
Staffer axed by Republican group over retracted copyright reform memo - pflats
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/12/staffer-axed-by-republican-group-over-retracted-copyright-reform-memo/
======
tptacek
Copyright hawk here:

Content is a $100Bn industry. Technology is 5-6x bigger, but the tech
companies trying to disrupt content are an insignificant fraction of that
industry.

Meanwhile, set aside whether you believe in the reforms proposed in the Khanna
memo --- reducing statutory damages, increasing cost of enforcement, reducing
copyright terms. Ask instead, "was this a politically effective policy memo?"
Were its goals in the 113th congress realistic? Were its arguments persuasive?
Something like 35% of all congresspeople are lawyers, and this memo starts out
with a highly dubious argument about the meaning of the copyright clause.

It seems to me (and I am prepared to hear smart people tell me how wrong I am
about this) that a reasonable short-term goal would have been to reduce the
term of copyright, ratcheting it back to where it was, say, before Sonny Bono.
Instead, this "RSC" memo proposed beyond that a gift basket of what seem like
mostly not-useful policy trinkets for Redditors: expanded fair use for DJ
culture (really? spend political capital to modify regulations on a $100bn
industry for... DJs?), lower statutory caps for damages (the MPAA and RIAA
already sue for a tiny fraction of the likely liability for many infringers),
and punishing false copyright claims (the claims studios take to court are
overwhelmingly not false; penalizing bogus DMCA takedowns wouldn't move the
dials at all).

The real copyright reform is probably something like reduced term and
compulsory licensing. What was the value to the RSC of trolling the Content
industry for reforms that had no chance of happening, that wouldn't have
actually kept people from being bankrupted by lawsuits, that wouldn't make it
easier to launch tech companies, and that at the same time manage to almost
uniformly enrage rightsholders?

Was this memo really "shockingly sensible"? A lot of smart people say it was.
But I wonder whether they're more shocked that any conversation could have
happened at all, and not really looking closely at the content of the memo
itself.

~~~
mtgx
You're right. You do sound like a copyright hawk.

Now. Why is the first point about the size of the industry relevant? Unless
you're talking about their ability to bribe...I'm sorry..."lobby" Congress to
pass the laws they like? That shouldn't happen anyway, regardless of their
size. Laws should be passed on common sense and what's good for the people at
large, not based on how big is your bank account.

What is dubious about his argument about copyright? First off, copyright is
not "property", and shouldn't be treated as property. It's more like a permit.
The government allows you to use a certain idea for a "limited time period" as
it says in the Constitution. Unfortunately, because of the bribing..sorry,
again, I meant lobbying...the "limited time period" turned from 14 years to
almost 10x more. That doesn't sound limited at all to me. Copyright was meant
as an "incentive" system - not as a welfare system.

Ideas can and should be reused. Whoever gets something copyright, most
definitely got "inspired" or copied parts of someone else' ideas. That's why
there isn't really something like "intellectual property", because nobody owns
an idea 100%. And since you used someone else' ideas, you have to get paid for
whatever you added only for a limited period of time, and then allow others to
benefit from it, too, and expand the public knowledge. The whole point of the
copyright system was to benefit the "public". It doesn't say "the creators" in
the Constitution.

The fact that you dismiss DJing and remixing so easily shows that you have
zero understanding about why fair use even exists in the first place. I
suggest going through these, and hopefully it will change your mind:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83lhAlmp5vY>

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyf_0SMAsFA>

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q25-S7jzgs>

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL2FOrx41N0>

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAmmtCJxJJY>

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wq5D43qAsVg>

And here's a law professor discussing some of my points above such as why
copyright is not real property:

<http://surprisinglyfree.com/2012/12/04/tom-bell/>

~~~
tptacek
I don't "sound like" a copyright hawk. I am one. I am way, way to the right of
HN on copyright issues.

So, your comment actually doesn't have much to do with mine. I am well aware
that HN is full of copyright doves, and I respect that position (I feel like
I'm going out of my way to be respectful of them). All your comment says is,
"there's the opposite side of this copyright issue". Which is about as banal
as telling me that water is wet.

~~~
hahainternet
From my perspective he addressed your points clearly and concisely and you
responded by acknowledging these points exist and nothing more.

If you can't defend a position, perhaps you shouldn't be taking it.

~~~
philwelch
From my perspective, tptacek was not trying to reignite the Great Internet
Copyright Argument for the millionth time, and instead was making a point
about what was politically actionable today.

------
btilly
Silicon Valley, and the general public, are full of people who are upset with
the Democrats on the issue of legal abuses by the copyright industry.

The GOP had the opportunity to position themselves on the opposite side from
the Democrats. And failed to do so. :-(

~~~
tptacek
Did they really have any opportunity here? Silicon Valley also (reasonably!)
requires support for gay marriage, believes in and fears anthropogenic global
warming, is basically pro-choice, and has dovish foreign policy beliefs.
Demographically, Silicon Valley is largely college educated and is more
ethnically diverse than suburban America.

I know hearing this upsets HN, and lots of smart people think I'm completely
batshit when I say this, but copyright reform is a fringe issue. There are
probably more people who vote for the gold standard, or to ban mosques.

~~~
michaelbarton
> believes in and fears anthropogenic global warming

It's a bit frustrating to see the term 'believe' used with respect to global
warming. Global warming has been described using sound science and 99% of
climate scientists agree on this. Using belief suggests that it's a matter of
faith like choosing to be catholic.

~~~
saraid216
Honestly, choosing to be Catholic (as opposed to growing up Catholic) is not
that different. You're just picking a set of claims with a weaker factual base
than that of global warming.

------
iyulaev
_The memo was widely hailed by tech policy scholars and public interests
advocates._

And also the internet.

At least one thing is certain - there is vehement opposition to any sort of
copyright reform, and it is embedded deep into the political system. I don't
think I've ever heard of a policy proposal being met with this kind of
reaction. Really pushed some buttons.

------
pyre

      > His firing is a surprising move for a party that has
      > been looking for ways to attract younger voters.
    

Apparently young voters aren't as important as old money.

~~~
w1ntermute
I don't have a problem with this. I hope the GOP fails entirely, so it can be
replaced by a new party that advocates social liberalism and (true) fiscal
conservatism. Trying to get young voters when you're talking about legitimate
rape and not allowing gay marriage is a waste of time. But if a new fiscally
conservative party embraces things like those issues and ones like marijuana
legalization, I think a lot of young voters are willing to embrace a message
of small government and free market economics.

~~~
zzzeek
This is the Ron Paul demographic and it has shown consistently that it's
nowhere near being popular enough for national elections. The simple fact is,
having an effective and well-funded government which takes on particular
problems that don't respond well to free markets (health care, energy reform,
infrastructure, social safety net) is seen by most non-ideological people as a
good thing.

~~~
crusso
_effective and well-funded government_

I think that first word there is probably the main problem "we" have with the
whole notion.

You even go on to list examples how our historically unrivaled well-funded
government[1] has failed to do anything "effective" of the sort:

 _health care, energy reform, infrastructure, social safety net_

You should really add in "education and housing" to the list of extraordinary
government failures.

[1] <http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/federal-spending>

~~~
rayiner
Our government is extraordinarily effective for what it is. We have one of the
most sophisticated countries in the world, and our tax burden as a percentage
of GDP is at the low end of any country you'd want to live in.

By the way, the Heritage Foundation has gotten to the point where it's about
as bad as DailyKOS. They've given up even the pretense of objectivity and
descended into blatant ideological demagoguery.

~~~
crusso
_Heritage Foundation has gotten to the point where it's about as bad as
DailyKOS_

It's impossible to find any news site, reporter, researcher, or article that
doesn't have some angle.

If I find information on the DailyKOS that appears factual and is worth
considering then I do so. The Heritage article linked to has a wealth of
research pulled from easily verifiable sources, mostly the government itself.

~~~
rayiner
There is a line between characterizing the facts to support your angle and
misleading your reader. Heritage Foundation crosses that line.

I wrote them off for their recent trumpeting of the fact that 47% of people
have no federal income tax liability to falsely imply that half the country
doesn't carry any of the tax burden. This goes beyond having an angle, it's
just plain intellectually dishonest. The standard of discourse for an
ostensibly respectable academic organization should be higher than that of a
political campaign. At one time Heritage Foundation adhered to a higher
standard. It no longer does.

~~~
crusso
_I wrote them off for their recent trumpeting of the fact that 47% of people
have no federal income tax liability_

That writing off reflects your own bias.

I could find a similar omission of the whole truth for any "think tank" or
independent issues group you'd care reference.

I could find similar omissions in the questions being asked and the stories
being reported upon in every single news agency.

------
joshuahedlund
Wow, this is on top of the GOP silently kicking younger members out of budget
committees earlier this week for not bowing enough to the party line[1]. The
GOP has had opportunities lately to shed some of their hypocritical big-
government stances; their growing younger libertarian-ish/anti-special-
interests wing (Rand Paul, Justin Amash, etc) is in my view their best hope
for long-term survival, but the establishment seems to be denying that as much
as possible.

[1] [http://blog.heritage.org/2012/12/04/huelskamp-amash-say-
hous...](http://blog.heritage.org/2012/12/04/huelskamp-amash-say-house-
leadership-punished-dissent/)

~~~
AmericanOP
The 'younger members' you reference were kicked out since they voted against
the Paul Ryan budget because _it did not cut spending enough._ They were
further to the right than Paul Ryan, and Republican leadership is trying to
build support for some kind of budget deal.

[http://www.politicususa.com/fireboehner-hashtag-trends-
war-e...](http://www.politicususa.com/fireboehner-hashtag-trends-war-
escalates-gop.html)

~~~
joshuahedlund
> They were further to the right than Paul Ryan

Not sure, but I think they're more open to military cuts, which is kinda
'further to the left.'[1] They think the leadership would rather raise taxes
than cut a growing defense budget. You could say the leadership is more
establishment-left (compromise by raising taxes) and the 'younger members' are
more anti-establishment-left (compromising by cutting defense). From my bias I
see it as more of an anti-establishment thing than a left-right thing; it's
not that they weren't moderate enough, they weren't the right kind of
moderate, which is why I think the GOP leadership is cutting off their only
chance at courting the younger demographics.

[1] <https://twitter.com/repjustinamash/status/273070039597461504>

------
sdafdasdfasdf
Link to memo:
[http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/rsc_policy_brief_--...](http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/rsc_policy_brief_
--_three_myths_about_copyright_law_and_where_to_start_to_fix_it_--
_november_16_2012.pdf)

------
bjhoops1
Here's the line that probably got him the axe: "Today's legal regime is seen
by many as a form of corporate welfare"

Drawing attention to the existence of "corporate welfare" does not go over
well in the GOP.

And I was so proud of them for making a sensible stand on this issue!

------
ChuckMcM
Hmm, if this is an A/B test by the Republicans I hope they get the right
feedback from the responses.

------
aswanson
This probably violates HN guidelines, but I'd like to suggest a modification
re: keeping the original article titles if they contain names of political
parties. Remove them. They invite political arguments.

------
debacle
Does anyone actually have this memo? It'd be an interesting read.

------
kno
The GOP seems more and more against things going the way of the "public
Interest" in favor of the few connected, this makes it even harder to build a
future with the more and more progressive majority.

------
neeee
link to the memo on scribd <http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/113637600>

------
mtgx
Makes perfect sense. In the empire of lies, truth is the enemy.

------
cooldeal
The Internet alliance or whatever it's called formed by Reddit etc. after the
SOPA fiasco needs to show their support for this person right away or there
would be absolutely no point to it. Putting black badges on sites for SOPA was
good but this needs to be taken up by sites too. Perhaps someone(Google?) can
hire him to further write more papers analyzing copyright?

------
rymith
I'm okay with this. I'm not sure I want a party of bigots to lead the charge
on copyright reform. It would put me in an awkward position. Firing the only
intelligent person in the party seems to solidify this.

~~~
pavel_lishin
On the other hand, it could have been a way for the GOP to segue from the
"bigot party" into a group with reasonable beliefs. Parties change over time,
and this could have been a good first step in the right direction.

~~~
jbooth
They're stuck in a local maximum. They can't throw their white, middle-aged
religious base (40% of the population or so) under the bus in order to pick up
a few extra points from young people who, if they've been paying attention,
won't trust GOP pols anyways.

~~~
pavel_lishin
They don't have to throw them under the bus all at once. A significant portion
of the GOP's support base is going to be dying over the next few decades.

~~~
rymith
The next few years. The only thing whiter than the GOP is the color or the
average GOP's hair. Buddump pa! I'll be here all night.

