Another Friend Of The Recording Industry Joins The House Subcommittee On Courts, Intellectual Property And The Internet
from the another-revolving-door dept
There's a new ranking member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet, and it's another copyright maximalist. Mel Watt, the former ranking member and one of SOPA's biggest supporters, has moved on to the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Before Mel Watt, there was subcommittee chair "Hollywood" Howard Berman, whose nickname clearly spells out which side of the copyright argument he espoused.
The newest ranking member is Jerry Nadler and he's virtually indistinguishable from his preceding party members. Nadler's previous legislative efforts have been the (unofficially titled) "RIAA Bailout Act of 2012" (in which he sought to raise satellite and cable radio royalty rates to match the exorbitant amount demanded of internet streaming sites) and an attempt to create a "resale right," which would give rights holders a cut any time a creation was resold. Nadler also supported extending copyright protection to fashion designers, something that industry has proven it doesn't actually need.
Now, he'll be advising Bob Goodlatte (another SOPA supporter), who's currently in the middle of a "comprehensive copyright review." The deck seems to be rather well-stacked in favor of the copyright industries at the moment, and if the past is anything to go by, this won't be changing in the future.
Back in 2008, there was a good chance that Rick Boucher, a legislator who had a history of siding with consumers in copyright battles, and who had been pushing to rewrite the DMCA, would succeed Berman. Rather than allow this opening to be filled by someone who might push for copyright reform, John Conyers (the head of the Judiciary Committee at the time -- and another pro-copyright legislator) simply declared the subcommittee "unnecessary" and shut it down. When Boucher lost his reelection run, the subcommittee was magically resurrected and the open position given to Mel Watt.
Nadler issued some bland "working together" assurances in his press release about his new position.
"These laws are at the core of how we consume media, from watching TV and listening to music to enjoying a movie or sharing photos,” Nadler said in a statement announcing his new assignment.As The Hill's article notes, the recording industry seems pleased with this decision, noting that Nadler's views are aligned with outgoing member Mel Watt (and, of course, the industry's) on the issue of levying royalties on AM and FM radio stations, formerly known as its preferred promotional tool. Nadler namechecks the future but his supporters have their sights set on extracting a revenue stream from old school, terrestrial radio. In context, the "right balance" means siding with the copyright industries and those not inclined to do so may find themselves to be ranking members of nothing, personas non grata on a subcommittee that no longer exists.
“We will seek to strike the right balance between how artists, authors, musicians, photographers and other content creators are compensated for their work with the desire of technology companies to provide new and innovative ways for consumers to access this content like never before," he said.
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: bob goodlatte, howard berman, jerry nadler, mel watt, revolving door, sopa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Who would be the person/committee to investigate this kind of stuff? I can't possibly see that as being legal, especially if he was the one who both shut it down and brought it back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Politics is dirty and this way of obstructing opposite opinions is not even close to the worst kind of sabotage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
>We need a committee. Why and what is its' intent?
>WE no longer need this committee, it has fulfilled its' goals. Here are the results/proof.
>We need that committee again. Here is what has transpired making it necessary again.
We are talking about the "most transparent color of black you have ever seen" government aren't we? Surely they can come up with some [redacted] excuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I could believe you if you ever actually supported artists, but TD is about stealing and getting what you want regardless of the law.. lets be honest here (for once) please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As opposed to passing laws that allow you to steal and get what you want?
The stupid is strong with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
As for abolishing IP laws and allowing free copying...that's just purely absurd to me. Yes, IP laws have become extremely perverted since their inception, no doubt. But, as far as I'm aware, there's no such thing as a "natural right to freely copy," and never was. The "limited times" language has been abolished with all of the copyright extensions, yes. We need to find the balance, not abolish IP laws completely. What would we be left with besides amateur artists who never have the opportunity to protect their work and thus never have the opportunity to make a lucrative career? I'm not just thinking on behalf of the content itself. You abolish IP laws, you abolish ™ rights. For example, should we really make things even more difficult for artists and take away their rights and ability to sell merchandise at shows without others exploiting their likeness cheaper in the parking lot without consequence?
Despite this narrow viewed article, I have hope Nadler will help find this missing balance between content creators, content distributers, AND the consumer. Nadler has shown an interest in the interests of indie artists and not just big media, and for that I'm very grateful and eternally hopeful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
With all due respect, that is simply untrue. Prior to copyright and other IP laws, which have only been around for a small fraction of human history, copying others was exactly how humans learned. Histories and culture were passed from one generation to the next through song and stories. Innovations that improved living conditions were copied from the next village over and passed on to the next village.
The "natural right to freely copy" existed centuries before IP laws ever did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
How did you learn to walk and talk?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They can start by going away forever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
as they are so anti-customer, why do they keep putting stuff out in the first place? they dont want any one who hasn't bought a music or movie disk to watch or listen to that owned by someone else, they dont want any country or government that doesn't give protection to their media above anything and anyone else to allow people to share. all they want is to put those very same people into jail or bankrupt them. i fail to see how taking away the ability for a person to buy something (no money, no freedom) because they didn't buy it in the first place, gives any reasons for people to do what is wanted.
i also wonder what happens when these industry 'big boys' do if the have or go to a party? do they get signed permission from every artist that has their music played, or do they just play it anyway? the changing rules, i suppose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pirates will still continue unabated, despite whatever draconian rules they manage to pass (read: buy). Back people against the wall with bullshit laws, and the masses will simply disobey.
They certainly can't afford to put everyone in jail, and trying to extract million dollar settlements from everyone will just continue to fail.
It amazes me that after all this time, they still think they can legislate whatever bullshit they want, and the masses will just fall in line.
Keep trying idiots!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Don't like laws ??? then grow up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Are YOU going to pay to feed/house/water all those "scumbag criminals?"
Because when you put people in prison, guess who foots the bill, jackass?
I'll bet it won't be those "starving artists."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So I should just bend over just because it's the law? You just slapped every black person who had to live through the segregation era and bartender who had to live through prohibition in the face with that statement, among others.
And for someone telling us to obey the law, you support people who have been actively violating the supreme law of the land: the Constitution, all in the name of the next idiotic dance craze or overpriced mindless action flick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what a freaking stupid argument to make, no wonder Masnick got Timbo to write this..
You going to Censor this too Masnick, we've noticed you have started you little game again.. very sad..
But expected, after all, real arguments and truth are something you don't want your fan cultists to be exposed to.
and you have nothing else but CENSORSHIP.. (and no reputation to uphold)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nah. That's just darryl - probably on a bender.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Feb 12th, 2014 @ 1:44pm
You complain of techdirt 'censorship' yet you think those who disagree with the current government position should be considered 'enemies'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
sadly for you people don't *want* to read your drivel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds good to me
The fact is that all of the talk about "censorship" and "fair use" around here is really just a smoke screen for making sure that the few billionaires in silicon valley get ALL of the money. Anyone who stands in the way of Silicon Valley taking something without paying for it is accused of the worst human rights violations.
But we can translate:
"censorship" means "someone is trying to stop Google from taking everything that's not nailed down."
"net neutrality" means "GOOG or NETFLIX gets to take everything it wants without anyone getting in the way."
"fair use" means "GOOG gets to make its profits without sharing anyting with non-billionaires outside of GOOG."
Thank goodness there's a democracy and not every member of Congress is bought by the tech billionaires.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sounds good to me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sounds good to me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sounds good to me
I don't know reminds me strongly of a certain industry...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sounds good to me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sounds good to me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sounds good to me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sounds good to me
I wasn't comparing Techdirt to Ghandi at all, fool.
Ghandi's quote describes the stages of a winning strategy of nonviolent activism and you appear to be at stage 2 at the moment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sounds good to me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sounds good to me
Yours don't count.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sounds good to me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sounds good to me
Really? You mean like how Hollywood keeps on scamming their artists with their Hollywood accounting?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sounds good to me
Oh wait...
What a fucking idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sounds good to me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sounds good to me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sounds good to me
Comparing people at (your perception of) the bottom of the tech industry with the people at the top of the content industry is nonsense. Independent content creators aren't exactly wealthy with benefits from their content creation endeavors (most of them have other jobs to compensate their income) yet just because you exclude them from the 'content' industry and only include a very small percentage of people doesn't mean they ought to be excluded.
The tech industry provides for many more jobs than the content industry and they provide for many more jobs with benefits. Yes, they also provide people with jobs without benefits but to say that the content industries (that is content creators including independent content creators and your average content creator in opposed to just mainstream ones) provide for more on average is nonsense. Your bias is in who you count as a member of the content creator industry (only mainstream characters) vs who you count as a member of the tech industry (your average sales rep working at Fry's electronics).
The ones in the 'content' industry that are being treated nice are, for example, stupid executives like Christ Dodd and others that don't actually produce content but provide ways to scam the majority of artists with their Hollywood accounting. The Tech industry brings in much more money than the content industries and so it employs far more people and offers them more.
Do you have citations for claims or are they just made up nonsense?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No mention of considering consumers (other than allowing them to pay) in the talk of balancing. Just a matter of getting tech companies sales and "content creators" the money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fixed that for him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As with "infringement" V "theft," nothing is being removed from site and no one is being deprived of anything. Effectively, you're copying it to your memory and storing it there.
Using the word "consume" with "content" plays into the hands of the maximalists. It's their word, which they use to imply loss - usually of earnings calculated via Hollywood accounting, and don't get me started on that.
Can we please stop using their words to describe what we're doing when we watch a movie, listen to a song, or read an article?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As with "infringement" V "theft," nothing is being removed from site and no one is being deprived of anything. Effectively, you're copying it to your memory and storing it there.
Using the word "consume" with "content" plays into the hands of the maximalists. It's their word, which they use to imply loss - usually of earnings calculated via Hollywood accounting, and don't get me started on that.
Can we please stop using their words to describe what we're doing when we watch a movie, listen to a song, or read an article?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Was just doing minimal fix. Laws prohibit, not enable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kind of like how a doctor has to do something, or a policeman or a fireman or anyone else, relying on RIAA to extort your endless profits is a failing policy.
Play live for an audience, work for a living you lazy shits.
I include you too Prince, 22m lawsuit, gtfo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Simplicity
Put the money back into the musicians who created what the consumers enjoy so much and both industries will benefit greatly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Problematic
Maybe I just do not understand the argument against Nadler. Especially at a time when we see less independent artists every year, he seems like he is standing up for those hoping to actually make any money with their art and not have to have 2 other jobs just to support their dreams.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Problematic
Can you pay me too? As well as my children's grandchildren?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Problematic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Problematic
Kicking Kicking Kicking
Kicking through the air
Kicking Kicking Kicking
Because I don't have a care
That's why I'm Kicking
Kicking through the air
Because I know that kicking
Kicking will get me there
That is a song I wrote for my baby. I have need of time to write more songs, as well as a few stories, also for children. I should be able to live for a few years on @ $150 000. You can send the money to Mike who can forward it to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Problematic
Kickin' Kickin' Kickin'
Kickin' through the air
Kickin' Kickin' Kickin'
'Cause I don't have a care
That's why I'm Kickin'
Kickin' through the air
'Cause I know that Kickin'
Kickin' will get me there
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Problematic
Just imagine the creativity explosion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]