Journal aborchers's Journal: Letter to Rep Robert Wexler (Sent 2003, June 17) 2
It was with mixed feelings that I learned of the formation of the Congressional
Caucus on Intellectual Property Promotion and Piracy Prevention. While I
acknowledge that the current practice of casual "sharing" of copyrighted works
warrants action to preserve the rights of copyright holders, the initial
composition of the group, in fact the very name, suggests that it will promote
the interests of large corporate content owners while creating more
restrictions on technology, entrepreneurs and consumers. I apologize in advance
for the somewhat accusatory tone this letter takes and invite you to explain
why my concerns are unfounded, if indeed they are.
I have so far heard only four names associated with the caucus: Yours, Mary
Bono, Adam Smith, and Tom Feeney. I am well aware of your signature on and
defense of the Peer to Peer Privacy Prevention Act, Mary Bono's promotion of
the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, and Representative Smith's letter
from last Fall assailing the GNU General Public License used by the Linux
operating system (a chief competitor to his large contributor Microsoft
Corporation) as a threat to "innovation and security". While Representative
Feeney's record appears to be sparse to nonexistent on copyright issues, I know
that second to the Club for Growth, his largest campaign contributor for the
2002 election was the Walt Disney Company. All these facts give me reason for
serious concern about the interests represented by the caucus. Is it to be an
unbiased panel for dealing with public policy issues raised by the collision of
technology and copyright, or a lobbying extension of the copyright industry?
When three-quarters of its initial membership have already demonstrated bias in
favor of that industry, and the third is bankrolled by one its largest
corporations, where is the voice of the consumer or of technology and content
entrepreneurs who don't already have billions in the bank?
Copyrights and patents are not property rights, but are suggested (not
mandated) by the Constitution as limited monopolies on creative work in
exchange for an ultimate payback to the public domain. This distinction was
made wisely by the founding fathers, and the arts and technology have advanced
unimpeded in many ways because of these limits on "intellectual property".
Imagine the penalty to our culture if no one could quote Dante or Shakespeare
without paying a royalty to their descendants. As ridiculous as it sounds,
copyright industry lobbyists have effectively used their paranoid view of
technology to put us well along the slippery slope at this point. The Digital
Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) makes it possible for copyright owners to lock
up material behind encryption and prosecute the act of accessing it in an
"unapproved" fashion, even when that right is guaranteed in the US Code (fair
use) and case law that extends the fair use doctrine to include rights to time-
and space-shift. For good measure they throw in the Sonny Bono Copyright
Extension Act to ensure that the material remains, in effect, perpetually
protected.
I have never advocated any reduction in the rights of copyright holders. I hold
numerous copyrights myself, and in fact work in an industry (software)
dependent of IP protections. What I take issue with is the current trends of
legislation to criminalize technologies, rather than behavior, and to protect
the interests of one industry against the that of the public domain and of the
unimpeded advancement of science and invention.
So that I know exactly where you stand, and whether my energy spent expressing
concerns on this matter is worthwhile, I would like you to answer the following
questions:
1. Do you think the present copyright terms is too short, too long, or just
right?
2. Is present policy the best we can do to "advance the progress of the arts
and sciences" as the Constitution say? If not, how should the rules be changed
to do better?
3. What is the maximum amount of time "limited terms" can last when it comes to
patents and copyrights before terms are essentially permanent and the
Constitution is violated?
4. Do you believe it is appropriate for Congress to ban technologies that have
substantial non-infringing uses because those same technologies can be used for
copyright infringement?
I look forward to hearing your answers to these questions.
Re:Geez (Score:1)