Slashdot Mirror
GOP Brief Attacks Current Copyright Law
cervesaebraciator writes "Regardless of how one feels about the GOP generally, it is always heartening to see current copyright and IP law questioned on a national stage. A Republican study committee, chaired by Ohio Representative Jim Jordan released a brief today titled Three Myths about Copyright Law and Where to Start to Fix it. Among other things, the brief attacks current copyright law as hampering scientific inquiry, penalizing journalism, and retarding the potential of the internet to allow the dispersion of knowledge through e-readers. In the briefs words, 'Current copyright law does not merely distort some markets – rather it destroys entire markets.' Four potential policy solutions are proposed: statutory damage reform, expansion of fair use, punishing false copyright claims, and limiting copyright terms. There may yet be hope for a national debate on the current oppressive copyright system, if just a fool's hope."
then they're looking to transfer copyright ownership to another private entity, instead of giving it to the public.
Remember, the GOP represents interests of monopolist business owners that seek to eliminate competition through government regulation. They do not represent interests of the public.
Unfortunately, a Republican study committee != Republican policies and platforms.
- Nec Impar Pluribus, or so I'm told.
I've got mod points at the moment, but rather than oblivionate the current pathetic trolls, flamebait and fr1st p0st crap, I'd rather encourage some thought.
Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
I haven't even read the whole thing yet, but I was sort of astounded to read this from paper:
By Jove! I think he's on to something here.
Although I'm not sure which is more surprising: the fact that this was written by a member of the government (or at least an aide to such a member), the fact that it came from the Republicans, or the fact that the chair of the committee that drafted it is basically completely opposite to me, politically. With any luck, at least some others will look at it and take it seriously.
Sure it is, give credit where credit is due.
Okay, I'll give credit to the EFF for promoting these principles for the last 22 years, and Socrates for proposing the concept of the freedom to share ideas.
To be honest, I think theyr'e both just posers that stole ideas from others, but I don't know THEIR names.
- Nec Impar Pluribus, or so I'm told.
It seems the mitt-romney about-face attitude is changing the party from the inside - the GOP worrying about hampering scientific inquiry, [and] penalizing journalism. Next, you'll be telling me that they're also promoting women's rights and education.
Also, I would love for my sarcastic comments to be proven wrong.
- Nec Impar Pluribus, or so I'm told.
... he might have earned my vote!
I gave Obama the "meh" nod.
Had Romney talked about Copyright reform two weeks ago, he very may well have changed my vote!
Read through the entire thing, but am very unimpressed with the quality of the writing. If re-written at a higher skill level and otherwise massaged, I think it would make an ideal document (stamped by the GOP of all groups) to send around to our local congresscritters as a talking point. Wonder if the sponsor could be convinced to let it be "fixed" without changing the content or message, and updated?
GStreamer - The only way to stream!
Let's see Congressional political fundraising started taking off when the tax codes were rewritten during Reagan. What's going to happen when the copyright owners start throwing money around? I'm tellin' ya they got a real money maker here. At least the last election could not be bought out right. Maybe money doesn't as well as it used to, to get the Congress you want.
Republicans are attacking companies that mostly bribe Democrats.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
maybe on a per word basis for literary works, a per frame charge for video, possible a per note valuation for music, maybe a per statement calculation for computer code.
The fee can be small, but unless the work is registered, it would only have limited protection.
Just throwing it out there.
I think that is actually the problem. Copyright is not about MARKETS, it is about creative content being made available to the public ("published"). It is not about some business' bottom line. But in our Corpocratic society, the focus shifts to business interests above anything else. How about just being able to immerse yourself in our cultural heritage? There's a big wall around it with a (C)-shaped bricks. There's a rubble pile outside the main walls, the sign says "public domain".
I think the most useful reform would be to stop granting copyright owners any control over their work except for the purpose of getting paid. The owner should not have the right to restrict distribution or use of his work in any way as long as it was legally purchased. Likewise, he should not have any control over derived works except for getting a cut of their sale equal to the current market value of the work multiplied by the fraction of the original work used in the derivation. So anybody should have the right to write a Harry Potter novel as long as Rowling gets a cut for whatever fraction of the book's value is assigned to characters.
Now that she's out, maybe something can get done.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
So this is how the Republican Party is going to try to move now that super-conservative has failed. How interesting!
If all this information was somewhere, like, I don't know, Google Scholar...
Was this written by Google? I guess these big companies realized they need to organize to protect themselves from the stupid lawmakers. This will help all of us, and that's great, but Google is more interested in monetizing copyrighted material.
You Hollywood folks backed the wrong guy. So now we're going to pull the rug out from under you.
Have gnu, will travel.
Why don't you support your cultural heritage and shell out a few scheckels to the people that produce it?
If the creative people what to give away their work ... then they are more than capable of doing it. However, the vast majority would like to get paid for their efforts. What is wrong with that?
"Four potential policy solutions are proposed: statutory damage reform, expansion of fair use, punishing false copyright claims, and limiting copyright terms."
YES. That one alone would go a long ways towards leveling the playing field between individuals and huge corporations.
Controlling the US House of Representatives, they're in a great position to do something about it. In fact, they have been for two years. So let's see if they put their money where their mouth is.
Excellent to see pro-progress pro-competition pro-openness stuff get political attention.
Sad that most of Slashdot is against it because of the colour of their ties.
Getting rid of crony capitalism corporatism is more important that rep or dem.
Um, if it contains language that strongly worded against profit and entitlement, then you'd better believe Disney has made some phone calls today to mobilize some serious lobbying power and see what strings can be pulled by other lawmakers that they have influence over. Without a doubt.
Better known as 318230.
First, look who uses copyrights most.
Next, visit www.opensecrets.org - look them up and which party they tend to donate to.
Next, look where educators tend to donate to. Look where the GOP legislative record tilts - NB: State of Texas/K-12 school funding.
While I agree with many of the points in the GOP paper, sometimes things aren't done for just one reason. Or done for the reasons stated.
Just sayin'.
------
Continuing my K-12 rant:
And while "Throwing money at education doesn't work!", I'll ask a rather pointed question:
Would you rather have a doctor that graduated from Harvard medical school (85K USD per semester) or from a unknown state university (where it's more like 30K USD per semester) to operate on your brain?
Factiod: Texas spends about $6.82 per hour to educate children in K-12
Factiod: Average price of a baby sitter in Texas: $9.00 per hour over all, $12.50 per hour in urban areas.
Factiod: Average pay of a letter carrier: 58,700 USD (no degree required)
Factiod: Average pay of a Texas K-12 Teacher with a bachelor's degree: 42,890
Opinion: The person that teaches your child to read should make at least as much as the person that brings them the mail.
And yes - I am now a FORMER K-12 employee. I couldn't keep depriving my family of a living wage to teach your kids, get insulted for being "A pig in the trough sucking on the public t|t", being called a "Fat cat over paid administrator", and having just about everyone assume I'm incompetent and can't get "A real job". I once had someone actually spit on me when I told them where I worked.
I hired on to a place glassdoor rates as one of the 5 hardest places to get hired. I applied on a Tuesday, had a phone interview on Wednesday morning, an in person interview on Thursday evening, (I was offered a slot on Wednesday afternoon, but I had to be there for your kids), got an offer on Friday morning (at 4AM!), and I now make 211% more than I did teaching your kids, not counting the hiring bonus (1.5 month's pay at my new rate) or quarterly bonuses (about two weeks pay usually.)
In a free market, people tend to go where compensation is best. The truly remarkable teachers hang on like grim death to teach. So I guess I'm not a truly remarkable teacher - but now I make more money, and have to work only 6 more days a year than I used to. I would have stayed to teach your kids, if I could afford to get my daughter braces, my son corrective surgery for his injury, my wife the things she has earned to keep this household running as well as it does, and cars somewhat less than 14 and 17 years old. I don't ask for any toys for myself - my family is the joy of my life. I just want them to do, and be, well.
As a side note: Retirement. Because I was in Teacher's retirement, I can never draw out from Social Security what any other person would get, even if I give up all the money I paid into teacher retirement. As a result, I won't be able to retire until I'm 72 years old, which I don't expect to see. I have a rather large life insurance policy for my wife, which should see she is comfortable and able to do all the things she's like to do with me, if we could. We'll cross off a few bucket list items, but as for passing comfortable years in our golden age, I don't see that happening.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
I always try to avoid stepping in goos.
This is old Carl Sagan's falacious probability argument.
It is my understanding that under certain circumstances, goos can get into cunts. Best to beware of goos, I'm thinking, if one is blessed with ladybits.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
It's a PIN, you bloody heathen!
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Hilarious that somebody from the GOP would complain about hampering scientific inquiry. That's been the GOP's strategy for years.
Unfortunately, a Republican study committee != Republican policies and platforms.
Granted, a Republican study committee is not necessary equal to policies and platforms adopted by the Republican central committee.
But then, - and I am saying this as an independent, I ain't a Republican - where were the Democrats?
How come the "study committee" ain't the "Democrat study committee" instead?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Let me enlighten you about Van Gogh's art and motivation using the traditional slashdot car analogy.
Van Gogh's finest art is functionally equivalent to NASCAR: 24 hours of continuously turning left, if done well, he hoped would result in a snuggle from a ring girl, specifically, Rachel. In order to enhance his left turns, he removed his left ear, thus creating a ground-hugging vacuum on the left and so enhancing his turning ability.
This made him quite dizzy; the result was "Starry Starry Night", a veritable opus of left turns, which of course we now treat as a cultural treasure.
Alas, Rachel, who was left holding the ear, was not so easily impressed.
* There's gonna be a quiz tomorrow
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Two articles about republicans talking copyright reform and anti-SOPA in a single day...
Normally when politicans talk freedom it is in the form of maximizing "freedom" for their donating constituents with big pockets...I must say on the surface I'm impressed.
This country is in dire need of sane copyright and patent laws...and there is plenty of low hanging fruit like repeal of mickey mouse protection act.
I think one of the great solutions proposed (funny, because I was just discussing this exact idea with someone a couple of nights ago) is to offer the opportunity for incremental increases in copyright term FOR A FEE.
The one problem here is that the WTO includes TRIPS, which includes the Berne Convention, which prohibits member countries from requiring a formality to maintain copyright.
But how is someone supposed to keep producing for 70 YEARS beyond their death?
My guess is that the rationale behind a PMA (life-plus) copyright term is that the author's estate is supposed to publish previously unpublished works and produce restored editions of published works.
Here, take a look.
Other nonsense patents include a kids' swing. It happens all the time. That's a broken system.
Infuriate left and right
You sound like you think Democrats are better.
News flash: politicians, like broken clocks, are right once in a while. Broken clocks have the advantage of being otherwise useless, while politicians actively get in the way.
Infuriate left and right
They should have proposed this prior to the last presidential election? Or made a point to mention it during the debates? It's quite possible they might have swayed a few votes their way. Guess that was too risky?
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
Berne only requires 50 years. Although still far too much IMHO, it beats life+195 or whatever horror we're up to now. If you want more than 50, you can pay.
If need be, we can call it something else, such as (C)++ or Supercopy.
Taxes is the government using force against an individual, which is a violation of thier rights. The government should simply raise money in a voluntary system. You can choose how much you pay. Local government can sell bonds and have fund drives and raffles to raise money. The current system of boot on the neck to raze taxes is tyrannical.
As a politician he should be protecting 'big business' and as a Republican he should be shifting the cost to the working class. I'm confused.
The real question: Can the Republican party re-invent itself with policies that promote productivity (like this) and 'freeze' the TSA and department of war?
A broken clock is still right twice a day.
... candidate denounced SOPA and PIPA in the Republican 2012 primary debates to loud applause from the party base
Sure, there are the occasional bought-and-paid-for elected republicans like Lamar Smith and Ted Stevens... but there are plenty of Democrats who are also in the hip-pockets of big media and telecom companies... that says less about the party base, or party position, and more about the intelligence of big businesses and the corruption of the individual politician; if you want to move a bill through congress, you need the support of the Senate... and it turns out that a vote from a senator from a low-campaign-cost state like Alaska or Alabama, etc is just as valuable as the vote of a senator from a high-campaign-cost state like New York. It's also true that after you sow-up the votes of the cheap senators you can get, and the senators who are always in your pocket anyway (like the two senators in California) you still might need to find a few of "the enemy" who you can buy...and that's where Lamar Smith comes in...
I REPEAT , "RESTORE THE US CONSTITUTION"
it's this, or it's going to be HELL ON EARTH.
Business will close
Business won't hire
Business will exploit sub-contracting
Banksters won't face justice
Oath breakers won't face justice
Murderers Thieves and Psychopaths will run the world
I PREDICT
As the Oath Breaking Senate allows the monetary system to go to complete fucking shit, civil war will be right under their fucking throats. Forget the MAYA crap, Global Warmin Fraud (man made, yeah men in haarp stations with deadly force and men doing sorties spraying nasty fucking shit on us!)
Fuck it. I give up.
COME KNOCK ON MY DOOR WITH THIS FASCIST UNCONSTITUTIONAL SHIT, AND MEET YOUR FUCKING MAKER YOU OATH BREAKING TERRORISTS
ain't gonna happen in a million years. Or a republican 5000 give or take.
that the GOP is on the right side on an issue for once? I'm suspicious...
Judging people by their party is stupid. Most of the generalizations people make about politicians based on their party are based on the same narrow-minded group-think that begets racism, sexism, and so on.
Both parties have a significant portion of their population in the thrall of the copyright lobby. When someone goes off-message like this, it's an exception to the rule.
I wish Rep. Jordan well in his endeavor, but he's got an uphill struggle.
"If you take away the compensation, you'll find a lot less will be created. Thus doing the exact opposite of fostering innovation.
The paper talks about a DJ Remix industry. That industry exist only because original songs exist. You would have fewer original songs (at least fewer quality ones) if you removed all forms of compensation."
I agree that taking away compensation removes the incentive to produce. However compensation shouldn't be seen as a purely financial transaction. Most people writing poetry continue to do so even if they don't expect to get paid enough for them not to have a day job as, for example, a literature teacher.
Your argument about a DJ Remix industry existing only because of original songs can also apply to the authors of the original songs. The original songwriters cannot write their songs without having at their disposal the public domain of freely reusable chord patterns and melodies. Most pop songs make use of a limited number of harmonic sequences. If these chord sequences were copyrighted and payment demanded every time they are used in a song, then the cascade of license fees would ensure that nobody can make a profit from songwriting.
While I think you're right to a degree, I think you need to at least point out that there is a flip side to this too. Although your theory works in theory (interesting phrasing there) at times if the state becomes to powerful, individuals in power can act against the people's good, the very thing they are to be protecting. We have examples of this in the communist and dictator states.
The state of nature isn't that great, and government (and thus taxes) protect us from it. Nonetheless, if the government becomes too powerful and the individual loses power, than people can be become as threatened as they were if there was no government. There lies a balance here between the power and government and the power of the individual, and this is not a result of a philosophy but of practicality so let me explain. Extreme socialism can mostly be done through government power; although socialism in theory is good, the stepping stone to that good, ie., government power, can be misused by those in power who are, again, acting on those individual interest. The opposite is the state of nature, where people simply have power without close connections: you have examples like the prisoner's dilemma where independent entities act in a way that as a whole is not optimal, even though anarchism, ideally like that of socialism, would be the most "free."
See, the issue is both ideas are founded on assumptions that tend to neglect certain things about human nature which happen to be the same thing: selfishness, although in different manifestations. And as a matter of practicality, the actual execution of the governmental system, both can fail because of these missed assumptions.
I think the best solution as we saw in the 90's is the third way, the best of both worlds. The middle here is not only appealing but it brought real prosperity during that time so it has evidence of being good as well. It is where we as a nation (as well as other first world countries, japan, korea, etc) lie and it works for us for the most part...well, we lie closer to that than where the socialists or the anarchists are. We might ned touch-ups, but we have by natural selection it seems chosen the better middle.
Finally some brains in the GOP. Why support Hollywood or California ? They vote for commies anyway.
JAM
Well... Remember that the Government (and thus, the State) have a monopoly on the (legal) coercion through force (that is, of the security bodies). If a libertarian does not pay taxes, he is undermining the principles on which most of the society has agreed to function upon, and cannot simply deny to use what taxes give him. A libertarian cannot live (without much effort) without using the government-paid streets. And will probably won't be able to determine which crops from which he buys food are completely free of government-provided subsidies or protection from international competition. And, of course, a long etcetera. Of course, he won't also be able to pay for those goods without paying the sales tax.
So, no, a libertarian cannot (again, without too much effort to it) completely stay out of using tax-derived services and consuming taxed goods. Right now, all they can do is to complain about it.
Rep Jim Jordan, representing Columbus Ohio. "Battleground State" Ohio recently famously lost by Republicans in national politics.
There is a far greater opportunity here for a disproportionate impact on platform.
I for one am looking at the GOP far more seriously now than during the elections when the were defined by illogical hysteria of their base.
http://jordan.house.gov/district/map.htm
That's exactly how Republicans can come back to the real issues!
Look at the copyrights, patent abuse from the business standpoint of view... And adopt the party platform that opposes such things.
good luck with that!
GOP sides with Corporations DMCA RIAA/MPIAA. If a 7 year old kid was downloading music/movie then his/her grandparents might go to jail. You can borrow the DVD from your friend($0.00), rent the DVD from the Library($0.00), rent the DVD from Red Box($1.25), watch streaming DVD from Netflix($0.25), Amazon, etc. And, GOP=Republican Party still sides with DMCA RIAA/MPIAA to put grandparents in jail. GOP=Republican Party is so GREEDY that they will support Corporations taking every penny from the citizens.
True, the minimum under Berne is only 50 years works of corporate authorship, but Berne requires life plus 50 for any work created by an individual author, other than a sound recording or various other categories of works covered under "related rights".
the democrats are tied up in protect big, monied intrests, dedicated to copyright enforcement, such as the RIAA, MPAA, BSA(Business Software Alliance, not the most excellent purveyors of british motorcycling)
They have also been seen protecting copyright trolls like monsanto, at the behest of small time organic farmers.
The democrats like to bill themselves as the party of the little guy protecting him from corporate greed, and this is going to hit them like one giant stain
Current IP law degrades innovation, and only allows technological innovation to be controlled by non-technological lawyers and state actors, profiting off innovation, while simultaneously jailing the people who drive it.
While I am certainly not a republican, It would be nice if the republicans make Big Media, UnFree Software, and the rest of the copyright trolls, and celebritiy culture a giant stinky liability for the dems.
Both parties are mostly ignorant of the effect of technology and the ideas it sprouts from. For all the legalese they use on a daily basis, it's almost always in a restrictive sence and that thinking has been ingrained in both parties. Other gov'ts have seen the benefits of going all OSS, however the US is still lagging. Current copyright laws have been formed through lobbying by those that would benefit from the restrictions thus stamping out competition. Open source and open publication is a start in the right direction, but it's far from the reform that is needed. I'm glad that at least one party brought it up... Now if they would talk about space exploration....
The linked article confirms it.
Update: The RSC has now taken down the brief and disowned it via this memo from Executive Director Paul Teller. Here’s a copy of that:
Does anyone have a cached copy?
The RNC has disowned and pulled the brief. The main article (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/an-anti-ip-turn-for-the-gop/ contains a link to the pulled document. http://www.scribd.com/doc/113633834/Republican-Study-Committee-Intellectual-Property-Brief.
This same congressman wanted to force the US to default on our debts, which would have caused complete economic collapse.
Nice try... Blocking the raising of the debt ceiling does not cause a default... that's what all the big-spending left-wing socialists and right-wing crony-capitalists want you to think...
1. The "debt ceiling" is the cap on what the US can borrow (how deep of a financial hole we can dig future generations of American into).
2. "Default" is failure to make on-time payments to people you owe money to.
Last year, when the GOP threatened to not raise the debt ceiling, the Obama administration admitted there was enough money coming into the federal government every month to keep making ALL payments to creditors, and paying out Social Security and Medicare to all the seniors, and maintaining the operating costs of the defense department ( i.e. bullets, fuel, salaries, etc. ) this means there would have been no default. Obama only publicly commented that he might be unable to mail the social security checks as a scare tactic (Dems ALWAYS fall-back on scaring the most reliable voters: seniors). NOT raising the ceiling would have meant that the House and Senate and President would have been forced to get to the table and prioritize all other spending and possibly negotiate on taxes too... something the establishments of BOTH parties desperately wanted to avoid (and will again fall all over eachother to avoid again in a few months when we approach the new limit...). Corrupt politicians of both parties who buy votes with taxpayer money will ALWAYS demand that any attempt to limit the borrowing is "dangerous", but they all plan to be dead-and-gone before the today's young people are middle-aged taxpayers facing 80%+ federal income tax rates...