RSC Policy Brief: Three Myths about Copyright Law and Where to Start to Fix It

Republican Study Committee ^ | November 16, 2012 | Republican Study Committee

[Utmost Certainty]

I ran across this, and surprisingly found it to be an encouraging policy idea. I've tried to summarize the key points in brief—feel free to read the full paper at the link. It's not too long.

IMO, this is a genuinely conservative idea worth advancing. I think anyone supporting the Constitution would generally be in favor of this.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

Thank you for posting. When I heard a pothead rocker claiming that he needed to keep the copyright on his music so that he would have enough money to send his GRANDCHILDREN through college that was all I needed to say enough is enough!

[MetaThought]

This is a genuine free market (as opposed to pro-business) idea. Sounds like it might be worth advancing.

[Pajamajan]

bookmark

[allmendream]

Arts and science are advanced by making it profitable to the originator of the intellectual property. I imagine there might be a public good to be found in confiscation of any property, but it sure doesn’t encourage investing in that property subject to confiscation.

[Irenic]

Straying but branching off your comment.

I had been a huge Tom Petty fan, he pitched a fit about his song being used during the a Bush campaign and he went after Bachmann for using American Girl.

He had claimed he wasn’t political and didn’t want his songs used in that way. I could respect that, as he has always fought that sort of thing. Record labels and all...

The DNC convention rolls around and what happens?! His song plays and I was thinking ah-ha! the DNC is going to get their butt chewed off.

What did Petty do/say about THAT?
—Tom Petty “Got Chills” When the DNC Played His Song “I Won’t Back Down” as Obama walked on stage.

Well, I won’t be spending a penny on this mans music ever again. He is a fake.

[Utmost Certainty]

This isn’t advocating a complete abandonment of copyright law altogether, but merely reforming it back to how it was originally conceived by the Founders.

[onona]

Copyright laws have been in place damn near forever.

They work.

Leave them alone you progressive bastiges.

[allmendream]

The concept of the founders was that arts and sciences would be advanced through securing exclusive rights. And they were correct. There is a reason why so much scientific advancement is made in the USA.

Advancing arts and science was the aim and exclusive rights for a limited time was the means to enact that aim.

A well regulated militia was the aim and the recognition of the right of the people to keep and bear arms was the means to enact that aim.

[Utmost Certainty]

I am aware.

This isn’t suggesting that copyright laws be abolished.

[Utmost Certainty]

Except copyright laws in their current incarnation are deterring innovation. As the paper points out:

• Original Copyright Law: 14 years, plus 14 year renewal if author is alive.
• Current Copyright Law: Life of author plus 70 years; and for corporate authors 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication.

[allmendream]

In 1790 patents were issued for the term of FOURTEEN years, with the right to renew for another FOURTEEN years!

So by all means, restore it back to what was envisioned by the founders. But that isn’t what you really wanted now is it?

[Utmost Certainty]

Gee, I guess not. Thanks for letting me know what my real motives were all along, I had no idea!

[allmendream]

Patents for 28 years might indeed slow innovation. Because they deal with useful discoveries and processes.

But what innovation comes from cheap imitation of someone’s original content? DJs? Really? THAT is your number one example? LOL!!!!

[Utmost Certainty]

It's not my #1 example—it's an example, and I didn't write this paper.

Apparently you overlooked the others listed:

B. Hampering scientific inquiry
C. Stifling the creation of a public library
D. Discouraging added-value industries
E. Penalizing legitimate journalism and oversight

B & C in particular concern how current copyright laws hamper the propagation of useful knowledge.

I don't understand why you're engaging in such a petty argument. If you think the current laws for copyright are wonderful and that this is a stupid policy idea, fine, just say so and move on.

[cameraeye]

If you listen to talk radio, they all use under 30 seconds of music or speeches with impunity. Having faced copyright infringement many years ago (I was forgiven), I scratch my head at this being allowed at all?

[allmendream]

I didn’t overlook it simp. I was pointing out to you that it doesn’t go with the rest of the idiotic argument. Scientific patents are for significantly less than 28 years, as they were in the time of the founders.

What was backup example #1? Fifty Shades of Gray needed to be published as Twilight fan fiction? Lol!

[Utmost Certainty]

Lol, clearly you didn't even read the paper. Since you obviously you need mental hand-holding like a little child, I'll paste what you didn't bother to inform yourself on:

B. Hampering scientific inquiry:
Scientific papers from the early portion of the 20th century are still under copyright… This is illogical, as the purpose of most scientific papers is to further intellectual inquiry, and the goal of most authors of scientific papers is to advance their field and to be cited in other publications. Many professors are assessed upon the number of citations for their major works. For these reasons, keeping their work in what are effectively locked vaults defeats the purpose of much of their work.

Obviously these producers need to be compensated to justify the cost of their research, but after around14 years, most, if not nearly all, of the earning capacity of their work has been exhausted, and at that point the overriding interest is in ensuring that these works are available for others. While there are exceptions in the law for the use of this material for good faith exceptions, there are numerous examples where for-profit entities want to use published journal articles but are unable to do so without negotiating a payment to the producer of the content.

If however, these older papers were available online for free on Google Scholar to anyone to access and use after a reasonable period of time then it would greatly increase the availability and utilization of scientific analysis.

C. Stifling the creation of a public library:
Many of our country’s smartest and most successful people were autodidacts who taught themselves far beyond that of conventional studies through intellectual inquiry of their own and a voracious appetite for reading. Benjamin Franklin conceived the idea of a subscription library because libraries allow for information to be democratized to the masses. Today the sheer amount of information available to the average person is several orders of magnitude beyond that available in 1990, let alone in 1790. But still today an enormous amount of intellectual knowledge in locked behind physical books, rather than accessible on the general internet.

Project Gutenberg is trying to change that by becoming an online repository for a readable/downloadable version of every book available without copyright. Project Gutenberg’s full potential will be to provide the greatest amount of intellectual knowledge ever assembled in the history of the world to any person with the click of a button.

But this potential of knowledge drops off around 1923 when materials are not in the public domain. Imagine the potential for greater learning as a result of obtaining books from the 1920-1980 periods. Assigned books in high school classes could be all downloaded to a student’s Kindle, rather than bought in a book store. The threshold cost for learning will virtually vanish, and with that, the potential for greater learning would skyrocket.

From a technological perspective, the data size of books is very small - for example, every book in the Kindle store could fit on one of the largest available consumer hard drives – thus in a few years it may be technologically possible to have every book ever written on our computer or IPAD at the click of a button (though not necessarily worthwhile because it’s easier to just access the books you need when you need them online).

[allmendream]

And let us not forget about the DJs!

Scientific inquiry is not hampered by copyright. Almost all scientific journals are available free, for a small fee, or through a University library.

If we issued patents for 28 years, as it was in the time of the founders, that would slow scientific innovation. So what you posted is a self contradictory mess.

Is downloading pirated music your next example? That is a value added industry? And how about that Twilight fan fiction?

[Utmost Certainty]