|03-25-2014, 07:28 PM||#1|
Join Date: Aug 2013
Congressman Nadler: Copyright Law Won’t Change This Year, Maybe Next
Looks like a major rewrite is a-comin'.
|03-25-2014, 07:58 PM||#2|
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Monroe Wisconsin
Device: K3, Kindle Paperwhite, Calibre, and Mobipocket for Pc (netbook)
Someone should tell em in Washington that re-writing the rules every year or so isn't fair use of their governmental powers.
|03-25-2014, 08:28 PM||#3|
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Philadelphia USA
Device: Kindle Keyboard 3G
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.
|03-25-2014, 08:40 PM||#4|
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Rural NW Oregon
Device: Kindle Voyage, Kindle Fire HD, Kindle 3, KPW1
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.
|03-26-2014, 10:16 AM||#5|
Join Date: Jun 2011
Device: Kobo Touch, Nexus 7 (2013)
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.
Last edited by Ninjalawyer; 03-26-2014 at 10:24 AM.
|Thread Tools||Search this Thread|
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|Canadian Copyright Law||Ralph Sir Edward||Upload Help||4||10-05-2012 04:59 PM|
|UK review of copyright law for new media||paola||News||11||05-19-2011 05:41 AM|
|Supreme Court decides 16 year olds understand copyright law||Fbone||Lounge||11||12-02-2010 01:28 PM|
|Current US copyright law||Ralph Sir Edward||Upload Help||2||08-19-2009 07:48 PM|
|getting around copyright law||sic||Workshop||2||12-08-2006 03:56 PM|