book one redone - Coldbacon

(all facts personally verified by Joey Fatone)
Congress! They added twenty years of copyright protection to works
created from 1923-1963, which means my grandson will be in a nursing
home before my xylophone version of “Love Me Do” can be played on
the airwaves. It means that Lexus can use a Louis Armstrong tune to sell
luxury cars because they can afford the royalties, but KIA will have to use
Hall and Oats, while the Pine Oaks fifth grade production of Hair will
settle for an Andrew Lloyd Weber booger. The purpose of legislation is to
make sure there are enough rules so everybody is happy. The purpose of
this legislation is to make five billion dollars go to Paul McCartney and
make him happy. Congress represents the people. The country contains
the electorate. The electorate is five people whose primary function is to
be challenged by CNN, Blockbuster and a polling booth.
Now the Supreme Court has taken up the case because they couldn’t get
out of it. The argument against is easy. All great artists are dead. So
keeping their work protected will offer them very little incentive to
produce more art. The argument for is essentially the “it’s ours and you
can’t have it” argument. But has anyone bothered to ask the art what it
wants? What would Louis Armstrong say about “Mahogany Hall Stomp”
being used to push frozen peas? And for that matter, what would he say
about the Pine Oaks first grade jazz ensemble’s creative de-interpretation.
There is the distinct possibility that great art may be cheapened by misuse
and overuse. This can only be avoided by keeping royalty fees as high as
possible, higher than possible, ensuring only the largest corporations can
use the material.
I know the Lexus Corporation would surely think twice before using a
Louis Armstrong classic merely to boost sales, unlike that headstrong KIA
Corporation, which is capable of anything. Damn Koreans. So I say keep
royalties up, and keep great art off the street and out of the hands of the
Koreans.
29