Rethinking How Congress Pushes Copyright Laws

pigrabbitbear writes "Lamar Smith just can't get a break. The Texas congressman and widely despised author of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) ruffled the Internet's feathers once again this week with the quiet unveiling of a new piece of legislation that's drawing criticism for being plucked out of SOPA's language and rushed through Congress. The Intellectual Property Attaché Act (IPAA) would streamline the process by which the U.S. protects its intellectual property by enforcing U.S. copyright law abroad through specially assigned diplomats or attachés. These officers would report to a new agency-level position, the Assistant Secretary for Intellectual Property and push agendas that, according to the bill's language, are 'consistent with the economic interests of the United States, both domestically and abroad.'"

Comments

I for one

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome our new RIAA/MPAA SS Troup overlords

Re:I for one

[Z00L00K]

It may be interesting to check how much he has been paid by lobbyists to drive this.

Maybe it's time to study Lamar Smith in detail for any kind of inappropriate behavior. Everyone is guilty of something.

Re:I for one

[ausrob]

The so called 'copyright clause' of the US constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8) doesn't say that at all - it states "To promote the progress of science and useful arts". It mentions nothing making things profitable. It also mentions granting copyright for a *limited* time, which - given the continuing extensions to copyright term - is not being exercised in accordance with the US constitution.

By the way, the public domain exists for a reason too, and was intended 'to embiggen a vibrant and creative economy'. Take a look at what has happened to it in the past few decades.

Re:I for one

[NormalVisual]

I think if people actually went and read the CONSTITUTION they would see that copyright exists for a reason - to protect the creator, to make it profitable to create, and to enbiggen a vibrant creative economy.

Go back and read it again because that's not what it says. What you've written are the means by which copyright fulfills its *actual stated* reason, "to promote the progress of science and useful arts". Everything that is created is supposed to enter the public domain and enrich society as a whole. Letting the creator have a limited (key word: LIMITED) time to make money on his works is the way by which society encourages that.

Re:I for one

[Anonymous Coward]

The discussion system understands HTML (this post is written with <p>'s around the paragraphs).

When you link, just use HTML:

<a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00001811">OpenSecrets<a>

...displays as:

OpenSecrets

If you just want the link displayed and clickable, here is pseudo-html:

<url:"http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00001811">

...displays as:

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00001811

Re:I for one

[Opportunist]

There is no problem with copyright per se. The problem is that copyright got way out of hand, and I doubt that's what the founding fathers of the US had in mind when they thought that it's a good idea to give the creator of content the sole right to reap the fruits from it.

Back in those days, the "unfairness" was on the other side of the swing. Creators had to hurry to publish as fast as they could because if it was even remotely some kind of success, others would copy and sell it. Back then, the "bad guys" were not the users of content, the publishers were. They would not sign up artists, they'd wait for the artist to have success with their limited ability to publish, then rip them off by copying their creation and quickly reproducing it. The idea was to protect the artists against the publishers.

The system has been perverted into the one we have today. Copyright no longer protects the artist either, rather, it protects the publishers now.

And I am quite certain that this is exactly the OPPOSITE of what the inventors of copyright had in mind.

Re:I for one

[MMC Monster]

Maybe someone should start a kickstarter campaign to buy a senator?

Great

[fredprado]

This way they can bypass the congress and do whatever they want through secret trade agreements like ACTA and TPP. Seriously, US citizens should lock these guys and throw away the keys. They are corrupt to the bone.

How?

[TubeSteak]

The problem is not how these laws are being pushed.
The problem is the content of these copyright laws.

Lamar Smith (R-TX) obviously thinks that the copyright lobbyists are his constituents
and not the masses of citizens which protested and sank PIPA (Patrick Leahy (D-VT))
which in turn lead directly to SOPAs death

Wasn't life + 90 years enough copyright?

Sovereignty

[girlintraining]

Can't wait until China starts sending diplomats into our country to enforce their intellectual property laws. I'm sure our esteemed legislator from Texas will be overjoyed to cooperate with Chinese business interests acting within his state.

Re:Sovereignty

[girlintraining]

This may well be: I reckon is only a matter of how much they'd contribute to their electoral funding.

My point is that we act like we own the world. America, fuck yeah! But the truth is, other people own us. They've got us by the balls, and anytime they want, they just have to squeeze and it's the end of the line for us. We can't manufacture most of the goods and services we depend on. The only thing we have in abundance is fresh water, farmable land, and a lot of nuclear missiles. Everything else is decaying. It's been outsourced. There's a few hundred thousand in this country that are rich, and the rest of us are, or soon will be, dirt poor. We're dependant on the 3rd world to provide everything, they're starting to realize they have everything. It's just a matter of time until they can (and will) take the lead and do away with our exploitations.

Intellectual property is the (failed) attempt to delay this fate of ours... but they saw through it. They're ignoring it. And although we can destroy the world a hundred times over with our military... they are still saying no. And rather than using this antebellum moment to prepare, to maybe even reverse our fate... we're letting those select few rich people ride headlong into our own destruction. And we put them on the cover of Fortune magazine and call them heroes even as they destroy it all.

Years from now, America will be nothing but a lighthouse, telling other countries where not to sail if they want to avoid a ruinous fate.

Re:Sovereignty

[ShakaUVM]

Sorry to burst your ideology, but pretty much all your facts are wrong.

>>There's a few hundred thousand in this country that are rich, and the rest of us are, or soon will be, dirt poor.

The US has the most millionaires of any country in the world, with 3M (about 1 out of 100 Americans is a millionaire!): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millionaire#Number_of_millionaires_by_country

The real median household income rose steadily from 1947 to the present day (not counting the current recession): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Income_Distribution_1947-2007.svg

This includes all levels of income earners in America.

>>We can't manufacture most of the goods and services we depend on.

Manufacturing is doing fine: http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/08/us-industrial-production-resumes-growth.html

>>It's just a matter of time until they can (and will) take the lead and do away with our exploitations.

If China stops exporting to us, there will be a disruption of our market as we shift production around. But China's economy would be destroyed.

Economic interests of the United States

[Compaqt]

Haha. Whoever said that the economic interests of the copyright cartel were the same as that of either:

1) the US government (I'm not talking about the Obama or Bush campaigns when they inhabit the White House). The copyright cartel is pushing the US into forcing other governments to do stuff they don't want to do, leading to blowback, leading to anti-Americanism. Hollywood films already routinely make more abroad than domestically, and it'll only increase as the world gets richer. What's the problem?

2) the United States (i.e., the States, united). State and local governments are the ones who have the most to gain from a freer copyright regime. They're usually strapped for money.

3) people (RIAA lawyers are not counted among these). IP is strangulating innovation and increasing prices. What's the upside? Avatar wouldn't have been made if copyright expired before James Cameron's death?