Copyright Office Boss Admits Copyright Law Is Broken And Needs A Rethink... But Still Focused On Bad Ideas
from the a-lot-to-worry-about dept
We posted one short post about a key comment from Register of Copyright, Maria Pallante, suggesting that the focus of copyright law should be on large scale piracy, rather than the teenager downloading at home. Many in our comments rightfully cheered on this line, but as the hearing is concluding it's worth pointing out that there are a number of things she's brought up that should be equally, if not more, troubling."I've never thought that copyright inhibits innovation."Throughout the hearing, she repeatedly emphasizes her old line about how copyright is "first for the author" and then later for the public. This is a rewriting of history. Copyright is for the public, period. The means to do that is to create a benefit for authors. She's absolutely correct that these two things can and should be aligned, but those things are only aligned when you put the public interest first and then look to see how to create the best incentives following that. It's a different approach, and I'm troubled by her repetition of it being about "the artist first." It's not.
Also, troubling, was that she more or less endorsed large parts of SOPA as a proper solution for going forward. Specifically, she calls out the "follow the money" approach, which was a key part of SOPA, as a solution she believes would be effective for enforcement. This ignores the massive unintended consequences associated with that approach -- including the ability to shut down and kill off all sorts of innovations early on. A "follow the money" approach would have killed off radio, cable TV, the photocopier, the VCR, the MP3 player, the DVR and more in their early days. Do we really want that?
She also goes back, repeatedly, to saying that we need to make the public performance right a felony, rather than a misdemeanor -- another piece of SOPA. This is the "streaming" question. She wants to let law enforcement throw people in jail for streaming works, even if they do no host or even touch the content itself. That's pretty scary. She talks about the horrors of people "streaming the Super Bowl," ignoring that the Super Bowl isn't suffering from this at all. They're raking in tons of cash from advertisers. And yet, she claims that making streaming a felony is one of her "top 3" priorities on fixing copyright.
In a rather bizarre exchange with Rep. Chu, Pallante agrees with Chu that DRM is a form of innovation and that this shows that copyright inspires innovation. Furthermore, she insists that DRM is a required part of a functioning copyright system. Why? That is not explained.
Elsewhere, she mostly just focused on how things were "broken" and needed to be explored -- but held off on making specific proposals. That's a perfectly reasonable position to take, but it's worrying that there's little to no discussion about why the copyright system is broken. That is, we're talking about fixes to certain parts and a rethinking of those parts, but not looking at the very crux of the issue: whether or not copyright actually is creating an incentive, and if that incentive is useful or necessary. There's no discussion of why or how people create -- nor is there any discussion about how the vast majority of creation today is not for direct monetary benefit anyway, and yet is still locked up by copyright law. Without examining the core issues, the overall reform process is just going to produce another, outdated and broken law.
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 office, copyright reform, felonies, maria pallante, sopa, streaming
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"DRM is a form of innovation..."
Broken window fallacy. Next!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Digital Right Management: DRM is any technology that inhibits uses of digital content that are not desired or intended by the content provider. Wikipedia
So a business running a Certificate Authority which selects employees allowed to VPN into the private network is technically running DRM. I.E. Not all DRM is bad...
Just because some people decide to use technology for nefarious purposes doesn't mean the technology behind it isn't any good. Not that was probably in the context of her discussion, but education is key to understanding what technology provides.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WRONG: "Copyright is for the public, period."
Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up at same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Where arrogance meets ignorance to discuss what they'll do with someone else's 100 million dollar movie.
~11:27:08~[m]|730|{8}
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WRONG: "Copyright is for the public, period."
Oh the irony...
Got a relevant little quote for you, I know you hate reading, so you'll be glad to know it's very short.
'To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.' Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8
Now you may notice the goal is to benefit science and the arts, while the means to do so is the 'limited time' monopoly granted to authors/inventors/creators, not the other way around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WRONG: "Copyright is for the public, period."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WRONG: "Copyright is for the public, period."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WRONG: "Copyright is for the public, period."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WRONG: "Copyright is for the public, period."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WRONG: "Copyright is for the public, period."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You mean like your heroes; Wyden and Issa's proposed OPEN Act? Or like your paymaster, Google has endorsed?
I guess the reason you now oppose it is that it works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Downloading is already a felony. Why should streaming be any different? What makes this "scary"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Streaming, it's like listening to the radio on your computer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Imagine now John Steele types going all around, threatning people right and left with impunity.
THAT IS FUCKING WHY!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
WTF is wrong with you people? This stupid - should be a felony. No fear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It must be painful to be as stupid and uninformed as you are:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2387202,00.asp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, you know, except for cases where the DOJ decided it was felonious.
Like the Rojadirecta site, for example, or TVShack (which neither hosted infringing materials, nor let users download the materials through the site).
Whether those downloads, which fall under the "most common cases," were criminal (or felonious) or not, the U.S. DOJ certainly thought they were. The fact that their mere belief is enough to bring charges, should be a big huge red flag that the current copyright statutes (if indeed the DOJ followed them) are horrifying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow. Um. Yeah. Not all downloading is a felony. It depends on what's being downloaded. Just like not all shooting of guns is a felony. It depends on what you're shooting at. If you read the statute that I cited, it explains when it's a crime and when that crime is a misdemeanor or a felony.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you had read the statute that Chosen Reject and others had cited you'd have read the same thing. Downloading, as per the original discussion, is not a felony. It can be, but so can touching someone be assault, but it's usually not and saying "Touching someone is assault" without any other info is just as stupidly wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Is it possible that downloading could be criminal (which is necessary for it to be a felony)? I suppose. Is it usual? No. In fact, I haven't heard of a single case where the downloader was convicted of a felony, though I don't rule out the possibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Downloading can potentially be a felony.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Copyright was meant to benefit the public, that same public should never be made felons for the simple act of downloading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2387202,00.asp
Fifth paragraph
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Had you done so, you'd have seen that the 'The Commercial Felony Streaming Act' you are basing your claims/insults on hasn't been passed, but was merely referred to the full senate for a vote.
Moreover, it's apparently suffered what seems to be a well deserved death, as the last mention of it was on 6/20/2011, with nothing regarding it since, according to the following site: https://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s978/show
I gotta say, there are few things funnier than a person's own sources refuting their claims, so thanks for the laugh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
blindly trusting every article you read is what a drooling moron would do.
That would be YOU
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Expect the feds to come a-knocking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now, to your other question.
Imagine, for a moment, that a married couple calls each other via Skype. They talk for a little while, say a few lovey-dovey things to each other, then the wife plays her favorite love song for her husband while on the Skype call.
Under the suggestion that streaming should become a felony, the wife would now sit on the hook for a felony act of copyright infringement for having streamed a copyrighted work without the prior permission of the copyright holder.
Should she end up convicted of that crime, she might have to do jail time, pay a huge fine, or both. That felony conviction will sit on her record for the rest of her life and beyond (appropriate, given the length of copyright law). And all because she wanted to play a song for her husband over a VOIP call.
I weep for you if you can’t figure out why that scenario sounds ‘scary’, because it means you can’t imagine the full consequences of enacting a law that would make such a scenario possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If it is more than 10 times in 6 months and the value of the content purloined exceeds $2500, it is.
No downloader has yet been charged with a felony becuase even the most habitual downloader is not going to download that much worth, in a 6 month perioud. At the typical $1.29 per song, that would mean someone would have to download 1,937 songs in a six month period. Even the heaviest downloaders are not going to download that much. That is why downloaders get sued in civil court, becuase they have not reached the felony threshold.
It also has to be for commercial or financial gain. Personal downloadiong does not qualify as such, which is why no downloader has yet been charged with a felony.
Klobuchar's Commercial Felonly Streaming Act, unlike the SOPA version, also had the same thresholds so that people who merely viewed content would not become felons. Otherwise the jails would have been full of people who watched pirated videos. The SOPA version of the felony streaming law would have criminalised personal viewing, but Klobuchar's bill did not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Seriously, if you're going to make claims based upon a particular bill/act, it helps to make sure it actually made it off the debate floor and into law first.
Again, I refer you to the following:
https://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s978/show
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Says clueless to the way the Internet works, responding to an article that the AC downloaded into the browser's cache folder. Felon! String em up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 20th, 2013 @ 3:35pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 20th, 2013 @ 3:35pm
It's the Music and film industries that put out bogus numbers and arguements that we're supposed to accept because corn farmers will all die out or whatever
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We discussed this in 2011 when the streaming bills first came out. The *reason* that felony isn't applied to the public performance right, like it is to reproduction and distribution is *because* the concept of a "felony" performance is laughable.
You've got a few major problems with it. First, if you're talking about the site that is actually hosting the content, then, no problem, you can already go after them via the distribution right. If you're talking about a site that isn't hosting the content, then, what exactly are you going after? You're going after a site that is linking to content -- a guide that is pointing people where to go. That should NEVER be felony material, because you're talking about someone who isn't involved in any actual infringement. Go after those hosting or uploading the material. But "streaming" it just opens up so many problems, especially given that most video hosting platforms have an easy embed feature -- potentially making tons of people felons. That's where the danger comes in. Embedding a stream is seen as a perfectly reasonable activity today. Making it a potential felony will have massive unintended consequences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Wrong. The public performance right is distinct from the distribution right. A person can violate one or both. It is possible to be violating the public performance right while NOT violating the distribution right.
If you're talking about a site that isn't hosting the content, then, what exactly are you going after?
Other sites/operators that assist in the infringement could potentially be liable under either an accomplice or conspiracy theory. You don't seem to grasp these basic criminal law concepts.
You're going after a site that is linking to content -- a guide that is pointing people where to go.
And assisting others to infringe makes one just as liable as the direct infringer. Again, basic legal concepts that I assume you ignore because you don't like them.
That should NEVER be felony material, because you're talking about someone who isn't involved in any actual infringement.
If they are assisting in the infringement, then they are involved in the actual infringement. Again, basic legal concept. Don't ignore it because you don't like it.
Go after those hosting or uploading the material.
Sometimes those people are unknown or out of the jurisdiction. Are you seriously suggesting that aiders and abettors should be allowed to assist others in crimes with no repercussions? Truly amazing. Regardless, the law has NEVER taken that view, and it instead punishes those who help others commit crimes just the same as if they had committed the crimes themselves. Again, basic legal stuff that for whatever reason--willful blindness/pirate apologism/dishonesty--you ignore.
But "streaming" it just opens up so many problems, especially given that most video hosting platforms have an easy embed feature -- potentially making tons of people felons. That's where the danger comes in. Embedding a stream is seen as a perfectly reasonable activity today. Making it a potential felony will have massive unintended consequences.
It's already a tort and a misdemeanor. How would making it a felony open up so many problems that don't already exist? You love to throw out the "unintended consequences" FUD argument, but where are all those consequences now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But if the site is actually hosting the content from their servers, then they're violating the distribution right (and also the copying right), which is already a potential felony. So making the performance right a felony accomplishes nothing. So, no, not "wrong."
It is possible to be violating the public performance right while NOT violating the distribution right.
But if you're not violating the distribution right, then you shouldn't be considered a potential felon. That's the whole point.
Other sites/operators that assist in the infringement could potentially be liable under either an accomplice or conspiracy theory.
If that were true, then they would be an accomplice or conspirator to the copying or distribution of the works, already a potential felony. Which, again, means that making the public performance right a felony accomplishes nothing.
And assisting others to infringe makes one just as liable as the direct infringer.
There's no way in Hell that merely embedding a link rises to the level of "conspiracy" or "aiding and abetting" the principal infringers. No court in the land has ever said it does, because the notion is ridiculous. In fact, most courts have found that providing a link is not even secondary civil infringement - and secondary liability for civil infringement is a much lower bar than "conspiracy" or "aiding and abetting" in criminal law.
Sometimes those people are unknown or out of the jurisdiction.
The jurisdictional issue is a red herring. First of all, it has nothing to do with whether performance should be a felony. Second, making performance a felony solves nothing in this regard. If "those people" are outside of the reach of the laws regarding felony copying or distribution, then they would also be outside of the reach of the laws regarding felony performance. Third, going after the links would do nothing to take infringing works out of commission, since the infringing works would still be publicly available at the original sites.
It's already a tort and a misdemeanor. How would making it a felony open up so many problems that don't already exist?
Certain actions are not available to the government for misdemeanor charges. For example, there is no extradition on misdemeanor warrants. There is also a huge difference for those arrested: you don't lose your voting rights, misdemeanors usually aren't counted in "three strikes" laws, you don't lose your professional license, you are likely to get community service rather than jail time, etc.
This is already way too harsh for someone who did nothing worse than share a link on Facebook. How is it just to punish them even more than they already are?
Also, as I previously noted, in tort cases, merely sharing a link does not even rise to the level of secondary liability. You can't possibly think that making it a felony would not have significant chilling effects.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nope. If they are making the file available for streaming, and not downloading, then they are infringing the public performance right and not the distribution right.
If that were true, then they would be an accomplice or conspirator to the copying or distribution of the works, already a potential felony. Which, again, means that making the public performance right a felony accomplishes nothing.
If they are assisting the violation of the distribution right, then they can be a felon. If they are assisting the violation of the public performance right, then they cannot. That's the disparity the Register is addressing.
There's no way in Hell that merely embedding a link rises to the level of "conspiracy" or "aiding and abetting" the principal infringers. No court in the land has ever said it does, because the notion is ridiculous. In fact, most courts have found that providing a link is not even secondary civil infringement - and secondary liability for civil infringement is a much lower bar than "conspiracy" or "aiding and abetting" in criminal law.
It's not at all ridiculous. I don't see the point in pulling out the case law again when you just deny its import, but I'll point out that the Ninth Circuit in Perfect 10 v. Amazon said that Google could be contributorily liable for linking. The argument that it's a "much higher bar" misses the point. Yes, it would have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. So what? That's not insurmountable.
The jurisdictional issue is a red herring. First of all, it has nothing to do with whether performance should be a felony. Second, making performance a felony solves nothing in this regard. If "those people" are outside of the reach of the laws regarding felony copying or distribution, then they would also be outside of the reach of the laws regarding felony performance. Third, going after the links would do nothing to take infringing works out of commission, since the infringing works would still be publicly available at the original sites.
It's not a red herring at all. Mike was arguing that they should just go after the direct infringers. I'm pointing out that indirect infringers are just as culpable. If it's the tort variety, then the indirect infringers are jointly and severally liable with the primary tortfeasors. If it's the criminal variety, then the accomplice is liable exactly the same as the principle. If the primary infringer/principle is unavailable/unknown, that's no reason not to go after those who assist in the tort or crime.
Certain actions are not available to the government for misdemeanor charges. For example, there is no extradition on misdemeanor warrants. There is also a huge difference for those arrested: you don't lose your voting rights, misdemeanors usually aren't counted in "three strikes" laws, you don't lose your professional license, you are likely to get community service rather than jail time, etc.
Those aren't reasons to have a disparity between reproduction/distribution and public performance.
Also, as I previously noted, in tort cases, merely sharing a link does not even rise to the level of secondary liability. You can't possibly think that making it a felony would not have significant chilling effects.
And you are absolutely wrong about that. Again, see Perfect 10, a case I've cited before, but you don't seem to grasp it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And also the copying right - which is already a possible felony. I see your point about streaming/performance vs. downloads/distribution, but the point is still moot.
If they are assisting the violation of the distribution right, then they can be a felon. If they are assisting the violation of the public performance right, then they cannot. That's the disparity the Register is addressing.
There's a good reason that disparity exists. The only reason to make public performance (or display) a felony, is to jail people who did not make copies of the works, nor distribute them to anyone else. This would directly threaten to put people like theater or nightclub owners in jail for felony charges. Not to mention the artists who perform these works.
You've chided the (somewhat sarcastic) "Free Justin Bieber" campaign for spreading "FUD." But if it's not applied to people like him, then who does it affect? The sites that intentionally host the content (and the people who aid and abet them, if that standard applies) are already facing felony charges. On the other hand, pirate "link sites" and search engines won't be affected at all - since they are not themselves infringing on the public performance right.
I don't see the point in pulling out the case law again when you just deny its import, but I'll point out that the Ninth Circuit in Perfect 10 v. Amazon said that Google could be contributorily liable for linking.
I've never "denied its import." I have, however, denied that your interpretation of the case law has import. Which is what I am going to do now.
Let's examine that Perfect 10 v. Amazon/Google decision:
The analysis was almost exactly the same for Amazon.
Note the parts I highlighted in bold. It showed that you cannot be held liable for merely providing a link to infringing content. You must also have actual, constructive knowledge of the infringement, the ability "take simple measures" to prevent the infringement, and fail to do so. Unless all three conditions are met, you are not a contributory infringer. And in no case could merely providing a link be considered inducement or vicarious infringement.
The argument that it's a "much higher bar" misses the point. Yes, it would have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
That's not what I meant, and I'm sure you know it. You could be guilty of inducement, contributory infringement, or vicarious infringement, but still be innocent of "conspiracy" or "aiding and abetting." The "higher bar" isn't the standard of proof, it's that civil liability and criminal accomplice liability are not the same thing at all. Showing that someone is guilty of secondary infringement under civil law - even beyond a reasonable doubt - is insufficient to show any form of guilt under criminal law.
The classic definition, when applied to copyright, is espoused in U.S. v. Rose:
There's no way in Hell that merely providing a link should rise to that standard.
It's not a red herring at all. Mike was arguing that they should just go after the direct infringers. I'm pointing out that indirect infringers are just as culpable.
Actually, if the content is user-generated (as most "pirate sites" are), then they would already be going after the indirect infringers. The direct infringers would be the users; the secondary infringers would be the sites that host their content (just as Napster and Grokster were secondary, not primary, infringers).
But, again, this has nothing to do with jurisdictional issues.
Those aren't reasons to have a disparity between reproduction/distribution and public performance.
Certainly they are. Infringement of a public performance right, alone, should simply not be a felony. The punishment for publicly performing a work without permission massively outweighs the damage to the public caused by that infringement.
We already have too many punishments that are far too draconian to be just. Adding more won't make the law any more just.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The court, naturally, cites Perfect 10 v. Amazon.com. A linker, like Fung, can be indirectly liable for the infringement they encourage others to commit. Said the court: "if one provides a service that could be used to infringe copyrights, with the manifested intent that the service actually be used in that manner, that person is liable for the infringement that occurs through the use of that service."
Similarly, if one provides a link that can be used to infringe, with the manifested intent that it be used to infringe, then that person is liable for the infringement that occurs. This stuff really isn't hard. The fact that someone knowingly posts a link that points to infringing materials means that that person intends to cause infringement. And it means that they are liable for the infringement they helped to bring about.
Only in the Opposite World of Mike Masnick's Techdirt do those that intentionally cause infringement get a free pass. In the real world, such bad actors are liable for their actions. Hilarious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We weren't speaking of him (he didn't infringe on the public performance right); he's not Mike's buddy; and saying he "got his ass handed to him" is not entirely accurate. The 9th Circuit did roll back some of the worst parts of the District Court's ruling (the overly broad injunction, and their ridiculous reasoning for rejecting DMCA safe harbors).
The Techdirt article is here:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130321/12104822407/isohunt-still-guilty-contributory-infri ngement.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marginal defense of Pallante
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Marginal defense of Pallante
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Marginal defense of Pallante
Yes, this is the defense that some people have brought up before, but it makes no sense. That's not actually what copyright law is supposed to do. It is supposed to benefit the public, full stop. The *means* for doing this are to provide incentives to the artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Marginal defense of Pallante
Even if you do assume this is what she meant (and I don't), it makes no sense at all.
There are only two possible ways to interpret her statements:
1. Copyright is granted to authors first in time, then is granted to the public.
This makes no sense, because copyright is never "granted to the public." By default, the public has all of the rights that are taken away from them, and granted exclusively to authors, in 17 USC 106. Those rights are either property rights (in that copy) or free speech rights (in the expression embodied in that copy) - neither of which is granted by the government. And neither of which the government has a right to take away, based on the rights granted to it in the Constitution.
In fact, when works enter the public domain, nothing whatsoever is "granted" to the public. Instead, the government simply ceases infringing on the property rights and free speech rights that the public naturally holds.
2. Copyright temporarily places the interests of copyright holders in front of the general public, until it expires.
This is even more ridiculous. Copyright's primary purpose is to benefit the public, even while works are still under copyright. The idea is that the rights that the public gives up (voluntarily, in theory) are overshadowed by the benefits reaped by the public, in the form of "broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts."
This is the primary reason that such things as first sale rights, fair use, or the idea/expression dichotomy exist. They are in the statutes because the public must benefit from the works even if they're still under copyright protection. If that wasn't a concern, then these things should not exist at all. (And I get the impression that Pallante would not be overly concerned if these things were done away with.)
So, no matter how you interpret her statements, she's still completely wrong on this point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Marginal defense of Pallante
This really isn't difficult to understand. As the poster notes, the Register cites Aiken. Here's the passage from her written testimony:As the Supreme Court notes in Aiken, and as the Register repeats, the benefits of copyright inure to the author first so that it in turn can benefit the public. I have no idea why, but you seem to think benefiting authors is inconsistent with benefiting the public. Even if benefiting authors is merely a means to an end, and not an end to itself--a position that I know you think is the only possible interpretation, even though there are other valid points of view that you are incapable of accepting--you still never explain how the reward of an incentive doesn't happen before the public benefits. For whatever reason (and it's not hard to guess why), you want to erase authors' rights from the equation. But authors' rights--i.e., the incentives--are an integral part of the copyright system. You seem to think we can pretend like they don't matter. Obviously they do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From my ledge any creator who so chooses to transfer the rights to their works should, by law, force a shorter term.
DRM is innovation like a new mix of drugs for capital punishment is innovation. Boston Strangler, indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But by so doing, it would lessen the value of the creation by shorten the period of exclusivity. Why should that be forced on a creator?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm shocked... that she even mentioned the public. Seriously, find me one person in the government today who doesn't believe with all their heart that the entire purpose of copyright is solely to benefit the copyright holders.
Copyright has been used this way for so long that any other definition only exists on paper now.
Elsewhere, she mostly just focused on how things were "broken" and needed to be explored -- but held off on making specific proposals. That's a perfectly reasonable position to take, but it's worrying that there's little to no discussion about why the copyright system is broken.
That's easy; She feels the copyright system is broken because it doesn't give the MPAA/RIAA everything they want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can have copyright, or you can have DRM. Pick one.
Copyright requires that your works become part of the public domain at the end of the term (I hold out hope that someday that will actually happen), while the other is an attempt to keep that from happening (see DMCA anti-circumvention clause). So any functioning copyright system needs to mention DRM as a part of the law. You get one or the other, but not both. If you choose DRM and it gets cracked, too bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The first step forward is to recognize that authors are part of the public, not a seperate and distinct class of their own. Granted specific authors hold specific rights over specific works that other members do not share in up front, thus that makes them a seperate and distinct sub-class, but they too share in the creative commons and all those past works that transfered into it. This is how you align authors and the public; by enabling authors to build off those creative commons by allowing works to move into. This is a cycle, when allowed to function, benefits all like water evaporating to become rain. Instead what we have now is a system broken by large conglomerates trapping water and arguing for their right to sell it back to us at inflated prices in a time of draughts...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't be fooled if she 'cooled off' a bit due to public pressure, she is still an IP extremist. She needs to be forced out of office and the USPTO needs to be disbanded and IP law needs to be abolished. I don't care about her job and what jobs at the USPTO will be lost consequently, I don't care that politicians and other administrators will lose their revolving door jobs and perhaps their campaign contributions, these laws work against the public interest and should no longer exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My comment; Duuuuuh. She must already be the target of special interest pressure.
Where is the awareness of social and cultural effects on copyright? Nothing about the public needs were even mentioned in her 'updating copyright' speech. Its like we don't exist if we aren't holding 1000 copyright claims. In any way does her proposals benefit society (at large) and the culture inter-shared between us just being the natural humble social animals are?
We talk and share ideas and concepts. We drink water and breath air in much the same way. What we really NEED are more formats to expand the methods and ways we can share such ideas and concepts.
Anyone who claims that DRM is a good innovation has not actually been burnt by it yet. (the count is millions and growing) Not all innovation is helpful to the creation of new original-work and DRM is definitely not one of them.
Obviously Ms Pallante did not read my late posts commenting on her speech. DRM is, in fact, a guaranteed way to lose knowledge and culture. Its a lose-lose situation benefiting only some unknown monopoly entity.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130318/11114922368/more-details-copyright-register-ma ria-pallantes-call-comprehensive-forward-thinking-flexible-copyright-reform.shtml#c786 the usual wordy but different in perspective approach. It was fun to dig into. Covers almost all I would want to say.
“,make the public performance right a felony, rather than a misdemeanor,” This sends so many shivers down my spine. As if free speech and Fair Use isn't in danger as it is. (please read my comments on public performance in the link above) Throw this woman out of office NOW please.
Lately my mantra for copy-wrong updating has been that; Everyday use and Fair Use of copyrighted media should be the norm and NOT the exception. Think about it. In no way should using copyrighted media be involved with criminal let alone felony law. These are civil matters only and should stay there.
It goes right along with the concept that original-works protection terms being much less than the lives of the audience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No one who is in a leadership capacity regarding copyright has a clue about it. Hell, as she said, if we need a bunch of lawyers to figure it out, then how does she expect us to believe she has it figured out?
I also want to mention a little rub here, as it's been bothering me for a long time.
If TD wants to separate out the differences between the public's interest and the creator, then too it should focus on the fact consumers and advertisers are one in the same.
We're the ones who pay for the commercial, so if a works is "bought" by advertising, such as the Superbowl, then by all rights we "own" it since we paid for it.
This means we should fear no legal recourse for streaming, posting, copying, or hell, enjoying the Superbowl since we paid our "licenses" via advertising.
Otherwise, we're all going to be sitting around going "how do we fix copyright when we can't even figure out how to define all the participants?"
Because if you really think about it, everyone is in the public domain.
To fix copyright can be done by including three simple words: WORK. FOR. HIRE.
You know, like the rest of the world does it.
Copyright just instills false entitlement that an author should have the right to earn money from a movie over the book he wrote, because they forget the movie is the ad for the book.
Hell, even I bought Philip K. Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" after I saw "Blade Runner".
Prior to this movie, never heard of him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem
The mistake is thinking that their mandate is creating jobs. Their mandate should really be "create a market". The jobs will flow into that. When you think from the perspective of creating a market, then it's obvious the public comes before the authors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]