History Shows Copyright Monopolies Slow Down Innovation

Copyright and patent monopoly is supposed to encourage innovation and creativity, right? Well, that's what we're told. However, history shows the opposite is true. It's clear that the push for more severe laws and enforcement in the area of copyright/intellectual property is nothing more than a power move.

Let’s start around the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. In that day and age, copyright monopoly laws were in force in the United Kingdom, and pretty much the United Kingdom alone (where they were enacted in 1557). You know the “Made in Country X” that is printed or engraved on pretty much all our goods? That originated as a requirement from the British Customs against German-made goods, as a warning label that they were shoddy goods made in Germany at the time. It spread to pretty much global use.

But Germany didn’t have copyright monopoly laws at this point in time, and historians argue that was the direct cause of Germany’s engineering excellence overtaking that of the United Kingdom. In the UK, knowledge of handicrafts was expensive to come by. Books and the knowledge they carried were locked down in the copyright monopoly construct, after all. In Germany, however, the same knowledge was available at print cost – and thus, engineering skills proliferated. With every new person learning engineering, one more person started to improve the skill set for himself and for the country at large. The result is that Germany still, 200 years later, has an outstanding reputation for engineering skills – the rise of which are directly attributable to a lack of the copyright monopoly.

Everything is a Remix:

"All inventions are not so much original ideas but advances or tipping points along a continuous line of invention by many different people, but the most dramatic results can happen when ideas are combined. By connecting ideas together, creative leaps can be made producing some of history’s greatest breakthroughs.
[...]The interdependence of our creativity has been obscured by powerful cultural ideas but technology is not exposing this connectedness." -- Kirby Ferguson, creator of "Everything is a Remix"

"Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations, architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows. Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (and theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable; originality is nonexistent. And don’t bother concealing your thievery. celebrate it if you feel like it. In any case, always remember what Jean-Luc Godard said: 'It’s not where you take things from – it’s where you take them to.'” -Jim Jarmusch

Read more...

Obama's Draconian Intellectual Property Law Proposals Already in Effect

The mass incarceration that's taken place over the last three decades, largely under the auspices of the "War on Drugs" that has only served to create a permanently criminalized underclass will not only continue, it will greatly expand under Obama administration's crackdown on intellectual property law offenders as he felonizes infringement.

Take former Goldman Sachs computer programmer, Sergey Aleynikov.  He did not kill anyone. He did not assault anyone. He did not inflict bodily harm on any living creature, nor take or sell drugs...he did something much worse: he stole source code from Goldman Sachs.  For this victimless crime, because Goldman Sachs is no one's victim, the government wanted to seek a sentence five-times higher than what probation recommends.  Well, federal Judge Denise L. Cote, who likened his crime to “economic espionage”, sentenced him to four-times what the probation recommended - eight years - explaining that Mr. Aleynikov's conduct “deserves a significant sentence because the scope of his theft was audacious — motivated solely by greed, and it was characterized by supreme disloyalty to his employer.” Oh, the irony!

Did Mr. Aleynikov break the law?  Do something wrong?  Yes he did; however he certainly showed remorse when he said, “I never meant to cause Goldman any harm. I am sorry for the burden and emotional impact this trial has caused on my family, and my mother and children.” I think it's fairly clear that Mr. Aleynikov does not pose a threat to society; therefore, should receive the minimum sentence, especially considering he is a first time offender.

President Obama is not legitimately trying to address infringement or counterfeiting problems with his sweeping revisions to U.S. copyright law. He is simply cracking down on the people in order to protect the interests of corporations, instead of encouraging companies to adapt to the changing technological environment.

“The legitimate desire to address some serious counterfeiting abuses - such as medications or industrial components used in defense products - has been hijacked to create draconian proposals to alleviate the content industry of the burden of protecting its own interest using its own extensive resources. The government's role in protecting the public's right to safe medicine and component parts should not be allowed to morph into supplanting the responsibility of private companies to use existing legal remedies to remove possibly infringing content online and bring legal action against those involved. -- CCIA President & CEO Ed Black

Links:

Government Seeks Sentence Five Times Higher Than Probation Recommends

Intellectual Property Watch

Read more...

White House and Big Corporations Want to Destroy the Internet as We Know It.

Until very recently, most of us could only passively consume our media. We could listen. We could watch. But we couldn’t touch, enter into, or even respond to the media. The Internet has changed all of that, leveling the playing field in such a way that anyone with a connection can participate. The powers that be are not happy.

The other day, Sen. Al Franken claimed that big corporations are "hoping to destroy" the Internet, by destroying "the very thing that makes it such an important [medium] for independent artists and entrepreneurs: its openness and freedom." He then claimed, "Net neutrality is the First Amendment issue of our time."

However, it appears the Obama administration wants to crackdown on the Internet, and eliminate this new emergent participatory media production that depends on "fair use", by policing the Internet, making copyright infringement a felony.  He wants to tighten many forms of intellectual property law, increase existing criminal penalties, and expand wiretap laws to include copyright and trademark infringement, ultimately giving even more authority to Homeland Security.   He has proposed sweeping revisions to U.S. copyright law, including making "illegal streaming" of audio or video a federal felony and allowing FBI agents to wiretap suspects.

Turning to the specific recommendations, the Administration recommends increasing the statutory maxima for the following offenses:

1. Increase the statutory maximum for economic espionage (18 U.S.C. § 1831) from 15 years in prison to at least 20 years in prison.

2. Increase the statutory maxima for drug offenses under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), particularly for counterfeit drug offenses.

The Administration recommends that Congress: (1)  direct the U.S. Sentencing Commission to increase the U.S. Sentencing Guideline range for intellectual property offenses; (2) require the U.S. Sentencing Commission to consider five specific categories of changes to the Guidelines; and (3) require the U.S. Sentencing Commission to act within 180 days of such legislation being adopted (including issuing a report explaining why it has not adopted any of the specific recommendations). The five categories of specific recommendations for the U.S. Sentencing Commission are:

1. Increase the U.S. Sentencing Guideline range for the theft of trade secrets and economic espionage,
including trade secrets transferred or attempted to be transferred outside of the U.S.

2. Increase the U.S. Sentencing Guideline range for trademark and copyright offenses when infringing products are knowingly sold for use in national defense, national security, critical infrastructure, or by law enforcement.

3. Increase the U.S. Sentencing Guideline range for intellectual property offenses committed by organized criminal enterprises/gangs;

4. Increase the U.S. Sentencing Guideline range for intellectual property offenses that risk death or serious bodily injury and for those offenses involving counterfeit drugs (even when those offenses do not present that risk); and

5. Increase the U.S. Sentencing Guideline range for repeat intellectual property offenders.

The Administration recommends three legislative changes to give enforcement agencies the tools they need to combat infringement:

1. Clarify that, in appropriate circumstances, infringement by streaming, or by means of other similar new technology, is a felony;

2. Authorize DHS, and its component U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), to share pre-seizure information about, and samples of, products and devices with rightholders to help DHS to determine whether the products are infringing or the devices are circumvention devices; and

3. Give law enforcement authority to seek a wiretap for criminal copyright and trademark offenses.

The Administration recommends two legislative changes to allow DHS to share information about enforcement activities with rightholders:

1. Give DHS authority to notify rightholders that infringing goods have been excluded or seized pursuant to a U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) order; and

2. Give DHS authority to share information about, and samples of, circumvention devices with rightholders post-seizure.

The Administration recommends six legislative changes to improve U.S. enforcement efforts involving pharmaceuticals, including counterfeit drugs:

1. Require importers and manufacturers to notify the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other relevant agencies when they discover counterfeit drugs or medical devices, including the known potential health risks associated with those products;

2. Extend the Ryan Haight Act’s definition of “valid prescription” (and its telemedicine exemption) to the FFDCA to drugs that do not contain controlled substances;

3. Adopt a track-and-trace system for pharmaceuticals and related products;

4. Provide for civil and criminal forfeiture under the FFDCA, particularly for counterfeit drug offenses;

5. As noted above, increase the statutory maxima for drug offenses under the FFDCA, particularly for counterfeit drug offenses; and

6. As noted above, recommend that the U.S. Sentencing Commission increase the U.S. Sentencing Guideline range for intellectual property offenses that risk death and serious bodily injury, and for those offenses involving counterfeit drugs (even when those offenses do not present that risk).

What's more is that with all of the important unresolved issues, not to mention, the banksters and  major Wall Street criminals basking in their billions and still in charge, you have to wonder why the Obama administration chooses to focus, in comparison, on what seems like such a trivial matter.  Well, one can only conclude that it's much more than that. It's an underhanded power grab, to control the distribution of information, communication, ultimately providing Big Brother with the power to wiretap anyone for any reason.

It all boils down to who benefits and who pays.   As always, it's the elite who benefit the most - the prison industrial complex, big corporations, Hollywood, the banksters - while we, the taxpayers, continue to pay through the nose. As someone once said, "who gets prosecuted for what has always been and always will be political and decided by those with wealth and power".

Read more...

"Fair Use" Enables Creation, the Essential Ingredient to Economic Growth

Picasso said, "Mediocre artists borrow, great artists steal." There is a lot of truth to what Picasso says and he should know, right?

Drill down to the core of any creation and you will undoubtedly find "copyright infringement". It's how life rolls. None of us are gods as much as we would like to believe that we are.

Therefore, Fair Use, a doctrine in U. S. copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders when the benefit to society outweighs the cost to the copyright owner, is fair, as it legalizes the process of creation, something essential to the existence of the human being.

So, having said that, how does this law work? The particular use of a copyrighted work is permissible dependent upon four factors, the last factor weighted heavily:

1. The character and purpose of the use.
2. The nature of the copyrighted work.
3. The amount of the work that is used.
4. The effect of the use on the market for the copyrighted work.

As the debates regarding copyright law in the digital age escalate, it's important to keep in mind that the Fair Use economy represents one-sixth of U.S. GDP or more than $4.5 trillion in annual revenue for the United States. Not only that, nearly one out of every eight American jobs is in an industry that benefits from "fair use".

The aforementioned information, in and of itself, especially considering the state of our economy, is enough proof that the benefit of "fair use" to society far outweighs the cost to copyright holders. The "fair use"doctrine should be expanded to incorporate the inevitable rapid changes that will continue on in the digital age, in order to avoid the cost of unnecessary litigation, while at the same time, supply the fertile ground needed for economic growth to occur across the broad spectrum of various sectors that make up our economy.

“Much of the unprecedented economic growth of the past ten years can actually be credited to the doctrine of fair use, as the Internet itself depends on the ability to use content in a limited and nonlicensed manner. To stay on the edge of innovation and productivity, we must keep fair use as one of the cornerstones for creativity, innovation and, as today’s study indicates, an engine for growth for our country”

I would think John McCain agrees ...Jackson Browne, not so much. I don't know that John McCain's use of Browne's song, "Running on Empty" benefited society all that much, but considering it was only a small portion of the song rather than a large one, McCain's chances are good that "fair use" will more than likely be found. However, the question is, did McCain's use of that small portion help the marketing of Browne's content or did it reduce of the market for Browne's content?

Just as Steve Perry didn't want to see 'the Soprano family being whacked to 'Don't Stop Believin', it's possible Jackson Browne did not want to see John McCain running his campaign to the tune of "Running on Empty".

However, Jackson must realize that John McCain, despite his politics (I'm assuming Browne is a Democrat), may have introduced his song to a brand new generation who would have never heard of him, otherwise. Who knows? Maybe that clip will inspire a youngster to musical greatness.

Read more...