Senate Panel Approves Bill To Make The Justice Dep't Hollywood's Private Police Force

from the travesty-of-justice dept

We were just talking about how a huge number of public interest groups had explained to the Senate why the new Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act was a such terrible idea since it would add a Copyright Czar in the White House and let the FBI file civil charges against people caught infringing on copyrights. After all, there's simply no logical explanation for why the FBI should be propping up the obsolete business model of an industry that refuses to change with the market.

However, it appears that public interest groups don't fund campaigns like the entertainment industry does. The Senate Judiciary Committee has gone ahead and approved moving the bill forward by a 14-4 margin, basically handing over Justice Department resources to Hollywood to protect its business model with no real justification.

The bill's sponsor, Sen. Patrick Leahy's explanation is pretty stunning in its ignorance:

"We all know that intellectual property makes up some of the most valuable, and most vulnerable, property we have. We need to do more to protect it from theft and abuse if we hope to continue being a world leader in innovation."

Can someone send him a copy of Against Intellectual Monopoly so he can understand how nearly every part of that sentence is wrong. First off, intellectual property, despite the name, is not "property" at all. It's also not "vulnerable" except if you mean that there are better business models out there for dealing with. He gives no convincing reason why we should "protect" it, other than a factually untrue statement about "theft," when infringement and theft are two totally different things and should be dealt with in two totally different ways. Finally, studies have shown that the more "protected" IP is, the less innovation results, so his final clause is simply backwards. This bill will serve to limit American innovation, and open up more foreign innovation instead. But, as long as it means the RIAA doesn't need to innovate...

Filed Under: copyright czar, intellectual property, patrick leahy, senate

Groups Urge Senate Not To Turn The Justice Department Into Hollywood's Private Police Force

from the bad,-bad,-bad-ideas dept

As we noted earlier this summer, Senator Patrick Leahy had introduced a companion bill to the House's dreadful Pro-IP bill, except that Leahy's bill went further. Beyond just adding a "Copyright Czar" position to the White House, it would authorize the Justice Department to start prosecuting civil copyright infringement lawsuits. In other words, it would have the government act as the private police for of the entertainment industry. This is scary stuff. Beyond already handing out unnecessary gov't granted monopolies, the gov't would now be using taxpayer money to settle business disputes from an industry that was only in trouble because it stubbornly refused to update its business model.

It's difficult to see why taxpayers should be paying FBI agents to protect one industry's obsolete business model.

A bunch of special interest groups made that argument to Senators this week, noting that it was a pure gift to Hollywood -- pointing out that all of the companies and groups in the industry already have their own enforcement arms, and it made little sense to have the FBI take part in private business disputes. Hopefully, there are still enough Senators who haven't been convinced by the propaganda provided by the entertainment industry on this issue to recognize what's actually at stake here.

Filed Under: business models, copyright czar, justice department, patrick leahy, politics, proip, senate

Now The Senate Wants To Add A Copyright Czar To The White House

from the business-model,-not-a-legal-issue dept

The House of Representatives passed the highly questionable Pro IP bill a few months ago. This bill, which would strengthen copyright law, just as many are realizing it should be headed in the other direction, would also establish a "Copyright Czar" position that would be part of the Executive Branch. Why we need a special Czar to prop up an obsolete business model has not been explained, beyond the usual propaganda from those who rely on that business model. It's quite clear from all the companies we see who are succeeding by changing to new business models that don't rely on copyright that this is a business model issue, not a legal one. But, Congress receives plenty of donations from Big Copyright, so it's no surprise that we see laws protecting it.

The Senate has now weighed in with its version of the law. The bill was introduced by Senator Patrick Leahy, who has received plenty of campaign contributions from Big Copyright. His explanation of the bill is basically the talking points of the industry, showing that Senator Leahy is clearly out of touch with what's really happening with copyright these days:

"The time has come to bolster the Federal effort to protect this most valuable and vulnerable property, to give law enforcement the resources and the tools it needs to combat piracy and counterfeiting, and to make sure that the many agencies that deal with intellectual property enforcement have the opportunity and the incentive to talk with each other, to coordinate their efforts, and to achieve the maximum effects for their efforts. This bill does just that."

Except, of course, the only thing "vulnerable" is an unnecessary business model built on gov't granted monopolies, and there's no explanation why such a commercial issue can't be dealt with by civil lawsuits, rather than criminal ones. As it stands, Leahy is basically making the Federal government the private police of a particular industry, granting it much more power than is reasonable or needed.

Filed Under: business models, copyright czar, patrick leahy, pro ip, senate

If We Don't Have A Copyright Czar, People Will Die?

from the that-would-be-a-big-no dept

We've already questioned why the White House should play the role of copyright cop. Hell, even the White House has said that it doesn't want to appoint a copyright czar, but that hasn't stopped various legislative efforts to force a copyright czar on the White House -- and it appears that more efforts are on the way.

Business Week is running a rather weak piece looking at the issue, that appears to accept as fact every talking point from those pushing for the establishment of a copyright czar. While the article briefly notes a few quotes from those who oppose it (buried at the end of the article), it does absolutely nothing to dispel the false or misleading reasoning by those in support of a copyright czar. It quotes the totally bogus numbers about "losses" to the economy, without noting that those numbers are very much disputed and inaccurate.

However, the most troubling part is that the article plays into the worst and most inaccurate talking point of all that's used in favor of a copyright czar: that the public is put at risk without one. The article notes (as a way of brushing off the quotes from those worried about a copyright czar):

Jeffrey Thurnau, counsel to auto parts maker Gates, showed senators counterfeit timing belts that he says could put drivers, passengers, and other motorists in danger. "We want better coordination between enforcement agencies,"

The subtext: we need a Copyright Czar or people will die. Except, that's simply not true at all. The issue described by Thurnau has nothing to do with copyright, and everything to do with consumer protections. You don't need copyright law to deal with timing belts that don't live up to code -- and pretending we do is simply a lie repeated by Business Week.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright czar

House Passes Pro IP Overwhelmingly

from the well-that's-no-good dept

Last week we questioned why Congress seemed to think that the White House should be playing the role of copyright cop. Yet, apparently, the House of Representatives didn't think it was a question worth asking, as it has passed the PRO IP bill by an overwhelming vote, 410 to 10. It seems like our Congressional Representatives felt that, once they got rid of one bad portion of the bill, that the rest of it must be perfectly fine. This bill has a ton of problems, expanding copyright law and the executive branch's authority in ways that are pretty clearly unnecessary. It is, in effect, a bill to prop up the obsolete business model of one particular industry, so it's rather disappointing that our Representatives have rushed through to approve it with little discussion or debate over whether it's even necessary. Either way, it seems unlikely to get much further, as the Justice Department has already come out against the bill, one would hope that even if the Senate approves a version of the bill, the President would veto it.

In the meantime, though, given just how much damage arbitrary expansions of copyright law have done, you would think that Congress would at least want to spend some time exploring the issues before rushing through new laws. Tragically, it seems that entertainment industry lobbyists still have politicians convinced that stronger copyright is naturally "good."

Filed Under: congress, copyright, copyright czar, pro ip, white house

Can Someone Explain Why The White House Should Be Playing The Role Of Copyright Cop?

from the thanks-congress dept

This isn't exactly a surprise, but the PRO IP bill, which is actually quite anti-IP, has been approved by the House Judiciary Committee. This is the bill that would create a "piracy czar" with a new department reporting to the White House, whose sole job it is to crack down on piracy. Basically, it's turning the White House into the entertainment industry's private police force, allowing them to prop up an obsolete business model. This is extremely problematic. There's increasing evidence that piracy is not the real problem the industry is facing. The artists who are embracing file sharing and adopting new business models are finding that there are business models that work, that help to better promote and distribute content, while creating new avenues for making money. This is something that the market is working out on its own. Creating a special anti-piracy group within the White House is simply an anti-competitive move by an industry that doesn't want to update its obsolete business model. Yet, through misleading lobbying efforts, politicians have been convinced that this business model needs to be propped up. Why the White House should be forced to involve itself in a commercial dispute that is working itself out is beyond me. Even more to the point, why should the White House be setting up a special group just for this really narrowly focused "issue" when there are so many more pressing problems in this country?

Filed Under: congress, copyright, copyright czar, pro ip, white house

Copyright Czar: DMCA Is A Good Law

from the for-whom? dept

Marybeth Peters is our nation's "copyright czar," and over the years has tended to side with the big copyright firms over and over again, as if they need her special protection. It's not entirely clear why this big, successful industry needs increasing government protection, rather than learning how to adapt to a changing marketplace on its own (you know, like most other industries), but that's the way it is. In a recent talk, Peters repeated a familiar stance that the DMCA is a good law because it adds to "copyright owners' quiver of arrows to defend themselves." Of course, Peters doesn't discuss who those arrows are pointed at, and the fact that things like the DMCA have put a big fat bullseye on fair use, the public domain and what the general public can do with content. So why should a government official be supporting policies that help a particular industry at the expense of the very concept of copyright that she's supposed to be protecting?

The article actually offers one suggestion as to why: Peters is a self-declared "Luddite" and admits that she doesn't even have a computer at home. In other words, one of the people most responsible for setting up the rules that impact copyright in a new digital age has almost no clue how the market is changing thanks to new technologies. Combine that with putting Hollywood's own politician in charge of the Congressional committee that deals with copyright laws and guess what you get? It's certainly not an approach to copyright that acknowledges what's actually happening in the marketplace. Instead, it's an approach that focuses on setting up artificial rules and barriers designed to enforce a business model from two decades ago that has long since been made obsolete by new technologies. And, in fact, the end result isn't even helping the very industry she so thinks needs protecting. Instead, the old record labels that rely on the DMCA are dying, and it's those who are embracing new business models who are figuring out ways to profit and aren't screaming over the threat of piracy.

Filed Under: copyright czar, dmca