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.'"

Comments

It is all that America has left

[Anonymous Coward]

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."

Re:It is all that America has left

[Znork]

IP is ultimately a form of taxation and redistribution and as such it contributes to the general cost level of the economy. Saying that IPR is needed because the jobs are the only ones that don't get outsourced to cheaper countries is equivalent to saying that we need higher taxes to pay for government jobs that are the only ones that don't get oursourced.

IPR simply makes an economy less competitive and is part of the reason why everything is too expensive to do in the west.

And frankly I can't see any reason why blockbuster couldn't trivially be outsourced. The script for most films could probably be written by, eh, a script. Effects can certianly be done anywhere and I really doubt actors will last beyond the decade before they start getting replaced by rendered versions.

Re:It is all that America has left

[rossdee]

Next they will be saying you can't make a Hollywood blockbuster in New Zealand

No Hope, No Change

[haruchai]

looks like the RIAA / MPAA is, once again, stepping up their game

Re:No Hope, No Change

[_xeno_]

Bingo. I was hoping that, even after seeing "(D-CA)", this would be someone talking about making IP laws sane.

Nope.

This is all about "strengthening" them because they're "ineffective."

Really all you need to know is this bit from Rep. Chu's own press release:

The motion picture industry has a strong economic presence in Rep. Chu's current district. According to the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), $437 million is paid by their member studios to local businesses, and almost 140,000 jobs are in direct film and television in Los Angeles County.

Re:No Hope, No Change

[AlphaWolf_HK]

True, but the voters are the ones to blame for this. Lobbyists can promote candidates, but they can't vote for them.

I want to stress, by the way, that this isn't a republican or democrat thing and I'd hope to nip those blame games in the bud. The problem here is people not bothering to look at who they vote for. Among things that people vote for are this: whether it's a D or an R next to their name, whether or not their friends are voting for them, whether or not they like their appearance, or most recently the color of their skin (seriously, my sister voted for no reason other than she thought it would be good to have a black president.)

If any of you have ever seen v for vendetta, he paints equal blame for an oppressive government on the citizens themselves. And that is exactly the thing - we're basically reaping what we've sown. And please, for gods sakes, don't go around telling people who they should vote for either. Tell them to either think for themselves about what they are voting for, or else do everybody else a favor and don't vote at all.

If you want proof of this, just read slashdot. Not the articles, but the comments. It's pretty hard to find a liberal that is in favor of gun control, yet still they vote in droves for politicians who are in favor of gun control. It's hard to find a conservative that is in favor of big government, yet they still vote in droves for politicians that are in favor of big government. Quit voting for the god damn letter, and always second guess those advertisements that e.g. say Joe the politician voted against education funding when in reality the bill he voted against was aimed at something else entirely, but had education as an earmark.

Re:No Hope, No Change

[SuricouRaven]

They are ineffective. And the only way to make them effective in the age of the internet is to make them draconian. You can't hope to enforce a law against a crime so trivial to commit and commonplace if you need to worry about things like proof, verified evidence, a fair hearing or all the other things usually seen as legal rights. Just like you can't hope to stop people shareing memory sticks full of music with their friends unless you ban the technology to make those copies, or at least impose a penalty far out of proportion so you can ruin a few lives as examples to the rest of the population. That is the price of effective copyright, and I'm not willing to pay it.

Re:No Hope, No Change

[KiloByte]

I was hoping that, even after seeing "(D-CA)", this would be someone talking about making IP laws sane.

You got party affiliation wrong. It's Democrites who suck on MAFIAA's teat more. Repugnicants prefer big oil and military contractors; both parties are all-out whores to big finance.

But really, the difference between these two parties is pretty cosmetic.

Re:No Hope, No Change

[dkleinsc]

I want to stress, by the way, that this isn't a republican or democrat thing and I'd hope to nip those blame games in the bud.

Absolutely, it's not a Democrat thing nor a Republican thing. What it is is an entrenched corruption thing. For instance, a freshman congressman can show up bright-eyed and bushy-tailed for their first session, ready to debate the issues of the day, and will promptly find out that their own party leadership (who controls the agenda) will ignore them unless they raise $5 million for the party's congressional campaign fund. If they don't play the game, they don't get any kind of serious say in what's going on, and are doomed to life as a backbencher who's bills never make it into a committee hearing, much less a floor vote, and all the federal pork will move out of their district (creating unemployment), until they either give up and decide not to run again, or play ball.

That's the game in Washington, and everyone is playing it, except possibly Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Angus King (I-ME). For those of you wondering why I left out Joe Lieberman (I-CT), it's because he may be nominally independent, but he's a major fundraiser for the Democrats, so they protect him from even the primary voters from Connecticut.

I love good music

[balsy2001]

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.

Re:And who will represent the people?

[White Flame]

And what caucus will promote the Public Domain?

Re:And who will represent the people?

[flyneye]

Meanwhile, the people are educated by the people who are vastly not fooled.
Unfortunately, these are the same people who also know the corruption of government, the lies of the media, that taxes buy votes, that marijuana is safe,that guns don't kill people, that doctors do kill people, the lottery is an idiot tax, the war is over corporate interests, black is not white, etc...

          But , it just doesn't matter, because the government will always tip to those who fill their individual retirement funds and promote their continued office.

          Tired of voting Repubmocrat tyranny yet or do we vote for business as usual next time? Are you one of the educated or just another drone that is part of the problem?

The very term "intellectual property" is misguided

[cjonslashdot]

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.

Corporate interests

[EmperorOfCanada]

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.

Howard Coble: Copyright Term Extension is Good

[jrincayc]

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 )

Re:Howard Coble: Copyright Term Extension is Good

[Dachannien]

Coble is well-known as Public Enemy #3 when it comes to copyright, with Mary Bono Mack being #2 and Howard Berman at #1. Fortunately for us, Mack and Berman both lost during the last election, but Coble is still a very dangerous man in this regard.

We can only hope that Zoe Lofgren will start a caucus in support of the rights of the public.

I think people are misunderstanding the purpose

[mark_reh]

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.

Re:And who will represent the people?

[Stormthirst]

Whilst I agree with your sentiments, the Democrats aren't really any much better. After all, which president was it that started killing Americans unconstitutionally? Oh yes, that would be a Democrat. At least the Democrats *say* they want to return to a slightly more reasonable tax regime in order to try and balance the books.

Indeed, keeping it on topic with the story, isn't Judy Chu a Democrat? Do you really think this Congressional Creative Rights Caucus will do anything to protect the other half of the Intellectual Property rights - the Public Domain? I seriously doubt it.

Educating Chu & Coble: Lesson 1

[cmholm]

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?

Be Serious

[IBitOBear]

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?