Slashdot Mirror


Republican Staffer Khanna Axed Over Copyright Memo

Bob9113 writes "Ars Technica reports that Derek Khanna is getting axed over his memo detailing the conflict between laissez-faire-oriented free market ideals and the regulatory monopoly that is copyright. 'The Republican Study Committee, a caucus of Republicans in the House of Representatives, has told staffer Derek Khanna that he will be out of a job when Congress re-convenes in January. The incoming chairman of the RSC, Steve Scalise (R-LA) was approached by several Republican members of Congress who were upset about a memo Khanna wrote advocating reform of copyright law. They asked that Khanna not be retained, and Scalise agreed to their request.'"

23 of 506 comments (clear)

  1. He Should Be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Who in the adult world is surprised when a low level employee is canned for upstagin and blindsiding the higher up leadership??

    This is not the least bit surprising and shocking. Anybody who does this in an other venue would have gotten the boot, and rightfully so.

    1. Re:He Should Be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, heavens forbid that elected officials ever be given information that they might disagree with. Shame on this person for thinking that law makers should be exposed to a wide variety of ideas and opinions. Next thing you know they will have to try to justify claims of wanting less government while at the same time pushing for laws limiting marriage laws or privacy laws. What was he thinking?

    2. Re:He Should Be by Applekid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't know what he was thinking, but I think we all can correctly guess what he learned about Washington and politics in general.

      It's an old boys' club, the yes man gets ahead, and messengers get shot when exposing contradictions.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    3. Re:He Should Be by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Sheesh....

      Scalise is one of my representatives, I actually kinda know the guy.

      Dunno if a letter will help...but, I'll sure send one...this move sucks.

      I don't think this is just a R problem...I think both R's and D's up there are so bought and paid for that no reform will likely happen that will benefit you and I, but I'll certainly send a letter about this....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    4. Re:He Should Be by ereuter · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It wasn't just something he posted on his blog. His memo was approved by the committee. It just happened that the committee quickly retracted the memo after their true masters (their largest campaign contributors) expressed their disapproval.

    5. Re:He Should Be by plover · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, this is not a party line problem at all. Both R's and D's voted for copyright extension, and I know the D's are at least as bad as the R's because so many of them also supported crap like SOPA.

      Basically, it's whoever takes money from the [MP|RI|MAFI]AA is who votes in favor of copyright extension.

      --
      John
    6. Re:He Should Be by jythie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think the person's point was that the GoP is being hypocritical in this case since the idea of government backing away from industry is one of its major planks, which is what I suspect the person was referring to as the 'problem'. So the GoP is coming across as being in favor of regulation that supports industry against citizens, but not regulation that supports citizens against industry.

    7. Re:He Should Be by Zordak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's more of an R problem

      Wow, somebody's not paying attention. Look, I know that on Slashdot it's hip to bash Republicans at every turn, but this is so wrong it's not even funny. Insane copyright laws is a bipartisan problem, but Democrats lead the charge. They're all in the pocket of Big Media in places like California and New York that lean heavily Democratic. Chris freaking DODD is running the MPAA now.

      There are plenty of valid criticisms of the Republican party, and they're certainly not clean on this issue. But to say that they're worse than Democrats on copyright just sounds like uninformed Republican bashing.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    8. Re:He Should Be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This isn't about the old boys club. If this had been just-another-report, they would not even have known he was involved. You can be 100% guaranteed that the 'representatives' who complained were NOT representing us. They were representing the RIAA. You can be sure that the RIAA gave these guys a call and explained in no uncertain terms that campaign contributions and getting re-elected hinged on certain.... favors.

    9. Re:He Should Be by metrometro · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The position paper was vetted internally and approved along the orgs normal channels. Unless by "higher up leadership" you mean the lobbyists -- they were surprised, that's true.

      He worked an institution that was supposed to inform debate. He was canned because some debates are not allowed.

  2. Surprised? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Informative

    You shouldn't be - after all, this is the same political organization that had a report banned from the LoC, because the facts contained within did not mesh with their party philosophy.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  3. This is why the Republicans lost the election by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If you're not echoing the echo chamber's talking points, you're not allowed to talk to other Republicans.

    That's it in a nutshell. And so we have Romney condemning 47% of the population because some idiot in the WSJ did the calculations, found 50% of the country weren't paying one type of tax, ignored the fact that most of these people weren't paying it because their employers were too cheap to pay them a decent wage, and called them "Lucky Duckies". And he, and others, refused to hear the counter arguments, and he ended up making a fool of himself.

    Indeed, we have the entire Republican party convinced that the way to win an election in a recession is to say "Yeah, we know you're feeling really insecure at the moment, so we're going to take your safety net away. Because anyone receiving UI is a moocher."

    We have Rove and others absolutely convinced they were going to win the election, because they refused to read the polls.

    There's been a lot of discussion after the 6th about the Republicans and why they lost. Sure, they lost because of their policies (well, duh.) But the question remains: how did the Republicans end up with such an absurd ticket, and how did they drag along 47% (interesting co-incidence) of the country to vote for them anyway?

    Answer: because they built an echo chamber. If it didn't fit the interests of those funding the Republicans, it wasn't said. People who said the Republicans might be going in the wrong direction were purged. Fox News, the WSJ, and some blogs and radio stations were pretty much seen by Republicans as the only media to read, and because those outlets insisted that anything that wasn't them was "liberal biased" they didn't see the truth, they didn't see what was going on out there, they totally missed the boat.

    This firing suggests they still haven't "gotten it", no matter what was said after November 6th.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    1. Re:This is why the Republicans lost the election by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seniors, yes. Children, no.

      The following groups are included in the 47%, in pseudo-order of sympathy:

      1. Rich people with good accountants.
      2. Poor people too lazy to work.
      3. Long term unemployed, probably made up mostly of people who have paid income taxes most of their lives and will do so again in future.
      4. Short term unemployed, most of whom have paid taxes most of their lives and will continue to do so after they regain work.
      5. Seniors. Who, by the way, paid plenty of taxes for their working lives.
      6. People who work crappy jobs to make ends meet.
      7. Blue-collar workers in low wage states, such as most of the south. Ironically, this is a Republican "base".
      8. Most of the military. True fact: starting salary for a grunt is less (as in way south of) $20,000 a year. It doesn't get much higher either if you're not an officer.

      Putting the military at the end there because of the current Troop fetish in this country.

      The interesting point to me is that between 1, 5, 7, and 8, it doesn't seem improbable to me that Romney was completely off-base when he suggested the 47% would never vote for him, no matter what. I think it's quite possible the majority (if only a slight majority) of the 47% voted for him - at least, those who didn't realize he was talking about them.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  4. Points to consider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There are at least two important points we can take away from this:

    1. The republican party lies about having free market ideals.

    2. The current IP regime is NOT an example of free market economics, even though it is widely touted as so.

  5. Re:Principled conservatism by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You younger Slashdotters may not believe this, but at one time we had conservatives (and Republicans) with principles.

    There are still; we're just not Republicans (or, more accurately, Republicans are no longer conservative).

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  6. Another Young Idealist Casualty by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He had to know this would cost him his job.

    He could not have expected anything else.

    He's 24 and probably still believes that United States politics offer an open and free forum where you can put forth ideas no matter what side you're on and the change that follows can be a good thing if the logic behind it is sound. Surely the worst that could happen is that your party would have to explain again logically why your brief was incorrect and unsound?

    Boy it sure was hard typing that with a straight face.

    --
    My work here is dung.
  7. Memo taken down. But there's a backup copy. by Animats · · Score: 5, Informative

    Backup copy. (And because the document was created by a Congressional employee, it's not copyrightable. So there.)

    Here's the proposal:

    • A. Free 12-year copyright term for all new works - subject to registration, and all existing works are renewed as of the passage of the reform legislation. If passed today this would mean that new works have a copyright until 2024.
    • B. Elective-12 year renewal (cost 1% of all United States revenue from first 12 years -- which equals all sales).
    • C. Elective-6 year renewal (cost 3% of revenue from the previous 12 years).
    • D. Elective-6 year renewal (cost 5% of revenue in previous 6 years).
    • E. Elective-10 year renewal (10% of ALL overall revenue - fees paid so far).

    This is a good proposal. Start circulating it around. For only a very small number of copyrighted items is there revenue beyond 12 years, and that's covered.

  8. Re:Principled conservatism by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 5, Informative

    You might want to wipe the foam from your mouth and actually read about the history of civil rights and see who's consistently been on the side of those who want to work hard and be a member of society

    Yup - they were usually called "liberals" and "progressives", same as they are today. It just so happens that Republicans were a liberal/progressive party since pretty much forever (already during the Civil War), until they were turned around at the end of the Civil Rights era.

  9. Open Comment to Derek Khanna by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Dear Derek Khanna,

    You have made more friends than enemies. You may have been canned today, but you could easily replace your boss. RUN FOR OFFICE!

    Sincerely,

    Someone who actually votes.

  10. Re:Principled conservatism by HarrySquatter · · Score: 5, Informative

    Teddy Roosevelt was a conservative? You're joking, right? Did you hear that from Rush Limbaugh or Fox News? You do know that the Bull Moose Party that he founded was a progressive party, right? Teddy Roosevelt is well known as being a leader in the progressive movement of the early 20th century. To call him a conservative is an absolute joke.

  11. No contradiction. by oGMo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's an old boys' club, the yes man gets ahead, and messengers get shot when exposing contradictions.

    I don't really think this is a contradiction. I think the reality of the party line is more "Corporations are people .. the only people." Less government, less taxes, less regulation, more rights. These apply to real people: corporations, not you or me.

    --

    Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage

  12. Dear Congressman by argStyopa · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Dear Mr Kline,
    I'm deeply disappointed in my GOP caucus at the dismissal of Derek Khanna for his writing of a paper discussing copyright reform.

    (ref http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/12/staffer-axed-by-republican-group-over-retracted-copyright-reform-memo/)

    I sincerely hope you weren't "one of the congressmen" Rep Scalise was approached by to remove Mr Khanna.

    Copyright reform is a desperately-needed, serious issue. "Shooting the messenger" signals that the GOP is NOT the party interested in fixing the situation. To less charitable eyes, it might even seem that these Representatives are just doing the bidding of their lobbyists from the MPAA and RIAA donors. The *only* silver lining here is that the Democrats are even MORE obviously in the pocket of media producers.

    I invite you and your peers to review the Copyright Clause of the US Constitution: (art I, sec 8, clause 8) "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."

    Note, copyright is to PROMOTE THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE - not to promote the ongoing rent-seeking by the umpteenth-descendant of an artist. Further, the clause specifically says "LIMITED TIMES" - constantly revising copyrights out to longer and longer durations is complying with neither the letter nor the intent of the US Constitution.

    So, I ask MY PARTY representatives in Congress - what's your point here?

    I would love to get a serious, considered response to this email, or would cheerfully like a chance to talk to you on the subject.

    --
    -Styopa
  13. Derek Khanna - Geek by Frankie70 · · Score: 5, Informative

    He is one of us - look at his linkedin profile
    http://www.linkedin.com/in/derekkhanna

    â C++, Backtrack, Python, Sql, Java, Dreamweaver/Photoshop, statistical modelling.
    â Building computers and beta testing software (Microsoft Office 2013, Windows 8 etc.).

    Unless, we stand up for him, no one else will ever dare write about copyright reform in the future.

    This needs to be something like fight against SOPA.