Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Reps Chu and Coble Start Intellectual Property Caucus
cervesaebraciator writes "U.S. Representative Judy Chu (D-CA) will be starting a new caucus with the ostensible purpose of protecting the intellectual property rights of filmmakers, musicians and other artists. The new caucus, styled the Congressional Creative Rights Caucus, will be formed along with Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC). Chu's office released a statement, including the following: 'American innovation hinges on creativity – it is what allows our kids to dream big and our artists to create works that inspire us all. The jobs that result are thanks entirely to our willingness to foster creative talent, and an environment where it can thrive and prosper. [...] The Congressional Creative Rights Caucus will serve to educate Members of Congress and the general public about the importance of preserving and protecting the rights of the creative community in the U.S. American creators of motion pictures, music, software and other creative works rely on Congress to protect their copyrights, human rights, First Amendment rights and property rights.'"
The corporations?
Eat a dick liars!
With the outsourcing of jobs and the cheap labour of Asia/India replacing the manufacturing sector in the USA, what does it have left to export or create jobs with?
You can't make a Hollywood blockbuster in China or India or South Africa, you can't outsource new music to India...
But make no mistake about it, the word "preserve" here is code for "never allow into public domain."
looks like the RIAA / MPAA is, once again, stepping up their game
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
And good films. However, it is only possible to make money on those when people in other industries are employed and have disposable income. These jobs are secondary effects of others having money to spend on them. It is maslow's hierarchy of needs, if everyone else is broke they can't and won't buy the media. Some will turn to piracy and some will just do without. You can't create jobs or support an economy with a circle of media industry workers buying each others stuff. By necessity there needs to be other people involved. If the law makers wanted to help, they would work on improving the economy. With more disposable income in the hands of the masses, media sales would increase. If the media industry wanted to help they could improve the quality of their product and/or lower prices (I feel like there is not nearly as many good movies any more, but maybe it is just because I am getting older). While "strengthening" the IP protections of artists may prevent some people from pirating media, I don't think this is the big problem. I'm not sure I know any adults in the work force that pirate stuff. Most just buy the things that they think are worth the price and don't bother with the other stuff.
GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
"American innovation hinges on creativity â" it is what allows our kids to dream big ..."
- and then pay royalties on those dreams. We can't let them kids steal those dreams. Think of the children!
Sorry, I'm over it and past it. Do I still directly contribute to the individual artist or inventor if I can? Yes.
Do I respect the patents, copyrights, and trademarks of large corporations? Well, not any more.
My property rights when I've bought a movie?
No, apparently you're fighting to remove my property rights.
My First Ammendment when it comes to saying what I've heard?
No, apparently you're fighting to remove my First Ammendment rights.
Nowhere in the US Constitution does it equate protections of rights pertaining to intellectual works as "property".
The term "property" implies that it can be sold, that it can be inherited, that it can be owned - and owned by non-persons at that. Nowhere does the Constitution say these things, nor does it even use the term "property" in this context.
Rather, it says that Congress shall have the power "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." And that is all it says on the matter.
Note that it says "Authors and Inventors". It does not say businesses: if it had meant to include businesses, it would have said so, but the Constitution starts out with "We the People", and it is about the rights of people and the powers and limitations of government over those people (much less corporations or unions, which are not people: a group of persons is not a person any more than a human body is a cell). And note that the Constitution uses the term "exclusive Right": it does not use the term "property". A right is akin to a lease. It is not ownership of the object in question. Thus, in the term "intellectual property", the "property" is merely a lease of sorts granted to Authors and Inventors (people) - for a limited time. That does not automatically imply inheritance to me, nor does it automatically imply that it can be bought and sold as we assume that property can: those are extrapolations of the "rights" intended and we should question those extrapolations and not take them for granted: do they actually promote science and the useful arts? I therefore think that the term "intellectual property" implies extrapolations that might not have been intended.
Copyright and patent law (these terms are also not in the Constitution) have made huge leaps beyond what the Constitution intended. That is why we are off track.
Do they realize that 99% of theses rules that corporations want will hurt artists, creators, etc. The record companies want to bring back the days where they can sell a million records and the band hardly gets enough money to buy a new van.
A great but typical example of this would be the guy who wrote the book, "Nature of Code"(great book) he now gives people the option of buying his book online for a price you choose ranging from 0-10 dollars. Other than the transaction fee he gets 100% of the money resulting in his getting up to triple as much as he did when his previous book sold through a traditional publisher while the consumer gets it for 1/5th as much.
I don't see any need to protect the traditional publisher one iota. If any new laws are needed they should be there to protect the little guy from the traditional publisher. But in this day of big money politics politicians aren't there anymore for the voter. If anything they seem annoyed when voters get their own act together and boot them out.
American innovation hinges on creativity
so let's do everything we can to stifle it.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
Howard Coble stated that the Copyright Term Extension act (which retroactively extended copyright's terms by 20 years) was good for consumers: "It is also good for consumers. When works are protected by copyright, they attract investors who can exploit the work for profit. That, in turn, brings the work to the consumer who may enjoy it at a movie theater, at a home, in a car, or in a retail establishment. Without that exploitation, a work may lie dormant, never to be discovered or enjoyed." (Congressional Record, Volume 144, 1998, H1458 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/citation.result.CREC.action?congressionalRecord.volume=144&congressionalRecord.pagePrefix=H&congressionalRecord.pageNumber=1458&publication=CREC )
of setting up and announcing a task force of this type.
Right now, the MPAA, RIAA, and other organizations that represent artists have a difficult time figuring out to whom they should make political donations in order to protect artists' rights. 450+ representatives and 100 senators- that means a lot of money has to be spread far and wide in order to have the desired outcome. By forming and announcing the existence of a group dedicated specifically to protecting artists' rights, this group of senators has provided a focal point for the flow of donations, easing the burden on contributing organizations and leaving more money for the artists whose works are going to be protected.
The representatives should be applauded for their efforts to ensure that artists rights are protected and that there will be more money for those artists now that the lobbying groups will have to spend less to acquire that protection.
As long as the U.S. provides for the time tested tried and proven methods of letting people freely experiment with building on existing ideas and technology it will be just fine. Woe be the day though when artists and inventors have a say in which direction the next generations creator's choose to take their ideas, for that will be the death of innovation in this nation.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Hey, Chu and Coble: Fuck you and the horse you rod in on.
All that needs to be said.
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
Disney
"So don't get programmed by anybody but yourself" --Bill S. Preston, Esquire
It would be perverse indeed to assume that the founders intended a system where every copyright holder would have to own a publishing company. Because that is exactly what you are proposing.
It was certainly NOT true under English law that this was the case, and there is no evidence that such was the intent of the founders to require this.
The existing process in English law included the sale of the copyright to publishers, and in fact this process was encouraged by people like John Locke when the reform of Licensing led to the Statute of Anne.
Yeah, but corporations are people don't-ya-know
The simple answer: Because it's cheaper than producing something new
The more complex answer: Because there's a finite number of stories to be written. The plots seem the same, because on their most basic level, they are the same.
Wow! This is what we needed. I'm so GLAD Congress has finally come to its senses and organized to protect the rights of a minority which has been so shortchanged and hard pressed. Next we really badly need a lobby for mega-yacht owners, they get such a raw deal.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
Before Chu and Coble get too far into this propaganda exercise, they should educate themselves about the background for the culture they're presuming knowledge of:
If the terms of the Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) of 1998 were instead enacted in - say - 1920, a good portion of our current legacy of movies and music likely would not exist. Example: Walt Disney & company borrowed liberally from the works of the Brothers Grimm. If the brothers' estate had retained rights, would Walt been able to afford it? If the Grimm tales had become orphan works, with the rights holders unknown, would Walt have been able to proceed at all?
Luke, help me take this mask off
Sounds like our Congress has already been retrained to believe that copyright violations are a criminal matter to be prosecuted by the government rather than a civil disagreement to be adjudicated between private parties.
Yeah, I'm being obvious. But it got me thinking: What civil matters are the next to become criminal through lobbying by corporations?
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
MPAA, RIAA are just going to keep beating this dead horse and people are going to keep walking away from them. I've already stopped going to most movies, buying music that isn't indie and good and cut the cable cord. I'm not the only one.
I see music in particular heading in a new direction. Bands will become more popular via places like Youtube, etc and then use a kickstarter like site to raise funds to record an actual album. Touring live shows will bring in income and the music will be pretty much given away freely. Fans can continue to give money between albums via patronage sites. Bands who do well will get a lot of contributions via fans to their album kickstarters. Crap bands will not get backed and will die out. People in the music industry will be expected to work like any small business paying their own taxes and putting aside funds for their retirement. No more free ride on a single hit. People who do music for the love of it will flourish here. People just wanting to hump the system for fame and fortune will not do so well.
Movies may head this way too with people joining kickstarters set up by well liked producers and directors. Giving x amount gets you a free ticket at any theater in the country, giving more might get you goodies like posters, toys, signed memorabilia, or even your name in the credits for major contributors. Once the movie goes out, people will share it but fans can patronize via donations if they liked it. Same rules apply as to music as for retirement planning, etc. Those who get it and do good work will still go far and do well. Those who just pump out crap and want to milk it forever will go nowhere.
And yet we live in a world where every artist / writer / collective CAN have their own publishing company and it is trivial to set up. The cost of distribution is nearly zero, the cost of transaction is the same as any business and again trivial. The cost of marketing is probably the biggest expense and time consumer.
Creative people don't need publishers, they just need good PR. They don't need to sell their copyrights for that. There is no need to allow businesses to own copyrights.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Posting as AC because I've forgotten my password.
I've been partaking in copyright legislation discussions on a sound engineering forum called Gearslutz. One opinion that seems to be spread with a considerably large amount of people on that board is the idea that copyright legislation is constantly on retreat and that the music industry is being bullied by masses of lobbyists from the tech-industry (Microsoft, Google, Apple) weakening copyright legislation and filling their own pockets with money made from piracy.
It's supposedly a grand conspiracy where copyright is under heavy assault and the just might of the media companies isn't enough to stop it.
yays for corruption!
Indeed. The only information this story conveys is who got the latest cheque cut by the MafiAA. Surprising for the open-ness, I must say. It's not often you see confessions writ so large and so publicly. SOP; do it the stupidest way possible, stick your fingers in your ears, damn the torpedos, and sing "Lalalalalala ..." as loudly as you can. Dummies.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
Tar and Feathers.
That this is probably not about protecting the rights of artists, but extending the rights of corporations over the people. Next up, music copyrights taken over by companies because it is produced as work for hire, extension of copyright terms for "limited times" of 999 years, overrides to laws of first sale, increased use of trade marks to block copyright expiry etc.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
This looks like the first salvo in the upcoming "Mickey's Law" that is expected when the copyright on Mickey Mouse again comes up for expiration (2018, I think). 5 years is about the right time-frame for the caucus to establish itself and starting putting out "studies" showing how beneficial extended copyright is.
Meanwhile, it's a nice big sign to the world saying "Hey Hollywood and patent trolls, we want your money!"
We are the 198 proof..
> No ownership required. The copyright holder would simply hire a publisher to print his works and pay them their fee, he would then be free to sell his works for whatever he could get for them. If he is popular enough he gets rich, if his works suck he goes out of business. That's the American way.
That still forces the author to put down his typewriter and run a distributions and sales enterprise. Sorry, but it's not acceptable to force this sort of structure.
When the Constitution was put into force the Statute of Anne had been in place for something like 80 years, and authors selling copyright along with their manuscript was well established. The idea that the Founders anticipated a system where these rights could not be sold is preposterous.
> And yet we live in a world where every artist / writer / collective CAN have their own publishing company and it is trivial to set up.
Sure, they can do that, which is a really cool thing. However back in 1787 the problems of being a publisher were much more severe. Ben Franklin had all kinds of issues publishing his periodicals, including such basic things like there being an extremely limited supply of paper in the US. The history of RittenhouseTown is pretty interesting if you are interested.
And can is NOT the same as SHOULD. Authors aren't necessarily interested in being publishers. It is said that the really good writers write because they MUST write. Is it reasonable public policy to force them to be publishers as well?
It think the idea is ridiculous.
I think this is a great idea. Makes it really easy and really transparent for voters to identify these people.
And since I think you are being ironic, I think you will agree that that is part of the point I am making. The Constitution is about the powers of government over people, and the rights of people. Nowhere does it say "business" or "corporation". (I believe that corporations of sorts did exist at that time, especially in Europe, although US corporate law was still someone non-existent I believe but I could be wrong.) Regardless, the assumption that the Constitution's provision "...securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings..." is about anything other than people is an extrapolation and should be subject to question.
I agree. This is why when I submitted the article I put the term "intellectual property" in quotes. This did not survive the editorial process but I suppose one can't complain. We are, whether we like it or not, compelled to use this dreadful term if for no other reason than to identify it as a problematic concept. "(Thus the age perfects its clench.)"
My favorite thing about the press release, however, was the name of the caucus. "Creative Rights". Who can argue with creative rights? Rights is a trump card in American rhetoric, a 'God term' as Richard Weaver would have it. To deny rights is to be at once oppressive and regressive. And 'creative' carries with it a long list of positive connotations. I expect we'll see more talk of creative rights as 'intellectual property' is increasingly perceived as negative, stuffy, and oppressive.
Fuck You.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
> It would be perverse indeed to assume that the founders intended a system where every copyright holder would have to own a publishing company. Because that is exactly what you are proposing.
That's pretty much the way it was in 1776.
Publishing was much more decentralized then. You didn't have a cartel of gatekeepers deciding what would get published. Business entities in general were much smaller.
The idea that some variation on the British East India Company would control the creation of art or invention would likely have horrified the founders.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Your idea of what the regime should be is pretty irrelevant. The US has one justificatoin that legally allows them to enforce the notion of a copyright. Does it increase creatitivty? If not then all of your crowing is irrelevant.
Despite the fact that some of the Supremes mirror your ideology, the laws of the United States don't exist to make sure that corporations can make money don't particular things.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
No. It's percieved as less risky than something new.
The beancounters want a "sure thing".
The idea that art as a business requires risk is just not something they can handle. This is why corporate mergers are so problematic. You end up with large entities comparable to large governments. They don't really have a good sense of direction beyond immediate self preservation and petty self enrichment.
That's the value of a founder like Gates or Jobs. They give the beast a soul and some direction.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Nowhere in the US Constitution does it equate protections of rights pertaining to intellectual works as "property".
There is a LOT of things the Constitution does not enumerate or spell out or define. That doesn't mean much.
As you point out the Constitution offers Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right... And there is an implication that the Author and Inventor can transfer that right, otherwise what is the point of having an exclusive right? Note that it also refers to Authors and Inventors, it doesn't refer to people or corporations or groups, or anything. Just "Author" and "Inventor."
This "represetation of the artists" will be the DRM and studios... I get your point about the public domain, but who is going to represent the _actual_ artists and other creatives?
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
aww crap, now i had to read the linked story and press release. They make it sound like they're starting a lobbying firm. I didn't think they'd be that blatant. I just assumed it'd all be implied.
On a funnier note, isn't it great how they used the word craftsmanship along side intellectual property.
Therefore it is good by definition.
'chrismcb', you wrote, "Note that it also refers to Authors and Inventors, it doesn't refer to people or corporations or groups, or anything. Just 'Author' and 'Inventor.' "
But the Constitution starts out with "We the People..."
I think that if we continue down the road of imputing personhood to every kind of grouping of persons, then we are in big trouble; and I think that if we continue down the road of conferring the rights that people have to every kind of grouping of persons, then we are in even bigger trouble.
A group of persons is not a person, just as a pack of wolves is not a wolf, a computer is not a transistor, and a brain is not a nerve cell. A group of persons has emergent properties that make is substantially different from an individual person. A person has a conscience, but large a group of thousands of persons does not. A person can put their own self interest aside and think of the greater good, but it is very unusual for a group to do that. If one were to anthropomorphize a group of persons, the group could usually be characterized as selfish and unfeeling - the characteristics of a sociopath.
Do we want the protections of the Constitution to automatically extend to such things, without some careful consideration?