Rep. Nadler Claims 'You Bought It, You Own It' Is An 'Extreme Digital View'

from the oh-really? dept

We've written about Rep. Jerry Nadler a few times. He recently became the "ranking member" (i.e., highest ranking Democrat) on the House subcommittee on intellectual property, which clearly made copyright maximalists happy. Nadler has a history of heavily supporting copyright maximalist positions, including pushing for what was effectively an RIAA bailout a couple years ago, and has previously supported ridiculous dangerous concepts like a new copyright for fashion designs (and idea that is both unnecessary and likely to harm the fashion industry).

He's already off to a dangerous start, introducing a bill to create artist resale rights (something he's done before. This is an issue we've written about many times, creating a ridiculous idea that people who buy artwork no longer own it outright. Any time they resell the artwork at auction, they might have to pay some of the proceeds back to the original artist. As with the fashion copyright idea, what this does is harm innovative new artists by favoring wealthy established artists. As we've discussed, this punishes investors who are willing to support new artists, taking away their incentive to invest in those artists, while at the same time decreasing the incentive for other artists to continue producing art (since now they get paid multiple times for the same work).

Given all that, it's quite clear what Rep. Nadler thinks about basic concepts like property rights: he's not a fan at all. In fact, in a rather astounding statement to the Association of American Publishers, Nadler claimed that the idea that "you bought it, you own it" is somehow extremist:

“The ‘you bought it, you own it’ principle is an extreme digital view and I don’t think it will get much traction,” he said, referring to the mantra of proponents of the right to resell digital goods.

Oh really? The specific discussion concerned people wanting to be able to resell used ebooks, just like they can resell regular books. But, really, the idea that "you bought it, you own it" is somehow extremist? Isn't that a fundamental concept in property rights? In fact, we've highlighted how copyright maximalists are trying to destroy property rights by denying people the basic ownership rights over things they bought.

It seems extremely troubling when such a key member of the House subcommittee on intellectual property has such a negative view of our basic property rights.

Filed Under: artist resale rights, copyright, digital, ebooks, jerry nadler, ownership, property rights, you bought it you own it

Australia The Latest To Look At Having Artists Paid Multiple Times For The Same Work

from the economic-illiteracy dept

We were just talking about how New Zealand was scrapping its plan for an artist resale right, when Michael Scott pointed us to the news (from last month) that Australia has just proposed an artist resale right. It's not clear how many times it needs to be explained that such things are bad for most artists before politicians will get it. The only artists such a "right" helps are those who are quite successful -- in other words, the ones least likely to need it. For new and upcoming artists, such a resale right creates quite a bit of harm. It acts as a disincentive for anyone to buy or sell their artwork, and limits the likelihood of their artwork becoming well known.

The problem is that, thanks to the rise of the copyright lobby, people really do think that "creation = permanent ownership" at this point. If you're going to create a resale right for art, why not for everything else? If I build a house, why shouldn't I get a percentage of the transaction every time it's sold? The argument is the same as for a resale right for art. Keep applying the argument in other sectors and you realize how dumb it becomes. As part of my job, I use a Lenovo laptop. That laptop helps me make money -- and therefore, under this reasoning, shouldn't I pay a percentage of any profits I make back to Lenovo? Of course not. Why? Because I paid Lenovo originally for the laptop and that was a completed transaction. The fact that I then went on to create value with the laptop is for me to benefit from, not Lenovo. The same is true with someone buying a piece of artwork. They paid for that artwork, and the reward for investing in that artwork and recognizing its potential is that it helps to add value to the artwork, which they profit from when they resell it. The artist made their deal, just as Lenovo made its deal. To come back later and demand a piece of the profits for value added later makes no sense.

Filed Under: artist resale rights, artists, australia, copyright, right of first sale

New Zealand Scraps Plan To Get Artists Paid Multiple Times For A Single Piece Of Work

from the getting-paid-multiple-times dept

We've never quite understood the reasoning employed in a few different countries to allow artists to get paid every time their artwork is sold. The given reason is usually that if the artwork becomes valuable at a later date, the artist should get a piece of that, but that doesn't make much sense. Once the artist becomes famous than all of his or her new works will also command a much higher premium. All such a "resale right" does is make it that much more expensive to buy and sell art, since you now have to pay a fraction of every transaction back to the artist. This actually harms the artists, because it makes people less willing to buy and sell their artwork. It basically punishes those who actually believe in an artist and buy their early works. It's been shown that such a resale right harms up-and-coming artists (it makes it more expensive to buy their works), and really only tends to help the super successful artists (i.e., those who are already earning plenty from their artwork).

Lawrence D'Oliveiro alerts us to the good news that New Zealand has decided to scrap such a plan. There's not a full explanation for why the plan was scrapped, but it has economically ignorant artists complaining that it's just not fair and it means New Zealand "doesn't value its artists." Hopefully someone will explain to them that making it more expensive for their artwork to be sold means that they'll be selling a lot less artwork -- and that doesn't seem very "valuable" at all.

Filed Under: artist resale rights, artists, copyright, new zealand, right of first sale

Wealthy UK Artists Want Their Families To Get Paid Multiple Times For Their Artwork

from the incentive-to-create? dept

A few years ago, we wrote about the rather silly plan in the UK to create an "artist resale right." This says that even if an artist has sold his or her work, if that work is resold, the artist still gets a 4% cut. The non-economic thinking on this is that an artist is forced to sell his or her work when it's not valued as high, and thus deserves a cut when the value is much higher. However, that's not at all what is happening. Instead, evidence has shown that this is more often used to depress the local art market by making it more expensive to sell art (and decreasing the incentives of anyone to resell any art they've bought). It profits big name artists, but tends to hurt the lesser known artists (you know, the ones it's supposed to help).

So, of course, it should come as no surprise that the wealthy artists who benefit the most from this resale right in the UK are looking to expand it (found via Against Monopoly). Currently, it only applies to living artists. However, they're now pushing to extend the right to 70 years after death, where the family of the artist will be compensated -- claiming that families deserve to be compensated for artwork a family member may have sold off a century earlier because: "Our loved ones often sacrifice a lot to support an artist in the family." Of course, there are lots of sacrifices that families make for people in other professions as well, but they don't get paid a century later for their efforts. This clearly has nothing to do with encouraging more art, since it seems to discourage that. It is, like so many "intellectual property" grants, a way for established creators to get more money out of what they already created, while hurting the market for new upstarts.

Filed Under: artist resale rights, artists, copyright, right of first sale, uk