HideTechdirt is off for the long weekend! We'll be back with our regular posts tomorrow.
HideTechdirt is off for the long weekend! We'll be back with our regular posts tomorrow.

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    oregonnerd, 10 May 2008 @ 8:51am


    To some extent at least this is asinine. This is only for published works, as far as I can tell, and also makes the assumption that anything not formally published is at best insignificant. The writer who goes along with Emily Dickinson (i.e. "The business of poets is writing poetry"--and then if at all perhaps getting published) would most likely see denial of access to the public as a strike against the writer.

    This isn't to say that publication is against writing. The artistic merits of the referenced ms. aren't the question; access is. It's poetry and free verse to boot so the ordinary reader here probably won't be much interested in it save as an example.

Add Your Comment

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

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown for basic formatting. (HTML is not supported.)
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.