Slashdot Mirror
GOP Brief Attacks Current Copyright Law
cervesaebraciator writes "Regardless of how one feels about the GOP generally, it is always heartening to see current copyright and IP law questioned on a national stage. A Republican study committee, chaired by Ohio Representative Jim Jordan released a brief today titled Three Myths about Copyright Law and Where to Start to Fix it. Among other things, the brief attacks current copyright law as hampering scientific inquiry, penalizing journalism, and retarding the potential of the internet to allow the dispersion of knowledge through e-readers. In the briefs words, 'Current copyright law does not merely distort some markets – rather it destroys entire markets.' Four potential policy solutions are proposed: statutory damage reform, expansion of fair use, punishing false copyright claims, and limiting copyright terms. There may yet be hope for a national debate on the current oppressive copyright system, if just a fool's hope."
I've got mod points at the moment, but rather than oblivionate the current pathetic trolls, flamebait and fr1st p0st crap, I'd rather encourage some thought.
Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
If that were the case, a simple IRS audit of their expense reports would blow it away from orbit.
I haven't even read the whole thing yet, but I was sort of astounded to read this from paper:
By Jove! I think he's on to something here.
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.
It seems the mitt-romney about-face attitude is changing the party from the inside - the GOP worrying about hampering scientific inquiry, [and] penalizing journalism. Next, you'll be telling me that they're also promoting women's rights and education.
Also, I would love for my sarcastic comments to be proven wrong.
- Nec Impar Pluribus, or so I'm told.
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...
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
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.
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.
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.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
"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.
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.
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.
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.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
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.
Om, nomnomnom...
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.
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.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
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.
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.
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.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
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...
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
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.
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.