Slashdot Mirror
Interviews: Ask Derek Khanna About Government Regulations and Technology
Republican staffer Derek Khanna was thrust into the spotlight in December for being fired after submitting a controversial brief titled: Three Myths about Copyright Law and Where to Start to Fix it. In the brief Khanna said: "Current copyright law does not merely distort some markets – rather it destroys entire markets," a view not very popular with Republicans in the House of Representatives. Since the firing, Khanna has continued to speak out on the need for copyright reform and most recently on the law against unlocking cellphones. Derek has graciously agreed to take some time to answer your questions about copyright reform and IP law. As usual, ask as many questions as you'd like, but please, one question per post.
I believe your paper would have been unpopular on both sides of the isle but did the Republican knee jerk reaction to it negatively affect your affinity with the Republican party and your efforts to further their cause? Setting aside your differences on Copyright Law with that party, are you still Republican?
My work here is dung.
Something that's always puzzled me is that the Republican party (more so than the Democrats) appears to value a corporation's rights over the rights of one of their very own constituents. With something like copyright law, it has long been clear that there is a lot of money in lobbying for the corporations and crickets chirping when it comes to defending things like fair use and public domain. In this particular arena, why don't votes outweigh campaign donations? Why hasn't a Republican (or Democrat even) built a platform on these things that benefit society as a whole in order to gain more votes? Is the money that good? Are the effects too concealed?
My work here is dung.
But the "level of backlash it received from the content industry" took him by surprise.
Really? This took you by surprise? If not exactly what occurred, what exactly did you expect to happen? The content industry was just supposed to take it in stride and think that maybe copyright law has moved too far in their favor? I'm not in politics (thank god) and I'm not in the copyright business (praise xenu) but it was as lucid to me as an unmuddied pond that your job was forfeit upon publishing this. I mean, what exactly do you think Hollywood and the RIAA are paying you for if not to keep these kinds of discussions off the table and pass some Mickey Mouse Act 2.0 through the next Sonny Bono puppet?
My work here is dung.
Don't be discouraged by the potential consequences. You work for the American people. It's your job, your obligation to be challenging existing paradigms and put forward novel solutions to existing problems.
So now what? What's your plan? I mean, you can tell them not to be discouraged but that's a pretty hefty weight to put on your own shoulders. Anyone who gets a check from the content industry (and I think that's everyone in DC) is going to blacklist you. Do you see yourself taking a Ralph Nader-like approach to politics? How do you even get your foot back in the door? You do realize that if you don't return or rise to another kind of constituent-focused power that your above encouragement will fall upon deaf ears as you will become the example of what happens to an outspoken staffer?
My work here is dung.
How do we Americans manage to retain any hope for any sort of positive change when people who are paid to identify beneficial reforms get fired for upsetting special interests? Doesn't your case prove that it's impossible to effect reform through the system? Do you belive that Democracy in America still exists, and if so, why?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Sorry, but the recent Corporate Real Estate diagrams for my department's new data center had areas labeled "hot isle" and "cold isle", and somebody ought to get flamed for it.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
The "law against unlocking cellphones" isn't a law - it is a regulation, a rule set by the Librarian of Congress. This is good, because it is probably easier to change than a law, which requires an act of (a very hostile and deadlocked) congress.
I hope this question is not outside the scope of permissible questions, and I apologize if it is.
In this difficult job market, do you know, generally or specifically, who is hiring new lawyers for IP law work? For background, I am a new lawyer, recently admitted in Massachusetts and expecting to be admitted in New York soon. I have a strong coursework background in copyright and trademark law and some knowledge of design patent law, but little knowledge of utility patent law, and I believe I lack the credentials to even sit for the patent bar. Politically, I generally identify myself as independent, but on IP law issues, I tend to lean liberal.
So, your story is, essentially, that you stood up for the American People, did the right thing, and got yourself fired as a result.
Exactly how bad is the situation in D.C., really? Is there any useful purpose to our attempts at participating in democracy, or do lobbyists and special interests completely run the show at this point?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I'm not him, but Hollywood is notoriously left-wing and on the side of the Democrats, so maybe he assumed that Republicans wouldn't be on Hollywood's side as much.
Is there any future legislation that you know of / heard about during your time as a staffer that we, the People, should get a heads-up on? Specifically, anything nefarious regarding things like copyright, patents, digital property and/or privacy, et. al?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
At some point someone besides me is going to start thinking that the plans fed into a 3D printer, to make a useful object, such as might be patented --those plans may be copyright-able. That means there would be an instant disparity between patent lifetimes (17yrs or so, last I heard), and copyright lifetimes (reaching for endlessness). Logically, it might be best if both time spans were the same length, and, to encourage innovative uses, those time spans should be shorter rather than longer. What might you recommend along those lines?
I too would like to see a major overhaul in our patent system, but I wonder what, if any, aspects of the current system do you think are beneficial and worth preserving, or modifying slightly?
i don't know karate, but i know ca-razy
You deal with issues that must really piss you off. I mean, the reason you're famous is that you got fired - not exactly a happy event, and you have to relive it in every interview. How do you deal with that? Have you developed a zen about the situation yet, or are you still angry? How do you deal with the stress and anger? Do you meditate, go running, hit a punching bag, or what?
Everything is better with chainsaws.
Makes perfect sense -- the round-ish hotspot in the room where the servers all sit is the hot isle, and the space surrounding the AC vents on the ceiling is the cold isle.
Oh.
My.
Lord.
You are an idiot.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
whoooooosh!
(A well-designed server room has "aisles", a repurposed closet with a few racks in one spot and an air conditioner in another, with no circulation, has "isles"; thanks for killing the joke)
The United States was founded as Republic, primarily (so it is said) because having individual voices was impossible with the technology of the time. However, we live in an age where the Internet has given us instant communication and access to vast information, where we can relatively securely pass information around, and where especially, we can have every voice heard to write our own bills and laws. Iceland may be small, but they have proven it's more than just a theory. We have open source books, open source software, open encyclopedia, with more 'open' type projects all the time - which have proved immensely successful and very efficient when it comes to money. However, the trend is in the opposite direction, with more power given to lawmakers and large corporations (in the de facto sense at least as contributions are now unlimited, it raises the bar of entry), and congress with it's two main parties, are in a huge poker match. What do you see as the pros and cons against an open-Bill type of system, where the power of the people get a more realistic voice, where the history can be saved for eternity, where the slightest changes can all be remembered using repositories, where anyone can contribute, where it would save multi-millions of dollars in taxes, where multiple types of Bills can be presented and the one the people wish for most receives the most votes? You have represented a party that claims they stand for smaller government, yet it's one that has increased government size as much and many times, more than democrats. Shouldn't such a system be at the forefront of Republican agenda? Or has big business lined the pockets so fat of every member in congress that this is not possible without some type of revolution..?
-Ultimate Stickman Game Developer Infinite World Puzzler
One complaint conservatives about liberals is that they tend to try to outlaw stuff reactively. The EPA comes to mind, forbidding property owners certain uses of their land.
How can government encourage people to do the right thing without outlawing the wrong thing? How can the government "Speak Softly" but keep the "Big Stick" only when absolutely necessary?
With respect to copyrights, could the government tell people it's wrong to let artists starve, while making it easy to justly compensate them for their work?
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
This question is a little broader than just copyright reform, but I'll ask it anyway. Do you have ideas, short of a revolution, on how do the American people can fix the system when the people capable of making change possible are corrupted by corporate lobbyists against any changes? Voting them out isn't even an option because another of the same ilk will just replace the ousted politician.
It just depends WHICH regulations depending on WHICH of their friends they want to benefit.
Maybe it was covered in asphalt. You know, a heat island.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Excuse me sire, did you just imply that the Democratic party is left-wing, or that left-wing people support the Democratic party, or that Hollywood dickheads are actually left-wing?
Derek, I am curious whether the RSC gave any reasons for your dismissal? I guess not, as I imagine your employment was "at will".
Sure, there are abusive copyright monopolies, but there are also starving authors. What concrete proposal do you have to eliminate copyright abuses, while still rewarding individual creativity?
The Republican base is notoriously hostile to the groups represented by the **AA. Most Republicans come from districts where Hollywood and co mean jack to them in terms of jobs and may even be an impediment. They're more likely to hear "what are you doing to rein in the filth from Hollywood" than a MPAA or RIAA-friendly comment from their base.
So really, for someone who was a bit naive it would be a no-brainer to think that a policy proposal along these lines aimed at galvanizing anti-big content voters and tech industry money would be a huge hit with the everyday Republican congresscritter. What he didn't count on was the piece of work from Nashville getting her panties in a knot and the Republican leadership being sufficiently spineless to give her what she wanted instead of telling Nashville to go fuck itself because "this is how we win Silicon Valley, mmmkay?"
Your example copyright term reform (under "Heavily limit the terms for copyright, and create disincentives for renewal") seems only to consider copyright held by corporations. What do you think of separate term limits for copyrights held by individual creators (maybe aligned better with human life expectancy which has greatly increased since 1790) versus those sold by their creator or created as "works for hire"?
Which Rep fired you or had you fired? (Because I am pretty sure she is my Rep).
I had not previously read Derek's policy brief, but I googled for it (RSC link did not load) and was gratified to see that it corresponds to my thinking, per my /. post last week:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, empowers the United States Congress:
"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."
The fact that the Constitution explicitly carves out this Congressional power, implies that there is no inherent right to intellectual "property", equivalent to ownership of tangible property. The aim is to "promote progress..." for the nation as a whole. Any legislation should be calibrated to maximize this benefit to society. This is not the same as maximizing the benefits to the authors and inventors. So the definition of "limited times" should be optimized to this objective of maximum benefit to the nation. Too short, and there is insufficient incentive. Too long, and the benefit to society is lost. I believe current patent and copyright durations are much too long and some objective rigor is needed to find the optimum times. Note that one-size-fits-all is not appropriate, and that different durations may be appropriate for different technologies and industries.
Also, the definition of "writings and discoveries" should be much more narrowly defined. Round or square corners on a phone is no benefit to anyone. Reprinting Shakespeare does not entitle you to copyright.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
Would having the answer to this question really enlighten or benefit us in any way?
Hindsight being on the order of 20/15 or so, would you make the same bold statement, or, knowing the consequences and repercussions, would you be a bit more tactful and attempt to reform the system from within?
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
How do you legally go about overcoming the terms of the Berne Convention?
Why are IP-rights so out of whack? Because all y'all in the US have allowed a political system in which rich, and even richer, folks can buy legislation. In other parts of the world such a thing would be called outright corruption. Not in America, though. You people have legalized corruption.
And i was downright appalled when I first heard the Department of Homeland Security had seized 77 domain names, because of alleged copyright infringment. Yes, that's right, The Department of Homeland Security, created after 9/11, to keep America safe from terrorist attacks! Yep, the very same DHS, grossly abused by none other than Obama, no less (really wish it had been Bush; but alas) for something as banale as protecting the profit margins of the content industry! What is next? Will you deploy the US Army to protect your IP-rights?! The tragic irony, of course, is that a country so focussed on greed would indeed consider copyright infringement an 'attack' on their nation. Holy cow! Can't you people see how insane things have gotten?!
So, my question to you, Mr. Derek Khanna, is whether you think any form of real progress can be made without limiting (or downright outlawing) the buying of legislation? If not, I fear only a full-blown revolution will be able to turn the tide.
Maybe it was covered in asphalt. You know, a heat island.
yes, but whose dumb asphalt was it?