Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Republicans United States Politics Your Rights Online

GOP Study Committee Director Disowns Brief Attacking Current IP Law 176

Posted by timothy
from the extra-special-interests dept.
cervesaebraciator writes "Saturday an article was featured on Slashdot which expressed some hope, if just a fool's hope, that a recent Republican Study Committee Brief could be a sign of broader national discussion about the value of current copyright law. When one sees such progress, credit is deservedly given. Unfortunately, others in Washington did not perhaps see this as worthy of praise. The committee's executive director, Paul Teller, sent a memo today disavowing the earlier pro-copyright reform brief. From the memo: 'Yesterday you received a Policy Brief or [sic] copyright law that was published without adequate review within the RSC and failed to meet that standard. Copyright reform would have far-reaching impacts, so it is incredibly important that it be approached with all facts and viewpoints in hand.' People who live in districts such as Ohio's 4th would do well to send letters of support to those who crafted the original brief. I cannot imagine party leadership will be happy with so radical a suggestion as granting copyright protection for the limited times needed to promote the progress of science and useful arts."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

GOP Study Committee Director Disowns Brief Attacking Current IP Law

Comments Filter:
  • of course (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheGratefulNet (143330) on Sunday November 18, 2012 @09:31AM (#42018473)

    of course the GOP is not for this.

    I said as much and got modded down during the last time this came up, a few days ago.

    most of us knew that the gop would not support this. they are so much NOT into the concepts given here that it had to be a 'mistake'.

    and we were right.

    yes, the republicans are this predictable. and untrustworthy.

    nothing has changed with them and probably won't in the short term, either. if anything, they double-down on their derp when called on it.

    • Re:of course (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Joce640k (829181) on Sunday November 18, 2012 @09:35AM (#42018491) Homepage

      "Copyright reform would have far-reaching impacts, so it is incredibly important that it be approached with all facts and viewpoints in hand"

      Are those 'facts and viewpoints' green in color?

      • Re:of course (Score:5, Insightful)

        by MickyTheIdiot (1032226) on Sunday November 18, 2012 @11:59AM (#42019241) Homepage Journal

        Bullshit moderation on this.

        Of course it is about money. The fact is that EITHER party sits up and begs when their donors (corporate or otherwise) crack the whip. Someone got on the phone with the right people and made sure any movement to sanify copyright law was quashed.

        This is was a case of the truth accidentally making it to the surface.

        • Re:of course (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Plekto (1018050) on Sunday November 18, 2012 @01:45PM (#42020171)

          It's even worse that you think.

          We think of it as the companies being donors. With people in Congress calling and asking for money. But the reality is that the companies come TO the politician first and say "we'll give this money to either you or your opponent - you decide." It's not the officials asking for donations for their election/re-election efforts. It's an outright threat by the corporations to keep their "workers" in Congress in line. We're going to give you this money and you'll accept it - or we'll find someone who will.

          93% of the time, the candidate with more money wins. That isn't a threat, it's a promise that you'll be unemployed if you piss off your masters.

        • by symbolset (646467) *
          Of course in the eternal jockeying for power, with Republicans having quashed this great and popular idea there is a chance the Democrats will pick up the banner and run with it. That would make the GOP look even more like jerks. It's a very, very small chance - but it's there.
          • by icebike (68054) *

            Of course in the eternal jockeying for power, with Republicans having quashed this great and popular idea there is NOT A SNOWBALLS CHANCE IN HELL the Democrats will pick up the banner and run with it. That would make the GOP look even more like jerks. It's a very, very small chance - but it's there.

            There, I fixed it for you.

            I have no clue what planet you have been living on, but here on Planet Earth, the Democrats are more in the pocket of big media than any other party in any country in the world.

            • by Genda (560240)

              Indeed, Joe Biden is the xxAA hit man, and I think its fair to say he answers to Hollywood before he answers to Obama. The Republican have their corporate base in Fossil Fuel, Banking and Agribusiness. The fact that the two parties are equally whores belies the fact that their clientele differ slightly, but either will take a buck if offered. Until we separate corporation and state, we will continue to get the best government money can buy.

      • by microbox (704317)

        Are those 'facts and viewpoints' green in color?

        Afterall, green is the new pink. (face-palm.)

        See how that scuttles any serious debate on the issue?

    • by Anonymous Coward

      You portray the Republicans as being one, cohesive entity, but that's extremely far from the truth. The reality is that there is much division within the party.

      So you've got the so-called "neoconservatives". These are holdovers from the Bush administration. They're generally pro-big-business, pro-war, and in favor of anything that'll make them more money. The GOP is more of a tool to them, than it is something that they hold any inherent belief in.

      Then you've got the "religious fundamentalists" and "teapart

      • by Tsu-na-mi (88576) on Sunday November 18, 2012 @10:15AM (#42018667) Homepage

        I have another term or two for your "sensibles". We refer to them as "Independents", or possibly "Democrats".

      • by Runaway1956 (1322357) on Sunday November 18, 2012 @10:50AM (#42018843) Homepage Journal

        Neoconservatives aren't exactly "holdovers from the Bush administration". They predated Bush. They helped to put Bush in power. And, they are still around, looking for the next Bush.

        As with so many other dangerous groups, like neonazis, the neocons are still lurking in the shadows, waiting for another opportunity.

        • Neoconservatives are basically liberal democrats (progressives) who favored much more international intervention and flexing of the US military's power across the globe to "reshape the world" in the neo-con's "progressive" image. Let's face it... Obama is the next Bush in that regard. Neoconservatives are critical when he DOESN'T act like Bush.. and since the last 4 years are officially in the can, we can say Obama acted like Bush way more than he acted like the Obama who campaigned in 2008.

          Neoconservatives

          • You have visited the New American Century's site? Before branding neocons as liberals and progressives, you should really browse their site. I've never read a liberal idea over there.

            They have changed their site considerably since Bush was elected the first time. You sort of have to "read between the lines" now, to understand their message. But, it was pretty blatantly stated, twelve years ago, that they looked forward to a world in which all men, women, and children worked to enrich Wall Street. That'

      • by pwizard2 (920421) on Sunday November 18, 2012 @10:56AM (#42018861)
        The real telling fact is that more than 2 weeks after the election the GOP apparently still doesn't know why it lost. The reason is the American people weren't interested in buying what the GOP was selling. We still don't know the details of what Romney's tax plan would have been... the whole "vote for me and I'll tell you after the election" stance just didn't fly. Why should it? The GOP seems to be at war with itself. As parent said, you have the more traditional "yay for the rich" power base competing with the insane religious right mentality. There's also the built-in racism of how poor people (ESPECIALLY minorities) "want free stuff" even though our tax money paid for it yet for some reason it's ok when the rich get welfare in the form of subsidies and tax breaks because they're the "job creators". It's like a broken record with these guys.

        They have yet to offer one compelling reason why anyone (who isn't an old rich white man) should side with them. For their sakes they should hope that sort of thing will die out with the current generation. The GOP has always used bigotry and religion to get regular people to vote against their own best interests, but this year they went too far with it and people began to see it for what it was. Forget the economy, the worst income inequality in nearly a century, and crushing deficit... the real important issues to the GOP are contraception, abortion, keeping gay people from marrying, and the definition of legitimate rape. I kid you not.
        • by Vaphell (1489021)

          Forget the economy, the worst income inequality in nearly a century, and crushing deficit...

          so you are telling me democrats showed unmatched maturity and based their vote on these things? And maybe expressed their distaste for bombing brown people too? That's strange, because i thought it was pretty much 'omgomgomg, Mittens is going to oppress gays and women and the corporations will take over!!!' talk.
          I think nobody is really interested in making wedge issues go away. How would you mobilize your electorate without them? Take them away and suddenly it becomes clear the D-team and the R-team are pr

          • by pwizard2 (920421)
            After weighing the issues this past election, I voted based on the stance that while the guys we have now aren't perfect, they were still better than the alternative. Everyone else I've talked to about it since then reached a similar conclusion.
        • In many ways this is why there needs to be a reform to the political system to make it easier to have more than to parties. A binary system is not very realistic, given the variations of view points - sure it is easy to understand, but it means more infighting than there needs to be.

          In terms of presidential systems, France may have it better? There you have two rounds, with the second round being dependent on the first. Essentially in the first round you vote for the party you want and if no party gets more

        • by sumdumass (711423)

          They won't get your point. I'm not sure it is even valid. Romney talked past to many people in trying to get his message out and treated the targets of it as if they were smarter and more in the know then they were. That was Romney's biggest failure of the campaigns. Your portrayal of the contraception and legitimate rape definition is proof of that. They didn't make those an issue, they made statements on the concepts of them (big government, abortion) and others made it an issue.

          But they lost by 2%. A 2%

        • by riverat1 (1048260)

          The GOP has always used bigotry and religion to get regular people to vote against their own best interests... (emphasis added)

          You'd think that only if you're young. When I was growing up in the 1950's & 60's the GOP was not like that. A higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [wikipedia.org] and that didn't start to change until Nixon decided to employ the Southern Strategy [wikipedia.org] in the 1968 election. They also held the religious nutters at arms length back then. I think Roe vs. Wade [wikipedia.org] had a good deal to do with that changing.

          The Republicans were reasonably sane back then and I even voted for several

        • I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but while they did in fact lose, claiming their loss is the result of "what the American people" wanted is just callous and ignorant. Fully half the American people wanted what they got. Almost all of the other half did not.

          "As of Noon on Friday, with nearly all votes in, Obama assuredly will win the popular vote, leading Romney by a count of 61,173,739 or 50.5% to 58,167,260 or 48.0%. At this point, a few final votes are being counted and then all that's left is for t

      • The most interesting subgroup, however, are generally referred to as the "sensibles". These are often younger Republicans who are generally completely against the craziness of the religious fundamentalists, against the domestically-harmful warmaking of the neoconservatives, and who generally have a more relaxed view than the paleoconservatives or the libertarians.

        Well, tell these "sensibles", if they even exist in significant numbers (I'm pretty sure the majority of such people either swung Democrat or refused to vote after the platform of rape and homophobia being promoted in the last election), that maybe the GOP needs to stop putting up with people like Akin and company. They shouldn't expect to be believed when they say "I'm only economically conservative, not socially conservative!" while at the same time voting for and promoting human waste like Akin, Bachmann

      • bollocks. They're all monolithic when it comes to accepting money from the donors, from lobbists, and their other pals.

      • by AK Marc (707885)
        The Republicans are a more cohesive group than the Democrats. The binding force is hate. They don't like Romney, but they came out in numbers about the same as Obama supporters to vote against the Democrats. They don't "want" anything, other than the opposite of what the Democrats want. Obamacare was based on things proposed by Republicans, but when a Democrat does it, it's bad.

        The democrats are like a gathering of the Apathy Club.

        "Do we have a good idea?
        "YES"
        "What are we going to do about it?
        "Meh!"
        • That's why they should've all voted against Romney AND Obama (two sides of the same coin) and voted for Gary Johnson. I watched the "other" party debates and I found Gary Johnson to be 85% to 90% there when it comes to Constitutionally restricted government, individual liberty, and sensible budget reform... light years ahead of the other candidates.

          Shit, Obama and Romney's foreign policy were so similar it sounded like the same person talking. Why the hell people voted for the man who not only continued, b

          • by Culture20 (968837)

            Obama and Romney's foreign policy were so similar it sounded like the same person talking. Why the hell people voted for the man who not only continued, but extended, everything that made Bush suck eggs is a mystery. Obama deported more immigrants than Bush did in 8 years. He kills American citizens with drones, signs the NDAA, closes everything up tighter than a drum (way to go "open and transparent" government), and gets Ambassadors and ex-Seals killed in Libya because there's something more than a stupid fucking "video" at work here.Yet Obama ran on "we've got work to do... let me finish"... when he made it WORSE. Talk about irony.... (I'll get modded troll for this because I mentioned the drone attacks, and it appears people on Slashdot are against giving Constitutional protections to citizens if they agree with some nebulous terrorist organization. They're for legalizing pot, but not making sure individual liberty is protected... and constitutionally enumerated rights are not raped by the very government that is supposed to uphold the Constitution.... not rape it and piss on it.

            Due to the first and second amendment, if it's legitimate governmental rape, the country has ways to try to shut the whole thing down.

          • by AK Marc (707885)

            That's why they should've all voted against Romney AND Obama (two sides of the same coin) and voted for Gary Johnson.

            Put it in game theory terms. If you get 20% of 40% to vote for some "third party", then your least desired candidate could win. That is worse than your second lease favorite winning, so you support your second lease favorite candidate in an attempt to block your least favorite. Don't underestimate the spite vote.

            I watched the "other" party debates and I found Gary Johnson to be 85% to 90% there when it comes to Constitutionally restricted government, individual liberty, and sensible budget reform... light years ahead of the other candidates.

            I didn't watch any of the debates, but the platform evaluator told me I should be voting green, and I heard that the green candidate looked like a loon in the debates. While that's the state of

      • by Pluvius (734915)

        They're more than willing to admit that blacks are responsible for more crimes than other races, even when there are many more whites and Hispanics who are far worse off, economically and socially.

        Er, either you're simply wrong about this or you're using the word "more" in two different ways in the same sentence. While it's true that there are more black criminals per capita, it's also true that there are more socioeconomically deprived black people per capita. And while there are more impoverished whites

      • Actually the black republicans tend to be religious. A friend of mine is black, is from Etheopia, and also jewish. I identify as atheist. We both were talking about how we wanted Obama out of office, and which Republicans we would vote for, but his reasoning was different from mine.

        He wants the democrats out because he believes that they are too opposed to god. I want them out because I want a smaller government. He's not the only black republican I know, most of them are christian though.

        The tea partiers a

    • Re:of course (Score:5, Insightful)

      by devleopard (317515) on Sunday November 18, 2012 @10:14AM (#42018663) Homepage

      Pretty sure this is more a lobby issue, and less a party issue.

      I realize that on Slashdot, "GOP is derp, Democrats are magic unicorns" is the way we're supposed to think. However, from an ideological perspective, the GOP is more closely aligned with the ethos that could back copyright reform than the Democratic party: GOP cares about things like defense spending and big oil, and takes a "get off my lawn" attitude. Democratic party is backed by entertainment and software industries pretty heavy.

      I'm not saying the Democratic platform is inferior or anything like that. Rather than check my brain at the door and say "Republicans are dumb" to throngs of derpalicious applause, I recognize that each party has very distinct ideologies. The Republican one is more closely aligned with what is necessary for copyright reform. I know it might sicken some Slashdotters to have to admit that they agree with (some parts of) the Republican party on something, but when ideology exists along a continuum (or probably better, thought of as a three dimensional matrix), its inevitable that a 2 party system will result in one or the other having conflicting values for any given person.

      I'll be the first to admit, however, that the Republican party would be better served by a split. Right wing over there (Christian activists, opposed to social policy, shoot em up warmongers), those that are pro business and fiscal conservatives over here. I know the Libertarian party already meets the needs of the latter group, but I think party change needs to happen from within, as opposed to be recruited away. Of course, this is probably a pipe dream, as a fractured Republican party would have difficulty winning any elections without major election reform (do away with primaries, popular vote only, etc)

      • Re:of course (Score:5, Insightful)

        by squiggleslash (241428) on Sunday November 18, 2012 @10:42AM (#42018797) Homepage Journal

        However, from an ideological perspective, the GOP is more closely aligned with the ethos that could back copyright reform than the Democratic party: GOP cares about things like defense spending and big oil, and takes a "get off my lawn" attitude. Democratic party is backed by entertainment and software industries pretty heavy.

        I don't think that's true, you're saying ideological differences but then looking at who's supporting them.

        The ideological difference, to be honest, is that the Republicans tend to favor any laws that established businesses are benefitting from and tend to reject laws that businesses feel ties their hands. And that means that they're not likely to liberalize copyright law any time soon, even if the stereotypes ("Hollywood is infested by liberals and they want copyrights!") seem to go against that.

        Remember too that the Republicans do, actually, get overwhelming support from the content industries. Just because Alec Baldwin and Jessica Alba support President Obama doesn't change the fact that these people's bosses overwhelmingly tend to support Republicans (even leaving aside the fact that outspoken Republican actors and actresses aren't, actually, as rare as Republicans like to pretend.) Ask Rupert Murdoch or Steve Burke, or Sumner Redstone how they'd feel about a liberalization of copyrights.

      • I think you're misinterpreting a lot of the feeling against the GOP. It's not so much "GOP is derp, Democrats are magic unicorns", but "GOP are total sellouts while the Democrats occasionally do something for the good of the country".

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by westlake (615356)

        However, from an ideological perspective, the GOP is more closely aligned with the ethos that could back copyright reform than the Democratic party

        The party of Fox News?

        The party that divides the world between the makers and the takers?

        The party that looks at the geek and sees Kim Dotcom?

        The party that is slowly being extinguished in all but the deep South and Great Plains states --- where notions of property rights are anchored in bedrock?

        This is the party you see leading the charge for copyright reform?

        • This is the party you see leading the charge for copyright reform?

          of course not.

          I'd expect to see jesus riding on a dinosaur before I see the republicans show interest in the common man's plight.

          • I expect to see Jesus riding a dinosaur and Moses selling sneakers in Venice Beach before I see the Republicans OR Democrats interest in the individual's rights or plight. Forget common man, they are against individuals. They both hate that we have the power to unseat them and ditch their sorry asses. So they obfuscate everything from voting to getting a building permit in order to keep the People in the dark and constantly busy so they don't pay attention to the freedom robbing practices both the GOP and D

      • by c0lo (1497653)

        However, from an ideological perspective, the GOP is more closely aligned with the ethos that could back copyright reform than the Democratic party

        Well, TFA just shows that their pathos [wikipedia.org] and logos [wikipedia.org] are not aligned at all ("as yet" or "forever", who knows?).
        In these conditions: is their ethos still relevant?

    • I agree that the GOP wouldn't stand for copyright reform.

      But, you seem to imply, or beleive, that the other party would? Do some googling to see where Obama and his party stand with NPP, and ACTA, and other obominations that the corporations would have us call "treaties".

      Yes, I also posted - and I repeat - BOTH parties have sold out to corporate interests, otherwise known as "rights holders".

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      It is not the GOP per se. It is the whole political system. The reality is that no party will ever thread on the hands that feed them. They won't ever go against corporate interests. The next election is just around the corner and they need a lot of money in order to win it. This is how we ended up with Medicare Part D.... with Obama care but no public option... this is why nobody has been sent to jail after the financial crisis of 2008 .

      • by microbox (704317)
        Citizens United will make political corruption just worse. We really need to go back to public financing of politics in order to remove corporate money, and the resulting crony capitalism. The GOP are cheerleading the way for this type of corruption, as senior long-time GOP insider Lofgren describes in his new book [amazon.com].
    • by wierd_w (1375923)

      Sounds like my prior post too.

      Same story, and the GOP is doing exactly what I said they would. React with incredulity, then decry the brief as a waste of time.

      Just waiting for the waste of money part.

      Regardless, plugging their ears and going "Lalalalalala" is EXACTLY what they are doing here. (if a bit hyperbolic an expression)

      And yes, I too was modded troll for it. Cheers!

    • by hemo_jr (1122113)

      And, of course, the Democratic Party is also not for this. It is a an indictment of the system that a group that poor mouths itself so much (rights holders such as RIAA MPAA) can afford to keep the leadership of both parties so much in their debt. You'd think they could start paying an intellectual property tax.

    • by sumdumass (711423)

      You do not know the GOP doesn't support the copyright reform indicated by the other memo. All this memo says is that the other had not been properly processed through the review of the comity and that step was important.

      Anything outside of that is completely in your mind at this point. The article submission doesn't make it clear where the memo stops and the submitter's opinion starts but it's clear if you follow the link to the story.

    • The problem is, unfortunately, the Democratic party wouldn't support this either. Sure there are elements that agree copyright has gotten out of control within the Democrats (and Republicans for that matter), they remain a minority. An unfortunately small minority.

      One only needs to look at the biggest donors to both parties to realize neither party will support sensible copyright reform until they are no longer accountable to giant multinationals and Hollywood. This isn't a matter of the GOP being untrustwo

    • "The check from the RIAA cleared."

  • by Cassius.Bilbao (893851) <Cassius.Bilbao@gmail.com> on Sunday November 18, 2012 @09:35AM (#42018493)
    With this, I guess the GOP's chances of redeeming themselves by letting go of the corporate backscratching will lose forward momentum. Without additional engines in the party, there's no steam left to do some good in the copyright world.
  • Translation (Score:3, Funny)

    by 10101001 10101001 (732688) on Sunday November 18, 2012 @09:40AM (#42018513) Journal

    Yesterday you received a Policy Brief or [sic] copyright law that was published without adequate review within the RSC and failed to meet that standard.

    Yesterday you received a Policy Brief of copyright law that was published without adequate scrubbing of any truth or fact the RSC sets as a standard for supporting, so I'm disavowing the brief after the fact.

    Copyright reform would have far-reaching impacts, so it is incredibly important that it be approached with all facts and viewpoints in hand.

    Copyright reform could severely cut into campaign contributions--contributions that amount to little more than kick backs from rent seekers over the economically unsound practices that the Policy Brief spells out--, so it's incredibly important that we allow the copyright industry to present "facts" and present their "viewpoints" to counter anything that the brief lays out. I mean, sure, we don't do the same thing when it comes to climate research or currently illegal drug studies. But, we really don't want to fiddle around with the status quo and upset our power base. I mean, did you really thing think we were any less in bed with Hollywood than the Democrats? We'll gladly take their money; we just wish they were less gay or liberal or whatever.

    PS - I think we all saw this coming. :/

  • by spikenerd (642677) on Sunday November 18, 2012 @09:45AM (#42018533)

    ...radical a suggestion as granting copyright protection for the limited times needed to promote the progress of science and useful arts.

    ...radical a suggestion as doing what the Constitution says.

    *I shake my head slowly.

  • by Freddybear (1805256) on Sunday November 18, 2012 @09:48AM (#42018541)

    No doubt they got a lot of phone calls from MAFIAA lobbyists with totally convincing $facts and $viewpoints.

    • (I'm confused as to whether the dollar signs indicate bribery or that $facts and $viewpoints are variables in a Perl/PHP script. :P )

      • by westlake (615356)

        (I'm confused as to whether the dollar signs indicate bribery or that $facts and $viewpoints are variables in a Perl/PHP script. :P )

        Hereabouts, the $ sign always stands for bribery.

        It's the geeks all-purpose explanation for his failures in law, politics and government.

    • by dgatwood (11270)

      They got a letter from me pointing out a few gaping flaws. The biggest ones were:

      • Starting a mere twelve-year period when a work is first created means that larger literary works written by individuals in their spare time would, without renewal, be partially out of copyright protection before they are completed. The flexibility for unpublished papers would need to be a fair use exception, not a duration thing. Twenty-eight years was long enough pre-1976 only because the clock didn't start until the fir
  • They must have realized that it made sense. Can't have any of that.

  • by klingens (147173) on Sunday November 18, 2012 @09:55AM (#42018575)

    since I'm a dirty foruhner from socialist Europe, but isn't
    "I cannot imagine party leadership will be happy with so radical a suggestion as granting copyright protection for the limited times needed to promote the progress of science and useful arts."
    going totally against the spirit and literally wording of the Constitution of the USA? He admits he considers the current law blatantly unconstitutional and still knowingly supports it. If he is a member of congress or any other public politic body and has swore any oaths on the constitution, he's now in breach of said oath, no?

    • by Elbereth (58257)

      Like anyone else, they ignore the parts they disagree with and deliberately interpret the rest of it in a way that allows them to retain their power and privilege, couching it in populist rhetoric. When was the last time you saw someone interpret something in a way that didn't allow them to rationalize their behavior or validate their ideology?

      Religion, law, and even science get interpreted in a way most beneficial to the one doing the interpretation.

    • since I'm a dirty foruhner from socialist Europe, but isn't "I cannot imagine party leadership will be happy with so radical a suggestion as granting copyright protection for the limited times needed to promote the progress of science and useful arts." going totally against the spirit and literally wording of the Constitution of the USA? He admits he considers the current law blatantly unconstitutional and still knowingly supports it. If he is a member of congress or any other public politic body and has swore any oaths on the constitution, he's now in breach of said oath, no?

      If he were, yes, but if you check the quote marks carefully, you find that quote to be from Submitter, not from the Committee Director.

    • by westlake (615356)

      going totally against the spirit and literally wording of the Constitution of the USA?

      The Founders were profoundly wary of embedding policy decisions into the Constitution. They thought in terms of structure and function, checks and balances. It's for the Congress to decide how patents and copyrights can best serve the national interest,

      • by AK Marc (707885)
        But Congress may only do so within the Constitution, where it states that congress "may" create copyright if it enhances progress. Every law should be judged against that standard.
    • by symbolset (646467) *
      The US Constitution is mainly about the people setting the structure of and granting powers to the government. The parts about why the powers are given have long been considered advisory recommendations without force of law. And pretty much ignored.
  • by JWW (79176) on Sunday November 18, 2012 @09:58AM (#42018589)

    At least this report is out there. Its now up to us to contact Republican congresspeople and let them know that we want them to pursue this.

    When your writing your representative, don't forget to remind them that nearly everyone involved in the music and movie industries hates their guts and believes they're evil and says so openly. Let them know that what the industry says it wants and what the people want and need from copyright are chasms apart.

    It's time for someone to stand up for the people's rights in this copyright fight, and the Republicans can do that. They really dont have much to lose and have a lot to gain.

    Innundate them with letters supporting this proposal. Show overwhelming support for it. Let them know that "we the people" think it's time for them to tell the copyright maximalists to go straight to hell.

    • by westlake (615356)

      At least this report is out there. Its now up to us to contact Republican congresspeople and let them know that we want them to pursue this.

      Take a look at where the big electoral votes are.

      Then ask yourself where most media content --- in all languages --- is produced and financed.

      The states where IP is a major driver of the economy.

      The answers you will get are New York, California, Florida, Washington, and so on.

      Winning over the Republican Congressman from Nowhere, Nebraska, isn't going to help you,

      • by Teun (17872)

        The answers you will get are New York, California, Florida, Washington, and so on.

        Winning over the Republican Congressman from Nowhere, Nebraska, isn't going to help you,

        You should take a wider look at US politics, people are majority voting for a particular party for various reasons, changes in the GOP policies might very well make the party more palpable for those that so far have voted D.
        The gains in popular vote might indeed outweigh the losses in corporate or Teaparty support.

  • by OldSport (2677879) on Sunday November 18, 2012 @10:05AM (#42018621)

    For a party that bitches and moans about excessive regulations as much as the GOP, it astounds me that they cannot see how current IP law is smothering proper innovation.

    (Okay, it doesn't astound me; in the context of corporate power in the US, it makes perfect sense. I guess what's most surprising is the doublethink required to enable these guys to spout off anti-regulation propaganda while wholeheartedly supporting complex systems of regulation, rail against welfare while supporting vast corporate welfare programs and subsidies, etc. etc.)

    • by Greyfox (87712)
      And the party that bitches and moans about the media, liberal Hollywood, etc, etc. Maybe they thought if they made some noise, some more of those liberal Hollywood dollars would come their way.

      The thing that always surprises me is that people don't realize that the two main parties are basically the same with slightly different boogeymen. Above all they're interested in preserving their own power. I suppose if a third party of equal strength rose to power, they'd quickly start playing this game, too. That

      • The thing that always surprises me is that people don't realize that the two main parties are basically the same with slightly different boogeymen.

        This is completely naive. Most politicians really believe in issues, and generally cannot see their own hypocrisy. There is ideological warfare in Washington. The first step to understanding human nature is recognising that 95% of people really believe the bullshit that comes out of their mouth.

        Take McCain's assault on Susan Rice: Mark Twain said "it is easier to fool a man then convince him he has been fooled." Congress is populated by the fooled. Only the wise know they are fools, which cuts out most

    • by erroneus (253617)

      The word is "lies." Look, if they were interested in smaller government, they would cut spending on things that do not serve the interests of the US. Sending out trillions in foreign aid to people who do not return anything of use or benefit to the US is just pure waste.

      The taxes they take from us. The social security money they take from us. It goes to fund war (into the pockets of war materials makers mainly) and into 'foreign aid' to places like Israel.

      Want to save some money in the big government to

  • by argStyopa (232550) on Sunday November 18, 2012 @10:11AM (#42018641) Journal

    He got a call from a massive donor who benefits from restrictive copyright (Disney, etc.) and he was told to immediately 'review' this position or he'd see an impact on national funding.

    They're all such whores. Simply whores....except whores at least make one other person happy, they're not QUITE as selfish as politicians.

    • by AK Marc (707885)
      It's bribery. Subpoena the phone records of the representative and if a donor contacted him between release and turnaround the next day, charge them both with bribery and corruption charges.
  • Links (Score:4, Informative)

    by Bob9113 (14996) on Sunday November 18, 2012 @10:12AM (#42018645) Homepage

    Here are three links to the text form of the brief:

    On One of My Boxes [traxel.com]

    On Reference Blog [nfshost.com]

    On Pastebin [pastebin.com]

  • Just one more issue the GOP is on the wrong side of!

  • by hessian (467078) on Sunday November 18, 2012 @10:33AM (#42018761) Homepage Journal

    The people benefiting from copyright law being where it is are the big media and entertainment types.

    These give all of their money to Democrats.

    The Republicans need to grow some balls and attack the media establishment. Their best move would be a high rate of tax and zero copyright protection, which would drive Hollyweird and big media into bankruptcy.

    Yes, it would be an industry destroyed, but it's also clear that outside of Fox News, the media is almost uniformly pro-left and anti-right.

    Any lessening of the power of media would be a strategic win for the Republicans.

    • by symbolset (646467) *
      The media and software companies give to both parties. As I said before the election, "If you buy both sides, it doesn't matter who wins."
  • People who live in districts such as Ohio's 4th would do well to send letters of support to those who crafted the original brief.

    Ohio's 4th has been Republican since 1938.

    It's 93% white, 40% rural, with a median income of $40,000. Ohio's 4th congressional district [wikipedia.org] The only city in the district you are likely to recognize is Marion, population 35,000, and the home town of Warren G. Harding, Marion, Ohio [wikipedia.org]

    Jordan called for fiscal responsibility and noted his strong beliefs in traditional family values. Slone [Democrat] pointed to his labor and union background while calling on Washington to help create jobs. Kalla [Libertarian] cited a number of government reforms that would reduce federal regulations while bolstering freedom in the country.

    Jordan, Slone, Kalla vie for Ohio 4th congressional district [morningjournal.com]

    The Libertarian candidate drew 5% of the vote, which is as good as it gets for his party in Ohio,

    In a district that is old industrial and agricultural, talk of copyright re

  • "I cannot imagine party leadership will be happy with so radical a suggestion as granting copyright protection for the limited times needed to promote the progress of science and useful arts."

    -- Translation: Advancement of science and the useful arts play second fiddle to profits for donors to the RNC.

    "People who live in districts such as Ohio's 4th would do well to send letters of support to those who crafted the original brief."

    -- Translation: You people in Ohio's 4th CD can go pound sand. Your elected r

  • Everyone should be on the lookout for more head fakes by the GOP trying to convince us all that they are something they are not with the hope that they can fool enough people into voting for them. This is a perfect example that emphasizes that GOP policy is determined by those at the top to trickle down to those at the bottom, who then follow along behind to parrot the talking points provided on Faux News. Since about half of the electoral has an IQ 100 and below, this strategy always has a good chance of

  • by daemonenwind (178848) on Sunday November 18, 2012 @12:23PM (#42019413)

    This is something politicians of all stripes do with concepts they're considering.

    You have some odd group, loosely connected with the mainline, release a paper on some odd policy shift. You immediately decry the readiness of the idea, but never actually put the idea down.

    Then, you sit back and watch what people do with it. Do your party bigwigs panic? Does your base embrace it? What do the major money sources say about it?

    If you watch politics long enough with an eye for this sort of thing, you'll see this done everywhere.

    So, considering it's the Republicans, I'm sure Reince Priebus and a few others will be monitoring talk radio, Breitbart, and the major news outlets to see how this is received. They'll also poll their elected officals to see if anyone called/wrote in about it.

    So, if you like this, TALK ABOUT IT. Call into Rush Limbaugh or your local version of it. Call or email your R representatives, if you have any. Tell them you like this. Highlight the positives. Talk it up. Argue for it!

    Keep in mind that the Republicans are, *right now*, reevaluating their platform for ideas that get people elected. Instead of being a snarky ass, this is a great time to show them that thoughts like this could get them the "youth vote". If you're willing to shed some of your preconceptions about politics in general and Republicans in particular, that is.

  • by cervesaebraciator (2352888) on Sunday November 18, 2012 @04:26PM (#42021557)

    The brief has been pulled [theamerica...vative.com] from the RSC website. It's as good a guess as any that it was pulled so fast because someone at the MPAA or RIAA put the kibosh on this [techdirt.com]. Copies of it still circulate about the internet.

    The original brief was written by congressional staffer, a young guy by the name of Derek Khanna [twitter.com]. It seems it was not a committee-wide document. Khanna continues a discussion on the matter over at Reddit [reddit.com]. I should imagine by now that Khanna has his balls in a vice for this embarrassment.

    If you're the kind of person who regularly complains about IP laws, but would rather do something about it, write Khanna a note of support by email or twitter. That doesn't mean you have to agree completely with the brief or other things Khanna has to say. It just gives him the ammunition to say that copyright reform is a good direction for the GOP and that his writing about it was not a mistake. As daemonenwind notes about, the GOP, particularly the younger elements of it, is now taking a hard look at its platform. You may be rather jaded, as I am, and believe that the old neo-con guard is likely to carry the day. They are. But if there's any hope of changing the discourse on this it will be at a time right now, when the older ways of the GOP have received electoral repudiation that a flood of cash couldn't stop [nytimes.com]. The promise of real electoral support that could come from a pro-reform platform will be particularly attractive now, especially if they get the sense that those under 35 care about this.

As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error. -- Weisert

Working...