Next Two Congressional Hearings On Copyright Reform Show The Exact Wrong Approach

from the setting-it-up-as-a-fight dept

As Congress kicked off its latest effort towards comprehensive copyright reform, I noted some talking points that raised a really big concern: many in Congress appeared to suggest that copyright reform was a fight between "content creators" and "technology companies" and that any eventual result would be a balance between what those two sides were squabbling for. This is very concerning for a variety of reasons. First off, neither of those groups should be the primary concern of lawmakers. The Constitutional mandate for Congress when it comes to copyright is to "promote the progress of science" (the useful arts stuff is about patents...). The key beneficiaries are to be the public.

So, the first concern, obviously, is that if the focus is on "content creators" on one side and "the tech industry" on the other, the public is not represented. That's a really bad idea. The second problem with setting it up as a battle between those two sides is that it suggests that what's good for one side is bad for the other, and this is a push and pull whereby when one side wins something, the other loses, and the "ideal" result is one where both have to compromise. Thus, you get talk about how copyright law needs to "balance" the interests of "both sides." Again, this ignores that there are a lot more than "two" sides here, but more importantly it ignores the idea that this is not a zero sum game.

The history of the tech and content industries shows that -- while they often squabble about things -- success goes hand in hand. Each and every major innovation from the tech world has resulted in greater opportunity for content creators. It's getting old to say this over and over and over again, but a mere four years after Jack Valenti told Congress that the VCR would be "the Boston Strangler" to the movie industry, home video sales for Hollywood were bigger than box office sales. Technology isn't anti-content creator -- it opens up new and greater opportunities. The focus shouldn't be on figuring out who has to "give up" what for "balance" but to seek out a scenario that is more likely to increase the opportunity for everyone (whether or not everyone grasps the opportunity may be a different story).

Thus, the key focus should be on what kinds of things should be in any copyright reform proposal that will "promote the progress" by building up those opportunities for everyone -- increasing innovation, not locking it down. That means bringing together everyone to figure out how they can help each other and the public -- not dividing them up and putting them on certain "teams."

But... this is Congress. And that's not how Congress works.

Instead, we're getting two separate hearings, one about how awesome copyright is, and another about how awesome technology is. As if those two things are in conflict.

Congress needs a fight between "this side" and "that side," preferably with each side involving giant multinational companies with giant lobbying budgets. Because, when you have a fight like that, both sides ramp up their donations to Congress to make sure "their side" is heard. Congress loves to set up fights between two big wealthy industries, because that just means more money for them. This is also why this won't be resolved any time soon (the longer you drag it out, the more money pours in).

So, it should come as no surprise at all that the next two hearings that the "Intellectual Subcommittee" have called are designed not to move the ball forward on real copyright reform, but rather to set up the "two sides" in the war. First up, next week, there will be a hearing on "Innovation in America: The Role of Copyrights." The following week? Same thing, but "the role of technology" (official title hasn't been released yet, as far as I can tell, but I've seen a few variations floating around, that basically just involve substituting "technology" for "copyrights") -- as if technology is inherently "anti-copyright."

The end result will be lots of home team cheering from people who solidly identify with one side or the other, coupled with ragging on "the other side." But there will be little or nothing to actually look at how those two "sides," along with many others, can come together to best serve the public benefit in terms of furthering the incentives to have important cultural and intellectual works created, experienced and shared.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: congress, copyright, copyright reform, creators, promote the progress, technology, zero sum

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. icon
    Greevar (profile), 19 Jul 2013 @ 9:52pm

    Re: NEITHER of the sides are going to serve the public interest.

    OOTB is making straw men, ad hominem, and false arguments again, what a surprise!

    I'm so sick and tired of hearing your endless tirade on how the law supports the idea that the content industry is owed a government-secured way to make a profit. I have news for you: YOU ARE COMPLETELY AND CATEGORICALLY WRONG! The only reason copyright is supposed to exist is to offer a carrot to get the authors, artists, and the like to provide a continuous stream of new works that can be added to the public domain so that such a library of culture and knowledge will expand, enhance, and progress humanity; to wit, the internet has lowered the barrier to access of knowledge and culture.

    The internet actually accomplishes exactly what the copyright clause set out to do, grant ubiquitous access to information that uplifts society as a whole rather than a few privileged elites that have the ways and means to afford it. The unfettered sharing, remixing, and publishing of new works of amateurs and professionals alike is what we've been trying to accomplish for over two centuries. Now that we have it, you want to whine and complain that these laws are about upholding property rights and protecting the businesses that create such property.

    Copyright does not exists for the purpose of ensuring that an artist has a job to go to. Get that misconception out of your head right now. There is no reason to create laws to support a favored business model, none. If you can't make a business without copyright, then you didn't deserve to have that job/business in the first place. It is the height of arrogance to claim that out of all other industries, this one must be secured and protected by government granted rights that infringe and retard the liberties that are self-evident and natural to every living person on Earth. You demand laws that steal our rights away from us and then complain that pirates are stealing your property. Nobody is stealing a thing from you.

    If you publish it, you're giving it away. Period. There isn't a word you can utter nor an idea you can express that doesn't become part of the library of human culture without limit. Every idea spreads itself until it has taken space inside every living mind out there. You can't own that. You can't keep it from anyone. It will get out and it will force itself into the mind of every person. It's not your property, it never was. So don't get indignant about people copying files and sharing them online. They aren't stealing from anyone. In fact, it the artist who is a fool to think they can do all that creative work and expect to make it back selling something that is in no way their property.

    All of our content is built on the creative effort of thousands of human generations. It belongs to our ancestors as much as all of us. You have no right to claim property rights over it and complain that people are "stealing" it. Quite the contrary, they're taking back what you stole (I'm looking at you Disney) from us.

Add Your Comment

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

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

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

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it

Email This

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