Congress Posts Critical Copyright Report . . . Then It Vanishes

260px-capitol_building_full_viewWe have repeatedly discussed the absurdity of U.S. copyright laws and how law firms have become virtual thug patrols threatening average citizens with ruin over small copyright violations. President Obama has been repeatedly criticized for being in the pocket of “copyright hawks” and lobbyists who have used the Administration to increase the penalties and scope of these laws. The Congress has also been a virtual extension of industry groups and lobbyists in the area. For that reason, many people were shocked when Rep. Jim Jordan published a critical report entitled RSC Policy Brief: Three Myths about Copyright Law and Where to Start to Fix it.” It was a strong condemnation of how these laws are not stifling creativity and various industries. It was the first such report anyone could remember that was not written by lobbyists for draconian copyright laws. Then it was gone. Gone. According to various sites, the eight page document was removed from the website. Some sites opined that the various industry groups saw it and quashed it — but not before some sites like the one below copied it.

If it is true that lobbyists stomped on the document, it is a remarkable public demonstration (again) of the control exercised over Congress, which made the mistake of speaking without industry approval.

By the way, the first myth is “The purpose of copyright is to compensate the creator of the content.”

Here is the report on one site where it has not mysteriously disappeared.

Source: Brought Turner

24 thoughts on “Congress Posts Critical Copyright Report . . . Then It Vanishes”

  1. in reference to the ‘noble commentary one’…..
    Brilliant Observation….your a Scholar of snort
    errrr ..sort

  2. Several thoughts to consider:
    —-JT writes so to see if we are awake. Unfortunately it happens so often that I hardly believe that explanation, and then remember my own “lost” NOTS.

    —-Some “creative” writers are my friends. What the copyright law is, I am not certain, but I am certain that they feel inhibited even viewing net material before checking to see if is an illegal copy.

    —-I wonder if Jerry Lewis copyrighted his laugh (or whatever)? The stage performer could have replaced the “kick” a “bottom in your face” gesture.

    —-One SF “ultimate vision” handled on a system which retained copies of all music, text, visual, etc material. It was to prevent publication of material which could be regarded as copyright infringement.
    Our creativity was ultimately strangled. No three tone phrase was left to discover and develop.

    —-Maybe some Republicans are NOT braindead, only their leadership has run out of ideas

    —-I borrow an uncopyrighted phrase from someone who also borrowed it, as a reflection of our leadership. Roughly, Making a mistake once is human. Making it ten times and expecting a different outcome is brain dead..

  3. Democrats are hopeless on this issue because they’re so beholden to Hollywood money. You’d think Republicans would take the lead on fighting this kind of abuse. But, apparently they don’t have it in their DNA to fight against corporate welfare, even when the corporations benefiting from government giveaways are Democratic leaning. This could be a popular political issue for them, especially with younger voters.

  4. A thought occurred to me a while back on this issue.

    small copyright infractions can still be viewed as criminal activity.

    probable cause to issue a search warrant an ransack your home could theoretically be based upon something as stupid as downloading a song.

    That is bad enough, but once they have a search warrant, then ANYTHING they see in your house is fodder for seizure and criminal charges, even your house altogether, depending on what they find.

    The expansion of the search warrant jurisprudence has no bounds.
    It used to be that that a search warrant actually only authorized search and seizures on what was in the warrant, now it can easily be the tail that wags the dog.

  5. Isn’t there a correction to be made to this sentence:

    “It was a strong condemnation of how these laws are not stifling creativity and various industries.”?

    Shouldn’t it read: “how these laws are stifling creativity and various industries”?

    A friend of mine was rehearsing for a show about Ethel Waters. The show got canceled because a writer did not have a contract and blah blah blah. So my friend was later performing one of the songs (“The Joint is Jumpin'”) on stage at a concert but she couldn’t use a certain leg-kick while she sang because somebody or other threatened to SUE HER if she used any of their material, and that leg-kick had been part of the song as she sang it in the rehearsals for the canceled show. So someone else OWNED a leg-kick that she might or might not perform while singing a song that was already out of copyright.

    In another example of ridiculousness, someone for whom I did editing work once had to get paid permission to use an Emily Dickenson poem because the punctuation of the published version was slightly different from the punctuation of the version that was OUT of copyright. Some outfit owned a comma or a dash or a LACK of a comma or a dash.

  6. I read that report, from the link given. Authored by “The Republican Study Committee” and… Wow, it made sense. Seriously, read it, every point there is sensible and the recommendations should be implemented.

  7. Copyrights will soon become unenforceable. Content is king and always will be. The coming meshnet and 3d printer revolutions are gong to turn individuals into secure mini-factories. The only enforcement mehcanism, the ISP, is on its last legs, to be sure, destined to become redundant, much as broadcast TV is today, catering mainly to the easily offended.

    Micro-satellites for all!

  8. We need a website called CopyWright This! We could post everything under copyright, sort of like Kindle does for the stuff that copyright has expired. Something like this could fly if it was set up by the Wright Brothers. You dont want no Coke Brothers involved.

  9. I wonder when there will come a time when one can no longer say of our federal elected officials “We have the best politicians money can buy.” The quality of them seems to be eroding steadily.

  10. The obvious “solution” which is being overlooked, is to interpret “life of the author” in a suitable way: Since corporations are now people, just take the corporation that creates the work (we all know we are mainly talking about Disney) to be the author. Life of the corporation = life of the author. Problem solved! As for authors like Tolkien, just make a corporation to handle his creative work and transfer “authorship” to Tolkien-Legacy-Inc.

  11. Oh my…. Now you see it…. Now you don’t….. If it benefits you you’re crazy if you thought you saw it…..

  12. Gloogling “RSC Policy Brief: Three Myths about Copyright Law and Where to Start to Fix it”, that report is found in a number of websites.

Comments are closed.