
Republican staffer who was fired for copyright memo talks to Ars Technica - binarybits
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/republican-staffer-fired-for-copyright-memo-talks-to-ars/
======
rm999
My takeaway from all this was that the RSC (Republican Study Committee) is
somewhat disorganized, not that there is any political shift occurring. I
think the tech world turned it into a bigger news story than it should have
been because we wanted to believe a shift was occurring.

That said, I do think the younger, more tech-savvy generation of Derek Khanna
is much more informed and critical of copyright issues than politicians. A
shift will eventually occur.

~~~
tptacek
Spend some time on the RSC website and a little more time learning about the
RSC's history. The RSC exists specifically to perpetuate hard-right
conservatism in the GOP. They're practically the embodiment of every cliche
you've ever heard about Republican ideology: to create jobs, introduce a flat
tax code! to reform entitlements, replace them with block grants to states!
Now that those proposals are announced, score every piece of proposed
legislation for conformance to our ideology!

Yes, Khanna's memo does indicate disorganization at the RSC. To wit: someone
was hired at the RSC not understanding what the job of the RSC is, or,
alternatively, the RSC failed to predict that someone working for the RSC
might go rogue and announce a policy objective that doesn't promote hard-right
conservatism. Khanna says "my memo was reviewed the same way all policy memos
at RSC are reviewed". My guess is he's right, and that _no_ policy memo at the
RSC receives scrutiny, because everyone already knows what to expect from any
RSC policy ever. Cut taxes. Slash spending. Delegate power to the states.
Eliminate regulations. Bash the Administration. Drill ANWR. Repeal EPA climate
change regulations.

Just repeating the RSC's policy positions makes me sound like a DailyKos
commenter. I'm not caricaturing them. The RSC really is everything every HN'er
believes they hate about the whole GOP.

The idea that the RSC was seriously going to be the host for sweeping
copyright reform is fanciful. What really probably happened is, Khanna is a
smart guy, his role at RSC writing little memos saying _"this bill does not
increase the scope of the federal government" "this bill does increase the
scope of the federal government" "this bill does not increase the scope of the
federal government" "this bill does not increase the scope of the federal
government" "this bill does not increase the scope of the federal government"_
was a dead end, and he staged a huge PR coup to find his next gig. More power
to him. But let's stop pretending this is some signal of a sea change in US
government.

~~~
temphn
It may well be that hard-right conservatives are opposed to copyright reform.
But I think you will have to agree that progressives are likewise unlikely to
cover themselves in glory here, as many of the most vicious and relentless
lobbyists for maximalist copyright come from progressive redoubts like
Hollywood, the RIAA, and NYC media.

~~~
tptacek
I think establishment liberals and conservatives have all (correctly) come to
the conclusion that might does not make right, and the fact that it has become
absurdly easy to violate copyrights for the noble cause of "I am entitled to
watch _Resident Evil: Retribution_ on any terms I like" does not somehow
obsolete copyright.

Every time my fellow nerds see fit to inform me of how outmoded copyrights and
rights-supported business models are in the era of the Internet and
BitTorrent, I think of how outmoded their business models are, built as they
all are on the idea that anyone in the world couldn't pop a shell on them at
any moment and wipe their databases clean.

But then I remember that they've also stuck up for DDOS attacks as "the
digital equivalent of a sit-in", and I give up.

~~~
kbolino
I don't know where in the grand scheme of things we decided that knowledge was
a form of might, and that its application was inherently wrong. It's
furthermore a bit rich to decry the "might" of an individual versus
comparatively vast and powerful legal entities like governments and
corporations.

I really ought to be able to _consume_ content that I have purchased in a
manner of my choosing. It's preposterous to me that I can't play a single-
player game because the game company's servers are down, or that I can't keep
a backup copy of a movie that's stored on a fragile medium, or that the maker
of my electronic device can rescind access to books that I've purchased.

I don't take issue with business models based upon copyright because they're
"outmoded"; I take issue with the provision of a privilege that exceeds its
mandate. Also, I take issue with the idea of calling something "property"
without attaching to it any of the trappings of property. Disney pays no tax
for "owning" Mickey Mouse. They are not required to estimate in a consistent
or coherent manner the value of their "property". They can sue for damages
without regard to any actual costs. They can attach limitations to physical
property (storage media) that abrogate normal property rights (use and
resale).

Yes, there are people who want to tear down copyright simply because they want
free stuff. I am not one of those people; I gladly pay for the media I
consume, and I use my power as a consumer to favor reasonably priced and less
restricted media. But that does not make the system we have acceptable, and it
does not make any and all criticism of it illegitimate.

~~~
tptacek
_It's preposterous to me that I can't play a single-player game because the
game company's servers are down_

Then don't buy the damn game. How hard is that?

~~~
kbolino
_I use my power as a consumer to favor reasonably priced and less restricted
media_

That's me, in the post to which you replied, making the same point.

 _IF_ I know beforehand, I won't buy the game. But how do you find out that a
single-player game doesn't work when its vendor's servers go down? By owning
the game and finding out first-hand (it's not printed on the box). Have you
ever tried to _return_ a piece of opened software? If the defect isn't on the
disc, exchanging it won't do any good.

You cannot appeal to a free market argument like _caveat emptor_ once you've
already acceded to a decidedly non-anarchistic world where the government
grants and enforces copy and license rights. Consumers have positive rights
too, like the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a
particular purpose.

You can be cavalier and abrasive as long as you're right; when you're not
right, then you're just being an ass.

------
mullingitover
My takeaway is that from here on out, nobody at the Republican Study Committee
is going to publish anything but party propaganda for fear of losing their
job.

~~~
tptacek
You're right, because that is more or less the purpose of the Republican Study
Committee. Their core function is to take all the legislation proposed in the
House and produce a summary that says whether any conservative action groups
oppose it and whether the bill conforms to the ideology of conservative
Republicans (no new taxes, no mandates on state governments, no increase in
the scope of government).

The idea that copyright reform was ever going to come out of the RSC is a bit
of a fantasy.

------
jacoblyles
The Republican Party isn't stupid, it's inept. It's slogans are rooted in
political battles that took place 80 years ago. Do young folk even care about
"small government"? No, we care about "good government" and "innovation". Dear
Mr. Romney, you are pitching to the anti-Roosevelt faction of the country and
it is rapidly shrinking.

If the GOP pushed an "innovation" platform, they would be much better suited
for the next 50 years of politics (copyright reform, low regulation, low
taxes, greater skilled immigration).

Of course, like 0 GOP people read Hacker News, so I should be leaving this
comment elsewhere.

~~~
pekk
It isn't true at all that 0 GOP people read Hacker News. A lot of people here
have a strong interest in reduced taxes, deregulation, and privatization
(included in 'small government').

~~~
cbs
_A lot of people here have a strong interest in reduced taxes, deregulation,
and privatization (included in 'small government')._

This is what I hate about political messaging. All of those vague terms are
nice and all, but the different ways to implement/achieve them are all over
the political spectrum.

That is not a refutation of the idea 0 repubs are on HN. I know they're here,
but you're merely saying some people on HN happen to agree with some of the
vaguest of vague messaging ideals also used by the R's.

~~~
pekk
There is nothing ambiguous about wanting low taxes, or deregulation, or
privatization.

~~~
cbs
Everyone can say they want that, within a very large subset of the political
spectrum. There just happens to be one party within that subset that is really
loud about wanting those things. They want those things, and they want it
implemented in their specific ways, to benefit their specific financiers. But
by no means do they have the monopoly on those laudable goals.

------
protomyth
At this point, the Republican party probably should reexamine its relationship
with Big Media. It isn't very well supported at the rank-and-file level (not
that the Speaker seems to care about them), and they tend to support the
Democrats more. Derek Khanna's memo was pretty sane. There have been "Reps. /
Senators from Disney" of both parties, but it would be a good thing for the
Republicans to get out of that mold.

~~~
_delirium
Hollywood in particular isn't very popular among rank-and-file Republicans,
but I'm not sure copyright in general isn't. It's anecdotal, but a lot of
conservatives I know are pro-enforcement because they see it as part of the
core conservative support for strong property rights. To weaken that, you'd
have to convince more people that IP != property.

~~~
pekk
And yet a lot of the super-wealthy Hollywood establishment has the same kind
of interest in low taxes and deregulation as many GOP voters. Rupert Murdoch
has a huge stake in media companies and his conservatism is by no means
exceptional. Sure, Matt Damon and George Clooney are outspoken liberals - but
there are a ton of actors who aren't, and actors aren't the most important
people in Hollywood.

~~~
protomyth
I've often thought that the best bill to introduce if the national GOP finally
had enough of Big Media would be a "truth in royalty accounting act" or the
"Yes, Forest Gump made money act". It would be very fun to watch each studio's
news division spin that.

------
w1ntermute
Direct link to PDF of report: [http://marylandpirates.com/wp-
content/uploads/rsc_policy_bri...](http://marylandpirates.com/wp-
content/uploads/rsc_policy_brief_--
_three_myths_about_copyright_law_and_where_to_start_to_fix_it_--
_november_16_2012.pdf)

------
altcognito
The article is a bit disingenuous. Both sides are not the same, but both do
tend to cater to the big media companies pretty readily.

~~~
binarybits
What's the disingenuous part?

~~~
altcognito
A bit of a mountain out of a molehill but...

First, the article is setup as if Khanna was being held hostage over this
disagreement.(By contrasting his time while he was on the payroll with how he
was now a "free-agent" because he was no longer on the GOP payroll. Then there
is implication that the internal response of the GOP to his memo was driven by
the content industry.

None of the above is disingenuous until we get to the blogger quote talking
about how the GOP is just beholden to money interests. What's the value of
that quote? You immediately throw in this disclaimer like sentence about how
they could change their stance for their own benefit, but why put the quote in
there in the first place?

