Biden Promises 'Right Person' As Copyright Czar 492
Hugh Pickens writes "Vice President Joe Biden lauded Hollywood at a gala dinner in Washington, assailed movie piracy, and promised film executives that the Obama administration would pick 'the right person' as its copyright czar. Biden warned of the harms of piracy at the private event organized by the Motion Picture Association of America in the sumptuous, newly renovated Great Hall of the National Portrait Gallery in Washington, D.C. 'It's pure theft, stolen from the artists and quite frankly from the American people as consequence of loss of jobs and as a consequence of loss of income,' Biden said, according to a White House pool report. Biden addressed President Obama's forthcoming decision about who will be named the intellectual-property enforcement coordinator, better known as the copyright czar. Under a law approved by the US Congress last October, Obama is required to appoint someone to coordinate the administration's IP enforcement efforts and prepare annual reports. Copyright industry lobbyists sent a letter to the president asking him to pick someone sympathetic to their concerns, while groups that would curb copyright law sent their own letter (PDF) urging the opposite approach. We 'will find the right person for intellectual property czar,' Biden said."
Re:I nominate... (Score:3, Interesting)
It also occurs to me... (Score:5, Interesting)
...that we may already be able to see where, in general, the future will lead with regard to copyright enforcement. The music industry has more or less given up on DRM; there were enough places that started selling DRM-free music, and made a mint at it, that the big dogs finally gave up. Why?
Among the population of those who pirate (set P), the subset Q who pirate because it's easy, but would pay if they couldn't pirate, is very small. The big dogs were spending more on creating and implementing DRM schemes than they could ever hope to earn from Q, and they finally figured this out.
The movie industry hasn't quite got this yet, or at least not in the same way; because a piece of music is much smaller and easier to distribute than a piece of video, the RIAA's battle with Internet piracy really began around 1996. The MPAA didn't start having to deal with it to the same degree for five or six years later. Giant corporations are not quick learners, and it'll probably be another two or three years before they really get it (although to some degree they've learned from the RIAA's mistakes).
In practice, there will be a lot of lip service put toward stopping the Evil Pirates, and occasional high-profile incidents such as the Pirate Bay verdict, but in the main, 99% of pirates will never be affected. There's just way too many of them compared to the studios; giant though those corporations may be, they're nothing compared to the tens of thousands of people who are dedicated, for whatever reason, to defeating any conceivable DRM scheme.
There'll still be efforts made against commercial pirates, but as for noncommercial piracy, unless they make a big splash or get noticed for some reason, they're going to be ignored by the studios forever, because it will always cost the studios more to do something about them than they could ever hope to earn from doing so.
Biden and Obama and their successors will, as has been noted, probably sing the same tune forever -- the entertainment industry is a huge political donor. More to the point, the only politicians who get elected are going to be the ones who at least pay lip service to helping Hollywood against the Evil Pirates (tm). But there's really never going to be much they can do about it.
Biden wants more money? (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe it's just as simple as Biden wanting more money? "Give me more money and I'll make sure the 'right person' gets approved."
Can we drop all this "Czar" crap? (Score:0, Interesting)
We're already becoming more and more like the old USSR every day. We don't need to be calling our non-elected leaders "czars."
Re:I nominate... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:corporations are no artists, except con artists (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I nominate... (Score:5, Interesting)
Lessig supported Obama during his presidential candidacy. How ironic, then, that the very candidate he supported all along ended up appointing people who stand for the very opposite of what Lessig has stood for as the public face of Creative Commons. Judging by his record so far, I seriously doubt Obama would ever appoint somebody like Lessig to the position of Copyright Czar, and besides I'm not sure the job is all that compatible with the principles of the Creative Commons movement.
Re:Ugh, that's depressing... (Score:5, Interesting)
"It's kind of sad to see that despite all the progressive politics that Obama and Biden embody, that they're following Hollywood's line to the letter."
Interesting choice of words. The administration isn't looking at the short term here -- they see the writing on the wall and want to cement the USA's position as an economic superpower as the manufacturing leaves us behind. The USA is the biggest exporter of IP on the planet, and the administration likely sees this as our economy's golden ticket as India and China usurp what have been traditionally some of our big money-makers.
The current administration probably looks at it a bit like global warming -- doing something about it should not be put off. They want to make progress here; hence the term "progressive." To do nothing would not be progressive.
Agreed with you, however, that the ever-extending copyright lengths violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the constitution. Very well put. The big media companies would, of course, like to make copyright perpetual, but that would be unconstitutional. So instead they're doing the next best thing, and getting it pushed out each time Mickey Mouse is in danger of entering ye olde publick domain.
why does anyone care? (Score:5, Interesting)
all we have are a bunch of old people who don't understand the implications of a new technology
copyright is nothing more than damage to be routed around, and that's what the internet does
let them pass any law, appoint any stooge they want. why does anyone here care?
the whole of intellectual property is simply defunct and unenforceable
now, if they actually could enforce the laws they pass, then this would be an issue
but they can't. they simply can't. they can bankrupt the occasional grandmother or soccer mom, but to what end?
the technology routes around whatever they do
game over
copyright has died. it does matter what anyone thinks, it matters what the technology allows. and the technology allows unfilterable file trading. no one can stop that. no law on earth, that does also destroy the technology as well, which no one wants to do
all that is happening is a bunch of people live in denial about the truth of a new technological reality
Re:I nominate... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Can we drop all this "Czar" crap? (Score:3, Interesting)
Czar->Caesar->Kaiser aka Emperor
I find it amusing, that for a country that went through a Revolution to throw the King's shackles off of us colonists, that we appoint "Czars" now to conduct war on every little indiscretion of the people.
Re:I nominate... (Score:5, Interesting)
I think that's a pipe dream which doesn't take human nature ("why pay when I can take it for free?") into account.
Its quite the opposite. Its the only solution that actually takes human nature into account. The problem simply isn't the copying, people have done that since forever, thats how culture spreads and they will continue to do that on the Internet. The real problem is that very large parts of the youth is getting criminalize and *that* has to be fixed if you don't want a large scale revolt a few years down the line. Might that mean that the entertainment industry collapses? That could very well happen, after all they are mostly obsolete since distribution can be handled via the Internet. Will it mean that artists get bankrupt? I kind of doubt it. Artists today already get only a very tiny fraction of sales of their stuff, if you remove the industry and distribution on the other side, you could channel all money directly to the artists. So even when many people stop buying stuff, there would still be enough money left once the industry is out of the picture.
Re:I nominate... (Score:2, Interesting)
They cannot tell us what the value of them is - one person does not set the value of an item.
However, they can increase the value of other things they can make money from. Frankly, I don't know how they could make the theatre worth 20$, but fortunately, thats not a problem im on the board of directors to solve.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Piracy is stealing from the American people... (Score:3, Interesting)
...as a consequence of loss of income
So, if I buy CDs this month instead of paying rent, I've put more money into circulation?
No, I'm pretty sure I'm not buying $600 worth of CDs; if I pay rent this month, I'm pretty sure I'm not buying any. In my case, buying CDs would be stealing from the American people as a consequence of loss of income.
Nice try, Biden; just let Obama do the talking from now on, ok? He might have been able to get that by me.
Of course he does (Score:3, Interesting)
We are currently in the early years of what will later be recognized as the pivotal fight of the entire Information Age, and not 3 months into his administration Obama has completely sold us out. 5 lawyers from a single industry do not get appointed to the Department of Justice by chance, no matter what their qualifications. In a sane world, there would be an uproar over such obvious improprieties. But the corporate media knows when its obsequience is being bought and has seen to it that word of this crime gets zero airtime whatsoever. Any delusional netroots who still think Obama is on their side are in for more brain-exploding cognitive dissonance when he chooses yet another copyright maximalist for "Copyright Czar."
Take solace in the fact that while we may have been sold down the river and the likely duration of the fight significantly extended, we will win eventually. The overwhelming majority of youth have no respect for copyright as currently practiced and this shows no sign of changing. No matter what technical or legal measures they take, the MAFIAA have already lost the social fight and their ultimate demise is gauranteed.
Re:Perhaps a reaction to extreme copyright? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's more a reaction to completely batshit insane copyright laws.
First, laws will not be upheld if they cannot be understood and accepted. "Don't kill or go to prison" is a concept any common person can understand and accept. Killing someone is bad, I would harm someone if I killed him, so ... yeah, makes sense.
A law telling you that you can't make a copy of something you paid for is neither understandable nor acceptable. I paid for it, so why shouldn't I make a copy of something that I bought? Why shouldn't I be able to use it the way I want? More, why should I be forced to do with what I own (yes, yes, you don't own it... another thing that makes no sense) only what its maker wants? Can Ford force me to drive my SUV only offroad? Can GE force me to keep my super stinky cheese out of the fridge? Can Heinz force me to eat their Ketchup only on Fries and Burgers but never with Hotdogs? Why can Disney force me to sit through unskippable ads? Makes no sense.
And second, and more importantly, the abundance of copyright laws that do not make intrinsically sense creates an air of uncertainty. What can I do? What can't I do? Or, why the hell should I care what I do, even if I just use it it's prolly already illegal, so why bother trying avoiding breaking the law?
Re:Why do we persist with the ridiculous term Czar (Score:3, Interesting)
Even though it would have been more appropriate. The German "Führer" literally means "leader" or "guide". It has a more friendly and pleasant ring than "emperor", doesn't it?
Shame it has been tarnished. But so have other terms. Wouldn't "concentration camp" sound more relaxing than "think tank"? :)
Re:IP freely (Score:2, Interesting)
there are some out there ideas (at the end "the world can only handle 2 billion people.") but the general theory is valid.
in my opinion, copyright is the same thing as creating a monopoly on an idea.
that in itself is ridiculous.
if you want an idea all for yourself-don't publish it (in a book or a movie or in song etc.)
i have to say that once an idea (read as Intellectual Property) is released into the wild, anyone has the chance to use, expound upon, derive, refine that idea.
copyright is unnatural and harms society as a whole with its restrictiveness. it exists not to protect ideas but to protect profit (monetary profit that is).
Re:I nominate... (Score:2, Interesting)
Capitalism did implode. We were only hours away from the failure of the banking system. Without the govt. safety net, the largest banks and insurers would have failed, taking people's life savings with them. There is no question about that. That certainly would have caused panicked runs on all other banks as people scrambled to withdraw their savings before the money was gone, causing them to fold.
Blaming the regulators for what did happen has some validity, but there's something wrong with blaming somebody else for giving you enough rope to hang yourself, especially if you spent a fortune lobbying them to do so.
I actually agree that our economic problems, energy problems, and environmental problems may result in decreased standard of living. The fallacy, however, is the notion that it's all government imposed, that simply continuing as we were is an option. Oil is becoming more scarce. Creditors around the world are starting to see us as a risk. The air is getting polluted. Demanding solutions that solve it all without pain is just not realistic.