![[self-portrait]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_aph-FWKPAtw/Sb7dbBwgg0I/AAAAAAAAAAU/xefH94KcXQA/S220/LawShark5204a.jpg)
Scrivener's Error| null | |
|---|---|
|
Scrivener's Error |
Law and reality in publishing (seldom the same thing) from the author's side of the slush pile, with occasional forays into military affairs, censorship and the First Amendment, legal theory, and anything else that strikes me as interesting. |
link to: 09:29 [GMT-6]
I've been warned about thinkin' too much, but I haven't had enough caffeine (or thistles) yet today to pay heed to such warnings.
[W]hen Cohen justified 360 deals—the new contract standard in which labels take a cut of touring and merchandising revenue in addition to recordings—as, essentially, a replacement for lost recording revenue, necessary to maintain executive salaries, then admitted that, even in such partnerships, the label still maintained sole ownership of master recordings, one could only marvel that even a digitally-diluted siren song of fame remained a strong enough to keep such models going.
(emphasis added) It wasn't that the "replacement for lost [] revenue" was necessary to maintain corporate profits; the replacement was, instead, necessary to keep the younger sons of the Duke in the lifestyles to which they had become accustomed. The executive salaries are seen not as a reward for hard and successful work, but a continuing property right that is the rightful possession of anyone who weasels his/her way into the class of persons whose original position includes that property right in the first place. For those of you with a more-than-trivial background in political economy, this is indeed a rent-seeking behavior.
Ultimately, that's the real problem with patronage as the default alternative to individual market-based compensation of creators (which is far from perfect itself): The self-perpetuating nature of the patron class, including its narrow worldview. It's bad enough when the sins of the parents are visited on their children... but not enough people are looking at the Crusades and the First Thirty Years' War and the Three Kingdoms eras and questioning whether presuming that the virtues of the parents being visited on their children is, on balance, a good thing — let alone the narrower question of visiting the virtues of the past upon one's own future, particularly in anything related to "expression," "creativity," and the arts.
Some authors fill a novel with futuristic scenery and jargon and then strenuously, even stertorously, deny that it's science fiction. No, no, they don't write that nasty stuff, never touch it. They write literature. Though curiously familiar with the tropes and conventions of the despised genre, they so blithely ignore the meaning of terms, they reinvent the wheel with such cries of self-admiration, that their endeavours seem a doomed effort to prove that one can write a novel without learning how.
That means you, M___ A___ and M___ A___ (among many, many others): No matter how hard you try, the tentacles of your talking space-squids have their suckers all over your books... which could have been vastly better as literature if you'd had any idea of either the ontogeny or phylogeny of tentacles.
That's right, validation-seekers and attention-whores and lazy-ass-parents-looking-for-easy-parenting-memes: Acclaim is a consequence of what you do, not the objective itself — and ya'll might want to be a little bit more discerning on who you choose as a role model. After all, Marie Curie was French...
Labels: arts, culture, intellectual property, mass media, publishing
Ritual disclaimer: This blog contains legal commentary, but it is only general commentary. It does not constitute legal advice for your situation. It does not create an attorney-client relationship or any other expectation of confidentiality, nor is it an offer of representation.
All material © 2003–12 except where otherwise indicated. All rights reserved. This blawg does not use the Creative Commons License, although I'm usually pretty good-natured about permissions for attributed reuse.
I approve of no advertising appearing on or through syndication for anything other than the syndication itself; any such advertising violates the limited reuse license implied by voluntarily including syndication code on this blawg, and I do not approve aggregators and syndicators whose page design reflects only an intent to use the reference(s) to this blawg without actually providing the content from this blawg.
Sausages?
Internet link sausages, as frequently appear here, are gathered from uninspected meaty internet products and byproducts via processes you really, really don't want to observe; spiced with my own secret, snarky, sarcastic blend; quite possibly extended with sawdust or other indigestibles; and stuffed into your monitor (instead of either real or artificial casings). They're sort of like "link salad" or "pot pourri" or "miscellaneous musings" (or, for that matter, "making law"), but far more disturbing.
I am not responsible for any changes to your lipid counts or blood pressure from consuming these sausages... nor for your monitor if you insist on covering them with mash or sauce.
| Archives |
|---|
Warped Weft
Now live at the new site. I have arranged some of
the more infamous threads that have appeared here
by unravelling them from the blawg tapestry (and hopefully eliminating some
of the sillier typos). Sometimes, the threads have been slightly reordered for clarity.
Links of Interest
Links open in a new window.
Other Blawgs, Blogs, and Journals
These may be of interest; I do not necessarily agree with opinions expressed in them, although the reasoning and writing are almost always first-rate (and represent a standard seldom, if ever, achieved in "mainstream" journalism). I'm picky, and have eclectic tastes, so don't expect a comprehensive listing.
A blawg is sort of like a blog on legal issues, but usually has a lot more links to outside resources (other than other blogs) than does a typical blog. Scrivener's Error is a blawg, not just a blog. You can find other blawgs at < ? law blogs # >.
Optimized for
at 1024x768.
