Content is a $100Bn industry. Technology is 5-6x bigger, but the tech companies trying to disrupt content are an insignificant fraction of that industry.
Meanwhile, set aside whether you believe in the reforms proposed in the Khanna memo --- reducing statutory damages, increasing cost of enforcement, reducing copyright terms. Ask instead, "was this a politically effective policy memo?" Were its goals in the 113th congress realistic? Were its arguments persuasive? Something like 35% of all congresspeople are lawyers, and this memo starts out with a highly dubious argument about the meaning of the copyright clause.
It seems to me (and I am prepared to hear smart people tell me how wrong I am about this) that a reasonable short-term goal would have been to reduce the term of copyright, ratcheting it back to where it was, say, before Sonny Bono. Instead, this "RSC" memo proposed beyond that a gift basket of what seem like mostly not-useful policy trinkets for Redditors: expanded fair use for DJ culture (really? spend political capital to modify regulations on a $100bn industry for... DJs?), lower statutory caps for damages (the MPAA and RIAA already sue for a tiny fraction of the likely liability for many infringers), and punishing false copyright claims (the claims studios take to court are overwhelmingly not false; penalizing bogus DMCA takedowns wouldn't move the dials at all).
The real copyright reform is probably something like reduced term and compulsory licensing. What was the value to the RSC of trolling the Content industry for reforms that had no chance of happening, that wouldn't have actually kept people from being bankrupted by lawsuits, that wouldn't make it easier to launch tech companies, and that at the same time manage to almost uniformly enrage rightsholders?
Was this memo really "shockingly sensible"? A lot of smart people say it was. But I wonder whether they're more shocked that any conversation could have happened at all, and not really looking closely at the content of the memo itself.
Your points are valid, but the important things to consider are framing and negotiation. This was Obama's problem for the past 4 years.
If you initially propose something "middle of the road," you get negotiated to 3/4 down the road. If you propose something idealistic and way far to one side, then you give the opposition things to negotiate away. Then they feel like they win, and in reality you come up with something much more moderate and "middle of the road" than you would have otherwise.
I wish I could find the article, but I once read a story about a web designer who knew his clients ALWAYS had to have some feedback. "I love it, but can you change the color of this" or "make this bigger." No matter how perfect the design was, they HAD to give feedback to feel like they were doing a good job.
So the designer would make a beautiful website, and then put a really ugly snowman in the background. Then the clients would say "I love it!" But can you remove the snowman?"
Say you want reduced copyright terms, reduced damages, and expanded fair use for DJs. Then give up the DJs.
You know you have to give them something, so add things in you're okay giving up.
Now. Why is the first point about the size of the industry relevant? Unless you're talking about their ability to bribe...I'm sorry..."lobby" Congress to pass the laws they like? That shouldn't happen anyway, regardless of their size. Laws should be passed on common sense and what's good for the people at large, not based on how big is your bank account.
What is dubious about his argument about copyright? First off, copyright is not "property", and shouldn't be treated as property. It's more like a permit. The government allows you to use a certain idea for a "limited time period" as it says in the Constitution. Unfortunately, because of the bribing..sorry, again, I meant lobbying...the "limited time period" turned from 14 years to almost 10x more. That doesn't sound limited at all to me. Copyright was meant as an "incentive" system - not as a welfare system.
Ideas can and should be reused. Whoever gets something copyright, most definitely got "inspired" or copied parts of someone else' ideas. That's why there isn't really something like "intellectual property", because nobody owns an idea 100%. And since you used someone else' ideas, you have to get paid for whatever you added only for a limited period of time, and then allow others to benefit from it, too, and expand the public knowledge. The whole point of the copyright system was to benefit the "public". It doesn't say "the creators" in the Constitution.
The fact that you dismiss DJing and remixing so easily shows that you have zero understanding about why fair use even exists in the first place. I suggest going through these, and hopefully it will change your mind:
The Republican Study Committee was founded by Republicans who thought the mainstream of their party was too moderate. Proposals that go beyond what is politically feasible is part of their mission, because they want to change the boundaries of what is feasible.
(For example, right now the committee’s Web page links to an op-ed advocating a flat 15% income tax. The President—any President, of either party—will sign a flat income tax into law some time after the Air Force trades its fighter jets for flying pigs.)
"This memo starts out with a highly dubious argument about the meaning of the copyright clause."
What's dubious about it? Isn't that the standard constitutional interpretation? I've always heard that it's supposed to work like a balance with incentives for creators on one side and public domain access on the other side, with the goal being to maximize invention and innovation.
Well, the false or blanket DMCA take-down requests are a real problem.
Here's the recent HN example of how idiotic these have gotten: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4867216 (Movie Studios Ask Google To Censor Their Own Films, Facebook and Wikipedia (torrentfreak.com))
DJs are the obvious place to start on compulsory licensing given that such already exists for covers of songs. Introducing standardized terms for sampling would be a small step in the right direction (something you seem to be advocating when you're talking about terms) in an industry that already understands it and has been there in the past (e.g. Paul's Boutique would be impossible to make nowadays). This helps build up towards e.g. standard licensing terms for reuse of characters (something that big content has a lot to gain from, but would likely be too afraid of at the moment).
> Ask instead, "was this a politically effective policy memo?"
The long-term political goal for the Republican Party is to win elections, praticularly the presidency.
Younger and tech-savvy voters tend to vote Democrat. This is a problem for Republicans because their voter base is literally dying. If they embraced copyright reform and pushed it as an issue, there may be a lot of votes in it for them. I would regard that as "politically effective".
Another point is that Holywood and the music industry massively support the Democrats. This would mean that if the Republicans adopted copyright reform as a policy, the Democrats would be in a bind: either adopt copyright reform too (and annoy the copyright industry, and give up all the money it gives) or don't (and annoy lots of Democrat-leaning voters). It's therefore a wedge issue that could be tactically effective for the Republicans.
It most be pretty obvious to intelligent, thoughtful Republicans that their current strategy -- of getting lots of white men to vote for them by exploiting prejudice against blacks, Hispanics, women, and gays -- has no future. So they're going to need a new one; copyright reform as part of an overall libertarian agenda might be part of it, and by shutting down the debate on the issue, the Republican Party is not doing itself any favours.
But I suspect it will take them one or two more election cycles before it sinks in to them that they need to do thinks differently.
I agree, the terms are insane, and I hope they don't keep extending them. I'm pretty sure every single person who worked on the original Disney movie Snow White is dead now, lets get that into public domain, the point of copyright isn't to have an income stream for one's family forever.
I think an interesting solution would be to charge a compounding fee for copyright protection. So let's say you have a no charge for the first X years. Your first renewal is almost nothing but after that it increases rapidly so that by the time you're pushing 50+ years the payments are only affordable for the largest properties. Now it might be worth millions for Disney to keep their 70 year old copyrights for another few years but at least that doesn't force every single piece of content into the same 70+ year IP regime. In fact it provides a strong incentive for most content to enter the public domain quickly. The licensing fees from the copyright system could be paid back to protected artists based on measures of downloads, plays and performances.
I've only read the reporting on the memo, not the memo itself, so I can't comment on the legal arguments within.
But aside from that, I thought it was a fairly sensible move, precisely because the policies were a) pretty benign - they're not really going to hurt the interests of the content industry, b) neutral politically - they won't offend the conservative base, and c) naturally appealing to a constituency that's outside the typical G.O.P. base.
We do a good job appealing to married, religious, older, self-employed, or rural voters - if only we could run a competent campaign, we could potentially win on the strength of those constituencies alone. But that doesn't mean we can't find simple ways to appeal to other groups of voters that are consistent with (or at least don't contradict) conservative principles.
I don't expect 'the Redditor vote' to ever go Republican, but policies like this can shift it a couple of percent, lower donations, and reduce turnout - all quite-useful things.
What I'd like right away is even easier -- shorter copyright terms by default (maybe even the 1790 level), with positive actions required to extend them. Politically there is support from Disney, etc. to keep Mickey Mouse under de-facto perpetual copyright, but I don't really care about Mickey Mouse -- I want most of the books written, many now out of print, from much of the 20th century to be appearing in the public domain.
There was copyright renewal until 1992. It seems like a useful requirement. I'd support increasingly-onerous payments and renewal requirements -- maybe you get free copyright for 14-28 years, and then each year renewal after that costs an exponentially increasing amount of money.
I don't have time to respond properly, but even though I'm a bit of a copyright hawk myself I'm strongly in favor of the Khanna propositions. When the 'limited times' exceed the median human lifespan, the effective term of copyright for most citizens is infinite. I think most of the goals identified in the Khanna memo were shockingly sensible, even the DJ bits.
That said, it's not sensible in terms of political capital; even if the Republican party decides to leap in the 21st century and propose radical reforms, there are bigger fish to fry in the next Congress, like tax/entitlement reform, immigration and so forth.
Of course I think we need a third party and my occasional hobby is drafting its manifesto, but that isn't exactly a short-term project either.
It is a tangentally effective policy memo. It highlights the will of the status quo lobby to influence Steve Scalise and quash dialog on the issue.
Khanna's specific proposal says:
A. Free 12-year copyright term for all new works – subject to registration, and all existing works are renewed as of the passage of the reform legislation. If passed today this would mean that new works have a copyright until 2024.
B. Elective-12 year renewal (cost 1% of all United States revenue from first 12 years – which equals all sales).
C. Elective-6 year renewal (cost 3% of revenue from the previous 12 years).
D.Elective-6 year renewal (cost 5% of revenue in previous 6 years).
E. Elective-10 year renewal (10% of ALL overall revenue – fees paid so far)
This proposal would terminate all copyright protection after 46 years.
Content may be a 100 billion a year industry, but copyright violation does not put that full $100 B at risk.
Why settle on the pre-Bono copyright term? Why do you pick that instead of the original 14 years + 14 year renewal?
I think you've already decided you want copyright more or less the way it is, so you throw copyright doves a bone (breadcrumb?) by offering a single undo, and hope someone bites.
If you try to examine copyright law from basic principles, rather than from the perspective of the status quo, it becomes very tough to support even the pre-Bono copyright terms of life+50 years (personal) or 75 years (corporate), automatic, with registration only required to collect punitive damages, but not required to sue (harass) arguably legitimate fair users of content.
How does compulsory licensing work without capping license fees? Content creators have a monopoly. Forcing them to charge something for licensing does no good; they can set the price arbitrarily high.
If you cap the fees, you have to have a very complex formula so that you can arrive at a maximum license fee, given an arbitrary piece of intellectual property, and some arbitrary proposed licensed use of that IP.
Complex regulation like that invites abuse by anyone with the resources to lobby, so it becomes a lobbying contest rather than an attempted equitable settlement (how do you judge what's fair pricing for license of IP that's held by a monopoly?). If that wasn't bad enough, by capping fees you've effectively partially socialized the IP content industry: The free market and private industry would no longer be the primary drivers of the economics of IP.
I think everyone, even copyright doves like myself, fantasize about creating some incredibly desirable piece of IP that we can live off of for life. We just differ in the judgment of effectiveness, actual financial benefit, and collateral damage related to taking legal action against non-for-profit filesharers.
I am only addressing the political and legal problems here; not the practical, ethical, and technological enforcement problems, of which I think there are many.
In my eyes I saw it as less about the cause of copyright reform, and much more about the message of "We republicans are going to stop catering to the rich guys with lobbying power." Which would have had lasting and view/brand changing consequences. Take something with seemingly little effect and get a major reaction. Whether that was anyone's goals or if the memo should have been taken at face value is of course debatable. I just wanted to give a plausible bigger picture they could have been grabbing at. (mind you the republicans should have learned this last election that limitless money doesn't instantly bring you results, you need content as well.)
> Ask instead, "was this a politically effective policy memo?"
Exactly, Republicans' strongest constituency (rich white guys[1]) don't care all that much, if at all, about details of copyrights, something that costs their households a few hundred dollars a year at most. On the other hand, people who care either already lean libertarian enough to vote red, or will never, ever even consider voting for a Republican.
A senator will get more votes going door to door than by pushing through any reform like that.
You're right that perhaps what the paper was saying was to radical to be really implemented but sometime radical things are need to bring change! You can't be paying over a billlion dollars for the music in a single ipod...
Sorry but your post reeks of being too "inside baseball". You discount a bill because it is not passable rather than being ideologically aligned with a large portion of the public. And then bring money and stakeholders into the situation. Of course those stakeholders who are currently getting rich off of the current laws aren't going to like it. And of course it's not passable. But that is not the point. Taking power from those who have it and instituting a "takeback" are not easy. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Don't keep people from shooting for the moon b/c it's not practical.
It seems to me ... that a reasonable short-term goal would have been to reduce the term of copyright, ratcheting it back to where it was, say, before Sonny Bono.
A bit of a decrease would be possible, from life+70 to life+50, but since the U.S. acceded to the Berne Convention, it's committed itself to terms no shorter than life+50. I think expanding statutory protections for fair use would probably be a more effective approach, although expanding compulsory licensing is an interesting possible alternative.
I largely agree with you that Redditors go over the top with things without thinking them through but have to point out a couple of lines that I disagree with.
>really? spend political capital to modify regulations on a $100bn industry for... DJs?
The point should be whether it's for the overall public good, not just for some industry. Lets assume the $100bn industry just rolls over and dies tomorrow, ignore the losses of art and entertainment for a second. What would consumers do with a $100bn extra in their pockets? Would they spend it on buying electric cars thus jumpstarting them? Would they invest it thus making new companies easy to start? Would it kickstart alternative business models that would employ some of the unemployed? Perhaps not. But the fact that it hurts a particular $100bn industry by itself should not be a veto against such a measure, or else we would still be riding horse buggies.
>Ask instead, "was this a politically effective policy memo?" Were its goals in the 113th congress realistic? Were its arguments persuasive? Something like 35% of all congresspeople are lawyers, and this memo starts out with a highly dubious argument about the meaning of the copyright clause.
Just like in courtcases, even in Congress you need to push for the extremes in order to get something done. If you push for realistic measures, it is sure to get watered down to essentially nothing. It's like a salary negotiation, if you start with a reasonable number, HR will never agree to that and will themselves offer a very low offer which you will have trouble in getting it where you want. You need to shoot for 10 to 20% more than what is "reasonable" in order to have any hope of getting a reasonable offer. Same with the bill here. Have you not been keeping up with how bills are negotiated in Congress? If anything reasonable is suggested, the Hollywood lobbyists with bags of cash in their hand will water it down. Hollywood spends a ton of money on lobbying, and legislators are cash strapped at election time with candidates raising millions.
Did they really have any opportunity here? Silicon Valley also (reasonably!) requires support for gay marriage, believes in and fears anthropogenic global warming, is basically pro-choice, and has dovish foreign policy beliefs. Demographically, Silicon Valley is largely college educated and is more ethnically diverse than suburban America.
I know hearing this upsets HN, and lots of smart people think I'm completely batshit when I say this, but copyright reform is a fringe issue. There are probably more people who vote for the gold standard, or to ban mosques.
The memo was widely hailed by tech policy scholars and public interests advocates.
And also the internet.
At least one thing is certain - there is vehement opposition to any sort of copyright reform, and it is embedded deep into the political system. I don't think I've ever heard of a policy proposal being met with this kind of reaction. Really pushed some buttons.
I don't have a problem with this. I hope the GOP fails entirely, so it can be replaced by a new party that advocates social liberalism and (true) fiscal conservatism. Trying to get young voters when you're talking about legitimate rape and not allowing gay marriage is a waste of time. But if a new fiscally conservative party embraces things like those issues and ones like marijuana legalization, I think a lot of young voters are willing to embrace a message of small government and free market economics.
Wow, this is on top of the GOP silently kicking younger members out of budget committees earlier this week for not bowing enough to the party line[1]. The GOP has had opportunities lately to shed some of their hypocritical big-government stances; their growing younger libertarian-ish/anti-special-interests wing (Rand Paul, Justin Amash, etc) is in my view their best hope for long-term survival, but the establishment seems to be denying that as much as possible.
The 'younger members' you reference were kicked out since they voted against the Paul Ryan budget because it did not cut spending enough. They were further to the right than Paul Ryan, and Republican leadership is trying to build support for some kind of budget deal.
This probably violates HN guidelines, but I'd like to suggest a modification re: keeping the original article titles if they contain names of political parties. Remove them. They invite political arguments.
The GOP seems more and more against things going the way of the "public Interest" in favor of the few connected, this makes it even harder to build a future with the more and more progressive majority.
The Internet alliance or whatever it's called formed by Reddit etc. after the SOPA fiasco needs to show their support for this person right away or there would be absolutely no point to it. Putting black badges on sites for SOPA was good but this needs to be taken up by sites too. Perhaps someone(Google?) can hire him to further write more papers analyzing copyright?
I'm okay with this. I'm not sure I want a party of bigots to lead the charge on copyright reform. It would put me in an awkward position. Firing the only intelligent person in the party seems to solidify this.
On the other hand, it could have been a way for the GOP to segue from the "bigot party" into a group with reasonable beliefs. Parties change over time, and this could have been a good first step in the right direction.
[+] [-] tptacek|13 years ago|reply
Content is a $100Bn industry. Technology is 5-6x bigger, but the tech companies trying to disrupt content are an insignificant fraction of that industry.
Meanwhile, set aside whether you believe in the reforms proposed in the Khanna memo --- reducing statutory damages, increasing cost of enforcement, reducing copyright terms. Ask instead, "was this a politically effective policy memo?" Were its goals in the 113th congress realistic? Were its arguments persuasive? Something like 35% of all congresspeople are lawyers, and this memo starts out with a highly dubious argument about the meaning of the copyright clause.
It seems to me (and I am prepared to hear smart people tell me how wrong I am about this) that a reasonable short-term goal would have been to reduce the term of copyright, ratcheting it back to where it was, say, before Sonny Bono. Instead, this "RSC" memo proposed beyond that a gift basket of what seem like mostly not-useful policy trinkets for Redditors: expanded fair use for DJ culture (really? spend political capital to modify regulations on a $100bn industry for... DJs?), lower statutory caps for damages (the MPAA and RIAA already sue for a tiny fraction of the likely liability for many infringers), and punishing false copyright claims (the claims studios take to court are overwhelmingly not false; penalizing bogus DMCA takedowns wouldn't move the dials at all).
The real copyright reform is probably something like reduced term and compulsory licensing. What was the value to the RSC of trolling the Content industry for reforms that had no chance of happening, that wouldn't have actually kept people from being bankrupted by lawsuits, that wouldn't make it easier to launch tech companies, and that at the same time manage to almost uniformly enrage rightsholders?
Was this memo really "shockingly sensible"? A lot of smart people say it was. But I wonder whether they're more shocked that any conversation could have happened at all, and not really looking closely at the content of the memo itself.
[+] [-] zacharycohn|13 years ago|reply
If you initially propose something "middle of the road," you get negotiated to 3/4 down the road. If you propose something idealistic and way far to one side, then you give the opposition things to negotiate away. Then they feel like they win, and in reality you come up with something much more moderate and "middle of the road" than you would have otherwise.
I wish I could find the article, but I once read a story about a web designer who knew his clients ALWAYS had to have some feedback. "I love it, but can you change the color of this" or "make this bigger." No matter how perfect the design was, they HAD to give feedback to feel like they were doing a good job.
So the designer would make a beautiful website, and then put a really ugly snowman in the background. Then the clients would say "I love it!" But can you remove the snowman?"
Say you want reduced copyright terms, reduced damages, and expanded fair use for DJs. Then give up the DJs.
You know you have to give them something, so add things in you're okay giving up.
[+] [-] mtgx|13 years ago|reply
Now. Why is the first point about the size of the industry relevant? Unless you're talking about their ability to bribe...I'm sorry..."lobby" Congress to pass the laws they like? That shouldn't happen anyway, regardless of their size. Laws should be passed on common sense and what's good for the people at large, not based on how big is your bank account.
What is dubious about his argument about copyright? First off, copyright is not "property", and shouldn't be treated as property. It's more like a permit. The government allows you to use a certain idea for a "limited time period" as it says in the Constitution. Unfortunately, because of the bribing..sorry, again, I meant lobbying...the "limited time period" turned from 14 years to almost 10x more. That doesn't sound limited at all to me. Copyright was meant as an "incentive" system - not as a welfare system.
Ideas can and should be reused. Whoever gets something copyright, most definitely got "inspired" or copied parts of someone else' ideas. That's why there isn't really something like "intellectual property", because nobody owns an idea 100%. And since you used someone else' ideas, you have to get paid for whatever you added only for a limited period of time, and then allow others to benefit from it, too, and expand the public knowledge. The whole point of the copyright system was to benefit the "public". It doesn't say "the creators" in the Constitution.
The fact that you dismiss DJing and remixing so easily shows that you have zero understanding about why fair use even exists in the first place. I suggest going through these, and hopefully it will change your mind:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83lhAlmp5vY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyf_0SMAsFA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q25-S7jzgs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL2FOrx41N0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAmmtCJxJJY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wq5D43qAsVg
And here's a law professor discussing some of my points above such as why copyright is not real property:
http://surprisinglyfree.com/2012/12/04/tom-bell/
[+] [-] sethg|13 years ago|reply
(For example, right now the committee’s Web page links to an op-ed advocating a flat 15% income tax. The President—any President, of either party—will sign a flat income tax into law some time after the Air Force trades its fighter jets for flying pigs.)
[+] [-] Alex3917|13 years ago|reply
What's dubious about it? Isn't that the standard constitutional interpretation? I've always heard that it's supposed to work like a balance with incentives for creators on one side and public domain access on the other side, with the goal being to maximize invention and innovation.
[+] [-] sologoub|13 years ago|reply
Here's the recent HN example of how idiotic these have gotten: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4867216 (Movie Studios Ask Google To Censor Their Own Films, Facebook and Wikipedia (torrentfreak.com))
[+] [-] lmm|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cabalamat|13 years ago|reply
The long-term political goal for the Republican Party is to win elections, praticularly the presidency.
Younger and tech-savvy voters tend to vote Democrat. This is a problem for Republicans because their voter base is literally dying. If they embraced copyright reform and pushed it as an issue, there may be a lot of votes in it for them. I would regard that as "politically effective".
Another point is that Holywood and the music industry massively support the Democrats. This would mean that if the Republicans adopted copyright reform as a policy, the Democrats would be in a bind: either adopt copyright reform too (and annoy the copyright industry, and give up all the money it gives) or don't (and annoy lots of Democrat-leaning voters). It's therefore a wedge issue that could be tactically effective for the Republicans.
It most be pretty obvious to intelligent, thoughtful Republicans that their current strategy -- of getting lots of white men to vote for them by exploiting prejudice against blacks, Hispanics, women, and gays -- has no future. So they're going to need a new one; copyright reform as part of an overall libertarian agenda might be part of it, and by shutting down the debate on the issue, the Republican Party is not doing itself any favours.
But I suspect it will take them one or two more election cycles before it sinks in to them that they need to do thinks differently.
[+] [-] ry0ohki|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Steko|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gyardley|13 years ago|reply
But aside from that, I thought it was a fairly sensible move, precisely because the policies were a) pretty benign - they're not really going to hurt the interests of the content industry, b) neutral politically - they won't offend the conservative base, and c) naturally appealing to a constituency that's outside the typical G.O.P. base.
We do a good job appealing to married, religious, older, self-employed, or rural voters - if only we could run a competent campaign, we could potentially win on the strength of those constituencies alone. But that doesn't mean we can't find simple ways to appeal to other groups of voters that are consistent with (or at least don't contradict) conservative principles.
I don't expect 'the Redditor vote' to ever go Republican, but policies like this can shift it a couple of percent, lower donations, and reduce turnout - all quite-useful things.
[+] [-] rickmb|13 years ago|reply
The copyright debate isn't about one industry against another, it's about an industry versus the rights of individual citizens.
[+] [-] rdl|13 years ago|reply
There was copyright renewal until 1992. It seems like a useful requirement. I'd support increasingly-onerous payments and renewal requirements -- maybe you get free copyright for 14-28 years, and then each year renewal after that costs an exponentially increasing amount of money.
[+] [-] anigbrowl|13 years ago|reply
That said, it's not sensible in terms of political capital; even if the Republican party decides to leap in the 21st century and propose radical reforms, there are bigger fish to fry in the next Congress, like tax/entitlement reform, immigration and so forth.
Of course I think we need a third party and my occasional hobby is drafting its manifesto, but that isn't exactly a short-term project either.
[+] [-] JagMicker|13 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_the_111th_United_Sta...
http://www.crisp360.com/hosted-infographic/where-did-congres...
[+] [-] fredericdb|13 years ago|reply
Khanna's specific proposal says:
A. Free 12-year copyright term for all new works – subject to registration, and all existing works are renewed as of the passage of the reform legislation. If passed today this would mean that new works have a copyright until 2024.
B. Elective-12 year renewal (cost 1% of all United States revenue from first 12 years – which equals all sales).
C. Elective-6 year renewal (cost 3% of revenue from the previous 12 years).
D.Elective-6 year renewal (cost 5% of revenue in previous 6 years).
E. Elective-10 year renewal (10% of ALL overall revenue – fees paid so far)
This proposal would terminate all copyright protection after 46 years.
[+] [-] javajosh|13 years ago|reply
Hello! Where do these numbers come from? Thanks.
[+] [-] harshreality|13 years ago|reply
Why settle on the pre-Bono copyright term? Why do you pick that instead of the original 14 years + 14 year renewal?
I think you've already decided you want copyright more or less the way it is, so you throw copyright doves a bone (breadcrumb?) by offering a single undo, and hope someone bites.
If you try to examine copyright law from basic principles, rather than from the perspective of the status quo, it becomes very tough to support even the pre-Bono copyright terms of life+50 years (personal) or 75 years (corporate), automatic, with registration only required to collect punitive damages, but not required to sue (harass) arguably legitimate fair users of content.
How does compulsory licensing work without capping license fees? Content creators have a monopoly. Forcing them to charge something for licensing does no good; they can set the price arbitrarily high.
If you cap the fees, you have to have a very complex formula so that you can arrive at a maximum license fee, given an arbitrary piece of intellectual property, and some arbitrary proposed licensed use of that IP.
Complex regulation like that invites abuse by anyone with the resources to lobby, so it becomes a lobbying contest rather than an attempted equitable settlement (how do you judge what's fair pricing for license of IP that's held by a monopoly?). If that wasn't bad enough, by capping fees you've effectively partially socialized the IP content industry: The free market and private industry would no longer be the primary drivers of the economics of IP.
I think everyone, even copyright doves like myself, fantasize about creating some incredibly desirable piece of IP that we can live off of for life. We just differ in the judgment of effectiveness, actual financial benefit, and collateral damage related to taking legal action against non-for-profit filesharers.
I am only addressing the political and legal problems here; not the practical, ethical, and technological enforcement problems, of which I think there are many.
[+] [-] jeremyarussell|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spindritf|13 years ago|reply
Exactly, Republicans' strongest constituency (rich white guys[1]) don't care all that much, if at all, about details of copyrights, something that costs their households a few hundred dollars a year at most. On the other hand, people who care either already lean libertarian enough to vote red, or will never, ever even consider voting for a Republican.
A senator will get more votes going door to door than by pushing through any reform like that.
[1] http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2012/11/2012-electoral-maps-by...
[+] [-] cdooh|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paulyg|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yuhong|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _delirium|13 years ago|reply
A bit of a decrease would be possible, from life+70 to life+50, but since the U.S. acceded to the Berne Convention, it's committed itself to terms no shorter than life+50. I think expanding statutory protections for fair use would probably be a more effective approach, although expanding compulsory licensing is an interesting possible alternative.
[+] [-] jcampbell1|13 years ago|reply
Where did you get that number? Americans spend that much on cable TV alone.
[+] [-] thwest|13 years ago|reply
I'm supposed to care... why? Horse buggies, beanie babies, etc.
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] recoiledsnake|13 years ago|reply
>really? spend political capital to modify regulations on a $100bn industry for... DJs?
The point should be whether it's for the overall public good, not just for some industry. Lets assume the $100bn industry just rolls over and dies tomorrow, ignore the losses of art and entertainment for a second. What would consumers do with a $100bn extra in their pockets? Would they spend it on buying electric cars thus jumpstarting them? Would they invest it thus making new companies easy to start? Would it kickstart alternative business models that would employ some of the unemployed? Perhaps not. But the fact that it hurts a particular $100bn industry by itself should not be a veto against such a measure, or else we would still be riding horse buggies.
>Ask instead, "was this a politically effective policy memo?" Were its goals in the 113th congress realistic? Were its arguments persuasive? Something like 35% of all congresspeople are lawyers, and this memo starts out with a highly dubious argument about the meaning of the copyright clause.
Just like in courtcases, even in Congress you need to push for the extremes in order to get something done. If you push for realistic measures, it is sure to get watered down to essentially nothing. It's like a salary negotiation, if you start with a reasonable number, HR will never agree to that and will themselves offer a very low offer which you will have trouble in getting it where you want. You need to shoot for 10 to 20% more than what is "reasonable" in order to have any hope of getting a reasonable offer. Same with the bill here. Have you not been keeping up with how bills are negotiated in Congress? If anything reasonable is suggested, the Hollywood lobbyists with bags of cash in their hand will water it down. Hollywood spends a ton of money on lobbying, and legislators are cash strapped at election time with candidates raising millions.
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] btilly|13 years ago|reply
The GOP had the opportunity to position themselves on the opposite side from the Democrats. And failed to do so. :-(
[+] [-] tptacek|13 years ago|reply
I know hearing this upsets HN, and lots of smart people think I'm completely batshit when I say this, but copyright reform is a fringe issue. There are probably more people who vote for the gold standard, or to ban mosques.
[+] [-] iyulaev|13 years ago|reply
And also the internet.
At least one thing is certain - there is vehement opposition to any sort of copyright reform, and it is embedded deep into the political system. I don't think I've ever heard of a policy proposal being met with this kind of reaction. Really pushed some buttons.
[+] [-] pyre|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] w1ntermute|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wheaties|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joshuahedlund|13 years ago|reply
[1] http://blog.heritage.org/2012/12/04/huelskamp-amash-say-hous...
[+] [-] AmericanOP|13 years ago|reply
http://www.politicususa.com/fireboehner-hashtag-trends-war-e...
[+] [-] sdafdasdfasdf|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bjhoops1|13 years ago|reply
Drawing attention to the existence of "corporate welfare" does not go over well in the GOP.
And I was so proud of them for making a sensible stand on this issue!
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aswanson|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] debacle|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kno|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] neeee|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mtgx|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cooldeal|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rymith|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pavel_lishin|13 years ago|reply