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."

Comments

If it's a GOP brief

[mozumder]

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.

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[Anonymous Coward]

Most likely, they're just interested in destroying that liberal bastion of big bucks, Hollywood.

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[wierd_w]

If that were the case, a simple IRS audit of their expense reports would blow it away from orbit.

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[Anonymous Coward]

Most likely, they're just interested in destroying that liberal bastion of big bucks, Hollywood.

I can tell you as a liberal (actually I'm probably left of liberal) that I would support that endeavor whoever advocates it.

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[Anonymous Coward]

then they're looking to transfer copyright ownership to another private entity, instead of giving it to the public.

Prove it, or admit that you're lying. Those are your only possible choices.

And no "they're Republicans" is not proof, and yes, that is what you were going to say.

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[Anonymous Coward]

Everybody knows: Democrats are Entertainment and Republicans are Banking/Industry.
While a gross simplification it pretty well describes the overarching legal policies of both sides regarding industry (outside of 'social' or 'religious' related reform.)

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[rolfwind]

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.

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[Runaway1956]

Parent is modded troll - despite the fact that we see both parties working hard to extend draconian copyright laws?

The "rights holders" have carte blanche in treaty negotiations, as evidenced with ACTA and NPP. These so-called "rights holders" work around the clock to write ever more restrictive treaties, that will trump national laws around the world. Nations with reasonable laws will be bullied into signing these treaties, then be required to enforce the measures in the treaties.

Troll? If Mozumber's post is a troll, then I'm a troll as well.

The GOP cannot claim innocence in any aspect of what is going on in the copyright/patent wars.

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[causality]

Seems like you have a closed mind. You're all-knowledgeable about what people who don't share your beliefs stand for. Are you unique in this world? I sure don't have the ability to get into the minds of people whose views I oppose. Yet somehow you can.

You must be a liberal.

Maybe he does have a closed mind, maybe he doesn't.

But you definitely should not be against something until you understand it.

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[Mashiki]

Considering that hollywood gets massive taxbreaks and have since the 1950's? Sounds fine to me, for all the cries from the left of the rich "needing to pay their fair share" the hollywood elite don't, and neither do movie, or TV production companies.

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[Lord Balto]

Having a problem with cognitive dissonance? Have you tried Dr. Franklin's CD remover and brain cleanser?

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[genkernel]

Actually, I haven't seen any evidence recently that the democrats aren't just as supportive of the military front as the republicans.

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[0111 1110]

Aren't you thinking of a Libertarian? I've never met a Republican who advocated no taxes at all. Republicans are not Libertarians any more than Democrats are socialists.

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[Gerzel]

Aye. Hollywood gets their gravy from copyright abuse but their real money is still on creating new IP. Practically no one is seriously talking about removing Copyright in its entirety from the law. The main problem is the excessive terms copyright applies to and difficulty in enforcing it for the little guy.

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[cervesaebraciator]

Troll? If Mozumber's post is a troll, then I'm a troll as well.

I disagree; you are not a troll. I suspect that the parent was modded troll because he acted as a provocateur, charging the GOP with representing monopolists as though it were peculiar to the GOP. Your statement was far more reasonable in that it recognized both parties can be thus implicated.

I do not say this to exonerate the GOP, nor is this a false equivalence. The fact that people habitually act as though one side or the other has sole responsibility for the problems we face is part of what allows those problems to persist (i.e. when the consequences arise, both parties always have a scapegoat). The cure to this problem is, as far as is possible, to praise and punish those lawmakers who do good or ill according to the good or ill they do. When some lawmaker says we need copyright reform because our current system, we will never get anywhere by saying, "Well, that's coming from a member of the [fill-in-party-here]." If I have a problem with the absurd wars started under Republican administrations, I'm not going praise Joe Biden for being a Democrat. If I've a problem with deficits, I'm hardly going to support Paul Ryan on account of Republican rhetoric.

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[Desler]

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.

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[0111 1110]

In that case I'm guessing that you have never actually met a Libertarian. I am a Libertarian myself and I don't believe in any taxes at all. So I guess I'm an existence proof. Libertiarians object to taxes, not for practical reasons, but for philosophical ones. We believe that collecting taxes, any taxes, is a form of protection money, a form of legalized thievery and is morally repugnant. I think you will find that 99% of actual Libertarians agree with me too. I wouldn't really consider a Libertarian who believes in taxes to be a Libertarian at all. Keeping relationships voluntary (voluntarism) is at the very core of the philosophy.

The biggest difference between Libertarians is how we feel that a "government" should raise money.

Limited government Libertarians mostly believe that the government should raise money via some form of voluntary contribution.

Anarcho-Libertarians mostly believe that the essential government functions can be funded via payment for services rendered. Either after the services have been rendered or in advance, or as a form of insurance. Free riders are simply ignored or forced to pay on the rare occasion that they may personally need such a service.

I have been both types at various times and I think either method is fine. Whatever works. As long as you aren't sticking the barrel of a gun in someone's face to fund your projects it's all good. Most people will claim that funding a government without the use of force is impossible. Libertarians simply disagree.

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[Anonymous Coward]

In short : all politicians want more power over the people.

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[dryeo]

If you don't believe in paying taxes, why pay them? You are perfectly free not to pay taxes just like many other transactions. All you have to do is not take the benefits that paying taxes gives you and you don't have to pay them.
This is the problem with Libertarians, the ultimate entitlement culture, everything should be free and if someone demands payment it's so unfair.
Do you go grocery shopping, then bitch about having to pay? Do you buy on credit then bitch about having to pay? It's a fact of life, when you take products or services from someone else, you are expected to pay for it and if you don't then you are likely to get a gun pointed at you to encourage you to pay. Don't like it, then don't have transactions with those forcing you to pay for those transactions.

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[Zontar The Mindless]

Following up an unsubstantiated allegation with a possible truth does not make the initial allegation true.

In case that's too complex for you, here's the Sesame Street version: [citation needed].

We're waiting...

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[dryeo]

You weren't born into a society that was set up to increase your survival chances? You didn't grow up fairly safe due to society making it so the odds of you growing up were fairly high? You didn't get educated? You didn't live on land that was stolen by society? You have never benefited by having food delivered over the road system? You have never benefited by being able to go to work? You have never benefited from having a workplace to go to?
The list of benefits that you have received is huge.
If you don't want to use government services, quit working, get dropped off on a random piece of the Alaska highway and live without government services.
You seem to believe that you haven't benefited from society and live separate from society. Proof it, quit using anything supplied by society and you won't have to pay taxes.

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[sgunhouse]

Prior to redistricting, Jim Jordan was my representative. He is as conservative as they come - voted against all the bailouts, even Bush's bailout. Yes, he predates the "tea party", but fit right in. Of course he wouldn't fit as a Libertarian, being pro-life and opposed to drug legalization, but on tax issues and "small government" he'd fit right in. I consider myself a Libertarian, but had no trouble voting for him.

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[dryeo]

You only have a house and property due to government (they stole it and allow you to use it) and you have to pay. You have as much choice about whether to use society as you do about whether you can live without groceries. If you take the groceries, you're expected to pay and if you take advantage of society, you're expected to pay. Either way you have the choice of not eating store bought stuff or taking advantage of society.

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[mozumder]

Government is the reason you are alive.

If it weren't for government, a polluter would have no reason to not poison your air or water supply for his profit (power).

And because they are profitable (powerful), they have the power over you to force themselves about it.

So, your government steps in and makes sure you are safe and sound, by limiting other people's powers.

Did you thank government for your protection? You should.

Taxes are the protection money we (society) force you to pay to allow you to live with us. You do not get to live in our land for free. That is because every human is territorial, and we are the rulers of the land. It doesn't matter what YOU "believe" in. What matters is whatever WE do, since the decision on taxes is not yours to make, as only those with power can make decisions, and libertarians are the weakest in society. If you don't like it, feel free to move to another country. It is why we don't charge taxes for citizens of other countries, because we (government) don't own other sovereign states. But if we did, we'd charge them protection money (taxes), because we want the benefits of wholesale purchases that governments can do but individuals cannot.

Additionally, libertarians just aren't very smart socially. This is actually their biggest flaw - their disbelief in social groups. All humans seek to gain power, including you. It is why you're here on this board promoting your views. And they form power through social groups, from families to governments. But, you actually have to curry favor to other members of society in order to form groups. A normal person offers favors to others in order to receive favors back, to grow their group of power. Libertarians assume that everyone will be nice to them and offer them services without offering people favors. Sorry, but human psychology doesn't work this way. No one owes you anything, including your human rights. You do have to be actively protect yourself, which means you have to curry favors with others, through groups (governments) in order to just exist. This isn't just a theory, it is how political science works. Groups are always stronger than individuals. Generals follow this rule in war. Sales people use the same social group theory to grow their power. Girls find guys that are more powerful to marry. And so on.

Meanwhile, the correct answer, and the answer that all of society is actually based on, is socialism. The world revolves around groups, not individuals. The statement that no man is his own island is always true. And if there single-people islands, larger groups would come in and take it over or test atom bombs on them or whatever the fuck they want to do with it. You are therefore dependent on others (government) for your own basic survival. Libertarians just don't know that yet. They're obviously not supercomputers that can model all of society in their head.

Basically Libertarians are people that just didn't think their cunning plan all the way through.

I totally get where you're coming from, but every time I talk to libertarians about their mistaken worldview they simply get mad because I don't make the same mistaken assumptions they make. No libertarian has ever walked their cunning plan all the way through to me. Ever.

Also libertarians are always the spoiled brats that do not appreciate the benefits of government. And every psychological profile of a libertarian show them to be spoiled brats.

They love themselves too much.

So, yeah, don't be libertarian. And don't have "beliefs". Ever.

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[beelsebob]

Heh, if you'd read the article, you would see he's actually proposing government taxation of copyright, which is pretty nuts for the far right americans.

I hate to agree with a republican, but I actually go with him on pretty much everything in this article.

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[TFAFalcon]

But what about law enforcement? Who'd pay for that?
Let's say a family is murdered. They have no living relatives. Who pays for finding,trying and punishing the murderer?

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[RabidReindeer]

We believe that collecting taxes, any taxes, is a form of protection money, a form of legalized thievery and is morally repugnant. I think you will find that 99% of actual Libertarians agree with me too. I wouldn't really consider a Libertarian who believes in taxes to be a Libertarian at all. Keeping relationships voluntary (voluntarism) is at the very core of the philosophy.

The "protection" racket works because you're buying "protection" against the very people you're paying off. The "civilization" racket works because you're buying protection against other people.

Communism failed because people aren't sufficiently virtuous to work their hardest without material incentives. Capitalism fails because people aren't sufficiently virtuous not to damage their customers and employees. A government-free system fails because even at the neighborhood level there are people who'd rather bypass the whole farce and take directly from you unless you combine with or delegate people to defend you from them. Once you do that, you've gotten into the government business. Even a volunteer fire department requires more than just a bunch of people with buckets. It requires capital equipment investment, ongoing maintenance, and the assurance that everyone won't not show up when needed.

Most of us cannot spare the time from our primary pursuits to fulfill the daily needs of a peacekeeping force. Few of us can afford upwards of $250000 for our very own personal fire engines, for that matter. So in lieu of other means, we pay money. Since people are also not virtuous enough to contribute freely for the common good, we levy an assessment and call it "taxes".

If you live in an area where such amenities exist and don't contribute in some way, you may call yourself a Libertarian, but other people will call you a Parasite.

If you don't want to pay, move somewhere where these benefits aren't available. Do be aware, however, that no matter where you go, someone is almost certainly claiming prior ownership of the place you arrive and is almost certainly investing in the ongoing privilege of keeping people like you from just waltzing in and taking it.

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[TFAFalcon]

Ah right, Republicans advocate no taxes for the rich.

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[Biotech_is_Godzilla]

Limited Gov. and Anarcho- are not the only type(s) of libertarian, just the most vocal - one is "libertarian right" - economically conservative, socially liberal on the polical compass. The other I have no idea - probably leftist, in the sense that they're cooperative.

I know it doesn't fit in with the Libertarian party's ideals in the US, but there is also a left-leaning type who can recognise the importance of a powerful, supportive, socialist (in the sense of being 'for the people') state and the freedom - that's right, I said freedom - that it gives to its citizens.

Freedom from disease through socialised medicine, sewerage and water treatment, freedom to travel through collective payment for roads, freedom from the aggression of other individuals who would seek to take what is yours, etc. These are the aspects of government worth paying for, and they are on the political left vs. politcal right, X-axis of the graph. It's a choice between the freedom to choose not to boil your water, get cholera and die versus the freedom from having to worry about it. And while some people don't appreciate that a good proportion of the taxes that they pay are being put towards buying them the freedom from having to constantly worry about where their next meal is coming from, or the freedom from having to walk 12 miles to the well and back every day on a dirt track to get it (or conversely to have to pay exhorbitant fees to use a decent road), others appreciate this second type of freedom.

You can object to the aspects of governments that take away your individual liberties - the right to to whatever the hell you want as long as it doesn't impact on other people - while still approving of those aspects of government which provide a collective good much cheaper than any commercial entity would. That would make you a left-leaning libertarian, and although US big "L" Libertarianism doesn't want anything to do with them, they do exist. Maybe this is what the OP was talking about (albeit he's very ignorant if he thinks all Libertarians approve of paying taxes!)

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[mike1218]

Taxes are the protection money we (society) force you to pay to allow you to live with us. You do not get to live in our land for free. That is because every human is territorial, and we are the rulers of the land.

Land belongs to individuals, or voluntary organizations of individuals. It does not belong to "society" (by which you mean, 'Total State').

Meanwhile, the correct answer, and the answer that all of society is actually based on, is socialism.

If that was true, then you could eliminate private property rights in land and the means of production by mere stroke of a pen, as opposed to the mass bloodshed that occurred wherever people like you tried it.

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[hemo_jr]

A simple change, an assuage to the libertarians, would be to allow taxpayers (income tax, specifically) to specify where where they want their payments to go. Of course, Congress would never allow this. They are the only holders of wisdom enough to allocate other people's money.

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[crtreece]

> get dropped off on a random piece of the Alaska highway and live without government services.

Perhaps Somalia would be a better example, as there isn't really a government there at all. Then he could, as an individual, decide how to obtain food, water, and shelter, while at the same time fighting everyone else that is doing the same.

I used to believe this hardcore libertarian stuff, until I started to think about the details. How a system of roads would be implemented was one of the things that really hit home. In a pure libertarian system, you would be paying a toll at every stop sign to the warlord/tribe that managed to take control of it that week.

Medical care? Cell phones? The internet? A power grid? Edible food? Water cleaner than what's running down the ditch? Good luck with any of that when everyone is spending all their time trying to stay alive.

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[finkployd]

> Your mistake is in believing I benefit from government services. I don't.

This is delusion on a level I was not even aware existed.

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[0111 1110]

This would certainly improve things, but it's not much of an improvement in the moral sense. Pointing your gun in someone's face, taking their money, and then asking them which pet project of yours they'd prefer to spend it on doesn 't improve the situation all that much. I would voluntarily contribute to projects like NASA, but there is nothing voluntary about taxes.

I think a better solution would be to allow everyone to live in the kind of society that they like. The government could reserve a territory, perhaps a small party of Wyoming, the least populated state in the continental US and a state that is already one of the freest, to allow for an independent free society for US citizens. The socialists and green party could also have their own independent territories. Within those areas, we would be free to organize our societies the way we saw fit.

Another possibility is for a group of Libertarians to start a settlement in Antarctica or an uninhabited island in the Southern Ocean. Not because some large country or countries won't object, but because they are unlikely to be willing to fight a real war over it.

Obviously the Socialists and Green Party could also settle in areas that are considered sufficiently undesirable that even if countries claim the territory as their own they wouldn't be willing to take heavy combat losses to defend it.

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[0111 1110]

You make money different points. I'll respond to them in order.

You weren't born into a society that was set up to increase your survival chances?

Every society increases your survival chances. That doesn't mean that society has the right to enslave you. I believe in human rights. That every human has certain basic rights and one of them is that they cannot be owned by anyone.

You didn't grow up fairly safe due to society making it so the odds of you growing up were fairly high?

This has nothing to do with the government and even if it did it doesn't mean I owe society anything because it didn't kill me.

You didn't get educated?

My parents more than paid for my education through taxes. Are you seriously going to argue that only governments can run schools? Seriously? That's a ridiculous position to take IMHO.

You didn't live on land that was stolen by society?

Even you admit that it was stolen. Therefore I don't owe anything to society for living on land that it doesn't even own.

You have never benefited by having food delivered over the road system?

Again, my parents and I have more than paid for the use of the roads through taxes and roads could trivially be paid for with electronic toll collection as governments have already discovered. Taxes aren't necessary to pay for them and even if they were that wouldn't justify thievery or thuggery to get the money to build them.

You have never benefited by being able to go to work?

I've never worked for the government so I don't see how this would apply. If anything they do not allow me to work and keep the rewards of my labor. Instead they want to enslave me. And do. The fact that I am a part time slave and not a full time one does not make me any less of a slave. I suppose people like you would have been arguing that African slaves weren't slaves either. After all they benefited from their owners gave them food and shelter. They should have been grateful and happy with their situation perhaps?

You have never benefited from having a workplace to go to?

The government did not give me the workplace. In fact they make it more difficult for people to make workplaces with their 'enslave everyone' to pay for unwanted, unneeded services organized crime scheme.

The list of benefits that you have received is huge.

Bullshit. Not a single thing you mentioned is something that the government has provided me.

If you don't want to use government services, quit working, get dropped off on a random piece of the Alaska highway and live without government services.

What if I wanted to start a Libertarian society there which grew into a city. Eventually a major city. And none of the citizens paid taxes to the federal government. Would you still think they would leave us alone? I don't think so. They would want to seize the products of our labor just like any criminal organization.

The fact that you and your evil immoral society of thugs think that you own my and have a claim to my labor. You don't own me. I owe exactly nothing to you and your society.

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[0111 1110]

Government is the reason you are alive.

No it isn't.

If it weren't for government, a polluter would have no reason to not poison your air or water supply for his profit (power).

Right. Because there have never been any polluters in the world with government. Thank god China has a large powerful government to prevent companies from polluting. Great system you've got there.

And because they are profitable (powerful), they have the power over you to force themselves about it.

Who is they supposed to be. Remember that in a free society there would be no such things as corporations. No limited liability get out of jail free cards. Each company owner would be fully liable for the pollution they create. If their pollution affected me I would be free to sue them in the private court system.

I don't have time to reply to all of your points now. I will reply to more later. For now I will summarize that you are 100% wrong and are a stupid thug and thief who believes might makes right and has no problem with hurting or even killing people to take their money as long as the money is used for things you believe in.

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[robsku]

We're all bound to have "beliefs" of some sort, but other than that I pretty much agree with all you wrote.

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[robsku]

Government made you

WTF kind of religion is this? Blind worship of power. Power may be a motivator of life, but conscious beings recognize freedom as the only sustainable goal. Far from protecting us from pollution and violence, government enables it on a vast scale. Socialism is the correct answer? Sure, if you like famine, corruption, and death.

Talk about seeing in black and white, lol...

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[Teancum]

You are painting a rather wide brush here with libertarianism, and again confusing anarchists with people simply seeking liberty.

There is another philosophy here distinct from anarchism, which is the view that government is a necessary evil. Necessary explicitly because of the situations you describe, where there is a need to have a government to redress grievances. If you steal something that belongs to somebody else, or if you engage in a contract but choose not to follow the terms of that contract because it is inconvenient for you at the moment, there is a role for a government to step in.

This is the belief that a small government which can be controlled by the people it governs... essentially that a popular movement to abolish that government can happen simply because the government is so small that as a group the people it governs ultimately have the veto power on what happens. Individuals are held accountable for their individual actions but if you can get enough support for your viewpoint that a government might just back down for a while or for good.

This was the government advocated by Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. It is to be seen if their "experiment" in limited government was ultimately a failure, and it could arguably be said that perhaps it is because of the size and scope of the U.S. federal government that is their legacy. They were certainly not anarchists. Many of those who call themselves libertarians feel that perhaps a return to that general philosophy could be useful.

Distinct from libertarians are those who eschew government of any kind and are genuine anarchists. Some of them self-style as libertarians, and many of their viewpoints do coincide with many of the limited government "libertarians" advocating the elimination of several government agencies or promoting the legalization of marijuana, but they diverge from the viewpoint by thinking all government is evil and is the source of the problems. They even go so far as to suggested even limited government is bad because it sort of lets the camel's nose into the tent as it were and that granting any sort of authority to a government of any kind eventually grows until it can no longer be pruned down.

You are confusing a whole spectrum of philosophies here including many who have a philosophical viewpoint on governance which isn't really all that different from the major political parties of the world or even America.

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[kenorland]

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.

Wow, you're just the good little propaganda drone for the Democrats.

In fact, both parties are in the pockets of (different) special interests. It's the balance between the two that keeps our democracy limping along.

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[kenorland]

Aren't you thinking of a Libertarian? I've never met a Republican who advocated no taxes at all.

Libertarians stand for smaller government, and for moving government functions from the federal to the state and local level, as originally envisioned by the constitution. That doesn't mean "no taxes", it means lower federal taxes.

Republicans are not Libertarians

There are many people with libertarian beliefs in the US, and they make up a large chunk of Republican voters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ideologies_in_the_United_States

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[kenorland]

Government is the reason you are alive. If it weren't for government, a polluter would have no reason to not poison your air or water supply for his profit (power).

True, but the question is how government should deal with such externalities: regulation, law suits, planning, penalties, etc. Parties and political ideologies don't differ on the need to make sure that people pay for the costs that they impose on society, but on how that is achieved.

So, your government steps in and makes sure you are safe and sound, by limiting other people's powers. Did you thank government for your protection? You should.

Problem is that many of these governmental mechanisms are also subject to abuse. So, the very mechanisms meant to protect you often are misused by corporations and individuals to enrich themselves at your cost, making you worse off. Much of what is being sold to you as being for your protection (bank regulation, health care, etc.) is actually just hidden gifts to industry and special interests.

That's why we need a balance between liberty and governmental protection. Not everybody who says that they are looking out for you are actually doing so, even if they sincerely believe it themselves.

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[kenorland]

In that case I'm guessing that you have never actually met a Libertarian. I am a Libertarian myself and I don't believe in any taxes at all. So I guess I'm an existence proof

There is a wide range of libertarians and libertarian beliefs. You are at one extreme. People like you call themselves "libertarians", but I doubt you are in any way representative.

Limited government Libertarians mostly believe that the government should raise money via some form of voluntary contribution.

You get that because you have freedom of movement: if you want a low tax/low government environment, you move to a place that gives you that. But communities certainly have a right to decide that if you live within their borders, you should contribute to common expenses. The problem in the US is that the federal government is taking over more and more functions and that that leaves people without a choice.

If we reduce the federal government to its constitutionally intended functions, mostly national defense, federal taxes would be extremely low (they could likely be financed without income tax), and you could choose between Massachusetts and Texas depending on what level of taxation you like.

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[kenorland]

Most of us cannot spare the time from our primary pursuits to fulfill the daily needs of a peacekeeping force. Few of us can afford upwards of $250000 for our very own personal fire engines, for that matter. So in lieu of other means, we pay money. Since people are also not virtuous enough to contribute freely for the common good, we levy an assessment and call it "taxes".

Some taxes are a good thing: taxes for schools, fire engines, etc. Furthermore, those are self-limiting: if a community makes poor decisions with their spending, they will do less well, and they'll get less revenue in taxes. And people generally have good information about where their local taxes are spent. The deal with local taxes is: "you choose to live here, you pay these taxes" and "we spend them wisely or we suffer".

All of that breaks down at the federal level: your federal tax dollars are spent on bailing out banks and failing industries, hare-brained schemes for education, and to give people who are no part of your community and hate your guts free stuff. You have no choice at the federal level and things become so dilute and complex that control mechanisms that keep things in check at the local level don't work.

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[flargleblarg]

>If that were the case, a simple IRS audit of their expense reports would blow it away from orbit.

...It's the only way to be sure.

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[Vitriol Angst]

So how do the roads get built through "voluntary" contributions? Bake sales?

There is a way to have a monetary system, pay for things, and have no taxes -- it would mean that Big Government prints money into existence based on some measure of growth, and hands it to people who invent and copyright -- supporting a free model for using intellectual property and a way to promote the creation of it.

However, the society would have to be Socialist, because the only way for such a system NOT to be abused, is direct voting and representation, and the elimination of capitalist cartels. But I don't see Libertarians ever suggesting any way to DEAL with a Libertarian society. The only reason this philosophy has been dallied with so long is we had enough infrastructure to cost on for a few decades.

Do I need to mention the power grid, the internet and plumbing? Or the need to re-balance Capitalism because it always ends up pooling money and collapsing?

There has to be OTHER kinds of Libertarians, ones that make sense.

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[Vitriol Angst]

Great comment!

I think the big problem with Libertarianism is that deep inside, they all feel exceptional. It's a young healthy fools philosophy. If they watch an apocalyptic future movie -- they know that they'd be the one heroic survivor.

Society and success in a post apocalyptic future would ACTUALLY demand cooperation. No single individual is as good as a team. A civilization like ours couldn't last by hunting the woods. Someone has to guard at night, someone has to grow something, and if someone can hook up solar panels and lights -- that society will have better chances.

We have it pretty good right now compared to "surviving" and that's because people specialize. We aren't all great at fixing a car or welding on steel bars to the "death machine".

Libertarianism has to be a byproduct of our own hubris -- the end result of lucky bastards who were born in a country that was founded by some of the greatest philosophers of their age -- against all odds or reason. Fortunate to be born into such an improbable and wonderful civilization, they quickly began to think God chose them as better than all the rest, and set about to undo all the good things that made us great. We only had about a 40 or 50 year period of widespread prosperity from this grand experiment, completely due to Socialism.

So a bunch of Straussians (Ayn Randians), stuck their heads up and realized since they were a tiny bit smarter, or healthier or a bit more of something, then they didn't owe anything to anyone else. Is this really a philosophy, or a support group for the ethically impaired?

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[davydagger]

change "liberal", with "democrat", and you are probably correct.

but don't tell me democrat care about other social issues is nothing more than attacking the party

I'm not a republican, but the RIAA and MPAA have been major sources of tyranny that have gone unchallenged too long, from a range of things from supression of freedom of speech and expression, to price fixing and anti-co-operative behavior, now copyright law that first puts offenders in the same catagory as brutal sea muggers(pirates), and gives them jail sentances and stigmas worse than rapists.

All this not to protect the biggest creators of goods, but the biggest idiots and failures in the industry, granting them artificial monopolies entrusted by frviolous law suits.

And yes, I'm laughing as a major party the republicans are finally going to club the democrats over the head for doing the same thing republicans have been doing for years, screwing the people to solict corporate dollars.

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[mozumder]

Right. Because there have never been any polluters in the world with government. Thank god China has a large powerful government to prevent companies from polluting. Great system you've got there.

They're still able to keep 1.5 BILLION people alive, and if they want, they can kill them all, since they can do what they want.

For now I will summarize that you are 100% wrong and are a stupid thug and thief who believes might makes right

Crying about the facts of life, unfortunately, won't change the facts of life. Mature people accept the facts of life, and work around it instead.

Again, it is POWER that defines society's order, not belief, or anything else. Wishin' and hopin' isn't going to change society. You're not going to convince people to change coming from a position of weakness. (individualism).

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[mozumder]

> Your mistake is in believing I benefit from government services. I don't.

This is delusion on a level I was not even aware existed.

These people are the worst sufferers of their ego. It is always these types that end up blowing up federal buildings.

It is important to crush their self-esteem.

But, I like the part where they post on the government-designed internet.

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[mozumder]

Government is the reason you are alive.

No it isn't.

Also, I really do want to hear your scenario on how you think you would survive without a government protecting you. Go on, in detail. It will be completely amusing.

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[Genda]

You point at precisely the problem... and its a human wide problem. Belief systems. Untested, superstitious, extrapolations based on emotional internal states. Governments are bad. Indeed they are. However, no worse than human beings in general. The presumption that governments are the source of all evil, belies the simple fact that individuals are perfectly capable of perpetrating horrors both in groups and alone, and that it is completely possible to build a government that honors and acknowledges the importance of human rights (the Bill of Rights was a great start.) The failure of government is and has always been when power becomes concentrated. If statesmen fall on a curve as most things, give enough power to a small enough group and you can almost be certain the frailties of average human beings will be amplified to shocking and horrific proportions.

That was the brilliance of checks and balances (and we need to get them back if we expect to see another century of this American experiment) is that by giving each branch of a muiltibranch government the key to the lock on the guy to the right, nobody get's to drive away with the whole government. We need to come up with even better zero sum games to begin the process of fairly distributing power among all people and creating a real flat playing field from which we can all compete, but more important collaborate. Most Libertarians have that compete thing down, its the collaborate thing that eludes them.

I know Ayn Rand had a buggaboo about altruism, but she missed something really important. There is altruism like I'm gonna paint the world in my favorite shade of chartreuse so every else can enjoy it... which isn't altruism at all, its hubris. Then there is the dedicated commitment to serve and honor humanity and deliver one's best to forward that which forwards the human condition, and that is true altruism. A disaster occurs and people need water and food and medicine. Stopping what you're doing and collecting what's needed and delivering it at great risk to yourself to those in need is altruism, and it is a high aspiration for being human. Doctor Without Borders are practitioners of that kind of Altruism. There is nothing wrong with being selfish, because we're primates and we're hard wired to survive. Its better if you're straight about it, so people can manage your behavior in their day to day process. Its even better if you're responsible for your selfishness, so you exercise when you can enjoy your personal pleasure, but also put your behavior on the shelf when it get's in the way of the greater good. This would be case and point the current problem with corporations in general and bankers in particular. These men in many cases are sociopaths, people without a clue about what serves the greater whole, and even if they had a clue would be profoundly disinterested the minute serving the greater good conflicted with their personal self aggrandizement.

There is a sweet spot between Pure Objectivism and Absolute Social Consciousness, and from where I stand the sweet spot is a lot closer to the later than the former. Many Libertarians are perfectly comfortable with the idea of anarchy. We have a number of fine examples of anarchy in history and almost to case, it looked a lot like the guy with the biggest army made the rules. Not a particularly attractive social state.

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[Genda]

And your religion is no less deluded. Human beings are capable of every kind of atrocity. Remove structures for a functional civilization and you have Pillagers and Pillagees. How in Gawd's name is that preferable to a group of people organizing a society to assemble for the common defense, promote fair trade and elevate the rights and freedom of its members. All human institutions are prone to becoming committed more to their own survival and self promotion and The American Corporation is now a far greater threat to humanity than The America Government (though in fact at this point they have become one and the same.)

Tell me how you would manage the sane interaction of 350,000,000 people, while promoting a national infrastructure, common currency for trade, national defense, a system of education ensuring a minimum level to perform effectively in the society and limit the powers of organizations and economic entities to preserve a robust and healthy middle class without a government. I'm sorry, having the entire nation come out and do paper, scissors, stone until all the important national decisions were banged out would preclude all other activities.

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[Genda]

Land belongs to individuals, or voluntary organizations of individuals. It does not belong to "society" (by which you mean, 'Total State').

Huh, What??? You mean like National Forests, Federal Lands and National Parks and Monuments?

If that was true, then you could eliminate private property rights in land and the means of production by mere stroke of a pen, as opposed to the mass bloodshed that occurred wherever people like you tried it.

Yeah, that would be horrible... what would you call such a terrible thing... I dunno... HOW ABOUT IMMINENT DOMAIN?

What country do you live in?

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[Genda]

Yeah, my boss is Filipino. He's been building libraries for schools. Tells you about the kind of guy he is. Anyway, he has a brilliant take on folks who think taxes are evil. Move to the Philippines. Almost no taxes. Also no roads, no infrastructure, nobody to protect you from roving bandits or burning structures, and the schools and hospitals are pitiful. Please enjoy my slice of the Third World.

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[Genda]

Actually several folks have been working on a brilliant means of collecting the waste plastic floating in the Pacific Ocean and turning it into floating cities capable of sustaining millions. This would be a perfect place to experiment with social structures to see what can be created. Meritocracies, Zero Sum games, True Democracies based on digital technologies, and a huge selection of real alternatives that exist when you start with a few thousand people and a social order from whole cloth.

You would however have to instill in your young a profound degree of personal responsibility and personal integrity. Anything less would be a flat out disaster in less than a generation.

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[Genda]

WHERE do you get money from?

In the Libertarian State you describe, there are a 100,000 little independent fiefdoms. How do you get them to cooperate (and by the insane thrashing going on in this country at the state level I would argue that your system would be many orders of magnitude worse.) How do you create national infrastructure when it crosses hundreds or thousands of distinct municipalities? Would each municipality charge you for their section of road? Would they charge your plane for flying through their airspace? What about geological resources that extend beyond borders? How do you make someone only extract the oil on their side of the line? Or how do you keep their toxic waste on their side of the line. Multiply that time thousands and thousands. Please stop thinking about your personal playground and consider the impact to an operational society. There wouldn't be any. Society would collapse so fast, you'd get a concussion from the vacuum of the missing social system.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not happy with governments in general, and the current US Government in particular, but what you propose would be a busted up mess. You can't talk about how rotten people are inside the context of government, then expect those very same people to begin behaving like angels because there aren't now any government structures to keep them from behaving like assholes.

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[Genda]

HERE, HERE... a sane voice.... minimize the evil, limit the damage, promote the very best you can, and be responsible for the dangly bits!!!

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[TheRaven64]

If you don't pay you taxes I'm pretty sure you will lose your house and other property

And you only have a house and other property because society collectively decides to respect your property rights and not just take all of your stuff because it's convenient to do so. And when individual members of society decide that they disagree with this, it is government-funded institutions such as the police and prisons that are responsible for apprehending them. If you don't pay taxes, then you are choosing to opt out of this protection. You can always try heavily arming yourself to protect your property and see how well that works out.

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[TheRaven64]

Taxing copyright would have interesting effects on open source. If you're not commercially exploiting the copyright, would you be able to afford the tax? Or would you just let stuff lapse into the public domain and then have some company decide to incorporate it into proprietary products without even crediting you (in most of the US, copyright law does not include a notion of natural rights). How would this interact with the Berne Convention? You have to treat foreign-registered copyrights the same way as local ones, would this mean that you'd try to tax everyone? If not, then you'd just see all of the big companies transferring all of their copyrights to a wholly-owned subsidiary in a different jurisdiction and paying them for the use, giving big companies yet another way to turn local income into off-shore income and reduce the amount of tax that they paid. Would it only apply to registered copyright, or would you have to pay taxes on every email, every Slashdot post, and every other creative work that is automatically copyrighted?

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[lonecrow]

A libertarian state would last 2 seconds. That's how long it would take for two or more citizens to realize that they could join together, pool their resources and subjugate those around them for fun and profit.

I understand the appeal of libertarianism but I have zero idea how anyone could ever create a libertarian state (if such a thing even makes sense). In some ways it's like a paradox. You can only create a libertarian "state of civilization" if you FORCE everyone else in the world to do it at the same time and somehow prevent them from forming their own collectives. Kinda runs counter to the whole philosophy doesn't it?

Or lets put it another way. Who is going to protect your libertarian freedoms? Yourself? That won't work will it. So maybe a bunch of libertarians get together and decide to "volunteer" to coordinate the defense of their mutual freedoms. So they build a wall and take turns patrolling it. This works fine and they live happily and have kids. Those kids grow up and some say "I don't want to walk the wall and you can't force me because we are libertarians." Do you throw them out side the walls? It's their personal choice right? They can volunteer to patrol the walls or they can choose to leave and not have the protection of the walls.

So if you call yourself a libertarian you can either pay your taxes and be happy about it, or you can LEAVE!

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[mike1218]

Huh, What??? You mean like National Forests, Federal Lands and National Parks and Monuments?

And observe that it's controlled by the government, not by "the people", "the workers" or "society" at large.

Yeah, that would be horrible... what would you call such a terrible thing... I dunno... HOW ABOUT IMMINENT DOMAIN?

Now try nationalizing all land and everything productive.

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[beelsebob]

Taxing copyright would have interesting effects on open source. If you're not commercially exploiting the copyright, would you be able to afford the tax?

You wouldn't, and the item would enter the public domain – the goal of open source has been achieved... great \o/.

Or would you just let stuff lapse into the public domain and then have some company decide to incorporate it into proprietary products without even crediting you

Well, that's what a lapse in copyright means... The same is true for companies and open source alike.

You have to treat foreign-registered copyrights the same way as local ones, would this mean that you'd try to tax everyone?

No, you treat them exactly the same, again, they haven't paid you to extend the term, therefore you don't respect them for any longer term.

Re:If it's a GOP brief

[doccus]

True.. Repubs don't advocate *no* taxes.. just taxes on the ultra wealthy.. (it's hamper business!") Never mind that the money is not even in circulatioon at all but bound up in offshore tax shelters.. and that helps business, just, er, how?

Not really the GOP ...

[DavidClarkeHR]

Unfortunately, a Republican study committee != Republican policies and platforms.

Re:Not really the GOP ...

[approachingZero]

Sure it is, give credit where credit is due.

Re:Not really the GOP ...

[hondo77]

Then some smart Democrats should throw their support behind this paper, tout their bipartisanship, and wait for some Republicans who, wisely, don't want to be further marginalized so they jump on the bipartisanship bandwagon. Kumbaya! It could happen...

Re:Not really the GOP ...

[the_Bionic_lemming]

Not really the GOP?

Cool. The democrats control the senate, and Obama has the Presidency.

I look forward to all the solutions that Reid and Obama put forth to look at, solve, and make the law of the land.

Not gonna hold my breath mind you....

Re:Not really the GOP ...

[desdinova 216]

Then some smart Democrats should throw their support behind this paper, tout their bipartisanship, and wait for some Republicans who, wisely, don't want to be further marginalized so they jump on the bipartisanship bandwagon. Kumbaya! It could happen...

"smart Politicians" is an oxymoron.

FTFY

Re:Not really the GOP ...

[shmlco]

"Indeed. The GOP will look at this study and react with incredulity, then decry the researchers as biased, and the study itself as a waste of money and time."

They already have. From TechDirt: "However, as soon as it was published, the MPAA and RIAA apparently went ballistic and hit the phones hard, demanding that the RSC take down the report. They succeeded. Even though the report had been fully vetted and approved by the RSC, executive director Paul S. Teller has now retracted it."

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121117/16492521084/that-was-fast-hollywood-already-browbeat-republicans-into-retracting-report-copyright-reform.shtml

Read the article

[Drishmung]

Yeah, I know this is slashdot, but really, read the article. Try to see past "this is GOP so it must be either wonderful or the work of the devil depending on your bigotry". It's a good paper, worthy of debate.

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.

Re:Read the article

[cdogg4ya]

Agreed. I read GOP and immediately thought the worst but what I found was a well thought out article that actually acknowledges the problems and lays out some very interesting reforms that could actually make the system better.

Re:Read the article

[godrik]

I live in the US but I am not a citizen so I tend to somewhat follow US politics but not very closely. This is one of the first times where it seems a republican actually thought about his claim. I haven't finished reading it yet. But what he says seems reasonnable!

Though, at the back of my mind a voice says: "there must be an evil agenda somewhere!"

Re:Read the article

[acid brother]

Perhaps it helps that the republicans don't have so many ties to Hollywood and the entertainment industry. That's just an assumption though.

Re:Read the article

[OneAhead]

3) The GOP will distance itself from its own committee's results (like we've never seen that happen before) and we won't hear another word about it.

Re:Read the article

[CodeBuster]

Perhaps it helps that the republicans don't have so many ties to Hollywood and the entertainment industry.

Probably not as much as you might think. First off, the docket is already jam packed with more pressing matters, such as the fiscal cliff and credible long term budget and tax reforms; not to mention the fact that the economy is still lousy for many Americans. Second, Hollywood really pulled out all the stops for Obama this time around, raising money and entertaining the President and their lefty friends in swanky mansions nestled in the Hollywood hills. They raised millions for Obama and it would be very easy for him to help them out because he (Obama) could simply focus on the aforementioned tax, budget and economic concerns and let any proposed copyright reforms simply fall by the wayside. Finally, on the Republican side, there is *zero* chance that they will elect to spend their precious remaining political capital on something as obtuse as copyright reform. They're saving all their chips for the budget round, not a side bet on what amounts to a minor issue in the grand scheme of things.

Re:Read the article

[artor3]

This same congressman wanted to force the US to default on our debts, which would have caused complete economic collapse. At the same time, he pushes for unnecessary military spending on tanks that the Pentagon doesn't even want, because guess who's district they get made in. And on top of that, he's one of those Republicans who claims to support small government while simultaneously thinking it has a role in the bedroom.

In short, he's a vile little hypocrite, who happens to be right on this one issue. No need to alter my perception of the GOP. They do occasionally come up with good ideas: Obamacare, cap & trade, the DREAM Act, etc. But they'll abandon all principles and fight to the death to protect the privilege of rich white Christian men, and that's what most people dislike about them.

Re:Read the article

[Ungrounded Lightning]

First off, the docket is already jam packed with more pressing matters, such as the fiscal cliff and credible long term budget and tax reforms; not to mention the fact that the economy is still lousy for many Americans

That's now. The legislative split after the election is nearly the same as before and there's two more years until the next round. Plenty of time to get to it before then.

Hollywood really pulled out all the stops for Obama this time around, raising money and entertaining the President and their lefty friends in swanky mansions nestled in the Hollywood hills. They raised millions for Obama

Gee, I wonder why the Republicans are suddenly into copyright reform. B-) ... and it would be very easy for him to help them out because he (Obama) could simply focus on the aforementioned tax, budget and economic concerns and let any proposed copyright reforms simply fall by the wayside.

If the Republicans play it right they might do this, but get publicly dinged for doing it.

Finally, on the Republican side, there is *zero* chance that they will elect to spend their precious remaining political capital on something as obtuse as copyright reform. They're saving all their chips for the budget round ...

Power, when exercised, doesn't get "used up". It grows. (Favors might get used up, but more are generated as well. Also, favors across the aisle are trivial compared to both favors and common cause within a party or a faction of one.)

Re:Read the article

[Bing Tsher E]

Power, when exercised, doesn't get "used up".

Ah, but an empty suit, when opened up, drops to the ground.

Re:Read the article

[Yvanhoe]

I've had enough about talks. Most of the people who studied these fields witness there is a problem yet nothing changes. Republicans have a majority in Congress. They can make that happen if they really will. If this is just a personal opinion of a GOP minority, it is business as usual : a localized and minor outburst of common sense.

Holy Cow!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Holy Cow!

[bunratty]

That's a bit of a fine line, because what will often promote the progress of science and useful arts is compensating the people who produce useful work so they can produce more of it by devoting themselves full time to it. And if they are compensated more for producing more and better work, they are more likely to produce more and better work.

Re:Holy Cow!

[mooingyak]

That's a bit of a fine line, because what will often promote the progress of science and useful arts is compensating the people who produce useful work so they can produce more of it by devoting themselves full time to it. And if they are compensated more for producing more and better work, they are more likely to produce more and better work.

While I certainly accept that concept, what I think is being said is that copyright law is first and foremost intended to foster innovation. If that means compensating authors and/or copyright holders, so be it, but remember that the compensation is the means to an end and not the desired end itself.

Re:Holy Cow!

[keytoe]

That's a bit of a fine line, because what will often promote the progress of science and useful arts is compensating the people who produce useful work so they can produce more of it by devoting themselves full time to it. And if they are compensated more for producing more and better work, they are more likely to produce more and better work.

It's almost as if there should be some carefully balanced compromise that strikes a balance between rewarding content creators while remaining beneficial to society at large. Perhaps a limited monopoly could be granted to the creator for the work before it passes into the public domain for all to benefit.

Re:Holy Cow!

[Anonymous Coward]

"And if they are compensated more for producing more and better work, they are more likely to produce more and better work."

Very true. But how is someone supposed to keep producing for 70 YEARS beyond their death? This is a huge part of what sucks about current copyright laws - they protect for WAY too long.

Re:Holy Cow!

[Tubal-Cain]

Yes, but most works simply end up hoarded after the the money dries up, and you're left with abandonware.

Re:Holy Cow!

[fustakrakich]

Copyright law is, and always has been, about protecting the interests of the publisher/distributor/writers guild(transcribers), rarely, if ever about about the creator/author of works.

Re:Holy Cow!

[whoever57]

That's a bit of a fine line, because what will often promote the progress of science and useful arts is compensating the people who produce useful work so they can produce more of it by devoting themselves full time to it.

Yeah, like Van Gogh was motivated by the fortune he made from his works to make more.

Re:Holy Cow!

[mellon]

RIght. So you'll produce a copyrighted work for $K. There is some value N such that you will not bother to produce the work for $NK. There is some value X such that, if you are paid $XK, you will postpone working on your next work, because you don't need the money. So in fact the original poster is right—the basis for the debate has to be whether the copyright law promotes science and the useful arts. If it is too weak, it won't. If it is too strong, it likewise won't. It has to be Just Right...

Of course, that's a gross oversimplification, since the strength of copyright laws isn't what determines the multiplier of K. But hopefully it gets the point across...

Re:Holy Cow!

[OneAhead]

You, sir, owe me a new keyboard. +1 hilarious.

Re:Holy Cow!

[0111 1110]

That's a bit of a fine line, because what will often promote the progress of science and useful arts is compensating the people who produce useful work so they can produce more of it by devoting themselves full time to it. And if they are compensated more for producing more and better work, they are more likely to produce more and better work.

But the trick is not to pay them too much for sitting on their asses doing nothing. Otherwise they may choose to retire and just live on their royalties instead of making more creative works. Not everyone is infinitely greedy.

Re:Holy Cow!

[sjames]

True enough, but only if they don't give up in despair due to the harmful effects of the same laws.

Re:Holy Cow!

[LordLucless]

It might be a fine line, but a lot of the legislation around copyright isn't anywhere near the line, so it doesn't matter how fine it is. Stuff like extending copyrights to death of author plus 100 years - how much incentive is that providing for content creation? How much incentive is it when somebody's copyrights never expire, and this they can live of a single popular piece of work without ever creating another one?

Re:Holy Cow!

[godrik]

Seems reasonnable. 640K years seems enough for everybody.

Re:Holy Cow!

[martin-boundary]

And if they are compensated more for producing more and better work, they are more likely to produce more and better work.

Actually that's completely wrong. People who are compensated more for more work end up at some point being content with what they were able to get. The result is they don't perform to their full potential. And people who are compensated *too much* for their work just rest on their laurels.

What's needed is to compensate people just enough to make them feel that they could achieve more, if they worked just a littlb bit harder. And never as much as a they think they deserve, or even enough overall that they can afford to switch into unproductive pursuits.

There's a reason the carrot is perpetually dangled in front of the donkey in cartoons. If the carrot was actually given to the donkey, it would be happy and not move anymore. And if the donkey was fed regularly enough, it wouldn't care much about the carrot either.

Re:Holy Cow!

[zentigger]

If you RTFA, that is exactly the conclusion it draws. There is a fine balance between rewarding the creators and benefiting society. 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.

This really is a win-win situation, because the public benefit either way. If a rights holder believes that there is still enough value to hold a copyright, they can pay for it and continue to monopolize revenue generation, but even then, the public still wins because the rights holder is paying into the public coffers which (arguably) benefit everyone.

Re:Holy Cow!

[A nonymous Coward]

640K years seems enough for everybody.

I like that idea! Hand out 640K years of copyright, total. As time goes by and years expire and are returned to the 640K year pool, auction them off to the highest bidder.

By George, I LIKE this idea!

Re:Holy Cow!

[chrismcb]

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.

Re:Holy Cow!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds reasonable. How about we set that limited time span at $BIRTH_OF_MICKEY + 15 years for now, and evaluate if that's appropriate in, say, 12 years?

Re:Holy Cow!

[maxwell demon]

Of course, in the sciences, those doing the creative work are not compensated through copyright. They are compensated by the university or research institution they are employed at, through their salaries. From the money paid to journals where their work is published, they don't get a single cent.

Wildly successful papers don't make the authors much money, at least not directly. And of course the success of a paper is measured in citations, not sales. And you'll get the more citations the more people read the paper.

In short, copyright does not help the progress of science.

Re:Holy Cow!

[Ginger Unicorn]

Not having a monopoly is not the same thing as not having any compensation.

Re:Holy Cow!

[fustakrakich]

The internet can cover those risks now, People can self publish, and copyright can be reduced to a matter of attribution to mitigate plagiarism, and lose its status as a commodity to be bought and sold. Today's publishers can still make money as press agents for advertising purposes.

Re:Holy Cow!

[Rockoon]

I propose simple 4 year intervals, and no limit on copyright duration as long as you can afford it:

Year 0 to 4 for $0
Year 4 to 8 for $100
Year 8 to 12 for $10,000
Year 12 to 16 for $1,000,000 plus a non-DRM digital copy submitted for archiving by the Library of Congress
Year 16 to 20 for $100,000,000
Year 20 to 24 for $10,000,000,000
...
..with the proceeds going directly into a Digital Library of Congress Initiative that makes available digital copies of non-copyrighted materials to the public.

This method will have three effects.

1) Most content will enter the public domain rather quickly (as it should)
2) Copyright holders will have an ever increasing incentive to monetize the copyrighted works if they wish to continue the copyright (they can't just sit on it.)
3) Extending to 16 years or more will make content inevitably available for free at the Digital Library of Congress Website once copyright does expire.

Its also self-funding.

Re:Holy Cow!

[A nonymous Coward]

One of the problems I see with the Republican proposal is that it has a sliding scale for renewal too, but it is based on revenue from the work. That requires an intrusive bureaucracy to verify the income figures, and Hollywood is notorious for cooking the books; supposedly Titanic and a few other block busters have never generated a net profit. One of the rules for any contract with Hollywood is to always get a percentage of the gross, never the net, because they set up shell companies and structure expenses such that nothing makes a profit.

So you've got the right track there. But I's set the first 4-year renewal much higher. If something is only worth $100 after four years, it isn't worth much at all.

Re:Holy Cow!

[bunratty]

Yeah, and that's exactly what we do. I'm not sure why your comment was modded as funny. This is precisely how copyrights and patents work, and why they are set up the way they are.

Re:Holy Cow!

[keytoe]

Yeah, and that's exactly what we do. I'm not sure why your comment was modded as funny. This is precisely how copyrights and patents work, and why they are set up the way they are.

It's exactly what we used to do, but the 'limited' part has been legislatively neutered in the modern era.

Re:Holy Cow!

[HornWumpus]

FYI.

Hollywood accounting has progressed. Gross points now never pay off. You need 'first gross points' otherwise all the money goes to the 'first gross points' people and you get nothing.

Of course sense I know this, they have no doubt progressed to another contract.

Re:Holy Cow!

[loneDreamer]

And you would be right, provided it does create an incentive and the content pass to the public domain at some point where it is still socially valuable.
The current version pays these "incentives to create" to dead authors, while allowing the general public yo enjoy the music listened by their great-grandparents. Yeah!
How could we find such a "balance" a bad one?

Re:Holy Cow!

[pantaril]

That's a bit of a fine line, because what will often promote the progress of science and useful arts is compensating the people who produce useful work so they can produce more of it by devoting themselves full time to it. And if they are compensated more for producing more and better work, they are more likely to produce more and better work.

Sure, but we can invent system of compensations for authors which would not artificaly limit distribution of information.

Pleasantly surprised

[Braedley]

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.

Credit where Credit is due.

[DavidClarkeHR]

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.

Re:Credit where Credit is due.

[mellon]

The majority of the current batch might not, but it's by no means the case that this is a Republican vs. Democrat issue. Lamar Smith, who sponsored SOPA, is a Republican in a gerrymandered district. Most of the people who took down SOPA in committee were Democrats. Pat Leahy, a Democrat, sponsored PIPA, SOPA's sister legislation in the Senate.

Point being, if this is an important issue to you, pay attention to which party is likely to win in your district, and register for that party and vote in the primary. Try to get one of the candidates in the primary to take positions in favor of some of the ideas mentioned in TFA. Work to get that candidate to win the primary.

Seriously, this is that rare issue where neither party has a strong position for or against, so it's entirely possible to get enough people to vote in favor of changing the law to be less in favor of copyright holders. But you have to actually work at it—it's not enough to grouse about it on Slashdot.

Re:Credit where Credit is due.

[OneAhead]

Um... while I agree with your OP (ie. hell will freeze over ere the GOP as a whole will put itself firmly behind the results of this study committee), don't you think it sounds a bit hypocrite to first give Socrates credit for proposing the concept of the freedom to share ideas, then in the next sentence decry the "stealing of ideas from others"? I'm even honestly wondering whether your post is a parody. Anyone campaigning against overreaching copyright laws that stifle progress will be happy if a study committee (in particular a republican one) picks up some of their ideas. Its kinda the whole point of activism.

Try this: I give this study committee credit for having the balls to put truth and integrity over years of party policy. I know in an ideal world, I'm giving them credit for just doing their job, but in the actual world I live in, this is a rare enough occurrence to merit commendation.

Re:Credit where Credit is due.

[Lord Balto]

Og. The guy who invented the wheel and didn't try to patent it. Come to think of it, if you used a lot of technical mumbo jumbo like "circular device for lessening friction in transport," the idiots at the Bureau would probably grant it.

Re:Credit where Credit is due.

[jd2112]

Og. The guy who invented the wheel and didn't try to patent it. Come to think of it, if you used a lot of technical mumbo jumbo like "circular device for lessening friction in transport," the idiots at the Bureau would probably grant it.

Actually it was patent # 2 (after fire)
The full 'text' of the patent (writing not having been invented yet) was 'round thingy'. Fortunately this was before the invention of the patent lawyer so there were no infringement suits, although Og did club a few people who tried to steal his wheel idea.

Re:Credit where Credit is due.

[ignavus]

But you have to actually work at it—it's not enough to grouse about it on Slashdot.

Dang! That's my social activism career shot down in flames.

Re:Credit where Credit is due.

[b4dc0d3r]

I would moderate you positively, but you started your post with "Um..." Therefore you are a gobshite who shan't post any more until you have joined a civilised society and learned proper communication skills. That said, your abuse of the word "hypocritical" makes me wonder if you are primarily an English typer. Allow me to elucidate.

âoeTo 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;â
(Article I, Section 8, Clause 8)
Thus, according to the Constitution, the overriding purpose of the copyright system is to âoepromote the progress of science and useful arts.â In todayâ(TM)s terminology we may say that the purpose is to lead to maximum productivity and innovation

The flaw is as follows : The purpose of copyright is to compensate the creator of the content. We have seen RIAA accounting which clearly shows the business intent is not to further the useful arts and sciences, but to pad the corporate bottom line. While it is important to individuals to protect their works, abuse on the part of corporations nullifies the intent. This is why reform is required. Not just important, significant, or any other word, but required.

Bullet point 2, "Copyright is free market capitalism at work" - that is clearly a myth. I spoke one time about a website, with a furniture salesman. He gave me candid ideas. I said, roughly, you should be careful with whom you share your ideas. His reply was, paraphrased, if you can do it better, you are welcome to the idea. He identified himself as a Libertarian as explanation.

Myth 3, "The current copyright legal regime leads to the greatest innovation and productivity" deserves no rebuttal. It is there in the PDF, if anyone would bother to read anything but a bad summary these days.

• 
  
• Original Copyright Law: 14 years, plus 14 year renewal if author is alive.
  
• Current Copyright Law: Life of author plus 70 years; and for corporate authors 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication

Bottom line: in what world does that make sense? You can't know if a work is in the public domain until you know the author, whether it was a work for hire owned by a corporation, and when/if the author died. The innate ambiguity does the very opposite of promoting anything but the corporate bottom line.

I think that is what you meant to say, but were inadequate to express it. I give this report credit for supporting popular opinion. Until this shitstain gets enough people to stand behind it and pass a law, it means nothing.

Re:Credit where Credit is due.

[OneAhead]

Woah man, easy on the crystal meth, it's bad for your blood pressure. Take a few deep breaths and try to express yourself in a coherent fashion.

Re:Credit where Credit is due.

[dryeo]

Actually the original copyright law was stated as existing for the progress of learning. (Queen Annes Statute).

Re:Credit where Credit is due.

[rtb61]

Conservatives are always heavily into revenge and they will not forget or forgive Obama number 1 corporate campaign funders. They and their funders are out to get revenge for some of those multi-million dollars campaign fund raising parties.

Re:Credit where Credit is due.

[mcgrew]

The Bono Act and DMCA were passed overwhelmingly by both parties; neither party is a friend of sane copyright law.

What puzzles me about Republicans is that they're all for "states rights". Two states have legalized marijuana, why aren't the Republicans for overturning federal pot laws?

The truth is, both major parties are in lockstep on most issues.

Re:Credit where Credit is due.

[cayenne8]

What puzzles me about Republicans is that they're all for "states rights". Two states have legalized marijuana, why aren't the Republicans for overturning federal pot laws?

Yep...and neither are the Democrats rushing to remove the federal laws either.

I wish someone would answer me why it took a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol....and another one to re-instate it....why pot and other intoxicants were made illegal with the mere swipe of a pen?

Re:Credit where Credit is due.

[mcgrew]

Most would be (for overturning drug laws) if you could find a way to [a] keep the kids off the stuff

That's backwards thinking. It's easire for a kid to get pot than it is for an adult. When my kids were in high school, they told me you could buy pot in school. A dope dealer doesn't care how old a prospective customer is, a liquor store clerk does.

Then came the gangsters and violence, followed by the amendment to re-legalize alcohol. Problem solved right? um... not so much. Now we have hundreds of times more people killed every year by drunk drivers than were being killed by the gangland violence during prohibition

The number of fatal car wrecks per capita has dropped steadily since 1920. The linked graph shows absolutely no correlation between prohibition and fatal crashes.

in the aftermath of prohibition many who'd been drinkers cut back or stopped

Where in the hell are you getting your "facts"? Alcohol consumption actually ROSE during prohibition. Prohibition didn't make anyone but Elliott Ness stop drinking.

You might want to us google before you make a fool of yourself... but I guess that's why you posted anonymously.

This is not that surprising ...

[DavidClarkeHR]

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.

Re:This is not that surprising ...

[causality]

See this is the bullshit. Why is this jackwad getting a 1 from some slashdot fairy for engaging in mindless partisan bomb throwing? What he wrote is approved group think so he (or she) get a pat on the head?

It is easier when you understand that much of this comes from the frustration of never really feeling represented by anyone in Washington. Especially when the facts are so well-established and becoming more and more obvious. Copyright is just such an issue.

The War on (some) Drugs is another such issue. What that and copyright have in common is that the current laws just aren't working, this is obvious and well-known to anyone who looks into it, and there is no serious effort underway to reform the system.

He even labelled his comments as "sarcasm" and said he would like to be proven wrong. He was rather transparent about it. That's why the context surrounding it must also be considered, otherwise you really would just think he's engaging in mindless partisanism.

Re:This is not that surprising ...

[DavidClarkeHR]

He even labelled his comments as "sarcasm" and said he would like to be proven wrong. He was rather transparent about it. That's why the context surrounding it must also be considered, otherwise you really would just think he's engaging in mindless partisanism.

No, it wasn't. That comment was a part of a secret conspiracy designed to both undermine the fundamental freedom of the states and the integrity of the union. By defending it, you're obviously part of the conspiracy. See? It's NOT a conspiracy when it's true. (It's getting so bad, I'm even smack about myself).

Badly written, but essentially correct

[Omega Hacker]

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?

MARKETS?!!!????

[Anonymous Coward]

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".

Limit copyright to payment

[Chemisor]

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.

Re:Limit copyright to payment

[Telvin_3d]

Unenforceable. Who sets how much it worth? it also has huge implications for undermining long-term financial health of projects and properties.

A better solution would be shorter copyright terms attached to renewal-with-conditions. Say, everything gets an automatic ten years when it is created. After that it can be renewed in ten year increments for a moderate fee, up to a maximum or 50 years or something. As part of the renewal process a high quality copy or representation must be provided to the copyright office, to be made available (probably for a moderate fee again) after the copyright has expired.

So, as long as the creators are actively profiting off their creation they can keep on controlling it. Once it is no longer in active use it falls into public domain, with a high quality copy available.

Re:Limit copyright to payment

[Overzeetop]

Do you see the world of music collapsing due to statutory mechanical licensing rights? Of course not. And you're always free to negotiate a lower rate if you have a big project. A basic set of statutory amounts for previously published works is a good idea. It prevents artificial scarcity, such as the Disney Vault, and plain scarcity where it's impossible to get a copy of what would otherwise be an unremarkable product due to limited publishing runs.

Re:Limit copyright to payment

[QuasiSteve]

I've seen this argument before - making the copyright terms shorter - and I agree with it.

Yet that aspect of copyright is rarely actually railed against by the masses. If anything it tends to only be cited - usually with a sneer at Disney and its copyright on Mickey Mouse - as a general attack on copyright without actually being related to their concerns.

I.e. it is not that the author of a comment has had this long-lived dream of making a Mickey Mouse work and is only prevented from carrying out this task due to the life+dozens of years+etc. of copyright resting on the character. They have no direct interest in this.

They may argue that because of that copyright term, however, others are unable to produce such works, which deprives society-aka-them of such works, which they would want to have made.

Unfortunately, however, if such a work were eventually made, the main reason for railing against copyright tends to be encountered. The work - let's say it's a new Mickey Mouse movie - is released into theaters, gets out on DVD a few months later, immediately gets ripped by 'pirates' to a nice MK4 and released to the rest of the world.

It is this latter activity - the file sharing of a work, regardless of age - that most comment authors feel should not draw the (legal) ire of copyright holders, citing a multitude of arguments.

So in essence, to most of these comment authors, a reduction in the copyright term is really just symbolic - a way to let others, producers, editors, publishers, etc. who would be easy copyright infringement targets to no longer be a valid target - as to their own purposes the copyright term is essentially deemed moot.

Note that it is rarely 5+ year old material that is 'pirated', and rarely such older material for which 'pirates' are targeted for legal action; it tends to be more recent material, from 'only released on DVD a few months ago' to 'not even playing in theaters yet - leaked workprints'.

Making the copyright term shorter would do nothing for this group, except reduce the number of times it would be brought up as an argument that does not actually speak against or in favor of their actual sentiment.

Re:Limit copyright to payment

[the Dragonweaver]

"artificial scarcity, such as the Disney Vault, and plain scarcity where it's impossible to get a copy of what would otherwise be an unremarkable product due to limited publishing runs."

As a parent, it seems to me that the Disney Vault is almost designed to create piracy. Think about it—most Disney "classics" are only released once every seven years, IF that. When you have a kid, and you figure that Disney movies are what you want to have on while the kid is sick, what are you going to do once you've run through your limited stock? You don't go around buying movies before your kid is born, so that movie they released four years ago would be PERFECT for your three-year-old is not available until they're six (maybe), when it bores them. So what are parents going to do? The tech-savvy might pirate, while the ones who aren't... will go elsewhere. Either way, you'd think Disney would wise up to the fact that there's a HUGE market out there that would willingly buy all of their things without that artificial scarcity built in—probably more than the ones who think that if they don't buy it now, they'll never own it.

Re:Limit copyright to payment

[phorm]

The creator can set worth. Everything else can be based on a percentage that declines over time.

If it's set too high, congratulations, you have a copyright on something nobody can buy/afford.

Re:Limit copyright to payment

[swillden]

You're technically right, but wrong in a broader and more important sense.

The excessive scope and duration of copyright, along with the theory of copyright that is pushed by the content industry, give individuals very little moral reason not to infringe.

As the brief points out, the true purpose of copyright is to advance the progress of science and the useful arts, by providing some temporary incentives. In other words, it's a dynamic balance: society voluntarily agrees to restrict its own freedom with respect to expressive materials for a period of time in order to encourage the publication of material and its flow into the public domain. Under that theory, people have a moral incentive to hold up their side of the bargain.

But that's not the theory implied by the content industry's preferred view of copyright. They push the notion that creators have some natural right to control their creations, even after they've chosen to publish them to the world, and regardless of the fact that 99% of "their" creations were given to them by society. This notion is perfectly consistent with long and broad copyright, in fact it's easy to argue that if it's a right of the creator, and a heritable right, then it really should be perpetual. The view may not be completely consistent with the idea that the right can be sold, or that works made for hire belong to the employer, etc., but they're happy to ignore that point.

Under that theory, why should individuals not infringe? Obviously there are the potential legal penalties, but from a moral perspective, the calculation becomes one of percentages. How much harm does it really do if I pirate a copy of a song written and performed by a multi-millionaire musician? A dollar or two... a sum so small that the musician won't even notice. Even more, what if the choice is not between paying or not paying, but between listening without paying or not listening -- if in either case the musician doesn't get paid, what's the harm in making a copy?

And in fact the content industry has been enormously successful at pushing its view. If you ask the average man on the street who owns the copyright on Shakespeare's plays, he will see it as an obscure, trivial question, and one whose answer may be unknowable, but he's unlikely to realize that it's a nonsensical question, that not only are the plays long past any expiration, but that they should be in the public domain, that they're an important part of our shared culture and belong to us all.

Big media counts that as a success, but in fact it's a big part of what causes that same man on the street to feel that copyright infringement really isn't wrong in any deep sense. Curtailing the excessive scope and duration of copyright would enable people to understand why it is (or would be). Even better, decreasing copyright terms to the point where the average person sees a real choice between infringing now or waiting a few years for the work to enter the public domain would make the point even more sharply.

Ideally, we should set copyright duration to a point where a large majority of profitable works return a substantial portion of their lifetime expected profitability, and no longer. For films, for example, we could really set the term as short as two years, maybe less. It's a rare film that becomes profitable but hasn't done it within that time frame. Books probably need somewhere between 5 and 10 years, music is similar.

Shorter terms would not only help people understand why they shouldn't infringe, they would also serve the true purpose of copyright better, by making it less likely that successful artists, authors, etc. will produce one or two works and then give up creating, living on the the royalty stream.

Re:Limit copyright to payment

[Kjella]

Note that it is rarely 5+ year old material that is 'pirated'

Perhaps people don't want to fund a system they don't think is fair? I buy both BluRays and DVDs sometimes, not because I needed to but because it's good stuff that I like and that I want them to produce more of but I hate that I'm funding DRM. I hate that I'm funding the lobbying groups who want copyright to be infinity minus a day. I hate that I'm funding the people strong-arming ISPs to become their private enforcement branch. I hate that I'm funding the people pushing for copyright enforcement outside the justice system, with no real oversight or due process. I'm a pirate if I download it today, in 5 years or in 50 years. Might as well get it over with...

Re:Limit copyright to payment

[blahplusplus]

"Making the copyright term shorter would do nothing for this group, except reduce the number of times it would be brought up as an argument that does not actually speak against or in favor of their actual sentiment."

Not correct, many industries live of remakes of older works and the copyright allows them to lock up and send lawyers after fan made works. You see this especially in videogames where a videogame company has practically abandoned a property for decades and fans attempt to remake it and then get shut down. Having a 'use it or lose it' system would encourage companies to have to generate new ideas instead of relying on old ones.

http://www.opcoder.com/projects/chrono/

Re:Limit copyright to payment

[chrismcb]

So what you are saying is, someone can buy one harry potter book, and then copy it and sell it?
You can also write a harry potter sex book? (This was actually one of the big issues Disney had)
A lot of people won't create the art if they had to do it under those circumstances

Re:Limit copyright to payment

[mvdwege]

That's a lot of verbiage that comes down to an ad hominem attack: "You just want free things, that's why you want copyright reform".

Unfortunately for you, we have already seen in cases where authors, you know: actual creators, have seen their sales rise when they voluntarily give up their rights under copyright.

Since the current draconian laws don't do anything to stop pirates anyway, your premise is objectively proven to be flawed. Nice try, but don't give up your day job.

Re:Limit copyright to payment

[Chemisor]

So what you are saying is, someone can buy one harry potter book, and then copy it and sell it?

Exactly. You buy a Harry Potter book for, what, $20. Add some text of your own and resell it as Chris's Goblet Of Fire. You would, of course, owe J.K.Rowling the $20, so you'll have to sell your book for more than that. You would also have to give it a different title because that's protected under trademark law. Otherwise, go for it! I see no problem with this; after all, the author is still paid.

You can also write a harry potter sex book? (This was actually one of the big issues Disney had)

Sure. People have the right to free speech in this country, which includes creating sex fantasies involving your created characters. You have no right to forbid it.

A lot of people won't create the art if they had to do it under those circumstances

On the contrary, a lot more people will create art under these circumstances. There is plenty of bad art out there in books, movies, music, etc. It is often easier to improve a bad book than it is to write a new one from scratch. Removing control over derivative works would allow the people to do just that. Remember, the original author is still paid, so there is even incentive for him to encourage such behavior to increase his revenue.

Re:Limit copyright to payment

[VortexCortex]

A better solution would be shorter copyright terms attached to renewal-with-conditions.

No. As a content creator I can tell you that a better solution would be to GET RID OF COPYRIGHTS. If you want creators to REALLY be motivated to create NEW works, then take away their legal tools for extorting money from society that they're supposed to be benefiting. I'm not saying they shouldn't extract money, but that they should get paid to DO WORK, and that' is it. You want a car fixed? You shop around, or go to the mechanic you trust, then you agree on a price, then you give them money, ONCE, and your car is fixed.

Bits are in infinite supply, thus have no value. Let me repeat that: The copies have no value. What's valuable is the ability to do work. Artists / Engineers / Mechanics / Programmers / Musicians / etc. should all get paid only when they do work, and proportionate to the work they do. Making a copy is very little work. If data duplication it was so valuable, then P2P would be making a fortune via the copies, and computers would be impossibly expensive. Since it's the Work that's scarce, not the bits, we shouldn't allow them to charge such HUGELY over-inflated prices for the artificially scare bits.

Ah, but the real issue is that the Artists / Authors aren't charging ridiculous over priced fees for copies of their works, PUBLISHERS ARE. Content creators get reimbursed sane fees working to make content for a Publisher. A publisher then does nothing but try to extract as much money from society as possible using the copyright laws as a club. We now have direct lines of communication / access to the creators via a global multi-directional information exchange system. Publishing is CHEAP. What do you think would happen if a Publisher said to a content creator, Make Content For Free! The same that would happen if the general public did... The content creator would say, "Nope, I'm not working unless I know I'll get paid". There's no need for Copyright laws. Once the work is done, the content creator can be paid their agreed upon fee, once, and that's that! Culture is enriched, the work gets paid for one time...

This is the dawn of the Information Age, we haven't adjusted to the idea that EVERYONE is a publisher now. The copyright laws were put in place to prevent greedy publishers from capitalizing on the works of authors by printing their works without permission or reimbursement. This was a time in which copies held great value. It was hard to make a copy, yet the original 1790 copyright act limited the terms to 14 years. Now that copies are trivial to the point of absurdity (this message being duplicated multiple times just to get to you, and hundreds of others), we have copyright terms that extend 70 YERAS beyond the DEATH of an author? (Those dead folks don't care about any incentive you give them to "benefiting the arts and sciences", they refuse to make any new works).

Those strict laws once leveraged against greedy publishers, who held the only way to mass produce content, are now applied to EVERY PERSON, because we all have publishing tools at our fingertips. The idea of Copyright is OBSOLETE here in the Information Age. A mechanic can not prevent you from continually benefiting from their work, so instead they extract all the payment for the work they do ONCE. Content creators get paid to do their work ONCE by the publishers -- some do get royalties, but they get their funding to do work when they do their work. Bands make most of their money WORKING, on tours, playing music, not via selling CDs / MP3s. Only those who self publish make much money via digital distributed arts.

Publishers are worthless middle men. Copyright laws enable them to extort the public while themselves add nothing of value to the works themselves. Availability, you say? I'll refer you to P2P services... which have more availability of higher quality goods than publishers offer, and the don't change you a dime. T

Re:Limit copyright to payment

[QuasiSteve]

That's a jump to conclusion that comes down to not having read my post. Or at least, not having understood it.

I'm certainly not saying "You just want free things, that's why you want copyright reform."

Heck, I'm not even referring to any particular 'You'. What I am referring to is that if there is an article about somebody having shared, say, a movie that was released on DVD just a month earlier and getting sued over it, any comments that point out the absurdly long copyright term are essentially off-topic; if the copyright term were only 1 year, that person would still be getting sued. Unless people want to make the case that the 'pirate' in that case would instead have legally been sharing a 1 year and 1 day old movie.
That's not saying that copyright reform wouldn't be a good thing (presuming that reform includes, among other, a reduction of the term). Far from it.

The remainder of your reply is off topic, I might add, as I haven't stated anything as to the benefits or pitfalls of making works available freely (be that free as in beer, free as in speech, or free as in beerspeech).
If anything, you should look through my comment history to learn a little more about my thoughts on copyright (summary: abolish it, replace with distribution rights), so that next time you wouldn't even have to contemplate that third paragraph.

Re:Limit copyright to payment

[QuasiSteve]

Actually, I believe my statement stands as the group you are referring to is not the group I was referring to. I did mention the same group you're referring to - others who want to create works, and not just consume and/or share it 'as is'.

For those who want to create works, and are currently withheld from doing so due to the long copyright term on e.g. characters that they wish to incorporate, a reduction in the length of copyright term would be a great boon.

For those who complain about getting busted for sharing a bad cam version of a movie that was released the other day, reduction does nothing. They'll continue to ignore it, and rights holders will continue to try and combat it. A losing battle for sure - but one that the length of copyright terms doesn't touch on (unless that length is reduced to zero).

I do find one part of your reply a bit amusing, though. On the one hand you suggest that a 'use it or lose it' system would encourage companies to have to generate new ideas instead of relying on old ones, but at the same time you suggest that fans should be able to rely on those old works rather than generating new ideas themselves.
I suspect companies would still rely on old ones, unless the fan made works actually 'interfered' commercially. Sadly, shutting down fanfic/etc. is usually the result of bureaucracy and panicky legal staffers who fear more for brand and even trademark dilution, rather than any actual concerns about copyright.

Re:Limit copyright to payment

[QuasiSteve]

But then you're actually arguing, in a way, my point.

If you are a pirate if you download something from today, 5 years ago, or 50 years ago - but not if you download something from 1922 or earlier and you absolutely 1. don't want to fund a system that isn't fair and 2. don't want to be a pirate.. then why not download/share Robin Hood or Oliver Twist?

Now I realize those are some pretty darn old movies and eventually people are going to want something a little more contemporary. So let's say that the copyright term were indeed reduced to 5 years. You can no longer argue that you'd be a pirate if you downloaded something from 50 years ago, or even something from 5 years ago. Would you still say "Might as well get it over with..."?

And what if it were reduced to 1 year? 6 months? 1 month?

At which point of 'older' does the sentiment "Might as well be a pirate and grab that 0-day release" get etched away by older works being released into the public domain?

Re:Limit copyright to payment

[mvdwege]

Nope, you don't get away with this by hiding it in more verbiage. Your entire point comes down to any comments about copyright reform being off-topic as long as there are pirates. That is a fallacious argument.

And no, I'm not going to read through your comment history. Your pose as a verbose windbag in this thread is all I need to know.

Here's a hint: learn to make your argument in less words. If I misunderstood you, that is at least partly your fault.

Re:Limit copyright to payment

[QuasiSteve]

Very well, I will keep this short and without 'verbiage'.

If you are somebody who complains about yourself or somebody else being targeted for 'piracy' of a work that is less than N years old, then any suggestion for reduction of the length of copyright terms to N+M years is dumb in so far as the actual complaint goes.

The suggestion itself is fine, and 'piracy' in a broader scope does not even enter the argument. Its applicability to the situation of an individual pirate complaining when the context is recent works is generally non-existent or dubious at best.

I'll even give you a car analogy: Getting a ticket for going 100 in a 60 zone and when contesting the ticket before the court, suggesting that it should be a 75 zone. That suggestion itself may very well be fine and be substantiated by data and research, but it's certainly not going to make your current ticket disappear nor keep you from getting a new one if you still insist on going 100 once the zone is changed to a 75 limit.

Re:Limit copyright to payment

[mvdwege]

You know, nobody you were replying to were complaining about being unable to pirate because of copyright terms. I see only people pointing out reasonable arguments against current laws, it is you bringing in the piracy argument.

Given that you are attempting to derail the conversation anyway, I'm just going to wish you'd shut up and go the fuck away. I'm not going to hold my breath though.

Re:Limit copyright to payment

[QuasiSteve]

So having finally understood what I was writing, you instead go for a different angle of attack. That's fine, but try to RTFA first when you do.

The conversation was derailed several times already. By the 2nd level commenter for disagreeing with the first and then bringing up another solution instead (one actually given in TFA); something that should have been at the first level. Then I perpetuated that derailment by remaining on the topic of reduction of the length of a copyright term and suggesting that while this is a popular argument - it is often used misguidedly. Then you decided to derail that by jumping to conclusions, making assumptions, and going full-on ad hominem to the point of name calling.
But quite frankly, this isn't a 1-dimensional thread and there is no such thing as a derailment. OP's post is stil there, 2nd commenter's post is still there - split off from that if you would like to discuss the finer points of their comments' details.

Quite frankly, if you feel so strongly, I don't understand why you bothered writing such manifest rubbish. You can go ahead and hold your breath; I'm certainly done here as there's no reasonable discourse to be had. Nevertheless, it's been 'fun' - have a great week!

Mary Bono...

[sconeu]

Now that she's out, maybe something can get done.

Interesting move, Republican Party!

[InvisibleClergy]

So this is how the Republican Party is going to try to move now that super-conservative has failed. How interesting!

Re:Interesting move, Republican Party!

[Overzeetop]

Jobs and a balanced budget? Holy shit, that's some funny stuff. The straight Republican line has always been that the government can't create jobs. And a balanced budget? You do know that we're in this fucking mess because at the first sign of a surplus to pay off the debt, the Republicans put in a 10 year tax cut that wiped out every single dollar of surplus that would have retired the debt? And while they were giving the surplus back, instead of cutting costs they super-finded the military and decided to commit to two immensely expensive wars.

And don't start crying about SS and Medicare. You know how they're actually doing at the moment? Well, they happen to be holding about 1/4 of the US Debt. That's right - the Republicans borrowed from the Democratic/Socialist piggy bank to bankroll their "war on terror."

Don't fucking talk about jobs and economy - they're as guilty as they come. The only difference is that they want to put monitors in your bedroom so you don't do anything they feel is out of place with their perfect religion, which absolves them of fucking over their fellow man every Sunday so that they can feel like they're holding the moral high ground while they trample the poor on the way to paying for a hooker or bedding their neighbors wives.

They put up what was probably the most moderate Republican candidate since, hell, before I was born in a lousy economy that needed real business know-how...and he still lost by almost 3 million votes to a black man who's never run a company because they forced him to wear that super-conservative Republican platform around his neck like a God damned albatross.

Re:Interesting move, Republican Party!

[Mashiki]

Useful protip: That wasn't super-conservative. That was RINO lite.

Re:Interesting move, Republican Party!

[the eric conspiracy]

> Tax cuts often wind up increasing revenue rather that decreasing it for reasons anyone that has stayed half-awake through an intro to economics class should know.

Funny the economics classes I took said that revenues with a tax cut IF the marginal taxation rate is over 50%. Otherwise revenues are decreased. Now that of course has to be corrected for baseline economic growth and inflation.

So now what do we have from a historic point of view? Did Kennedy's tax cuts result in more revenues after correction for baseline growth and inflation? Yes. Were the marginal rates over 50%? Yes.

How about in the case of Reagan and GW? Did their tax cuts increase revenue after correcting for baseline growth and inflation? Nope. Were the marginal rates over 50%? Nope.

Now some people are claiming a tax cut will increase revenues. Well guess what marginal rates are below 50%. So the conclusion I have to draw is that it is not likely that a tax cut will result in increased revenues.

Re:Interesting move, Republican Party!

[the eric conspiracy]

The Republicans need to do something. They have won the popular vote only once in the last 6 presidential elections.

The current platforms aren't helping either - the demographics of the voters they are attracting is unfavorable.

Re:Interesting move, Republican Party!

[Arker]

That's a reasonable rule of thumb with a big fudge factor, but there are more factors and it's difficult or impossible to predict in actuality. Even tax cuts that dont actually increase revenue may wind up decreasing it much less than expected. But, again, the government has plenty of revenue already. Many times more than is needed to carry out its legitimate functions. There is no need to find more revenue, only to cut spending.

Re:Interesting move, Republican Party!

[stewbee]

I am thinking that the gp has the opinion that we are always on the right side of the Laffercurve.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

This is the entire basis of these supply side guys. The problem is, I think we can say pretty certainly that we are on the left side of the Laffer curve for quite some time. I would probably argue that when Clinton was in office, and at the beginning of W's watch is when we were nearly optimized on the curve.

Re:Interesting move, Republican Party!

[Rockoon]

So this is how the Republican Party is going to try to move now that super-conservative has failed. How interesting!

So now Romney was a super-conservative? What fucking cool-aid have you been drinking?

Romney was liberal enough for the people of Massachusetts. Actual reality. Everything else is a fairy tail told to you by people that do not have your best interests in mind.

Re:Interesting move, Republican Party!

[Rockoon]

Funny the economics classes I took said that revenues with a tax cut IF the marginal taxation rate is over 50%.

No class in economics put a figure on it, or would pretend that it could. You did that all by yourself, just now.

Re:Interesting move, Republican Party!

[Burning1]

They put up what was probably the most moderate Republican candidate since, hell, before I was born in a lousy economy that needed real business know-how...and he still lost by almost 3 million votes to a black man who's never run a company because they forced him to wear that super-conservative Republican platform around his neck like a God damned albatross.

If you look at the economic indicators, large business and investment firms are doing great in this economy. Small business on the other hand is suffering, not due to taxes or regulation, but due to a very weak middle class. That's a problem that can only be solved by growing the middle class; something I don't actually think Romney was capable of doing. Romney's approach seemed to be more of the same from the conservative party. Bust unions, relax hiring and pay regulations, undercut benefits, cut social programs. Policies that are great for business, but tend to undermine the lower and middle class.

Re:Interesting move, Republican Party!

[HornWumpus]

GP pulled 50% from his ass.

Written by Google

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

GOP Respones to Elections

[PPH]

You Hollywood folks backed the wrong guy. So now we're going to pull the rug out from under you.

Re:GOP Respones to Elections

[ThinkWeak]

They have to start somewhere. This does sort of support small business, which is one of the GOP's mainstays. It definitely leaves me confused.

Just 1 out of 4 potential policy solutions

[maugle]

"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.

Re:Just 1 out of 4 potential policy solutions

[VortexCortex]

Yes, too bad it's not a policy backed by the GOP (or the MPAA / RIAA), they've pulled down the fucking report, and retracted it.
If you want to read that dead "policy" change, it's still on scribd.

Update: The RSC has now taken down the brief and disowned it via this memo from Executive Director Paul Teller.

We shall see

[__aaltlg1547]

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.

interesting informative and AFT

[johnwerneken]

Excellent to see pro-progress pro-competition pro-openness stuff get political attention.

Sounds like a good idea

[tbird81]

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.

Re:Sounds like a good idea

[IorDMUX]

Sad that most of Slashdot is against it because of the colour of their ties.

Have you been reading the same comments that I have? As I'm not quite certain where you discovered that most everybody opposes it...

Re:Sounds like a good idea

[Legion303]

"Sad that most of Slashdot is against it"

Yeah, that didn't happen. And whoever modded you insightful apparently has the same reading comprehension disability you do.

Disney

[Dan East]

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.

Copyrights, Patents, and Trademarks

[buss_error]

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.

Re:Copyrights, Patents, and Trademarks

[FairAndHateful]

"Throwing money at education doesn't work!"

This is undeniably true. Look at the disastrous quality of education in Washington DC.

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.

I was unaware that a babysitter would be willing to babysit 20 to 30 kids at the same time for $9 per hour. That'd be no more than 45 cents per kid per hour!

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.

First, we'll just accept that the high wages of postal carriers may be related to the fact that the US Postal Service is losing billions of dollars a year and in danger of going bankrupt. Lets move on to a comparison. There are only 180 school days in a school year (in Texas). That's 36 weeks, leaving approximately 16 weeks in the year for vacation. Assuming letter carriers get 2 weeks of vacation, that's 50 weeks. $58,700 / 50 ($1174) compared to $42,890 / 36 ($1191.39). Also, teachers don't have that "Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night" slogan, and largely get to work indoors sheltered from bad weather and vicious dogs.

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"\

If being middle class on a single income while taking nearly 1/3 of the year off isn't a "living wage" for you (in a state with a low cost of living), money isn't going to solve your problems.

I once had someone actually spit on me when I told them where I worked.

You probably were complaining to them about only earning 50% more than they do (individual income, not household) while you had to work an entire 2/3 of the year, when they're the ones paying your income.

Re:Copyrights, Patents, and Trademarks

[adri]

Question: ask teachers if they really do get that holiday time.

The bad or burnt out ones: they take the holiday time.

The good ones: are learning more stuff during that time, going to meetings, etc.

The really good ones: are spending that time going over the semester results, reading up on new educational stuff, doing up new lesson plans, proactively assembling new exams/tests/assignments, etc.

It's one of those common fallacies that school teachers only work school hours and school days. The reality is slightly scarier.

Re:Cultural heritage??

[MrLizardo]

Well maybe we can compromise: How about we put a sane upper limit on how long works can remain under copyright? Right now things stay under copyright long after the author's death.

Re: Nice rational and intelligent argument ;-)

[Lord Balto]

I always try to avoid stepping in goos.

I don't need no stinkin' article!

[Lord Balto]

This is old Carl Sagan's falacious probability argument.

Re: Nice rational and intelligent argument ;-)

[fyngyrz]

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.

Argghhhh!

[fyngyrz]

It is like watching theologists get angry over how many angels can dance on a head of a needle.

It's a PIN, you bloody heathen!

Re:Argghhhh!

[VortexCortex]

It is like watching theologists get angry over how many angels can dance on a head of a needle.

It's a PIN, you bloody heathen!

It's Damned, not "bloody" you fucking casual.

Where were the Democrats ??

[Taco Cowboy]

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?

Re:Where were the Democrats ??

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, a Republican study committee != Republican policies and platforms.

But then, - and I am saying this as an independent, I ain't a Republican - where were the Democrats?

We were too busy counting our donations from honorable and open-minded Hollywood moguls to find time to perform this study. But in our defense, we were planning on quoting it after the study's initial copyright expired.

Van Gogh

[fyngyrz]

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

Re:Van Gogh

[VortexCortex]

That's not even close to what happened in that episode of Doctor Who.

As a studier of Quantum Mechanics, I too believe we're lost in a universe ruined by truly evil forces, and that the Doctor Who television shows are all the reality that remains as proof of our temporal war with the daleks who now control the world via stock markets and FOREX with their malicious High Frequency Traders -- DESTROY! DESTROY! DESTROY!, indeed...

Did I vote for the wrong party?

[WaffleMonster]

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.

Re:Did I vote for the wrong party?

[the eric conspiracy]

The anti SOPA proposals were from a Democrat.

Re:Did I vote for the wrong party?

[VortexCortex]

"Did I vote for the wrong part?" WTF? Do you honestly think parties exist for any other means to distract you from the actual politics? Besides, they PULLED THE REPORT down, and disowned it in less than 24 hours, go read TFA's update. You did vote for the wrong party: Voting along party lines is fucking moronic.

WTO requires Berne

[tepples]

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.

Re:WTO requires Berne

[Rockoon]

The solution is to tell the WTO to either change or fuck off.

Re:WTO requires Berne

[tepples]

At which point U.S. companies in the more tradable industries pack up and move to the Far East or Europe.

Re:WTO requires Berne

[TheRaven64]

Treaties are not permanent. If all (or even most) parties involve decide that they are no longer relevant, then they are renegotiated. This happens all the time. The Berne convention is currently a problem, but if the USA were to decide to change policy on copyright law then negotiating a new revision would be relatively easy, especially as most other countries would benefit from shorter copyright.

rationale behind a PMA copyright term

[tepples]

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.

Re:rationale behind a PMA copyright term

[dryeo]

The original 14+14 year copyright would work for that as well as the situation where someone publishes on their deathbed to give the family an income. If you can't take advantage of 28 years of income to become self sufficient then perhaps all you deserve is a Darwin award.

The wheel HAS been pateneted, recently

[A nonymous Coward]

Here, take a look.

Other nonsense patents include a kids' swing. It happens all the time. That's a broken system.

Keerist. Partisan, much?

[A nonymous Coward]

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.

Perhaps....

[BLKMGK]

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?

GOP what?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Twice a day

[WOOFYGOOFY]

A broken clock is still right twice a day.

Is it possible

[mark_reh]

that the GOP is on the right side on an issue for once? I'm suspicious...

What about non-financial compensation?

[aNonnyMouseCowered]

"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.

We vs. Me.

[noobermin]

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.

Re:We vs. Me.

[noobermin]

UGH this is supposed to be a reply mozumder.

Libertarians are not free to live outside the law

[gwolf]

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.

Plus life if author is an individual

[tepples]

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".

Somebody had to do it.

[davydagger]

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.

Re:Mitt Romney should have addressed this...

[TheEyes]

... 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!

Not mine; I'd have just recognized it as Mitt changing his tune--again--because the flavor of the week has changed.

Mitt's opinion on copyright reform would depend on when you asked him:

--The Mitt Romney of eleven months ago might have argued for copyright reform, if he wasn't too busy railing against immigrants, abortion, and his own healthcare law.
--The Mitt Romney of two months ago wouldn't have, though, because that Mitt Romney never met a corporation he didn't like, and entertainment companies count in that.
--The Mitt Romney of one month ago was desperately trying to say everything he thought a moderate Democrat would say (tentative support for immigration reform and abortion, retaining everything about Obamacare except the name, etc), and since he believes that Democrats are shills for the liberal media that Mitt wouldn't have supported copyright reform.
--And the current Mitt, the one from this week that's gone on a bitter tirade about how Obama won the election because he promised to give away a bunch of money to poor people instead of the rich people who deserve it, that Mitt would be for copyright reform, because it would punish one of the evil members of the evil conspiracy that kept him from his birthright of being President.

They pulled down the PDF

[MobyDisk]

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?

Re:They pulled down the PDF

[MobyDisk]

Found it on scribd: Republican Study Committee Intellectual Property Brief

The Policy Brief has been Yanked

[wrp103]

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.

Re:and EVERY Republican...

[mellon]

Lamar Smith is a Congressman, not a senator. Anyway, my point was that this isn't an issue that's heavy in either party's platform, so there's a lot of potential for movement in the primaries.