Seriously, you Copyright Guys are just looking bad

So here's a little game (if you are a poet, you are not allowed to play):
Raise your hand if you are familiar with the works of Louis Zukofsky? I'm guessing there aren't a lot of hands going up. The thing about Zukofksy is not a lot of people know who he is, but he is a huge influence on contemporary poetry. As Guy Davenport wrote in the journal Parnassus, Zukofsky is a “poet’s poet’s poet,” one whose work is intended for a select audience of connoisseurs. In later years, Zukofsky's work became deeply influential to poets in both the Black Mountain and Language movements.  The Black Mountain poets included Olson and Creeley.  The Language poets included poets such as Charles Bernstein (who edited Zukofsky's Selected Poems) and Rae Armantrout.  It's difficult to imagine what poetry would be today without Zukofsky's work.
And how does a hugely important and influential poet like Zukofsky not fade into oblivion?  Well, people like me read him, are inspired by him, and we quote him in our own work - especially in our academic work.  Seems pretty simple.
However, Zukofsky not only produced an incredibly challenging and beautiful body of work - he also produced a son, Paul, who would become an extraordinary artist in his own right.  Paul Zukofsky is a noted violinist and conductor with over 60 recordings to his name, including these.  He specializes in contemporary music.  Perfectly ironic, then, after reading Ubmerto Eco's "The Open Work," that he's such a jack-ass when it comes to his selfish and irrational clinging to copyright law.
A few months ago, Paul Zukofsky, the "owner" of his parents' copyrights, published a letter that I really recommend you read, if only to really understand how ridiculous the arguments for maintaining strict control over an artist's works are.  The guy seems to only be interested in making money whenever a grad student quotes LZ in a paper: "I hardly give a damn what is said about my father (I am far more protective of my mother) as long as the name is spelled properly, and the fees are paid. My interest is almost purely economic."  Seriously, how much money does the guy think he's going to make?  It's poetry, for god's sake.
Anyway...




The fact is, when it comes to the economics of copyright, the numbers don't actually support the claims that artists are losing out on income.  Take the music industry for example.  A recent BPI and PRS for Music report in the Times Online (UK) clearly shows that the more "illegal" downloads occur, the higher the revenues are - particularly for the artists.  The greatest revenues come from touring, and concert attendance goes up with music downloads.  Here's my favorite quote from the Times article in which the report appears: "The most immediate revelation, of course, is that at some point next year revenues from gigs payable to artists will for the first time overtake revenues accrued by labels from sales of recorded music."  It's only the businessmen who are losing, not the artists - and, by the way, they (the labels) aren't doing too bad.


I use the music industry example because it's emblematic of the debate around fair use, the creative commons, etc.  Artists do better when their art gets out into the culture.  And, all of us benefit when there aren't a bunch of Paul Zukofskys screeching "MINE MINE MINE!!!" while clinging for dear life to the things that enrich all of us.  


By the way, since Paul Zukofsky's letter was published, almost everyone I know has torrented Louis Zukofsky's A, his major life work.  A is now out of print, but I sure know a lot of people who are reading it - none of whom paid for the thing.  Great, because LZ is getting read, and PZ's "purely economic" interests are certainly not being satisfied.