Slashdot Mirror
House Judiciary Chairman Plans Comprehensive Review of US Copyright Law
SEWilco writes in with news that U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte plans on conducting "...a comprehensive review of US copyright law over the coming months.""In a speech given in celebration of World Intellectual Property Day at the Library of Congress today, Goodlatte mentioned a few examples of the sorts of problems that he hopes to address in such a review: 'The Internet has enabled copyright owners to make available their works to consumers around the world, but has also enabled others to do so without any compensation for copyright owners. Efforts to digitize our history so that all have access to it face questions about copyright ownership by those who are hard, if not impossible, to locate. There are concerns about statutory license and damage mechanisms. Federal judges are forced to make decisions using laws that are difficult to apply today. Even the Copyright Office itself faces challenges in meeting the growing needs of its customers - the American public.'"
Do you really think that the end result will be better, and not worse?
We need to do the copyright law what we did for patents. What is wrong with enforcing the laws we have?
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Like, information should be like free and stuff! Hey bud, let's party!
need to fix abandonware and older versions of software that are no longer sold (maybe limit that to vers needed for old hardware / os's)
I was looking for a older ver of this software and they where not selling it and there e-mails said that there older vers that where not up to our standards and also said it's not legal to just download the older ones they are not selling (but they ones they are selling don't work on the older hardware / os's)
"The calls are coming from inside your house!"
"Congress is looking into this issue."
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
But the wording concerns me and implies that they are looking to extend copyright instead of cut it back
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
No one thinks our government will produce anything but a set of reforms that benefit institutions of power.
Copyright in the digital age is ridiculous and unenforceable, but the same technology that troubles copyright nowadays has largely removed the disadvantages of patronage, as crowdfunding is becoming popular, why not just go back to patronage? it's not a tax on the public and it's a correct way of paying for the actual effort of producing media.
I'd happily pay $100 for a certain movie -- but the copyright owner won't sell! BigCorpInc has decided there isn't enough profit to be made so they won't make it available. But a core of diehard fans has been trying to track down remaining copies. I've had a worldwide ebay search running for years now and zero hits. A few copies are known to exist in the private collections of actors who were in the film -- but they don't want trouble from a potential future employer, so they won't make "illegal" copies for us fans.
Once the copyright owner no longer offers the product for sale, the law should allow fans to distribute copies for free. The owner is essentially saying "I can't figure out how to distribute this." Well, we can. So get in gear or get out of the way. It's not costing you lost sales when you refuse to sell.
This comming from a nation thatbuilt itself on stolen ip.
If your write it down and it's an original work you own it! If you create it as an original work you own it! If it in anyway is a copy of someone else's work you owe them.
......Pretty simple review
Mickey's copright will expire in 2018. They are going to get at it early this time.
The only way we can stop this is to go after Disney shareholders.
That's the issue.
I think most users of copyrighted works think copyright law has been broadened *WAY* too much, like ever-lengthening (effectively indefinite) copyright terms and making it technically illegal to circumvent DRM even for otherwise legitimate fair use. The DMCA made a perverse wreck out of copyright law, with all sorts of pathological side-effects. Yet even with the huge expansion over the last century through revision after revision, copyright holders still want more. They are afraid of the way technology has made copying easy? Fair enough. There's certainly some rationalization that needs to be done here, but are legislators going to respect the balance of public interest that is supposed to exist in copyright law, and that has been there since its inception? If they're only going to address copyright holder's concerns to hold onto stuff forever, and parade a slew of Hollywood copyright maximalists in front of the panel to appeal for insanely lengthier copyright terms, then this review is useless. What will be the point if the complaints of regular users and the demands of the broader public are ignored?
Basically, are you finally going to tell Disney "Screw off. We don't care how much money you put in our campaigns, you've made enough money off Mickey. It's expiring to the public domain on schedule. The debt to the public domain is due. Be happy you still get to use Mickey as a trademark." If not, then you can stuff your review.
In a sane world, "a comprehensive review of copyright law" would lead to cutting copyright terms back drastically. Something on the order of 14 years plus an optional, one-time 14 year extension. This would take care of abandoned works (after 14 or 28 years they'd be public domain) and would enable us to simplify copyright law. A sane world would also set different penalties for "non-commercial infringement" (you shared that movie on a P2P network for free) and "commercial infringement" (you burned that movie to a few dozen DVD discs and sold them for $5 each).
Of course, I don't think we live in a sane world. Instead, I'm sure we'll see proposals helpfully "guided" by the content industry. Perhaps terms will be lengthened. Maybe penalties will rise. Perhaps more criminal penalties will be enacted and law enforcement will be forced to take a bigger role in arresting individuals whose crime was installing a P2P program that shared out music files on their computer. (Because, you know, law enforcement has nothing better to do than help the RIAA/MPAA enforce their business model.)
I *really* hope that sanity will prevail, but I'm not holding my breath.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
also stuff that has no owner any more / a unknown owner
That's what this sounds like based on the language...
" 'The Internet has enabled copyright owners to make available their works to consumers around the world, but has also enabled others to do so without any compensation for copyright owners"
I think we all know where this is going. Total extinction of any notion of "fair use" so that every image you ever did a right click-->save to file on will be an independent criminal act punishable by not more than 5 years in jail and a $50,000 fine.
Let me tell you what this industry fears the most. Let me tell you what makes the execs in this industry shit their pants and drink too much after work. The idea that you will chose to do something else with your time. The notion that you will choose to spend the half million of so waking hours you have over the course of your life doing something else.
If they can't get those away from you because your attention was directed elsewhere, doing something more engaging, then they're fucked. You want one of my precious hours to look at your Desperate Housewives / Jarhead crap ? You should be so lucky.
I used to just think that people who did mass downloading when they *could* have bought the stuff were total assholes who would just cheat any and all the systems of civil society which make things tolerable for everyone. I still sort of think that, but what I don't think is this represents a good application of our justice system and my tax dollars -
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/18/downloading-case-cant-pay/1997127/
What I think is this is a sado-system designed to turn even the meekest and most law abiding of our citizens, the ones that get up every morning to got to their underpaid , dead end jobs just to keep their noses and their children's noses slightly above water, into criminals.
This is a system run by the financial elite solely for their benefit . Elites whose mega-crimes go completely unpunished no matter how globally catastrophic their effects and how many people's lives are completely destroyed by their criminal actions. This is a system whose prosecutors look and look at those crimes but can't find anything but reasonable doubt, while the ordinary citizen can be assured they will be punished beyond any definition of reason and beyond all any definition justice for the even the meekest and most innocuous of infractions.
To the publishing houses and record companies and entertainment business and especially to Mickey Mouse and all the diseased and dysfunctional special interest politics he has come to represent to my generation I say this- we're going to take yoru out. We're going to decimate your industry and leave you with nothing- no customers, no interest, no money, and no power.
There's exactly nothing you can do to stop it, counter it, co-opt it or benefit from it. The future in no way includes you irrespective of how broadly you interpret the word "includes". You're all walking dead men, grotesque corpses staggering around, wailing for blood but finding none.
My republican senators act like they represent Los Angeles rather than the red state that actually elected them.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Not a sign it's moving in the best direction.
Once we get CISPA in place we can go after all of those freeloaders. And we'll need better laws so that they don't get off easy. Way to go House Judiciary.. you're doing God's work man.
I think the majority of Los Angeles would disagree with you on that one.
We've found some loop holes which entities like Droid TV are taking advantage of. And some recent court decisions did not side in favor with copyright holders.
So we're planning and discussing new legislation to fuck over the common people.
Apologies, but English is not my first language. Does that mean that he wants to change it so normal, sane people (as opposed to, say, copyright lawyers) can comprehend it?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Durka Durka sums up our government pretty good IMHO.
"Do as we say don't do as we do", in other words, business as usual.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The Internet has enabled copyright owners to make available their works to consumers around the world, but has also enabled others to do so without any compensation for copyright owners.
First, the Internet has enabled copyright owners to ignore consumers around the world and keep their works from being made available. Fixed that for you.
Second, copyright has met the reality of bits and bytes. "Copy" has been a command on every operating system for the past 30 years. There is no possible way to keep people from copying your work. No make-believe right, outrageous statutory damages, or criminal charges will prevent this from happening... ever.
Third, statutory damages are absurd when the marginal cost of creating copies is free. No one is hurt by copying.
"Even the Copyright Office itself faces challenges in meeting the growing needs of its customers - the American public."
Comical.
Since when is the "American public" considered the customers being served by the Copyright Office. Methinks there is a much more narrow description of the customers served by the Copyright Office. But, hey, it reads a lot better when you the widest description possible.
If by some miracle the copyright terms get shortened and abandoned works enter the public domain sooner, then we win.
What's more likely to happen is that they'll make the copyright laws even more restrictive with longer terms bigger fines for infringement, etc. Go down this road far enough and the common folk will start to feel pressure from the jackboot at their throat and actually do something about it.
In other words: Either they make it worse, and who gives a crap -- it really can't get much worse than it is right now, or it gets a bit better.
IMO, I'd rather have copyright laws get a lot worse and eventually force a drastic change than have some piddling teeter-totter back and forth to stay just under the amount of crap the public will put up with -- Which is what's actually happening here.
The best part is that they get to look busy and then, several months later, announce that they ultimately accomplished nothing or came up with new copyright restrictions. Why? International treaties (which the USTR wrote). We can't legally back down from our own internal copyright laws because we have them codified into international law.
3. Property tax must be paid on IP.
Sounds great in theory but in reality it is usually very difficult to do. You really can only tax a work if you can objectively value the patent or copyright. If the intangible property hasn't been sold or licensed it is usually nearly impossible to value it and many have limited market value by themselves. Without some sort of objective valuation you can't tax it in any way that makes sense. Things are only worth what others are willing to pay for them. If no one has ever bought it, you can't really say what it is worth. Might be zero or might be many millions or somewhere in between. Lots and lots of intangible property falls into this valuation grey zone. It's just really hard to say what it is worth.
Furthermore if a company does buy a piece of IP, they will have an asset on their balance sheet (which is amortized) and the may have goodwill (amount paid above market value) as well. This can have tax consequences so in many cases companies already do pay tax on IP they acquire.
If I create a work, it has no inherent value out of the gate. If a major corporation comes along and sees it and figures that it's worth $5 million to them, they could easily lowball me and offer $1 million. Since my work now has a publicly known value, I owe taxes that I can't possibly afford. Now I'm forced to sell my work to a company who can easily make more for it.
An offer to buy does not mean it is worth what is being offered unless you agree to the price. No sale = no objective valuation. You could offer me $2 for my DVD of Batman begins but that doesn't mean I will sell it to you for that amount or that it is worth that much in the broader market place. While there are taxes on assets they are not based on prices thrown out during negotiations.
Here's my summary of what's frustrating about American politics:
Overall, Republicans represent most of my interests better than the Democrats, but dear lord can they be horrifyingly stupid and clueless on other issues, copyright and technology in general being big ones.
If you can't convince them, convict them.
Democrats are owned by the entertainment industry, so you know anything coming from that side of the fence will be to protect those dinosaurs' business models at the expense of the public.
you can be absolutely certain that it will
1. Benefit comapaign-contributor busnesses.
2. Cost consumers money.
3. Result in uneven, draconian enforcement.
4. Require a bigger burocracy to implement (3).
.
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
And of course a bit more on the religious fanatic side, abortions etc. Universal healthcare doesn't seem to be in their agenda either.
None of us know everything. Therefore we're all naïve.
Other real property ideas that should be instituted:
1) Abandonment laws. Don't keep the IP fresh? Lose it.
2) Squatters rights. Let someone else keep the IP worthwhile and then, when money has been made and time has passed, demand all the money and more.
3) Public right of way. What people have been able to do for 20 years, they must continue to be allowed to do.
No, what he means is that if you've "released" a work commercially, you get copyrights, but the responsibility for being the only one allowed to make copies is you MUST make copies when requested.
So when Jay-Z stops making the album of 10 songs, someone can say "Hey, make me a copy, here's your $15" and if he refuses, then it's public domain and they can go to anyone and ask for a copy.
U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte plans on conducting "...a comprehensive review of US copyright law over the coming months."
Guess he needs some money. Who knows where it will suddenly spring up from? Oh, my! The suspense!!
Media corporations and publishers have been fighting "fair use" since it originated, and have systematically eroded it. But they want to get rid of the concept altogether.
And publishers went ballistic over the mandate that reports in scholarly journals pertaining to federally funded medical research must be made available free of charge to the public within one year after publication. The threat that the mandate will be broadened to include all federally-funded (non-classified) research is making them even crazier. They are looking for any avenue possible to reverse the open access mandate to protect their profits ... er, copyrighted content.
What better way than to buy politicians and revamp the copyright law?
Hopefully they'll get rid of this "I.P." nonsense.