Both Major Parties Are In 'Vigorous' Denial About The Need For Copyright & Patent Reform
from the meaning-they-want-to-please-legacy-funders dept
Last week we wrote about weaknesses in the Republican’s platform on internet freedom, noting that the MPAA’s endorsement of it showed that it wasn’t recognizing the importance of fixing copyright law, rather than expanding it. And, of course, we’ve now been pointing out significant issues with the Democrat’s platform as well. Once again, on internet and innovation issues it falls down completely when it comes to copyright and patent issues.
Tim Lee has a perceptive piece (as per usual) noting that both party platforms appear to be in denial about the need for copyright and patent reform. He also mocks how both talk about “vigorous” enforcement of certain laws when they relate to the internet (porn for the Rs and copyright for the Ds).
But the reality is that neither party is willing to take a really principled stand on the need to reform copyright and patent laws in the name of freedom and innovation. That’s not surprising, really. Doing so in either party would upset some of the “old guard” who tend to donate a lot of money to political campaigns. But, from the viewpoint of what really matters when it comes to internet freedom and innovation, it’s yet another sign that the major parties don’t want to deal with reality.
Filed Under: copyright, democrats, internet freedom, patents, politics, reform, republicans
Comments on “Both Major Parties Are In 'Vigorous' Denial About The Need For Copyright & Patent Reform”
Progress!
It’s good to know that we can have bi-partisan agreement after all.
Re: Principles for an Ethical and Sustainable Internet
I agree, a Principled and Ethical approach is necessary for a Sustainable Internet!
http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/08/27/principles-for-an-ethical-and-sustainable-internet/
Re: Re: Principles for an Ethical and Sustainable Internet
Which the Trichoridist is not. i.e. Trichordist is far, very far, from principled and ethical.
Seriously, hurricane head, if anything you should sink your money into grammar and punctuation lessons, not a website that people can’t post on.
Ahem
“But, from the viewpoint of what really matters when it comes to internet freedom and innovation, it’s yet another sign that the major parties don’t want to deal with reality.”
That’s because politicians don’t live in reality. They live in their cosseted existences paid for by those of us who do live in reality.
Re: Ahem
Which is why there should be a constitutional amendment requiring every elected member of the U.S. government to be required to have at least as much time working exclusively in the private sector as they are permitted to serve in the government. When they reach that tipping point, it’s time to get a job again or just retire. A qualifying private sector job subsequent to working in the U.S. government may NOT be in any way associated in a business relationship with a company that directly or indirectly hires lobbyists, receives benefits or preferential treatment from, influences laws of, or voluntarily contributes to the U.S. Government.
Think that might help?
Re: Re: Ahem
Nope. Ghastly counter-example: Mittens.
Eventually these politicians will realize that the Internet economy is orders of magnitude larger than the “content industry” and that many more people are now getting their news, advertising, and politics from the Internet than from traditional media sources (more people visit Wikipedia each day than watched the Superbowl, and more people visit YouTube in forty-eight hours than watched the Ol^H^H games-that-dare-not-speak-its-name).
Re: Re:
It doesn’t matter how big the economy of something is. What matters is how big the lobbying budget of that something is. Right now, the copyright and patent industries have far bigger lobbying budgets than the internet, so those two areas win out over the internet every time.
Re: Re: Re:
But what is that lobbying money used for? Campaigning. And most of the campaign expenditures goes for advertising. Just as an artist — in this age of the Internet — can “advertise” himself without needing to sell out to the gatekeepers and big media, so could an enlightened politician.
Maybe we’re not quite there yet, but soon (he said hopefully).
Re: Re: Re: Non-corporate-owned politicians...
Speaking of which!
Go Libertarians and Greens…
http://www.lp.org
http://www.jillstein.org
they are dealing quite nicely with their reality, that one that keeps them in the financial manner to which they have become accustomed! nothing more important to any of these arse holes than taking the money!
Both of the Political Parties can lick my dog’s butt !
I hate them both.
Re: Re:
Sounds like you’re not too fond of your dog, either.
Re: Re: Re:
no telling what your dog could catch
Re: Re: Re:
It’s just my rule that the dog has to let the cats have their space too. …and the cats simply don’t defer to the alpha dog! It would be better if the parties stopped trying to behavior modify (a nice term for bullying) the public they pretend to serve.
They’re all pretty much hanging over the ledge into nuttyland. I’m sure they consider themselves the keepers of arcane knowledge but, I have to say, they’ll fall and take us all down with them.
China already has American corporations trapped. Sloppy legislation and law enforcement is turning the public against all authority and when the politicians play the thug card, they’ll be trapped too.
This is Machiavellian old news. Posting about their reindeer games is one thing. Getting the Proletariat, or whatever fashionable term you prefer, to act is yet another.
It’s nice to have a few legal precedents to cite, but don’t expect the judge or the lawyers to be interested in anything but money. The average Bohemian bootlegger knows this. The cats and dogs weren’t listening to begin with.
(Pardon my metaphorical indulgences!)
Re: Re:
gorehound said: “Both of the Political Parties can lick my dog’s butt !”
Animal cruelty! And I’m not referring to the bestiality angle, either. 😀
No making a silk purse out of sow's ear
I agree that copyright and patents shouldn’t be reformed — they should be dumped entirely. Not only are they rationalized by inherently broken concepts like “intellectual property,” they also happen to have risen from the greedy lies of self-serving middlemen. To use a legal metaphor (which I grant you is irrelevant here in any strictly legal sense), copyright and patents are fruit of the poison tree.
Considering what’s been happening with patent litigation lately, I’d actually like to see the law go even beyond killing patents — I’d like to see severe penalties for anyone attempting to use litigation or the threat thereof as part of his business model.
CRONY 2012
Re: Re:
i can get behind the crony candidacy
Re: Re: Re:
I think at this point most people would be willing to get behind a Cthulhu candidacy.
‘Cthulhu 2012: At least he’s honest about it.’
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So Cthulhu evolved from the “Greater Evil” to the “Honest Evil”.
Seems insane.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Well, way I see it, when all the choices presented are bad, you might as well go for the one who’s at least honest about their intentions.
Democrats, republicans… both are apparently doing their best to cause as much havoc and harm as possible, all the while claiming the exact opposite. With a madness inducing Elder god, you’ll still have the havoc and harm sure, but at least he/it doesn’t lie about it.
Dog packs, dog pack threats and punishment. No reason, no law. Just obedience to the alpha.
Jobs
If each side is so serious about creating jobs, why don’t they look to remove one of the biggest barriers to entry for the start-ups that actually create jobs?
Re: Jobs
because that would remove the barriers their paymasters have paid so much to install (sunk costs and all…) – and then they’d lose all that soft, silky smooth, oh so luxurious cash!
I wonder, do the politicians think that if they strengthen copyright that their friends in the MAFIAA will censor content for them, it will of course be accidental, and recent events would help support this claim.
Most politicians, like religious leaders, are acting on faith, and have a limited view on freedom of speech, it is OK if it agrees with their viewpoint.
Politics like religion has a large component of belief, and a limited attachment to reality.
SOPA and ACTA were not defeated by reason, but rather because politicians feared that passing them would cost them their jobs. Therefore they see no reason to change copyright, but rather a need to educate the public until they agree with their viewpoint.
Re: Re:
the beatings will continue until morale improves
Re: Re:
SOPA and ACTA were not defeated by reason,
You certainly got that right!
Re: Re: Re:
You take it as a badge of honor that poloticians and copyright maximists are united in their inabity to evolve beyond primal fears and see reason?
Oh, well. Look at the bright side. At least, once all innovation has left the U.S., they can blame it all on piracy and claim that it was because patent and copyright laws were not strong enough.
Isn’t it time that we start discussing candidates who are not in the Republican and Democratic party? Why not talk about Gary Johnson or Jill Stein?
I don’t know what their positions are, but perhaps they offer better ideas than either Romney or Obama.
Re: Re:
(sorry in advance)
Who?
Re: Re: Re:
The Libertarians and Greens!
Go go social justice!
Re: Re: Re:
This kind of illustrates my point. There are other options out there besides Republican and Democrat. I wish more people realized this.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No options other than Republicon or Demacrook? OK. You’ve submitted.
Doing so in either party would upset some of the “old guard” who tend to donate a lot of money to political campaigns.
Yeah, I guess the tech companies just don’t have enough money to compete with the old guard.
Re: Re:
Tech companies spend all their money on patent lawsuits so there’s none left for lobbying..
It’s funny that they’re denying that copyright needs reforming, when Michelle Obama’s video was taken down by YouTube’s automated content filters which claimed it was owned by about ten different companies. Of course the entire incident was described as an “accident”. Strange, when it happens to the average person, they’re guilty until proven innocent…
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/09/youtube-flags-democrats-convention-video-on-copyright-grounds/
With IP and IP related work being the only real growth areas in the US economy, it’s not unusual to see the government get interested in protecting those industries. Both parties seem to fear that this work can be offshored, and they are correct.
America is near the top of the wage list and the “lifestyle” list, both of which are severely threatened by low wage countries. The US has such a head start of lifestyle that it is almost a given that other countries will work to catch up, and in doing so, continue to decimate US industry.
It’s why your “American” cars are made in Canada and Mexico, and why the guy answering the phone at the call center is in the Philippines, not in Philadelphia.
Re: Re:
Bollocks, bullshit and bunkum.
IP cannot inherently grow, and the reason is in the name: it’s imaginary/intellectual. There is no tangible property involved. So it is fundamentally flawed to attack people who are suppoosedly “stealing” intangible goods.
Re: Re:
except they are not protecting the industry as a whole, they are protecting a very select number of businesses
this is why I’m very probably going to vote for the pirate party over here, and why I’m very, very glad we don’t have a two-party system. They will not get very big, but hopefully they do get one or two seats, and that nets you at least the opportunity that the big parties will pick up on issues like this.
Misuse of Copyright is Hurting the Health of America
The Manufacturers of medical equipment, including x-ray, CT Scanners, MRI and much more, all copyright their service manuals. Then they refuse to sell them to the end users. They prevent the distribution of their manuals between users who have legitimate reasons and needs for them. The effect of this is that many (most?) hospitals must rely on the original manufacturers to provide service and repairs. The manufacturers charge up to $1,000 per HOUR for labor, and sell repair parts at excessively high prices. They may also mandate the exchange of expensive sub-modules for costs of up to $30,000.00 instead of repairing the $5.00 component inside that caused the problem. If those of us in the hospitals had the manuals, we could replace the $5.00 part and avoid the multi-thousand dollar costs.
We need a Fair-Use exemption in the copyright law to allow the free exchange of service manuals and other necessary documentation between end users.
They are paid to be in denial.