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.'"

Comments

This is why

[geekoid]

you must eba ctive in government, all the time. People with opposite views do stuff like this, and if it is the only people the representitves hear from, then it is the only view they can vote on.

The result of being apathetic in politics is to be run by evil men.

Re:This is why

[ToxikFetus]

Let's take a look at "10 Myths About DC" from our friends at DCVote.org.

Where's my clue-by-four when I need it. You have much more representation in government than a single rancher in Wyoming because you reside in the seat of government.

Myth 5: DC residents have more influence because they're closer to the President and Congress. FALSE. In the age of global communications, proximity does not mean access. Most federal officials know more about their home districts or international affairs than in DC issues. Few DC residents have privileges based on their proximity to power.

There is a reason why the federal district was denied representation by those who had just earned the right to representation via Revolutionary War. You already have enough influence.

Myth 3: The Founding Fathers wanted to take away the rights of DC citizens. FALSE. The founders were concerned about the rights of District citizens, but because getting approval for the federal Constitution was their first priority, they left open the possibility that future generations could address the inequity. Alexander Hamilton proposed to let DC residents vote with Maryland or Virginia until their population grew, at which time Congress would give DC voting representation. James Madison argued that DC should be given a legislature "for local purposes, derived from their own suffrages."

More importantly, you live in a roughly-square patch of land that's not terribly large.

Myth 8: DC is too small to have representation. FALSE. DC is 63 square miles, and has a larger population than Wyoming. All states - regardless of size - have equal representation in the Senate, whereas in the House of Representatives, representation is determined by population size. For example, California and Wyoming have two Senators each, but California has 53 Representatives while Wyoming has only one.

Perhaps you should move out of it to Maryland, where you'll have all the representation you need.

Was this the answer for Southern blacks during the Jim Crow era?

The PFF is no libertarian group on IP

[MikeRT]

They strongly favor a policy that effectively destroys common law protections of property rights, subordinates physical property rights to IP rights and the presumption that all property rights to IP belong to the creator. They are, in effect, rabidly pro-government on IP and are against even moderate supporters of strong copyright law like myself. Even my views, which I have stated in blog discussions with them, are unacceptable to them, and they include:

1) Prosecuting file sharers under the No Electronic Theft Act for any serious sharing of data.
2) Throwing the book at college students who use most of the bandwidth on the network for sharing, using college policy to suspend or expel them.
3) Making IP conform to the same law and expectations that physical property is governed by. This means I fully support normalizing the relationship between the two, with the only caveat being maintaining the sole "right to copy" in the hands of the creator.

PFF likes spam and software patents

[Halo1]

Additionally, they are also in favour of spam and software patents. They're not pro-market, they're pro-big business.

Re:NOT free market -- free reign for cos.

[owlnation]

Does not compute philosophically. You'd think a free market idealogue would be against copyrights...

You're right. A free market would be opposed to copyright.

There's no true free market. Here's what you have:

1. an illegal cartel 2. government(s) interference to maintain that cartel, despite it being illegal. 3. government(s) interference to regulate freedom in restricting free access to ideas.

Ironically, in Russia or China, which still have more of a Command and Control Economy than the West in many areas, you see freedom from copyright restrictions because the above don't apply.

Somewhere, there has to be a happy medium (pun intended.)

Whisky Tango Foxtrot?

[palladiate]

None of that is what I addressed.

Don't rely on others to control your culture. Write a story yourself, place it in the public domain...

First, I cannot put my stories in the public domain (I used to write more, I now help my wife write). If I do, someone like Disney can take the idea, copyright it (or even patent the plot), and prevent me from addressing their additions to my work. In fact, Disney or another large media company could force me to no longer use my original material in any substantive way. They are larger, and they can fight me off. Even though Anderson's The Little Mermaid is in the public domain, if I made an animated movie, they would certainly fight me in court. I have to use copyright as a 'bandaid' to defend your ability to make derivative works from mine (Creative Commons).

Before 'money', it used to be obvious how to get what you want. Bargain for it. 3 pigs not worth 2 chickens? Tell the other person so. You'll either come to an agreement, or buy from someone else.

Second, before "money," if I wanted to give away a copy of a scroll, I'd copy it and give it to you. I didn't need to pay the guy who originally wrote it, or figure out who wrote it 500 years ago, find his descendants, and figure out which one is owed the royalties. How do you divide 3 chickens 900 ways among great-grandkids?

Not happy with a DVD you can't freely copy? Don't buy it.

Third, don't buy that DVD? It's part of our shared culture. Sure, I can ostrasize myself from my peers and have my own culture unique to me. Wait, no I can't, that's not what a culture is. Fact is, media companies control the flow, content, and mutability of our culture. I'm not judging it, I'm saying it's true. Really, do people who watch American Idol contemplate they no longer play a role in their own culture? Does it mean they have no culture? How do we voluntarily wean everyone from restricted IP? I can't answer those questions. But I know if I don't watch American Idol, Lost, or other big shows I share much less ground with those around me.

People keep buying goods without liking the contract.

Third, permissions, contract? Whisky Tango Foxtrot, indeed. It's copyright law, not contract law that determines what I do with that CD. It's the DMCA that dictates what I do with that DVD. There are zero contracts regarding my purchase of them.

I expect the government to get the hell out of my culture, out of my abilites to archive and record that culture, and respect my natural right to share information freely. Thomas Jefferson held very deep the belief that knowledge should be shared freely. He made a great statement about candles and flames and lighting the darkness, look it up. The governemnt doesn't need to repect my rights. It needs to get the hell out of the monopoly-granting business. We need no more Charters of the Crown. We are a democracy, damnit, and all rights are ours be default! I don't need a government to protect them, and I certainly don't need one taking inalienable liberties away.

I'm not attacking you, as you are certainly sympathetic to most of my arguments. I am attacking a bit of what you said though. Keep on arguing, and keep on sharing your ideas. It's what makes us great.