RIAA, MPAA Urge Presidential Candidates to Uphold Copyright Fascism
Via CNet News:
A coalition of entertainment and publishing industry heavyweights would like to see the 2008 presidential candidates champion “meaningful copyright protection” in their policy platforms. …In a conference call with reporters Tuesday afternoon, Ross said the group also intends to hold briefings with presidential campaigns about its copyright priorities, but it’s not “in the endorsement game,” although individual alliance members may choose to take that step.
Here’s the pledge that I would like to hear the candidates make concerning copyright:
“I pledge that my campaign will take a firm stance on copyright infringement; that, where the constitution and the law require and permit, those who violate the law will be held responsible for their actions.
”I also pledge that copyright law will be revised in a manner that is far more compliant with personal creativity, and less with an eye toward the eternal profits of non-person corporations. The idea of a corporation having the same rights and powers of a human being is offensive to me, as it should be to all people who take the concepts of humanity and personal responsibility seriously. Copyrights are intended to stimulate creativity, not line the pockets of shareholders and executives who do not create anything but more money for themselves. Current copyright limits are the life of the author plus either 50 or 70 years, but that number is continuously extended to protect the profits of the corporations owning those copyrights, and are not in any way intended to encourage new creations.
“For this reason, I shall sponsor and support legislation that will restrict copyright protection solely to the individuals who create; these individuals may lease their copyright holdings to businesses, such as corporations, for a period of time not to exceed twenty years beyond the act of creation. The reason: to stimulate creativity and public knowledge by enriching the public domain, allowing more universal access to all works of art and information, unrestricted by cost or other legal impediments. This not only allows a sufficient time for the original artists to collect on their creations, but adds stimulus to corporations–who might otherwise rest on profits from already-created work–to pay artists to create even more to generate more profits for themselves.
”I also pledge to strengthen laws concerning ‘Fair Use,’ as well as the personal use of legally-purchased intellectual property. I shall sponsor and support legislation allowing anyone who has purchased a work of art or information to use and enjoy that product in any and all forms that the individual pleases, and forbidding the sellers to prevent or limit the right of the individual to do so in any way, shape, or form.
“I further pledge that I will fight to the extent of my ability to maintain the law, including where it applies to arbitrary and blind lawsuits that attack broad swaths of our citizenry in the hopes of either extorting money as the end result of nuisance suits, or which attempt to ferret out potential civil suit awards by indicting large numbers of people, despite the knowledge that many or most of those people are innocent of any wrongdoing.”
Such a pledge would be a true “commitment to creativity” that the media suits talk about but clearly do not intend.
I would like to see a candidate commit to the same priciples with a much shorter statement: “When I am president, I will nominate Lawrence Lessig to the Supreme Court.”
This achieves the same effect, no? 😉
Lessig would be nice. I wonder where he stands on other issues.
I don’t know where he stands on everything, but I agree with his views on the things I care about: technology, copyright, corruption in government, etc.
If we happen to differ on, say, abortion or gun control, I’m not going to get worked up about it.
“If we happen to differ on, say, abortion or gun control, I’m not going to get worked up about it.”
Those are some pretty big things to not get worked up about. Especially abortion as it is a precedent for far greater authoritarian agenda. Catholic conservatives are literally relying upon it to undo democracy which they see as a temporary fad.
Perhaps, but I’ve already established to my own satisfaction that Lessig is someone who has sensible views that focus primarily on what is best for all parties concerned, so it strikes me as exceedingly unlikely that he would have crackpot views on other things. If we differ, it will be a matter of degree, not an entirely overboard radical difference that will “undo democracy”.
Frankly, I don’t understand the assumption that you always have to apply these particular litmus tests to make sure that the nominee is not secretly hellbent on bringing the nation to its knees, which is not typically the purview of the judicial branch anyway.