Slashdot Mirror
Biden Promises 'Right Person' As Copyright Czar
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."
Lawrence Lessig
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"
An ex, cough, current RIAA attourney without any doubt...
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
For us on the other side of the ocean, what is this copyright czar you keep mentioning?
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
The loss of income by some Americans due to copyright infringement is exactly made up for by the savings of the Americans who don't pay for the copyrighted works. It's a complete and total wash as far as the domain that can be affected by American legislation and law enforcement. I'm for copyrights of a limited term (say, 20 years) and this still sickens me.
One of the big things that bothers me is that the american entertainment industry is such a tiny part of the economy. IBM is worth much more than any of the entertainment companies -- five times all of Sony or Time-Warner, for example -- but you don't see congress and the president trying to fuck over every citizen in IBM's name. It's a completely corrupt effort, even though copyrights can serve a good purpose.
"It's pure theft..." but when Disney takes the creation of Steven Lisberger, that's ok, because they own that, so it's not really theft. Corporations have "intellectual property" because they have buying power. Apparently the artists they hire have no intelligence, because they sell their creativity rights for the access to the medium.
How so? I didn't realize copyright law enforcement was a particularly partisan issue in the United States. Both parties, and most of the general populace, including (perhaps especially) Slashdot, are rather clueless about copyright law.
Is it possible that we wouldn't be downloading everything there ever was, if we had grown up in a world where copyrights were limited in any meaningful sense?
...that we may already be able to see where, in general, the future will lead with regard to copyright enforcement. The music industry has more or less given up on DRM; there were enough places that started selling DRM-free music, and made a mint at it, that the big dogs finally gave up. Why?
Among the population of those who pirate (set P), the subset Q who pirate because it's easy, but would pay if they couldn't pirate, is very small. The big dogs were spending more on creating and implementing DRM schemes than they could ever hope to earn from Q, and they finally figured this out.
The movie industry hasn't quite got this yet, or at least not in the same way; because a piece of music is much smaller and easier to distribute than a piece of video, the RIAA's battle with Internet piracy really began around 1996. The MPAA didn't start having to deal with it to the same degree for five or six years later. Giant corporations are not quick learners, and it'll probably be another two or three years before they really get it (although to some degree they've learned from the RIAA's mistakes).
In practice, there will be a lot of lip service put toward stopping the Evil Pirates, and occasional high-profile incidents such as the Pirate Bay verdict, but in the main, 99% of pirates will never be affected. There's just way too many of them compared to the studios; giant though those corporations may be, they're nothing compared to the tens of thousands of people who are dedicated, for whatever reason, to defeating any conceivable DRM scheme.
There'll still be efforts made against commercial pirates, but as for noncommercial piracy, unless they make a big splash or get noticed for some reason, they're going to be ignored by the studios forever, because it will always cost the studios more to do something about them than they could ever hope to earn from doing so.
Biden and Obama and their successors will, as has been noted, probably sing the same tune forever -- the entertainment industry is a huge political donor. More to the point, the only politicians who get elected are going to be the ones who at least pay lip service to helping Hollywood against the Evil Pirates (tm). But there's really never going to be much they can do about it.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Feeling suckered yet? Obama knows where to get his bread buttered, and Hollyweird is only happy enough to do it for him.
Maybe it's just as simple as Biden wanting more money? "Give me more money and I'll make sure the 'right person' gets approved."
/ The Arrow
"How lovely you are. So lovely in my straightjacket..." - Nny
Hollywood, in general, tends to support the left more than the right. Consequently, my guess would be that the nominee would be someone who tends to favor Hollywood's interest, so Hollywood campaign contributions to the Democratic Party continue at current or higher levels.
I could be wrong about my guess, though.
The right person for the job will know which battles are winnable, and which battles aren't.
The right person for the job will recognize that intellectual property holders are going to be more effective at combating user vs. corporation-style IP infringements by expanding access. This person will attempt to foment an environment in which it is reasonable for powerful IP holders to aggressively pursue this objective.
The right person for the job will focus enforcement efforts on businesses (e.g., pirated software) rather than living-room pirates, since the former can likely be widely-enforced, whereas the latter can't.
The right person for the job will seek to reform the patent system, and adopt a relatively narrow view of what IP entails.
The right person for the job will see his or her role as more along the lines of facilitating and educating, than as a law enforcement agent, or, worse, a corporate shill.
The right person for the job will be able to come up with witty comebacks to the TPB staff's bizarre antics.
Also, the right person for the job will probably still be widely reviled here. But that's okay, too.
I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
I'm just hoping something like this will happen in the future.
Biden returning from trip, eases himself down into a chair in the Oval Office.
Obama: Long trip there, Joe? *hands him drink*
Biden: Long trip, long visit, good to be back. Thanks. So, how are things back at the ranch?
Obama: Fine, fine. The girls showed me something fairly remarkable on the internet.
Biden: Kids today, whippersnappers et cetera. What was it, youbook or facespace?
Obama: No, no. Something called bittorrent. Did you know there's all sorts of music online? And you can just download it!
Biden: *looks wary* That's none of that file-sharing, is it?
Obama: No, it's called bittorrent. All the kids are doing it.
Biden: Sure it's not piracy?
Obama: I just ordered our boys to blow the heads off of three pirates off of Somalia. I think I know piracy when I see it.
Biden: Sure it's none of that p2b-er b2a um a2m or whatever it is?
Obama: Nope. Bittorrent.
Biden: Hmph. *takes a closer look* Hey, this is neat. Wonder why the Hollywood guys haven't built something like this.
Meanwhile, in the White House IT office
Tech 1: Hey, looks like someone's using bittorrent.
Tech 2: Damn, I thought we blocked the port. Better fix it now before anyone notices.
Tech 1: Better not. Did you see the IP on that one?
Tech 2: Shit, you're right. I'm not going to be the one to tell the POTUS he can't play. Remember how pissed Cheney got after he spent all that time assuring everyone those emails were safely lost and whoops, we found the backups?
Tech 1: *shudders* Tell me about it. I haven't seen anyone that mad since I "accidentally" deleted Rove's furry scat collection.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
What is this, Russia?
I will remind you that it was a Democrat that signed the DMCA into law.
There were no "czars" in the Soviet Union, the last one was murdered at the start of the revolution.
I will remind you that it was a Republican congress that wrote and voted for the DMCA bill.
And I will remind you that the DMCA was cosponsored in both houses by a Republican and very few of them voted against it.
Copyright was a small subject for the Bush administration, they were into energy and military spending.
The congress on the other hand is littered with Democrats who have been propped up with entertainment dollars.
Hollywood, in general, tends to support the left more than the right.
It does neither. "Hollywood", for lack of a better term, is a business. Pretty much everything they do is predicated on making money, like any other business.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
...sit back, relax, and see who gets the post.
We, as a consumer group, do have the power to stop RIAA and MPAA cold. How? Stop listening to music on the radio, don't buy any new CDs (used is fine), turn off your TV (and cable/sat/uverse), and don't go to the movies. It will take only about six months to completely destroy RIAA and MPAA if as few as 20% of the people do this.
The real problem as I see it is that very few of you want to be rid of the RIAA and MPAA, you just don't like how they do business. That's fine, I don't like how they do business myself. That's why I don't have cable or sat, I don't listen to music on the radio, I don't go to movies, I don't buy movies or CDs....
Put up or shut up folks. It's fine to complain, but do something about it, why don't you? The copyright cartels are paying the politicians far more than we do, and they're doing it with money we pay them. Quit paying them money to abridge your rights and desires.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
Please, let me inflame: Are you so left that the rest of us look like center?
Hollywood is a business. It is also very liberal in its views.
I will remind you that it was a Democrat that signed the DMCA into law.
Yep. Under a Republican House and Senate.
And it was Introduced by:
Howard Coble, N.C.-R
Henry Hyde, Illinois-R
John Conyers, Michigan-D
Barney Frank, Mass.-D
Also sponsored by:
Sonny Bono, Cali-R
Bill McCollum, Fl-R
Howard Berman, Cali-D
Mary Bono, Cali-R
Bill Paxon, NY-R
Chip Pickering, Miss-R
The bill passed:
The House 297-112, Republicans: 205 Yes, 16 No, Democrats 92 Yes, 95 No
The Senate 99-0, Republicans 54 Yes, Democrats 45 Yes
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/105/house/2/votes/69/
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/105/senate/2/votes/137/
So yeah, looks like Hollywood spread the donations around to both parties. At least more than half of the House Democrats voted no.
They used Fuhrer at first but it proved unpopular
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Obviously, nothing should enter the public domain until it is dug from the ground by an archaeologist.
all we have are a bunch of old people who don't understand the implications of a new technology
copyright is nothing more than damage to be routed around, and that's what the internet does
let them pass any law, appoint any stooge they want. why does anyone here care?
the whole of intellectual property is simply defunct and unenforceable
now, if they actually could enforce the laws they pass, then this would be an issue
but they can't. they simply can't. they can bankrupt the occasional grandmother or soccer mom, but to what end?
the technology routes around whatever they do
game over
copyright has died. it does matter what anyone thinks, it matters what the technology allows. and the technology allows unfilterable file trading. no one can stop that. no law on earth, that does also destroy the technology as well, which no one wants to do
all that is happening is a bunch of people live in denial about the truth of a new technological reality
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Yeah, so it turns out that absent any major concern on the part of the electorate, politicians listen to the people who talk to them the loudest - folks with money to lobby them. And while this site is chock full of people who like to write righteous screeds about the injustices of copyright law, most people in the US don't give a shit about copyright law.
Let me repeat that: most people in the US don't give a shit about copyright law.
They don't know, don't pay attention, haven't had it be a problem for them, and don't care. Go and ask your parents, or your non-tech savvy siblings, or whomever else. Most, if not all of them, won't know or care. And the reason for that is because nearly all the people that do care spend their time writing righteous screeds about it on Slashdot.
If you want to make a difference, sure - complain about it, but not here. Complain about it to your congresscritters; but not just them - you've got to make other people give a shit, and that means talking to someone who's not here to listen to the preaching at choir practice.
If normal people start giving a shit, politicians will change their tune, because that's how politics works. So get the fuck off Slashdot and go talk to regular people who don't know and don't care, and inform them and get them to give a shit. It does matter, and you can convince people that it matters. But you have to actually do some work.
It's a fair bet when Biden cries for the artists, this isn't the sort of artist he cries for. More examples of artists (real artists, not corporations posing as artists) being ripped off here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
The Investment Theory of Politics says the best predictor of government policy is who the donors are. The RIAA donated both to the Dems and the Republicans. Whoever wins, we lose. They're getting the laws they paid for. Not anyone else you can vote for. Obama's campaign made a big deal about how he was funded by small donors, but 2/3rds of his income was from corporate interests.
Here's another example, the one of congress taking rights away from the public and giving them to corporations. In compensation for this you get NOTHING. YOU GET NOTHING! GOOD DAY TO YOU SIR!:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
Biden makes me sick.
DMCA was authored, introduced, had almost UNANIMOUS support from the pubs, with split support from the house dems. But the one that it is attributed to is Clinton. I love the rewrites of history that goes on ALL THE TIME.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
"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."
----- The right person for *who*? THAT is the real question people should be asking.
The 'right person' for the people, or the RIAA and MPAA?
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
Czar->Caesar->Kaiser aka Emperor
I find it amusing, that for a country that went through a Revolution to throw the King's shackles off of us colonists, that we appoint "Czars" now to conduct war on every little indiscretion of the people.
There were no "czars" in the Soviet Union, the last one was murdered at the start of the revolution.
There were, however, kommissars and that is what USian "czars" are.
Oh noes! Now that Falco song is playing in my head! And I didn't pay for the right to reproduce that song!
Set your phasers on "funky"!
There is plenty of evidence that the DMCA enjoyed bi-partisan support. Anyone claiming its all the fault of Democrats or all the fault of Republicans is just a partisan party hack.
The U.S. government is basically a one-party system anymore.
How did having Czars become in vogue? It was a dirty word 20 years ago.
If a "Czar" stepped foot into Washington DC, Rambo would have shot 'em while Chuck kicked 'em in the back.
But back to the point... Wow, 2 articles in a row about big bad piracy (previous was the poor PSP). A few days after TPB gang gets $1mil + 1yr in jail.
At least the next story is about a GIANT bot net, not that that is "good". It's just more interesting than this tired rag.
The distributors screw'd the pooch when they squashed Napster. If they would have monetized our old-friend, they would have gotten bonuses bigger than ___________.
Give me a break, produce/sell more at a lower price and make it up in volume.
It's lemonade stand economics.
I would go to more than ~1 movie/year if it didn't cost 15 - 20 bucks per person. I feel soo bad for families.
I find this concept from the article ironic,
"It's pure theft, stolen from the artists and quite frankly from the American people...."
The distributor is the one that really looses with most piracy (software excluded). Artists are just slaves to the whole system as we are.
It is pathetic how much favor is being given to the system(s) that make profit. I think this trend has really accelerated in the past 20 - 30 years. Where's Rambo and Chuck when you need them.
I thought fascism would smell different.
What's with the political party fanboyism. It's the two party system, people! When are you going to learn that they are both just out to fuck you.
Insightful my arse.
You should learn a bit more about Lenin before you call him a czar. He was a true believer in communism and really tried to implement it in Russia. For example he abolished the passport because in his opinion it was a tool of a police state. On the one hand he forced the people to overcome illiteracy, on the other side he made lot of liberate policies like decriminalizing homosexuality and declaring the unconditional right of separation for national minorities.
He also was afraid of the Communist Party becoming a large bureaucratic bog and he warned of Stalin becoming too powerful.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
...as a consequence of loss of income
So, if I buy CDs this month instead of paying rent, I've put more money into circulation?
No, I'm pretty sure I'm not buying $600 worth of CDs; if I pay rent this month, I'm pretty sure I'm not buying any. In my case, buying CDs would be stealing from the American people as a consequence of loss of income.
Nice try, Biden; just let Obama do the talking from now on, ok? He might have been able to get that by me.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Isn't there something illegal about using one's public office to favor special interest groups in exchange for future favors, monetary or otherwise?
We are currently in the early years of what will later be recognized as the pivotal fight of the entire Information Age, and not 3 months into his administration Obama has completely sold us out. 5 lawyers from a single industry do not get appointed to the Department of Justice by chance, no matter what their qualifications. In a sane world, there would be an uproar over such obvious improprieties. But the corporate media knows when its obsequience is being bought and has seen to it that word of this crime gets zero airtime whatsoever. Any delusional netroots who still think Obama is on their side are in for more brain-exploding cognitive dissonance when he chooses yet another copyright maximalist for "Copyright Czar."
Take solace in the fact that while we may have been sold down the river and the likely duration of the fight significantly extended, we will win eventually. The overwhelming majority of youth have no respect for copyright as currently practiced and this shows no sign of changing. No matter what technical or legal measures they take, the MAFIAA have already lost the social fight and their ultimate demise is gauranteed.
Even though it would have been more appropriate. The German "Führer" literally means "leader" or "guide". It has a more friendly and pleasant ring than "emperor", doesn't it?
Shame it has been tarnished. But so have other terms. Wouldn't "concentration camp" sound more relaxing than "think tank"? :)
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Since the Wikipedia article is devoid of any reference to the founders of the US, I'd be curious to know on what you base your thesis. Personally, it seems to me that the founders of the US wanted the government to be weaker than the power of the masses, because of their previous experience under British rule (making them distrust government in general).
After reading much of Franklin, Madison, and Jefferson I have come to the same conclusion as you. The Wikipedia article actually goes through one aspect that, yes, the founders did want to avoid. This is only one aspect, however and is why we were originally set up as a republic and not a democracy, which is what we have been slowly turning into.
The constitution was set up to be a limiting power of the federal government which concept seems to have been turned on its ear over the course of a long period of time. The bill of rights was also originally intended to be a further limitation on government regardless of how those sent to represent us decide to look at it.
How often do you hear the phrase "The constitution is out of date" from one side or the other? I hear it from both sides of the isle, so it isn't a D vs. R thing. If there is something they don't like, they blatantly ignore what is written in their guiding document. How many of the amendments (post bill-of-rights) actually erase parts of the constitution?
How often do election campaigns border on being unconstitutional as the fear card is played on religion where the constitution states in Article 6, "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Yet we hear things like, "He is a Jew" (Lieberman), "He is a born-again nut job" (Bush Jr.), "He was a Muslim" (Obama).
I'll finish my rant now with just the thought that we are all in this together and until we come together we will be a house divided against itself, and we will not stand.
It's the big publishers who are stealing from the American people. The books, movies, music my grandmother experienced as a child is STILL locked away under copyright. The song I recently made an MP3 of from an original record recording, about the great depression, is still under copyright.
Our very history has been stolen from us by big publishing. They've lobbied the public domain out of existence. As long as the laws are as unjust as they are, the big publishing industry is my enemy, for stealing 50-100 years of my culture for profit.
It's been a long time.
I had no expectation that either party would act to lessen the power of copyright. I rather expect, if the question comes up at all, they are rationalizing that strong copyright encourages more creativity by allowing people to live on enjoy the fruits of their labor. The fact that the "stronger copyright" stance enjoys such wide support is probably a reflection of this. Free access to and use of information appeals primarily to "intellectuals" and "academics" not acting directly in the commercial markets (although even academia seems to be getting into the IP business these days) and neither of those groups under most reasonable definitions is a major voting block or large percentage of the population.
It might be argued that open source movements are a backlash against over-application or poor definition of copyright, but despite the movement's successes it still remains a niche in terms of overall impact and support. There are even people who consider the very existence of the movement a Bad Thing, and they get to vote too.
It's not a rosy picture, and probably won't be for a loooong time. However, there is one ray of hope that someone up there has a clue - look at http://www.whitehouse.gov/copyright/ The presence of a Creative Commons license for whitehouse.gov content that has had copyright assigned to the government by 3rd parties must be taken as a hopeful sign.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
i dont know why you got modded troll at all.
there are some out there ideas (at the end "the world can only handle 2 billion people.") but the general theory is valid.
in my opinion, copyright is the same thing as creating a monopoly on an idea.
that in itself is ridiculous.
if you want an idea all for yourself-don't publish it (in a book or a movie or in song etc.)
i have to say that once an idea (read as Intellectual Property) is released into the wild, anyone has the chance to use, expound upon, derive, refine that idea.
copyright is unnatural and harms society as a whole with its restrictiveness. it exists not to protect ideas but to protect profit (monetary profit that is).
"You can kill the revolutionary, but you can't kill the revolution."-- Fred Hampton
Let's see if you're right.
According to OpenSecrets.org, Obama got $8,599,038 from the "TV/movies/music" industry.
Clinton for $3,320,048 from the same source.
McCain got %1,105,150 from them.
So, "Hollywood" gave the two major Democrat contenders over ten times as much as they gave the major Republican contender. And even the number two Dem got three times as much as the number one Rep (and more than ALL Republican candidates combined), much less the number one candidate (who, incidently, got almost twice as much as all other candidates (Republican and Democrat) combined.
Yes, if you include ALL of the candidates, Hollywood only gave the Dems about six times as much as they gave Reps. But even a six to one ratio suggests some slight bias in favour of one side or the other, don't you think?
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"