President Signs ProIP Bill Into Law; White House Gets Copyright Czar

from the don't-you-feel-safer? dept

Apparently, having our elected politicians completely lie to the President, combined with various business groups using totally made up numbers about the so-called "costs" of piracy was enough to convince President Bush to sign the ProIP bill into law, and accept the addition of a "Copyright Czar" position to the White House. It also strengthened copyright laws, yet again, despite little evidence they needed any strengthening. This law is nothing more than a weak attempt to prop up some struggling businesses who made the mistake of clinging to an obsolete business model far too long. All it will actually serve to do is to limit more creative forms of expression and much more innovative business models from being allowed to thrive.

31 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Senate Gives The White House A Copyright Czar

from the have-fun-with-it dept

The Senate has now unanimously passed the new entertainment industry-approved copyright legislation that was proposed by Senator Leahy earlier this year. After the Justice Department complained about the provision that would grant it the ability to take on civil cases, that provision was removed, but there's still plenty to be worried about by the bill -- such as the creation of a "copyright czar" position in the White House. While some of the worst provisions were removed, this still remains a bill that has one purpose: to protect an obsolete business model, rather than letting more innovative models proliferate.

The House still needs to vote on its version of the bill, but it's quite likely to pass quickly.

21 Comments | Leave a Comment..

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.

54 Comments | Leave a Comment..

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."

27 Comments | Leave a Comment..

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?

32 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Rep. Berman: Those Who Don't Like The PRO IP Bill Just Want To Steal Stuff

from the say-what-now? dept

Now, we all know that Rep. Howard Berman, who represents a district right next door to Hollywood is in favor of strengthening intellectual property laws. He's made absolutely no secret of that. It's quite questionable then, as to why he should be considered an impartial overseer of intellectual property laws. But, in a talk on Friday he made some very bizarre statements that make it clear he doesn't care at all what those who disagree with him think. First, he claims that there's not much controversy concerning the PRO IP bill, which is a huge understatement. However, the real kicker, is that when asked about the groups (like the EFF) opposing the bill, he brushes them off as follows:

"There are people who want to steal intellectual property. Their lobby is distributed, diffuse, but unfortunately very popular."

This, ladies and gentleman, is the guy who's in charge of determining our intellectual property laws. He simply assumes that anyone who disagrees with him "wants to steal intellectual property" (which, of course, isn't possible -- you can infringe, but not steal it). But, even more to the point, the folks he's talking about are most certainly not even defending the infringement of copyrights. They're talking about trying to bring the laws more in line with what's reasonable. To paint them all with the brush of defending "stealing" isn't just wrong, it's rather obnoxious.

65 Comments | Leave a Comment..

House Panel Deletes Higher Copyright Fines From Pro IP Bill, Leaves Plenty Of Other Bad Stuff

from the this-is-not-a-good-idea dept

Last year, the House of Representatives introduced a bi-partisan "Pro IP" bill that had a ton of horrible parts to it that many realized was actually very anti-IP. One of the problems with the bill was that it attempted to raise the fines for copyright infringement even higher than the already ridiculous fines. However, with the RIAA unable to give a good reason why fines should be higher, it looks like Congress has agreed to remove that one section of the bill to get it approved by the IP subcommittee.

This makes an absolutely awful and dangerous bill marginally better, but still extremely problematic. It still involves the creation of a new federal bureaucracy designed to focus solely on trying to track down and stop "pirates." Even the Justice Department is against this part of the bill -- though, perhaps only because it wants to retain the job of going after copyright infringers. Also, just because the higher fines have been removed, supporters of the bill make it clear they may not be gone for good, and could very well be added back in later in the process. What isn't explained is why Congress needs to get involved at all. The industry has long been exposed as exaggerating the extent of this problem, and as we see day after day after day, new business models keep showing up that suggest this issue is merely a business model problem, not a legal issue -- and certainly not a legal issue that requires a brand new federal bureaucracy charged with protecting a single industry's business model.

7 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Pro IP William Patry Explains How Pro IP Bill Is Very Anti IP

from the up-is-down,-black-is-white dept

Last week, we wrote about just how awful Congress' proposed "PRO IP" law was, suggesting that it would help to kill off creative industries by giving excessive power to enforce obsolete business models. Of course, I'm somewhat skeptical about all intellectual property laws, as there's enough evidence out there that they're not needed in most cases, and only serve to distort markets in unnecessary ways (and there's very little evidence that they actually serve their purpose of creating incentives for the creation of new content). Thus, you would expect me to have problems with a bill that would drastically strengthen copyright, since that's clearly going in the wrong direction in my book. However, to get another opinion on the bill, why not listen to William Patry, a man who is clearly in favor of intellectual property laws, having been a copyright lawyer for 25 years, including representing copyright holders and various trade associations, as well as working in the US Copyright Office. He has written up a great piece explaining why the "PRO IP" bill is very "anti-IP" when you understand the details:

"The question is not whether copyright is a good thing: properly calibrated copyright is very good, indeed essential for certain classes of works. Sir Hugh and I are both pro-IP in this most important of senses. But an excessive amount of something that is beneficial in measured doses can become fatal in overdoses, and copyright is already at fatal strength. Yet, when they are not alienating their customers, copyright industries spend the rest of their time in efforts to obtain new, powerful, undeserved, and unnecessary remedies. Content owners act as if obtaining more and more and more will save them: it won’t, quite the reverse: it only continues an unfortunate trend of making copyright law and content owners among the most despised elements in society. While proponents of such efforts describe themselves as being pro-IP, they have the opposite effect by bringing disrespect on the entire system. I call that being anti-IP, not pro-IP."

And that's somewhat near the beginning of the piece. It's worth reading the whole thing.

7 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Bipartisan PRO IP Bill Turns White House Into Hollywood's Private Enforcement Agency

from the please-explain-why? dept

Every time you think that the tide is turning and people are beginning to realize the ridiculousness of overly burdensome IP laws, some politicians start doing the dirty work of Hollywood's worst lobbyists. The latest may be the most ridiculous yet -- though, it certainly wasn't unexpected. Remember how NBC Universal execs started whining about how law enforcement's priorities were all screwed up, since they were focused on pointless things like burglary and bankrobbing rather than copyright violations? That was merely the starting point in a lobbying campaign for the new PRO IP (Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act) bill that has been introduced with backing of both top Republicans and Democrats. As the bill's not particularly subtle name makes clear, this law is all about giving Hollywood much of what it has been asking for. Rather than decreasing the ridiculous fines that can be handed out for copyright infringement, this law would increase them. But, more importantly, it sets up a brand new gov't agency within the executive branch to help crack down on "piracy." This despite increasing evidence that "piracy" isn't a problem for the economy at all -- but rather a problem for a few big companies with obsolete business models (who just happen to have tremendous lobbying clout) who are too lazy to even bother trying to adapt to a changing market place. This bill isn't just corporate welfare. It would be creating an entire government agency whose sole job it would be to protect the unnecessary and obsolete business model of a few dying companies while stifling innovative tools and services at every turn. It would help to kill off our creative industries by falsely assuming that creativity needs to be funneled through a few big companies. It's a disgusting travesty of the political process.

25 Comments | Leave a Comment..