Last night, my parents' flight home from Las Vegas was delayed by one hour as McCarran International Airport was shut down for the arrival of Air Force One. The crew of the airplane was urging the passengers to hurry up and get seated so they could try to beat the clock, and they got as far as taxiing away from the gate when the captain came on the intercom and informed them that they would have to wait until Air Force One had landed and President Obama was safely out of the complex. My mother said that she saw a 23-vehicle motorcade. I don't know how close she was, but I can't help but wonder what The Beast looks like in real life.
So, why was President Obama traveling to Sin City? To headline a fundraiser for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Mr. Reid, you see, is up for reelection in 2010, and with CNN reporting that his approval rating among Nevada residents is only around the 40% mark, he needs all the help he can get. It's almost hard to imagine that Nevada voters are tired of a man thinks that you "can't put [terrorists] in prison unless you release them."
If you look back through my past blogs, you will see that I am not a fan of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. I feel that at his best he is a quivering mass of indecision (as proven a few months ago during the whole Roland Burris debacle), and his leadership is inept. At this point in the calendar, it is the Republicans' race to lose -- at least if they are smart enough to throw a serious contender against Reid. And to be honest, I don't know which situation I would be more upset with: the Democrats losing a seat, or Mr. Reid keeping his.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Rationalizing Theft
In conjunction with my May 4th post on how performers need to be properly compensated when their works are used by a third party -- such as radio -- for profit, it is important to recognize we live in a society that increasingly expects to receive services for free. With the rise of the internet, it has become increasingly difficult to protect a person's intellectual property (IP), and to make sure the holders of this IP get properly paid.
Please read "Copyright Critics Rationalize Theft," by Mark Helprin, to get an idea of how important this issue is, and what would happen if we saw the collapse of our copyright system.
Please read "Copyright Critics Rationalize Theft," by Mark Helprin, to get an idea of how important this issue is, and what would happen if we saw the collapse of our copyright system.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
The Pointless Notre Dame Boycott
Today, President Obama will deliver the commencement address at the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, IN, and there has been a substantial outcry from many in the Catholic community about the school allowing him to speak and receive and honorary degree. Specifically, many argue that as a Catholic institution, Notre Dame should not recognize and honor a man whose certain views differ so much from the Catholic Church. Fair enough. I personally don't care one way or the other who a private institution invites to speak and why, and if people are upset by this they should speak out (even though I think it's pointless to spend so much time and energy protesting something that will be forgotten by Tuesday morning). I do, however, need to take issue with an interview I saw Friday morning on CNN's American Morning.
On Friday, a Notre Dame senior named Emily Toates gave an interview to CNN's Kiran Chetry on why she is "boycotting her own graduation." Now, on the surface this may seem like a thoughtful person giving up something that is very important to her -- participation in the culmination of her college career -- to protest a more serious issue (although an insignificant one). She obviously feels strongly enough about this situation to not join her family and classmates, get a chance to cross the symbolic stage, be handed her diploma, move her tassel, or get memorable pictures taken. But wait: she still gets to do all those things.
When I graduated from Geneseo State University, we had one ceremony where everyone walked the stage, and our commencement address was given by Mayor Robert Duffy of Rochester (who was a bit unfairly upstaged when Senator Charles Schumer showed up and gave his own address). However, this is not the case at Notre Dame. Ms. Toates said Friday morning:
"I am fortunate though, Notre Dame does a kind of two-part graduation. I’m graduating with my department on Saturday, which is where we actually walk across the stage, receive the diploma, move our tassels. The graduation on Sunday is a group event… It’s a group graduation, there’s no individual recognition at that. So I will get the opportunity to receive the diploma, walk across the stage, and be there with my classmates."
So, what exactly is Ms. Toates giving up to protest the higher injustice of having the president of the United States address her school? How is this not simply an empty gesture? How is this news story not a waste of my time?
On Friday, a Notre Dame senior named Emily Toates gave an interview to CNN's Kiran Chetry on why she is "boycotting her own graduation." Now, on the surface this may seem like a thoughtful person giving up something that is very important to her -- participation in the culmination of her college career -- to protest a more serious issue (although an insignificant one). She obviously feels strongly enough about this situation to not join her family and classmates, get a chance to cross the symbolic stage, be handed her diploma, move her tassel, or get memorable pictures taken. But wait: she still gets to do all those things.
When I graduated from Geneseo State University, we had one ceremony where everyone walked the stage, and our commencement address was given by Mayor Robert Duffy of Rochester (who was a bit unfairly upstaged when Senator Charles Schumer showed up and gave his own address). However, this is not the case at Notre Dame. Ms. Toates said Friday morning:
"I am fortunate though, Notre Dame does a kind of two-part graduation. I’m graduating with my department on Saturday, which is where we actually walk across the stage, receive the diploma, move our tassels. The graduation on Sunday is a group event… It’s a group graduation, there’s no individual recognition at that. So I will get the opportunity to receive the diploma, walk across the stage, and be there with my classmates."
So, what exactly is Ms. Toates giving up to protest the higher injustice of having the president of the United States address her school? How is this not simply an empty gesture? How is this news story not a waste of my time?
Thursday, May 14, 2009
One More
Add her to the growing number of New York public officials who can't seem to...well, abide by the law. Antonia Novello, New York State's former health commissioner, was charged on Tuesday for "allegedly misusing her office and stealing services from the state." Classy. On its own, it's a story. But it seems to be part of a larger trend that is evolving in the Empire State:
Antonia Novello
Alan Hevesi
Joseph Bruno
Charles Rangel
Vito Fossella
Eliot Spitzer
Why is it that some New York politicians are finding it more and more difficult to stay clean while serving the people?
Antonia Novello
Alan Hevesi
Joseph Bruno
Charles Rangel
Vito Fossella
Eliot Spitzer
Why is it that some New York politicians are finding it more and more difficult to stay clean while serving the people?
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
One Step Closer
The Associated Press is reporting today that a bill aimed at legalizing gay marriage here in the Empire State is expected to pass the New York State Assembly very soon, and that the bill also has a fighting chance in the Senate. Whether or not you agree with these impending actions, this is progress, and you cannot stand in front of it. I wrote in my February 23rd post:
"I believe in 50 years, our society will look back on the fight against gay marriage the same way we now look back at the civil rights movement of the 1950s, or interracial marriage, or slavery, our country's original sin. "They were fighting over this?" they'll ask. On a long enough period of time, social progressives will overcome social conservatives every time. And if our textbooks are any indication, history will not judge well those who try keep others from enjoying the same freedoms."
Thanks to the landmark Supreme Court decision of Brown v. Board of Education (1954), it has been standard legal precedent in this country for 55 years that "separate but equal" is inherently unequal, and that thinking must apply as much to gay marriage as it does to separate washrooms for those of a different skin color. There are many -- such as in California -- who are pushing for an explicit state or federal ban on gay marriage. Such a move -- though it has the weight of its own American precedent of trying to keep a minority down -- is nothing more than an obstacle in our collective search for a more perfect union. We as a country cannot reach any kind of perfected union if the will of the majority can be used to subjugate the rights of the minority. Our country has experienced such situations before, and we would be wise to not repeat the same mistakes.
"I believe in 50 years, our society will look back on the fight against gay marriage the same way we now look back at the civil rights movement of the 1950s, or interracial marriage, or slavery, our country's original sin. "They were fighting over this?" they'll ask. On a long enough period of time, social progressives will overcome social conservatives every time. And if our textbooks are any indication, history will not judge well those who try keep others from enjoying the same freedoms."
Thanks to the landmark Supreme Court decision of Brown v. Board of Education (1954), it has been standard legal precedent in this country for 55 years that "separate but equal" is inherently unequal, and that thinking must apply as much to gay marriage as it does to separate washrooms for those of a different skin color. There are many -- such as in California -- who are pushing for an explicit state or federal ban on gay marriage. Such a move -- though it has the weight of its own American precedent of trying to keep a minority down -- is nothing more than an obstacle in our collective search for a more perfect union. We as a country cannot reach any kind of perfected union if the will of the majority can be used to subjugate the rights of the minority. Our country has experienced such situations before, and we would be wise to not repeat the same mistakes.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Pay To Play
In this country, we respect a person's intellectual property (IP), and the government offers copyright and patent statutes in order to protect IP -- be it inventions, works of literature, or songs. The purpose of these protections is to ensure that others cannot benefit from IP without the creators themselves also being compensated. The other day, I was driving in my car and heard an advertisement on Star 93.3 FM that very much annoyed me. The ad was sponsored by the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), promoting the website NoPerformanceTax.org, and I would like to take this opportunity to inform everyone of the issue at hand.
When a song or musical work is created, there are two copyrights that can be obtained: one for performing arts work, and one for sound recording. The performing arts copyright registers the underlying musical work or song itself. The sound recording copyright registers literally a unique sound recording of the performing arts work, or the finished product you hear on a radio or CD, as there can be multiple recordings of the same song by different artists. In Congress right now, there are two bills (one in the House, one in the Senate) that would require radio stations and other users to compensate copyright holders of sound recordings for the use of their property for profit. Currently, the law states that only the composers and songwriters of musical works are required to be compensated when their work is performed on radio, but not the artist or entity that holds the copyright for the sound recording itself. For example, if you hear the song "One of Us" by Joan Osbourne on the radio, songwriter Eric Bazilian gets compensated, but Joan Osbourne and the other musicians who performed on the recording do not. It is a flaw that the current Congress is trying to fix.
Now, NAB obviously has a problem with this because it will cost them a bit more money, and the associated website tries to explain and spin the issue simply as money-hungry record companies wanting fill their pockets with more of your coin. This, however, is a blatant misrepresentation of the truth, and I would like to take this opportunity to keep you informed on the issue.
The website labels this legislation as a "performance tax," and states: "A performance tax is a fee that record labels want the government to impose on local radio stations simply for airing music free of charge for listeners." Yes, it is a fee -- in this country a person should be rightfully compensated when another party uses their IP for profit, which is what radio does. Make no mistake: the radio station you listen to is not about the music, the weather, the traffic, or the news, but rather about the commercials. Every single bit of programming you hear on a radio station is simply a tactic used to keep you tuned in from commercial block to commercial block. Radio stations are using artist's work for profit without compensating them, simple as that. And my instinct tells me that the use of the phrase "local radio" is meant to make you think of small mom-and-pop stations, and "record labels" is to make you think of enormous corporations. In truth, however, the vast majority of radio stations are owned my massive corporate conglomerates -- mostly Cumulus and Clear Channel.
The website states: "...money would flow out of your community and into the pockets of the record labels – the great majority of which are foreign-owned. The record labels would like for you to think this is all about compensating the artists, but in truth the record labels would get at least 50% of the proceeds from a tax on local radio." Aside form the fact that I don't know where they are getting the "50%" number, it is important to note that all deals are different, so no one artist or record label would get a set percentage of anything. And even if record companies were getting this 50%, the artists and musicians still need to be compensated for the continued use of their work. Furthermore, the website is trying to make you think that the money is mostly going overseas to those (scary) foreign countries. But most countries already have in place legislation similar to that currently in Congress. However, due to the fact that the US does not have a reciprocal law in place, foreign countries have refused to pay US artists and copyright holders for foreign performances of their sound recordings. The implementation of this law would actually cause money to start flowing into the US, and since American music is the most popular music in the world (both here and abroad), my guess is more money will be coming in than going out.
The website states: "Radio compensates composers and songwriters to the tune of about $550 million annually. It’s widely understood that songwriters do not have the same name recognition to financially exploit themselves to make money. Performers can make money from touring and personal appearances, merchandise and other licensing and branding opportunities like perfume and clothing lines." The amount of $550 million may be true, but it is important to note that in order to legally license all musical content -- from full songs to commercial jingles -- a radio station pays about 3% of its adjusted gross income each year. That's probably less than they pay their receptionist. And I find major fault with the ignorant argument that since performer have the ability to make money in other areas, they should not be paid for the use of their work. That's like saying a medical doctor who takes in a hefty income of capital gains should not be fairly compensated for his healthcare work because he obviously can make money in other ways. Also, aside from the unethical implications, let us remember that not every artist is a J.Lo or a P.Diddy. Most musicians are in the game to make music, not to whore themselves out for money. Take, for example, Bonnie Tyler. Twice yesterday I heard a fantastic song on the radio called "Total Eclipse of the Heart," written by Jim Steinman and performed by Bonnie Tyler. I'm sure you have heard this song, too, and every time you do Jim Steinman makes money. But Bonnie Tyler does not. When was the last time you bought a Bonnie Tyler CD, or a t-shirt, or saw her in concert?I think it's safe to say that Bonnie Tyler is not able to "financially exploit" herself in the way that NAB would like you to believe. Furthermore, the money collected under this new legislation would also go to compensate the other musicians who perform on the recordings, not just the name artists. In the case of "Total Eclipse of the Heart," can Steve Buslowe (bass) "financially exploit" himself? Can Larry Fast (synthesizers)? How many perfumes have you bought with Jimmy Maelen's (percussion) name on it? My guess is none.
With the complete structural change of the music industry in the past 10 years, we need to make it a priority in this country to keep the occupation of "musician" as a viable vocation, and not simply an avocation. The alternative would result in not only a downfall in quality in our nation's musical output, but also in our nation's quality of life. You don't realize how much of a role music plays in your everyday lives until one day it isn't there anymore, and we need to fight against that possibility. The National Association of Broadcasters doesn't care about the music. They care about the commercials. Please call your senators and representative and tell them they need to support HR. 848 and S. 379.
When a song or musical work is created, there are two copyrights that can be obtained: one for performing arts work, and one for sound recording. The performing arts copyright registers the underlying musical work or song itself. The sound recording copyright registers literally a unique sound recording of the performing arts work, or the finished product you hear on a radio or CD, as there can be multiple recordings of the same song by different artists. In Congress right now, there are two bills (one in the House, one in the Senate) that would require radio stations and other users to compensate copyright holders of sound recordings for the use of their property for profit. Currently, the law states that only the composers and songwriters of musical works are required to be compensated when their work is performed on radio, but not the artist or entity that holds the copyright for the sound recording itself. For example, if you hear the song "One of Us" by Joan Osbourne on the radio, songwriter Eric Bazilian gets compensated, but Joan Osbourne and the other musicians who performed on the recording do not. It is a flaw that the current Congress is trying to fix.
Now, NAB obviously has a problem with this because it will cost them a bit more money, and the associated website tries to explain and spin the issue simply as money-hungry record companies wanting fill their pockets with more of your coin. This, however, is a blatant misrepresentation of the truth, and I would like to take this opportunity to keep you informed on the issue.
The website labels this legislation as a "performance tax," and states: "A performance tax is a fee that record labels want the government to impose on local radio stations simply for airing music free of charge for listeners." Yes, it is a fee -- in this country a person should be rightfully compensated when another party uses their IP for profit, which is what radio does. Make no mistake: the radio station you listen to is not about the music, the weather, the traffic, or the news, but rather about the commercials. Every single bit of programming you hear on a radio station is simply a tactic used to keep you tuned in from commercial block to commercial block. Radio stations are using artist's work for profit without compensating them, simple as that. And my instinct tells me that the use of the phrase "local radio" is meant to make you think of small mom-and-pop stations, and "record labels" is to make you think of enormous corporations. In truth, however, the vast majority of radio stations are owned my massive corporate conglomerates -- mostly Cumulus and Clear Channel.
The website states: "...money would flow out of your community and into the pockets of the record labels – the great majority of which are foreign-owned. The record labels would like for you to think this is all about compensating the artists, but in truth the record labels would get at least 50% of the proceeds from a tax on local radio." Aside form the fact that I don't know where they are getting the "50%" number, it is important to note that all deals are different, so no one artist or record label would get a set percentage of anything. And even if record companies were getting this 50%, the artists and musicians still need to be compensated for the continued use of their work. Furthermore, the website is trying to make you think that the money is mostly going overseas to those (scary) foreign countries. But most countries already have in place legislation similar to that currently in Congress. However, due to the fact that the US does not have a reciprocal law in place, foreign countries have refused to pay US artists and copyright holders for foreign performances of their sound recordings. The implementation of this law would actually cause money to start flowing into the US, and since American music is the most popular music in the world (both here and abroad), my guess is more money will be coming in than going out.
The website states: "Radio compensates composers and songwriters to the tune of about $550 million annually. It’s widely understood that songwriters do not have the same name recognition to financially exploit themselves to make money. Performers can make money from touring and personal appearances, merchandise and other licensing and branding opportunities like perfume and clothing lines." The amount of $550 million may be true, but it is important to note that in order to legally license all musical content -- from full songs to commercial jingles -- a radio station pays about 3% of its adjusted gross income each year. That's probably less than they pay their receptionist. And I find major fault with the ignorant argument that since performer have the ability to make money in other areas, they should not be paid for the use of their work. That's like saying a medical doctor who takes in a hefty income of capital gains should not be fairly compensated for his healthcare work because he obviously can make money in other ways. Also, aside from the unethical implications, let us remember that not every artist is a J.Lo or a P.Diddy. Most musicians are in the game to make music, not to whore themselves out for money. Take, for example, Bonnie Tyler. Twice yesterday I heard a fantastic song on the radio called "Total Eclipse of the Heart," written by Jim Steinman and performed by Bonnie Tyler. I'm sure you have heard this song, too, and every time you do Jim Steinman makes money. But Bonnie Tyler does not. When was the last time you bought a Bonnie Tyler CD, or a t-shirt, or saw her in concert?I think it's safe to say that Bonnie Tyler is not able to "financially exploit" herself in the way that NAB would like you to believe. Furthermore, the money collected under this new legislation would also go to compensate the other musicians who perform on the recordings, not just the name artists. In the case of "Total Eclipse of the Heart," can Steve Buslowe (bass) "financially exploit" himself? Can Larry Fast (synthesizers)? How many perfumes have you bought with Jimmy Maelen's (percussion) name on it? My guess is none.
With the complete structural change of the music industry in the past 10 years, we need to make it a priority in this country to keep the occupation of "musician" as a viable vocation, and not simply an avocation. The alternative would result in not only a downfall in quality in our nation's musical output, but also in our nation's quality of life. You don't realize how much of a role music plays in your everyday lives until one day it isn't there anymore, and we need to fight against that possibility. The National Association of Broadcasters doesn't care about the music. They care about the commercials. Please call your senators and representative and tell them they need to support HR. 848 and S. 379.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)