Congress Leaks Draft Bill To Move Copyright Office Out Of The Library Of Congress
from the this-is-a-BAD-idea dept
Update: The bill has now officially been introduced.
Well, we all knew this was coming, but Rep. Bob Goodlatte has been passing around a draft of a bill to move the Copyright Office out of the Library of Congress. Specifically, it would make the head of the Copyright Office, the Copyright Register, a Presidentially appointed position, with 10-year terms, and who could only be removed by the President.
This is a bad and dangerous idea. It's one that's designed to give Hollywood and the recording industry even more power and control over an already deeply captured agency. As it stands now, having the Copyright Office in the Library of Congress provides at least some basic recognition of the actual intent of copyright law, as established by the Constitution to Promote the progress of science. That is, as we've pointed out for a long, long time, the intent of copyright is to benefit the public. The mechanism is to provide temporary monopolies to creators as an incentive, before handing the works over to the public. Yet, the Copyright Office eschews that view, insisting that the role of the Copyright Office is to expand those monopoly rights, and to speak out for the interests of major copyright holders (rarely the creators themselves).
Either way, by making this a Presidential appointment, the MPAA and RIAA know that it will give them significantly greater say over who leads the office. Right now they can (and do!) lobby the Librarian of Congress on who should be chosen, but the Librarian gets to choose. One hopes that the Librarian would take into account the larger view of copyright law, and who it's actually supposed to benefit -- and we're hoping that the current Librarian will do so (if given the chance). But making it a Presidential appointment will mean heavy lobbying by industry, and much less likelihood that the public interest is considered.
The usual think tankers and industry folks will tell you -- incorrectly -- that the Copyright Office is only in the Library due to "an accident of history." But that's not the case. The role of both overlap dramatically -- collecting, organizing and cataloging new creative works. Almost everyone agrees that the Copyright Office needs to be modernized, and that the previous Librarian failed (miserably) to do so. But because we had a bad librarian in the past is no reason to remove the Copyright Office entirely from the Library and disconnect it completely to its constitutional moorings designed around getting more creative works to the public.
Make sure to let your Congressional Representative know not to support this bill -- especially if they're members of the House Judiciary Committee. Rep. Goodlatte has said that he'd only propose copyright reform bills that have widespread consensus. This is not such a bill.
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, congress, copyright, copyright office, john conyers, library of congress
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Congress leaks?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Congress leaks?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Congress leaks?
https://www.google.com/search?q=leek&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiwvOfj4e3S AhVG_mMKHZX1AR0Q_AUIBigB&biw=1920&bih=981
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's not true at all. Washington was opposed to political parties, never belonged to one, and explicitly warned against them -- hard to claim that he "didn't envision" a thing that he warned against.
And every President except Washington belonged to a political party.
I think it's probably more accurate to say they never envisioned the kind of polarization in our current political system, the likelihood that a single party would control all three branches of government, and the extent to which individuals would put the party line over individual policy beliefs or their constituents' interests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thackeray to the rescue.
Good old Rawdon who has a somewhat dim view of just who is paying Rebecca's bills and baubles and is too clumsy to be kept around in high society.
The comparison, of course, breaks down once Rawdon finds Becky in compromising circumstances: she isn't successful at explaining to him that this is how it is supposed to work and that he should be happy about it.
Also of course Lord Steyne isn't actually stealing the money he gives to Becky from Rawdon. He's interested in exploiting her rather than her husband.
So, well, our Congress Play is a lot more icky. We aren't living in Victorian times where honour was formally considered more valuable than money: nowadays there is no honour but money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Despairing point of view
What difference will it make? Unless substantial checks are included with the communication, they will just ignore it.
There is no short term solution, and a lot of damage will be done in the mean time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Despairing point of view
You can at least hope for some boilerplate response from your rep indicating their position on the matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Despairing point of view
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Despairing point of view
This is bullshit. It's not at all true that it doesn't matter. Constituents reaching out -- actually making phone calls -- makes a MASSIVE difference. That's what won SOPA, and I can assure you that those behind this bill are scared of anything that suggests they're heading for another SOPA situation.
Yes, money works in Congress BUT ONLY WHEN NO ONE'S PAYING ATTENTION. If they get enough calls, the calls will ALWAYS beat out the money. Really. Voters trump everything else. And money only works when the people aren't paying attention.
Your "it won't do any good" attitude LETS THEM WIN. Don't do that. Calls (especially) matter and make a difference. If the office starts receiving calls, and Reps realize this will piss off actual voters, it can and will scare them away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Despairing point of view
A significant part of my issue is the depressing fact of the many losses the people have had recently, along with the express disinterest in ongoing political issues. If the constituents were paying attention to everything Congress does, then I would not be so angst filled. SOPA sized efforts don't take place every day.
We have a republic, a representative government. The populace takes it for granted that the representatives will represent them. They don't. We need a SOPA+ sized effort to make them aware of the need to participate, even after the elections. I don't see THAT on the horizon. I wish I did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Despairing point of view
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Despairing point of view
If you take the angst out of this and flip this on it's head, i.e. look at it from the governments point of view, if no-one ever complains about their crazy proposals and policies, it isn't a stretch to see how they could believe they're doing good (appeased lobbyists, contented populace...).
Mike is 100% right on this. Pissed off? Then make a fuss. Badger these people. Be civil, but give them no respite. If nothing else, reminding them you exist and have a view is mildly satisfying, therapeutic even.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Despairing point of view
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Despairing point of view
Trump with a t or a T? Although I suspect it doesn't matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Which lobbies are behind this?
So the question is, who is behind the bill, which lobbies are pushing this, which have invested (bought out) the most in their representatives?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ 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 ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You are a fart in the wind, gone in seconds, like most sad little trolls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Promote the progress of science"? Sounds like more commie sosh'list nazi kenya talk to me, everybody knows that copyrights are for making mickey mouse money forever.
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Update
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or maybe just sic anonymous on all of them. Because I have to tell y'all, I was sick and tired of all of the copyright BS in the 80's, and now it has entered the realms of a Hieronymus Bosch painting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright is the only protection artists have. Naturally, he hates copyright.
But karma has finally caught up to him, hasn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What? First off, since when has Google "bought" the Copyright Office? Second, Google FAVORS moving the Copyright Office from what I've seen (they'd like to move it into the PTO, which is also a bad idea). So, uh, no.
Everything in those two sentences is wrong. It must be tough angrily yelling at a fake strawman that says stuff I don't actually believe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You have read nothing but the graffiti on the straw windmills inside your head.
All the writers, and the non-lazy commenters here, have always been pretty damn clear and consistent.
The problems have always been abuse of the "IP" systems, and the warrantless extension of the laws behind them. And none of it protects actual creators any more than it ever did. Further, these systems no longer even produce results anywhere in line with the original (and good) intent of patent and copyright laws. (Trademark is almost 100% BS and let's not even go there as it has about zero to do with creators, which seems to be your ill-informed fantasy whining point.)
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Android seems to be doing pretty well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Great point; that totally means it hasn't made anyone any money. What was I thinking?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Red Hat are doing very nicely thank you, and they provide support to two free Linux Distros Fedora and Centos. The latter is a copy of Red Hat,with just the branding changed. They do what Mike keeps suggesting, sell something that is rare and valuable, software support, fixing of bugs in the software that they support. Oh, they also push their fixes upstream to the projects that provide that software..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not to mention companies like Intel and IBM (and, more recently, AMD), who make their money selling hardware and contribute heavily to Linux and other open-source projects because the availability of high-quality software increases the value of their hardware.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But just bashing the idea that people should own their own work product for the "good of the herd" with "creative economics" and forced "open source" such that everybody gets a free copy of everything is against my principles, and likely against yours, too, if you make a living selling your products.
Mike has never said such a thing. Get your maximlist blinkers off. 'Scuse me while I deconstruct your BS:
bashing the idea that people should own their own work product
What nonsense is this? Let's begin with the term "work product." Assume we're discussing music. First of all, music in and of itself is not a product and therefore can't be owned. This is implicit in the Copyright Clause,
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, empowers the United States Congress: 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.
You can't own something "for limited times." You either own it or you don't. You can transfer ownership but it's either yours for all eternity until you give it up or pass it on or it is not. Therefore if you write a song you don't own it, you merely have the exclusive right to your writings and discoveries for limited times. This used to be 28 years at the most. When Mike (and the rest of us) point out this truth you have a fit. Take it up with the Founders!
for the "good of the herd"
It's not about the herd as such, it's about my being able to walk about singing songs I like in public without being dinged for royalties. Per the letter of the law as it stands I would have to pay the PRS for a licence to sing Rag 'n' Bone Man's 'Only Human,' my current favourite, as I walk around the office where I work as it is a commercial environment. Per your opinion this is both reasonable and fair as failure to do so robs Rory of his rightful revenue. Owning and controlling aspects of culture the way you want to has actually stifled bands and performers. One paranoiac I got into an argument won't share his work online so nobody has heard of him. The band is indifferent, the sound is generic, from what little I have heard. Now look at Ed Sheeran. That's the way to go for the good of the individual artist and to secure his or her place in history.
with "creative economics" and forced "open source" such that everybody gets a free copy of everything
What the actual hell? Smart artists connect with fans and give them a reason to support them. That's not forced open source. And how in the world do you "force" open source on anyone? If this is about pirating software, that's not forcing open source on anyone; it's infringement. I can understand why pirates download illegally; what they want is not available to them in a form they want at a rate they can afford. Personally, I "do without" and use GIMP and Inkscape instead of the bloated, overpriced, unintuitive Photoshop but do you know a university tutor once advised me to pirate it? Given the ridiculous cost of the Creative Suite I can understand why but I'm happy with GIMP and Inkscape, thank you. I might consider getting Photoshop if they drop the price. It's way too expensive as it is.
is against my principles, and likely against yours, too, if you make a living selling your products
That's a bit disingenuous, isn't it? If I'm right in my assumption, you don't actually SELL anything, you LICENCE it. Nothing is being sold; if I pay for a licence from yourself for a CD with your music on it I could sell the CD but per the letter of the law if I rip the CD so I can store the music file on an iPod or something I've infringed. If you sold oranges and someone picked one up and ran away with it, that's theft. Now imagine I take a photo of you selling the oranges and you go nuts if I make a few dollars selling tshirts with a picture of the orange seller on it. There's the problem.
No amount of shouting "Copyrighted items are propertly like a house or a car" is going to make it so. Get over it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
RE: "impossible," the word you're looking for is "intangible." The trouble with intangibles is that their inherent value is in the eye of the beholder. That, in effect, is what we're arguing about; you assign a greater value to the intangibles you produce than I do.
Besides, there's no practical value in paywalling my articles: who would pay for them? It's a popularity contest when all is said and done and I'm not popular enough to make paywalling work. I write in the hope of winning an audience that might pay me at a later date. I've got some ebooks out that can be bought and paid for but they're not selling; people aren't interested. I think it's more to do with a lack of marketing support (I've not exactly gone nuts trying to get people to buy them) than people not wanting to read my fiction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Obviously, I am not who you directed these questions at, but I would like to answer for myself, if I may.
The answer to both of those questions is yes and I still consider myself a copyright minimalist. I am a graphic artist who creates designs everyday (which all have copyright by default) and I do not care if they are copied or not because what I really do is sell signs and printed graphics.
In my free time I am a hobbyist programmer and I have released one of my programs under the GPLv3 License because I have enjoyed using Linux for almost a decade and wanted to pay something forward.
Gvpngate - VPN Gate frontend for Gnome
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
socialist
socialist
socialist
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. It's not just a catch-all for "meanyhead I don't like"
pssst: Government IP laws are more or less a massive socialist program that the founding fathers were very conflicted about and/or against. They are the government using the full power of law and regulation to attempt to control what people do in the spirit of working for the "greater good".
Shoot, that sounds like socialist commie talk!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Careful there, keep saying Socialist and the ghost of Marx is going to be summoned to your closet to rattle chains and decry the dastardly Capitalists. Lenin of course is already under your bed and ready to make a grab for your ankles if he can, so make sure to jump to and from your bed to avoid that.
I have to say, it's almost impressive to watch you come up with this convoluted conspiracy 'to keep the capitalists down' to explain why people aren't taking you seriously and reporting and/or marking your comments as funny.
By all means, if your claims are 'facts, plain and simple', then you should have no problem with a [Citation Needed].
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Meh!" said old Gertrude, who was sitting in her porch.
"Whatever," said Stephen, who was carrying a bundle of sticks.
"Give it a rest, Peter," said the smith, who continued to pound the horseshoe.
"But there is! There is! There really is a wolf in the sheepfold this time!" cried Peter. But no matter what he said or did, no one paid him any mind since they had heard him say it so many times before and every time he had been playing a trick on them. This time they refused to fall for it.
[ 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: Re: Re:
no, just stupid assholes like you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't feed; just flag and move on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You know, the funny thing about making public claims like that is that those of us who've been around on TD know that they're full of bunk, and based upon the strawman Mike/TD that's been kicking around in your head for years now.
Or put another way, if you're going to lie it helps your case if you're not surrounded by people who know that you're lying and aren't even remotely interested in Mike's answers so long as they continue to differ from what the shadow-Mike you've got in your head believes.
Mike has stated his position on copyright, quite a few times. Likewise his position on piracy, he's been pretty consistent and clear about it, you just don't like his answers and so insist that he didn't actually answer and demand that he give what you think his position is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The main reason why I have trouble with the "property" part isn't just the fact that it leads people to try to pretend it's just like tangible property, but because it automatically biases how people think about the concept. As I've written before, the very purpose of "property" and "property rights" was to better manage allocation of scarce resources. If there's no scarce resource at all, then the whole concept of property no longer makes sense. If a resource is infinite, it no longer matters who owns it, because anyone can own it and it doesn't diminish the ownership of anyone else. So, the entire rationale for "property rights" disappears.
It matters who owns my property, Mike, the property that I created, with my own investment, time and toil. Mine. Not everyone's. Mine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
... followed by continuing to beat up that strawman Mike in your head, despite the fact that anyone who cares to can check the three links in my above comment to get an idea as to Mike's actual position on copyright.
But hey, enough about Mike's position on copyright, let's talk about yours.
With your 'I made it, it's mine' mindset, should copyright ever lapse, or should it be treated like a house or car, where you own it perpetually?
Do you support the idea of Fair Use, a clear 'violation' of the copyright owner's 'Mine!' right, and if so to what extent should it be allowed?
If copyright is a 'property' right like what people normally think when they hear the term, should it be taxed like one as well?
What do you feel is the purpose and goal behind copyright law, is that goal being satisfied with the law as it currently stands, and if not what would you suggest could be changed to make it better fulfill it's goal?
Inquiring minds are curious as to your stance on copyright law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'd say I was surprised, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Another difference between intellectual property and other property are the rights granted to the original owner after the transfer of ownership. One doesn't get to dictate how the person you sell your used car to uses it, but the author of a book gets to restrict how the book is used after he sells it.
If you are willing to give up any and all rights after the sale of your intellectual property, than I would be willing to treat as any other property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Everything in those two sentences is wrong. It must be tough angrily yelling at a fake strawman that says stuff I don't actually believe.
I'd love to get to the bottom of what you "actually believe," but you run away every single time. Bawk!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's no point in calling your reps
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Greenhouse & Open Secrets proves All
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a shame that a lot of people will suffer but at least they'll (hopefully) realize some sort of compromise (other than "give us all the copyrights, forever":P) has to be reached.
If not, well they'll eventually get what they want anyway. Why waste more time ?
Honestly, the only real chance consumers would stand would be if we had some sort of non-profit watchdog constantly lobbying and or protesting these attempts.
Citizen boycotts work, in a pinch, for specific laws, but these assholes will just sneak what they want as soon as we stop looking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A 10 year term why?
At first I thought this didn't sound all that bad, until this line:
There's a grand total of one whole position, Director of the FBI with a 10 year term.
The reason for the FBI's 10 year term is try to insulate them from politics more (which Comey has obviously failed to do with all his recent controversial decisions in the last election, but that's not the point here).
But why does the head of a copyright department need a 10 year term? What partisan politics are there that justifies trying to insulate them from politics? Copyright and IP isn't a partisan issue that one party supports and other opposes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A 10 year term why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A 10 year term why?
That's not the only one. The Library of Congress is now also a 10 year appointment. It used to be "until stepped down or fired" but after the last LoC stepped down, it was changed so that it's now 10 year appointments.
I believe that the inclusion here is for the same reasons it was included for the LoC. Just some concerns about effective "lifetime" appointments to head agencies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Contacted my Congressman's office today
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why don't they just go ahead and move it to Hollywood?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]