Congressman Nadler: Copyright Law Won’t Change This Year, Maybe Next

[Ken.Hagdal]

http://www.digitalbookworld.com/2014...ar-maybe-next/

Looks like a major rewrite is a-comin'.

[crich70]

Someone should tell em in Washington that re-writing the rules every year or so isn't fair use of their governmental powers.

[SteveEisenberg]

I don't think anything can pass unless the netizens approve. And as soon as netizens learn that Rep. Nadler is generally labeled as a supporter of strong copyright and the music industry, I think the netizens will disapprove whatever he favors.

Personally I would love to see a compromise where shorter copyright terms are more vigorously enforced. But hardly anyone else feels that way, so this has close to zero chance of passage. As for strengthening copyright without some compensating loosening in other areas, chances of that passing are even closer to zero. This is the lesson of SOPA.

We'll see in the next few years if I'm right.

[jgaiser]

He's been in office a bit over a year. A Democrat in a Republican controlled House of Representatives. Speaking to a publishing group. No... I don't expect a lot of useful legislation out of Congressman Nadler.

[Ninjalawyer]

I had a long reply to this, which was eaten by the site.

Based on his previous history, and even the quotes in the article (describing 'you bought it, you own it' for digital goods as extremism), Nadler is a copyright maximalist. He's likely only interested in reforms that increase the one-way ratchet in the U.S. of greater and greater monopoly rights for copyright holders. Previously, he's also proposed copyright for fashion designs and requiring art purchasers to give up some of their ownership rights by requiring them to pay an original artist each time they resell artwork.

In the article, he refers to the problems of the DMCA's notice and takedown provisions. This is an oblique reference to proposed changes that would make this into "notice and stay down". Notice and stay down essentially requires website owners to take down material that a purported copyright owner claims is infringing, and then police all future uploads to make sure the material isn't uploaded again. This sounds like a good idea, until you think about it for a minute and realize: (i) that's incredibly expensive (Google spent millions developing a system like this for YouTube), and probably outside of the capabilities of smaller websites; (ii) it ignores the possibility that the same material can be infringing for one person to upload, but fine for another (due to explicit permission, fair use, etc.); and (iii) it does nothing to address the abuses of the current notice and takedown provisions by copyright holders.

Copyright is supposed to benefit the public. The purpose of copyright is to strike a balance between the harm caused to the public in allowing monopolies on expressions, and encouraging people to create new expressions. Based on his past, Nadler isn't interested in a balanced approach, and doesn't take into consideration the public when he proposes legislation. His only consideration seems to be how he can promote the interests of large businesses for the benefit of his own fundraising efforts.

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

I don't think anything can pass unless the netizens approve. And as soon as netizens learn that Rep. Nadler is generally labeled as a supporter of strong copyright and the music industry, I think the netizens will disapprove whatever he favors.

I think most "netizens" would view reforms proposed by Nadler with scepticism, given his past history of bad ideas and shilling for organizations like the RIAA, but I don't think anyone would reject reforms that are legitimately good ideas (i.e., that balance the rights of the public and copyright holders). Even a broken clock is right twice a day, so maybe Nadler is due.