Senate Panel Approves Bill To Make The Justice Dep't Hollywood's Private Police Force

from the travesty-of-justice dept

Fri, Sep 12th 2008 5:06am — Mike Masnick

We were just talking about how a huge number of public interest groups had explained to the Senate why the new Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act was a such terrible idea since it would add a Copyright Czar in the White House and let the FBI file civil charges against people caught infringing on copyrights. After all, there's simply no logical explanation for why the FBI should be propping up the obsolete business model of an industry that refuses to change with the market.

However, it appears that public interest groups don't fund campaigns like the entertainment industry does. The Senate Judiciary Committee has gone ahead and approved moving the bill forward by a 14-4 margin, basically handing over Justice Department resources to Hollywood to protect its business model with no real justification.

The bill's sponsor, Sen. Patrick Leahy's explanation is pretty stunning in its ignorance:

"We all know that intellectual property makes up some of the most valuable, and most vulnerable, property we have. We need to do more to protect it from theft and abuse if we hope to continue being a world leader in innovation."

Can someone send him a copy of Against Intellectual Monopoly so he can understand how nearly every part of that sentence is wrong. First off, intellectual property, despite the name, is not "property" at all. It's also not "vulnerable" except if you mean that there are better business models out there for dealing with. He gives no convincing reason why we should "protect" it, other than a factually untrue statement about "theft," when infringement and theft are two totally different things and should be dealt with in two totally different ways. Finally, studies have shown that the more "protected" IP is, the less innovation results, so his final clause is simply backwards. This bill will serve to limit American innovation, and open up more foreign innovation instead. But, as long as it means the RIAA doesn't need to innovate...

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, intellectual property, patrick leahy, senate

45 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

eleete, 12 Sep 2008 @ 5:21am

Google
This is the same department scrutinizing Google ? They themselves are guilty of antitrust with this move. On the Google post someone was railing against the republicans, yet Lehay is a democrat. What gives?

If there were ever a case to be made for antitrust it would be AGAINST the MPAA and RIAA. As mentioned however, the contributions by these organizations to these polluticians are staggering. They are the puppet masters where the PEOPLE should have control, not the corporations.

Very Sad Indeed for the sheeple. (myself included)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Killer_Tofu (profile), 12 Sep 2008 @ 5:28am

Well
One of my Senators was not on the list of those on the committee that were reviewing this.
However, now that this is to the senate as a whole, I will be writing a letter to my senator trying to explain how bad this is. I will send an email too so they get it sooner, but I am pretty sure they just trash emails because its so easy to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2008 @ 5:55am

Re: Well
The sheer number of one line quotes that explain why the actions our Government has been taking of late is staggering.

The fact many people seem oblivious and ready to accept the Government's word as Truth is astounding.

One thing the Founding Father's didn't foresee: Groupthink.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bored, 12 Sep 2008 @ 5:55am

It's time we vote them out of office.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
eleete, 12 Sep 2008 @ 5:57am

Re:
THAT is the answer my friend. Regardless of party and base it on actions like these.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2008 @ 6:01am

You can't vote them out of office, all politicians are the same, you remove one and a new one takes its place.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2008 @ 6:05am

The US economy is in the worst shape it's been in a long time and it's only going to get worse before "if" it gets better. Our police / schools and other various NEEDED services are under a barrage of budget cuts. A lot of insured Americans can not afford medical care despite being fully covered. Identity theft is increasing. Short sellers are annihilating companies through unscrupulous and sometimes illegal means just to make even more money to add into their already bulging portfolios. We're wasting thousands of American children and billions upon billions of dollars on an illegal war.

Now were going to be spending our tax dollars on providing legal council for some of the richest people in the country while at the same time increasing the penalties and fines beyond some criminal felonies. For organizations who tell our legal system that they shouldn't be required to show proof in some of their cases?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AnyMouse, 12 Sep 2008 @ 6:08am

Paradigm shifts
Why in the world can't the recording industry realize that there has been a paradigm shift, and they need to change their business plan to keep up with the shift?

I'm sure that the buggy whip manufacturers tried their damndest to keep the horseless carriages off the roads. But, alas, they were not successful.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
msfreeh, 12 Sep 2008 @ 6:18am

FBI WATCH
re: FBI
to view over 400 pages of crimes committed by FBI agents including committing voter fraud see
campusactivism.org
click on home
click on forum
scroll down to FBI WATCH

ALSO GOOGLE
LEONARD GATES VOTER FRAUD FBI
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MadJo (profile), 12 Sep 2008 @ 6:28am

You mean...
that congress didn't listen to the public? That's new(!)
It's depressing, how politicians seem to see the public that voted them into office as nothing more than *sswipes.

Time for a new (r)evolution?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2008 @ 6:58am

Re: Google
This is the same department scrutinizing Google ? They themselves are guilty of antitrust with this move. On the Google post someone was railing against the republicans, yet Lehay is a democrat. What gives?

The JUSTICE DEPARTMENT is going after GOOGLE. Lahey is a senator, he is not in the justice department (which is run by Bush appointees and staffed, unconstitutionally, by Republican partisans). Lahey is on the Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary committee is under the power of Congress and made up of elected representatives. The Justice Department is under the controlled by the Executive branch and made up of political appointees. The judiciary committee historically has had oversight duties regarding the justice department (which is essentially what this article is about), but they are not the same thing. It should be noted also that the Bush administration has continually questioned any oversight of their activities by congress as part of their belief that the executive should be all powerful and answerable to no one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
angry dude, 12 Sep 2008 @ 7:01am

Disgusting...
"The bill's sponsor, Sen. Patrick Leahy's explanation is pretty stunning in its ignorance:

"We all know that intellectual property makes up some of the most valuable, and most vulnerable, property we have. We need to do more to protect it from theft and abuse if we hope to continue being a world leader in innovation."

Sen. Patrick Leahy has a VERY BIG problem with his standing on the issue of IP protection:

On one hand he wants to protect copyright holders, which is OK with me ( unless we are talking overprotection like 100 year copyright terms or throwing casual filesharers in jail etc.)

On the other hand he wants to make patent protection not available to small entities like independent inventors and tech startups (but still keep patents in place for his large corporate campaign contributors..)

What is this ?
A medical case of a split personality disorder which needs to be treated asap or another scumbag in Congress ?
I'll pick the latter...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Emerson, 12 Sep 2008 @ 7:05am

Re: Disgusting...
Wow! Your comments here don't include the word "punk" even once, and your argument seems mostly sane. Are you sure you're the real angry dude?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
eleete, 12 Sep 2008 @ 7:17am

Re: Re: Google
Once again, your agenda is clear. You hate Bush and republicans. Once again you are clearly clueless. I never said the DOJ was DOING this, the article mentions the senator wants to put them in TOTAL CONTROL. Your rant specifically in the other post. Your disgust for Bush or the republican party are not warranted on this bi-partisan issue. Clearly I have pointed out that BOTH parties are guilty of what you cast aspersions to. Objective much ? You desperately try to push the innocence of the Democratic party in regards to monopolies and antitrust. Yet you offer no facts or information to support that baseless claims. Even as a democrat pushes to REDUCE the rights of his constituents. All you have to offer is your dicontent of one party and praise for the other, with no proof of one behaving differently than the other. Opinions like yours (one sided and blind) are what allow these people to navigate a great nation to self destruction.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Allen, 12 Sep 2008 @ 7:51am

being
As Im a Brit and US politics is a little differant one thing is the same, the BIG corporations have our polititions in there pockets, bought and paid for the same. So any one reading this in the UK think what is happening here now will happen in the UK tomorrow and we have 2 years before an election.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2008 @ 8:07am

Predictions
Will be referred by the Judiciary Committee to the Senate floor for a vote, where it will easily pass.

Will then be sent to a joint House/Senate committee for reconciliation between it and the House of Representatives version. The differences between the two versions of the bill are generally minor.

Will eventually be passed by Congress with a relatively large majority voting in favor, and then sent to the President for signature.

Whoever is President (Bush, McCain, Obama) will sign bill, and without a "signing statement", and it will enter into force.

Will drive certain pundits into apoplexy, beginning a new round of "why this is wrong" speeches and articles.

Life will go on largely as before and the sky will not plunge to the ground.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2008 @ 8:10am

Re: Re: Re: Google
Once again, your agenda is clear. You hate Bush and republicans. Once again you are clearly clueless. I never said the DOJ was DOING this,”

Really? You said this;
“This is the same department scrutinizing Google ?”

No the department scrutinizing Google is the Department of Justice. This is a senate committee, they are NOT in fact the same department, no matter how many times or different ways you try to say they are.

“Clearly I have pointed out that BOTH parties are guilty of what you cast aspersions to . . . ”
No actually once again you haven’t, you can’t even come close. I gave you about 500 words just off the top of my head regarding the abuses and malfeasance of the Republican control government from 2000 to 2006. You gave me one senator and one bill and try to claim “their all the same”. Both parties did not lie to the America people to go to war, both parties did not refuse to stop the defrauding of California by Enron, both parties did not use homosexual prostitutes to pose as reporters to throw fake questions to the president, the leaders of both parties did not refuse to testify before the 911 commission . . . etc etc etc (again this is just stuff I thought of in a few seconds). You can try these “there all thieves” thing if you want and you can pretend to not be a republican if you don’t have the guts to stand up for what you “supposedly” believe in, but you pretending it doesn’t make it true.

Finally my agenda is for improving the country I love and I am not too cowardly to admit it or try to obfuscate it behind some illusion of independence. Frankly most admitted Republicans won’t work as hard as you to defend their party, I have certainly never seen an “independent” that would. I just don’t want people to be suckered into this “there all crooks” republican party spin after the last 8 years have shown quite clearly that some crooks are far more damaging to this country than others. They are not “all the same” and while I certainly don’t agree with everything any democratic politician does, Democrats are unquestioningly not “equally” responsible for the mess the country is in today. My question to you though is, when will you be honest about your agenda?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Confused, 12 Sep 2008 @ 8:37am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Google
AC, I am a bit confused here.The Democrats have been running the country since 2006. End of this year we have to vote to see if we want them to continue running the country and whether we want to change the party that is President. You are defending the Democrats very fiercly, but they have done absolutely nothing since they resumed power. I would go further and say that they have made it worse. Gas is much higher than under the republicans, food prices are going through the roof and spending is running amok.

I live in Illinois. A state completaly controlled by the Democrats and I can tell you this, I am not voting for a Democrat again in this coming election. I am a little screwed, seeing that I am very liberal, but these demigods of yours have failed me miserably.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
eleete, 12 Sep 2008 @ 8:41am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Google
“This is the same department scrutinizing Google ?”

Admittedly my wording was a bit vague in the Rest of the context, however, Once again you jump to one side of the argument. My point was... "Is this senator really proposing to put the DOJ as the czar of copyrights?" Apparently you could not read this.

Asking that question standalone does not conclude what you imply at all. I never said the DOJ Was the senate but nice try.

"“Clearly I have pointed out that BOTH parties are guilty of what you cast aspersions to . . . ”
No actually once again you haven’t, you can’t even come close."
Really ? When any bill is passed into law, are you saying that only one party has acted ? Clearly voting for the war was BOTH parties. Regardless of the majority. BOTH voted BOTH ways for and against. And in fact the rest of that little rant is hollow. YES BOTH parties are guilty of what you assert. You wish not to see that however.

You also like to sum up the history of our government by a guage of "the last 6-8" years. Sorry to say it's been going on loooooong before that.

I don't defend the republicans once in any of these threads except to say they both behave similarly. Slinging mud and ignoring the issues on real Americans minds.

I believe (as you do not) that both your and my points are to make this country better. There IS corruption in our government. On BOTH sides. The war was voted for on BOTH sides. You seem to want to only focus on the two parties. Perhaps thats as high as you can count. I, however, see the grey areas and variables as being vast between the two. Certainly on one issue I can appear liberal and on another extremely conservative. With so many issues at hand. How could you possibly label me (one person) as either specifically.

Your anger is apparent but you are not aiming at the right human here. Perhaps you should take your case/issues to ALL the representatives without bias ? hmmmmmmm ? Or, will they both ignore you, and continue to behave the same?
Remember, history repeats itself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2008 @ 8:52am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google
You are a complete fool if you think that the current price of gas, or food, or spending, is purely the work of Democrats. It's the work of politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, that's gotten us into this mess. And it started long before 2006. But if you wish to be so myopic, paranoid, and foolish, then please turn in your voter ID card. You're not qualified to vote in this election or any other. You should try getting your information from somewhere other than political pundits and television ads.

I'm sorry you live in the fucked-up state of Illinois, but don't be such a fool as to paint all Democrats as bad, and all Republicans as good, simply because your governor is an asshole. The President and his cronies are assholes, too. But you'd happily go with more of the same from the federal government, because you're fed up with your state government.

I suggest that you've gotten the government you deserve, and based on your comments, you'll continue to get more of the same.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Enid of Enoughborough, 12 Sep 2008 @ 8:57am

Re: Predictions
Thank you for this completely useless bit of drivel. It's people like you, who simply ACCEPT this shit ("oh, life goes on, la-di-da"), that have helped to get us where we are. This little diatribe proves that all you really care about is you. Please don't fuck up the rest of us by voting. I guess in your little world, this sort of thing really doesn't matter.

Or maybe you're just another RIAA/MPAA shill. If not, maybe you should apply for the job.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Reason, 12 Sep 2008 @ 9:05am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google
My point was... "Is this senator really proposing to put the DOJ as the czar of copyrights?" Apparently you could not read this.

Well, no, he probably couldn't read that, since it's not what you wrote. You can try to deny it, but you wrote exactly this: "This is the same department scrutinizing Google ?" Please scroll up the page, and you'll see it for yourself.

"“Clearly I have pointed out that BOTH parties are guilty of what you cast aspersions to . . . ”
No actually once again you haven’t, you can’t even come close." Really ?

Yes, really. He's got you there again. You didn't point out anything, until you replied to the post pointing out that you hadn't pointed out anything.

Remember, history repeats itself.

History does not repeat itself, but people repeat the same mistakes. The quote is closer to "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
duder, 12 Sep 2008 @ 9:07am

Re: Re: Predictions
But with his head in the sand, it will show that when things go bad, it wasn't his fault...because he chose to bury his head.

Don't you get it? It's people like that guy who make society better. The less we educate ourselves, the more we accept what we are told, the gov't/corporations get what they want, the people don't care, everybody wins!

Get with it Enid! Stop researching, stop educating and STOP CARING!!!

/sarcasm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2008 @ 9:20am

In reply
To all the various commentors: A famous US president once said:

"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it.

Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it.

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.

That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.

Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."

-Thomas Jefferson.
And like TJ, I think that best thing that we can do as a nation is revolt against the government that is NOT representing us, the people. History repeats itself for a reason. And we need to stand up and say that we do not approve. And in response to all those that say "McCain is bad" or "Obama is bad" need to vote for the one person who is actually aware of how serious the situation in the White House is, and would actually do something about it, Ron Paul.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Clueless, 12 Sep 2008 @ 9:30am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google
Again another person clearly clueless about how the Democrats do not have control. Let me just say that they do not have to have control you need to be able to have more votes to stop the Veto of Bush. So if you do not have enough votes to override any veto threat by bush than how is the senate suppose to pass any bill unless bush agrees? That goes back to how can the Democrats be running the country when anything the try to pass does not have enough votes because they do not have the full majority. Just Curious Unless I am wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Factoid, 12 Sep 2008 @ 9:31am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google
> The Democrats have been running the country since 2006

In what universe? The President is Republican, the Senate does not have enough opposition votes to override a Presidential veto or Republican filibusters. The only place where there is a clear democratic majority is in the House.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Factoid, 12 Sep 2008 @ 9:39am

> he bill's sponsor, Sen. Patrick Leahy's explanation is
> pretty stunning in its ignorance

If I didn't know better it would appear that the US govt simply hates the American people. But I know it's actually that they love their money and perks.

Unfortunately while these idiots are the modern day Nero. Newsflash Leahy: this economy is about to crash. You should be focusing on that rather than running a protection racket for Hollywood.

Leahy needs to be run out of office, plain and simple. Anyone supporting this legislation needs to go. But these clowns will be voted right back in, or we'll vote in whomever spins the best lines and does the best ads. It's a sad state of affairs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gutless Wonder, 12 Sep 2008 @ 9:50am

Re:
Except he's from Vermont, and we don't all live in Vermont. Senator Leahy has made a fool of himself repeatedly during his tenure, yet the people of Vermont continue to vote him back into office. And they will continue to vote him back into office, because it's easier than educating themselves about his politics.

Sadly, we can only vote out the wackos in our own states.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rick Sarvas, 12 Sep 2008 @ 11:16am

If this passes
So, if this passes, just what kind of proof would be required to press civil charges? Sending pay-up-or-else letters with no proof is one thing, but I would imagine that some sort of burden of proof would be required for a civil case. Also, even if the burden of proof were to be set quite low, would the FBI really consider it worthwhile to go after the odd file sharer downloading - correction - "making available" a handful of albums?

I would hope they have better things to do with their time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
*angry dude, 12 Sep 2008 @ 11:50am

Re: Re: Disgusting...
Wow, that's what I was going to say...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
eleete, 12 Sep 2008 @ 12:09pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google
You are clearly irrational.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
eleete, 12 Sep 2008 @ 12:13pm

Re: In reply
I really was trying to make that exact point also. I love the quote you include about the "light at his taper". That is the stark difference between 'property' and 'ideas/information/intellect...'. Glad you brought that to the discussion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Reason, 12 Sep 2008 @ 1:46pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google
I'm irrational because I can refute your points, using your own posts? That's rich.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dan, 12 Sep 2008 @ 3:21pm

What is the going price of a senator these days?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
eleete, 12 Sep 2008 @ 6:42pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google
You are irrational because you misread my comment and are pushing some agenda. You refuse to look at the statement in any other context than your own. Enjoy your anger while arguing with yourself. You've managed to refute nothing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
General Tier, 12 Sep 2008 @ 7:30pm

I'm disgusted by this. This dude Leahy must be from the USSR.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gene Cavanaugh, 13 Sep 2008 @ 9:58am

IP and Campaign Finance Reform
Politicians get elected because they have the money to hire the media to tell us to vote for them.
Politicians get that money from large companies, especially the entertainment industry.
Therefore, eventually all politicians belong to large industries, and a significant one is RIAA.

Expect this to change when we have campaign finance reform, and not before.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Sep 2008 @ 1:12am

"Finally, studies have shown that the more "protected" IP is, the less innovation results, so his final clause is simply backwards."

Mosser, Jaffe/Lerner, Boldrin/Levine (Against Intellectual Monopoly) penned articles relating to patent law. This act, whatever its merits/demerits, relates almost exclusively to copyright law. Since their articles relate to a wholly different segment of federal law, do you have citations to references relating to copyright law and its impact on "innovation"?

By the way, would it really be wise to send to Leahy a "patent" book when the matter at hand is "copyright"? Would not one dealing with copyright be more effective?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike (profile), 15 Sep 2008 @ 3:12am

Re:
Mosser, Jaffe/Lerner, Boldrin/Levine (Against Intellectual Monopoly) penned articles relating to patent law.

And others have addressed copyright. Who said we were only referring to those studies? But the point remains that the overall impact of both copyright and patent law work in similar manners. So it can be a good proxy.

Since their articles relate to a wholly different segment of federal law, do you have citations to references relating to copyright law and its impact on "innovation"?

Yup, there are plenty of such works by Lessig, Netanel, Perelman, Vaidhyanathan, Mason and others.

By the way, would it really be wise to send to Leahy a "patent" book when the matter at hand is "copyright"? Would not one dealing with copyright be more effective?

Once again, MLS, your words betray your ignorance. Against Intellectual Monopoly is not a "patent" book. It covers both patents and copyright in great detail.

Funny that you repeatedly condemn the book and its authors when you clearly have never bothered to read it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Sep 2008 @ 8:10am

Re: Re:
While AIM does devote at least one chapter to a discussion of copyright, the authors present their case based upon empirical data associated with inventions and patents. I am not at all surprised by this in view of fundamental differences that exist between the patent and copyright regimes, not only because of the nature of rights granted, but also the disparity between enforcement mechanisms. By the way, I have read AIM since I do read and try to understand the references you cite in your numerous articles. In this regard I have found your site quite helpful to identify work by others that question conventional wisdom.

I have long followed Lessig's work, as well as, inter alia, that of Patry and Nimmer (both father and son). I am not familiar with the work of the others you mention. Lessig being what I would term the "advocate" of the group {Patry to some extent, but much of his and the Nimmers' work is directed to treatises), his work suffers from largely consisting of the historical development of copyright law, statutory provisions, and caselaw decisions. He writes as is typical of a lawyer, but without empirical data his advocary falls well short of the mark.

While it seems you believe otherwise, I am not an "IP" apologist who holds as a basic tenent that the success of our economy is causally related and dependent upon the existence of patent and copyright law. Quite the contrary. For example, long ago I noted that very little of the innovation to which patent laws could apply actually enters into the "patent system". Of course, it would be an entirely different discussion explaining why I believe this is so based upon my experience over a wide diversity of industries. Recall, I have practiced this aspect of IP law to a significant degree in both private law and in-house settings.

In view of the foregoing, and until such time as empirical data is presented concerning the economic impact of copyright law, I continue to hew to the view that "informing" Congress via AIM would almost certainly be an exercise in futility...what I term "swimming up a waterfall". Why? Because the RIAA/MPA/etc. enjoy

two distinct advantages. First, they have incredibly effective lobbies with ready access to the members of Congress and the Executive branch. Second, in the legislative debate it is their "numbers" that are on the table and that frame all discussions. To effectively counter their numbers counter-groups must effectively present their own numbers and the methodology used, something that to date has been virtually non-existent.

The development of copyright law in large measure depends upon the effective presentation of a "business case", and I am not at all sanguine this is something for which lawyers, and particularly those in academia, are well suited. Talk "business" and Congress may listen. Talk law and congressional eyeballs will "cage in the full upright position" (an aircraft term pertaining the HSIs).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Sep 2008 @ 11:14am

Update:

One thing that has me puzzled about AIM is why Boldrin and Levine are claiming copyright in the book? I would have expected them to dedicate the book to the public domain.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike (profile), 15 Sep 2008 @ 12:29pm

Re:
One thing that has me puzzled about AIM is why Boldrin and Levine are claiming copyright in the book? I would have expected them to dedicate the book to the public domain.

Once again showing you haven't actually read the book. It's explained in the book.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike (profile), 15 Sep 2008 @ 2:33pm

Re: Re: Re:
While AIM does devote at least one chapter to a discussion of copyright, the authors present their case based upon empirical data associated with inventions and patents.

Actually, they do it with both patents and copyright. The book devotes significantly more than a single chapter to copyright.

In view of the foregoing, and until such time as empirical data is presented concerning the economic impact of copyright law, I continue to hew to the view that "informing" Congress via AIM would almost certainly be an exercise in futility...what I term "swimming up a waterfall". Why? Because the RIAA/MPA/etc. enjoy

Did you really think that I thought Congress reading that one book would change the way they dealt with these issues?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Sep 2008 @ 4:27pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Once again showing you haven't actually read the book. It's explained in the book."

Mine was a serious question for which I did not find an explanation in the book. Perhaps it is because the copy I read was the Acrobat file at the website. If you can direct me to the location in the file it would be appreciated.

And...No, of course one book (or even a hundred) does not change things. What does change things (besides campaign contributions), however, is definitive data, something that is sorely lacking in discussions before Congress concerning copyright issues by those who challenge groups like the MPAA and RIAA. Unless and until this latter group gets its act together and approaches this as a business issue and not a legal one, it is almost a given that the DCMA will be supplanted by the "DCMA+", Sonny Bono by "Sonny Bono+", etc.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Robin, 16 Sep 2008 @ 2:15pm

Current Leahy Position
Sharing with you Mike so you have a record, as this issue will certainly come up again.

As of 9/16/08 my very own Senator Leahy takes the position:

"I have long supported strong protection of creators' intellectual property. Counterfeiting and copyright infringement cost the American economy billions of dollars and lost jobs each year - it is not just the record labels and the film studios that suffer, but also the consumers,
who end up paying for piracy on the back end and face potential harm from dangerous counterfeit products imported from abroad.

Congress has taken notice of this issue and there have been a few bills introduced during the 110th Congress designed to address it. On July 24, I introduced my own legislation, the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act of 2008. This bill authorizes the Attorney General to bring civil actions against copyright infringers, which is often more appropriate to the wrong being done in such cases than is criminal prosecution. It will also strengthen the ability of the federal
government to enforce intellectual property rights by establishing an Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, who will coordinate the efforts of the various federal agencies in charge of the enforcement of existing laws. In addition, this legislation will increase the resources available to federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies to combat counterfeiting and piracy. On September 11, this bill was passed by the Judiciary Committee and will now be considered by the full Senate.

By enacting well-balanced enforcement laws, Congress can protect both the creators and consumers of intellectual property. The legislation that I have introduced strikes that balance and will improve the enforcement of our nation's intellectual property laws, bolster our
intellectual property-based economy, and protect American jobs."

I have a suspicion that the response he is receiving is overwhelmingly negative, as suggested by the addition of the politician's favorite canard: I'm doing this to help you, yes you! save your money and your job. hehe :)

For further amusement, pick apart the good senator's public statement:

http://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/200807/072408a.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]