GOP Study Committee Director Disowns Brief Attacking Current IP Law 176
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."
S4B Separation complete (Score:4, Interesting)
No constitutional scholar here (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
The GOP is very divided. (Score:3, Interesting)
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 "teapartiers". These are the ones who are against abortion, against homosexuals, and who are crazy for their twisted idea of Jesus Christ. They are less focused on business, but rather on social issues. They have shown themselves to be the less-intelligent of all of the groups within the GOP. These are often the Southerners who receive significant amounts of direct government assistance, but then turn around and protest the very government social programs that they leech off of continually.
Over the past decade or so, the neoconservatives and religious fundamentalists have courted one another, in order to gain control over the Republican Party. They've been the public face of the GOP during this time.
There are other major groups within the party, however. There are also the "paleoconservatives" and the "libertarians". They're the ones who advocate smaller government, less involvement of the government within the daily lives of Americans, and so forth. Since these views often conflict with those of the neoconservatives and religious fundamentalists, these groups have been marginalized recently, although they formerly were a large part of the GOP.
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.
One other thing to consider about the sensibles is that they represent a much wider swath of American society. They include blacks, Hispanics, Middle Easterners and Asians, for instance. People like this are generally shunned by the rest of the Republican subgroups. Interestingly, although these people don't have white skin, they have adopted political stances that have traditionally been held by whites.
They are willing to openly admit to facts that otherwise haven't (or politically couldn't) be admitted to by the existing Republican groups, nor by the Democrats. 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. They'll admit that the unbridled illegal immigration from Central and South America has been extremely harmful to the American economy. They see that existing IP laws and practices are hindering the American economy. They know that American military involvement in the Middle East and in other areas of the world has been harmful to America as a whole. They see the War on Drugs as a waste of valuable resources. They don't care if one man wants to stick his penis up another willing man's rectum.
I think that it's these "sensibles" who are the Republican's best bet for relevance in the future. They're the only ones who don't hold antiquated, or just straight-out insane, views. They hold a much more realistic view of the world. They see truths that the other Republicans can't see, or that they refuse to see. They are the only ones who present a sane, viable alternative to the Democrats. And while they're relatively small in number now, it's likely that they'll become far more prominent as time goes on.
GOP should take this on for strategic reasons. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:The GOP is very divided. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:of course (Score:2, Interesting)
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?