How Corruption Is Strangling US Innovation

hype7 writes "The Harvard Business Review is running a very interesting piece on how money in politics is having a deleterious effect on U.S. innovation. From the article: 'Somehow, it seems that every time that [Mickey Mouse] is about to enter the public domain, Congress has passed a bill to extend the length of copyright. Congress has paid no heed to research or calls for reform; the only thing that matters to determining the appropriate length of copyright is how old Mickey is. Rather than create an incentive to innovate and develop new characters, the present system has created the perverse situation where it makes more sense for Big Content to make campaign contributions to extend protection for their old work.if you were in any doubt how deep inside the political system the system of contributions have allowed incumbents to insert their hands, take a look at what happened when the Republican Study Committee released a paper pointing out some of the problems with current copyright regime. The debate was stifled within 24 hours. And just for good measure, Rep Marsha Blackburn, whose district abuts Nashville and who received more money from the music industry than any other Republican congressional candidate, apparently had the author of the study, Derek Khanna, fired. Sure, debate around policy is important, but it's clearly not as important as raising campaign funds.'"

Comments

Thank You Captain Obvious

[mrbcs]

In other news, America seems to be full of people that want money for nothing.

Re:Thank You Captain Obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

In other news, America seems to be full of people that want money for nothing.

They also appear to want their checks for free.

Re:Thank You Captain Obvious

[Austerity Empowers]

How did we get in such dire straits.

Re:Thank You Captain Obvious

[geoskd]

47 million on food stamps, average welfare spending per poor household is HIGHER than median income.

The tragedy isn't that 47 million people are getting food stamps, the tragedy is that a person can be holding down three part time jobs paying *more* than minimum wage, and still need food stamps. Corporations are paying their employees starvation wages, working their salaried employees for hundreds of mandatory unpaid overtime hours every year, and paying almost no taxes to boot. Our system isn't fostering corruption, it is the embodiment of it!

-=Geoskd

Re:Thank You Captain Obvious

[MyFirstNameIsPaul]

Copycat responses can really sting.

Re:Thank You Captain Obvious

[houstonbofh]

Thankfully, like minded people can now come together on the internet and be brothers in arms.

Re:Thank You Captain Obvious

[Mitreya]

47 million on food stamps, average welfare spending per poor household is HIGHER than median income

[Citation needed]
That seems unlikely, as median income is (so far) above the poverty line (42K, I think vs 14-18K poverty line, depending on number of children). I doubt that the welfare offered exceeds the poverty line by a factor of two, which is what you seem to be claiming. It is even less likely that the average welfare per household did.

I just read a story about an illegal immigrant getting a free kidney transplant

[Citation needed]
How would an illegal immigrant have insurance?

If you are in America and not getting money for nothing you are a moron now

Lose your job, go below the poverty line and you could get money for nothing too! You wouldn't like it thought.

Welfare spending in 2012 has exceeded $1 Trillion.

The economy had collapsed recently and unemployment is high. There are more people needing welfare than in other years (say, before the last implosion). The number of $ means nothing without considering current unemployment rates, overall inflation, etc.

Re:Thank You Captain Obvious

[Nadaka]

Now I know the source of your lie. That does not mean it isn't a lie.

Do you honestly believe that every poor family in the US receives over 40 thousand dollars a year in welfare?

It is ridiculous, and unbelievable, because there is no way it can be true.

And you are an idiot for spreading it.

Re:Thank You Captain Obvious

[Immerman]

immigrant insurance

They wouldn't need it, provided their life was in imminent danger. Hospitals are not allowed to turn away people with life-threatening conditions even if they can't pay, so the cost gets spread around to all other patients. And the situation is actually even worse than it seems since the hospital will likely refuse treatment when it would still be relatively cheap to correct in the hopes that some other hospital will be the one stuck with the patient when their condition eventually becomes life-threatening. The net effect is that everyone gets hit with higher costs, but the situation can't be corrected except perhaps by sweeping legislation since any hospital that "gave away" preventative treatments would end up paying even more since they're unlikely to be the primary beneficiary of the reduction in un-refusable patients. The universal insurance mandatory may begin to correct this situation, though we'll have to see how it actually plays out, it could just be that the insurance companies pocket all the gains.

Re:Thank You Captain Obvious

[ultranova]

Its not Godwin to point out that if you cant afford a child in the current environment, you shouldn't have one. It is basic pragmatism and the sign of an Intelligent Being.

It is, however, also pragmatic to consider the consequences of allowing this state of affairs to persist. Society needs replacements for expiring members, and while it's possible to support it through immigration, the scale required will cause a shift in culture and demographics and thus social unrest, especially since the newcomers will likely find their dream of a better life running headfirst into the brutal reality of poverty that caused the problem in the first place. Furthermore, is it really such a good idea to have massive amounts of people who live in misery, have nothing to tie them down, and can only realistically improve their situation through winning a lottery or staking a revolution?

Re:Thank You Captain Obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

Want to see where it's similar? Try Japan and Europe. Massive regulations, people entrenched, everyone under 35 has part-time jobs, or are going through temp agencies and working 3 of them, and still not making ends meet.

This is simply not true here in Japan.
Even McDonald's here pays over $11-12/hr (which is still too low) and the majority of the work force are full-time, life-long, benefit-receiving employees.
Where did you do your in-depth research for this post?

Re:Thank You Captain Obvious

[MrL0G1C]

I live in the UK and you're talking bollocks, unemployment is not exceptional, we have nothing like the poverty that the US has. We have far better minimum wages which combat poverty. there is no such thing as food stamps here. And of course the national health service is free to all so if you get sick it is not a problem financially (except for the time off work for some people).

And the Japanese guy disagrees too I see.

I don't earn great wages and I live in London and I still have plenty of spending money, food is not a concern.

Re:Thank You Captain Obvious

[MrL0G1C]

Oh and another thing, you talk of too much regulation but the whole reason we're in a multi-year downturn is because the financial markets were not properly regulated and the bankers fucked the economy.

Re:Thank You Captain Obvious

[bogjobber]

Except that real unemployment figures are either the same as the US or lower in most of Europe. In Germany and Scandinavia, where "regulations" and the welfare state are probably stronger than nearly anywhere else in the world, unemployment is *far* lower than in the US.

And these people have higher wages, work less, and receive more government services. Barely making ends meet in Europe doesn't mean you're literally on the edge of survival like it does in the US. It means you just don't have any money to spend.

I have no idea what facts you're using to make your judgments, but it definitely doesn't correspond to reality.

oh boy !

[garaged]

What a surprise ! :D

getting serious, it is really sad what is happening with society, we have come to a stage where pretty much everything we do is getting richer the rich, we see that a lot here in México, every new law is pushing for lower salaries and less benefits, and from some years ago, gov is pushing to convert universities into technicall schools so we can have even more cheap workers.

Re:oh boy !

[pwizard2]

Sad but true. The USA has more wealth inequality than it had in the last 75 years (or more) , mostly thanks to the GOP's plan to destroy the middle class these past 30+ years. Social mobility is getting to be impossible and the only way people can go is down. It's really fucking bleak and there's no end in sight.

Re:oh boy !

[pwizard2]

The rich will flee the country with as much ill-gotten wealth as they can take with them. They don't care if the USA falls apart because they have stashes in tax shelters around the world so they can just move when things get bad. The rest of us will be stuck in the shithole they created.

Re:oh boy !

[mister_playboy]

Just a little Econ101: salaries rise, and I don't just mean nominally through inflating a currency, when the productive capacity of an employee rises.

"For decades, productivity and compensation rose in tandem. Their bond was the basis of the social compact between the economy and the public: If you work harder and better, you and your family will be better off. But in the past few decades, and especially during the past 10 years or so, the lines have diverged. This is slippage No. 1: Productivity is rising handsomely, but compensation of workers isn’t keeping up."

http://www.nationaljournal.com/next-economy/the-no-good-very-bad-outlook-for-the-working-class-american-man-20121205

Only an internet nerd could summarize it like that

[anyaristow]

With all else that article had to say, the entire summary was about copyright? Hot button much?

disney hasn't created new characters? really

[alen]

one of the most popular halloween costumes this year was from Jake and the Neverland Pirates, a Peter Pan spin off that Disney has in its 3rd season now
disney jr has lots of new characters like Oso, Handy Manny, Little Einsteins and others

and the popularity of Mickey and its copyright protection is what fueled the children's animation revolution of the last 20 some years
lion king
shrek
all the Pixar movies
and at least a dozen other movies

Re:disney hasn't created new characters? really

[fey000]

I don't understand your reasoning here. Are you saying that because Disney has created more characters than Mickey Mouse, it's fine that copyright protection be extended ad infinitum? Could you elaborate a bit on your argument please, as I'm sure there is at small step inbetween premise and conclusion that I am missing.

Re:disney hasn't created new characters? really

[Stormwatch]

"The Lion King" was a good movie, but it was far from original; it started as an adaptation of Osamu Tezuka's "Kimba the White Lion", and the plot is heavily based upon Shakespeare's "Hamlet".

And Shrek is not even a Disney character, fool!

Re:just make your own character

[rknop]

There is a WIDE gulf between completely lack of copyright,and the never-ending copyright terms that we have in the USA today. (And don't tell me that copyrights are finite, because they DO get extended every time things are about to start to enter the public domain again.)

Arguing against infinite copyrights doesn't necessarily mean arguing for absolutely no copyright at all.

My problem is that

[Nyder]

companies like Disney rape the public domain for ideas and never give back to the public domain.

The corruption is FAR, FAR more severe...

[Futurepower(R)]

It's scary how few people in the U.S. take the corruption in their government seriously. There are jokes!

The corruption is FAR, FAR more severe than shown in the Harvard Review article. For example, read Funding the Enemy: How U.S. Taxpayers Bankroll the Taliban.

Or read House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties.

To many in the U.S. government, killing other people is a way of making money.

Re:The corruption is FAR, FAR more severe...

[Anonymous Coward]

Also read Classified Woman by Sibel Edmonds.

Re:The corruption is FAR, FAR more severe...

[hairyfeet]

The reason they joke is because short of violent revolution there isn't a thing you can do about it. The majority of the media outlets are owned by a handful of rich old insiders that are gonna make damned sure anybody that doesn't "play ball" never gets heard, look up the John Stewart video on Ron Paul where when it looked like people might actually vote for him he became "he who shall not be named" with reporters even listing who came in first, second, FOURTH and fifth, while making sure the name Ron Paul was never spoken. At the end of the clip Stewart shows a reporter who points this out, saying "We are talking about Christie and Palin who aren't even running, and nobody is talking about Paul who is doing good in the polls" to which the anchor got a douchebag smirk and said "Well if you get footage of Palin or Christie let us know, you can just keep the Paul stuff".

You can't fix a corrupt system by following the rules of that system, because they will simply change the rules to insure you can't win. This video on voting says it better than I can but the simple fact is at the end of the day they own the media, they control what the populace knows and is told, and they write the big fat checks to get the laws they want passed. To quote the late great George Carlin "Know why things never change? Because the owners of this country don't want change! They own you, they own everything worth having in this country and they do NOT want things to get better because its not good for business." and that is the truth.

You can protest in your little free speech zone that is far away from anybody that could be bothered, you can occupy until your hair turns grey and you look like just another one of the growing homeless, it just doesn't matter as the top 1% control the government, the money with both the Fed and Wall Street, and they control the media. Short of a full on violent revolution there is simply nothing you can do, all voting does is replace one puppet with another and the one you kicked out gets a cushy job with a lobbying firm so those you elect can see first hand the cushy position waiting for them if they play ball. Your vote means nothing, and unless your last name is Rothschild or Rockefeller your opinion means less than nothing.

Re:water is wet

[Blue Stone]

"The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the Bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.. corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money powers of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed." - Abraham Lincoln

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Ya but any time you point it out

[rsilvergun]

you get laughed at for being a tin foil hatted conspiracy theorist. The trouble is this stuff is so horrible people can't believe it's happening. It's too far removed from reality. Plus their taught from day one that America is the greatest country on earth, and it's hard to get away from a belief that's been ingrained in you since childhood.

Ever notice how little time Obama spent attacking Romney's policies? The Obama campaign did focus groups and found they couldn't attack Romney on policy because nobody believed he was going to implement them for real. The massive cuts to medicare, social security, tax cuts for the rich, etc. Maybe Romney wasn't really gonna do those things, we'll never know. But either way Obama couldn't convince anyone that he might...

Re:Ya but any time you point it out

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said! It's come to the point where you don't even have to be creative to be labeled a conspiracy theorist; all you have to do is cite an article in the New York Times to be considered a loon.

"Huh, yea right, our government has a list of US Civilians to kill without due process; who told you that the Illuminati???"
"...no, the New York Times did and here are their sources."
"Sure sure, tell me when you see Bigfoot next."

An interesting variation

[DNS-and-BIND]

We all know the typical way of presenting news - whenever an (R) does something bad, the party affiliation is right up there, and whenever a (D) does something even more despicable, the party affiliation is omitted and both parties are said to be equally bad. We all know this already. What's interesting about this story is how Blackburn is conspicuously identified an an (R) while Khanna's party affiliation is left blank - even though Khanna is a Republican through and through. An ignorant or negligent observer might conclude that (R) are uniquely and despicably evil while (D) never seem to be attached to anything bad.

Re:surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

money corrupts politics, news @ 11

Of course, but that is not the problem.
Most civilised countries throw in jail corrupt politicians. In the US bribery is legalised among other nice things such as torture and abductions (extraordinary renditions), and the penalty is zip, nothing at all. In fact the more bribes, ehm contributions you have the bigger the possibility of finding a job in the bribing industry right after leaving Congress.
HBR is correct, the US is failing not because of bribery, but because there is no mechanism in the system to thwart that threat.

Re:corruption?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure it's corruption. It's more like taking advantage of a system that is optimized for helping the Haves get more.

That's the textbook definition of corruption. Using your public position for personal gain.

Politicians should be like Nascar drivers and be required by law to wear a vest that has patches of all the corporations (and any individuals that donate more than a set amount per year) that own their votes. The size of the patch directly relating to the amount of ownership. When the amount of ownership gets above 50% that politician can no longer run for public office as it is obvious that he no longer represents his constituency.

At the risk of bringing raw politics into it...

[rsilvergun]

this was pointed out during the recent storms (Sandy), and there were several pundits that pointed out that Democrats tended to staff FEMA with professional disaster management folks while the Republicans tended to give those positions out to friends, family and donors. That was why the disaster was as well handled as it was and didn't turn into New Orleans II: The Squeal.

The hard part about this is even though it's demonstrably true (it's easy to trace the reasons for the FEMA appointments under the two administrations) it's so outlandish to think that a man would appoint someone to such an important position for political points that people just don't believe you when you point it out. Even if you've got the evidence (google it) to back it up...

The Magic Number 435

[grumling]

We haven't increased the size of the House of Representatives since the 1930s, but the size of the population has grown 3X since then. The House is supposed to grow (and shrink) with population, yet it has not for nearly 100 years. Are we to believe we have the same level of representation as our great grandparents? Just try to get your Representative on the phone, for example. You might be able to reach him if you have a campaign check, but even that's doubtful these days.

Why is this relevant to the conversation? Because $435 million is a drop in the bucket for most companies, while you'll likely never see your Representative in person, let alone sit down with him/her and voice your opinion. The corporations don't care about who or which party gets elected, just so they remember who cut them the million dollar donation.

But imagine if there were 1000 or more Representatives. Now how easy would it be for corps to buy the Congress? Yes, a lot of the activity would just switch over to the Senate, but both houses have to agree to get legislation passed.

Re:The Magic Number 435

[Guy Harris]

the size of congress is spelled out in the constitution moron

Article I, section 2, says:

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the state of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

(with the first sentence updated by section 2 of the 14th Amendment, further updated by the 19th and 26th Amendments), so, if "the number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand", that allows up to about 10,000 Representatives.

The Constitution doesn't explicitly say how many Representatives there should be per person, it just says that number must be less than or equal to 1/30000 of the population, So "The House is supposed to grow (and shrink) with population, yet it has not for nearly 100 years." is not true and the size of Congress is not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution.

Blame for Congress not having grown in size can be laid at the feet of Public Law 62-5.

Vulture Capitalists

[rsilvergun]

Like Bain and the guys that did Hostess in are what's scaring me. Basically guys with money and connections come in, buy a company, and then immediately start raiding the pension funds and paying themselves huge consulting fees from the loans they take out on the business' good name. Then they blame the whole sodding mess on workers making 45k/yr and unions and shut the whole thing down and move it to Mexico where slave labor abounds.
br> These guys are what'll stop innovation. They've got it so good (because they're so damn rich) they don't care about innovation. They become intensely, frighteningly conservative. There what's moved the US so far right these days. They don't want anything to change since they're makin' out like bandits. Hell, they've made progress (as in 'progressive') a bad word...

How is copyright related to innovation?

[wiredlogic]

I don't see the point of this article. It seems to be based on the common conflation of copyright, trademarks, and patents.

Copyright terms have no bearing on innovation. It restricts the creation of unauthorized copies and derivative works to the domain of fair use until the term of the copyright expires. These activities are, by their very nature, not innovative. I fail to see how the continual extension of copyright duration impacts innovation in any way.

Re:How is copyright related to innovation?

[nbauman]

Back in the 1950s, there was a publisher called Dover, that reprinted out-of-print classics, mostly math and science orphan books that science students had to read an hour at a time on reserve in the university library. (There were professors who owned a rare book that nobody else could get, and could give an entire course by paraphrasing from the book.)

Dover was very successful, because there was a great need for these books that the free market wasn't otherwise filling. I read many of their books. I thought that was pretty innovative.

You couldn't do that today. There are important math and science books that are out of print, and nobody can legally reprint them. You might find them in a big academic library, you might be able to buy them on the rare books market for $200, you might be able to find pirated editions, but you can't legally get them when you need them under these copyright laws.

Similarly with the music industry. There was a record publisher called Nonsuch that used to put out cheap records of public domain or uncopyrighted music. (For most of its existence the Soviet Union didn't believe in copyright, and they had some of the best musicians in the world.)

Probably the most innovative thing you could do with out-of-copyright works is to compile them into an anthology. Under the old copyright laws, you could put together a pretty good poetry collection of works that were only 14 or 28 years old without royalties. Now you can't do that. You'd have to wait until 100 years after the death of the author.

Re:water is wet

[thomastheo]

I am sorry to have to tell you that Lincoln never said that.. Although the quote has been around forever, it is not actually attributed to Lincoln, and is a forgery.

It is not just copyright. It is not just law.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Fact1 : Any change will create winners and losers. Be it changes in law, changes in technology, changes in business practices, population, demographics, generally accepted social norms... all changes will create winners and losers.

Fact 2: Most winners will not know they are going to be winners. Most losers can see they are going to be getting the short end of the stick

Fact 3: The losing side will fight tooth and nail to avert it.

When the side that is going to lose is rich and powerful, they employ very powerful techniques to avoid it or postpone it. They will buy out the competitors, engage in collusion, pay the legislators (legally or illegally), spread misinformation, doubt and feat, anything. It is very instructive to read the book by the University of Chicago professor, Dr Raghuram Rajan, Saving Capitalism from the Capitalists

Copyright is one place where we can see the dynamics playing out very clearly and use it as an opportunity to educate the public.

Re:water is wet

[Anonymous Coward]

"Don't be silly, there are no misattributed quotes on the Internet." -- Mark Twain

Lobbying = corruption

[OldSport]

My old econ professor said "in the USA, you call it lobbying. In my country and in others, they call it corruption." We have this culture of just accepting it as part of politics when really it should be strictly outlawed, but obviously the only people who will outlaw it are the cunts being paid to keep it legal. Short of a revolution, we are basically fucked. Not in a catastrophic way, but in a "slow, inexorable slide to the bottom" kind of way.