Wait, I Thought The Next Congressional Copyright Hearing Was Supposed To Be About Hearing From Creators?

from the what-happened-to-that dept

We already pointed out that it appears that the IP Subcommittee in the House Judiciary Committee is taking the exact wrong approach with its next two hearings, in which they are trying to set up a bogus framework of "creators" vs. "technologists" when it comes to copyright reform. The idea was to have one hearing where "creators" talk about how wonderful copyright is and another for technologists to talk about how wonderful innovation is (though that one's not yet scheduled). As we explained, that's a ridiculous dichotomy, because it's not "one side vs the other" here. It's about what sort of copyright policy benefits the public the most. And content creators and technologists shouldn't be opposite each other on that front. Great new innovations in technology tend to help content creators, and an overbearing copyright policy can hurt content creators. The right way to do this isn't to set it up as one vs. the other, but to bring together actual stakeholders and figure out what's the best overall policy.

But, even given this false dichotomy, it seems like Congress is still doing it wrong. They've now released the names of those testifying at the first hearing, the one that's supposed to represent creators, and I'm baffled because there are almost no actual creators -- and there's no one who appears to have any significant experience with using modern technology to enhance creativity. Rather there are only representatives of legacy content industries.

Of the listed speakers, Eurgene Mopsik is an actual photographer. William Sherak, Tor Hansen and John Lapham all work for or own companies that help creators -- a movie production house, a record label/distributor and a stock image company -- but that's different from being a content creator themselves. In fact, you could just as easily include tech company representatives here. If you have movie studios, why not someone from YouTube? If you have a record label, why not someone from Kickstarter or TopSpin? And, finally, you have Sandra Aistars, who is a lobbyist for the Copyright Alliance (a front group for the RIAA and MPAA) which was set up by anti-union lobbyists (hardly the sort of organization that is actually interested in creators).

So, I'm confused. Why isn't the hearing including real creators? It could include folks like Zoe Keating, Jonathan Coulton, Alex Day or many, many other massively successful new artists who recognize that their ability to have a career in music today exists because of the internet. It could include content creators who have lived in both the old world and the new: filmmakers like Ed Burns, musicians like Hank Shocklee, authors like Barry Eisler. Hell, they could even have included a few more content creators who insist that copyright is the most important thing in their lives -- and it would still at least be about actual content creators.

But, as it's set up now, nearly all the people on the panel represent businesses that were set up solely to exploit existing copyright law, rather than to seek out the best ways to promote the progress and to create new content. Why not get actual content creators whose businesses were built up in the last few years under the reality of the internet, rather than these folks who built up businesses, not as content creators themselves, but in funding and managing other content creators under the older rules, and who are now seeking to keep those rules in place, rather than try to adapt to the modern market?

Filed Under: congress, content creators, hearings, ip subcommittee, judiciary committee, legacy industries, lobbyists, sandra aistars
Companies: copyright alliance, getty images, stereo d

Congress Brings Back Recently Removed 'IP Subcommittee' Now That Copyright Reformer Won't Lead It

from the shameful-in-the-extreme dept

Back in 2006, when the Democrats took back control over the House of Representatives, we noted that who controlled the "IP subcommittee" of the House Judiciary Committee was going to be Howard Berman, who won out over Rick Boucher. This seemed pretty ridiculous to us, since Berman is from Hollywood and has been the Congressman in favor of stronger copyrights at every turn. As was noted at the time, it would be like making a representative from Detroit in charge of regulating automobile safety. No one would think that's reasonable and yet no one batted an eye when Berman took the job. Two years later, Berman decided to move on to take over the House Foreign Affairs Committee (which is much more prestigious). As we noted at the time, this opened up the spot for Boucher, who was next in line, and has been the leading light in Congress when it comes to copyright reform.

So what happened? Well, rather than let Boucher chair that subcommittee, Congress just got rid of it, saying it wasn't needed any more and that any intellectual property issues could be handled by the full Judiciary Committee. Of course, it's worth pointing out that the chair of the Judiciary Committee is John Conyers -- who also has a history of being a huge supporter of the entertainment industry (such as the time he claimed that radio is a form of "piracy" and that the lack of a performance tax on radio was like slavery).

Of course, now that the Republicans have retaken control over the House, and after Rick Boucher lost his re-election campaign, suddenly, magically, the Judiciary Committee has decided to bring the IP subcommittee back to life (thanks to Alex Curtis for calling this to our attention).

The timing of all this makes the reasoning pretty clear. The IP subcommittee was around for ages, when it was under the control of those who represented the industry. When a reformer is finally in position to be put in charge, the subcommittee is killed and its duties are handed over to the larger committee (controlled by someone who represents the industry). Then, as soon as the reformer is out, the subcommittee comes back? Congress at it's most shameful: a pretty clear indication that Congressional decisions on intellectual property are driven by the industry. This is how regulatory capture works.

Filed Under: congress, copyright, copyright reform, ip subcommittee, john conyers, politics, rick boucher