backtop


Print 109 comment(s) - last by NellyFromMA.. on Jul 31 at 4:37 PM


  (Source: Sodahead)
Tax and expand the federal gov't says Texas Rep. Lamar Smith (R)

"When there's copyright infringement / In your neighborhood / Who you gonna call? / The U.S. federal taxpayer funded IP task-force!"

I. SOPA Returns, Renamed and Pared Down

It sounds like a joke, but that's precisely what the The Intellectual Property Attaché Act [PDF], hopes to implement.  The goal is to fight "global" piracy, but the proposal admittedly acknowledges that the taskforce -- a sub-agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce -- could be used in the homeland, as well.

In fact, it seems more than likely that the task-force created by the IP Attaché Act, would operate mostly in the U.S., given difficulties in sending IP "cops" overseas to quasi-hostile infringement-prone regions like China. (What would they do in China, "arrest" street merchants selling knockoff DVDs?)

Overseas complaints are already well-policed -- or about as well policed as is possible -- by the World Trade Organization (WTO).

So the new Commerce Department copyrights cops are essentially redundant, unless their policing happens to primarily focus on the U.S.  And you can bet it does.

The bill is essentially a repackaging of the heart and soul of the fortunately deceased "Stop Online Piracy Act" (SOPA) (H.R. 3261) and the U.S. Senate's Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) (S.968).  In fact, it's authored by the same fellow -- Rep. Lamar Smith (R- Tex.) -- who wrote SOPA.

Rep. Smith surely was sweating a bit under the collar when SOPA went down in flames. After all, big media wrote him a check for $85,000 USD during the last campaign cycle [source] and lawyers, many of whom represent big media clients, chipped in another $58,000 USD. [source

Lamar Smith
Rep. Lamar Smith feels he's above the laws he's looking to subject his lowly proles to.
[Image Source: Lamar Smith]

Together these contributions gave him about 10 percent of the money he needed to crush Lainey Melnick 69-to-28 percent voting margin (Mr. Melnick only raised $34,000 USD lacking sufficient big media sponsors).  To be fair, many of Rep. Smith's colleagues received similar payouts from big media.

That kind of money doesn't come for free or cheap.  It comes with big favors.  In this case the cost of the donations was likely a commitment to tirelessly push "anti-piracy" legislation even if it ignores big media corporations' own flagrant copyright theft, wastes taxpayer money, and likely tramples on civil liberties.

Clearly Rep. Smith doesn't truly take his rhetoric to heart, given the fact that he ripped off an independent artist's work for his homepage art, and reportedly initially refused requests from the artist for acknowledgement.

II. Will it Pass?

So does the IP Attaché Act stand any more of a chance of surviving than Rep. Smith's last monstrosity, SOPA?

Perhaps.  

The largely politically apathetic public burned through a great deal of energy killing the last bill.  And this revised version will likely draw less corporate opposition in that it appears to remove its provisions for sweeping website takedowns in its draft.

Further, the SOPA v. 2.0 (of sorts) has the support of House Oversight Chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) -- who initially supported SOPA as well, but later became a critic who helped sink the measure.  

TechCrunch has obtained a statement from Rep. Issa's office, commenting:

Rep. Issa is set to support the legislation, with small modifications. The Intellectual Property Attaché Act is written to help American individuals and companies that are experiencing intellectual property infringement in certain foreign countries. The legislation will place USPTO trained IP attaches in countries around the world, focusing on areas where American job creators and innovators are experiencing especially high levels of IP-theft. These attaches will work with the foreign governments to help eliminate in-country IP theft that is occurring. This is a net benefit to all Americans both IP holders and consumers. Also, the training and other programs that the attaches may provide can also help local law enforcement to deal with IP-infringement that is occurring. The cost for these attaches will come from collected PTO fees, meaning that the bill is revenue neutral. Additionally, we expect that an amendment will be made to the legislation before it is marked up that will instruct the attaches to promote clear IP exceptions ­ like fair use – already codified in U.S. Law.

The biggest hope for killing the measure perhaps lies in its likely substantial costs and sweeping expansion of the federal government.  Ballooning federal government and burdening taxpayers with the expense of large new federal programs certainly sounds outside the line of traditional fiscal conservative rhetoric that's in vogue these days.

zombie crawling
SOPA v. 2.0 has crawled back onto the scene, but might be killed yet.
[Image Source: DeviantArt;~k1ow3]

Some Republicans may balk at essentially voting for "a tax" in order to scratch the back of big media.  Although, the fact that big media donated generously to a great many members of Congress may allow them to look past their own political beasts and shove this copyright debt on the shoulders of the masses.

At least overseas there are signs of a break in the storm of big media trolling.  Denmark has turned off its warning letters program.  And Canada has implemented strong protections/permissions for user-generated content (e.g. montages) and capped non-commercial infringement at $5,000 USD.

In other words, the U.S. is one of the last places where big media can hope to sue individual citizens for millions of dollars for pirating a few songs.  It also looks to become one of the few nations to install a special redundant "copyright police" agency at the federal level, financed by its citizens' tax burden.

Sources: House of Representatives [PDF], TechCrunch



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Oookay
By nick2000 on 7/12/2012 10:14:13 PM , Rating: 2
Technically, communists are on the left (they don't seem to exist in the US with Dennis Kucinich being maybe the closest thing) while fascists are on the right (pro-corporation Republicans typically although tea party people do not seem to belong to that group). Democrats tend to be cover center to center-right mostly leaving the extreme right to Republicans. Both sides are authoritarian in nature but that is a US trait which maybe the tea party should fight or the libertarians should counter.

Anyway, at least get your exagerations straight unless you meant these words as insults...


RE: Oookay
By Ringold on 7/13/2012 2:37:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Democrats tend to be cover center to center-right mostly leaving the extreme right to Republicans.


If you are talking about the Democrat party of the 1950s, you're absolutely right, they were a dead-center to slightly center-left party.

If you're talking about today, then, well, LOL. The party run by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi can only be described as centrist if you take the goal post delineating the political center and toss it way to the left.

The proof is most obvious in the 70s and 80s, when many former Democrats registered themselves for the first time as Republicans, and in places like West Virginia that still register Democrat almost 3 to 1 or 3 to 2 'cause thats what grand-daddy was, but grand-daddy believed in personal responsibility, hard work and the death penalty, but they vote Republican because they see the Democrats expanding welfare, foodstamps and unemployment, and have barely concealed contempt for guns much less capital punishment.

And don't even compare the Democrat party to the countries founding political ideas. Democrats are pretty open about the whole "living constitution" notion they have. John Roberts can rule however he likes, no one with two neurons to rub together can intellectually believe that a federal mandate to do almost anything, asides from pay income taxes as provided by a constitutional amendment, is constitutional. They're so far to the left of the founding fathers as to be on another planet.


RE: Oookay
By Ringold on 7/13/2012 2:43:40 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, and if the Dem's aren't moving left, then wtf happened to Joe Lieberman? It couldn't possibly be that he was a moderate and his party had left him behind in a mad dash to the left? No!

Give me a break. What's really sad is you managed to get out of some sort of higher education probably and still have that distorted a view of history.


RE: Oookay
By nick2000 on 7/13/2012 9:18:49 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, you are confusing some things. There are more than 2 dimensions but many people want to reduce it to left or right which really does not help. Of course, having a 2 parties system (as opposed to many) does not help because many views cannot be discussed. For an objective comparison of political positions, check out http://politicalcompass.org/ as this places politicians on a scale comparing countries and historical figures. It is a good idea to visit other systems once in a while to check that we are still better. (and no, the news don't do it for you. It is better to experience it) We could be drifting and never know it without landmarks aroung us!

Btw, neither party is better or worse at defending the constitution so that is really not an argument. Since you mentionned it, i am pretty certain that the founding fathers were taking a very dim view of corporations, having had to deal with the tea corporation... (that tea party was also a fight against corporation subsidies in a way...) Anyway, anybody can cherry pick what they like out of history while ignoring the rest, that way you can claim to have knowledge when others are ignorant, lol. Besides, parties are evolving things and the democrats or republicans of today are not the same as 100 years ago or more.


RE: Oookay
By Ringold on 7/13/2012 5:22:20 PM , Rating: 2
Deal with the tea corporation? What? It was the taxes or duties on said tea that was the real problem and, if you know your history (obviously dont), you'd know that the British empire was chuck full of what we now call state-owned enterprises or government-sponsored enterprises. East India Company was the Fannie Mae GSE equivalent of it day, hardly a free market actor but rather a political extension of White Hall.

Hell, the empires GSE's pretty much helped staff the government; the GSE's took in the best and brightest, trained them in running the GSE's pseudo-empire (East India Company had a standing army!), then passed them on to the government-proper as needed.

Final point on the founding fathers and corporations: Again, if you knew your history AT ALL, you'd know a huge influence was Adam Smith (they had probably all read his Theory of Modern Sentiments, and most had probably read his seminal work by the time the constitution itself was written in 1788), David Hume and the other precursors of modern free-market capitalism or 'liberal' economic thought. The founding fathers were as libertarian and free-market as was philosophically possible at the time. So, you're wrong, Apple would probably awe them.

quote:
Besides, parties are evolving things and the democrats or republicans of today are not the same as 100 years ago or more.


You went in to full back-pedal mode there, I could almost hear Captain Picard going "Full reverse!" We're drifting politically? Political parties change? Obviously, but you're making it so fuzzy that your original comments are impossible to defend -- or attack, 'cause everybody can pick their own definitions in this fuzzy world of yours instead of sticking with the ones that have existed classically for centuries.


RE: Oookay
By nick2000 on 7/13/2012 8:45:48 PM , Rating: 2
I did not back-pedal but maybe you can stop insulting people for a second and actually understand what I am writing.

The East India Company got subsidies from the UK government in the form of tax-free access to the American market. Why? Because it was in trouble and was greasing the palms of many people. No, it was not government owned or even established.
It was more the other way around: the corporation owned the government.
And yes, the founding fathers were libertarian and obviously fighting a corporation.

As for parties changing, it simply means that the Civil rights act pretty much swapped the Democratic party with the Republican Party with much of the south going Republican and much of the north now going Democratic. Yes, racism has something to do with it but not only.
This is VERY relevant when people try to claim continuity.

That is my last point since you are not capable of writing without insulting people.


RE: Oookay
By Reclaimer77 on 7/13/2012 9:34:33 PM , Rating: 2
He's not insulting you. You're just wrong, that's all.

Anyone claiming any corporation ever owned a government is an idiot. I'm looking at you. And, oh yeah, THAT was an insult.


RE: Oookay
By Reclaimer77 on 7/13/2012 9:41:40 PM , Rating: 2
By the way a higher percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than Democrats. The classic stereotype of Republicans being the party of racists doesn't actually hold up to objective analysis.


RE: Oookay
By Ringold on 7/15/2012 5:02:05 PM , Rating: 2
My last post as well, since you'd rather rewrite history then accept defeat on a point. Insane to think the founding father were fighting a corporation; if you could back up their anti-capitalism with references you would. The Declaration wasn't sent to EIC or any company, but the royal crown.

As for back pedaling, yes it was, at warp speed. Now even more nonsense about continuity; I'm just sticking to definitions established during the Enlightenment and held to ever since in academia, god only knows what you're talking about since apparently it can change every day.

Further, every economist and historian I know personally understands the EIC was, for all intents and purposes, no different than Fannie Mae style GSE's in the US today or many Russian companies today; theoretically private owned, but state-controlled, staffed, financed and backed. The EIC even had a standing army for a while!

I get short and insulting with people that stick their head in the sand on history and facts while pretending to be the enlightened ones.


"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki