Congress Using Lame Duck Session To Push Through Awful Plan To Politicize The Copyright Office
from the don't-do-this dept
I explain all the details below, but the short version is that Hollywood is trying to use the lame duck Congress session to push through a bill that would be very bad for copyright, and would politicize the Copyright Office. EFF has an action page where you can tell Congress not to do this. The bigger explanation of all of this is below.
You can't take your eyes off Congress for a second or they might do something awful. As you may recall, over the past few years, there's been a huge fight going on concerning who controls the US Copyright Office. Historically, the Copyright Office has been a part of the Library of Congress. In early 2017, I wrote a very long, detailed article for the Verge detailing why the Copyright Office is in the Library of Congress, and why it should stay there. If you're confused about this, I suggest reading that article. However, for years, many both within the Copyright Office itself, and (more importantly) in the legacy movie and recording industries, have been pushing to get the Copyright Office out of the Library and set up as its own agency (or possibly merged into the Patent and Trademark Office). This would give those special interests a lot more power over the organization, especially as it would make the head of the Copryight Office, the Register of Copyrights, now a Presidentially appointed position, rather than what it is today, where the Register is appointed by the Librarian of Congress.
The previous Register, Maria Pallante, advocated strongly for independence from the Library, and all sorts of rumors started to swirl after Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden (herself only recently appointed) fired Pallante. There was a ridiculous set of conspiracy theories pushed out about this falsely accusing "Google" of engineering the firing of Pallante. This entire narrative was debunked when it later came out that Pallante was almost certainly fired over an astoundingly botched computer system upgrade in which a new computer system that the Office had promised would cost $1.1 million had ballooned (through questionable means) to $11.6 million, and never actually worked and had to be scrapped. On top of that, an Inspector's General Report suggested that Pallante lied to both Congress and the Library of Congress about the status of that computer system upgrade, claiming that it was going great. Those are fireable offenses. Meanwhile, under Hayden's leadership, the Copyright Office has actually done a good job upgrading its computer systems.
However, the conspiracy theories around Pallante's firing gave the Hollywood lobby the momentum they needed to push for a law to remove the Copyright Office from the Library of Congress. Since Pallante was fired, Hayden (who had only taken the job a few months earlier, and who was the first actual librarian to run the Library of Congress, let alone the first black woman to do so), has not appointed a new Register of Copyrights, leaving the "acting" Register, Karyn Temple, in place. No one will state this definitively, but I've heard from multiple sources that Hayden was told not to appoint a new Register until after Congress decided what to do with the Copyright Office (with the implied threat being that if Hayden went ahead and did her actual job and appointed a Register, Congress would look negatively on such a move and it would almost certainly mean the Copyright Office would be taken away from the Library).
There was a big push last year to try to split the baby on this debate, and, like an actual splitting of a baby, the plan was ridiculous. It wouldn't technically take the Copyright Office out of the Library, but it would take away the Librarian's ability to appoint the head of the Copyright Office. Instead, it would become a Presidentially appointed position, which would effectively politicize the office at a time when the last thing we should want is a Copyright Office that is bowing to the whims of whoever is in the Oval Office.
There is no reason, whatsoever, to do this right now. First of all, we have a President who, two years into office, still has only filled 378 of the 704 key positions he's supposed to fill (with 129 still having no nominee at all). It's hard to see how it makes any sense to add yet another position to the list he has to fill when he doesn't seem particularly interested in actually appointing people.
Furthermore, while supporters of this move falsely claim it's necessary to help "modernize" the Copyright Office, this ignores that, under Hayden, the Office has been modernizing (and that Hayden has experience modernizing a massively large library system in the past). Furthermore, this move would take away Hayden's abilities to hold the Register accountable -- which seems important given how she discovered Pallante's management problems before. And, of course, there's the general optics of a bunch of old white men in Congress stripping the first black, female Librarian of Congress of the same authority that every previous Librarian (all white men) had had.
Anyway, as the EFF action page explains, the House has already passed the "Register of Copyright Selection and Accountability Act" and now it's the Senate's decision. With little fanfare (and little expectation this would happen), the Senate decided to vote on this tomorrow to get it out of Committee, and then will likely to try to hide it in the "must pass" end of year appropriation's bill. In other words, the lame duck Congress may give Hollywood a huge gift and politicize the Copyright Office. Tell them not to do this.
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: congress, copyright office, library of congress, politics, presidential appointee
Reader Comments
The First Word
“I used the Resist bot to do so, myself. For anyone taking part, remember that the EFF's form is a good start, but personalizing it or rewriting it entirely will make your contact stand out more.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"little fanfare" -- I hope much wailing by pirates!
Show me exactly where in the Constitution any person in gov't is supposed to take into account the wishes of persons except those specifically noted by recognizing (not granting) that persons have "the exclusive Right" to their OWN works!
Techdirt as always implies that the thieves of content, whether personal or commercial scale, have some sort of legitimate interest in this or any other copyright matter, but it's silly as saying that you land-lubber "pirates" have some say in maritime / Navy matters. YOU HAVE NO SAY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "little fanfare" -- I hope much wailing by pirates!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "little fanfare" -- I hope much wailing by pirates!
As in the purpose of copyright is to promote progress as a benefit to society. It is not for the purpose of lining the pockets of large companies who leach off the creative works of others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "little fanfare" -- I hope much wailing by pirates!
To promote the progress of creating larger pockets and filling them with your money ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "little fanfare" -- Like when you left forever
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "little fanfare" -- I hope much wailing by pirates!
Also ... why is the rum gone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You do realize that pretty much everyone is a copyright holder in the US, right? Please explain why only some copyright holders should have a say.
Also, this is a public matter that impacts the public. Are you really saying something along the lines of: "You drink alcohol, so you should have no say concerning drunk driving laws."? Because if you are, that is simply plum dumb.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "little fanfare" -- I hope much wailing by pirates!
By the absolute strictest reading of copyright—the only reading that seemingly matters to you, and one where principles of Fair Use would never come into play—these are just some of the people who would qualify as “thieves of content”:
Film critics who quote part of a film or include official art/screenshots in a written review without having first licensed that material
Film critics who use clips from films in video reviews/critiques without having first licensed that material
Videogame streamers who do Let's Plays, speedruns, and other such content without having first licensed the right to record video from the games they play
Book reviewers who quote part of a book without having first licensed that material
Music critics who quote lyrics from a song without having first licensed that material
Music critics who play songs in video/audio critiques of music without having first licensed that material
Social media users who post photographs of copyrighted paintings/statues/works of art without having first bought a license to create and distribute such a reproduction
Social media users who use any form of copyrighted material to create memes—and I mean everything from Spongebob Squarepants screencaps to the opening notes of “Megalovania” from Undertale
To say that none of these people have a “legitimate interest” in any matter relating to copyright displays an ignorance that can best be described as “willfully malicious”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Georgia, please clean up after y
The very first sentence of the copyright clause:
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts..."
Such progress is not only dependent on locking up culture, it can be actively blocked by it. The wishes of society as a whole trump those of people who want more free money from things they didn't create but to which they happen to have bought the right. The wishes of "pirates" who want access to things created generations ago are worth more than the wishes of Disney because they're scared the public will rightfully own the stuff that was promised to it when it was created.
"Techdirt as always implies that the thieves of content, whether personal or commercial scale, have some sort of legitimate interest in this or any other copyright matter"
...whereas you and your heroes merely lie outright about the people who oppose your plan to extort the world. Your arguments fall apart when you realise you're addressing both those who pay for and who create culture - including the public domain and other open content you freely use, doesn't it?
Once again, I wonder how it feels to have to lie about the world and those around you just to be able to support your own position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "little fanfare" -- I hope much wailing by pirates!
Since copyright law is not specified by the Constitution, it contains neither any such direction, nor any protection of exclusive rights to authors' works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Always on defense
Things don't just spontaneously happen. If you never act offensively, you will always be playing defense. But then, if you fixed the copyright system, you wouldn't have much to write about, would you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Always on defense
Wow, you really don't understand the difference between the government and private entities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Always on defense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Always on defense
As Techdirt does not have billions of dollars to spend to get its preferred legislation in front of Congress, its most effective tool for enacting its legislative agenda is...publishing articles on its widely-read website that advocate for that agenda, urging its readers to contact their elected representatives, and providing a means to do so. In other words, the exact things this articles does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Always on defense
Individuals and small groups of people have managed to get legislation pushed through.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Always on defense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When it comes to copyright, the international multimedia conglomerates that own the overwhelming majority of of mass-market mainstream pop culture—and the billions of dollars said pop culture produces for them—tend to have a far greater say in re: copyright than a blog like Techdirt. You can believe in an feel-good come-from-behind story, but at some point, reality will dropkick you in the face and laugh at you while you stumble into the mud while the wealthy power-walk to the finish line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Always on defense
When facing the lobbyists from massive multinational corporations who are pushing the false narrative that the industry they represent depends on the legislation not going through?
I'd love to see some of the examples you apparently have in mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Always on defense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Always on defense
Why do you assume nothing is being done? I mean, the evidence of what is being done is out there, if you wished to look for it, but why is your default position that a person who writes about an issue is not involve with it in any other way?
"But then, if you fixed the copyright system, you wouldn't have much to write about, would you?"
...which in the eyes of a normal person would be a good thing. Only a sociopath like yourself would wish problems to continue in the world just so that you can keep your current job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I used the Resist bot to do so, myself. For anyone taking part, remember that the EFF's form is a good start, but personalizing it or rewriting it entirely will make your contact stand out more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the other hand...
Statistically, the influence that such letters have (without an accompanying campaign contribution large campaign contribution is 0.000% (non-zero but very tiny), whether a petition's presentation is optimized or not.
For those whose representatives are planning on voting for the bill, it will be more effective to embarrass them, maybe trap them in an elevator on video and confront them.
Or if we're going to get extreme, sabotage the lame duck session.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On the other hand...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On the other hand...
The problem here is that, while the statistics may be true, I don't have the option of traveling to meet with my Senators and embarrass them publicly, certainly not in time to influence the vote _tomorrow_. The exhortation to do something more effective is only useful if that more effective option is available to the person you're talking to.
Anyone who can reach congresspeople directly, in person, and embarrass them in the way you proposed _should_. I wholeheartedly endorse them doing so. For anyone who can't, letters might be the only option.
Should I have done nothing, instead?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Should I have done nothing, instead?"
My point was that we have about the same chance of affecting the outcome as we did appealing to the FCC not to gut net neutrality when we were encouraging everyone to make a relevant point on their public comments page. It didn't help. Comments were overwhelmingly in favor of preserving net neutrality and title-II regulation (despite the alleged DDOS). Pai dismissed them all.
Is that to say you shouldn't comment to officials or legislators? No. I commented on the FCC page, and I used the EFF's utility. But I do not expect it will help.
In this case I am saying:
~ Commenting will not help
~ Commenting with a significant bribe (the maximum individual campaign contribution), might help. If you can do that. Do it.
~ Protesting, demonstrating or obstructing the legislation process might help, if it's done in a way loud enough or destructive enough that it cannot be ignored, circumvented or policed.
~ If this sounds like the fight is already lost, that's probably true, and the system should be changed so that petitioning our government for the redress of grievances is once again a functional action. We should find a way to change it before this happens again. (It's not likely. Monied lobbyists like their control of the government, but we should.)
Also, given that we without money to buy representation don't have recourse within the system to be heard, this may lend validity to methods outside the system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Should I have done nothing, instead?"
I figured as much, given your comment history. I more wanted to point how your reply could be construed to be an argument to do nothing.
I say the following more for those who might be thinking they shouldn't write, because it wouldn't have much effect than for you, because I suspect that you already understand this: I agree that just writing congress, just commenting on the FCC's process, etc. doesn't have much of an effect, but there is one very important thing that it does, which is create something that can be pointed to as an indicator of "what the public wants."
It is only possible for people to point out that Pai ignored the FCC comments and went against the will of the public because those comments exist. It is only possible to say that a congressperson ignored their constituency if there is a record of their constituency speaking out about a topic. These things create tools that can be used in other avenues, and every tool in the box could be useful.
Additionally, creating the comment or writing congress is a very low-effort task anymore. Via the resist bot, it took me a sum total of 4 minutes to complete the communication. There's about as much effort involved in using the EFF's contact form. The barrier to entry for this is so low, there's really not a good reason not to, even if the ultimate direct effect of it will be negligible.
For those have the ability to do more, please do more - but do that more in addition to this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Should I have done nothing, instead?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Should I have done nothing, instead?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Should I have done nothing, instead?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Creating a record of what the public wants
That is a very relevant point, and one I hadn't fully considered! Thank you for making it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not filling federal positions with candidates
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not filling federal positions with candidates
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not filling federal positions with candidates
He only appoints people who he believes will be personally loyal to him, so I imagine he's running out of (or already ran out of) candidates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is that necessarily a bad thing? In many if not most cases, it just makes the second in command the acting head. It's no secret that political appointees sadly tend to be incompetent brown-nosers who are usually inexperienced in their assigned field, while those who work under them are often far more competent. Having the top position (officially) remain vacant often times inadvertently puts better experienced and more qualified people at the helm.
Underneath the surface, there's also this counter-argument at play here. Maybe we can call it the Brenda Snipes Syndrome, named after the infamously incompetant and corrupt Broward County Florida Elections supervisor, who made use of both the "racism" and "sexism" shields to cling to a job for many years that in all probability she should never have had to begin with except that there was excessive pressure to fill an 'identity' quota.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, when they're Republican. Republicans tend to appoint anybody that donates lots of money. Democrats tend to appoint people that have actual, relevant experience in that field.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
...whereas Trump's appointees seem to be people who are ideologically opposed to the fundamental function of the thing they're placed in charge of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's hard not to do when, for example, the orange moron has replaced a competent and qualified EPA head selected by Democrats with a guy who spent much of his career railing against the agency, and stated he doesn't believe in basic facts surrounding environmental science. Ditto his education chief who apparently doesn't support public schooling, his energy secretary who wanted the department disbanded (at least until he learned what it actually does, apparently), and so on.
Also, note the qualifiers - Democrats *tend* to, Trump *seems* to. Nobody's saying one "team" is always right and the other always wrong. We're simply noting that the current president is replacing a lot of competent, qualified appointees with people who have no business being in arms reach of the positions they're being installed into. If that's factually wrong, please support that argument, otherwise it's basic fact.
"And the thing about generalizations is, they're always wrong. Don't make them."
I didn't do that, yet you just did. Interesting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-46440529
In case you can't click through for some reason - Rudy Guiliani sent a tweet but missed a space, causing Twitter to interpret part of it as a hyperlink. Someone noticed that the URL it pointed to was not currently registered, so he registered it and created a site with a message attacking Trump.
When he noticed, Guiliani did not respond by correcting the original tweet, he responded by writing a semi-coherent tweet attacking Twitter for altering his tweet in order to make the attack on Trump.
The man apparently either does not understand the internet, or is happy to use a platform that he believes is going to randomly change his words in order to undermine him. This man was appointed by Trump as a cybersecurity advisor. Let that sink in.
If you have examples of people appointed by Democrats who are this woefully unfit for the appointments they are given, feel free to provide them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Periods without spaces indicate hyperlinks
I've encountered a few chat clients and utilities that automatically interpret periods without spaces as hyperlinks, including full ellipses.
I assume that hyperlinks never use more than one period in succession. If that's the case, it should be an easy exception to trap for.
This.is.probably.a.link. This..is..not..a..link.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Welcome to Oregon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Quiet, Mr. Orlowski.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You really shouldn't need this long to grieve. I don't care if FOSTA doesn't deep throat you like SOPA was supposed to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The EFF is nothing more than a Google astroturfing group, so no, I don’t think I’ll do what they ask.
This is such a bullshit talking point. And wrong.
The EFF regularly opposes Google on stuff, including to the point of filing an FTC complaint against Google over its privacy practices. The argument that it's a "front" for the EFF is laughable. And if you mean that Google "funds" EFF, that's also wrong. According to its latest financial report, less than 5% of the money EFF gets comes from corporations, so even if you argued (laughably) that all of the corporate money it gets is from Google, it would still only be a tiny amount of EFF's budget.
Google doesn't fund EFF and EFF is not even close to a Google front. You should, maybe, not get your talking points from idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As ever, even if you weren't lying about the basis of your argument, it's still moronic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm only surprised by the content, not by the effort
Maybe Disney is waiting until we get a little closer to 2004 (when Steamboat Willie will go into the public-domain) before paying for an extension to be rammed thru congress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You call that easy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The SOPA era
The problem then was getting people to even be aware of these issues. Net Neutrality was a thing that users were taking for granted in that they didn't know it existed and things could be different (and worse).
Now, instead, they are aware, but the subject is being obfuscated by lobbyists (much the way the climate change issue is being muddied). Rather than the public being caught unawares, it's caught confused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WHY>
https://www.senate.gov/floor/
We had such a nice design for a government..When did it get this bad..20-30-50 years??
Something I wish to understand.. We didnt pay these folks before..the 1970's..
they voted themselves a wage, commensurate to that of a Middle management boss.
As they are being PAID NOW...arnt these folks considered EMPLOYEES??
And as every man/women/child is NOW their Boss, cant we just Fire them..we should need to do much of anything else..
ANd why are we still letting them in while they are supposed to be GONE, home..
They are only requested BEFORE seeding the farms, and upto the harvest time..about 6-8 months MAX(and get paid $170k per 1/2 year)
Please lets fire them before they do MORE stupid things..
Anyone got a List of days missed?? w can fire 2/3 of them just for missing days..
LETS get rid of the AUTOMATIC voting system...Its REALLY ABUSED..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Need a Senate Bill number
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Need a Senate Bill number
I can't seem to find it on senate.gov, so does anyone know the SB-number for the Senate bill?
I can contact my Senators manually, but still need the bill number.
Oh - can a mod delete my earlier comment above? Dingbat mistake - I hit Enter instead of Shift.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]