House Votes Overwhelmingly To Make The Copyright Office More Political & To Delay Modernization
from the what-a-farce dept
This isn't a huge surprise, but unfortunately, today -- after a mostly ridiculous "debate" on the House floor full of claptrap and bullshit about how important copyright is to "protecting jobs" (despite this bill having nothing to do with any of that) -- the House voted 378 to 48 to approve a bill that makes the head of the Copyright Office, the Copyright Register, a Presidential appointment rather than an appointment by the Library of Congress, as it's been throughout the entire history of the Copyright Office. As we pointed out just yesterday, Congress appears to be rushing this through for no clear reason. It held no hearings on the issue (other than the fact that the current Librarian of Congress, Carla Hayden, was getting ready to appoint her own Copyright Register).
Again, every reason given by supporters of this bill doesn't hold up to any scrutiny. They claimed, falsely, that copyright creates 5 million jobs (one Rep -- Tony Cardenas -- even claimed that the Copyright Register "oversees" those jobs). But this is not true. They claimed that the Copyright Office needs to be modernized -- which is true. But Carla Hayden has already commenced a massive modernization project, which this bill will stop dead in its tracks. They claimed that this would provide "greater oversight" over how the Copyright Office is run, but that's not even remotely true. The bill actually takes away the oversight from the Librarian of Congress... and gives it to no one other than the President, who isn't likely to be paying much attention to what's happening at the Copyright Office.
This bill serves no purpose other than to take power away from the Librarian of Congress and give it to powerful lobbyists who will have a major say in who runs the Copyright Office. The bill will now move to the Senate where it is also likely to get an easy approval, and no doubt the President will sign the bill (which gives him more power, even if he's shown little sign of actually appointing people to the nearly 500 open positions which this will add to). It's a bad bill, and it's a gift to Hollywood, even as it will harm the actual content creators who will have to wait even longer for the office to actually be modernized.
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: carla hayden, congress, copyright office, copyright register, library of congress, modernization, politics, presidential appointment
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Oh, I think we know...
Congress appears to be rushing this through for no clear reason.
Follow the money. You'll find the reason.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
©
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Where is the Pirate Party?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wrong headline then.....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: ©
It looks like only Libertarians and Greens voted against it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Can somebody explain why a legislative branch employee is performing an executive branch function?
And can someone further explain why an office that's tacked onto what's supposed to be a legislative research service is suddenly going to subjected to "powerful lobbyists" and why it wasn't subjected to "powerful lobbyists" before?
I'm willing to be enlightened here, but the article and subsequent commentary provides a lot of hot air and no substance. Please, Mike, explain your position rather than just fuming.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Legislative branch location of register of copyrights in LoC.
First, the constitution allows for exclusive control for limited terms "for the advancement of the arts and sciences" (which promotes public progress for everyone).
Second, the Library of Congress is an institution of advancement of the arts and sciences. Serious science libraries use the Library of Congress catalog numbers and not Dewey Decimal numbers. It's purpose is to gather all that advancement together for the benefit of everyone.
It's not in the executive branch because the executive is too interested in it's own version of reality (WMD in Iraq, anyone?) and not in the judicial, where almost everyone making input has an axe to grind.
Third, if copyright is to serve its proper function, don't you think the library of congress is the right place to register a copyright on something that is supposed to be valuable enough to advance the arts and sciences and serve all of us at some point? Don't you think the filing system for copyrighted material should closely resemble a library, maybe even simply be a big part of the LoC collections?
In the age of the internet wayback machine, it's kind of incredible (as seen in copyright troll defenses such as against Malibu Media) that the copyright office can't return a copy of something that was registered with it for use in court cases, and tell us who the owner might be. That is done for basically *every* car on the road right now, you just have to be a cop to access.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You brought these difficult changes on yourself, Masnick. And when Shiva takes down this website, I'll be laughing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I'll give your knockoff version of me credit, though... Shiva is going to take down this site, and you deserve it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: ©
Where in that are the Greens and Libertarians?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Political, or Important?
Yes there is a certain amount of political power here. Presidents love to have more places that they can put cronies and supporters. It's the nature of the game. The copyright office isn't any more or any less than hundreds of other appointment positions in the government.
Now, another point is that this is also a sort of promotion for the copyright office. IP is certainly a major part of the US economy these days, and the copyright office is one of the key parts of that system. It is certainly the government's hand on the levers, if you like. Raising from a sub-office of the library of congress and making it something somewhat more significant isn't such a bad thing.
Assuming it's done only to push minimalist flunkies into the job is jumping the gun ever so slightly. Remember when Wheeler was appointed to the FCC, and everyone was freaking out? Now you miss him!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Your rambling nonsense is usually free of sense and facts, but what the hell is that even meant to mean?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
But, you have to laugh - if Mike and this website are so utterly ineffectual, why is this moron so obsessed with trying to attack and undermine them at every opportunity? I don't know about anything else, but if I find something insignificant, I tend to spend my time elsewhere. It's only the things that actually concern me that make me take time out of my day to address. Unless someone pays me to concern myself, of course.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:P
With these kinds of politicians Disney can all but guarantee a nice big extension to copyright for itself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Are the one-off chances of a comeback of some 65 year-old song, film or book really worth the cost of keeping these ideas (legally) locked up ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
They'll happily ensure that they can continue making money by making Beauty And The Beast again without owing royalties elsewhere, for example, but they don't want the additions they made to Snow White to be used by others in the same way. Same with most of these other things - it's about control, not the potential value of the content itself, especially as corporations either buy old copyrights and prevent unowned orphaned works to be used.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I'm laughing about it already. Why wait? Sow => reap.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Who appoints the head of the Library of Congress?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Response to: My_Name_Here on Apr 26th, 2017 @ 10:59pm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Silly him, obviously copyright is responsible for ALL JOBS EVER CREATED. Bear with me for a moment.
Let's think planes. Artists have to travel, mafia members.. ahem, studio and label personnel too so obviously companies like United, Delta, Emirates and others exist because of copyright. That in turn mean that airplane makers exist only because of copyright and the supply chain behind them (raw materials, steel boards, wires, electric circuits) also exist because of copyright. I'm not even talking about Google because nobody searches for anything except copyrighted content produced by the mafia.. Er, Hollywood and the Great American Creative Sector (tm). So obviously ISPs exist because of copyright and.. You got my point.
The conclusion is fairly obvious: every single job in existence is there because of copyright. Before copyright existed? There were just dumb apes swinging around and eating bananas. I have proclaimed the truth. An Masnick is a Google shill.
Ahem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Probably emergent behavior, but...
It's part of a general trend towards screwing down all the controls on the US populace. "Law 'n Order", no anti-monopoly enforcement, no net neutrality, licensing of all trades, every trend serves to control the populace, keep things as they are economically.
I'mn NOT saying there's an underlying conspiracy, it's just the tendency of the world now. I think it will ultimately lead to a very severe economic downturn, but before that, increasing societal stratification. Neither of those things will do down well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I drive past her office every morning on my way to work. Next time she's in town I really should set up an appointment to tell her how I feel about this.
Wish I'd done it during the latest recess, but this flew under my radar while I was concerned by other issues like healthcare and the recent ISP privacy deregulation. Which I expect was the point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Political, or Important?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Wrong headline then.....
Nobody spends more on lobbying than Google.
Sorry, but Congress isn't going to cornhole artists and the Constitution to further line the pockets of billionaire tech douchebags.
Deal with it, you sycophantic tool.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Where is the Pirate Party?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Wrong headline then.....
And you, sir, are completely off.
Google might be spending lots of money on lobbying, but not on this very subject.
So, you are right: Congress is not cornholing anything for a few tech billionaires. They are trying to help copyright billionaires.
You didn't follow the money. You only followed your troll instincts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Wrong headline then.....
Actually, according to a Open Secrets, AT&T, Comcast, and 14 other organizations do in fact spend more on lobbying than Google. In fact, AT&T alone outspends Alphabet on lobbying by more than 25%.
But to be fair, it's not as if you were using an internet-connected device and could have spent thirty seconds looking that up before you wrote your dumbass comment or anything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Wrong headline then.....
It's created an absolute monster whereby singing Happy Birthday or taking a selfie of you and some friends in a Star Wars cosplay gets you slapped with an exorbitant fine for not securing a "Public Performance License" that you'd have to pay an exorbitant fee for first.
This isn't about "cornholing artists." If anything, the artists are the ones who get screwed by the fact that their label/studio/publisher/some other centralized "rights manager," who knows and cares fk-all about art and everything about squeezing as much profit as possible from a recycled commodity, is the "rightful owner" of their work -- and NOT the artist themselves. It's why Prince changed his name to that ludicrous Unicode symbol he made up. His former label had straitjacketed him so much, that they literally owned his given name.
Copyright -- at least the way it's implemented today, at the behest of Big Content lobbyists and the sackless congresscritters getting their wallets fattened by the Mausreich and others of their ilk -- is fascism. You don't have to be a fan of Google or any other equally evil Internet oligopoly in order to realize that.
Deal with it, you sycophantic tool.
[ link to this | view in thread ]