Copyright Czar: DMCA Is A Good Law
from the for-whom? dept
Marybeth Peters is our nation's "copyright czar," and over the years has tended to side with the big copyright firms over and over again, as if they need her special protection. It's not entirely clear why this big, successful industry needs increasing government protection, rather than learning how to adapt to a changing marketplace on its own (you know, like most other industries), but that's the way it is. In a recent talk, Peters repeated a familiar stance that the DMCA is a good law because it adds to "copyright owners' quiver of arrows to defend themselves." Of course, Peters doesn't discuss who those arrows are pointed at, and the fact that things like the DMCA have put a big fat bullseye on fair use, the public domain and what the general public can do with content. So why should a government official be supporting policies that help a particular industry at the expense of the very concept of copyright that she's supposed to be protecting?The article actually offers one suggestion as to why: Peters is a self-declared "Luddite" and admits that she doesn't even have a computer at home. In other words, one of the people most responsible for setting up the rules that impact copyright in a new digital age has almost no clue how the market is changing thanks to new technologies. Combine that with putting Hollywood's own politician in charge of the Congressional committee that deals with copyright laws and guess what you get? It's certainly not an approach to copyright that acknowledges what's actually happening in the marketplace. Instead, it's an approach that focuses on setting up artificial rules and barriers designed to enforce a business model from two decades ago that has long since been made obsolete by new technologies. And, in fact, the end result isn't even helping the very industry she so thinks needs protecting. Instead, the old record labels that rely on the DMCA are dying, and it's those who are embracing new business models who are figuring out ways to profit and aren't screaming over the threat of piracy.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright czar, dmca
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Marybeth Peters
"So why should a government official be supporting policies that help a particular industry at the expense of the very concept of copyright that she's supposed to be protecting?"
Easy, shes getting paid off, like the rest of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Marybeth Peters
There we go that sounds better, and I feel at ease knowing that that sort of thing doesn't go on here in America... /sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obviously copyright laws are violated quite often, shouldn't the govt. move to actually do something about that?
Saying "let the content be free because you can't stop it anyway" is akin to Bobby Knight saying "if rape is inevitable, sit back and enjoy it"
Not to say that copyright is the same as rape, but hopefully you get my point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: laws of the land
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: laws of the land
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: laws of the land
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: laws of the land
"The law of the land" says no such thing. (Which law, exactly, are you speaking of?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yikes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...just follow the $$$$$...
you have a Hollywood/Big Media-friendly lawmaker in charge of legislative copyright committees? follow the money. who paid for him? wasn't us who support fair use, public domain and think that the DMCA is the very incarnation of evil, was it?
got a schmuck in charge of the copyright office who supports citizen-unfriendly rules in her job? who appointed her? who _PAID_ to have her appointed? FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!
this garbage got rolling under President No-Zipper-Left-Up, has accelerated under President I-Make-All-My_Buddies-Richer-Than-Ever-While-Letting-Good-Soldiers-Die and people wonder why I could never support that other Clinton...
let's all face the facts. until we (that is, people with a serious interest reversing these ugly trends) can engage the non-copyright-savvy public in ways that they will understand and then get them to vote differently AND (more importantly) get the money together to fund better candidates who will support "we the people" we might as well just find something else to bump our gums about because right now, the deck is stacked against our side of the argument... these "content owners" are practicing the real golden rule -- they have the gold and they are making the rules...
oh you say you want a revolution, well you know, ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ugh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let this set the trend!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rebel!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]