18 posts in this topic

Posted

Right after the Presidential election last week, Chris Sprigman and Kal Raustiala penned an opinion piece suggesting that one way the Republicans could "reset", and actually attract the youth vote, would be to become the party of copyright reform. We had actually wondered if that was going to happen back during the SOPA fight, when it was the Republicans who bailed on the bill, while most of those who kept supporting it were Democrats. Since then, however, there hadn't been much movement. Until now. Late on Friday, the Republican Study Committee, which is the caucus for the House Republicans, released an amazing document debunking various myths about copyright law and suggesting key reforms.

If you're used to Congress not understanding copyright, prepare to be surprised. It's clear, thorough and detailed about just how problematic copyright has become and why it needs to change. To give you a sense of where the document heads, note the final line:

There is a lot in this document, and we can't go through it all, but I highly recommend reading through it. The three "myths" it attacks are:

[*]That the purpose of copyright is to compensate the creator. No, it correctly notes, it's about benefiting the public

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Oh Christ not this again - grasping at straws to attract the 'young vote'. The formula is simple; economically free market and socially liberal: take as little from my wallet possible and keep out of my bedroom. Yes the copyright laws need reforming but it seems that the Republicans are looking for some sort of silverbullet rather than genuinely reflecting on what actually transpired on election day.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Copy rights should protect the people who spent time and money in R&D or created something original so they can be rewarded and inspire people to do the same next time not just do something similar

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Oh Christ not this again - grasping at straws to attract the 'young vote'. The formula is simple; economically free market and socially liberal: take as little from my wallet possible and keep out of my bedroom. Yes the copyright laws need reforming but it seems that the Republicans are looking for some sort of silverbullet rather than genuinely reflecting on what actually transpired on election day.

How are they not? Obama won by a margin of roughly 3 million votes, many of those young people who might be swayed by a policy change such as this.

Copy rights should protect the people who spent time and money in R&D or created something original so they can be rewarded and inspire people to do the same next time not just do something similar

Except, as noted, that is the exact opposite of the original intent of the copyright laws in place in our constitution. Some how, over the years, "for limited times" has come to be interpreted as "the lifetime of the author + 70 years". Hardly what the framers of the constitution had in mind (the original term was 14 years and an optional 14 year extension)..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

<Thread moved to Domestic Politics>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

So some Republicans are trying to do something that is sorely needed in this Country, and as usual they get no support because they are Republicans and not Democrats, sad really people can't put aside their corrupted party affiliation for the good of all Americans

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Copy rights should protect the people who spent time and money in R&D or created something original so they can be rewarded and inspire people to do the same next time not just do something similar

Then there should be a patent or documented information reflecting how much time and effort you put to your state-of-the-art creation, so that the time you have to abuse of your creation is correctly evaluated. And the time should not be too long, as things are fast these days.

That's the opposite of what's going on right now.

It's like... If you made a da-da-da song with three music notes, then you have a very short time to grab some money over it. Copyrights should be given by the difficulty of things, not the amount of money it can grab.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

So some Republicans are trying to do something that is sorely needed in this Country, and as usual they get no support because they are Republicans and not Democrats, sad really people can't put aside their corrupted party affiliation for the good of all Americans

I would support this. I suspect most Democrats would as well. It being Congress, however, I have no expectation of anything actually happening.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Copy rights should protect the people who spent time and money in R&D or created something original so they can be rewarded and inspire people to do the same next time not just do something similar

But it should also protect people who pirate material worth a few dollars, but have to pay a compensation of several hundred thousand dollars.

And such companies also abuse several laws, and have a lot of influence on the authorities. Like in Dot Com case, where FBI made arrests in New Zealand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

There's quite a few good ideas that come from the House, but sadly they can never get through the Senate because there's too many old-hat politicians still running it (both parties.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

the copyright term, are not premised upon what is in the public good or what will promote the most productivity and innovation, but rather what the content creators

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

<Thread moved to Domestic Politics>

Hmm, I know the thread's about the "house republicans" but I posted it in back page news because, frankly, it has global implications. The US bullies other nations to follow its own domestic intellectual monopoly legislation (cf Wikileaks revelations about Spain's copyright law). Threads of a similar nature have stayed there when they've been from the EU or other European nations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Oh Christ not this again - grasping at straws to attract the 'young vote'. The formula is simple; economically free market and socially liberal: take as little from my wallet possible and keep out of my bedroom. Yes the copyright laws need reforming but it seems that the Republicans are looking for some sort of silverbullet rather than genuinely reflecting on what actually transpired on election day.

Did you even read the post or the policy brief?

"Copyright violates nearly every tenet of laissez faire capitalism". If that's not a remark about an "economically free market" I don't know what is.

Except, as noted, that is the exact opposite of the original intent of the copyright laws in place in our constitution. Some how, over the years, "for limited times" has come to be interpreted as "the lifetime of the author + 70 years". Hardly what the framers of the constitution had in mind (the original term was 14 years and an optional 14 year extension)..

US copyright law, when it was drafted, basically imported the very first copyright law, the Statute of Anne, titled "An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by Vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or Purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned" which also had a 14 year term.

It's only relatively recently that copyright has come to mean "I deserve money" rather than "I won't get ripped off by publishers"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Hmm, I know the thread's about the "house republicans" but I posted it in back page news because, frankly, it has global implications. The US bullies other nations to follow its own domestic intellectual monopoly legislation (cf Wikileaks revelations about Spain's copyright law). Threads of a similar nature have stayed there when they've been from the EU or other European nations.

I'm willing to move it back, but for me it is domestic politics rather than involving a company or multiple countries. If you still think it was a wrong decision then let me know, I'm still new at this. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I'm willing to move it back, but for me it is domestic politics rather than involving a company or multiple countries. If you still think it was a wrong decision then let me know, I'm still new at this. ;)

Thanks, it's a borderline thread but the story's more of a dry policy briefing (although a watershed one) than an overtly party-political statement :)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Hmm, I know the thread's about the "house republicans" but I posted it in back page news because, frankly, it has global implications. The US bullies other nations to follow its own domestic intellectual monopoly legislation (cf Wikileaks revelations about Spain's copyright law). Threads of a similar nature have stayed there when they've been from the EU or other European nations.

Actually, the US was bullied by European countries into signing onto the Berne Convention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Right after the Presidential election last week, Chris Sprigman and Kal Raustiala penned an opinion piece suggesting that one way the Republicans could "reset", and actually attract the youth vote, would be to become the party of copyright reform.

The GOP clearly doesn't have a clue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

How are they not? Obama won by a margin of roughly 3 million votes, many of those young people who might be swayed by a policy change such as this.

Which is doubtful - it was the same excuse I remember when the centre left party in my country was voted back in. It had as much to do with substance as with the rhetoric - when the main leaders of your party are just plain mean and hating against LGBT, women, latinos, etc then it won't matter a single iota if you make a change in an area that has minimal impact when compared to issues such as abortion rights, gay marriage, immigration etc.

Except, as noted, that is the exact opposite of the original intent of the copyright laws in place in our constitution. Some how, over the years, "for limited times" has come to be interpreted as "the lifetime of the author + 70 years". Hardly what the framers of the constitution had in mind (the original term was 14 years and an optional 14 year extension).

You can thank Disney, Mickey Mouse and the Americana that is associated with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.