable them to extort money from everybody else.
  
  That is why IP laws must end.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - MrWilson, 28 Dec 2011 @ 8:49am
    
    Re: Re: Just how many people does this bill "help"?
    It's not necessarily the artists, though we've heard as much from some of the older musicians who want to exact monopoly rents for some song they recorded 50 years ago.
    
    It's mostly the middlemen who stand to benefit from this and other IP laws. Corporations are the only "beings" that live long enough to fully profit off of the length of copyright beyond the lifetime of the artist.
    
    To have a system where artists get paid for the resale of their work, you need a bureaucratic corporate middleman maintaining a database of works and contact and payment information. There's profit to be made there, especially with "creative accounting" that sees little or no payments to artists.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Doe, 28 Dec 2011 @ 6:17am
  
  Re: Just how many people does this bill "help"?
  The person who bought it, made a good investment. Of course the art could have just as easily not appreciated in value.
  
  You might be on to something. Lets hold the artist liable for losses on future sales. That is only fair, right? If they get to participate in the profits, they should participate in the losses as well.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2011 @ 6:47am
    
    Re: Re: Just how many people does this bill "help"?
    That would make too much sense ... so far politicians show little sign of making any sense. Your idea fails, you must think of something less logical.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Greevar (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 9:43am
  
  Re: Just how many people does this bill "help"?
  Let's apply this concept to other goods. Let's take cars for example. Would you think it right or fair to have to pay the manufacturer a cut of a used car sale if that car has appreciated in value due to rarity?
  
  No, this is replete with the concept of modifying a contract after the fact. Besides, they don't really deserve a cut of the transaction, they didn't earn it. The artist didn't add value to the art, society did by taking an interest in the artist's works. That's basically getting something for nothing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - JEDIDIAH, 28 Dec 2011 @ 1:36pm
    
    Re: Re: Just how many people does this bill "help"?
    The main impact of something like this is to complicate the resale of goods and effectively strip individuals of property rights. Something that is less useful is less valuable. This is something that Media Moguls continually fail to grasp. If something is more valuable to the customer (for whatever reason), that will INCREASE demand.
    
    Destroying the value of a work will only DECREASE demand.
    
    Don't place burdens on resale. It will just make people less motivated to buy to begin with.
    
    Then there's the entire overhead of administering all of this...
    
    A big mess all around.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Loki, 28 Dec 2011 @ 12:31pm
  
  Re: Just how many people does this bill "help"?
  It's not fair or reasonable (well maybe to an unreasonable person it might be). I sold the painting for what I sold it for. If my reputation makes the worth of my work more valuable, then I make another painting and sell it for correspondingly higher profits.
  
  It's no different than a lawyer or a auto mechanic or a doctor. They charge low for their services as they start out and build their reputation. Then they get to charge correspondingly higher fees as their reputation builds.
  
  If I can't continue to deliver goods people want, then I go work at a gas station or a factory like everyone else.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Violated (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 6:01am

Wonky Pyramid
This sounds like a Pyramid sales scheme.

Now if only I could get a cut from all the items my online company sells should these items be sold on second hand. Nice but it would never happen.

This proposal has two obvious faults. The first is that the buyer is the one to take the risk in the painting. So if the painting loses value then does the artist have to cough up part of the loss to compensate the seller? All win and no loss is hardly a fair open market.

Then second would be if the artist become famous they can live their fame and make new art to sell for millions. That is unless they since lost their hands in a lawnmower challenge but that is karma for you.

So this is only another group of people wanting something for nothing. Free cash. They seem to forget when you sell an item you transfer ownership.

The end conclusion is if the artist wants to take the risk in the painting then they should not have sold it in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2011 @ 6:39am
  
  Re: Wonky Pyramid
  "This sounds like a Pyramid sales scheme."
  
  This sounds like our government. Only the people at the top can afford to buy our politicians and receive huge ROI's.
  
  It's sad that our government is beginning to resemble a pyramid scheme.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 1:19pm
    
    Re: Re: Wonky Pyramid
    And our congressmen are starting to resemble pyramids: pointy heads and fat bottoms, filled with gold and jewels and a dead soul in the center.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Joe, 22 Mar 2012 @ 9:23pm
  
  Re: Wonky Pyramid
  Loophole: Modify a painting and then claim the 4% off of the people who bought it from you. Oh wait, that would ruin the art. Duh, stupid 'clever' people in office.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
nathaniel, 28 Dec 2011 @ 6:04am

may only benefit secondary markets
Well thought-out, Mike. I totally agree this would only benefit successful artists - and perhaps more than that, gallerists and dealers who also get a cut from resales (usually around 50% of what the artist gets). Generally (tho not in all cases), young artists think of their work as gone once it's out the door (I speak from experience here); it is dealers, especially secondary market dealers, who continue to follow market values, resales, etc. I wonder if there are any clauses in there for deceased artists about their estates or dealers handling them...
(FYI: the primary market sees dealers and gallerists working directly between living artists and buyers, secondary market is about resales - they don't usually work with - living - artists directly, only buyers and sellers and estates. Young and emerging artists' only opportunities for success - at least in the commercial art realm led by galleries - lie in the primary market)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2011 @ 6:06am

So does the artist pay the buyer of the art a 'cut' of the losses if the investment made on the original work doesn't pan out? It sounds like the bill is keeping all of the risk on art investors but taking a chunk of their pay-offs when those risks are rewarded. That's not a sound economic strategy for any investment risks you ostensibly want people to take. Unless the goal is to encourage people to be less risky in their investments. Doesn't this also encourage established artists to create fewer additional works? I mean why create something new if I can earn a residual income from work I've already done? Surely the economic incentive to create will be diminished by creating such a revenue stream.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 28 Dec 2011 @ 6:15am

We should apply this to everything
Why should a car collector get the full benefit of selling a 1967 Ford AC Cobra for $250,00 when Ford only got $5,000 for the thing back in 1967. Ford should get a cut of the $250,000 shouldn't they?

This is ridiculous and I don't see how it could stand up in court. It basically impedes on the right of first sale. But then again, what about IP law doesn't?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jeremy Lyman (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 7:20am
  
  Re: We should apply this to everything
  Yeah, I take more issue with this impeding first sale rights than helping or hurting certain artist groups. Once someone else owns a work the seller isn't part of the equation any more. This sounds like some folks in the tangible goods world are jealous of the anti-consumer trend in licensing digital products instead of selling them.
  
  Frankly if an artist wanted to sell only 80% ownership of a work and attach some contractual agreement concerning re-seller's rights, I bet they could do so right now. I also bet they'd have a hard time finding customers to line up around the block to buy something that they don't actually get to own.
  
  This legislation sounds like it would limit consumer choice to an arrangement that would never exist in a competitive and free market. The only other choices left would be not to purchase at all or... *gasp* purchase from foreign artist who don't automatically employ a "you don't own your property" clause.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2011 @ 6:19am

'The UK and Australia recently passed these laws'.

yet another case of governments world wide collaborating with each other. get a ridiculous, encumbering law introduced in one country and it then happens in another. much like the entertainment industries and their stupid ideas of being non-competitive! kill something off (because people will buy less) instead of producing more and better products that more people can afford!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- mike allen (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 7:10am
  
  Re:
  first time i heard the UK had citation please. Most artists do not reach super money until after their death so this wont help the artist at all,
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2011 @ 6:20am

Just another assault on the "First Sale" doctrine
�

This is just another assault on �First Sale�.

�
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2011 @ 6:21am

Chances are most of the people who will benefit from this are already dead, since paintings and such by artists become much more valuable after the artist dies.

Maybe congress is hoping some zombie artists decide to make some new paintings because of the extra cash it'll get them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2011 @ 6:32am
  
  Re:
  don't worry the rights for the painting will transfer to their children in the next bill.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2011 @ 6:22am

This sounds like lawmakers are art collectors wishing to cap their purchases at $9999.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris-Mouse (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 6:24am

So, I find a painting that's been stashed in the garage for a couple of decades. I have no idea who created the painting, but this art collector really wants to buy it from me. How am I supposed to figure out who to gets the artist's fees?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2011 @ 6:28am
  
  Re:
  How am I supposed to figure out who to gets the artist's fees?
  
  Then cut out the middleman. Just pay your Congressman directly.
  
  And your Congressman will handle any reverse-kickbacks to the lobbyists for you. Kinda like if he was acting as your agent.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 7:50am
    
    Re: Re:
    OR, you can round them up and shoot them like traitors, as is your Right, under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Nathan F (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 6:32am
  
  Re:
  Doesn't matter. The Artists Rights Society will collect the 'artists' portion and then figure out later who it is supposed to go to.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jeremy Lyman (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 7:23am
    
    Re: Re:
    "Doesn't matter. The Artists Rights Society will collect the 'artists' portion and then probably never figure out later who it is supposed to go to."
    
    There, I fixed it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - martyburns (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 5:13am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Doesn't matter. The Artists Rights Society will collect the 'artists' portion and then...PROFIT!.
      
      FTFY
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2011 @ 6:35am

So what if I sell something to a pawn shop and they sell it for a profit. Do I then get an extra share of that profit? What if I sell a car and it becomes a classic and is sold for more money. Do I, or does Ford, get an extra share?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2011 @ 6:45am
  
  Re:
  what if someone sells their Ford Pinto and it becomes a classic?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2011 @ 6:45am
  
  Re:
  What if someone sells their Ford Pinto and it becomes a classic?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2011 @ 6:46am
  
  Re:
  What if someone sells their Ford Pinto and it becomes a classic?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2011 @ 6:48am
    
    Re: Re:
    (sorry for the triple Post, it didn't post the first time).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris-Mouse (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 6:36am

Yet another industry about to move offshore
It's almost a no-brainer to predict that this will cause the secondary art industry to move offshore. Shipping a piece of art to an auction house out of the country would be cheaper than paying the new fees, and once out of the country, the new fees no longer apply.

Next up, export restrictions on artwork.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Joe, 22 Mar 2012 @ 9:25pm
  
  Re: Yet another industry about to move offshore
  The Swiss, the Chinese, and the Italians/French people love this!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
anonymous, 28 Dec 2011 @ 6:37am

another situation where paid for politicians cripple the majority for the sake of the minority. no questions asked. pathetic!

out of curiosity, how many artists belong to the 'Artists Rights Society'? have they authorised this? have they thought it through or just assumed that they will get the money and not those inbetweeners, like normally happens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
average_joe (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 6:53am

Oh look, Mike Masnick doesn't support a proposed law that would give artists more rights. Shocker! And where's his evidence that such a right would actually hurt artists? There is none--it's faith-based FUD. Double shocker!

More importantly, this only helps already super successful artists, because they're the only ones who make money off of this. The Nadler and Kohl bills only apply to sales of artwork over $10,000. If an artist has works that are selling for that much they're already super successful and can make a lot more money by simply making new art and selling it themselves.

Your logic is so twisted it hurts. If this only applies to artists who are "already super successful," and if you admit that this "only helps already super successful artists," then you have just admitted that this will help the very artists it applies to.

In other words, once you've reached the stage where your old art is selling for $10,000, you shouldn't be relying on an artist resale right anyway. You should be making new art and selling it for a lot of money directly and cashing in.

Or they could just do both. Sheesh.

So, to recap: this kind of right harms new artists by making it more expensive for anyone to invest in their art, and it only helps super successful artists who can already make a ton of money from their art.

Again, you already admitted that this only applies to artists who can already sell their artwork for $10,000 or more, and you already admitted that this will "only help[]" them. So how does it "harm[] new artists by making it more expensive to invest in their art"? If someone's willing to pay $10,000 or more for a piece of artwork, do you have ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that they wouldn't spend a little bit more? Nope.

What's amazing is that these bills keep popping up.

What's amazing is how twisted and stupid your logic is. What's amazing is how you HATE that artists have ANY RIGHTS. What's amazing is how you don't think artists should exercise the rights they have. What's amazing is how you defend piracy day in and day out, but you think that no one notices that you're pro-piracy.

And what's truly amazing is how you pretend that your policy preference is really an economic reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2011 @ 7:01am
  
  Re:
  average_joe the defender of monopolies peddling his twisted view of the world where only artists deserve rights and other people need to pay or else SHOCKER.
  
  You do remember when house builders tried to pass a law saying that if you sold a house you should pay them a little?
  
  Why didn't it pass?
  Now why some douche artist should get that right?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - average_joe (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 7:23am
    
    Re: Re:
    LOL! I didn't say I supported this bill. I'm simply pointing out how terrible and predictable Mike's "logic" is. This bill sounds like a stupid idea to me at first blush, but I don't have enough information to form a solid opinion on the matter.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcus Carab (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 7:25am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Oh please Joe. It's clear from your rant that you support the bill. You just railed against Mike saying that his opposition here shows he "HATES" artists and doesn't want them to have "ANY" rights. Obviously you support this bill - which is pretty ridiculous. Care to explain why you like it so much?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - average_joe (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 7:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Support it? I've never heard of it until a few moments ago. And I don't support it--as I said, sounds stupid to me but I'd have to learn more about it first to form an actual position on the matter.
        
        Mike does hate the fact that artists have rights in their works, and he does not support artists exercising those rights. That's just a fact.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 7:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Support it? I've never heard of it until a few moments ago.
        
        Funny - that didn't stop you from churning out a page of polemics about how stupid Mike is to oppose it... Maybe next time you should stop and think before getting up in arms defending a bill you are later going to claim "sounds stupid"
        
        As it stands you have expended far more breath in favour of this bill than opposed to it, so I've still got you under the "support" column...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 7:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Huh? I can disagree with Mike's "reasoning" yet still agree with him on the ultimate issue. One has nothing to do with other.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 7:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Huh? I can disagree with Mike's "reasoning" yet still agree with him on the ultimate issue. One has nothing to do with other.
        
        Oh please - quit trying to pretend you've put thought into this. You just admitted that you only just heard of this bill - and clearly you leapt into your rant before even considering it. You're just another bitter failed artist, I suspect.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2011 @ 8:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well then you suck at transmitting information.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2011 @ 7:31am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So it is personal and not about facts then?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - average_joe (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 7:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What facts? It's just a bunch of opinion masked as fact (they should have asked an economist, like Mike!). His argument is not even logical (he admits it can only help successful artists, with no explanation of how it hurts unsuccessful ones). The whole post is just another anti-IP, anti-artist rant. And (of course!) it's all founded on faith-based FUD couched in economic terms to give it heft. What a joke.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 7:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        (he admits it can only help successful artists, with no explanation of how it hurts unsuccessful ones)
        
        As the post states, it hurts unsuccessful ones by making investment in their art less appealing. The benefits go to successful artists, but the costs come from small ones. I thought that was pretty damn clear. Are you really that bad at reading comprehension or, y'know, just the reading part?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2011 @ 8:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        He states it only helps one part of the group you call artists in detriment of everybody else specially the ones that are starting.
        
        Why should anybody care about art?
        If I want something the next contract will be ridiculously onesided the "artist" will have to give up his soul to get work how is that for consequences?
        
        Since this is not a uniform law that applies worldwide, people can just find art elsewhere so local artists will have no jobs.
        
        You apparently lack the imagination necessary to see how bad this could turn out, now explain how a very small percentage of people deserve rights that only benefit them at the expense of everybody else?
        
        Is just like copyright, it benefits only a minority of people and although in theory it applies to everybody in practice things are different the only people able to afford those protections are the people who least need them and they benefit from a granted monopoly that harms not only others from the same group, but it also harms society and it is starting to get serious because censorship and surveilance is not a joke and the root cause of it is the monopoly granted, that was a mistake and it is time to correct that mistake by ending it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 1:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What facts? It's just a bunch of opinion masked as fact...
        
        Aaaaaaand cue irony.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2011 @ 2:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Holyshit, a guy outside just got run over by an ambulance.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - techflaws.org (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 9:17am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Simply because you dimwit need more information doesn't mean everyone else is that slow on the uptake. Sheesh.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2011 @ 7:04am
  
  Re:
  Once something is sold, that should be the end of it, you produced something, you sold what the market would pay you and you should be grateful, not try to turn the clock backwards and extort others, it is not your art anymore, it is not your work anymore you sold it remember?
  
  Why should you get anything at all for it is beyond me, that is also why I want to see copyrights and patents gone.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - average_joe (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 7:29am
    
    Re: Re:
    Things get sold all the time where less than complete right, title, and interest changes hands, so your argument that this isn't how sales should work rings hollow. Sales do work like that. I bought a DVD just last night (yes, some people still collect DVDs!). I own the physical disc, but I am only a nonexclusive licensee of movie that's on it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcus Carab (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 7:33am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Things get sold all the time where less than complete right, title, and interest changes hands, so your argument that this isn't how sales should work rings hollow. Sales do work like that. I bought a DVD just last night (yes, some people still collect DVDs!). I own the physical disc, but I am only a nonexclusive licensee of movie that's on it.
      
      The commenter pointed out that copyrights and patents are part of the same problem right in his comment - so clearly he is already aware of what you're saying here. Are you done acting like you're so much smarter than everyone, or do you still have some more unearned smugness to get out of your system?
      
      I can't believe I didn't realize it before. You're just a bitter failed artist of some kind...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2011 @ 7:54am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      That is exactly the kind of thing that must stop.
      That is exactly the kind of thing that create confusion and attrition inside a society.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2011 @ 9:41am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      That's not really true. You own the Dvd. You could sell that Dvd to someone else. The studio does not get a cut of that sale. The movie is still licensed for noncommercial use, but the ownership of the physical disk is easily transferable.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btr1701 (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 11:53am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      > I own the physical disc, but I am only a
      > nonexclusive licensee of movie that's on it.
      
      But if this bill were to pass, you couldn't even sell the physical disc you supposedly own without giving the artists (i.e., the studio) a cut.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JEDIDIAH, 28 Dec 2011 @ 1:41pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      > I bought a DVD just last night (yes, some people
      > still collect DVDs!). I own the physical disc,
      > but I am only a nonexclusive licensee of movie
      > that's on it.
      
      That is a bald faced lie.
      
      You own the copy of that work.
      
      There is no "license".
      
      You can resell or rent that physical item in any manner you choose. It's your personal property. You can use or dispose of it accordingly. We have rights as individuals despite your attempts to claim that we do not.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Marcus Carab (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 1:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        There is no "license"
        
        Well, there is actually... Joe is right: you are the owner of the disc, and the licensee of the movie itself.
        
        I'm not sure what any of that has to do with artist resale rights though.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 7:24am
  
  Re:
  You often claim you are just a legal scholar, only interested in correctly examining and interpreting the law, and not approaching these debates from a moral position with a strong personal opinion.
  
  Then you go and flip out about something like this for no immediately obvious reason.
  
  So I think it's clear that you have another motivation... and I wonder what it is. Are you a failed artist, Joe?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Devil's Coachman (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 7:28am
  
  Re:
  You really need to try and stop being such a twat. You are probably part of the twat fraternity that regularly regurgitates idiocy here, and should all be sterilized to prevent further propagation of regurgitating twits. Twat is as twat does.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- E. Zachary Knight (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 7:30am
  
  Re:
  Your logic is so twisted it hurts. If this only applies to artists who are "already super successful," and if you admit that this "only helps already super successful artists," then you have just admitted that this will help the very artists it applies to.
  
  So you admit that this law will only benefit those artists that don't actually need the help.
  
  Or they could just do both. Sheesh.
  
  Or they could work like every other person in the world and make money on the work they do today not the work they did 20 years ago. The world does not work the way you IP maximalists want it to work. I am doing work today that will benefit those organizations I work for for years to come. I don't expect to get paid in perpetuity for their gain. I expect to get paid for the work I do today. Why should an artist be treated any differently?
  
  Again, you already admitted that this only applies to artists who can already sell their artwork for $10,000 or more, and you already admitted that this will "only help[]" them. So how does it "harm[] new artists by making it more expensive to invest in their art"? If someone's willing to pay $10,000 or more for a piece of artwork, do you have ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that they wouldn't spend a little bit more? Nope.
  
  Let's think about this for a minute. There is an arbitrary ceiling of $10,000. I don't know what the cut is but let's say it is 20%. Now that piece of art that will sell for $10,000 will only net me $8000. Why would I sell it for $10,000 and pay the artist when I could sell it for $9000, make more money and not have to pay a fee? How is that going to help an as yet unsuccessful artist?
  
  You see that places an unfair price ceiling on the work of artists that aren't currently selling works for more than $10,000 at the time of this law passing. This prevents those artists from becoming successful.
  
  What's amazing is how twisted and stupid your logic is. What's amazing is how you HATE that artists have ANY RIGHTS. What's amazing is how you don't think artists should exercise the rights they have.
  
  Mike doesn't hate artists. Mike wants them to succeed. That is why he is arguing against a bill that would make it far harder for artists to succeed. Why you can't see that is beyond me. You would think a law student would have a better grasp of unintended consequences.
  
  And what's truly amazing is how you pretend that your policy preference is really an economic reality.
  
  What is really amazing is how many trolls have no clue how economics work.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - E. Zachary Knight (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 7:53am
    
    Re: Re:
    Looks like the royalty is only 7%. But that still works with my economic logic.
    
    Why sell a piece of art for $10,000 and only make $9300 when I could sell it for $9500, make more money and not have to pay the artists.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - RonKaminsky (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 5:06pm
    
    Interesting
    You've found one reason which I've never seen before why this legislation makes no sense economically (assuming it is supposed to benefit artists as a whole).
    
    If you read the comments at URL
    
    http://the1709blog.blogspot.com/2010/12/artist-resale-royalty-harmonisation-and.html
    
    you will see that real people who deal in Australian art agree with Mike that it is damaging simply because fewer people will buy art as an investment (or even agree to market art for artists who choose to have a lifestyle which makes locating them difficult).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2011 @ 7:43am
  
  Re:
  What's amazing is how twisted and stupid your logic is. What's amazing is how you HATE that artists have ANY RIGHTS. What's amazing is how you don't think artists should exercise the rights they have. What's amazing is how you defend piracy day in and day out, but you think that no one notices that you're pro-piracy.
  
  Faith based FUD much?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - average_joe (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 7:51am
    
    Re: Re:
    Nope. It's a fact that Mike doesn't want artists to have copyright rights, and he doesn't support them exercising the copyright rights that they do have. It's a fact that Mike defends and apologizes for piracy day after day on this blog. All fact, my friend. No FUD needed. The proof is all around you.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcus Carab (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 7:53am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Nope. It's a fact that Mike doesn't want artists to have copyright rights, and he doesn't support them exercising the copyright rights that they do have.
      
      Basically - yeah. The fact that copyrights are a problem both culturally and economically, and that enforcing them is usually a waste of time and resources for creators, is kind of the main thesis of all copyright coverage on techdirt... Are you really only just figuring that out now? Wow.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - E. Zachary Knight (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 7:54am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I have never heard Mike claim that artists are not allowed to prevent the unauthorized duplication of their work. Please point me to where he says that.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Marcus Carab (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 7:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I have never heard Mike claim that artists are not allowed to prevent the unauthorized duplication of their work. Please point me to where he says that.
        
        Joe doesn't seem able to think in a nuanced way, except when it comes to thick legal dockets (and even then, it's dubious)
        
        I don't even want to bother trying to explain to him the difference between having a tonne of problems with copyright today and being an actual copyright abolitionist - I doubt he's interested in understanding. If he wants to believe Mike is a copyright abolitionist, let him - everything's relative, after all, and relative to Joe's extreme pro-copyright position we all might as well be abolitionists.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        E. Zachary Knight (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 8:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If it takes abolition to get some sanity back into copyright and patents, I think that would be a good thing. At least them we can work from a clean slate. Figure out what works using a experimentation system.
        
        But as average joe has shown, that will be hard for copyright maximalists to accept.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 8:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It could be like when we were kids where our parents would say something like "You can't play nicely, you don't get to play at all."
        
        These people can't use copyright without abusing it, it gets taken away.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Groove Tiger (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 8:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Why more difficult?
        
        If to a maximalist, everyone else is an abolitionist, then being an abolitionist is the only option that makes sense.
        
        Anything less will just cause the exact same amount of rage.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JEDIDIAH, 28 Dec 2011 @ 1:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's pretty simple.
        
        It's "you're either with us or against us" kind of logic.
        
        If you oppose any measure that would increase the scope and power of copyright then you are some degenerate pirate IP abolitionist. There's no middle ground.
        
        There's no 1830 or 1970 version of copyrights and patents.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2011 @ 7:56am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Or could it be that he just doesn't agree with a monopoly, not necessarily who is benefiting from it.
      
      The only person FUDing anything apparently is you.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2011 @ 8:05am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Faith based FUD much?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2011 @ 8:08am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      And you aren't my fucking friend, asshole.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2011 @ 9:39am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Oh well, when nuances fits you, you claim them, when they don't you apparently forget how the issues are nuanced and use broad brushes.
      
      Fine you dishonest prick.
      
      Most people have an issue with monopolies, it doesn't mean people are against one specific set of people but against the laws that enable some at the expense of everybody else.
      
      Artists don't deserve a monopoly in fact nobody does, now explain why again do we give that to them?
      
      What is in it for society?
      
      You keep defending monopolies, censorship and abuse of the law like that is ok because is for the children or something.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - average_joe (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 1:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't have a problem with giving someone a limited property right in their works, as indicated in the Constitution. I don't have a problem with the government "censoring" websites that are devoted to violating people's rights. And I have never supported anyone abusing the law (which is why I'm against piracy, unlike you I presume). It's funny how much you guys pretend to care about people's rights, but when it comes to copyright rights you guys pretend like it's OK to violate as much as you want. It's not OK--you're the sociopath, not me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        E. Zachary Knight (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 1:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Funny. You say that to someone that is posting anonymously but will not say so to those of us that actually contribute to the site, article wise, and know a thing or two about all this.
        
        If there is any abuse of copyright, it comes from those that seek to expand it farther and farther from the Constitutional aspect of a limited right for a limited time. The founders of this country put that clause in place to help spur the growth of a national culture. Now it has been bastardized into a monopoly of the worst sort.
        
        I have no problem with anyone having a limited monopoly on a copyrighted work. I have problems with a perpetual monopoly on those works.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 7:57am
  
  Re:
  There is almost literally no other industry that gets these "rights". Not manufacturers, not agriculture, not finance, not service.
  
  The only peop[le who get these kinds of "rights" are Imaginary Property creation companies. It's insane, stupid and it has to stop.
  
  First off, it makes it much harder for those starting out because, and this may be hard for you, they are exempted from the law due to the amounts involved (accxording to certain, ACs anyway.
  
  Secondly, Why should these so-called artists get to rest on their laurels and blindly profit when, for example, network providers don't get to profit once they've made a succesful network bluieprint? (I was originally goin to go with a car analogy, but those fail in the digital world.)
  
  And thirdly, not a single damned person deserves to be paid. Ever.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Modplan (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 9:06am
  
  Re:
  If this only applies to artists who are "already super successful," and if you admit that this "only helps already super successful artists," then you have just admitted that this will help the very artists it applies to.
  
  This sentence gave me a headache.
  
  And what's truly amazing is how you pretend that your policy preference is really an economic reality.
  
  Until you can cite anything even remotely approaching a study of economics that disproves Mikes "policy preference" as not being grounded in research and reality, it's difficult to take the complaints of someone who is promoting his own policy preference solely based on faith and personal attacks against those who disagree seriously. Particularly when you then turn around and say:
  
  Support it? I've never heard of it until a few moments ago. And I don't support it--as I said, sounds stupid to me but I'd have to learn more about it first to form an actual position on the matter.
  
  Which completely undermines your entire rant as being nothing but a knee jerk reaction for the sake of a stupid personal vendetta.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 9:54am
  
  Re:
  Oh look, Mike Masnick doesn't support a proposed law that would give artists more rights. Shocker! And where's his evidence that such a right would actually hurt artists? There is none--it's faith-based FUD. Double shocker!
  
  Reading comprehension was never your strong suit. This is a story where Mike Masnick is, yet again, looking out for the *best interests* of artists by suggesting that a law that harms up-and-coming artists and only benefits those already successful is bad for most artists.
  
  I can't believe that I get attacked as being somehow "anti-artist" for speaking out against a bill that hurts artists.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - average_joe (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 10:37am
    
    Re: Re:
    Reading comprehension was never your strong suit. This is a story where Mike Masnick is, yet again, looking out for the *best interests* of artists by suggesting that a law that harms up-and-coming artists and only benefits those already successful is bad for most artists.
    
    I can't believe that I get attacked as being somehow "anti-artist" for speaking out against a bill that hurts artists.
    
    You, of course, did not address the substance of my argument. How do the bills "harm[] up-and-coming artists" if you admit that the "bills only apply to sales of artwork over $10,000," i.e., only appl to artists who are "already super successful" (and whom it can "only help[]")?
    
    I know you won't give a simple answer to this simple question, Mike. Let the weaseling begin...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcus Carab (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 10:56am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You, of course, did not address the substance of my argument. How do the bills "harm[] up-and-coming artists" if you admit that the "bills only apply to sales of artwork over $10,000," i.e., only appl to artists who are "already super successful" (and whom it can "only help[]")?
      
      I know you won't give a simple answer to this simple question, Mike. Let the weaseling begin...
      
      Wow, you're thick. Here's your simple answer (and it really is very simple):
      
      The law only applies to SALES over $10,000. A huge part of the art industry is people buying things from small artists for much less than that, in the hope that LATER they will sell it for big money. It is an INVESTMENT.
      
      If they know that, in the future, if the piece goes up in value, they will have to give the artist a cut, then that initial investment becomes LESS VALUABLE to them. So they will be less inclined to purchase the work from the small artist, since their potential payoff is now smaller.
      
      Clear? Good. Now we can move past such incredibly elementary aspects of the discussion, I hope.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Marcus Carab (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 10:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If it helps your apparently feeble brain, think of it this way: if all sales of public stock required you to give a cut of your profits back to the company, would the perceived value of IPO shares go up or down?
        
        Making sense to you now?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 1:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm not reading your posts anymore, Marcus. Waste of time... Sorry.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 1:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Nice come-back, joe. I'm convinced!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 3:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Meh. He's being a bit too angry today. Not interested.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 5:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Meh. He's being a bit too angry today. Not interested.
        
        Yes, I'm sure it's that, and nothing to do with the fact that you really stuck your foot in it by making idiotic statements that we've all disproved several times over.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 1:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Don't be sorry. Now I don't have to worry about dumbing everything down to your pathetic level, where you can't even understand the most basic of basic economic principles. Thanks for the very clear admission that this stuff is above you, though (that is, after all, what most of us take your lack of substantive response to be)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 11:24am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You, of course, did not address the substance of my argument. How do the bills "harm[] up-and-coming artists" if you admit that the "bills only apply to sales of artwork over $10,000," i.e., only appl to artists who are "already super successful" (and whom it can "only help[]")?
      
      I know you won't give a simple answer to this simple question, Mike. Let the weaseling begin...
      
      Um. This isn't complicated at all. While the *fee* only applies to sales over $10,000, the IMPACT applies to any sale before it reaches that, because anyone making the investment knows that any future potential return is diminished.
      
      Look this is really basic economics. I mean it's the stuff that you would normally get past in your first week of econ 101. If you're looking to invest in widget A, but I tell you that later on when you sell widget A you'll have to pay a 7% tax on it, your calculation of how much you invest in widget A and how much you'll pay for it changes, because your ROI calculation changes and you're guaranteed to make less on your investment than you would otherwise.
      
      That's not "faith-based." That's just basic reality. There's no assumptions or opinions here. This is pure fact-based stuff.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - average_joe (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 1:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Um. This isn't complicated at all. While the *fee* only applies to sales over $10,000, the IMPACT applies to any sale before it reaches that, because anyone making the investment knows that any future potential return is diminished.
        
        Look this is really basic economics. I mean it's the stuff that you would normally get past in your first week of econ 101. If you're looking to invest in widget A, but I tell you that later on when you sell widget A you'll have to pay a 7% tax on it, your calculation of how much you invest in widget A and how much you'll pay for it changes, because your ROI calculation changes and you're guaranteed to make less on your investment than you would otherwise.
        
        That's not "faith-based." That's just basic reality. There's no assumptions or opinions here. This is pure fact-based stuff.
        
        So basically your argument is that people won't want to buy art as an investment because if it appreciates too much (above $10,000) and they sell it, then they'll have to pay some percentage as a fee. And you claim this is "pure fact-based stuff." OK, show me the data. Show me the proof. It's obvious that you have absolutely no evidence that artists would be harmed by this. It's 100% faith-based. It's 100% assumption. It's 100% opinion. Show me the proof or admit that you just assumed it all to be true. Show me exactly how you know for certain that this is "fact-based stuff." I won't hold my breath. And saying it's "basic economics" doesn't cut it. The fact is you cannot prove this would hurt artists. It's just a guess based on some basic economic principles that may not be true in this particular market or may be subject to some countervailing forces that you aren't accounting for. Sorry, Mike, you haven't proved a thing except that you're just making it up.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 1:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Funny, Marcus made the exact same point and you promised not to read his stuff any more. But when Mike does it, you start foaming at the mouth demanding "proof" and insisting that anything obvious to a demented turnip is "faith-based FUD".
        
        I cannot imagine what poisonous cesspit your mind must contain, because there's obviously nothing human there.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 1:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh, and as for it being opinion -- it's a blog, of COURSE it's opinion. Mike has never tried to claim anything else.
        
        It's pretty obvious your real problem is that you have a huge hard-on for Mike and this is the only way you can get his attention. You might want to get that looked at.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        E. Zachary Knight (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 1:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Joe,
        
        You are a moron of epic proportions. Why you continue to assume that mike is wrong shows that.
        
        Mike has given you the basics of economics. A science that has existed for centuries. This science has proven time and time again that when any sale is taxed to the detriment of the seller, then sales will drop. Why you don't get that is beyond me.
        
        Try to keep up and maybe take an economics course or two while you are in school.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 3:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sorry, Zachary, but he hasn't proven anything. All he's given is one argument about one factor that might be a disincentive for people to invest. There's no analysis of the market for up-and-coming artists, no consideration of what other factors might be at play, etc. It's just a blind faith assumption that this will hurt a particular market with no actual analysis of that market. It's faith-based FUD, pure and simple. He has presented absolutely no proof whatsoever that this will hurt up-and-coming artists.
        
        For all we know the bulk of up-and-coming artists sell their works for $500 or less, and nobody would not buy a piece because of the possibility of there being some additional fee if it sells for more than $10,000 somewhere down the road. I've bought lots of art with no consideration of resale value--these bills wouldn't negatively affect my purchasing decisions. I have no idea how that market works, and neither does Mike. All he gives is a conclusory statement that it will hurt up-and-coming artists. That just doesn't cut it. That's just an argument, and one supported by no proof.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 5:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're the one arguing against a basic economic principle, Joe. The onus of proof is on you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 6:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Joe, you're studying to be a lawyer. You have no idea what economics are. You have no idea of the market for up and coming artists any more than Mike, Marcus, Zach, or me. Yet you are arguing like you know everything. I am more inclined to agree with others who know this topic more than you.
        
        Stick with law analysis, please.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 1:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I know you won't read this, thank god, so I'll address it to everyone else:
        
        In case anyone wonders what Joe is blithering about, basically his problem is a failure to understand really simple stuff that most children start to grasp in elementary school when trading lunches with each other. Like say there was some average joe in your class who fancied himself a high-power lawyer (even though everyone saw him getting off the short bus every morning) and he wanted to trade his grapes for your sandwich. You know that there's this other kid who will trade chocolate pudding for grapes, so you stand to make a serious profit. But the idiot wannabe-lawyer kid asks you to sign a contract, saying that if you ever trade the grapes for pudding, you have to give him two spoonfuls. Well, you don't really want to share your pudding with that kid (god knows what diseases he has, for one thing) so you figure it's not worth it, and go off to find a better trade.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 6:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So basically your argument is that people won't want to buy art as an investment because if it appreciates too much (above $10,000) and they sell it, then they'll have to pay some percentage as a fee.
        
        No. Really AJ, let's try some reading comprehension, because you're looking like a complete and utter fool here. Do you really not comprehend basic math?
        
        If I'm investing, I take into account the ROI. If that ROI is lower, I invest less. This isn't "FUD" or "faith-based." This is basic common sense. I never said that people won't buy art because it "appreciates too much." I said (pretty clearly to anyone with a basic comprehension of the English language) that people would invest *less* because the ROI would be lower.
        
        No offense, but you can't argue that point unless you are challenging the history of all economics.
        
        OK, show me the data. Show me the proof. It's obvious that you have absolutely no evidence that artists would be harmed by this. It's 100% faith-based. It's 100% assumption. It's 100% opinion.
        
        Dude. Seriously. Take an economics class, then come back and apologize for being a blithering idiot.
        
        The "proof" is easy: if I need to make x% on my investments to make it worthwhile, and the law taxes any return y by 7%, my x now needs to be 7% higher. That means I *INVEST LESS*. This isn't rocket science.
        
        Sorry, Mike, you haven't proved a thing except that you're just making it up.
        
        No. I've proved my point. As everyone else here can see.
        
        I may have also proved that you're not particularly intelligent. That was just a bonus.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 6:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sorry, Mike. That's just an argument based on an economic theory. You are not offering any proof whatsoever. You're making faith-based assumptions.
        
        Where's the studies, Mike?
        
        Following the link the poster gave just above, it appears that at least one report disagrees with you:
        However, what is clear is that it has not been demonstrated that the implementation of the ARR has had any negative impact on the British art market. Art sales have not moved overseas to jurisdictions where there is no ARR. In fact, the art market survives, as it did following the introduction of VAT (arguably a far more cumbersome payment obligation), and has continued to rapidly grow and flourish.
        
        Thus, while it is difficult to judge the effect of a law on a specialist market, in this case the changes that have already taken place appear to have had little negative impact on the British art market and the future change is unlikely to either.
        Source: http://the1709blog.blogspot.com/2010/12/artists-royalty-right-not-as-much.html
        
        I don't pretend to know what the right answer is. Maybe you're right. Maybe it does hurt artists. What I do know is that you haven't proved anything. All you've done is stated an economic theory and assumed that it would explain this whole market without any data whatsoever. I know you're smart enough to know it doesn't work like that. You're lying if you say you've proved it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Groove Tiger (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 8:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Like, economics is just a theory, maaan!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 10:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sorry, Mike. That's just an argument based on an economic theory.
        
        I don't think you understand what economic theory means. We're not talking about a hypothesis. We're talking about the laws of economics.
        
        Where's the studies, Mike?
        
        You really can't be this clueless. Do you need a study to show that if you decrease the ROI people will invest less in it?
        
        Following the link the poster gave just above, it appears that at least one report disagrees with you:
        
        That report focuses on one key aspect: did the market move overseas. That's unrelated to the question of how much will be invested in the works of young artists. That study appears not to even attempt to answer that question. It's answering a totally irrelevant question: does the market go away. Well, duh, of course it doesn't go away. But that's not what we're discussing. Which you would know if you slowed down and READ WHAT EVERYONE HERE IS TELLING YOU.
        
        You're really coming off as a total ignorant buffoon. You should stop doing that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 5:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Your level of intellectual dishonesty is appalling, Mike. I can't believe you won't just admit that you didn't prove anything. For example, how many people buying artwork from up-and-coming artists are buying it because of the ROI? That number could be quite low. You don't know, because you've done absolutely no analysis of the actual market. Instead, you just pretend like your ROI argument is controlling. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but intuition tells me the market is more complicated than that and you aren't considering other factors. The fact that you think you've proved this shows what an incredibly dishonest person you are. If you weren't so well educated, I might just think you were stupid. But as it is, it's just evidence that you're a liar. Good grief, Mike. Can you really not just admit that you haven't proved how this particular market works? That you just haven't proven that this will harm artists? What a joke. And the problem is when you lie about obvious stuff like this, I (and I'm sure others as well) just assume you're lying about the nonobvious stuff.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 6:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Do you need a study to show that if you decrease the ROI people will invest less in it?
        
        Yes, you need the study. Why? Because there's more going on in this market than simply people investing for the ROI. I personally am in the up-and-coming art market as a buyer, and I can tell you that the possibility of being taxed more should the artwork appreciate in value significantly is not (and would not) be a factor in my purchasing. Perhaps the vast majority of buyers are like me.
        
        The joke is that I'm trying to explain a simple economic fact to you, and you're pretending like ROI is the only issue in that market. It's not and you know it. You're simply lying to get your way. What's new, right? And the fact that you aren't pointing us to any actual studies leads me to think the studies that exist are contra to what you claim. Why else wouldn't you point to the studies if not but to deceive?
        
        That report focuses on one key aspect: did the market move overseas.
        
        I got the sense that the study looked at more than that, but I couldn't find the full study. I did find another one, though: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/study-droitdesuite.pdf
        
        Major findings include:
        There is no evidence that ARR has diverted business away from the UK, where the size of the art market has grown as fast, if not faster, than the art market in jurisdictions where ARR is not currently payable.
        
        There is no evidence that ARR has reduced prices, as prices have appreciated substantially for art eligible for ARR, and faster than in markets where ARR is not currently payable.
        Now, I have no idea how reliable that study is, but it does show that this situation is a lot more complicated than your overly-simplistic claim that it's all about ROI.
        
        Good grief, Mike. Just admit that you didn't and can't prove it hurts artists. I know you won't. But don't think for one second you're fooling anyone. What's amazing is that you NEED to claim that it hurts artists, no matter what the actual data says. You start with the conclusion and work backwards. I've seen you do it time and again, just like you're doing here. What a joke.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2011 @ 6:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Faith based FUD much?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 6:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I know you're just a troll with nothing to add to the conversation, but it's completely obvious that they only person spouting faith-based FUD is Mike. His logic is "ROI, QED." Obviously, it's more complicated than that and he is intentionally lying and manipulating his readers by claiming otherwise. What a joke.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Modplan (profile), 30 Dec 2011 @ 1:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The harm caused by such schemes is in the form of what doesn�t happen, and therefore the harm is easily overlooked and underestimated. When an artist, such as myself, sells a painting for $10,000, I pay $4,000 to the costs of sales and marketing (through my representative agent) and retain $6,000 as income. In the case of $10,000 resale, I would receive $500 (according to the Australian scheme with its flat 5% rate). If buyer nervousness about the resale royalty, was to cause me to lose just one $10,000 first sale (on the primary market), I would need the royalty owed on $120,000 of future resales to recoup the lost income of that one primary market sale. These are very unattractive odds.
        
        The only clear beneficiary of the DACS model of the resale royalty scheme is the management of this piece of transaction fee velocity. The correct term for schemes such as this, and their advocates, is �rent-seeking�. The largest single payment will always be to the costs of running the scheme. In the current financial situation, the last thing needed is the imposition of further transaction costs on any market.
        
        The compulsory scheme advocated by DACS and Viscopy is a monopoly restriction of the terms of trade of artists. It is anti-market, anti-competitive and economically illiterate. It imposes significant opportunity costs upon artists as well as significant and unnecessary transaction costs upon the market in which artists make their living. For many artists, maximising first sale prices is a much better bet than gambling on payments when you are old or dead.
        
        The only argument for extending the scheme to long-dead artists is to further increase payments to management. The proposed extension of the UK scheme is rent-seeking par excellence. The principles of a free, civil society are far more important than the secondary, instrumentalist goals of efficiency and convenience for managements.
        
        http://the1709blog.blogspot.com/2010/12/artist-resale-royalty-harmonisation-and.html
        
        Joe, stop pretending to be an economist, please.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Joe, 4 Jul 2012 @ 3:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Trollalalala :D
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2011 @ 11:46am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Investors think about the future (and hope the artist will become more successful), not just the present.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2011 @ 11:17am
  
  Re:
  Oh dear. Desparately, *desperately* looking for the sarcasm tags.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- RonKaminsky (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 4:56pm
  
  Think first, post later (if at all)
  You should have read the discussion at URL
  
  http://the1709blog.blogspot.com/2010/12/artist-resale-royalty-harmonisation-and.html
  
  before posting. The comments section includes interesting information from various people who make a living from Australian art, about the relatively recently passed Australian version of this (the Australian version is less forceful than the EC one, in that artists can opt-out --- although they have to do it on a sale-by-sale basis).
  
  Since you're a troll and won't probably bother to read them, let me summarize: Mike is right, you are wrong. How surprising!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Joe, 22 Mar 2012 @ 9:29pm
  
  Re:
  Actually, look at it from the point of view of a buyer. You see art at $500 and after all your costs, it goes over $1000. You lost $50 if they take 5% for example. Now repeat this through several buyers. The artist that was charging $500 will have to drop the price to $300 or less in order to get a buyer. These are ballpark figures but pretty much match what art collectors have to deal with when transferring ownership. THAT's the reason it'll hurt most artists. It's actually very rare for art to gain the astronomical ($10M+) values you see on CNN or the local newspaper.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2011 @ 6:56am

Everything is "art"
If something like this passes, expect within 20 years that it will be modified to include nearly everything created and will be stripped of almost all restrictions related to value or terms.

The various lobbying groups will claim "if you are thinking of the painter, why not the fashion designer, the graphic's artist, etc, etc?"

- Videogame companies, who have been complaining about the used game market would absolutely love this.

- Ditto for nearly every other consumable media.

- What about companies like Apple? Many people consider their products works of art. I'm sure they would like a cut of used computer sales.

- The auto industry would easily jump on board. They would rake in billions if they got 5% of every used car sold.

Horrible law for the general public and society in general, great law for those who have money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- E. Zachary Knight (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 7:15am
  
  Re: Everything is "art"
  Exactly. This is a huge affront to the right of First Sale that it should not be even considered. We have a 100+ legal precedence that once the original creator passes the work on they no longer have any control or right to the further transfers of that work.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
V, 28 Dec 2011 @ 7:10am

It's Win-Win
I love this idea! Artists get a cut of the resale profits, since that's FAIR.

Along with this is a "buyers right". So that, if I buy a piece of artwork and it DOESN'T go up in value and I CAN'T resale it... then I get to charge the original artist for lost profits on an estimated sale.

I mean, after all... that's FAIR. Why should I get socked with a lame duck artist when other people bought art from an artist who became famous!

That's ridiculous! I need my FAIR share too!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2011 @ 7:14am
  
  Re: It's Win-Win
  http://money.cnn.com/2010/08/23/real_estate/home_resale_fee/index.htm
  
  Have you bought a house recently?
  You may have to pay the original developer if you sell the house LoL
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2011 @ 7:15am

IP laws are a cancer that is threatening society.
This predatory laws are just schemes to gouge the public and reduce their rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2011 @ 7:25am

can we just give 25% of the gdp to the artists and be done with it? Might even be cheaper in the long run.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Devil's Coachman (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 7:30am

Nadler and Kohl - finest representatives money can buy
Wonder who's paying those two scumbags for this bill? It sure as hell isn't something they dreamed up, but a script they were given. Hmmmmmm. Is that rotting fish I smell?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
snidely (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 7:31am

Economic Limits
From an economics point of view, I wonder if this won't set an artificial ceiling on art prices. If the law only applies to artwork that sells for $10K, wouldn't galleries have a huge incentive to price works at $9,999 just to avoid paying the ongoing extortion fee?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alatar, 28 Dec 2011 @ 8:10am

Maybe a fix
Maybe there could be a little fix that would make it, well, less unacceptable and anti-economic :
Shouldn't the tax rather be a "tax on added value" i.e. sale price - purchase price ? That would make it less crippling and will keep it at a reasonnable level.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2011 @ 8:36am
  
  Re: Maybe a fix
  It shouldn't be a tax or a law or anything like that. As someone said above, if an artist feels s/he MUST have this cut of resale (which, as an artist that has sold AND bought single works, is ludicrous and overly complicated), it can be handled via private contract with the buyer. Legislating it WILL harm artists since it takes that decision out of their hands.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Marcus Carab (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 8:44am
    
    Re: Re: Maybe a fix
    it can be handled via private contract with the buyer
    
    This is SUCH an important point. So many of the detractors here seem to think that if you oppose copyright, you oppose artists ever exercising any control over their work. But that's bullshit.
    
    The issue is all the automatic control that is thrust on creators, and the chilling effect it creates by locking the whole industry in an ersatz framework of regulations and royalties and mechanical licenses. Copyright law doesn't empower artists - in fact it LIMITS how they can manage their own rights by taking away all sorts of choices.
    
    In a world without copyright, it would be all about contracts - and that would be a good thing. There would be standard agreements that get used a lot, and also all sorts of unique and creative agreements that are tailored to a given circumstance. And of course those who wish to leave their work in the public domain (yes, leave it there, since PD would once again become the default status of a creative work, as it should be) would be free to do so without having to jump through hoops or settle for a less-than-perfect license like CC0.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dementia (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 8:50am

Why does it not surprise me to see a retiring senator who is also a co-sponsor of Protect IP introducing this stupid piece of legislation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Difster, 28 Dec 2011 @ 9:32am

But can they sue?
If this goes through, how long will it be before an artist sues the holder of a valuable piece of art for refusing to sell it so he can get his cut?

Because if I'm holding a valuable piece of art and I don't sell it, I'm denying that artist revenue right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Transbot9, 28 Dec 2011 @ 10:02am

Resale rights are a terrible, TERRIBLE idea
The only artists that would be for this would be idiots - and probably the type of artist that I end up in fights with: those that are clueless and threatened by digital mediums. Heck, because I choose to work in a digital medium, this type of artist believes that I am not actually an artist.

Such laws are stupidly uninforcible. They do not help content creators/starving artists/etc. It may help a collections company fatten their bottom line - if they can find out about the sale of such art.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2011 @ 10:46am

The idea isn't to help starving artists but rather to further remove the second-hand industry. A task the 'IAAs have been working on for some time now.

On a separate note, painters who want to hold onto sales rights can always keep the original piece and stick to selling prints. A system which has been working since prints first became feasible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Random Artist, 28 Dec 2011 @ 11:24am

Hmmm... 10,000 dollars? Really? How much did I make on my last painting.... 700$ My last job making a mural for a store: 1500$... I honestly don't believe I will ever make 10,000 dollars on a piece of art and I rarely see artwork by my peers reaching above 3000$ Whoever thought that 10,000 dollars should be a benchmark for this is completely out of touch with how much most artists make.

Right now I would love to get a percent of every resale of my art, if I was selling it for 10,000 dollars a pop I wouldn't need this law, I would still hold the copyright for the artwork and would make money of for the sale of prints, like most artists do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
toyotabedzrock (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 11:47am

Stick To Logic
I'm not sure how it would harm young artists with the $10,000 cut off.

I think the law violates the idea that copyright should encourage creation of more works. And it violates common sense that once you buy something, it is yours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 12:00pm
  
  Re: Stick To Logic
  I'm not sure how it would harm young artists with the $10,000 cut off.
  
  Version 1: Artist offers painting for $500. Buyer thinks it will one day be worth $10,000, when he will sell it. Buyer stands to make $9,500 - so he decides to buy.
  
  Version 2: Artist offers painting for $500. Buyer thinks it will one day be worth $10,000, when he will sell it and pay 7% back to the original artist. Buyer now only stands to make $8,800. Will he still decide to buy?
  
  Maybe not. The value of the investments in small artists' work has gone down. And basic economics shows that it is inevitable that will lead to less investment in small artists' work.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Burn the art, 28 Dec 2011 @ 12:00pm

burn it
I would rather burn my paintings than give the artist resale money. I hope everyone does the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PRK (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 4:47am

The Great Clawback
So just think. Based on the rationale supporting this proposed law, all of those unknown manufacturers who were "forced" to sell their products in the early days for less than the market price, are now able to be "fairly" rewarded by recovering a portion of any second-had sales that took place. Used car dealers beware.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lowell Stephens, 30 Dec 2011 @ 6:29am

The motivation
Art exist within a vessel in time, and that vessel includes the price in which it is sold. This idea does not only hinder and prevent new artist from becoming exposed, but totally undermines the vey idea of why I at least personally create.

Also to the buyer, if a person buys a peice of work he or she should not be responsable for the constant payment to the artist, that undermines the idea of the gift.

Politicians should spend their energy focusing on more important problems, and leave the current model alone. It doesn't surprise me however that this will only greatly benefit those artist that are already making upwards of 10,000 a sale, for as we all passively know, that's who they work for.

Bad idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kate Vrijmoet, 24 Mar 2014 @ 9:04am

You're right everybody...
And while we're at it, we should stop giving actors, writers and musicians royalties. Let the corporations keep the profits. Why should the artist make any money off their work or their ideas. I mean, really! Who are they to even copyright their work. It belongs to all of us. They're just the slaves of society. Especially the .04% artists who actually make a living at this, they're already making money, can't they just be happy with that? I know a person who lives off the royalties of her grandfather's musical. What a sham! How can these lowlifes think they should be able to support their families with their work for generations?

(read S A R C A S M)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]