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."

Comments

I nominate...

[flaming error]

Lawrence Lessig

Re:I nominate...

[shanen]

I think they should hire a reformed pirate from Somalia. After all, it takes a pirate to stop a pirate.

Seriously, copyright is dead already. It no longer makes sense to pretend that the point of reproduction is a choke point for publication. Yes, we do need to reward creativity, but no, corporate-controlled copyright focused on profit-maximization (based on an ancient paradigm of killing more trees) is NOT the solution.

Re:I nominate...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I nominate...

[ProKras]

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

Both.

Re:I nominate...

[Nutria]

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.

Re:I nominate...

[Adrian Lopez]

Lessig supported Obama during his presidential candidacy. How ironic, then, that the very candidate he supported all along ended up appointing people who stand for the very opposite of what Lessig has stood for as the public face of Creative Commons. Judging by his record so far, I seriously doubt Obama would ever appoint somebody like Lessig to the position of Copyright Czar, and besides I'm not sure the job is all that compatible with the principles of the Creative Commons movement.

Re:I nominate...

[FlyingBishop]

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.

Re:I nominate...

[Corbets]

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.

Re:I nominate...

[grumbel]

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

Its quite the opposite. Its the only solution that actually takes human nature into account. The problem simply isn't the copying, people have done that since forever, thats how culture spreads and they will continue to do that on the Internet. The real problem is that very large parts of the youth is getting criminalize and *that* has to be fixed if you don't want a large scale revolt a few years down the line. Might that mean that the entertainment industry collapses? That could very well happen, after all they are mostly obsolete since distribution can be handled via the Internet. Will it mean that artists get bankrupt? I kind of doubt it. Artists today already get only a very tiny fraction of sales of their stuff, if you remove the industry and distribution on the other side, you could channel all money directly to the artists. So even when many people stop buying stuff, there would still be enough money left once the industry is out of the picture.

Re:I nominate...

[Opportunist]

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.

Re:I nominate...

[sumdumass]

wish the framers allowed the president and congress critters to be recalled if they pissed off the public.

Why would the framers want to do something like that? They set the government up specifically to avoid "Tyranny of the masses" and group stupidity.

What your seeing is exactly what they wanted. It may be being abused but it was the intent. The abuses seem more damaging now that people want to think the federal government is supposed to be over the people and not just a governing body for the states to control common business associated with the state.

Re:I nominate...

[drsmithy]

It's still a lost profit if you steal a rental car for the weekend but never would have paid the rent on it.

*sigh*

Why do people still come up with fundamentally broken comparisons to physical property ? Has the difference not already been explained enough times ?

1. The rental company cannot rent out the car if you've "borrowed" it for the weekend.
2. Wear and tear on the vehicle.
3. Possibility of accident.

None of the above are applicable to copyright infringement.

Re:I nominate...

[Znork]

Really, this has been rehashed so many times by now that if you truly haven't seen any of the many possible solutions you haven't been looking.

Basically it's a fairly easy question to solve as long as you simply frame the question appropriately and realize it's just yet another benefit no different than any other such system. From a macro economic point of view copyright is roughly equivalent to an arbitrary sales tax on specific items, with an efficiency rate of about 5% of the collected funds going towards the stated (as opposed to actual, of course) purpose of copyright.

To replace that with a better system would be trivial. The quickest and easiest way, most closely resembling a vastly more efficient version of the current system, would be to simply implement it as what it actually is; a sales tax on creative goods, but with the proceeds going directly to the intended recipients, ie, artists and creators.

A quick calculation of the numbers would yield something like this; with free replication of creative materials the competitive cost of printing and delivering a high-quality CD to a store would fall somewhere around $1. Final sales point adds another $1, and to ensure the creators get what they get today we'd need a levy of about 50% on top of that, ie, $3 final sales price to customer. Add various other factors such as the vastly increased sales from a massive lowering of prices and you'd probably get double or triple the funds to the actual artists and creators. It's also a model that can easily be implemented on pretty much any profit generating scheme based on copyright, from web sales to automatic printing kiosks to cable tv.

That's an exceedingly simplified version of course, a more complete analysis of issues would have to go into everything from derived and combined works to appropriate payment levels (whether implemented like copyright or as a sales tax system it's a benefit scheme. It's not supposed to make anyone rich or fund marketing and parties, it's supposed to maximize social utility and allow as many creators to maximize their creative output as possible).

But in the end it's not a hard question to solve. It's just hard if your basic intention is to have a system intended to make publishers rich, while still screwing the creators as deeply as possible as it's hard to explain and defend a 95% fund leakage even in government unless you hide it outside any visible and publicly reviewed budget.

Re:I nominate...

[sumdumass]

A few major points here.

First, capitalism did not implode. That's nothing more then a tired political line meant to confuse the masses so acceptance to crap we rejected years ago would happen. The banking mess happened because of improper government regulation and burdens placed on the financial markets, and the inept actions of the existing regulatory structure. And all that was amplified by artificially high energy costs.

Second, If your terrified by the deficit and can go to just the banking problems, then your in for a really rude awakening. The tarp and Stimulus bills aren't part of his budget and his budget alone is going to increase the deficit to levels relative to the economy not seen since WWII. You need to think about that. The billions and trillions just handed out don't count towards this budget deficit and it's as large of a difference between unfunded spending and the economy as when we were fighting a world war in two hemispheres of the globe. Your taxes are going up. Obama isn't technically raising them because he is letting the Bush tax cuts expire but we would have to be idiots to know know they are going up.

Finally, we are in for a decreased standard of living. That won't be because of the banks collapsing or the budget deficit however. It will be because of the regulation and tax schemes they are attempting to put onto energy right now. Your utility bills are expected to triple with the cap and tax or trade or whatever they are calling it now. They want to jack the cost of gas back up with burdensome taxes which means the cost if things like food and clothing will jump in price again too.

You know, I was watching Charlie Rose tonight and he had the mayor of New York City on discussing their new green initiatives. (this rant isn't really directed at you but it's going to illustrate some of what I just mentioned.) It sounds like this guy got his accounting skills from a 12 pack and a match book cover. Anyways, they just passed new legislation in NYC that will force almost 44 percent of all commercial property owners to upgrade everything and it creates a department to reevaluate building periodically for efficiency and fines the owners or forces them to improve it some how. He said that would create jobs, improve the value of the buildings, and make money for the owners. He said there is tech out there right now for furnaces (HVAC) that is 90 percent or more efficient then whats currently being used but they won't manufacture this stuff because there isn't a market. He said what they have done is effectivly created the market and everyone will benefit.

That sounds good and all until you examine some details. The reason there isn't a market for the super heaters is because it costs $70 to gain the efficiency savings of $20. At a point, it costs more then it saves and traditionally people attempted to get to the break even point in these terms. Now, the furnaces and/or other fixtures in the buildings have a life span on them too, throwing them out prematurely costs more money. This is what will be happening.

Now here is where he glossed over some finer points that effect us. He said that it would make a better building so the property owners could charge more for rent. But who actually pays the rent? You and me or the equivalent of you and me living in NYC either directly or indirectly when we use services or purchase something from someone paying the rent. Surely the property owners are going to have to raise the rent if only just enough to cover the loans needed to do all the retrofits and repairs necessary to gain compliance. So lets say this causes rent to double (I'm thinking a little more, it might be a little less), and lets say this will only effect businesses and not residential rentals. So when you go to the store, when you hire the lawyer or investment firm or whoever, they have to increase their fees and prices in order to pay the rent or they won't be there any more. This means you and me are paying for all this shit when we live our daily lives as no

Re:I nominate...

[swillden]

The real problem is that very large parts of the youth is getting criminalize and *that* has to be fixed if you don't want a large scale revolt a few years down the line.

A serious corollary of the criminalization of something that such a large portion of the population is doing is that it encourages the people to look down on the law. Our current approach is creating a generation of scofflaws, and that is a bad thing -- because other laws DO matter.

Not saying this is right but

[captnbmoore]

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,

yeah right

[phayes]

An ex, cough, current RIAA attourney without any doubt...

Ugh, that's depressing...

[Dirtside]

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.

Re:Ugh, that's depressing...

[Mr. Underbridge]

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.

Re:Ugh, that's depressing...

[N3Roaster]

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)

Re:Ugh, that's depressing...

[Dun Malg]

In '95 Biden introduced a "Counterterrorism Bill" in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing that was essentially the same thing as the Patriot Act. He even said, when the DOJ introduced the Patriot Act, "I drafted a terrorism bill after the Oklahoma City bombing. And the bill John Ashcroft sent up was my bill".

Re:Ugh, that's depressing...

[shark72]

"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."

Interesting choice of words. The administration isn't looking at the short term here -- they see the writing on the wall and want to cement the USA's position as an economic superpower as the manufacturing leaves us behind. The USA is the biggest exporter of IP on the planet, and the administration likely sees this as our economy's golden ticket as India and China usurp what have been traditionally some of our big money-makers.

The current administration probably looks at it a bit like global warming -- doing something about it should not be put off. They want to make progress here; hence the term "progressive." To do nothing would not be progressive.

Agreed with you, however, that the ever-extending copyright lengths violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the constitution. Very well put. The big media companies would, of course, like to make copyright perpetual, but that would be unconstitutional. So instead they're doing the next best thing, and getting it pushed out each time Mickey Mouse is in danger of entering ye olde publick domain.

 

Re:Ugh, that's depressing...

[Greg_D]

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.

corporations are no artists, except con artists

[jessemaurais]

"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.

Re:corporations are no artists, except con artists

[Dun Malg]

How about this then? A friend of mine worked for Disney and created a background mural for a ride at Disneyworld. The work was licensed to Disney solely for use as part of the ride. A couple years later, this same friend attended a Disney on Ice show, and what do you know, there was his background artwork. In the ice show. In violation of the license. He complained and Disney basically stonewalled him for a year, claiming variously "it's not your artwork", "it's allowed under the contract we signed", and other such bullshit. Eventually, they renegotiated a new contract for a lot more money. His agent said Disney pulls this crap all the fucking time, and most of the time artists don't find out until after the fact and don't have a live show to hold hostage, so they get stonewalled forever. They're a bunch of prick theives, stealing from everyone else, and whining about piracy at the same time. Fuck 'em.

Perhaps a reaction to extreme copyright?

[b4dc0d3r]

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?

It also occurs to me...

[Dirtside]

...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.

Re:It also occurs to me...

[the_macman]

I understand your reason for lack of concern. But hear MY concern. During the MPAA's pursuit against piracy the freedoms of the internet will be trampled on :( So sure they won't catch 99% of all pirates but that doesn't mean we won't see federal legislation requiring ISP's to log records, even more powerful DMCA, and other such bullshit along the way. I have hopes that we'll win though. There are more of us and we are smarter. But casualties along the way will occur and that saddens me.

Hope and Change, Fairydust and Rainbows....

[Anonymous Coward]

Feeling suckered yet? Obama knows where to get his bread buttered, and Hollyweird is only happy enough to do it for him.

Re:Hope and Change, Fairydust and Rainbows....

[evanbd]

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.

Re:Hope and Change, Fairydust and Rainbows....

[drizek]

I have just two words for people who ask me if I regret voting for Obama: Sarah Palin.

Biden wants more money?

[the_arrow]

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 Right Person

[guyminuslife]

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.

Sigh. It'sa bit depressing.

[jollyreaper]

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.

Re:Can we drop all this "Czar" crap?

[hedwards]

There were no "czars" in the Soviet Union, the last one was murdered at the start of the revolution.

Before you freak

[buss_error]

...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.

Re:politics

[SignalFreq]

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.

Re:Why do we persist with the ridiculous term Czar

[clarkkent09]

They used Fuhrer at first but it proved unpopular

why does anyone care?

[circletimessquare]

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

well, yeah - it's cause nobody gives a shit

[Reality Master 201]

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.

Biden == Corrupt

[CuteSteveJobs]

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.

Re:Citation needed?

[htrn]

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.

Who steals?

[Sj0]

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.