Nov
20
2012

The RSC needs to put their IP reform paper back up. (Hi, Brian Straessle!)

Let me save Brian Straessle of the RSC some time: I understand that there currently are “several different perspectives” on US copyright law among their members.  It’s just that this one should be adopted by all of them; it’s a refreshingly blunt and remarkably straightforward argument for ending what is frankly ridiculous copyright regulatory regime in this country.  In fact, something along these lines should be introduced in the House, passed, and then waved in the Senate’s face.  Loudly.  Publicly.  With every technical news site in the country cc’ed.

By the way, I don’t blame Brian.  He’d probably agree with me, in his private capacity. But he needs to let his bosses know that the conservative base is going to be against giving the entertainment industry (which HATES us) a free ride when it comes to intellectual property.  It would also be nice if the tech sites had to go hold some Democratic feet to the fire to get IP reform passed.

15 Comments

  • DemosthenesVW says:

    I am dismayed to see this post from you, Moe. Intellectual property, for all that the current system has been abused, is still a form of PROPERTY, and needs to be protected as such. If you wouldn’t stand for drastic curtailing of physical property rights, why should IP be treated differently? To put it another way, if you wouldn’t stand for a limited-term purchase of your house (subject to limited-term renewals, after which it passes to public ownership regardless of your wishes), why should any book that you write be treated in that fashion?

    • Moe_Lane says:

      …Please read all linked material that I provide before commenting on my posts.

      • DemosthenesVW says:

        I did. And I rather resent the implication that I didn’t.

        • Moe_Lane says:

          If you had read the position paper then you’d know exactly how the author noted the original intent of the Founders on this, precisely how far we’ve warped it since then, and the (worth discussing) reforms needed to correct the problem. If you don’t like the way that the Constitution explicitly distinguishes between copyright and other forms of property rights by limiting the duration of the former, change the Constitution. We just got rid of Mary Bono Mack; we don’t need that particular position filled.

          I repeat: Please read all linked material that I provide before commenting on my posts.

          • DemosthenesVW says:

            Once again, I read the position paper. I am aware of what the Copyright Clause says. And I do maintain that the Constitution is wrong on this matter. As you said, that would require a constitutional amendment to change. Frankly, I doubt the day will ever come when enough of the country would see fit to do so. It’s a pity, but there you are. The Copyright Clause is (part of) the law of the land, and whether I like it or not, that’s the way things will be.

            Still, my position being what I have stated, I am perfectly happy that Congress has (albeit for terrible reasons) extended copyright and patent protection far beyond what the Founders originally intended. And I repeat, I am dismayed at your position, and that of Glenn Reynolds, and everyone else in the blogosphere who likes this idea to drastically re-curtail copyright length. If you believe (as I know you do) in the protection of property rights, you ought to be for extending the heck out of those limits, and thus against pretty much every solution this paper provides. I’m not blind to the abuses of the system, and I have no love for Hollywood right now. Still, it’s a matter of principle for me — not politics.

          • DemosthenesVW says:

            Also, as a personal aside: There was no need for the gratuitous Bono Mack slam against me, much less the repetition of your first insulting comment. I have said nothing that would warrant either.

          • Moe_Lane says:

            Hey, it’s not my fault that you’re on the side of people who deliberately set out to subvert the Constitution and enable a system of perpetual lawsuits simply so that Disney never has to lose control over Steamboat Willie.

          • Moe_Lane says:

            I believe that this conversation is now over, in fact. Feel free to enjoy the rest of the site!

          • DemosthenesVW says:

            Thank you, I will — as I have been doing for several years. The strong disagreement I have with you over this issue doesn’t affect the value I place on the rest of your commentary. And for whatever it’s worth, I appreciate you letting me have my say in your space.

          • Moe_Lane says:

            Fair enough: I’m being a little crotchety this morning anyway (youngest feeling poorly). Sorry for suggesting that you didn’t read the original position paper.

  • zamoose says:

    The immediacy and vigor and outright shock from the left-libertarian types I roll with, online and in person, was palpable. This is such an easy net win for the GOP, it’s staggering. Remember how we lost the youth vote by a HUGE margin this year? Say goodbye to that, utterly, and completely. If we push this through and it even just passes the House (it’ll never make it through the Senate, let alone to O’s desk), the 2014 midterms will be overwhelming in their wavishness.

  • zamoose says:

    Put it another way: youngins like their free birth control, in theory. They like their Napster-descendants, in practice.

  • granitestater says:

    And why the hell are the republicans helping out Hollywood? Is the need for cash from Hollywood pacs really that bad that they’ll take it knowing the actual Hollywood folks will do everything in their power to never elect a republican?

    This is such a win and they’re blowing it. Already.

RSS feed for comments on this post.


Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com