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!
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
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
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
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