I missed a bunch of cuts here. Apparently, the true magic of Hatch’s strategy will happen today. It will be hard to follow, because it will all happen so quickly. But this is the plan:
The House has passed HR 2391, the CREATE Act, which modifies how collaboration affects patentability.
Apparently, Senator Hatch will substitute that bill today, and plug in:
(1) HR 3632, which regulates the trafficking in fraudulent labels (including watermarks?), as well as a sentencing enhancement for using a falsely registered domain name in the commission of your offense, as well as
(2) HR 4077, which, among other things, includes the following:
(a) the PIRATE Act, which increases copyright enforcement power
(b) the ART Act, which criminalizes camcording in a theater
(c) a sense of Congress that P2P is bad (really)
(d) a reduction of the criminal copyright liability standard, to make it easier to catch file-sharers (the new standard is in the extended entry below)
(e) the Family Movie Act, which codifies ClearPlay-like technology
So what’s the politics of all this: By my count, (1) lots for the content industry, (2) one bit for family values (ClearPlay), (3) zero for the pubic domain.
UPDATE: PublicKnowledge has an action center.
The new standard for criminal infringement will be:
by the offering for distribution to the public by electronic means, with reckless dis-regard of the risk of further infringement, during any 180-day period, of�
(A) 1,000 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works,
(B) 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works with a total retail value of more than $10,000, or
(C) 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted pre-release works,
Hatch seems to believe that opposition to his bills comes from their hard-to-remember names. Why else would he spend so much time creating names such as ART, INDUCE and CREATE?
Perhaps if he spent as much time actually thinking of ways to encourage creation, art and other beneficial activities, he would have created better bills.
Have anyone tried to formalize and put into the legal language definition of important terms, like “creativity”, “culture” and “artist”. Not easy task, but stakes are high.
I believe if you americans will try to introduce things like that and lobby MPAA/RIAA to use this terms, it will become more or less obvious, that they are just parasites of current content distribution system.
Shall job like “artist” being codified? and results of his “creativity”/work? and where they do belong – “culture”? Can culture be private? (Hm. Can air be made private? – so everyone will have to pay for every breath he takes. Reminds me some old science fiction, where one guy have built big air pump, pumped all air from earth and was selling air to gov’s. RIAA/MPAA want something like that.)
My opinion, that MPAA/RIAA won first round – they have implanted and populated term “intellectual property.” Sounds good, but in practice it tries to make something we take for granted public – culture – private property.
zero for the public domain
professor lessig what portion of HR 4077 interferes with an artist’s right to release her work under a creative commons license, or with no copyright whatsoever?
instead of creating a huge registration bureaucracy would it not be more efficient (at least in the beginning until your side wins) to promote registration for works released under less restrictive copyright than the law allows?
once free culture has conquered greedy capitalism, then it may be appropriate to require the remaining few copyright extremists to endure the cost and burden of registration, but until then it would seem to be placing the burden on the wrong artists.
“professor lessig [sic] what portion of HR 4077 interferes with an artist�s right to release her work under a creative commons license”
The portion that allows the multinational media conglomerates to maintain their monopolistic grip on media distribution that effectively snuffs out all artists ability to make a living.
The majors can�t sell squat without millions in promotion. If the music was any good then the songs could sell themselves, but then there would be no escape from risk. Under the current paradigm art cannot flourish if it must rely on its intrinsic value to be sold. All of the distribution channels are clogged with advertisements that block out the sun like a plague of insects, thereby, preventing art from promoting itself.
Query to the three blind mice: Would a copyright term of five years promote the creation and distribution of creative works or hinder creation and distribution?
How is the current copyright act constitutional when the Constitution limits Congresses� power to regulate to �useful arts�? What is so useful about a Jessica/ Ashley Simpson song?
For three blind mice:
It may sound like heresy, but I recognize the reasoning behind giving all copyright holders maximum control over the copyrighted works, and permitting them to decide which rights to reserve when they distribute.
Then again, I wonder if copyright holders really need maximum control, or simply enough control to cover their costs and earn a reasonable ROI.
In his newest book, Lessig likens current copyright law with real estate laws that would permit land owners to charge people for taking pictures of their property or for enjoying the smell of flowers planted on their property. It seems reasonable for Congress to take another look at copyright law to see if, perhaps, that is the case. I’m not convinced it is, but I think it deserves a look.
Lobbying Congress to at least reconsider the decision to grant “maximum copyright” (and to let the copyright holders to sort it out) seems reasonable, especially if that decision may hinder the progress of science and useful arts.
I believe this is similar to the idea behind Creative Commons.
Copyright infringement does require access to the original work, so registration isn’t as necessary as in (say) patent law, where a person can create an infringing device while living completely isolated from civilization, and without any knowlege of the patent. (In patent law, after getting a cease and desist letter, I am guaranteed a chance to look at the patent to see exactly what is patented so I can decide what steps I should take.)
Then again, there is a lot to be said for copyright registration. Autozone’s response to its SCO lawsuit includes relevant points:
SCO, of course, was trying to game the court system, however it appears that the registration requirement helped bring this gaming attempt to light.
On the other hand, nobody really wants to refile registration whenever a bug fix is added to a computer program. It appears that copyright was designed for books and songs, and some assumptions (like the lack of newer versions) need to be revisited.
I wouldn’t mind getting rid of the registration requirement, if some other mechanism could weed out attempts to game the system.
My opposition to the bill modifying registration is that it declares inaccurate registrations to be valid in all cases. It seems smarter to let courts make that determination after looking at the details of what was inaccurate.
While I believe some of the major opponents to current copyright law are also opponents of capitalism, I don’t think all of us are. I, myself, am not (although I’m not as opposed to new copyright developments as others).
I don’t really see how this bill could be very bad.
The Three Blind Mice made a good point – there is
nothing in the bill that can stop an author or
artist from using a Creative Commons license (except
CC GNU GPL that overrides the copyright law) or
dedicating his/her work to the public domain.
Moreover, the bill does not reduce the customer’s
power in deciding whether to buy a copyrighted
work and if so, choosing which copyrighted work to
purchase.
I for one would be glad to see the bill hand more
severe punishment for the willful or habitual
infringers. They are the ones that cast bad light
on the majority who try or want to do the legal
ways in using copyrighted works.
To raoul, We can’t take the word “useful” too literal.
Else, the majority of the copyright works should not
have copyright at the first place. Also, who is to
decide how useful a work is?
Joseph Pietro Riolo
<[email protected]>
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions
in this comment in the public domain.
Well, Pietro, I can almost agree with you. However, the statement “except CC GNU GPL that overrides the copyright law” needs correction.
The GNU GPL is nothing but a long copyright notice, that could be rephrased “Copyright (Year, Author), All rights reserved. Permission granted to copy, modify, and distribute provided. …” I’ve seen similar notices in books (“permission granted to copy this page for personal use”), so I can’t understand why certain groups claim the GPL is invalid or overrides copyright law.
Umm… Public domain, please. 🙂