
Republicans Repudiate 40 Years of Tougher Copyright Laws - gwright
http://www.volokh.com/2012/11/16/republicans-repudiate-40-years-of-tougher-copyright-laws/
======
simonsarris
I'm not sure its fair to say "Republicans", as if there's some consensus
outside of the paper, regardless of the amount of Republicans in the
Republican Study Committee. I doubt most of them know the paper exists, never-
mind what conclusion it might draw. There's also no saying what percent of
republicans and percent of democrats might agree with the paper. For all we
know 70% of democrats and 40% of republicans might agree with the conclusion
(pulled out of a hat, I might expect the % agree to be roughly the same for
both parties).

It's unfortunate, and I'm having a hard time finding a way to put it nicely,
but other issues seem to take up most of that party's time. If the Republican
party pivoted to being a fiscally conservative and socially apathetic party
then they might actually do very well.

If they spent their news cycles advocating research on the myriad topics in
american law that border on cultish in acceptance, such as copyright and,
sure, poverty reduction programs that may or may not be worth their salt, they
might do great. We could use a party of respectable scrutinizers that stand
skeptical of any longstanding policy that might be costing citizens (or
civilization) too much.

But they don't do that. Instead they spend their news cycles (conservative
news stations and radio) on all this cultish crap of their own. Obscene
amounts of doom-saying over every thing they might dimly disagree with. XYZ is
going to "take away" guns, and kill jobs, and "ruin" (ruin!) the economy, and
force an end to all prayer, and other ridiculous characterizations.
Taxmageddon is the newest one. Taxmageddon. Returning to 90's tax rates is the
End of Days.

Lofty policy other than tax cuts, if they are thinking about other policies at
all, are certainly rarely talked about, at least on the national stage.

It's an interesting paper we've got on our hands here, but we have no reason
to believe that the majority of republicans _know it exist,_ never mind that
they are ready to be serious and sincere about examining party priorities that
might stop the entire rest of their platform from being a blocking issue
towards voting for them.

~~~
rz2k
This discussion is likely to venture too far into politics for this forum, but
which programs fit under the category of poverty reduction? I ask, because the
term makes me think of people with no conceivable prospects who are
essentially being sustained out of pity.

However, it is probably fair to draw a distinction between programs like
Section 8 housing and food stamps (which probably total less than $30B), and
the universe of all means-tested programs.

Increasing the talent pool is vital to producing a dynamic economy. It sounds
touchy-feely, but things like school lunch programs are an enormous success
when judged on the basis of their effect on childhood development, and the
resulting increase in greater eventual intelligence, educational attainment,
and productivity. Regardless of whether people have contempt for their
parents, or pity that some people may simply have worse luck than others,
something as boring as one healthy meal five days a week for nine months of
the year has measurable effects on cognitive development for people who didn't
choose their parents. The same goes for programs like subsidized preschool
education, programs that educate young parents who didn't learn how to nurture
from their parents, and many other small programs that are likely to sound
very boring and very futile, but effect real incremental change that
ultimately benefits the entire economy more than the individual beneficiaries.

On the other end of means tested programs from those that encourage talent
pool development, are the social safety net programs that facilitate
enterprising risk. Early in the nation's history for example the perfectly
justifiable idea of debtors' prisons was abolished for the more pragmatic
practice of bankruptcy protection. More modern programs make it increasingly
possible for not only young single people to go all in on a startup, but
people with families, with less risk that a failure will put their children on
the street. That doesn't mean that people shouldn't work on savings, but that
they can take an even bolder risk when worth it. It may be logical to argue
that they should suffer the consequences of their risk, but the economy
probably experiences a net benefit from encouraging people away from their
biases toward playing it safe.

I get that social programs are really boring, especially since they tend to be
top-down organized and not very entrepreneurial, yet it isn't accurate either
to assume that they are all over-sentimental and based on pity alone, or that
they all ultimately end up undermining people's chances of standing on their
own feet.

~~~
tomjen3
That all sounds nice enough, but it doesn't ignore the fact that it is still
the government stealing money to help save children parents decied to get when
they shouldn't have.

As for removing risk, look at the bailouts. Look at what didn't work.

~~~
jeremyjh
An educated population is a public good; especially in a democracy.

------
ajross
The headline is oversold. The meat is this: " _The conservative-led Republican
Study Committee just put out a Policy Brief that questions forty years of
bipartisan support for tougher copyright enforcement_ ".

Now that's good news, and I think the analysis in the post is spot-on. This is
the kind of thinking we'd hope to see out of a "new, more moderate" reinvented
republican party. But one policy brief does not a policy make, and this one
doesn't even (apparently) advocate for any explicit policy.

They're dipping a toe in the water. At least they're thinking about swimming,
but we've got a long way to go before this turns into something worth voting
over IMHO.

~~~
marshray
I'm sure their political consultants are watching very closely how this gets
picked up in the social media, particularly by those who are identified as
thought leaders.

Seriously, a tweet like "Wow maybe the Republicans aren't so corrupt and
stupid after all [link] please RT" could make a noiceable difference in the
behavior of Lamar Smith and his ilk.

------
ewillbefull
"Throwing Hollywood under the bus could pay dividends for GOP"

[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/01/throwing-
hollywoo...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/01/throwing-hollywood-
under-the-bus-could-pay-dividends-for-gop/)

Republicans have suggested pivoting their platform in a free-internet
direction.

~~~
smsm42
Provided how little Hollywood is intent on helping them in any way, I don't
see any downside for them. On the contrary, exposing some D congressmen as a
puppets of Big Business - in this case, big entertainment business - can allow
them to counter frequent similar claims from the D side. And given the
skepticism of the R base about any extension of the government powers, as I
said, no downside at all. I only wonder why there's not more of this.

~~~
mjn
There's not much downside from antagonizing Hollywood in particular, but there
are plenty of non-Hollywood copyright interests, some of whom traditionally
swing GOP, such as segments of the recording industry (e.g. Nashville). Though
it's quite possible they're losing some of their influence within the party,
especially since the departure of Sonny Bono from Congress.

------
lubujackson
Huh. That would certainly make me think more favorably of Republicans, and it
fits with the older, more moderate Republican concept of "less government
involvement". There's a ways to go on some other topics, though.

It might seem to be an anti-business angle, but the music business is
shrinking rapidly and it's kind of like kicking a ball while it still has a
bit of air in it.

~~~
icebraining
_It might seem to be an anti-business angle_

There's nothing wrong with that; for example, Luis Zingales proposes[1] a
"pro-market, not pro-business" position for the GOP. I'm not an American, but
I'd love to see a true movement against crony capitalism. We desperately need
one here in Portugal.

[1]: <http://www.city-journal.org/2012/eon0708lz.html>

~~~
shirederby
This is a good editorial on the subject:
[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-23/why-businesses-
can-...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-23/why-businesses-can-t-stand-
free-markets-commentary-by-veronique-de-rugy.html)

------
001sky
Hollywood votes democrat. RIAA is run by a democrat. MSM media is democrat
9/10. Comcast's CEO vacations with OBAMA. etc.

\-- Old saying: 'My enemy's enemy is my friend.'

~~~
DannyBee
Actually, it's more complicated than that. Both Silicon Valley and Hollywood
mainly support democrats.

Republicans in the past have not offered much that causes either to have to
make tough choices. If they did, they might be able to pit one against the
other, which would help their party immensely.

------
tptacek
This is a _Republican Study Group paper_ that argues for the reform of a
critically important regulatory system because --- and they _lead_ with this
--- it "Retard[s] the creation of a robust DJ/Remix industry".

I mean I'm not arguing, it's just hard to take that seriously as a Republican
policy position. How big is the "DJ/Remix industry"? How big could it ever be?
We have empirical evidence, because (according to this paper) other countries
have robust DJ/Remix industries.

The reforms at the end of this paper all seem totally sensible. It'd be great
if this stuff happened. But be honest: even if we adopted every single reform
in the paper, most infringers today would remain infringers, their liability
would still be denominated in the tens of thousands of dollars, and it would
remain just as illegal as it is today to run businesses predicated on
copyright evasion.

~~~
gwright
They don't 'lead' with that. That example appears on page 4 of a 9 page
document. It is the first example they use to illustrate the effects of
current policy.

The way your comment reads it sounds like the entire position paper is based
on the DJ/Remix industry example.

~~~
tptacek
I mean to point out that it is their first argument for what is wrong with the
copyright system in a numbered list of wrongs.

------
Khurrum
I like it. Seriously, 12 years is a long time to be milking stuff.

------
stretchwithme
Maybe they finally noticed who creative folks vote for.

------
_delirium
Looks like they've already disavowed this memo:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4799352>

------
mturmon
"It pleases conservative bloggers, appeals to young swing voters, stokes the
culture wars and drives a wedge between two Democratic constituencies,
Hollywood and Silicon Valley."

Glad to know they are in this one for

------
iterative
Um, except for two idiot Senate candidates who went down in flames, it was the
Democrats who were pushing so-called "social" issues this election cycle with
radical positions like forcing everyone to buy health insurance that includes
contraceptives, whether they wanted to or not.

Saying the employer or the insurer is one paying for the contraceptives is
economic nonsense -- the cost ultimately comes out of the employees' pockets.
Should, say, a woman who's gone through menopause or a gay man really have to
pay higher health insurance premiums to subsidize someone else's birth
control? Given that birth control pills are legal and cheap (~$10 a month at
Walgreens) this was really just about trying to create a wedge issue by
scaring people with a phony controversy.

And after being in office for four years, Obama waited until about five
minutes before the election, when the polls showed support was turning in its
favor, to announce his very tepid support for gay marriage. Not exactly, a
shining example of leading on principle.

~~~
warfangle
Should a single man really have to subsidize care for a woman with breast
cancer, or a six year old with an inoperable brain tumor?

Shut the fuck up. Healthcare choices are to the individual and the doctor, not
to the insurer or the government.

If you don't want to subsidize health, go live in Somolia.

~~~
orangecat
_If you don't want to subsidize health, go live in Somolia._

If you love government mandates so much, move to North Korea. See how silly
that is?

The real question we should be asking is why employers have anything to do
with health insurance in the first place.

~~~
jbooth
"If you love government mandates so much, move to North Korea".

Or Sweden, Canada, England or France. That's the thing. There's plenty of
examples of advanced countries with a government run healthcare system.

There are zero examples of advanced countries that do things the way
conservatives say would lead to prosperity.

~~~
shirederby
You seem to have missed "See how silly that is?"

~~~
jbooth
It's not silly. All countries with no government or almost no government are
hellholes. Whereas, since the fall of the soviet union, most countries with
more government than the US are pretty nice.

So, it's not silly to say 'try somalia if you want zero government'. It is
silly to say 'try north korea if you want more government', especially since
north korea provides fewer government services than western states.

~~~
shirederby
_If you don't want to subsidize health, go live in Somolia._

Opposition to government-subsidized healthcare is not anarchism.

So yes, it is silly, to put it nicely.

~~~
jbooth
Can you give me an example of a country without government subsidized
healthcare you'd like to live in?

