Posted on 03/20/2013 8:41:58 AM PDT by JerseyanExile
Back in November of last year, Republican staffer Derek Khanna faced a dilemma that, unlike the problems faced by many of his peers in the GOP, had nothing to do with the election. Specifically, Khanna had authored a memo on copyright reform for his then-employers, the Republican Study Committee (RSC) that shot down three “myths of copyright” – that is, that “the purpose of copyright is to compensate the creator of the content,” that “copyright is the free market at work,” and that “the current copyright legal regime leads to the greatest innovation and productivity.” Khanna’s memo was meant to get the ball rolling on a discussion of copyright policy within the GOP, with the goal of allowing some form of modest legislation to be crafted on that topic. What is more, the memo had been approved through the usual channels, and had been posted a few weeks back, to adulation from both conservatives and liberals. You can read the memo below:
The problem? The entertainment industry hated it, and many Republicans, who worked closely with that very industry, had pushed back on the memo. As such, Khanna found his celebrated memo pulled from the RSC site abruptly, with claims that it hadn’t been properly reviewed being issued as excuses. Within two weeks, he was fired.
But Khanna didn’t take his firing lying down. Since last November, he has taken his cause in a dramatically different direction, becoming a major activist in fights over intellectual property, most notably a recent petition attacking the decision by the Library of Congress to outlaw unlocking cell phones. As TheBlaze’s Liz Klimas described this fight:
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
Says it all, really.
” angry objections from Rep. Marsha Blackburn, whose district abuts Nashville, Tenn. In winning a fifth term earlier in the month, Blackburn received more money from the music industry than any other Republican congressional candidate”, it figures just another WHORE for money.
I’m really kind of amazed that any informed conservative still respects the Republican party. I think of them as the Dagney Taggarts of the world. They mean well but are the last to see the world for what it is.
And then John Galt knocks her up...
Conservatives need to take a good hard look and decide if the GOP is really pro freedom.
All politicians are corrupt. While there may be some rare exceptions to that rule, they are becoming harder and harder to find.
I think this memo is a bad idea. While it may be true that 95 years (or 70 years plus the life of the author) is too long, his system of only 12 years for free, plus then a tax on any time after that is unworkable. The tax goes up to 10% of all REVENUE, not profits - and given studios often have less than a 10% overall profit margin, is becomes simply crazy.
And furthermore, why should conservatives increase taxes by more? Aren’t they high enough already?
Furthermore, studios are having rampant piracy problems today. While many people would surely cheer this, I do not. Cheating is cheating.
Marsha Blackburn is one of the most conservative members of Congress. Perhaps she really did have legimate objections to the bill? Can you be certain beyond a reasonable doubt that she is corrupt, or do you just have a guess?
Debate the issue at hand, do not launch ad hominem attacks. Even if she sold out, you should not be using terms like WHORE in caps.
Ninety five years is not too long. I am of the opinion that copyright should be for perpetuity.
There is no reason for a new tax regime. That's just a typical big-government solution to a problem created by the government itself.
The entire issue of copyright can be fixed simply by returning to what the law was when this country was founded. Authors would have copyright on registered works for 14 years, with the opportunity to renew copyright one time. 28 years of copyright is plenty for any work. It's rediculous that the entire Beatles catalog is still under copyright
You've almost got your wish. Every 20 years, Disney buys enough congresscritters to extend it another 20.
Do you think we should be paying the decendants of William Shakespere for the right to read his plays?
Here's what the Constitution has to say about it:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
How does that mesh with the idea of perpetual copyright?
It is rather obvious that she 1.) Cashed more checks from the “Entertainment Industry” than anyone else, 2.) Leapt quickly into action to do their bidding when alerted, 3.) Acted swiftly to see that her benefactors “interests” were protected.
She was bought. Paid for. Her actions are merely confirmation of this. She now joins the ranks of legions of rats who also support Hollywood and the “Music Industry” in their perpetual game of copyright extension and crushing of our rights.
Marsha Blackburn stood up to defend the very industry that has bankrolled the rat party for these many years, and which constantly derides, ridicules and demonizes conservatives.
Perhaps you should reassess your support for both her, and the “Industry.”
It doesnt because it is completely bogus to conflate scientific inquiry, research and invention with the creation of art, music and literature.
I'm sorry?
That particular section of the Constitution was meant to refer to both copy rights and patents.
There is a legitimate public interest to be served by a copy right of limited times. However, after such time has passed (originally 28 years, which is a hell of a lot more reasonable than eternity), the work was supposed to enter into the public domain.
You still didn't answer the question of whether we should be paying the decendants of William Shakespere if we want to own a copy of Hamlet.
Further, should Disney, have had to pay Rudyar Kipling's decendants for the right to make a cartoon of "Jungle Book" back in 1968, which was the year after the copyright on that book expired? If the copyright terms existed back then that do today, they'd not been able to make that cartoon for another ten years from today without paying royalties. You'll note that Disney is all for the public domain when it benefits them, but don't even suggest that "Steamboat Willie" should ever be allowed to enter the public domain.
Some history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law
The origin of copyright law in most European countries lies in efforts by the church and governments to regulate and control the output of printers.[6] Before the invention of the printing press, a writing, once created, could only be physically multiplied by the highly laborious and error-prone process of manual copying by scribes. An elaborate system of censorship and control over scribes existed.[7] Printing allowed for multiple exact copies of a work, leading to a more rapid and widespread circulation of ideas and information (see print culture).[6] Pope Alexander VI issued a bull in 1501 against the unlicensed printing of books and in 1559 the Index Expurgatorius, or List of Prohibited Books, was issued for the first time.[7]
Exactly. Congress has rolled over for their big donors and ruined copyright law. It was fine originally and just going back is the simplest fairest way.
If we don’t get rid of the RINO Establishment and get people like Khanna in charge, the Republicans are going to go the way of the Whigs within twenty years (if it takes even that long).
It is not a "tax", it's a fee, incurred if and only if you choose to use a particular government service. Why should everybody pay for something that only certain people choose to benefit from?
The tax goes up to 10% of all REVENUE, not profits - and given studios often have less than a 10% overall profit margin, is becomes simply crazy.
That's the industry's own fault -- look up "Hollywood Accounting". If they hadn't built up a track record of cooking the books to pretend that they weren't making any profits in order to screw performers out of the payments stipulated in their contracts, it would be possible to trust them with a system that charged based on profit, but that isn't the world in which we live.
Furthermore, studios are having rampant piracy problems today.
Yeah, and I have rampant crabgrass problems in my lawn. Should the government fix that? Should they do it without charging me a fee?
Well I think the evidence is still not there to convinct her beyond a reasonable doubt. Motive does not mean always guilty.
And as for the entertainment industry, conservatives need to fight for this or things will become even worse. People will always watch TV and movies (whether you do or not), and I do not want to abandon this to the cultural left.
If studios are having copyright problems, it seems silly to shorten the length of the copyright protections.
You are right that this is not the government’s responsibility, although I never claimed that it was.
And as for “Hollywood accounting,” yes I am well aware of that.
I do know that GAAP accounting shows studios often lose tremendous amounts of money overall for the year.
It is not clear what accounting “system” this tax will be on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.