Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

GOP Brief Attacks Current Copyright Law

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

cervesaebraciator writes "Regardless of how one feels about the GOP generally, it is always heartening to see current copyright and IP law questioned on a national stage. A Republican study committee, chaired by Ohio Representative Jim Jordan released a brief today titled Three Myths about Copyright Law and Where to Start to Fix it. Among other things, the brief attacks current copyright law as hampering scientific inquiry, penalizing journalism, and retarding the potential of the internet to allow the dispersion of knowledge through e-readers. In the briefs words, 'Current copyright law does not merely distort some markets – rather it destroys entire markets.' Four potential policy solutions are proposed: statutory damage reform, expansion of fair use, punishing false copyright claims, and limiting copyright terms. There may yet be hope for a national debate on the current oppressive copyright system, if just a fool's hope."

17 of 296 comments (clear)

  1. Read the article by Drishmung · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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.

    --
    Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
    1. Re:Read the article by cdogg4ya · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:Read the article by acid+brother · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

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

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

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

    1. Re:Holy Cow! by mooingyak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    2. Re:Holy Cow! by keytoe · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      --

      Culture is more than commerce

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

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

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

  4. Re:Not really the GOP ... by hondo77 · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

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

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

  6. Just 1 out of 4 potential policy solutions by maugle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.

  7. Sounds like a good idea by tbird81 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:If it's a GOP brief by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  9. Re:If it's a GOP brief by Mashiki · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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...
  10. Re:Credit where Credit is due. by mellon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  11. Re:If it's a GOP brief by 0111+1110 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  12. Re:If it's a GOP brief by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

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

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

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

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

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