I'm afraid it's an ever-present and seldom-answered question.
- In a somewhat positive squashing of some leeches, the Copyright Office has made one aspect of streaming-music royalties less egregious. The real problem here is the contracting practices — not to mention the administrative nightmare — that resulted in the "termination"/revocation morass in the first place: "Life of the copyright" is an inappropriate duration for a contract.
- At least the streaming services were making some payments to some stated rightsholders, though — unlike these guys and contrary to the efforts of these guys. Eligibility for the DMCA safe harbor depends upon having a "reasonably implemented" policy for dealing with repeat infringers. That is, part of your First Amendment rent is internalizing externalities, notwithstanding adverse effects on short-term profitability (aside: that lawsuit has been going on for a decade, and the service provider has lost at every turn…).
- And at least streaming (and pirated!) content doesn't need to get a visa — a problem/concept with which I have profound disagreements, as particularly in music the "protect local performers" impulse exposes the failure of supporting the arts both commercially and governmentally while simultaneously imposing localist near-bigotry as a "solution." Not cool. The sole criterion for artists crossing borders should be "is the art worth it?" but the politics are, well, snarled at best.
- The problem of "the original" in the arts, and in museums, is a two headed coin. On one side, there's the improper and unjust denigration of accurate reproductions as appropriate for public display when the public isn't allowed to handle the piece in the first place. The other side of the coin is what to do about damage to "the original," especially when it was politically motivated and intentional; even more to the point than "what to do" is "who decides." The object-worship forming the body of the coin deserves more attention than it gets.
- But the real coin trick in the arts is effort by the Right Kind of People to avoid paying the creators. Stop kidding yourselves, moguls and auteurists: You wouldn't be able to charge hefty admission fees to your museums, nor celebrate your creative curatorship as primary above all other aspects of your art, without having
screenplaysart to display in the first place. - So both England and the US are looking for new men's national team coaches ("managers") after allowing incumbents to remain in place for too long. There won't be many questions raised about either the process or the people involved in doing the hiring in the first place or approving extensions later on, though; and that's the real problem. The parallels to H'wood mogul treatment of screenwriters are a bit too obvious, aren't they? Especially when trying to determine who profits?
- I have nothing much to say about the shooting at the RNC this past weekend. That there were obvious security system failures (details to be confirmed) fails to engage with the inherent dangers of pro-gun culture, the impossibility of perfect security, and the dangers/price of trying for perfect security. Nonetheless, I disapprove of the impulse to kill one's political opponents (or even political allies with whom one has differences, or ulterior motives, or whatever) as much as I disapprove of sycophants treating misconduct as inherently outside the rule of law. The law of unintended consequences always prevails in the end… right, Mrs Iselin? How about a nice game of solitaire?