The UK has been surprisingly open to reforming copyright law in a more reasonable direction over the past few years, though (not surprisingly) copyright maximalists have been pushing back on such plans. Paul Keating alerts us to the news that, thankfully, a proposal to establish a special “IP czar” in the UK, whose role would only be to increase IP, has been rejected by the House of Lords:
Conservative Party peer Lord Jenkin of Roding had tabled an amendment to establish a new post of Director General of Intellectual Property Rights. The holder would have responsibility for promoting the creation of new intellectual property; protecting and promoting the interests of UK IP owners; coordinating effective enforcement of UK IP rights; and educating consumers on the nature and value of intellectual property.
Note those four responsibilities. Increase “new” intellectual property (it’s unclear if they mean laws or content itself…), protect IP owners, increase and coordinate enforcement and “educate” consumers. Notice that nowhere in there is any recognition that the supposed purpose of those laws is to benefit the public. It would seem a lot more reasonable that any such role should be about increasing the spread of knowledge, watching out for over-enforcement, protecting the interests of the public and educating IP owners on not abusing the law. But, apparently, that sort of thing is what governments are interested in these days.
On Friday, the White House’s annual report on “IP enforcement” came out, and we noted the serious problems with the report. However, we did miss a little tidbit that Declan McCullagh picked up on. Hidden in the details of the report, it does suggest that we still need a “legislative solution” to offshore file sharing — which was the point of SOPA/PIPA:
“We believe that new legislative and non-legislative tools are needed to address offshore infringement.”
Now, the report also does reiterate what the White House said earlier during the SOPA/PIPA fight: that it would not support DNS blocking or other legislative efforts that harm the internet, but just saying that it supports some legislation at all seems pretty questionable. If anything, it’s probably a wink and a nod towards Hollywood to try again, with something less overreaching. Of course, anything that’s cooked up in the backrooms again simply isn’t going to go over well, and (as I noted in my previous post on the report) it’s a real shame that the White House doesn’t even seem to acknowledge that the landscape and awareness on this issue has changed.
We had serious questions from the beginning about Senator Patrick Leahy’s “ProIP” bill, which was pushed very strongly by the lobbying group, the US Chamber of Commerce, using widely debunked stats to claim that there needed to be an “IP Enforcement Coordinator” in the White House. Yet, as we explained, such a position makes absolutely no sense. Even “pro intellectual property” folks noted that the law was anything but “pro intellectual property.” Instead it was pro-legacy business structure. So giving a role in the White House to someone whose sole job is to protect legacy business models is the very definition of regulatory capture. And while the IP Enforcement Coordinator, Victoria Espinel, has been kind enough to personally reach out to us multiple times since taking on the job, in the end she still sees her role to be protecting legacy industry jobs, rather than (as the Constitution requires) making sure that intellectual property promotes the progress.
The U.S. Government must ensure that intellectual property laws keep pace with changes in technology and the practices of infringers. As part of a process initiated by the IPEC, Federal agencies reviewed existing laws to determine if changes were needed to make intellectual property enforcement more effective. The initial review began shortly after the release of the Joint Strategic Plan and was completed within 120 days. The IPEC will include legislative proposals identified in that review in a White Paper on legislative recommendations that the IPEC expects to submit to Congress in the near future.
It’s not difficult to read between the lines. Considering that it was US Chamber of Commerce lobbying that created this role in the first place, and now she’s discussing new laws, to then see the Chamber of Commerce immediately announce it was “ready to work with Congress and the administration” on increasing IP laws, you can bet that the laws in question have already been written mostly by such lobbyists, and we should see them soon. Protectionism, protectionism all around.
That’s not how to create innovation. It’s how you prop up obsolete businesses at the expense of innovation.
The rest of the report, which is embedded below, just shows the sad state of affairs of industries who won’t adapt and can’t compete, abusing the legal process to put up barriers to new technologies, abuse the free speech and due process rights of those who actually innovate, and celebrate stagnation as a strategy for innovation. It’s a depressing document all around. It celebrates the international joke that is the Special 301 report from the USTR. It mockingly celebrates “increased transparency” from an administration that supported the massively secretive process behind ACTA (which the document also cheers on), which only now we’ve confirmed was always about holding back developing nations rather than increasing innovation. Not surprisingly, the report cheers on the illegal seizures of domain names, despite the likely prior restraint and due process violations those seizures entailed. It ignores the international incidents created by seizing domains of sites declared legal in their home countries. And, of course, nothing in the report discusses new business models or how decreased IP enforcement has resulted in greater creative output, more opportunities for content creators, and new innovation throughout the world.
In other words, the report is a complete joke. Reports like this are incredibly frustrating, because they simply highlight how our government has been taken over by special interests who have no desire to actually improve the country, but merely to protect a few powerful lobbyists and the corporations that support them.
What bothers me the most, frankly, is that nowhere does the report make even the slightest attempt to support any of its assertions that greater IP enforcement is actually good for the economy. There are tons of evidence that this is not true, and yet Espinel repeats the claim as if it’s proven fact. This is unfortunate because she does know better, but I guess appeasing special interests is more important than actually working to promote progress and improve the economy.
Earlier this year, we noted that the US IP Czar, Victoria Espinel, had been making the rounds to ISPs, registrars, payment processors and others to get them to agree to voluntarily start shutting off certain “infringing” sites. Now we see the results of those talks. Espinel has announced that a variety of companies — including Google, Visa, Mastercard, Paypal and Network Solutions — have apparently agreed to effectively disappear and cut off certain websites. The focus, for now, is on “unlicensed web pharmacies,” with the idea being that these companies will effectively kill off those sites:
Together, the firms hope to tackle every link in the chain that keeps unlicensed pharmacies operating by stopping them showing up in search results, taking their websites offline, delisting the domains they use and stopping payments reaching them.
Think COICA without COICA — but just with government pressure on companies. Seeing Visa, Mastercard and Paypal on the list certainly isn’t surprising, after those three already did the same thing in cutting off Wikileaks. However, it’s a bit surprising to see Google agree to this (Update: Google says that it’s only agreed to cut off advertising that violates its policies). If there’s a trial and these sites are found guilty of violating the law, then I can see cutting them off — but once again, it appears that this is the government trying to kill off websites, without a trial.
And, yes, it’s for “unlicensed web pharmacies,” and everyone plays up the spam and the fake (potentially dangerous) drugs. Those are a serious problem. But they also lump in the (quite common) grey market pharmacies as well — which often allow people to get drugs from outside the country at much more affordable rates. Shutting down fake drug sellers is fine. Shutting down the grey market drug sellers is a bit of a bigger issue.
On top of that, given the recent ICE domain seizures and the whole COICA law — both of which Espinel has spoken out in favor of — it’s not hard to see how the mandate behind this particular program is quite likely to grow well beyond “unauthorized web pharmacies” to other sites as well. In fact, MasterCard has apparently already agreed to cut off websites deemed “pirate” sites.
The US “IP Czar,” Victoria Espinel, said at a conference this week that Homeland Security’s seizure of a bunch of domain names was apparently just the beginning of a larger plan to go after such folks. Espinel has been making the rounds over the past few months, working to get various companies to voluntarily start censoring websites in this manner, even without the COICA bill being in place. This isn’t really a surprise. Espinel has stated in the past that her job is to focus on the enforcement side of copyright law, so it’s no surprise she’s supportive of such seizures.
What’s scary, though, is the fact that she doesn’t seem willing to recognize how these seizures appear to go way past “enforcing” copyright law, and move into blatant censorship. In her comments, she noted that “We are going after the piraters and counterfeiters,” but she seems to ignore that caught in that net are perfectly legitimate search engines and (more seriously) blogs with plenty of non-infringing content. If that’s not the definition of prior restraint and blatant government censorship, I don’t know what is.
What’s sad is that Espinel has appeared in the past as someone who actually recognized these issues — and while she’s under a lot of pressure from the entertainment industry lobbyists who apparently get to write her performance reports — if these sorts of activities keep up, she’s going to go down as the US’s chief censor. What a shame.
You may recall that, at the end of March, the White House’s “IP Czar” (technical “Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator”), Victoria Espinel, had asked for public comments on how best to enforce intellectual property issues. While we were quite concerned that the tone of the request for comments presupposed a lot of questionable things (i.e., more enforcement is automatically “better”), we encouraged people to send in their thoughts. I shared my letter and also pointed people to the fantastic letter sent by the NetCoalition and CCIA — as well as the ridiculous letter sent by the RIAA, MPAA and the Screen Actors guild.
JJ sends over the news that the White House has now made all of the public comments available. There are a lot. I went through the list and opened a bunch at random (as well as picking out some names of people or companies I recognized to see what they had to say). It seems like plenty of people on both sides of the equation weighed in — often in response to calls from organizations. On the “enforce copyright more!” side, there were a bunch of photographers and independent musicians, who showed up via the Copyright Alliance or the Association of Independent Musicians. On the “be careful” side, there were a bunch of people who clearly used Public Knowledge’s example letter (though, many added to it, or explained why they wanted to reinforce what PK said).
I’m not really sure how helpful those letters really were on either side, as they didn’t add too much to the conversation. The folks responding to the call from the Copyright Alliance didn’t really answer any of the questions from Espinel. They often just said “my business is in trouble, you must help me!” which isn’t very convincing. At times, they went to extreme lengths, like this guy, who tried to convince Espinel that having his photographs copied was the same thing as if he had stolen her car. Very convincing. On the flip side, while I like the folks at Public Knowledge, and perhaps there’s value in numbers of people saying the same thing, I think it would have been nicer if more people wrote their own thoughts out.
Anyway, here were a few that caught my eye, good or bad (all links to filings are pdf files):
The filing from the Center for Democracy and Technology was really fantastic. Almost on the level of the NetCoalition filing. I like how it goes through the long list of technologies that were targeted by the entertainment industry as being potential destroyers of their industry which had to be stopped — including the VCR, the mp3 player, the DVR, search engines and more.
The filing from the American Library Association is also quite good. It points out that there’s a big difference between “costs to private companies” and “costs to the public good.” And, as for the entertainment industry’s studies on “losses”:
The fundamental flaw of these studies is that they beg the question of whether a particular private business interest is entitled to government protection for perpetual, stable profits regardless of changing business conditions. The mere fact of declining profits in one business model does not constitute a cognizable harm that government must step in to remedy. Government intervention in any area has costs for taxpayers, and in this area there are added costs to the public when IP policy becomes further slanted in favor of rightsholders and against public access and use.
I was really disappointed in the filing from Beggars Group, the UK-based record label. While I fully expected most record labels who filed to support stronger enforcement, Beggars has actually shown itself to be more reasonable than others in embracing modern technology — and it’s filing is strange in that it totally attacks the DMCA’s safe harbors as being totally unfair even as it admits that those safe harbors have created huge new businesses that have created massive consumer value. So, I’m at a loss. Is Beggars really suggesting that because others figured out smart businesses, the government should now punish them in favor of Beggars?
The Mississippi Attorney General, Jim Hood’s filing is so filled with fear mongering as to be laughable. It’s opening sentence — and I am not kidding — compares copyright infringement to the death of a child. It goes on to cite the widely debunked studies that claim copyright infringement supports terrorists and organized crime. This isn’t so much a response to Espinel’s questions as it is a (fictional) horror story to scare little children.
There’s an awful lot in Intel’s filing — some good and some bad — but I was pretty shocked to see the statement that Intel believes “another threat to the appropriate protection of famous marks in the U.S. is the expansion of parody as a defense….” Really? I recognize that Intel is a pretty big trademark bully, but it’s really claiming that parody as a defense is going too far?
Google’s filing is pretty good, though I felt it could have been stronger on a few points. Still, it reinforces the point that business models are adapting to the changing technology marketplace, and that we should be quite careful that any enforcement program does not harm freedom of speech or expression.
Perhaps the input from Ray Charles’ estate isn’t too surprising — in that it talks up the importance of all the royalties they keep collecting for Charles’ music — but given the fact that Charles himself clearly infringed widely on others copyrights to create the very origins of soul music, and talked up the value of “copying” other musicians, it’s pretty disappointing and seems to go against his legacy.
I have to admit, I was a bit confused as to why the Military Order of Foreign Wars is such a big supporter of stronger IP enforcement.
Of course, not everyone in the military thinks that way. I thought Steve Cupp’s filing (from a Navy email address) showed that there is quite a lot of concern that copyright law has gone way too far, and is now solely being pushed by lobbyists designed to prop up certain businesses.
There were some odd ones, like the filing from Om Records that basically says “we don’t know how to compete, please make ISPs pay us.”
It was nice to see Oxfam America’s filing focus on why the US should stop trying to force every other country to copy US intellectual property laws, noting that (contrary to what you’ll hear some lobbyists say) the TRIPs agreement says that members should be “free to determine the appropriate method” of implementing the agreement.
I thought Bill Waggoner’s filing was nice in that he called out that not all infringement is equal, and lumping safety issues of counterfeit medicines in with people file sharing video games is pretty ridiculous and unhelpful in crafting reasonable policy.
Anyway, there were a lot more obviously, and beyond some of the organization names, I was basically picking at random. But it might be fun to “crowdsource” reviewing some of the filings. If you have a chance take a look at the list and see if you find any interesting filings, and let us know about them in the comments.
A few days ago, I posted the letter I submitted to the White House IP Czar, Victoria Espinel, concerning her request for comments on the strategic plan for IP enforcement. It was a bit troubling that the questions asked in the RFC focused solely on increased enforcement and the amount of harm done by infringement — as if it never even occurred to folks that increased enforcement might not be best for culture or the economy, and that there may also be mitigating benefits to infringement. I tried to make that clear in my filing, and it was great to see folks like Public Knowledge and the EFF submit comments as well — but the really wonderful filing came from the NetCoalition and CCIA, which we discuss below. First, though, it’s worth noting that the entertainment industry also made its demands…
The RIAA, MPAA and the Screen Actors Guild teamed up to submit their own filing, and as the LA Times noted “it’s a doozy.” Consider it a wishlist of protectionist, anti-consumer, anti-innovation policies, basically demanding that the White House prop up their own businesses, because of their unwillingness to adapt:
Among other things, the “creative community organizations” urged that:
The federal government encourage ISPs to use, and companies to develop, monitoring, filtering, blocking, scanning and throttling technologies to combat the flow of unauthorized material online;
Copyright holders be able to combat infringement by making a database of their works available to service providers, rather than submitting individual takedown notices. And once a work is taken down, service providers should be expected to employ “reasonable efforts” to prohibit users from uploading or even linking to them again;
Copyright owners be able to block unauthorized streams of live broadcasts without going through the formal notice-and-takedown process;
The federal government press search engines, social networks, hosting companies, domain name registrars and online advertising and payment networks to cooperate with copyright holders on efforts to combat piracy (“Encouraging these intermediaries to work with content owners on a voluntary basis to reduce infringements, and assuring these intermediaries that such cooperation will not be second-guessed, should be top priories that call for the personal intervention of senior government officials if necessary.”);
A federal interagency task force work with industry to interdict prerelease bootlegs of Hollywood blockbusters and crack down on U.S. services that assist foreign piracy hotbeds;
States adopt “labeling laws” that “defined unauthorized online file sharing and streaming as a felony,” giving state and local law enforcement jurisdiction to go after unauthorized copying online;
States use consumer protection laws to go after file-sharing sites that “expose consumers to intrusion, viruses and revelation of personal data.”
You can read the entire entertainment industry filing below, but be ready to laugh at the highly questionable claims:
However, if you want read something enjoyable you should check out the incredibly long, but ridiculously thorough and brilliant filing from the NetCoalition and CCIA. It’s over 100 pages long, but every last page is worth reading. It says everything I wish I could have said in my letter, but does so in excruciating detail, with tremendous sources to back up each point. It kicks off by going through a detailed list of “fallacies” found in the request for comment itself, as well as in the typical complaints from the entertainment industry, including:
The objectivity fallacy: highlighting how the studies from the entertainment industry that pretend to be objective are anything but — and tend to greatly, if not ridiculously exaggerate the problem.
The lost sale fallacy: of course, demolishing the industry’s desire to pretend that each act of infringement represents a “lost” sale.
The causation fallacy: showing how the entertainment industry always places the blame for its problems on infringement, even if there’s little evidence to support that any troubles in the industry were due to infringement. Instead, the filing points out that there are many, many reasons why some companies in the industry have run into trouble that have nothing to do with infringement.
The innovation fallacy: dismantling the industry’s claim that infringement destroys jobs and discourages innovation, noting that it is historically evident that competition breeds greater innovation than gov’t-backed monopolies, which can be shown to create economic rents and dead-weight loss.
The industry size fallacy: a favorite of the entertainment industry, which bundles in all sorts of unrelated industries that just sorta barely are touched by intellectual property (furniture!) to make the industry seem huge, in an effort to imply the importance of extra protectionism. But the filing points out how flawed the methodology is, pointing to the CCIA’s own (awesome) use of the same methodology to show that exceptions to copyright contribute more to the economy than the “copyright industries.” This part also points out that if the industry really is so big, then it should be well positioned to withstand any challenges…
The equivalence fallacy: picking apart how the entertainment industry likes to lump all forms of infringement into one “evil” bucket, without ever acknowledging that there are very, very different types of infringement, and understanding the differences is key in determining actual harm and any “enforcement” strategies.
The theft fallacy: once again reinforcing that infringement is a different beast than theft, and even the Supreme Court recognizes this… though the entertainment industry seems unwilling to admit it.
The silo fallacy: elegantly highlighting how the industry loves to talk up losses in CD sales, while totally ignoring how other parts of the business, such as live performances, continue to grow. It also highlights how, despite CD and DVD sales dropping, the number of albums and movies being made has vastly increased.
The relevance fallacy: laying out the argument that, even if you accept the industry’s claims of losses, they’re often submitting aggregate data that includes a variety of different factors and information that may be distorting the direct impact on specific areas, and setting policy based on such aggregate data could be quite damaging.
Seriously, the entire document is wonderful. It feels like it should be published as a book, and should become required reading for anyone ever writing about, litigating or setting intellectual property policy. You can read the whole thing below:
Of course, after going through the fallacies, the filing gets to specific policy recommendations, wisely going back to the ProIP bill’s language, highlighting how the purpose of the IP Czar is really supposed to be about true criminal infringement and counterfeiting, and arguing that any enforcement should be focused on those issues, rather than stepping in on civil disputes in what is, effectively, a business model problem. The filing also points out that diplomats enforcing US IP policy around the world are often uneducated in the balance of interests that IP law is supposed to hold, and frequently just push for greater laws and restrictions, without understanding the harm it causes. Along those lines, the CCIA takes the time to express its grave concerns over ACTA — noting its broad scope and potential harm both in the US and abroad.
The conclusion of the document sums up everything nicely:
The spread of the global Internet has facilitated the unauthorized and at times infringing
distribution of certain forms of intellectual property, especially copyright-protected content. The
ease and minimal cost of copying makes meaningful enforcement costly and difficult. This
widely recognized problem has stirred passionate debate about how the problem should be
handled by copyright owners, the government, and third parties. This problem is amplified and
complicated by the importance of both the content and Internet industries in the U.S. export
market, as well as and demands for the U.S. to assert leadership at the international level. This
creates a danger of rigid, oversimplified policies toward infringement that (a) make little sense in
other intellectual property domains, and (b) undermine the perceived legitimacy of the global
intellectual property system.
The solutions to the real and perceived problems the disruptive technology of the Internet
has caused for certain entertainment and luxury goods companies cannot be solved by greater
government intervention or by shifting more costs to Internet companies. Rather, the solution
lies in the evolution of business models to adapt to the new realities of the marketplace.
Seriously. This is an absolute must read, start to finish.
We were already somewhat concerned about the nomination of Victoria Espinel for the IP Czar job in the administration (forced on the administration by the silly and pointless “ProIP” Act from last year). On Thursday, she had her confirmation hearings where she said pretty much what we expected about how important intellectual property is, and how she viewed her job as coordinating different government agencies to crack down on infringers. Much of her (brief) testimony (pdf) talked up the usual industry claims about the importance of intellectual property on the economy, not recognizing how misleading they are. These are stats that simply credit anything covered by intellectual property laws, as if the only reason those industries exist is because of those laws. That’s a mistake.
But more troubling? Espinel made it clear that her job is not to do as the Constitution requires, and make sure that intellectual property laws are properly “promoting the progress of arts and the useful sciences” (she never mentions this part), but, instead she claims her focus is cracking down on infringement to protect jobs:
If I am confirmed as the United States Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, I will work side by side with agencies, Congress, stakeholders and the public to ensure that jobs that depend on intellectual property are not compromised by others’ unwillingness to respect and enforce the rule of law….
But intellectual property law is not about “protecting jobs” it’s about encouraging innovation. Innovation can be disruptive. Jobs can get shifted around. Protecting jobs is not encouraging innovation. It’s the opposite.
Better and smarter protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights will create more jobs…
There’s simply no evidence to support that. Shouldn’t our IP Czar rely on actual evidence rather than broad industry claims that are unproven?
Then, on being questioned she appeared to support Hollywood’s position that any net neutrality laws won’t apply to mandating content filters on ISPs. It’s looking like — just as was initially feared — this position is really to get Hollywood’s own representative in the White House. What a shame. If you must have an “IP Czar” shouldn’t it be someone who’s actually focused on making sure progress is being promoted, rather than someone who wants to blindly crack down on infringement with no thought towards whether or not it makes sense?
In a move that surprises no one, the Obama administration finally got around to officially nominating Victoria Espinel to be the IP Czar, a position that was created out of thin air a year ago in the ProIP Act, though the position went entirely unfilled until now. Hollywood lobbyists have been pushing the administration to appoint someone ever since the spring, and VP Joe Biden had to come out and calm Hollywood execs and lawyers by promising them the “right person” would be appointed (meaning: not someone who is interested in copyright reform).
And yet… there was no appointment for so long. Why? Well, a few weeks ago, it was explained that there was a fight over where to put the position and under what group Espinel’s office would exist. The most obvious group was the Office of Science and Technology Policy. The problem? Most of the folks in OSTP actually seem to understand the problems of copyright law. They’re fans of openness and understand things like Creative Commons. Entertainment industry lobbyists started to freak out again, that even if they got someone on “their side,” that placing them in OSTP would stifle them, as the rest of the group might (gasp!) actually push back on attempts to stretch copyright enforcement towards the maximalist position. Instead, they wanted the position to be either its own office (entirely unlikely) or, in the Office of Management & Budget. Why OMB? No good reason. The position doesn’t fit there at all… but putting it there keeps it away from those darn “copyleftists” in OSTP.
So where did the position end up? Yup… it’s a part of OMB, just like Hollywood wanted. Lobbyists on all sides of the equation — including consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge, though, are saying that Espinel is a good appointee. I certainly hope so, though I disagree that the position should exist at all. Also, Espinel was formerly the IP boss for the US Trade Representative — a group that has been known to push for more draconian IP laws, and to do so cloaked in secrecy. So… I’m hoping to be surprised, but putting the office in OMB and having someone from USTR isn’t encouraging.
As you may remember, last year, thanks to lots of lobbying from the entertainment industry, Congress passed the totally unnecessary “ProIP” act, which made copyright even more draconian. Luckily, the most ridiculous parts of the bill — like getting the Justice Department involved in civil litigation over copyright — was dropped. But there was still plenty of bad stuff in there — including the establishment of an “IP Czar” or “Copyright Czar” who would basically be the entertainment industry’s personal representative in the White House, in charge of “coordinating” (i.e., “driving”) strategy on making sure that the entertainment industry’s obsolete business model is always protected directly from the White House.
Earlier this year, the Senators who pushed this through got antsy and pleaded with the White House to hurry up and appoint someone to the post. In response, the White House sent Joe Biden to an industry gathering, where he promised that the White House would pick “the right person” to represent the industry’s interests. And yet… since then, there’s been nothing.
It’s been a poorly kept secret that Victoria Espinel is likely to be the IP Czar — and, as former IP person at the USTR (who has always been strongly in support of stronger IP), it definitely seems like the industry will be happy with her. But why has it taken so long? Michael Scott points us to a report from last month that the “problem” is that the White House can’t figure out where to place this role:
A stand-alone office. While this is probably the most desirable in terms of making the position as prominent within the Administration as IP owners would like, it remains [an] uphill battle.
Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). OSTP is known for espousing views that are less then favorable to the IP community. Placing the IP Czar within OSTP would make no more sense than coupling Oscar and Felix (or for a more modern reference, coupling Harry Potter with Voldemort).
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). If a stand-alone office is not in the cards than this may be the best alternative. While OMB does not usually establish policy, it does coordinate with numerous agencies on various projects, which is certainly within the purview of the IP czar.
Of course, OSTP is the department that makes the most sense — but as the writeup notes, the folks in OSTP are actually more technologically focused, and are believers in openness and collaboration — and are the sorts of folks who are skeptical of the need for greater IP protection (and, yes, some of them read Techdirt). But… given the role, it does seem like the most reasonable spot. In fact, it seems rather problematic that the White House would agree not to put it there, just because the entertainment industry is afraid that OSTP isn’t going to just bend over for the copyright industry’s interests. If Hollywood is basically getting their own representative in the White House, at the very least it seems fair to temper that position by putting it in a department that will at least debate how strong copyright protection needs to be.
The fact that the White House hasn’t simply placed the role in OSTP certainly feels like it agreeing not to do that because the industry lobbyists who pushed for the role in the first place won’t like it. That doesn’t seem like the way government should be run.
