Slashdot Mirror
New Copyright Alliance Formed In D.C.
jombeewoof alerted us to a story that went past unnoticed last weekend. A new industry-backed 'Copyright Alliance' was formed in the city of Washington, DC. Tasked with the nebulous goal of 'promoting the value of copyright as an agent for creativity, jobs, and growth', the ultimate goal of the organization is to strengthen copyright laws overall. "Backed by organizations like the MPAA, NBC, News Corp., Disney, Time Warner, the Business Software Alliance, Microsoft, ASCAP, the NBA, and others, the Copyright Alliance has already secured initial support from several members of Congress ... The group is headed by Patrick Ross, a former senior fellow at the Progress & Freedom Foundation, a strongly free-market think tank. Ross has written about IP issues for years, and in a 2005 opinion piece claimed that he was 'looking for anyone who wants to join me in seeking that elusive middle ground.' His new gig may be a strange place to fight for that 'middle ground' in any meaningful sense, as the Alliance is dedicated to 'strengthening copyright law' using 'bilateral, regional, and multilateral agreements to protect creators' and advancing educational programs 'that teach the value of strong copyright.'"
What's too complicated about understanding that you do not have the right of distribution? You cannot upload files, period. Call it sharing, make it sound altruistic, whatever the hell you want to do, it's distribution plain and simple and it's the one right that allows the economics of intellectual property to work at all. Why should content creators have to give this right up in the digital age?
I'm not looking at copyright backwards, I'm simply stating facts. When you "share" intellectual property you are not expressing an idea, you are passing on an idea someone else already expressed. While the Bill of Rights does not enumerate "the right to make money off creative work" there are two things to consider, 1) the Bill of Rights does not enumerate rights one has, it simply lists some examples of the ones our founding fathers felt were more important than all others, and 2) the U.S. Constitution does mention "The Congress shall have Power . . .
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Author and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;". This was a part of the original Articles, before any Bill of Rights existed. As far as I know, copyright is not indefinite, therefore it is still temporary, albeit longer than the original terms. However, even with the original terms still in place, most intellectual property traded on P2P networks is still infringing. Any more cliches and bad information you'd like me to dispel?
I'm not going to bother with most of your comment because you are simply an idiot. However, I'll address one issue you brought up about Article 8 (what you so casually call "the quote"). Our Constitution does not actually say what we can or cannot do, it's left up to case law to interpret the Constitution and apply the guidance it provides. While Article 8 says nothing about allowing transference of rights to a third party, years of case law does. Article 10, by the away, does not change this at all. Congress si still allowed, through Article 8, to grant temporary monopolies for the purposes of promoting Science and useful arts.
By the way, you misspelled "owned", and no I did not get owned or pwned.