White House wants to know how much unauthorized copying *really* hurts

[llreader]

Another Ars piece.

The new Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, Victoria Espinel, wants to hear from rights holders about how much pirating is affecting them financially. Nothing new so far, but this looks interesting:

To her credit, Espinel wants good data. The Federal Register notice making this process official says that submitters must include the methodology used in making their calculations, identify the source of their data, and provide "a copy of or a citation to each such source."

That, I want to see.

PS You can send her feedback at intellectualproperty@omb.eop.gov

[kennyc]

Duly sent.

Thanks!

[sabredog]

This just may well explode the lies that the RIAA/MPAA and affiliates are spinning as well.

[Bremen Cole]

Originally Posted by sabredog

This just may well explode the lies that the RIAA/MPAA and affiliates are spinning as well.

Wishful thinking, but I really, REALLY doubt it though. They would love to find ways to control the internet, and this is one way to get a rather large foot in the door.

To find ways to shut down sites and harass users is more that likely what this will ultimately be about. To be able to control what sites are allowed on the internet would be a dream come true for many. Going after Torrent sites would have the backing of big business, and seem on the surface to be the "right" and "moral" thing to do.

Then some time goes by, and the idea comes to shut down KKK sites, or perhaps Black Panther sites. Then (depending on your political persuasion) silence Move On or Glen Beck.... After all "free speech" is now trumped by calls of "hate speech".

Over the years I have learned that when government gets involved it is generally not so great for the folks. The Hollywood elite will be taken care of, they donate tons of money and free propaganda to the party. The very fact they have created this "Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator" position says a lot. The position will have to be justified and will be compelled to do something to protect the big media conglomerates.

Just a thought, have a nice day!

[kwjones]

Originally Posted by Bremen Cole

Wishful thinking, but I really, REALLY doubt it though. They would love to find ways to control the internet, and this is one way to get a rather large foot in the door.

To find ways to shut down sites and harass users is more that likely what this will ultimately be about. To be able to control what sites are allowed on the internet would be a dream come true for many. Going after Torrent sites would have the backing of big business, and seem on the surface to be the "right" and "moral" thing to do.

Then some time goes by, and the idea comes to shut down KKK sites, or perhaps Black Panther sites. Then (depending on your political persuasion) silence Move On or Glen Beck.... After all "free speech" is now trumped by calls of "hate speech".

Over the years I have learned that when government gets involved it is generally not so great for the folks. The Hollywood elite will be taken care of, they donate tons of money and free propaganda to the party. The very fact they have created this "Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator" position says a lot. The position will have to be justified and will be compelled to do something to protect the big media conglomerates.

Just a thought, have a nice day!

This.

[chainring]

Originally Posted by Bremen Cole

Wishful thinking, but I really, REALLY doubt it though. They would love to find ways to control the internet, and this is one way to get a rather large foot in the door.

To find ways to shut down sites and harass users is more that likely what this will ultimately be about. To be able to control what sites are allowed on the internet would be a dream come true for many. Going after Torrent sites would have the backing of big business, and seem on the surface to be the "right" and "moral" thing to do.

Then some time goes by, and the idea comes to shut down KKK sites, or perhaps Black Panther sites. Then (depending on your political persuasion) silence Move On or Glen Beck.... After all "free speech" is now trumped by calls of "hate speech".

Over the years I have learned that when government gets involved it is generally not so great for the folks. The Hollywood elite will be taken care of, they donate tons of money and free propaganda to the party. The very fact they have created this "Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator" position says a lot. The position will have to be justified and will be compelled to do something to protect the big media conglomerates.

Just a thought, have a nice day!

The sobering reality has a heavy hand, me thinks. Whack!

[llreader]

Originally Posted by sabredog

This just may well explode the lies that the RIAA/MPAA and affiliates are spinning as well.

Like some others here, I think that major change is unlikely, but it will be interesting to see what the robber barons put on the table. I imagine they will just try to change the subject.

[Greg Anos]

All reader here,

I have sent the following e-mail to Ms. Espinel. I hope all parties will respect my ideas enclosed.


Dear Ms. Espinel:

First, my apologies should I have not addressed you by your proper honorific. I plead ignorance of what is should be. If you include it on any correspondence, I will happily use it henceforth.

Intellectual property is a contentious issue currently. Technology has changed what can be done with Intellectual Property, with much complaining by the holders of losses due to copyright infringement. Yet there is no comment about the losses to the public by repeated copyright extensions. After all, copyright. patent, and trademark, was explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, as being "for a limited time". After which, the Intellectual Property enters the public domain, as it is the public itself, though the Constitution, that allowed the existence of Intellectual Property at all.

Copyright extension for existing works constitute a taking from the public, every bit as much as copyright infringement constitutes a taking from the Intellectual Property owners. Despite Eldred V. Ashcroft, it is still a limited, wasting asset, not a perpetual property. A balanced look at the losses declared by the various respondees to your request ought to be balanced by a list of revenues accrued by the very same said respondees, for work that would have gone into the Public Domain, but were held in extended copyright, by both the 1978 joining of the Berne convention, the 1989 modification to the 1978 joining treaty, and in particular the 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. I will note that by the end of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, the public domain will have had only one (1) year of work added in the last forty (40) years. These extensions cost the public money, for which they are not compensated. A disclosure of these costs are every bit as important as estimates of infringement losses.

Nor is extension of copyright a necessity. Consider Patent, please. It is currently shorter than it was at the beginning of the Republic, but there is no shortage of new inventions. Why should copyright have been extended, over and over again, to long past the lifespan of any creator. Since dead people don't create, no further additions to the public domain could be contemplated from dead sources, except posthumous releases already covered by separate portions of the copyright acts.

In summation, a balanced look at the costs of copyright infringement should be balanced by the losses to the general public by copyright holders maintaining their copyrights long after they should have entered the public domain, based upon the revenues accrued by the same copyright holders for such items. For policy decisions, both sides of the equation need to be enumerated for a valid look at costs and benefits.

Sincerely,

(My Real Name), U.S. Citizen

[Sparrow]

I thought this was going to be a thread about RSI brought on by hours of using a scanner.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by llreader

Like some others here, I think that major change is unlikely, but it will be interesting to see what the robber barons put on the table. I imagine they will just try to change the subject.

The same lies they've always put on the table, which will continue to be believed by the same people that believe them now.

[Bremen Cole]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I thought this was going to be a thread about RSI brought on by hours of using a scanner.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Bremen Cole

Oh, wait, I get it.

[Bremen Cole]

@ralph Sir Edward

Well written and well thought out letter.

[thename]

Originally Posted by Bremen Cole

The very fact they have created this "Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator" position says a lot. The position will have to be justified and will be compelled to do something to protect the big media conglomerates.

I think this cynical (while justified) view of the position and title are just that, cynical. The very fact that the following was included in the request lent me a bit of optimism:

14.Suggest specific methods to limit or prevent use of the Internet to sell and/or otherwise distribute or disseminate infringing products (physical goods or digital content).
15.Provide information on the various types of entities that are involved, directly or indirectly, in the distribution or dissemination of infringing products and a brief description of their various roles and responsibilities.

I will not post my response in its entirety here but it focused on these 2 points noting that stores selling DRM/ToS/EULA mandated device-locked content are indirectly causing infringement as folks violate the anti-circumvention clause in their quest for interoperability. By attempting to reduce the plethora of IP that virtually mandates infringement by its legitimate users you could cut out a huge (if seldom prosecuted) swath of the infringing population (noting someone else recently suggested they add a huge new group to said population: open source software users).

It's my hope that the IPEC (a.k.a. Copyright Czar) can consider the current legal definition of what constitutes infringement as opposed to simply enforcing the outdated legal definitions. Think of it as the IPEC's version of "signing statements."

[llreader]

Originally Posted by Bremen Cole

@ralph Sir Edward

Well written and well thought out letter.

++ Well done Ralph Sir Edward.