Corporate Counsel
  • Home
  • News
  • Surveys
  • Resources
  • Lawjobs
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Bookstore
  • Contact

Topics » IP Insider | Labor & Employment | From the Experts | On the Job | Moves | DC Watch | International

Home > Forget the Fiscal Cliff, How About Copyright Reform?

Font Size: increase font decrease font

Forget the Fiscal Cliff, How About Copyright Reform?

By Lisa Shuchman Contact All Articles 

Corporate Counsel

November 21, 2012

  •    
  •    
  •    
  •       Comments (4)
 
Rep. Darrell Issa

Rep. Darrell Issa

Move over patent reform. Copyright reform may be the next big IP issue headed for public debate.

Last Friday, the Republican Study Committee, an influential conservative caucus of House Republicans, released a report advocating major copyright reform that could have helped win the hearts and minds, to say nothing of the votes, of young, tech-savvy citizens who view U.S. copyright law as restrictive and outdated. 

This would have been no small feat, as many of these young voters are young Democrats -- a population that in the recent election overwhelmingly supported President Obama.

But within 24 hours, the RSC removed the report from its website. The committee’s executive director, Paul Teller, issued an apology, saying the report “was published without adequate review.” 

Technology writers and digital rights advocates didn’t buy it. “The idea that this was published “without adequate review” is silly,” wrote Mike Masnick of the popular technology blog Techdirt, noting that nothing appears on the RSC website without going through a full review process. The headline for the story describing the event in the online magazine “Boing Boing” shouted “Cowardice” and “Gutless Republicans,” and the story itself was topped with a large photo of a chicken.

The general consensus in multiple news reports was that the RSC bowed to pressure from the motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America – two organizations that have lobbied to expand copyright law. The MPAA referred all questions to the Republican Study Committee and the RIAA denied it had requested the report be removed. But the report’s short-lived existence brought the issue front and center, and if reform advocates have their way, what had been a simmering discussion may soon become a full-fledged debate.

“The bad news for the movie studios and record companies is that the discussion about how to make copyright law make sense in a digital age has already started in Washington, and it will continue, with our without them,” Gigi Sohn, an attorney and president and co-founder of the public policy non-profit Public Knowledge, wrote in her blog.

Indeed, Public Knowledge and others advocating for change to the copyright system have at least one ally in Congress. Rep. Darell Issa, who sits on the Judiciary Committee and its Intellectual Property, Competition and the Internet Subcommittee, wrote on his Twitter account Monday that the report was a “very interesting copyright reform proposal” and "It's time to start this copyright reform conversation."

The Congressman, who emerged as a leader on issues related to Internet rights earlier this year when he opposed the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), has already said he plans to make digital rights a priority in the new Congress.

Internet and tech-savvy activists ardently opposed SOPA, which was aimed at foreign websites that violate U.S. copyright laws. They said the law was overly broad and would hamper online speech. They also want to see changes made to current copyright law, including some of those proposed in the Republican report that officially no longer exists.

The report, written by a young RSC staffer named Derek Khanna, is highly critical of the current copyright system, which it says “violates nearly every tenet of laissez-faire capitalism” and gives content producers a “government subsidized content-monopoly.”

It starts by describing the original constitutional purpose of copyright protection and argues that the current system has veered away from the intent. It says the law as it stands favors content creators instead of focusing on the public good or what will promote the most productivity and innovation.

It concludes with a number of recommendations: It calls for a shortened copyright term, which under current law is equal to an author’s life plus 70 years. It recommends reducing statutory damages, which under current law can total up to $150,000 per infringement. It recommends that penalties for “bad faith” copyright claims be increased. And it advocates for the expansion of fair use.

But these recommendations were too far-reaching for the RSC, which said it released the report in error. It failed to take into account “the range of perspectives held by RSC members and within the conservative community,” the executive director said in a statement.

Advocates for change are hoping the RSC’s “error” will be the impetus for getting that range of perspectives aired in public. “We hope that this initial release does in fact reflect a serious effort to move the Congressional dialogue on copyright forward to deal with the problems that citizens, consumers, and creators have long recognized,” Public Knowledge’s Sohn said.

Even those accused of maneuvering to have the report removed seem aware that the time for public debate may have come. “We appreciate that there are many thoughtful perspectives on ensuring that the copyright laws adequately protect creativity and culture while fostering innovation,” Mitch Glazier, the RIAA’s senior executive vice president said in a statement. “And we look forward to an ongoing dynamic dialogue about these vital issues.”
 



Subscribe to Corporate Counsel

You must be signed in to comment on an article

 

Reader Comments

  • Vanilla Ice My Copyright Reform

    November 28, 2012 08:54 AM

    In case the post title isn't clear enough, let me elaborate:
    Herein lies the problem w/ such "wide-sweeping copyright reform" --It's not Us v Them where "Them" is the music, movie/TV and book industries and "Us" is the World Wide Web User...
    Its not even Us v Them where the "Them" is the collection of ISPs v "Us" the WWW Users...

    It IS the "Us" v "Them" where the "Us" is anyone who effectively asserts their creative efforts and talents to share (or not share) with an audience they select (control) or to distribute such works to a profitable platform of their choosing (control,)
    V.
    the "Them" who see fit to take any creation of their fancy for FREE and without ANY consideration for the Creator of the work. I.e. the Vanilla Ice generation.
    To really bring it home; It's ME versus my Daughter. Feel me now?

  • Ethicalfan

    November 21, 2012 04:07 PM

    Piracy by data volume in the US grew by 40% from 2011 to 2012 and Cisco forecasts that it will double by 2015.

  • Ethicalfan

    November 21, 2012 02:51 PM

    42% of all US Internet upload traffic is used to illegally distribute music, movies, tv shows, games, software and books. That is the equivalent of 31 billion movies if it was all movies. Pro-piracy advocates say it is impossible to reduce piracy. It is very possible. US law says that ISPs only have safe harbor from their subscribers illegally distributing content if they have a policy for terminating repeat infringers (17 USC 512 (i). Many ISPs terminate repeat infringers and have less piracy on their networks. Many do not. If all US ISPs were doing following the law, 42% of all US internet upstream traffic wouldn't be used to illegally distribute music, movies, games, software and ebooks. Pro-piracy advocates say that ISPs cant know who the repeat infringers are. ISPs get millions of infringement notices. It is very easy for them to know which accounts have received thousands of infringement notices over half a dozen months.

  • Ethicalfan

    November 21, 2012 02:44 PM

    The tech industry's assault on copyright has decreased the wages of US musicians by 45% according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. ISPs have built a $50B a year broadband business while the US recording industry has decreased from $12B to $6B, the US Home Video Industry has decreased from $26B in 2006 to $18B in 2011. The US Video Game industry (console and PC) has decreased 13%. A very small group of people have benefitted from the assualt on copyright. The founders and investors in Youtube sold the company to Google for $3B and never paid the hundreds of thousands of individual people and the companies that represent them who held the rights to those videos. Their claim that copyright is "a barrier to innovation" could not be more disingenous. Copyright allows individual creatives to be paid for their work and it creates incentive for investors to invest in creative work. The tech companies want to be able to continue to make billions on the backs of creative people and pay them nothing.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Post a Comment »
Find similar content

Companies, agencies mentioned

    
  • Intellectual Property
  • Democrats
  • Subcommittee
  • MPAA
  • Republican Study Committee
  • Picture Association of America
  • House Republicans
  • Recording Industry Association of America
  • Judiciary Committee

Key categories

    
  • Copyright

Most viewed stories

    
  1. Best Legal Departments 2013
    •      
  2. Bloomberg Names Compliance Chief After Client Data Breach
    •      
  3. Facebook's General Counsel is Leaving Company
    •      
  4. 6 Things In-House Counsel Must Know About E-Discovery
    •      
  5. Wage-and-Hour Suits Up for Fifth Straight Year
    •      
lawjobs.com

TOP JOBS

MORE JOBS

POST A JOB

From the Law.com Network

3-D Printing: The Next Big Thing in IP Law?

Best Legal Departments 2013

News Corp. Hires Ex-Skadden Communications Chief Bush

Law Firm Leaders' Confidence Slipping, Says Survey

Contrite Companies Can Win Forgiveness in Bribery Cases
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Plaintiffs Want to See Toyota's 'Crown Jewels'
  •      
    • Subscription Required

CEIC: the Destination for Digital Investigation

Using Computer Forensics to Investigate IP Theft

Prolific ADA Plaintiff Faces Nemesis in Harassment Suit

Ullyot Exit Closes Chapter for Facebook
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Rothstein Bankruptcy Trustee Files New Reorganization Plan
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Fla. Bar Wants Disbarment for Former Judge
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Bar Candidate Quits N.Y. Job To Satisfy N.J. Practice Bylaw

Pro Bono Work Proposed as Condition for Bar Admission
  •      
    • Subscription Required

The Affordable State-Specific Practice Solution
Available in NY, NJ, PA and CT editions - research, draft and prepare even the most complex cases with ease.

Judge in Stop-and-Frisk Case Relishes Her Independence

Ground Is Shifting in 14-Year Litigation

High Court Names Evers as the FJD's Court Administrator
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Third Circuit Rules Against Citgo in Case Over Oil Spill

Law Schools Are Looking Beyond LSATs, Says Mich. Dean

Is Freezing Your Eggs the Solution?

Litigator of the Week: Who Needs a Jury Consultant?
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Sanction Reversed; Filing of Sexually Explicit Chat OKd
  •      
    • Subscription Required

DeKalb Judge Dismisses, Then Recuses

Jury Finds For Attorney In Legal-Mal Case
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Corporate Bribery Case Part Of National Trend
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Court Continues To Grant Lawyers Fraud Immunity
  •      
    • Subscription Required

  • About |
  • ALM Properties |
  • ALM Reprints |
  • Customer Support |
  • Privacy Policy |
  • Terms & Conditions |
  • ALM User License Agreement
ALM Media