Administration Asks For Public Input On Intellectual Property Enforcement
from the hopefully-they'll-listen dept
As part of the mis-named ProIP act, the newly created IP Enforcement Coordinator (generally called the IP Czar) is supposed to help figure out what an effective "intellectual property enforcement strategy" would be. While we have questions about why this position or this plan is really needed in the first place, here's a bit of good news: rather than just doing the typical consult with industry lobbyists, the administration is, again, asking for public comment (pdf):This request for comments and for recommendations for an improved enforcement strategy is divided into two parts. In the first, the IPEC seeks written submissions from the public regarding the costs to the U.S. economy resulting from intellectual property violations, and the threats to public health and safety created by infringement. In the second part, the IPEC requests detailed recommendations from the public regarding the objectives and content of the Joint Strategic Plan and other specific recommendations for improving the Government's intellectual property enforcement efforts. Responses to this request for comments may be directed to either of these two parts, or both, and may include a response to one or more requests for information found in either part.The link above has more details, and the comments are due by Wednesday, March 24, 2010.
Now, I know when I posted my comments submitted to the USTR about the Special 301 process, a number of commenters wondered if the USTR would care, or even bother to look at, let alone consider, comments from the public beyond industry lobbyists. It is a valid concern. And while I do still wonder how much public comments will play a role in the actual strategy (compared to industry responses), in this case, the IPEC specifically reached out to Techdirt to let us know about this request for comment, to see if we would be interested in alerting our readers of their opportunity to take part. Now, the cynical response is that this is just window dressing -- and it's a lot easier to ask for comments from the public than to listen to them, but the fact that they are specifically reaching out to this community (among others) at least suggests an interest in what folks here might have to say. With that in mind, I'm hopeful that some of you will take the time to submit thoughtful comments on the subject.
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, copyright czar, enforcement, intellectual property, victoria espinel
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Following Canada?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shocked!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, what I want to know is how often the IP Czar beats his wife.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Lol wut?
He would have had a point if he was referring to physical counterfeit goods, but infringement includes copying digital files which are normally perfect copies of the original and thus do not pose a threat to anyone but seekers of monopoly rents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
from what I read
It's like "how can we better enforce ACTA and border patrols?" "how can we better protect intellectual property?" "how can we protect IP in other countries". None of that is productive questions to ask about IP enforcement. I think there are productive answers that can be given, but I find it highly unlikely.
So I think they set this up to deliberately ignore the public and make a false sense of transparency here.
If someone says "get rid of IP" or anything that results in showing that IP is the wrong focus, I think the response will be tossed aside/ignored.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Window dressing or not, I find it encouraging that they are at least aware of communities like Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Mikes Blog and our comments and views are being echoed around the world. I found some pieces of my comments from here on sites in Australia, the US, Canada, and the UK. In some minor way they want to show they are reaching out to the community. They have more than likely reached out to the EFF, Public Knowledge, etc also.
If you read the Request for comments it has nothing to do with what should be done to create a more fair and balanced IP system. It has to do with allowing Pharma and the media distribution industry to comment on enforcement, Rationalization of stronger IP laws, and educating the public using material designed by these industries.
Basically its where the industries mentioned in the request for comment get to request what they want as a lead up to ACTA.
As I said this is going to be (and is) fun to watch ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I KNOW
KILL anyone downloading a music file or tv ep
that will get rid of the problem....
AND make copyright last forever. WHO needs poor people to invent. We have enough rich people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No one said that publishing an RFC in the Federal Register is new.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IP Enforcement?
Beyond the IP copyright holders all getting together to have a drum beating session every week for a couple of years, I don't see much in the line of even desiring to seek public opinion.
The purpose of copyright was to protect for a limited time the right to distribute. That right has been done to death until nothing last year made it into public domain. Absolutely nothing.
For years and years, every new technology has had the IP protection gang quaking in their boots that it was the latest version of (what was that phrase} Boston Strangler, only to find later down the road when they did not get all the things they asked for in legal protections they could actually work with it and yes, even thrive on the brave new world.
Yet here we are, with all of them once again holding out their hands and claiming the death knell is being heard. Movies did great last year. The best ever in fact in it's history.
The only problem with the music industry isn't that P2P is killing them, it's greed and the unwillingness to accept anything short of an arm and a leg to do it legal. At any time they could again be rolling in the dough simply by opening up the licensing requirements. Yet this is never, ever, considered. Only thing considered is how much aid can we get, how much sympathy can we squeeze, and how much will it cost to butter the coffers of the congress critter that will swing influence to get what we desire.
I am indeed sorry that I don't have a lot of solutions to lay out beyond this is the first time in a long time that the government has bent over backwards to give all (or nearly all) desired and yet through this whole process, the public has been enemy #1. No input, no questions asked till it's done, and I'm sorry but this looks to be nothing but a sham with what I have seen in the news going on. I have at this point absolutely no faith that anything the public puts forth will have any bearing on the results.
The last time, when Joe Biden had his little meeting with all the heads of industry that brought this little office to a head, it was billed as wanting public input. Yet when it came down to it, it was a closed door, no public invited, and certainly no news reporting.
If you get the idea that I am fed up with the goings on, you are very correct. If it comes through the print that I am beyond disgusted with the way IP property has been treated in this country, especially considering that copyright's end retainer is not some business making money but rather a trust for the public's welfare, then the past 20 to 30 years has been nothing if not that sham.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IP Enforcement?
We don't need more IP protection. We need far less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IP Enforcement?
I keep thinking this will create more government when what we need is more jobs. Sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spatter patterns
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IP Czar
I'm just sayin'...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
#36521
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If people keep violating IP we're all gonna die and the world as we know it will end!!! IP infringement will lead to a doomsday scenario!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
“The Natural Solutions Foundation IS the Voice of Global Health Freedom™. The FDA would clearly rather that we have no hope, no communication system, no health options other than dangerous drugs and no voice. Like him or not, Kevin Trudea speaks up loud and clear for that which he believes. He believes in natural cures. His speech, like yours, is protected by the First Amendment. Or so you would think. Kevin is facing a $37 million dollar fine because he told people that his diet plan was “easy” and Judge Gettleman says it is not “easy” — without, of course, trying it. And he is facing a month in jail NOW because he asked his supporters to tell Judge Gettleman about their diet experience and their support for Kevin. 300 people used the Judge’s public email address, it is said, “crashing” the emai system. That so enraged the judge that he sentenced Trudeau to 30 days in jail! Is it possible to “crash” an email system with a few hundred emails? Of course not. And even if it were, it’s still free speech, just like it was when you “crashed” the FDA’s comment system in 2007 with 198,000 emails, stopping the agency’s anti-CAM gudiance.”
http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?p=4730
If he was merely giving his opinion about how he thinks people should diet, then this is completely unacceptable for the court system to do, though I’m not sure if he was selling something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Costs.
In this context, I really just mean copyrights and patents, of course. It's a pity that those two and trademarks are all lumped together in one incoherent catgeory by convention and now by government policy. We don't have a Department of Agriculture and High-Energy Physics, after all. For similar reasons, we shouldn't have an Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Costs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Costs.
Well, copyrights and patents have important differences too. For example, part of the original purpose of patents was to prevent inventions from being kept secret by their inventors -- the patent office was supposed to be a clearinghouse for research results. (These days the only reason people go looking through patents is to figure out if they're on one side or the other of a potential infringement suit; the "claims language" in which patents are now written is a lesson in high obscurantism, since its purpose is not to elucidate scientific facts but to defend legal territory.)
It's true that trademarks really are a wholly different beast from the other two. Copyrights and patents at least have in common that they make artificially scarce that which would be more valuable to society if shared. Trademarks are the opposite: the monopolies they grant are necessary for trademarks to have any value at all, to the public as well as to the holder of a given trademark. Trademarks are about identity (attribution) rather than about content, and identity means nothing if it's not reliable.
So I'm not sure we need a new word. We already have three perfectly good words for three distinct things, one of which — trademark law — stands out as especially different. The real problem is that rhetorical accuracy is not in the interests of those lobbying for (say) stronger copyright restrictions. That's why they constantly confuse copyright issues with attribution (trademark) issues. For a good example — I've linked to this before, so forgive me if you've already encountered it — see http://questioncopyright.org/promise#plagiarism-vs-copying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Under Angle
Gah, help me out here, it's 2am and my brain's being kicked to the curb.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Under Angle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess this is just for US citizens?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Incorrect.
The BOX OFFICE had its best year last year IF you ignore a little thing called "inflation".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Incorrect again.
2009 was only Hollywood's 5th highest box office year after adjusting for inflation.
2002 remains the champion in both ticket sales and adjusted box office.
None of this proves anything RE piracy, of course, but 2009 was NOT the best year for Hollywood in ticket prices, box office, downstream licensing or home video.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
2009 WAS a record breaking year for ticket PRICES.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah - wasn't that negative last year?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
ROFLMAO ... thats the same thing I thought
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The importance to engage.
Part of the process is having to go through the motions.
If they don't listen it just means they don't stop getting e-mails and letters and see people care less about what they are told.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please proofread this letter
I'm actually going to write a letter to Ms. Espinel, and I would really appreciate some proofreading before I send it.
The whole thing is pretty damn long. So, rather than post it here, I put it on my site:
A letter to Victoria Espinel
Tell me what you think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Please proofread this letter
At the beginning you mention that you are a musician, but you don't follow up on that. I think it would be a good idea to say how the things you are talking about are affecting you personally -- for instance, why does an artist feel we need more balanced copyrights, seeing that (in theory) you are being favoured atm?
I'll try to make time to go through it and fix a few grammatical errors I've spotted -- I'll try to post here later today/tonight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Please proofread this letter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Please proofread this letter
I was honestly trying to stay away from the "I'm an artist and I believe X" argument, in favor of the "X is correct" argument. It really doesn't matter that I'm a musician; it matters that what I say is right.
But I may write a closing paragraph that explains my reasoning; basically, that the laws she's asked to enforce criminalize independent promotion (in the public's mind, if not in actual law).
Most of your other corrections are spot-on. I'll probably use most of them. Once this is in a readable state, I'd like to send it as a "sample letter" to a few places.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Please proofread this letter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Please proofread this letter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Please proofread this letter
I also provided a link to the PDF, and included the relevant email, if anyone else wants to write in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This might be relevant....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Um, duh.
significantly reduce the demand for
infringing goods or products both in the
U.S. and in other countries."
Reduce the costs. Eliminating incentives for lawsuits come to mind.
Improve accessibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The key question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike - Please Post your Draft Response...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tax Sale
and others
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Edit and Proofreading
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Edit and Proofreading
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
+
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Intellectual Property Enforcement
With all the technology abounding where information can be bounced back and forth, the real world presents a formidable arena working against the idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IPEC Comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]