Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Republicans Politics Your Rights Online

GOP Brief Attacks Current Copyright Law 296

cervesaebraciator writes "Regardless of how one feels about the GOP generally, it is always heartening to see current copyright and IP law questioned on a national stage. A Republican study committee, chaired by Ohio Representative Jim Jordan released a brief today titled Three Myths about Copyright Law and Where to Start to Fix it. Among other things, the brief attacks current copyright law as hampering scientific inquiry, penalizing journalism, and retarding the potential of the internet to allow the dispersion of knowledge through e-readers. In the briefs words, 'Current copyright law does not merely distort some markets – rather it destroys entire markets.' Four potential policy solutions are proposed: statutory damage reform, expansion of fair use, punishing false copyright claims, and limiting copyright terms. There may yet be hope for a national debate on the current oppressive copyright system, if just a fool's hope."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

GOP Brief Attacks Current Copyright Law

Comments Filter:
  • Holy Cow! (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 16, 2012 @08:28PM (#42008359)

    I haven't even read the whole thing yet, but I was sort of astounded to read this from paper:

    [Myth]1. The purpose of copyright is to compensate the creator of the content:
    It's a common misperception that the Constitution enables our current legal regime of copyright protection - in fact, it does not. The Constitution's clause on Copyright and patents states:
    "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;" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8) . Thus, according to the Constitution, the overriding purpose of the copyright system is to "promote the progress of science and useful arts." In today's terminology we may say that the purpose is to lead to maximum productivity and innovation. This is a major distinction, because most legislative discussions on this topic, particularly during the extension of 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 "deserve" or are "entitled to" by virtue of their creation. This lexicon is appropriate in the realm of taxation and sometimes in the realm of trade protection, but it is inappropriate in the realm of patents and copyrights. Strictly speaking, because of the constitutional basis of copyright and patent, legislative discussions on copyright/patent reform should be based upon what promotes the maximum "progress of sciences and useful arts" instead of "deserving" financial compensation.

    By Jove! I think he's on to something here.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 16, 2012 @08:31PM (#42008383)

    Think you have that reversed, at least regarding copyright. Chris Dodd, architect of SOPA, was democratic. Most of the underhanded legislation to extend copyright and push US style copyright laws on other governments is from the Democratic side of the aisle.

    Not saying the GOP doesn't have its own share of monopolistic asshats, but you're clearly wrong on this count.

  • by rolfwind ( 528248 ) on Friday November 16, 2012 @09:09PM (#42008781)

    Indeed, it's through Biden that the RIAA/MPAA infiltrated the Justice Dept with their lawyers:
    http://gizmodo.com/5146966/riaa-and-bsas-favorite-lawyers-taking-top-department-of-justice-posts [gizmodo.com]

    And also I believe it is under Obama that I saw the first domains "seized by government" screens but not 100% sure:
    http://www.domainnamenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Screen-shot-2010-07-02-at-4.11.43-PM.png [domainnamenews.com]

    Al Gore's wife in the 90s and Hillary Clinton in the 00s also wanted some type of ban on violent video games "for the children". Republicans do suck on a lot of things but the Democrats take the cake here as well.

  • by Desler ( 1608317 ) on Saturday November 17, 2012 @12:51AM (#42010013)

    Think you have that reversed, at least regarding copyright. Chris Dodd, architect of SOPA, was democratic.

    SOPA was introduced to the House by Republican Lamar Smith. He was also its biggest proponent.

    Most of the underhanded legislation to extend copyright and push US style copyright laws on other governments is from the Democratic side of the aisle.

    Wrong. DMCA was introduced to the House by a Republican. The Copyright Term Extension Act, AKA Sonny Bono Coyright Extension Act, was introduced to the Senate by Republican Orin Hatch. Oh and Sonny Bono was a Republican. The Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act was also introduced to the Senate by Orin Hatch. The Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act was also introduced by Orin Harch. I could go on and on about Republican-introduced copyright extension and copyright scope increasing acts. It's a myth that this is a heavily Democrat thing.

  • by mozumder ( 178398 ) on Saturday November 17, 2012 @04:06AM (#42010631)

    Government is the reason you are alive.

    If it weren't for government, a polluter would have no reason to not poison your air or water supply for his profit (power).

    And because they are profitable (powerful), they have the power over you to force themselves about it.

    So, your government steps in and makes sure you are safe and sound, by limiting other people's powers.

    Did you thank government for your protection? You should.

    Taxes are the protection money we (society) force you to pay to allow you to live with us. You do not get to live in our land for free. That is because every human is territorial, and we are the rulers of the land. It doesn't matter what YOU "believe" in. What matters is whatever WE do, since the decision on taxes is not yours to make, as only those with power can make decisions, and libertarians are the weakest in society. If you don't like it, feel free to move to another country. It is why we don't charge taxes for citizens of other countries, because we (government) don't own other sovereign states. But if we did, we'd charge them protection money (taxes), because we want the benefits of wholesale purchases that governments can do but individuals cannot.

    Additionally, libertarians just aren't very smart socially. This is actually their biggest flaw - their disbelief in social groups. All humans seek to gain power, including you. It is why you're here on this board promoting your views. And they form power through social groups, from families to governments. But, you actually have to curry favor to other members of society in order to form groups. A normal person offers favors to others in order to receive favors back, to grow their group of power. Libertarians assume that everyone will be nice to them and offer them services without offering people favors. Sorry, but human psychology doesn't work this way. No one owes you anything, including your human rights. You do have to be actively protect yourself, which means you have to curry favors with others, through groups (governments) in order to just exist. This isn't just a theory, it is how political science works. Groups are always stronger than individuals. Generals follow this rule in war. Sales people use the same social group theory to grow their power. Girls find guys that are more powerful to marry. And so on.

    Meanwhile, the correct answer, and the answer that all of society is actually based on, is socialism. The world revolves around groups, not individuals. The statement that no man is his own island is always true. And if there single-people islands, larger groups would come in and take it over or test atom bombs on them or whatever the fuck they want to do with it. You are therefore dependent on others (government) for your own basic survival. Libertarians just don't know that yet. They're obviously not supercomputers that can model all of society in their head.

    Basically Libertarians are people that just didn't think their cunning plan all the way through.

    I totally get where you're coming from, but every time I talk to libertarians about their mistaken worldview they simply get mad because I don't make the same mistaken assumptions they make. No libertarian has ever walked their cunning plan all the way through to me. Ever.

    Also libertarians are always the spoiled brats that do not appreciate the benefits of government. And every psychological profile of a libertarian show them to be spoiled brats.

    They love themselves too much.

    So, yeah, don't be libertarian. And don't have "beliefs". Ever.

"Let every man teach his son, teach his daughter, that labor is honorable." -- Robert G. Ingersoll