John Scott G

John Scott G

John Scott G, an admitted word nerd, writes books, plays, screenplays, and political commentary. Author of "Area Code 666," "Secret Sex," and "Ambient Deviant Speedmetal Polka," Mr. G also writes under the pseudonym Gerald Laurence. Every day he happily rubs a few phrases up against each other to create sparks in your brain. You're welcome.

6 Comments

  1. Jake
    Jun 11, 2009 @ 2:14 AM PST

    I liked the article, but bad Mariah Carey reference. I think anyone can hum multiple Mariah Carey tunes–especially considering she’s racked up 18 number one songs, only the Beatles have more. Her music, and most definitely her legacy, will stand the test of time.

  2. Marie
    Jun 22, 2009 @ 11:05 PM PST

    This is one of the most important and informative articles on music copyrights I have ever read.

  3. Steve
    Jun 22, 2009 @ 11:29 PM PST

    Several of these “truths” look outright wrong, and most of the rest are shady and misleading. Fair Use may include timeshifting (Sony vs Universal). You also respond to the copyright stifles invention / IP is invalid arguments with a variation of “Well, I’m just right”; you make statements with little or no evidence to back them up.

    The “already have enough money” one is fairly ridiculous. After all, a mob boss could give money to starving children in Africa. That’s neither here nor there.

    Finally, I suggest not writing a long list of possible abuses of copyright only to follow it up with the claim that, well, copyright is really harmless and helpful!

  4. max
    Jun 23, 2009 @ 12:18 AM PST

    Gr8 way of explaining things. I hope people that grew up within the Internet read this and gain a better understanding of copyright protection. Too often the Internet generation ties the actions of the big labels to the basic needs of someone depending on their creativity and rights to survive. Those are two different perspectives on the reason to enforce copyrights.

  5. Leigh Harrison
    Jun 23, 2009 @ 4:39 AM PST

    Dear Scott,

    Yours was one of the most coherent, informative & thorough articles I’ve ever seen concerning issues and questions on copyright. I recently took a somewhat extreme stand in this matter described in an Open Letter to all my artist, writer, and musician friends, which I posted on the “Upcoming CD” page of my website. It addressed the many concerns I had about protecting intellectual property and strengthening copyright laws, and explained why I chose NOT to release my CD, in order to make a serious statement.

    I think it may become obvious from my Open Letter that I share many of your views, although I took a slightly different stance regarding distribution; nevertheless, each of us needs to do what we can to support intellectual property rights — and each other as artists. I’m very grateful for having had the chance to read your column.

    Sincerely,
    Leigh Harrison
    New York, NY

  6. beattz
    Jul 15, 2009 @ 12:38 AM PST

    While I agree that artists should be justly reimbursed for the consumption of their works, I disagree with certain elements of copyright law and the ways in which it is enforced.

    Copyright proponents such as yourself, Scott, often use the analogy of shoplifting or stealing when talking about file sharing. This seems acceptable at first, until you compare the punishments for the two crimes. Shoplifting a CD would result in a misdemeanour offence, often being waived with a warning if it is a first-time offence, whereas you argue that is is acceptable to be handing out fines to a MINIMUM of $30,000 for an illegal download, as has been seen in high profile RIAA court cases recently.

    This is farcical. If copyright law is to be respected, it needs to be structured and applied in a way that consumers perceive as fair. Consumers also need to be given access to artist’s works in ways that are convenient for them (i.e. digital distribution), not just highly profitable for labels (i.e. CDs). Unfortunately, this realisation is only recent, after consumers have been subverting traditional distribution channels for so long that illegal downloading has been allowed to become acceptable. This would not have happened to nearly this extent if digital downloads had been commercialised in the era of Napster, so the flouting of copyright law is just as much the fault of the industry as it is the consumer.

    Furthermore, I agree with Steve in that you state many “truths” that you expect the reader to simply accept, rather than providing any actual argument or evidence to support that “truth”.