This past Friday, the House Republican
Study Committee released a policy brief entitled Three Myths About Copyright
Law and Where to Start to Fix it. The
brief, examines three common content
industry assertions about the benefits of copyright, and concludes that rather
than promoting productivity and innovation, current copyright law inhibits
them. The brief then makes a number of suggestions
to reform the system, including reducing statutory damages, expanding fair use,
punishing copyright abuse and shortening copyright terms significantly.
Those of us who for well over a
decade have been pushing to have anyone beyond a handful of legislators
recognize that copyright is too long and too strong and badly in need of reform
were elated. Finally, an influential
Congressional committee was giving serious recognition to many of the arguments
we’ve been making!
But that joy was very short
lived. Less than 24 hours after the
brief was released, the brief was taken down from the RSC’s website. RSC
Executive Director Paul Teller sent an email that said that the brief “was published without adequate review
within the RSC”. The email said further “copyright
reform would have far-reaching impacts, so it is incredibly important that it
be approached with all facts and viewpoints in hand.”
One needn’t be a detective to conclude that the retraction had less
to do with the lack of an “adequate review” and balance and more with
entertainment lobbyists coming down on the RSC like a ton of bricks. The defeat of SOPA and PIPA was bad enough –
but a paper that would start serious discussion of bringing balance back to
copyright law so that it once again accomplishes the Constitutional purpose of
“promot[ing] the progress of science and the useful arts”? That was too much for the industry to
bear.
The bad news for the movie studios and record companies is that the
discussion about how to make copyright law make sense in a digital age has
already started in Washington, and it will continue, with or without them. Witness Representative Issa’s proposal that
would allow people to rip the digital media they own to the devices they
own. Or Rep. Lofgren’s effort today to
use Reddit to crowd-source legislation that would give greater due process protections to owners of seized websites. And of course Public Knowledge has our own
list of reforms. And this is happening
even before the 113th Congress has started.
If you are as outraged as we are about the content industry’s
attempt to censor the debate over copyright reform, please call your
Representatives and Senators and tell them that reform is important to
you. Then tell us who you called and what they said - it will help us push the copyright reform agenda forward in the new Congress
stdClass Object
(
[nid] => 7249
[type] => blog
[language] =>
[uid] => 5
[status] => 1
[created] => 1353337280
[changed] => 1353337280
[comment] => 0
[promote] => 1
[moderate] => 0
[sticky] => 0
[tnid] => 0
[translate] => 0
[vid] => 7311
[revision_uid] => 3459
[title] => The Debate over Copyright Reform Cannot Be Censored
[body] =>
This past Friday, the House Republican
Study Committee released a policy brief entitled Three Myths About Copyright
Law and Where to Start to Fix it. The
brief, examines three common content
industry assertions about the benefits of copyright, and concludes that rather
than promoting productivity and innovation, current copyright law inhibits
them. The brief then makes a number of suggestions
to reform the system, including reducing statutory damages, expanding fair use,
punishing copyright abuse and shortening copyright terms significantly.
Those of us who for well over a
decade have been pushing to have anyone beyond a handful of legislators
recognize that copyright is too long and too strong and badly in need of reform
were elated. Finally, an influential
Congressional committee was giving serious recognition to many of the arguments
we’ve been making!
But that joy was very short
lived. Less than 24 hours after the
brief was released, the brief was taken down from the RSC’s website. RSC
Executive Director Paul Teller sent an email that said that the brief “was published without adequate review
within the RSC”. The email said further “copyright
reform would have far-reaching impacts, so it is incredibly important that it
be approached with all facts and viewpoints in hand.”
One needn’t be a detective to conclude that the retraction had less
to do with the lack of an “adequate review” and balance and more with
entertainment lobbyists coming down on the RSC like a ton of bricks. The defeat of SOPA and PIPA was bad enough –
but a paper that would start serious discussion of bringing balance back to
copyright law so that it once again accomplishes the Constitutional purpose of
“promot[ing] the progress of science and the useful arts”? That was too much for the industry to
bear.
The bad news for the movie studios and record companies is that the
discussion about how to make copyright law make sense in a digital age has
already started in Washington, and it will continue, with or without them. Witness Representative Issa’s proposal that
would allow people to rip the digital media they own to the devices they
own. Or Rep. Lofgren’s effort today to
use Reddit to crowd-source legislation that would give greater due process protections to owners of seized websites. And of course Public Knowledge has our own
list of reforms. And this is happening
even before the 113th Congress has started.
If you are as outraged as we are about the content industry’s
attempt to censor the debate over copyright reform, please call your
Representatives and Senators and tell them that reform is important to
you. Then tell us who you called and what they said - it will help us push the copyright reform agenda forward in the new Congress
[log] =>
[revision_timestamp] => 1353337280
[format] => 7
[name] => Gigi Sohn
[picture] => files/pictures/picture-5.png
[data] => a:5:{s:7:"contact";i:0;s:10:"form_token";s:32:"4f4fa1f9b513275a92f59f2a51f592b2";s:15:"googleanalytics";a:1:{s:6:"custom";i:1;}s:14:"picture_delete";s:0:"";s:14:"picture_upload";s:0:"";}
[path] => blog/debate-over-copyright-reform-cannot-be-censor
[print_display] => 1
[print_display_comment] => 0
[print_display_urllist] => 1
[print_mail_display] => 1
[print_mail_display_comment] => 0
[print_mail_display_urllist] => 1
[print_pdf_display] => 1
[print_pdf_display_comment] => 0
[print_pdf_display_urllist] => 1
[last_comment_timestamp] => 1353296477
[last_comment_name] =>
[comment_count] => 0
[taxonomy] => Array
(
[159] => stdClass Object
(
[tid] => 159
[vid] => 5
[name] => Anti-circumvention
[description] =>
[weight] => 0
)
[115] => stdClass Object
(
[tid] => 115
[vid] => 5
[name] => DMCA
[description] => Digital Millennium Copyright Act
[weight] => 0
)
[54] => stdClass Object
(
[tid] => 54
[vid] => 5
[name] => Fair Use
[description] =>
[weight] => 0
)
[133] => stdClass Object
(
[tid] => 133
[vid] => 5
[name] => MPAA
[description] => Motion Picture Association of America
[weight] => 0
)
[321] => stdClass Object
(
[tid] => 321
[vid] => 5
[name] => SOPA
[description] => This bill, H.R. 3261, or "The Stop Online Piracy Act" (SOPA), is supposed to curb infringing websites by allowing the Department of Justice to block them, but—to add insult to injury—it doesn't even do that effectively. But don't even consider talking about the easy work-arounds, because the government can go after you for that.
Bellow you will find resources on how you can take action as well as our latest blog posts and analysis on the issue.
[weight] => 0
)
[196] => stdClass Object
(
[tid] => 196
[vid] => 5
[name] => Statutory Damages
[description] => Statutory damages are pre-established damages for cases where calculating a correct sum is deemed difficult. --Wikipedia
[weight] => 0
)
)
[files] => Array
(
)
[iids] => Array
(
)
[page_title] =>
[nodewords] => Array
(
[abstract] => Array
(
[value] =>
)
[canonical] => Array
(
[value] =>
)
[copyright] => Array
(
[value] =>
)
[description] => Array
(
[value] =>
)
[keywords] => Array
(
[value] =>
)
[revisit-after] => Array
(
[value] => 1
)
[robots] => Array
(
[value] => Array
(
[noarchive] => 0
[nofollow] => 0
[noindex] => 0
[noodp] => 0
[nosnippet] => 0
[noydir] => 0
)
[use_default] => 0
)
[dc.contributor] => Array
(
[value] =>
)
[dc.creator] => Array
(
[value] =>
)
[dc.date] => Array
(
[value] => Array
(
[month] => 11
[day] => 18
[year] => 2012
)
)
[dc.title] => Array
(
[value] =>
)
[location] => Array
(
[latitude] =>
[longitude] =>
)
[pics-label] => Array
(
[value] =>
)
)
[build_mode] => 0
[readmore] => 1
[content] => Array
(
[print_links] => Array
(
[#weight] => -101
[#suffix] =>
[#value] =>
[#prefix] =>
[#title] =>
[#description] =>
[#printed] => 1
)
[#content_extra_fields] => Array
(
[title] => Array
(
[label] => Title
[description] => Node module form.
[weight] => -5
)
[body_field] => Array
(
[label] => Body
[description] => Node module form.
[weight] => 0
[view] => body
)
[revision_information] => Array
(
[label] => Revision information
[description] => Node module form.
[weight] => 20
)
[author] => Array
(
[label] => Authoring information
[description] => Node module form.
[weight] => 20
)
[options] => Array
(
[label] => Publishing options
[description] => Node module form.
[weight] => 25
)
[comment_settings] => Array
(
[label] => Comment settings
[description] => Comment module form.
[weight] => 30
)
[menu] => Array
(
[label] => Menu settings
[description] => Menu module form.
[weight] => -2
)
[taxonomy] => Array
(
[label] => Taxonomy
[description] => Taxonomy module form.
[weight] => -3
)
[path] => Array
(
[label] => Path settings
[description] => Path module form.
[weight] => 30
)
[attachments] => Array
(
[label] => File attachments
[description] => Upload module form.
[weight] => 30
[view] => files
)
[image_attach] => Array
(
[label] => Attached images
[description] => Image Attach module form.
[weight] => 0
)
[itunes] => Array
(
[label] => iTunes feed information
[description] => iTunes specific information.
[weight] => 0
)
[page_title] => Array
(
[label] => Page Title
[description] => Page Title form.
[weight] => -4
)
[path_redirect] => Array
(
[label] => URL redirects
[description] => Path redirect module listing
[weight] => 30
)
[print] => Array
(
[label] => Printer, e-mail and PDF versions
[description] => Print module form.
[weight] => 30
)
[xmlsitemap] => Array
(
[label] => XML sitemap
[description] => XML sitemap module form
[weight] => 30
)
[nodewords] => Array
(
[label] => Meta tags
[description] => Meta tags fieldset.
[weight] => 10
)
)
[#pre_render] => Array
(
[0] => content_alter_extra_weights
)
[body] => Array
(
[#weight] => 0
[#value] => This past Friday, the House Republican
Study Committee released a policy brief entitled Three Myths About Copyright
Law and Where to Start to Fix it. The
brief, examines three common content
industry assertions about the benefits of copyright, and concludes that rather
than promoting productivity and innovation, current copyright law inhibits
them. The brief then makes a number of suggestions
to reform the system, including reducing statutory damages, expanding fair use,
punishing copyright abuse and shortening copyright terms significantly.
Those of us who for well over a
decade have been pushing to have anyone beyond a handful of legislators
recognize that copyright is too long and too strong and badly in need of reform
were elated. Finally, an influential
Congressional committee was giving serious recognition to many of the arguments
we’ve been making!
But that joy was very short
lived. Less than 24 hours after the
brief was released, the brief was taken down from the RSC’s website. RSC
Executive Director Paul Teller sent an email that said that the brief “was published without adequate review
within the RSC”. The email said further “copyright
reform would have far-reaching impacts, so it is incredibly important that it
be approached with all facts and viewpoints in hand.”
One needn’t be a detective to conclude that the retraction had less
to do with the lack of an “adequate review” and balance and more with
entertainment lobbyists coming down on the RSC like a ton of bricks. The defeat of SOPA and PIPA was bad enough –
but a paper that would start serious discussion of bringing balance back to
copyright law so that it once again accomplishes the Constitutional purpose of
“promot[ing] the progress of science and the useful arts”? That was too much for the industry to
bear.
The bad news for the movie studios and record companies is that the
discussion about how to make copyright law make sense in a digital age has
already started in Washington, and it will continue, with or without them. Witness Representative Issa’s proposal that
would allow people to rip the digital media they own to the devices they
own. Or Rep. Lofgren’s effort today to
use Reddit to crowd-source legislation that would give greater due process protections to owners of seized websites. And of course Public Knowledge has our own
list of reforms. And this is happening
even before the 113th Congress has started.
If you are as outraged as we are about the content industry’s
attempt to censor the debate over copyright reform, please call your
Representatives and Senators and tell them that reform is important to
you. Then tell us who you called and what they said - it will help us push the copyright reform agenda forward in the new Congress
[#title] =>
[#description] =>
[#printed] => 1
)
[#title] =>
[#description] =>
[#children] => This past Friday, the House Republican
Study Committee released a policy brief entitled Three Myths About Copyright
Law and Where to Start to Fix it. The
brief, examines three common content
industry assertions about the benefits of copyright, and concludes that rather
than promoting productivity and innovation, current copyright law inhibits
them. The brief then makes a number of suggestions
to reform the system, including reducing statutory damages, expanding fair use,
punishing copyright abuse and shortening copyright terms significantly.
Those of us who for well over a
decade have been pushing to have anyone beyond a handful of legislators
recognize that copyright is too long and too strong and badly in need of reform
were elated. Finally, an influential
Congressional committee was giving serious recognition to many of the arguments
we’ve been making!
But that joy was very short
lived. Less than 24 hours after the
brief was released, the brief was taken down from the RSC’s website. RSC
Executive Director Paul Teller sent an email that said that the brief “was published without adequate review
within the RSC”. The email said further “copyright
reform would have far-reaching impacts, so it is incredibly important that it
be approached with all facts and viewpoints in hand.”
One needn’t be a detective to conclude that the retraction had less
to do with the lack of an “adequate review” and balance and more with
entertainment lobbyists coming down on the RSC like a ton of bricks. The defeat of SOPA and PIPA was bad enough –
but a paper that would start serious discussion of bringing balance back to
copyright law so that it once again accomplishes the Constitutional purpose of
“promot[ing] the progress of science and the useful arts”? That was too much for the industry to
bear.
The bad news for the movie studios and record companies is that the
discussion about how to make copyright law make sense in a digital age has
already started in Washington, and it will continue, with or without them. Witness Representative Issa’s proposal that
would allow people to rip the digital media they own to the devices they
own. Or Rep. Lofgren’s effort today to
use Reddit to crowd-source legislation that would give greater due process protections to owners of seized websites. And of course Public Knowledge has our own
list of reforms. And this is happening
even before the 113th Congress has started.
If you are as outraged as we are about the content industry’s
attempt to censor the debate over copyright reform, please call your
Representatives and Senators and tell them that reform is important to
you. Then tell us who you called and what they said - it will help us push the copyright reform agenda forward in the new Congress
[#printed] => 1
)
[links] => Array
(
[print_html] => Array
(
[href] => print/7249
[title] => Printer-friendly version
[attributes] => Array
(
[title] => Display a printer-friendly version of this page.
[class] => print-page
[rel] => nofollow
)
[html] =>
[query] =>
)
)
)
