Who Will Obama Choose As Copyright Czar?

seanpark writes "Who will President Elect Obama select for the recently established post of Copyright Czar? Biden has a longstanding relationship with Big Content, and he was partly responsible for the PRO-IP Act that created the position. The short list according to the article includes a few lobbyists (who would likely be disqualified by stringent ethical guidelines) and Lawrence Lessig, who was a technology adviser to the Obama Campaign."

Comments

Hollywood Obama supporters

[Comboman]

Considering all the actors, musicians, etc. that supported Obama (and contributed to his fund raising efforts), don't expect any positive changes to copyright law under his administration. If anything, Democrats are even more protective of Big Content than the Repulicans (remember; the Copyright Term Extension act and the DCMA came during the Clinton administration).

Re:Hollywood Obama supporters

[tepples]

If anything, Democrats are even more protective of Big Content than the Repulicans (remember; the Copyright Term Extension act and the DCMA came during the Clinton administration).

Bob Dole couldn't have stopped them from becoming law, if that's what you're trying to suggest. Both bills passed both houses through voice vote, which indicates over 80 percent assent. You only need 67 percent to override a veto.

That's Whom

[El Puerco Loco]

Whom, goddammit! Whom will Obama choose?

Re:Not the good professor

[Malekin]

When somebody is taking away important rights like the right to tinker or freely archive important pieces of information, the correct response is not "How about we compromise and you only take half my rights away?"

Re:Not the good professor

[Requiem18th]

Gridlock is preferred over movement in the wrong direction.
  But why does (s)he have to be a lunatic? Does believing in freedom of information means you have to be dumb and eccentric?
  A mathematician recently showed a formula to determine optimal copyright terms and it resulted in about 14 years for most situations. And there have been numerous studies that show DRM is not worth it (so much that some corporations are stepping out of it on their own).
  I think it is very possible to be very rational and still in pro of reducing the scope and length of copyrights, in fact it seems inevitable so.

Re:Not the good professor

[sumdumass]

Lol..Copyright is in the US is life plus 70 years. In order to be 170 years, everyone with a copyright would have to live to 100 years of age and produce the copyrighted works within the first year of their life. In the case of works for hire, it is 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shortest.

Canada, I havn't checked in a while but last I heard, they were the life of the author plus 50 years (the original Berne convention requirements). Canada has not become a member of the Uruguay round table agreement that was a response to the EU's directive on harmonization which is why the extra 20 years aren't there. That would mean a Canadian would have to live to 110 years of age and produce all their work within the first year of life.

Perhaps the reasonableness would be looked on differently if you actually had a grasp of what was going on. Lets say a person in his 40's created a copyrighted work, He dies of natural causes when 70 years old, his copyright will have an effective duration of 100 years total in the US and 80 years total in Canada. And you can thank Europe for these lengths that were in place since only 100 years from the beginning of the US (life plus 50 for the Berne convention since 1886).