IP Czar Report Hits On All The Lobbyist Talking Points; Warns Of More Draconian Copyright Laws To Come
from the oh-great dept
We had serious questions from the beginning about Senator Patrick Leahy's "ProIP" bill, which was pushed very strongly by the lobbying group, the US Chamber of Commerce, using widely debunked stats to claim that there needed to be an "IP Enforcement Coordinator" in the White House. Yet, as we explained, such a position makes absolutely no sense. Even "pro intellectual property" folks noted that the law was anything but "pro intellectual property." Instead it was pro-legacy business structure. So giving a role in the White House to someone whose sole job is to protect legacy business models is the very definition of regulatory capture. And while the IP Enforcement Coordinator, Victoria Espinel, has been kind enough to personally reach out to us multiple times since taking on the job, in the end she still sees her role to be protecting legacy industry jobs, rather than (as the Constitution requires) making sure that intellectual property promotes the progress.Given the level of regulatory capture, it's no surprise that Espinel's first report on the "progress" of her strategy reads like a checklist of what the big IP lobbyists wanted. Not surprisingly, the US Chamber of Commerce, who misled Congress to create this role in the first place not only cheered on this new report, but also urged Espinel and the White House to go even further in passing even more draconian, legacy industry-protecting legislation.
And that appears to be coming. Within the report, there's a note that new copyright laws are on their way "in the near future."
The U.S. Government must ensure that intellectual property laws keep pace with changes in technology and the practices of infringers. As part of a process initiated by the IPEC, Federal agencies reviewed existing laws to determine if changes were needed to make intellectual property enforcement more effective. The initial review began shortly after the release of the Joint Strategic Plan and was completed within 120 days. The IPEC will include legislative proposals identified in that review in a White Paper on legislative recommendations that the IPEC expects to submit to Congress in the near future.It's not difficult to read between the lines. Considering that it was US Chamber of Commerce lobbying that created this role in the first place, and now she's discussing new laws, to then see the Chamber of Commerce immediately announce it was "ready to work with Congress and the administration" on increasing IP laws, you can bet that the laws in question have already been written mostly by such lobbyists, and we should see them soon. Protectionism, protectionism all around.
That's not how to create innovation. It's how you prop up obsolete businesses at the expense of innovation.
The rest of the report, which is embedded below, just shows the sad state of affairs of industries who won't adapt and can't compete, abusing the legal process to put up barriers to new technologies, abuse the free speech and due process rights of those who actually innovate, and celebrate stagnation as a strategy for innovation. It's a depressing document all around. It celebrates the international joke that is the Special 301 report from the USTR. It mockingly celebrates "increased transparency" from an administration that supported the massively secretive process behind ACTA (which the document also cheers on), which only now we've confirmed was always about holding back developing nations rather than increasing innovation. Not surprisingly, the report cheers on the illegal seizures of domain names, despite the likely prior restraint and due process violations those seizures entailed. It ignores the international incidents created by seizing domains of sites declared legal in their home countries. And, of course, nothing in the report discusses new business models or how decreased IP enforcement has resulted in greater creative output, more opportunities for content creators, and new innovation throughout the world.
In other words, the report is a complete joke. Reports like this are incredibly frustrating, because they simply highlight how our government has been taken over by special interests who have no desire to actually improve the country, but merely to protect a few powerful lobbyists and the corporations that support them.
What bothers me the most, frankly, is that nowhere does the report make even the slightest attempt to support any of its assertions that greater IP enforcement is actually good for the economy. There are tons of evidence that this is not true, and yet Espinel repeats the claim as if it's proven fact. This is unfortunate because she does know better, but I guess appeasing special interests is more important than actually working to promote progress and improve the economy.
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, enforcement, ip czar, ip enforcement coordinator, protectionism, regulatory capture, victoria espinel
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Baka
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Baka
Copyright is the *very definition* of 'giving back'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Really, we need to remove the "Federal" (snort, chortle, tee hee, as if) Reserve, as well as the other blood sucking ticks it has infested us with--the IRS, for example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That anti-tax comment supports the views of the very wealthy. The less government interference, the more unfair can be their contract terms with mere mortals, and the less likely mere mortals have a chance to win things back.
A more perfect Union cannot come to pass (and certainly not promote the general welfare) with even more lopsided wealth distribution than we have now. We need income and other progressive taxes always to try to fight back against those with very large levers using that leverage to more easily acquire even larger levers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Didn't mean to suggest that the more interference the better but simply that there is a "level" at which we gain and lose as it drops below that level.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What an ignorant statement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and people wonder why the US is on a downhill
Let's hope politicians wake up before we bankrupt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: and people wonder why the US is on a downhill
Actually the incumbent politicians will not change. So lets hope the population wakes up and votes them out before we bankrupt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: and people wonder why the US is on a downhill
If this was my bank account I would have been shot, hung, drawn & quartered by now by the bank.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It would take...
What comes after regulatory capture? Governmental capture? "We the people" are apparently silent 4th-partners in the US Government, we have no voice and haven't the right to know more than we're told.
Best be careful with that whole 'speaking the truth' bit, you may be labeled an 'enemy of democracy' (that is the current euphemism, right?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It would take...
If congress cared even one iota about the public interest their first order of business would be to shorten copy protection length from 95+ years to something somewhat reasonable instead of seeking to break the laws even further than what they are. The fact that they are only seeking to move in the opposite direction without first fixing what's wrong with the laws is strong evidence that they are only serving corporate interests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quotes like this pretty much sum up TD for me. When things don't go your way, it's "special interests". For someone with an MBA, you seem to be all to quick to ignore the economic realities of the situations in play.
What is happening is what I have mentioned in other threads: The US government is becoming more and more aware of the huge economic impact of piracy, and the impacts of the loss of IP to countries with weak protections (or none at all). The US is not a producer nation of hardgoods for the most part anymore, the US is a producer of IP, of the most desired music and movie content in the world, and generally a leader in all things that would fall under copyright.
They are hit by the double whammy - erosion of the internal market (through piracy and such inside the US) and the erosion of the non-entertainment IP through non-protecting countries basically stealing it outright.
In the end, changes are coming because of economic reasons, not because of a few lobbyists. If it was only for lobbyists, abortion would be entirely illegal, pot would be entirely legal, and everyone would be packing a pistol at all times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, because 95+ year copy protection lengths is the result of a government that seeks to serve the public interest. and instead of fixing these stupid laws, the government is only going in the other direction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
and even if it's true, isn't that just more reason that copy protection laws shouldn't last so long, since each additional year after only a few years produces very little additional economical incentive to create in the first place.
and some of the reason that much of the older music has died is because it's been protected for so long that much of it has been forgotten, since it hasn't been repeated long enough for younger people to hear and appreciate. If people were allowed to make copies a long time ago, they can better preserve it for the younger generation to appreciate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, Coward, what's your angle? It's rare to find somebody who supports a rights-crushing regime unless they stand to benefit from seeing everybody's rights crushed...
Also, feel free to cite logical reasons to your position, or have you only opinion statements?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I don't support "rights-crushing" in any manner. I support balance. Copyright (and patents) have positive and negative aspects. The question is balance. It is very easy as an end consumer to look only at the negatives (why am I paying this much?) rather than looking at the overall impacts in the economy. I look at the incentives that copyright gives to businesses and individuals to make the investment of time and money required to develop new products, new ideas, and so on that benefit everyone.
I understand there are other views of what could and could not be accomplished. But so far, I haven't seen any other alternatives out there that appear to have the long term stability and the long term incentives in the system to make it go. Short term, abolishing these things would be a boon to everyone who could just go and take what they want. But like looters in a riot, it is a short term effect that does not support long term "going forward" business models.
The reality for Americans (and most western countries) is without protection against low cost countries, we all get dragged down to that level, we don't drag them up to our level. Every penny of the Chinese advancement has come out of the West's hide. They appear to be improving, but it is as much an averaging of wealth going on. The US as a whole isn't exactly a viable financial model in that scenerio, is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The only way in reality to increase wealth, be it one's personal wealth or a nation's GDP, is thru manufacturing. When a person/company acquires $3 of raw materials and turns it into a $300 part--value has been created.
China's growth has not come at our expense--it is NOT a zero-sum game.
IP, on the other hand, is the masturbation of the wealthy--they dream of a world wherein they have money forever and no need to do anything to protect it because the entire system is stacked in their favor. Such a system will not last (for precedence, review medieval feudalism).
The only way to move forward is manufacturing and innovation. Taxes, tariffs, patents and the like only act as a brake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
THANK YOU. I was beginning to think I was the only person in the world who could see that.
IP, on the other hand, is the masturbation of the wealthy--they dream of a world wherein they have money forever and no need to do anything to protect it because the entire system is stacked in their favor.
Also true. +1 for you, sir. IP is where a country gravitates to when it gets fat and lazy on the proceeds of its industrial success.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you don't think that the Internet has brought and will bring a great amount of wealth to us all just be being used more?
Since when is a growth of information, especially for the class of information known as "software", which helps power amazing mechanical devices, and for the class known as entertainment, not a gain in wealth?
Since when is having more efficient structural setups around us not a gain in wealth?
And isn't having a bunch of garbage and poisons lying around people's drinking water and air and destroying lots of lifeforms we haven't yet had a chance to study, a loss in wealth even though it does tend to result from gains in manufacturing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Until there was a way to trade overseas easily, everything in the US was made in North America, or just about. Shipping was expensive and time consuming, such that local and regional production was key.
However, wages, benefits, and all that comes with it in the US have made manufacturing almost impossible for many items. It is cheaper to sell the raw material to China and buy it back finished than it is to make it locally. When that happens, the manufacturing jobs leave and go where it is cheaper to get the finished product.
We hate to lose the jobs, we love Wal-Mart. Self defeating actions, I guess.
The world uses more steel than ever, but it doesn't come from the US. The world consumes more shoes, shirts, and all manner of household goods than ever, and effectively none of it is made in the US.
Until the US gets wages down to the level of matching places like China, Thailand, India, and even Mexico, they jobs won't flow back. We the people don't want to pay $150 for a coffee maker when we can buy the Chinese made one for $40. You can't change those basic facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How does exporting this US based law idea that IP is all important help when it will be used in reverse against it - 'cause you know it will.
How does creating dependency on IP make any business stronger when it can literally be ignored at will by anyone in any country at any time?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But that kind of behavior also creates masses of people with nothing to do which could end with someone self immolating in front of the White House in despair after having his living taken because he was selling illegal produce, when that happens maybe people will rise, do we need to wait for people to start to die though?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There are many better alternatives, and there is no evidence that IP has long (or even short) term stability or incentives to "make the system go." If anything, all the evidence says you're wrong.
"The reality for Americans (and most western countries) is without protection against low cost countries, we all get dragged down to that level, we don't drag them up to our level."
The solution to their improvement isn't to try and restrict their (and our) improvement through unnecessary copy protection laws, it's to encourage us to compete with them in a free market so that we can learn to do so.
"Short term, abolishing these things would be a boon to everyone who could just go and take what they want. But like looters in a riot, it is a short term effect that does not support long term "going forward" business models."
Proof by assertion shouldn't, and isn't going to, convince anyone. You need a thing called substantiation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You see, the general population just doesn't "buy" IP in their gut the way they buy a car or a house being private property. IP kind of goes against the natural law in that it tries to make an idea something that it isn't - private property. Once an idea leaves someone's mind and is expressed, it becomes naturally free. Indeed, IP can be copied without depriving the original owner of possession, and there is no scarcity with IP except for managed, artificial scarcity. IP is fundamentally a government granted monopoly, a legal fiction, unlike real and chattel property, and as more people come to understand and be negatively impacted by that legal fiction, the more likely that fiction will become viewed by the public at large as an obstruction to the general welfare and the specific welfare of given citizens, and eventually maybe even as usurpatious and tyrannical.
Indeed, we've gotten a pretty good critical mass of discontent about this nation's IP laws being expressed about SOPA.
How far will it take to tip things over the edge? The further IP interests and IP maximalists push, the more resentment and anger they generate, and as we move towards more and more of a physically disconnected world, and as consumers encounter and resent more and more IP enforcement, the day will eventually and inevitably come when the tables are turned, and consumers, not rightholders, are in control of IP and are able to alter or abolish its' monopolies as they see fit.
Maximalism for IP owners is very shortsighted because there will eventually be blowback, and that blowback will be hard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Which is why wasting time propping up IP with more and more draconian laws is precisely the wrong strategy.
Fix your manufacturing sector if you really care about your country's long-term economic viability, because the IP bubble could pop any time just like the housing bubble did!
As for the lobbyists, they are the ones working to convince your government to ignore basic economics and go for more and more enforcement. You cannot possibly claim the lobbyists have no impact on your government's decisions -- if they had no impact, then they and their multi-million dollar campaigns wouldn't exist in the first place!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The manufacturing sector works perfectly, except for one very basic problem:
US workers are unwilling to work for $1 an hour. In fact, US workers cost so much that it is cheaper to produce overseas,put it in a container, ship it to a port, sail it half way around the world, and then transport it by truck the rest of the way across the US to sell it. Net all of those expenses, the US manufacturing system is just too expensive.
It is incredibly unlikely that any time in the near future that you will see that change. The only reasons you see cars being produced in the US is the costs of shipping and import restrictions that are in place. Without tariffs and other restrictions, your cars would all be made wherever it was cheapest, no matter what.
In the end, the US is just too expensive to produce the goods (and the same thing applies for many Western nations, who has the misfortune of being world leaders in the economy rather than dirt farmers or lucky enough to be living on a sand dune full of oil). Since that won't change, the US has to do what it is best at, which is IP - and that needs to be protected.
Care to explain your "IP bubble" theory?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So you're saying that the only thing the U.S. is good at is IP. They suck at innovation, they suck at working, they suck at everything, so the only thing they can do is to try and extort money out of everyone else for anything anyone does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too expensive = not cutting enough corners
You simply cannot produce the same way as China without flouting labor laws and environmental restrictions. We're company against a nation that will happily poison an entire region just to win. We no longer do it -- at least on that scale -- and that's good for our environment, but bad business.
Where's the level playing field?
-C
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Too expensive = not cutting enough corners
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Hello? You are in a country with 10% unemployment and about 15% of the population living below the poverty line. People want the work!
The strength of the dollar as a reserve currency has made it cheaper for companies to invest outside the country and import more. Exports are suffering for the same reason. Your most recent governments have done nothing to mitigate the problems, leading to the death of your manufacturing sector.
As for the "IP bubble" concept, see here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
like tech companies in 1999-2001 and like real estate in 2005-2007, intellectual property is over valued.
so long as the market has faith in intellectual property, as it kept faith in tech companies and real estate, IP will increase in value, the instant that faith is lost (like in 2002 and 2008 respectively) there will be a crash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It has nothing to do with if the IP is as valuable as it was 20-50 years ago. It has to do with people overvaluing IP and percieving it to be more valuable than it actually is.
If you have followed any of the bubbles, or market fluctuations, over the past 40 years you will see one very simple thing. When it starts getting hyped as having almost infinite value, and people start rationalizing how valuable it is, and its actually worth even more. Thats a sign its about to crash. Sound familiar?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is no correlation between them and IP whatsoever. There is nothing analogous in the equity market that would manifest such a bubble, either.
Like I said, you have no evidence at all that IP is less valuable now than it was 20 or 50 years ago. Ergo, it's not overvalued.
In fact, this "concept" is easily one of the stupidest things I've ever read on this site. And that says a lot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The true value of something does not need to shrink whatsoever for that thing to become overvalued. The perceived value would simply need to grow at a rate faster than the true value is growing. See all the laws, and the lack of any actual benefit coming of them, for your proof of overvaluation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What the financial sector know about construction and home sales? nothing but they knew how to sell promises.
What to labels produce actually? nothing, they get what is produced elsewhere and do what banks did promote it and sell imaginary goods to stupid people.
What do patent trolls produce? nothing they get hold of ideas of others make baskets of offerings and sell that or extort money from others.
It looks like a bubble to me and it will burst eventually, see EMI for a real case scenario of that, they sold a basket of worthless imaginary products way over what it was worth it and are chapter 11 right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
well, if you look at the increase in litigation surrounding patents which has been ruled bogus, or the ineffectual efforts of the music and movie industries to control unauthorized file sharing, or the fact that some countries have simply ignored pharmaceutical patents for certain medications it would appear that intellectual property may no longer be as valuable as it was when copying was so much harder to do. it would appear that the efforts invested in protecting IP are outstripped by the actual protection those efforts provide.
if intellectual property, or rather the unauthorized distribution of it, is not worth the dollar figures in damages that the various industries claim, how does that affect the perceived worth of the legitimate product?
the logic works like this:
if an item is copied without authorization and the claim is made that the copy cost a company a large sum, and it turns out that the loss was at best not as large as claimed (see studies that debunk said claims), and at worst, not in fact a loss at all, what does that say about the valuation of the "legitimate" copies?
but honestly, even if it hasn't lost value (indeed if it ever had value to begin with) it most likely hasn't increased in value at the rate that it is being hyped at (see: failed patent lawsuits, illegal file sharing, etc.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
See this comment. Basically the failure of the content IP Bubble will be caused by one or more things that errode the monopoly. These will occur due to competition, the laws not working because no one believes in them, and people pushing for ever more oppressive laws. If you have been watching the riots around the world recently, you see that if you keep pushing eventually people push back. combine that with the fact that we are reaching the push back point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Its closer than you think for the content industry. Several things could cause it. Off the top of my head ...
1) Easy to use, all in one, torrent or P2P Software that allows for encrypted anon connections.
2) Legal decisions shutting down the dept of IP enforcements actions.
3) One or more US politicians blocking any further advancement of draconian IP laws.
4) Public outcry over the rules going to far. More than likely due to the criminalization of file sharing.
5) Several tech companies getting together to push back against further advancement of IP content laws.
6) Due to the complexity and conflicting nature of the rules for paying for
7) Competition from inside and outside causing the financial ruin of the content companies, leading to the end of lobbying efforts.
Its probably going to be a combo of all of the above that causes the Content IP bubble to burst.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
These lobbyists spend tons on campaign contributions exactly because they know that their money makes changes. If their money didn't make the changes they wanted, they wouldn't be wasting it.
For example, the steelworkers union encouraged Obama to pass ridiculous trade tariffs on Chinese tire imports.
"The steelworkers union, which represents 15,000 employees at 13 tire plants in the U.S., said cheap imports were forcing factories to close, eliminating jobs. "
Now look at the response
“These remedies are a necessary response to the harm done to U.S. workers and businesses,” U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk said in a statement.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aIMC3B3J0bQE
It's practically admitted, because of the welfare of a few workers, millions of Americans must suffer with unnecessarily higher prices.
and lets not forget about things like Taxi cab monopolies, which is another thing that is only implemented to serve big business. Not to mention every other monopoly that exists.
"through non-protecting countries basically stealing it outright."
It's not stealing, it's infringement and there is nothing wrong with it. Calling it stealing is a lie and that makes you a liar.
"In the end, changes are coming because of economic reasons, not because of a few lobbyists."
The evidence disagrees with you. For instance, 95+ year copy protection lengths disagree with you.
"If it was only for lobbyists, abortion would be entirely illegal"
Why? If anything, wouldn't doctors want abortion because they can make money charging people to abort?
"pot would be entirely legal"
No, because pot is something you can grow and hence it's difficult for the government to tax and it's also difficult for big corporations to sell at monopoly prices. and to some level, it competes with things like cigarettes and other products. Yet, cigarettes are legal, but the FDA doesn't allow newcomers into that market in an effort to protect the existing status quo.
"and everyone would be packing a pistol at all times."
This is also nonsense. I don't pack a pistol but that's only because I don't want to. Perhaps some people simply don't want guns in their house.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In fact, you should see the things they did to the smokeless cigarettes. At one time they put a ban on imports of smokeless cigarettes (despite the fact that they were invented in another country) and then tried to allow U.S. companies to copy the idea and sell it here (another example of government not protecting the innovators, which is what patents are allegedly for, but of them only trying to protect big business). If memory serves me correctly, Internet (not mainstream media) backlash eventually got the FDA to allow imports of the product to some extent. Another example of how the U.S. doesn't care about protecting those who innovate, they only care about protecting big (and local) businesses. But protecting them doesn't encourage them to innovate, it encourages them to stay lazy by selling a worse product at a more expensive price.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Posted by Ecig22
"There is a lot more to the story, I have an online store call SmokeSticUSA.com and the E-Cigarettes that I sell comes from a company that makes there cartridges here in the USA, and as of right now they are the only E-Cigarette company that is. Here is there statement:
LOS ANGELES, July 23 /PRNewswire/ -- The FDA announced that after laboratory analysis of electronic cigarette samples they have discovered that Electronic Cigarettes contain carcinogens and toxic chemicals. However, this does not ring true for U.S. based manufacturer, SmokeStik, LTD. The FDA report analyzed e-cigarettes cartridges and listed several compounds of concern, such as, Diethylene Glycol, Tobacco specific nitrosamines, Anabasine, and Myosmine. Independent lab results have shown that none of these compounds are present in SmokeStik products"
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-07-22-electroniccigarette_N.htm
I was reading comments from somewhere else (though I can't find them) indicating that the ingredients in the FDA approved version (at the time) were actually worse for you than the ingredients in the imported version.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/07/comparison.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1. What scientific source do you have for the impact of piracy? Any? Or how about the economic reasons for these laws?
2. Strong local, in country, protections do nothing when other countries with lower protections exist in a global economy.
"The US is not a producer nation of hardgoods for the most part anymore, the US is a producer of IP, of the most desired music and movie content in the world, and generally a leader in all things that would fall under copyright. "
Wow, you have zero idea of what you are talking about. The US is still the top producer of goods. China though growing is at second and will be still years before they overtake the US. And by GDP, music and movies are basically nothing.
"They are hit by the double whammy - erosion of the internal market (through piracy and such inside the US) and the erosion of the non-entertainment IP through non-protecting countries basically stealing it outright." Translation: So basically companies that rely on ideas and are not innovating or uncompetitive are suffering because of poor business models.
"In the end, changes are coming because of economic reasons, not because of a few lobbyists." False. Demonstrably so. There is little to no economic reasons for these laws as Mike stated. There is proof that millions have been contributed by the RIAA/MPAA. Follow the money.
"If it was only for lobbyists, abortion would be entirely illegal, pot would be entirely legal, and everyone would be packing a pistol at all times." Well abortion and pot lobbyists don't exactly have millions to contribute to politicians. And last I heard in the US you have the right to bear arms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/court-rules-fda-cant-regulate-electric-cigarettes.html
Apparently the FDA tried to protect incumbent cigarette companies by banning smokeless cigarettes (and their imports, despite the fact that smokeless cigarettes have far fewer carcinogens and chemicals are hence probably not nearly as bad for you, yet they do allow the sale of regular cigarettes which are far worse for you) but the courts shot it down.
It's all politics, don't be fooled. There are many dietary supplemental products that the FDA banned, at the will of big pharmaceutical corporations, that have had very little evidence of harming anyone and, in many cases, have had much evidence of helping people (ie: red yeast rice). Yet, they still allow the sale of cigarettes, which has been shown to be far more harmful than many of the products that they have banned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
More and more aware of something that there is to date absolutely no evidence for.
What little evidence there is suggests that any impact while small is likely to be positive.
So if you are aware of something that the US government are apparently "more and more aware of" you should be able to point to the evidence.
Go on, give it a try, it would be good for you to deal in facts and could lead to an interesting discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
this little snippet from the wiki page on awareness seems appropriate
"In this level of consciousness, sense data can be confirmed by an observer without necessarily implying understanding."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aware
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Retarded freetard is retarded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Terrible troll is terrible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Terrible troll is terrible."
I'll see you and raise you a:
CD sales != music industry
ignorant troll is ignorant (not you, the troll)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Let's start with "all the record stores dying".
I am assuming you mean the old brick and mortar stores. These are facing competition from online stores. Nothing nefarious about that.
"sales being cut in half since 1999"
Music is now competing tons of other forms of entertainment these days that take up time we used to spend on music...video games, social networks, online video, etc, etc..
Also, there hasn't been a major format change in music since before 1999, people are not repurchasing their music every 5-6 years as before.
Retarded freetard is retarded.
Whatever...tossing out insults SO helps your argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
An explanation I saw for that was that we are back to the ordinary rate and that the fast rise in the 90s was because of all the people buying CDs to replace old LPs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, there hasn't been a major format change in music since before 1999, people are not repurchasing their music every 5-6 years as before."
Wow we see eye to eye on this. Rational thought ... how refreshing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Fail troll is fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
They started the year after Napster.
My friend owned one in a large University town. He had student friends that came in and told him why the sales had stopped. Everybody was downloading from Napster.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
1- ever heard a little thing called WALMART? They undercut the record stores.
2- Record stores depended on the same thing the recording idustry did, mainly the customers repurchasing recordings on new formats.
3- The record stores sold discs (at the end) that no one wanted, the consumers wanted mp3's.
4- Competing with other forms of entertainment.
I'm also pretty sure as the sales from point 2 started to dry up, the recording industry did whatever they could to get more 'profits' out of the stores and killed the stores profit margins.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It'a no coincidence that musicians in general are making more money. Madonna and co. are just outliers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"If it weren't for lobbyists, pot would have been legalized a long time ago..."
If it weren't for lobbyists, pot would never have been made illegal in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
this is exactly right.
this is exactly why the US needs to stop IP enforcement and focus on labor and environmental standards for other countries.
all the IP enforcement in the world isn't going to make a lick of difference for the US economy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If SOPA goes down in flames, a precedent will be set about future IP laws. If Google blacks out, SOPA goes down in flames.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Let them deal with the consequences for loosing respect for the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Inside an American prison guards have total access to anything a prisoner do, prisoners have zero rights there and even are subject to anal probing...I mean cavity search.
Still somehow all those criminals manage to get contraband inside that place WTF?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Simply having a song stuck in your head will constitute willful infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're missing one important piece of the puzzle that will make this all crystal clear. Rule #1 in every persons book is to look out for yourself. What is in the IP Czar's best interest is getting paid large sums of money by those special interest groups, and in order to accomplish that, those groups need to be appeased. Appeasing the special interests alone might not be more important, but as the only way to pad your own pockets, it jumps a few spots on the list, at the expense of the rest of the world. It's all about selfishness and greed, and an inability for these people in power to look beyond their own needs to the needs of the general population. The only solution I can think of for this problem, is real, true transparency...and now you know why that isn't really too high on anybody's list of things to accomplish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So what you are saying is that the IP Czar is taking bribes, right? You have some proof of this, I gather?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There have been studies done just in the past 6 months that demonstrate how widespread piracy is and it's economic impact.
And no one has done a shred of debunking them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One day, Everything you do that the MPAA and RIAA doesn't like and deems your everyday actions, even if it's not internet related, copyright infringement. Everything you try to think the MPAA and RIAA deems it trademark infringement and you will be forced to get a full frontal lobotomy.
Hidden camera and microphones, courtesy of the MPAA and RIAA, will record your everyday life and no matter what you do, you are GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. Phone companies are on patrol as the Phone Police obeying the RIAA and MPAA's demand.
Read the comic "Total Control".
Here's the plan, leave your house, leave everything that is modern and live in the wilderness. Survive by fishing with your bare hands. Think like a Nomad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
At first that made me chuckle....then I thought about it some more....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Take it to the core of the problem
It isn't about economics, it's about control. As several pretty big artists/creators have discovered, piracy can be beneficial, and in most cases are I think.
Take Marcus "Notch" Persson and his game Minecraft. He actively promotes piracy, and tells people (last in I heard in an interviu with Aftonbladet in Sweden (one of the biggest newspapers)) And even so, he has become a millionare on his game, with an excess of 2 million copies sold.
And on YouTube there's a clip with Neil Gaiman, explaining his view on Piracy, and how at first he saw it as stealing, but subsequently found out, through some experiments of his own making, that piracy actually increased his sales.
English singer Joss Stone promotes piracy as well, but I only know it's her view from an interview, that she think it's great, not aware of any salesnumbers for her, though I suspect that lots of Pirates have bought/are buying her stuff simply to support her due to her liberal views on it.
In the future, unless the Lobbyist manage to illegalize anything not published by big corporations, artists/creators who communicate with their fanbase, will be successfull. While companies that, in an effort to keep people as passive consumers, will fail because they wage war on their own consumers.
As far as I am aware, every analysis that has not been payed for by the entertainment industri and their lobbyists, has come to the conclution that Piracy does generally not have a negativ impact on economy nor innovation, rather the opposite.
Baseline is public relations really, if you treat your fans/consumers with respect, and as actual humans, they will keep supporting. But if you treat them as walking purses to be emptied and treated like presumtive criminals, they will stop buying your stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]