Republicans do not want to be for reform

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Sydde, Nov 26, 2012.

  1. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #1
    On Friday, the Republican Study Committee released this memo authored by Derek Khanna (small pdf), a relative newcomer, I guess. It says that current copyright law is basically anathema to free market principles and at odds with the intent expressed in the Constitution. A day later, the memo was purged from the site. Of course, the internets has many eyes, images never die (arrgh, I have kittehs saying cute things seared into my retinas), the file was caught and replicated before it could vanish (I wonder what copyright law might have to offer on that, hmm).

    So, the Rs are not a truly homogenous bloc of vile scum, as some of us would have the rest of us believe. Only the leadership seem to be that, I guess. Sadly, powerful forces (the ones who own lots of IP) do not even want us to think about discussing this issue. Ars has this on the story.
     
  2. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #2
    So, a Republican (the only Republican, I guess) made a statement that he supports the current law, and said statement is pulled.

    What's this thread about again? Oh...

     
  3. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #3
    Reform is one thing.

    But as someone who once (and may still) create content, I do value some degree of protection of that creativity.

    The key word being some.
     
  4. Sydde thread starter macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #4
    No, a Republican wrote a 9-page memo outlining why the current law needs to be reined in (a lot). Sorry that I failed to quote it. The memo was then pulled by the RSC leadership, apparently because they were pressured by big copyright owners.

    ----------

    The proposal would limit copyright protection to a max of 46 years, with escalating renewal fees based on generated revenue. Current copyright extends to 70 years beyond the death of the author.
     
  5. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #5
    My apologies. So...

    So, a Republican (the only Republican, I guess) made a statement that he supports changing the current law, and said statement is pulled, presumably because of RSC leadership pressured by big copyright owners.

    What's this thread about again? Oh...

    Hopefully, I got it right that time.

    I think the copyright laws should change. When I studied copyright laws my third year in law school, I disliked that it didn't give more protection to copyright holders. Having looked at it yourself, what would you change about the copyright laws? You have me curious.
     
  6. Sydde thread starter macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #6
    I have dilettante-familiarity of IP laws. As I recall, patents die stone dead after 17 years, trademarks are perpetual, and copyrights can last 120 years. I think that is a ridiculous term for copyrights, material should fall into the PD much much sooner. Knowledge and art should not be inaccessible, prohibitively expensive or someone's cash cow (why should the grandchildren of J.P. Souza collect royalties on his music?).
     
  7. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #7
    I could live with that.
     

Share This Page