What Happens To All That Digital Goodness You Have Purchased After You Die?
Revolving Door: US Copyright Office General Counsel Becomes IFPI Lobbyist

Want To Know How Weak The GOP's Internet Freedom Platform Is? The MPAA Loves It

Politics

from the which-means-it's-not-at-all-about-internet-freedom dept

Thu, Aug 30th 2012 09:31am -

We were already skeptical of the GOP’s claims about supporting “internet freedom,” and it seems that our concerns have been more or less confirmed by the fact that the MPAA seems positively thrilled by the GOP’s official position on internet freedom. If the MPAA is pleased with someone’s policy outline for the internet, you can bet that it’s bad policy. Here’s what Chris Dodd had to say:

The Republican Party platform language strikes a very smart balance: it emphasizes the importance of us doing more as a nation to protect our intellectual property from online theft while underscoring the critical importance of protecting internet freedom. As the party points out, the internet has been for its entire existence a source of innovation, and it is intellectual property that helps drive that innovation. Copyright is the cornerstone of innovation; it allows creators to benefit from what they create. As Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor — herself once a Republican elected official — wrote, ‘[I]t should not be forgotten that the Framers intended copyright itself to be the engine of free expression. By establishing a marketable right to the use of one’s expression, copyright supplies the economic incentive to create and disseminate ideas.’

I agree wholeheartedly with my friends in the Republican Party that we must protect the free flow of information on the internet while also protecting American innovators. It is imperative to our national economy and our national identity that we protect an internet that works for everyone.

As he is prone to doing, Dodd is presenting a very distorted version of history and intellectual property. There is no evidence (none, zip, zilch, zero) that “intellectual property helps drive innovation.” Historically, it’s been shown that competition and need is what drives innovation — whereas intellectual property laws tend to lock in place legacy players, holding back disruptive innovation. Either way, the MPAA’s support pretty much shows that the Republican’s “internet freedom” platform isn’t serious.

Filed Under: , ,
Companies: mpaa

110 CommentsLeave a Comment
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Want To Know How Weak The GOP's Internet Freedom Platform Is? The MPAA Loves It”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
110 Comments
Ninja (profile) says:

And while it is problematic and weak in theory, the alternative (Obama) is problematic and weak in practice. Oh how the Americans are screwed…

I can’t say much, it’s the municipal elections here and not a single candidate that has any chance of winning is a good choice. And we got at least 5 candidates that have some expressive electorate. Imagine with 2 and with both being complete and utter shit?

MrWilson says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Cue the comparisons...

Heck, sound recordings and movies weren’t originally covered under copyright either. At this point, I’d settle for returning to the original Copyright Act of 1790. 14 years plus 14 on renewal.

I’ll start worrying about protecting the “property”/monopolies of wealthy corporations as soon as we solve society’s real problems like inequality in education, employment, and healthcare.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

“Anonymous Coward just hates it when people question the motives of those trying to enact laws with little or no ACTUAL facts/evidence to support them.”

yes, especially when the opposition to those laws is almost entirely all “faith based” with little in the way of real world consideration taken into account.

Let’s trash copyright, patents, and trademarks while we are at it, and then let’s see what happens. This is the faith based approach at it’s finest.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Let’s trash copyright, patents, and trademarks while we are at it

Honestly, why not? Do a hard-reset on intellectual property, and as problems crop up we can fix them in a reasoned way, in the context of the world today as opposed to the world 80-200 years ago.

(The exception might be Trademark, which is a consumer protection not intellectual property, but I’m not convinced we even need that.)

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

“Honestly, why not? Do a hard-reset on intellectual property, and as problems crop up we can fix them in a reasoned way, in the context of the world today as opposed to the world 80-200 years ago.”

People are still quoting Ben Franklin around here to justify mouthing off to the cops. There’s no money in that one.

A “hard reset” as you call it would mean killing industries generating billions to the curb, hoping like hell we make it up somewhere else. Just doing that is entirely faith based, and therefore not a very good move.

silverscarcat says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

“People are still quoting Ben Franklin around here to justify mouthing off to the cops. There’s no money in that one.”

Why shouldn’t we quote someone who’s a lot smarter than any cop could ever hope to be?

“A “hard reset” as you call it would mean killing industries generating billions to the curb”

What industries?

The Tech industry (which DOES generate billions and new jobs) would prosper.

dennis deems says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

I think you meant to write “kicking industries generating billions to the curb”. “Kick to the curb” is a well-known metaphorical idiom. If there are really people saying “kill to the curb” they are confusedly mixing metaphors.

Any industry that “generates” billions simply by virtue of the concept of intellectual property — that is to say, that could not survive absent that poisonous concept — deserves to die.

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Let’s trash copyright, patents, and trademarks while we are at it, and then let’s see what happens.

Let’s get real for a second. While many commenters here advocate eliminating these laws altogether, I don’t think that’s the majority opinion. The majority opinion appears to be that these laws have become too oppressive and deviated too far from their original purpose. As such, they should be reformed (made closer to what they used to be). Reformed is not the same as trashed.

I’m in the reform camp, personally. I think these laws, properly written, can be a great benefit to society. That said, I do not think they’re properly written right now, and if the choice is between the laws as they are now and no laws at all, less harm is done by having no laws at all.

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

With copyright, by ensuring that works unambiguously enter the public domain and become available for the use of everybody.

With patents, by discouraging people and companies form keeping their inventions a secret, thus encouraging the distribution of new discoveries.

With trademarks, by preventing companies from intentionally tricking consumers into buying one thing when they intended to buy something else.

bob (profile) says:

Uh, creators are voters too

It seems like you think “internet freedom” means the freedom to take anything you want, whenever you want. Others think “internet freedom” should mean the freedom to conduct business without being ripped off. I’m guessing the Republicans, the Democrats and most parts of the government like the second definition. Why? Because you can’t tax piracy and the other “sharing” that this site continues to endorse.

So it’s not that the Republican version is “weak”, it’s just a different vision from your embrace of the freedom to be ripped off. Admit it. You’re only concerned about the rights and freedom of Big Search, Big Hardware and Big Piracy. You could care less about the rights and freedom of the creators.

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Uh, creators are voters too

It seems like you think “internet freedom” means the freedom to take anything you want

You’re making stuff up again.

Others think “internet freedom” should mean the freedom to conduct business without being ripped off.

And still others think that “internet freedom” is more than that. Freedom form being ripped off, yes indeed! But not just in the context of business.

A 100% business-friendly internet would be one of the least free forms of internet I could imagine. It’d be, essentially, cable TV.

I want an internet where I can communicate freely and without fear, where I am not punished for the actions of others, where I am not subjected to tracking or monitoring except when I consent to it, and where I don’t have to worry about the capricious abuse of the legal system to restrict my legitimate freedoms and rights.

If business can operate in that environment (and I know that it can), awesome! If business cannot, then business should go elsewhere.

Ruben says:

Re: Re: Re: Uh, creators are voters too

This raises an interesting point. If businesses think that this internet is such a terrible thing, then why don’t they make a better one?

Oh wait, I remember. They grew complacent and apathetic and as a result are inept and too blinded by hubris and their own delusions of grandeur to do anything of relevance.

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re: Uh, creators are voters too

Bob, have you ever been right about anything ever? I imagine you walking down the street with your shoes on teh wrong feet, wearing a shirt for pants and vice versa, slamming into revolving doors going the wrong direction and then shaking your fists at these “turnwalls” that refuse to make you orgasm….

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Uh, creators are voters too

You seem to have confused Big Content, an industry of middle men that force actual creators to give up copyrights on their creation as collateral on loans, with the creators themselves. When we talk about rights and freedom we’re talking about for the largest group of creators: the ‘consumers’ who aren’t part of ‘Big’ anything. Those are the people whose rights and freedoms need protecting from ‘Big Search’ AND ‘Big Content.’

Jason says:

Re: Uh, creators are voters too

Nobody’s ripping you off. We’re the ones getting ripped off. You’re the pirate. YOU ARE THE PIRATE.

See, the deal was you get copyrights, patents, etc, (in spite of the fact that those artificial rights infringe on my far more fundamental ,basic rights to freely copy, modify, and distribute whatever information I have lawful access to) IN EXCHANGE FOR promoting the progress.

Well, the deal’s off. No promoting the progress, no copyright. No promoting the progress, no patent.

NO PP, NO IP! NO PP, NO IP!

Pirate! Blackguard!

JEDIDIAH says:

Re: Artificial Rights expire.

> It seems like you think “internet freedom” means the freedom to take anything you want, whenever you want.

Yup. 28 years for art. 20 years for inventions.

A good bit of my multimedia stockpile should be fair game for sharing. This goes triple for works where all of the relevant artists are DEAD already.

Nom says:

Re: Uh, creators are voters too

You know, your first paragraph was decent. Not to say I agree with it completely, but you presented what I would consider a valid argument.

And then I read your second paragraph, and did a spit take. Went from being reasonable to potentially retarded rather quickly.

Sorry about calling your potentially retarded, I really could not think of a less insulting word or phrase to describe the second paragraph. Spent like 5 minutes trying to do so.

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Uh, creators are voters too

Because you can’t tax piracy and the other “sharing” that this site continues to endorse.

First: This site endorses legal sharing, so if there is money involved, it would be taxed.

Second: You’re the same one who (falsely) believes “Big Search” and “Big Hardware” are the ones behind “Big Piracy.” Now, both “Big Search” and “Big Hardware” do pay taxes – in fact, they pay far more taxes than “Big Content.” So, by your own definitions, you can tax “piracy.”

You never get sick of being wrong, do you, Bob?

Divide by Zero (profile) says:

Re: Uh, creators are voters too

“You could care less about the rights and freedom of the creators”

You’re right, I could care less, since I care a great deal. But because I care a great deal about creators, I would quite like to see gatekeepers – sorry, Big Gatekeeping (just to translate for you) kept out of copywrite, and let the ACTUAL creators have a reasonable amount of time to monetise before they then are given further incentive to create something new.

You on the other seem like you COULDN’T care less about creators – it’s all about Big Gatekeepings ability to make Big Money off Small Creators.

Jeremy Lyman (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Because once we copyright all the essential building blocks it will be easier than ever for our dipshit users to pick out specifically crafted and approved snippets to express whatever they want! Provided, of course, they have a current subscription to English?*, French?*, German?*, Spanish?* or Latin?*. Only 34.99 a month for the first 6 months**!

*No mixing languages into unapproved sentences. Sentences that are mistrustful of the Languages? system, Copyright, or Intellectual Property in general are not allowed. Frequent phrases can and will be revoked and broken into smaller blocks, necessitating a separate charge for each.

**After 6 months rates rise to as much as you can pay and increase monthly by 4%.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: I can throw around quotes too!

She further wrote:

It may seem unfair that much of the fruit of the compiler’s labor may be used by others without compensation. As Justice Brennan has correctly observed, however, this is not some unforeseen byproduct of a statutory scheme….It is, rather, “the essence of copyright,” ibid., and a constitutional requirement….To this end, copyright assures authors the right to their original expression, but encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and information conveyed by a work…. This result is neither unfair nor unfortunate. It is the means by which copyright advances the progress of science and art.

I’m surprised and pleased to hear that Dodd supports O’Connor’s views on copyright.

Josef Anvil (profile) says:

Re: Really? Yes really

“I certainly hope there is benefit from innovation/invention beyond the ability to own said creation. Otherwise I’m not sure why the first caveman tied a pointy rock onto a stick in the first place.”

That was actually the first attempt at IP enforcement. The caveman tied a pointy rock to a stick and then charged all the other cavemen a fee to make their own. They all gladly paid and then killed the inventor. IP enforcement was not attempted again for many millennia.

Anonymous Coward says:

Well there’s the answer for all of the Obama-bashers- vote for the Republican ticket and see how you like what comes next. The R’s say they don’t want government interference in the internet (net neutrality anyone?) and have (at the Congressional level) been supportive of industry agreements to reign in piracy. This will put people like Issa in a box when the industry acts to enact private, SOPA-like agreements and the R’s platform is to be hands-off of regulating the internet.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

“Well there’s the answer for all of the Obama-bashers- vote for the Republican ticket and see how you like what comes next. The R’s say they don’t want government interference in the internet (net neutrality anyone?) and have (at the Congressional level) been supportive of industry agreements to reign in piracy. This will put people like Issa in a box when the industry acts to enact private, SOPA-like agreements and the R’s platform is to be hands-off of regulating the internet.”

– Well here’s a crazy idea, how about none of the above. I’ll go with the populace, we were sick of the Rs 4 years ago and now it seems people are sick of the Ds. So how about we do something crazy and move away from those parties completly.

Obama’s AMA on Reddit didn’t give me much more hope either. Both parties don’t have a clue where we are going and how to get us there.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

The unfortunate truth is that first-past-the-post voting structure inevitably leads to a two-party system just like the one we’ve got now. No matter how many parties you start with, one by one they reach the point where they cannot win such an election and the votes essentially become votes for the winner among the other parties; and at that point voters will usually start hedging by voting elsewhere.

Jeremy Lyman (profile) says:

Motivation at any cost.

the internet has been for its entire existence a source of innovation, and it is intellectual property that helps drive that innovation.

Much like in Terminator 2 when the T-1000 was “helping drive” the car by hanging on the back trying to kill the passengers inside. What? They drove faster than they would have didn’t they?

SujaOfJauhnral (profile) says:

Re: Motivation at any cost.

Hahaha. This should become a meme.

the internet has been for its entire existence a source of innovation, and it is intellectual property that helps drive that innovation.

Just like in FPS games when you shoot a rocket up someone’s ass and their bloodied corpse goes flying 500 meters into the air before crashing down and exploding in a shower of blood and guts.

They wouldn’t have been able fly those 500 meters without that rocket, would they?

Anonymous Coward says:

Gop do as i say corruption
http://youtu.be/B39W91O-rUg

View of teleprompter, proof of no rushing or scipted…..well..scripts
http://youtu.be/77W5OKStO5s

Its a sad day when a citizen of another country cares more for some of you americans, why is,nt techdirt covering this bullshit, at least a front page mention, regardless of your take on it,

Anonymous Coward says:

‘I agree wholeheartedly with my friends in the Republican Party that we must protect the free flow of information on the internet while also protecting American innovators. It is imperative to our national economy and our national identity that we protect an internet that works for everyone.’

Given howm hard the copyright maximalists are working to control the Internet, the above equated to ;_
The free flow of information is what we let you have, after we have decided to publish it and you have paid for it. And by the way we need to control all your devices so that you can’t cheat.

Nicholas (profile) says:

He's telling the truth

…”from online theft while underscoring the critical importance of protecting internet freedom.” He doesn’t mean “underscore” like the rest of us would mean it – he means “underscore” as in, “soft, incidental background music”. He doesn’t mean “critical importance” as in “indispensable; essential importance” – he means it as “importance to its critics”.. He’s a media guy after all. Tl;dr Translation: …”from online theft whilst reducing the noise made by its critics to a soft background hum.”

Karl (profile) says:

Uh, creators are voters too

Google has offshore tax dodges out the wazoo…

Major labels have been dodging taxes since the 70’s:
http://www.shit-fi.com/interviews/AaronMilenski

And, according to “Hollywood accounting,” Return of the Jedi never made a profit:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110912/13500315912/hollywood-accounting-darth-vader-not-getting-paid-because-return-jedi-still-isnt-profitable.shtml

Even if Google does have “offshore tax dodges,” they still pay more taxes than the RIAA or MPAA clients.

Tim Griffiths (profile) says:

Uh, creators are voters too

“Pirating the public domain for private gain”

That’s a hell of a sentence, I may pirate it off you for future debates. I honestly think this really needs to be more of a talking point, that the social contract on which modern copyrights are founded has been broken. By lobbying for extensions to copyright that have left us with a century that has a ghost town of public domain works.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

“The Tech industry (which DOES generate billions and new jobs) would prosper.”

No, YOU THINK that would happen. There is no proof it would. It’s equally likely that they stop major innovations altogether (why invest in what will be stolen 10 minutes later) and instead we get stuck near or around the current technology levels, very slowly plodding forward as someone makes a 0.00001% incremental improvement, probably by accident.

See, you don’t know, and I don’t know either. Your assertion that X or Y would happen is “faith based” with absolutely no basis in fact.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

“Any industry that “generates” billions simply by virtue of the concept of intellectual property — that is to say, that could not survive absent that poisonous concept — deserves to die.”

Example, let’s look at movies.

How many billions of dollars of ticket sales? What happens if the moment a new movie is released, it becomes public domain and any and every movie house who wants it can play it for any price, without paying for the content?

How many minutes do you think the movie industry would last after that?

(Oh, and for the nit pickers in the audience, yes, some people would still be making movies. But even the business models for indie films would be ruined, effectively leaving us with hobby films).

@DBCOOOPA (user link) says:

SOPA

As awful as the republican position on freedom of expression is, you shouldn’t get the impression that democrats support internet freedom by any stretch of the imagination. Here’s one of SOPA’s largest supporters: Debbie Wasserman Schultz. And that probably stems from the 70,000 dollars she received from movie and tv lobbyists. Currently, David Seaman is planning to run for her seat in 2014. You should look him up on twitter: @d_seaman. He’s running on a very pro-internet platform. Here’s her record on SOPA: http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/W000797. Don’t forget that it isn’t just about freedom to express yourself. SOPA and PIPA were job killing bills that threatened the integrity and economy of internet businesses. When it comes to supporting the internet, you’re going to have to dig a little deeper than just picking a political party. At least Sweden has the Pirate Party.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

What Happens To All That Digital Goodness You Have Purchased After You Die?
Revolving Door: US Copyright Office General Counsel Becomes IFPI Lobbyist
Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...