Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Biden Promises 'Right Person' As Copyright Czar

Posted by samzenpus on from the film-appreciation dept.

Hugh Pickens writes "Vice President Joe Biden lauded Hollywood at a gala dinner in Washington, assailed movie piracy, and promised film executives that the Obama administration would pick 'the right person' as its copyright czar. Biden warned of the harms of piracy at the private event organized by the Motion Picture Association of America in the sumptuous, newly renovated Great Hall of the National Portrait Gallery in Washington, D.C. 'It's pure theft, stolen from the artists and quite frankly from the American people as consequence of loss of jobs and as a consequence of loss of income,' Biden said, according to a White House pool report. Biden addressed President Obama's forthcoming decision about who will be named the intellectual-property enforcement coordinator, better known as the copyright czar. Under a law approved by the US Congress last October, Obama is required to appoint someone to coordinate the administration's IP enforcement efforts and prepare annual reports. Copyright industry lobbyists sent a letter to the president asking him to pick someone sympathetic to their concerns, while groups that would curb copyright law sent their own letter (PDF) urging the opposite approach. We 'will find the right person for intellectual property czar,' Biden said."

13 of 492 comments (clear)

  1. I nominate... by flaming+error · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Lawrence Lessig

    1. Re:I nominate... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Copyright focused on what the law originally intended as stated in the Constitution: the advancement of science and the arts for the public good. That doesn't always mean "For the good of this corporation over here, because they put a fat check in my pocket"

      We had a choice between assholes that shill for oil companies, or douches that shill for Hollywood. Guess which group we picked.

    2. Re:I nominate... by ProKras · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We had a choice between assholes that shill for oil companies, or douches that shill for Hollywood. Guess which group we picked.

      Both.

    3. Re:I nominate... by Nutria · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So the solution is to not criminalize personal filesharing for no commercial gain, ... Allow the remixing of such things for non-profit use. Then we will see progress.

      I think that's a pipe dream which doesn't take human nature ("why pay when I can take it for free?") into account.

      decrease copyright to a sane 20 or less years, repeal things such as the DMCA

      That I agree with.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    4. Re:I nominate... by FlyingBishop · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your understanding of human nature is myopic to say the least.

      Humans want people they like to do well. They want people they don't like to do poorly.

      Thus, I refuse to pay $20 for an album I'm going to listen to a few times and then discard. On the other hand, I listen to an album several times, and still like it, I'm going to buy a copy, because I want more where that came from.

      That's not gonna happen if I don't buy this album. It's simple cause and effect, and anyone with two eyes and two ears knows that's how the music industry is currently functioning, despite the RIAA's protests.

      The same applys to movies. I don't want disposable, mass market crap. I want priceless art, and when I see it, I pay for it.

    5. Re:I nominate... by Corbets · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's a pretty ridiculous argument, actually.

      You can't argue that copyright has anything to do with whether people prefer watching movies in the theater or at home.

      And while I can see your argument (which is not to agree) regarding the music business, lives shows don't apply for movies, books or games, so there's still no way to generate revenue for the artist in those mediums.

      You suggested specialty hardware (i.e. DRM? yes, I know you meant consoles, I'm just making the comparison) for games, but that adds to the cost of user for the consumer. Not everyone wants to drop 4-500 francs on a gaming console; especially if they already have a computer with sufficient power!

      All in all, I don't think you'll see the end of copyright until someone can suggest a specific and implementable plan to reward everyone involved in the creative process. With books this include authors and editors, movies and games have huge staffs, music pretty much requires the band and maybe some songwriters. Good luck with that.

    6. Re:I nominate... by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I was about to rant about the "cinema atmosphere" when you mentioned that you can't recreate the concert atmosphere, but you already took care of that. Still, allow me to stress it:

      Why the heck should I got to a cinema? Pushing past crowds that want in or out, standing in line for a bag, box or whatever container of popcorn worth 20 cents (and costing 5-7 dollar), only to find out that the next bozo dumps his coke all over them, then enjoy the "slurp-slarp" of sticky floors while going to my seat which is usually an experience for a forensic biologist, but not for a movie enthusiast who'd rather want to see a movie than play "find out what this encrusted stuff you're gonna sit on is".

      Then the movie starts, deafening you with that "THX the audience is listening" crap ("was listening while they could hear anything" would be more appropriate), possibly to deafen you to a few things that you certainly don't want to notice. Like the annoying kids that start fighting about halfway through the movie (whose parents are either not around or, like the ushers, not caring), the various chewing noises all around you (but they go really well with the accompanying smell of cheese, stale fat and other yummy things that wanna make you puke) and the fact that any dialog is done at about 10 dB, any explosion at about 120.

      But that way you at least notice when something's going on on screen, because invariably the only person above 8' tall will sit in front of you. Alternatively you get someone with ants in his pants who can't sit still if his life depended on it. Bonus points if this creates a cloud of "didn't shower since July" aroma any time he does so.

      All that and more for just 7-10 bucks (plus snacks, gas and parking).

      Yeah, that's an experience you just can't copy with your home entertainment system.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  2. Not saying this is right but by captnbmoore · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The way things have gone so far with this admin I figure that the only right person in there eyes will be someone like this Dan Glickman, head of the MPAA,

    --
    The Navy Motto "IF it ain't broke Fix It" "A day is wasted if you don't learn something new"
  3. Ugh, that's depressing... by Dirtside · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's kind of sad to see that despite all the progressive politics that Obama and Biden embody, that they're following Hollywood's line to the letter. I'd like to see some specific language from them on exactly what they think about the proper length of copyright terms -- the current terms lasting a century or more are absurd.

    Lessig took the wrong approach in arguing Eldred v. Ashcroft before the Supreme Court. While the frequent extensions to copyright obviously violate the spirit of the Constitution, they don't violate the letter, since century-plus durations are still technically "limited." What does violate the letter of the Constitution is that these extensions do not "promote the Progress" of science and arts, but rather retard them. Past a certain length, copyright terms don't create any additional encouragement to create; they just make it easier for huge corporations to monopolize our common culture.

    --
    "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    1. Re:Ugh, that's depressing... by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's kind of sad to see that despite all the progressive politics that Obama and Biden pretended to give a shit about during the election that they're following Hollywood's line to the letter

      Fixed that. If you really didn't see this coming, then welcome to the realities of politics.

    2. Re:Ugh, that's depressing... by N3Roaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And this extension in the length of copyright terms quite frankly was pure theft, stolen from the American people as a consequence of loss of materials promised to the public domain and as a consequence of the loss of jobs advancing American culture based on such materials.

      (sorry for hijacking your argument, but I wanted to post this and you had the best segue to it at the time)

      --
      Remember RFC 873!
    3. Re:Ugh, that's depressing... by Greg_D · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If manufacturing leaves us behind, then we're fucking done for.

      A country that can't produce its own goods is a country with no future anyway. Adding draconian IP laws to the books and appointing a bunch of lawyers who are in the pockets of big entertainment are NOT in the best interests of this country. Societies do not advance by hoarding all their knowledge and locking it away where nobody else can get at it.

  4. Re:Hope and Change, Fairydust and Rainbows.... by evanbd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Suckered? Not particularly. I knew Obama wasn't perfect when I voted for him. I knew Hollywood and copyright issues in general was one where I wouldn't like him much. I also believed (and still do) the the other options weren't particularly better on this front. This really isn't a partisan issue, despite people on both the D and R sides of the aisle pretending it is.

    Angry? Certainly. This is a bad policy (well, technically so far it only appears to foreshadow such). Copyright in our country is badly broken, and things that will make it worse make me angry, like many slashdotters.

    Disappointed? Yes, somewhat. I had hoped things would be better than this. I didn't expect them to, and there was no rational basis for that hope. But if you stop hoping for a better future, then very quickly you'll stop working for it. And once you stop working for a better future, you're in deep trouble indeed. So I had hope that things will improve, and I was disappointed. I still have hope that things will improve.

    Regretful? No. I don't want to be an Obama apologist: he's making a mistake here. Please, take him to task for it. Write angry letters, shout from the rooftops, and get us a decent copyright policy. I'm with you on that one. But please don't act like I was an idiot for voting for an imperfect candidate, or pretending that for some reason I have to either support or oppose everything he does as a single block. I'm capable of agreeing with him on some things and disagreeing on others, and I've basically gotten the candidate I thought I voted for, for better *and* for worse.

    I rather suspect I'm not the only one.