Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

GOP Brief Attacks Current Copyright Law

Posted by timothy on from the political-parties-work-like-stopped-clocks dept.

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."

4 of 296 comments (clear)

  1. Holy Cow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I haven't even read the whole thing yet, but I was sort of astounded to read this from paper:

    [Myth]1. The purpose of copyright is to compensate the creator of the content:
    It's a common misperception that the Constitution enables our current legal regime of copyright protection - in fact, it does not. The Constitution's clause on Copyright and patents states:
    "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8) . Thus, according to the Constitution, the overriding purpose of the copyright system is to "promote the progress of science and useful arts." In today's terminology we may say that the purpose is to lead to maximum productivity and innovation. This is a major distinction, because most legislative discussions on this topic, particularly during the extension of the copyright term, are not premised upon what is in the public good or what will promote the most productivity and innovation, but rather what the content creators "deserve" or are "entitled to" by virtue of their creation. This lexicon is appropriate in the realm of taxation and sometimes in the realm of trade protection, but it is inappropriate in the realm of patents and copyrights. Strictly speaking, because of the constitutional basis of copyright and patent, legislative discussions on copyright/patent reform should be based upon what promotes the maximum "progress of sciences and useful arts" instead of "deserving" financial compensation.

    By Jove! I think he's on to something here.

  2. Re:If it's a GOP brief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Think you have that reversed, at least regarding copyright. Chris Dodd, architect of SOPA, was democratic. Most of the underhanded legislation to extend copyright and push US style copyright laws on other governments is from the Democratic side of the aisle.

    Not saying the GOP doesn't have its own share of monopolistic asshats, but you're clearly wrong on this count.

  3. Re:If it's a GOP brief by rolfwind · · Score: 5, Informative

    Indeed, it's through Biden that the RIAA/MPAA infiltrated the Justice Dept with their lawyers:
    http://gizmodo.com/5146966/riaa-and-bsas-favorite-lawyers-taking-top-department-of-justice-posts

    And also I believe it is under Obama that I saw the first domains "seized by government" screens but not 100% sure:
    http://www.domainnamenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Screen-shot-2010-07-02-at-4.11.43-PM.png

    Al Gore's wife in the 90s and Hillary Clinton in the 00s also wanted some type of ban on violent video games "for the children". Republicans do suck on a lot of things but the Democrats take the cake here as well.

  4. Re:If it's a GOP brief by Desler · · Score: 5, Informative

    Think you have that reversed, at least regarding copyright. Chris Dodd, architect of SOPA, was democratic.

    SOPA was introduced to the House by Republican Lamar Smith. He was also its biggest proponent.

    Most of the underhanded legislation to extend copyright and push US style copyright laws on other governments is from the Democratic side of the aisle.

    Wrong. DMCA was introduced to the House by a Republican. The Copyright Term Extension Act, AKA Sonny Bono Coyright Extension Act, was introduced to the Senate by Republican Orin Hatch. Oh and Sonny Bono was a Republican. The Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act was also introduced to the Senate by Orin Hatch. The Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act was also introduced by Orin Harch. I could go on and on about Republican-introduced copyright extension and copyright scope increasing acts. It's a myth that this is a heavily Democrat thing.