Former Copyright Boss: New Technology Should Be Presumed Illegal

Until Congress Says Otherwise,

this is the exact opposite to the "free markets" where if some entrepreneurial hard working person designs something of commercial value, it rewards them for being innovative.

and were not talking weapons here, we are talking about technological innovation,

capitalism is where "capital flows" towards innovators who design new ways, more effective ways of doing something, with the existing markets.

i have heard many Americans say "if you have a good idea and work hard you can "make it here",
and
we Americans applaud people who design "technology"
the internet comes from america, and america lead the field for many many years, but imagine if copy write PREVENTED THE INTERNET?

innovation should now be a crime?

ok stop producing gmos
and pharmaceuticals

imagine telling google, your illegal till we say otherwise.

the original purpose of copy rite was to incentivise innovation,
now the people with influence believe it should be used to block innovation? wtf

This is, to put it mildly, crazy talk. He is arguing that anything even remotely disruptive and innovative, must first go through the ridiculous process of convincing Congress that it should be allowed, rather than relying on what the law says and letting the courts sort out any issues. In other words, in cases of disruptive innovation, assume that new technologies are illegal until proven otherwise. That's a recipe for killing innovation.

www.techdirt.com... says-otherwise.shtml

i cant believe what im reading here,
innovation should be carefully controlled by act of congress and not by demand of market.

Under those rules, it's unlikely that we would have radio, cable TV, VCRs, DVRs, mp3 players, YouTube and much, much more. That's not how innovation or the law works. You don't assume everything innovative is illegal just because it upsets some obsolete business models. But that appears to be how Oman thinks the world should act. Stunningly, he even seems to admit that he'd be fine with none of the above being able to come to market without Congressional approval,

so i wonder how many americans would simply move their innovative ideas offshore,
come to new zealand, we could do with your business, we will be happy to accommodate the next twitter or you tube.

we still have truly free markets and would go out of our way to ensure innovation is profitable without checking with the established monopolies or their front men in congress.

When the Copyright Act of 1976 was passed, it was so taken over by regulatory capture by a few key industries, that they explicitly put into the Copyright Act that it should be used to stop disruptive innovation from challenging legacy businesses. I've read the Copyright Act many times, but have to admit that I'd never quite noticed this line from 17 USC 801(b)(1)(D), which explicitly states that the role of the Copyright Royalty Judges on the Copyright Royalty Board that sets the rates for internet radio are there:
To minimize any disruptive impact on the structure of the industries involved and on generally prevailing industry practices.
Yeah. Their job is to set rates that basically kill off disruptive innovation in favor of "prevailing industry practices." As Schruers notes, this goes against absolutely everything we understand about the importance of disruptive innovation in driving forward the economy:

www.techdirt.com...

you read that correctly,

how on earth is america going to move back into its rightful place as the centre of world innovation if the copy rite laws are stacked AGAINST INNOVATORS?

if you have been watching the apple vs samsung copy fight you will realise the court costs come from somewhere,

and you can bet that this cost is handed down to the consumer YOU

the constitution stated a very short period of exclusivity for copy and patent holders, it was short for a reason,
free markets would decide "price" and innovation of the "product" would "out date" inferior products and force better and better products to compete for market share.

free market,

extended exclusivity actually artificially destroys competition.

i am an inverter and designer and know first hand,
incentivise litigation with extended patents,
or incentivise innovation with competition

choose wisely, because your position as the worlds greatest innovators and label as the best country to succeed in is up for grabs.

and new zealand has a great climate and cheep power,
and all innovators with ideas and drive are welcome.

i read steve wozniac is on his way, for the life style
how many more greats will follow if the absurdity of copy and patent laws increase?

xploder

Originally posted by XPLodER
...capitalism is where "capital flows" towards innovators who design new ways, more effective ways of doing something, with the existing markets...

That is not actually true. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. 'Capital' is goods already produced that are used in production of other products, it's what capitalists use to make money through the exploitation of labour. Money can flow outside of the system of capitalism.

Capitalism is privilege, not mutual exchange in a free market.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by XPLodER
...capitalism is where "capital flows" towards innovators who design new ways, more effective ways of doing something, with the existing markets...

That is not actually true. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. 'Capital' is goods already produced that are used in production of other products, it's what capitalists use to make money through the exploitation of labour. Money can flow outside of the system of capitalism.

Capitalism is privilege, not mutual exchange in a free market.

thanks for that,
how do free markets work again?
the "excess" labour = capital for "capital investment" in new businesses,

capital "flows" from excess capital requirements to allow for investment.

investment of capital into productive businesses that innovate create a free market with competition.

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER

disruptive innovation

WTF is "disruptive innovation" supposed to be. If a product is invented and it doesn't infringe on any existing copyrights than the businesses it disrupts can simply get the hell over it. Simple as that. If they feel it is violating their copyright then they can take the inventor to court and deal with legally. I don't see any reason why it needs to be more complicated than that.

reply to post by XPLodER

Dear XPLodER,

Good to see you again. I think the article you found is scary, but I'm not sure it is as drastic a situation as the writer believes. I went to the .pdf and learned that Oman, a former Registrar of Patents (the head guy) was trying to persuade a court to reverse a lower decision. He's not anti-technology, but pro-patent protection. If you want to read a couple of dozen pages of brief, feel free. For me, it was interesting, but I'd like to hear the other side.

Here are some bits:

I view the question presented in this case as straightforward: Is Aereo’s streaming of television programming to its subscribers over the Internet a public performance as Congress intended that concept to be defined? The answer plainly is yes.

To the extent Aereo offers an unauthorized, but functional equivalent of a real-time retransmission service, that clearly amounts to a public performance as defined by Congress.

The relevant statutory provision, Section 101 of the Copyright Act, is unambiguous. It plainly covers transmissions by “any device or process,” language that encompasses Aereo’s retransmission service for all the reasons stated in the Appellants’ briefs.

In the Copyright Act that followed these decisions, Congress dealt decisively, in a technologically-neutral way, with retransmissions using community antenna technology. It determined that a CATV company—which built an antenna on the top of a mountain in rural areas to intercept and retransmit, over a cable wire to its customers in the valley below, the copyrighted over-the-air broadcasts of television programs—was publicly performing that programming.

Judge Buchwald, in her opinion in ivi, affirmed just last month by this Court, made clear why Aereo is engaged in a public performance, as a matter of law, common sense and what Congress plainly intended.

ivi is one-hundred percent accurate in stating that the exclusive rights under the Copyright Act are broad, that any derogations from them are narrow and, furthermore, that exceptions should be granted, if at all, only by
Congress, the body institutionally able to balance the delicate interests of the sometimes-competing interests involved in high-stakes copyright matters.

If Congress wants to permit Internet streaming, it is free to do so, but the burden should not be placed on businesses in Appellants’ circumstances to get some sort of congressional reaffirmation that the Transmit Clause
applies to Internet retransmissions.

The transmissions by Aereo to its subscribers are public performances and are infringing under the plain text of the Transmit Clause and the intent of Congress, as it was informed by the Copyright Office, in the process of enacting the Copyright Act. If Congress wants to exempt Internet retransmissions based on the use of copies, it is for Congress to do so.

Forgive me, I enjoy this stuff, I'm weird.

Oman is saying that he believes the language of the law, and the intent of Congress is clear, If you want to change the rules of Copyright law, go to Congress and change the law. Until that's done, he implies, stick with what the law says.

He doesn't say that Aereo was within the law, but "what appeared to Aereo" was within the law. And he's not against new technology, he just doesn't want to see the new technology used to try to get around Copyright laws.

Again I wish I knew what the other side was arguing, but Oman isn't engaging in "crazy talk" whether he's right or wrong.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by XPLodER
thanks for that, how do free markets work again? the "excess" labour = capital for "capital investment" in new businesses, capital "flows" from excess capital requirements to allow for investment. Investment of capital into productive businesses that innovate create a free market with competition.

Hmmm no. Capitalist markets work by hiring labour, and paying the worker less than they produce. That access production is know as Surplus value. The financial gains from exploiting labour is then used to invest in other business ventures etc.

Free market is when all people who produce can do so without the social constraint of the state, social class, or authority. This can only be achieved when the workers are no longer deprived of access to the means to produce and can do so to meet their needs.

The crucial point is that the cost of wages or labor-power depends on factors completely independent of the actual value produced by workers during the labor process. This difference is the source of "surplus value," or profit. So let's compare the price of labor-power to the value, expressed in price, of the commodities that workers creates through their labor.

To take a simple example, let's assume that a worker is able to produce in four hours new value that is equivalent to the value of their labor-power for the day--to, say, $100 in wages. Marx called this "necessary labor," because it is the amount of labor required to replace the wages paid by the capitalist, and because if the worker labored independently and not for a capitalist, it would be "necessary" for them to work four hours to maintain their standard of living.

If it was a matter of "a fair day's pay for a fair day's work," workers ought to be able to go home after four hours of labor. In our example, the capitalist is paying them $100 for the workday, and the worker produced $100 worth of new value in the form of products that belong to the capitalist, which they can sell on the market to recoup what they spent on wages and other costs of production.

But things don't work this way under capitalism. As Marx wrote in a pamphlet called Value, Price and Profit, "By buying the daily or weekly value of the laboring power of the [worker], the capitalist has, therefore, acquired the right to use or make that laboring power during the whole day or week."

Hence, the worker, in order to receive a wage equivalent to the value they produce in four hours, is forced by the capitalist to work longer--a total of, in our example, eight hours. The value created during the additional four hours, embodied in the products produced by the worker during that time, is what Marx called "surplus value."

When this surplus product is sold, the capitalist pockets the proceeds--this, according to Marx, is the secret to the source of profits. And it's not only industrial capitalists whose profits derive from surplus value, or unpaid labor. The "rentier" classes, such as finance capital and landlords, take their cut from the wealth extracted from the labor of workers in the form of interest on loans to the industrial capitalists and to others in society, rent for factories and homes, and so on.

What do we mean by exploitation?

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by XPLodER

 

disruptive innovation

WTF is a "disruptive innovation" supposed to be. If a product is invented and it doesn't infringe on any existing copyrights than the businesses it disrupts can simply get the hell over it. Simple as that. If they feel it is violating their copyright then they can take the inventor to court and deal with legally. I don't see any reason why it needs to be more complicated than that.

star,
thats what i feel,
as long as its not illegal, (or very dangerous like weapons)
then use a court,
taking innovation in front of congress first allows monopolies and their lobbies to serpress inovative ideas that would drive the economy forward

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER

taking innovation in front of congress first allows monopolies and their lobbies to serpress inovative ideas that would drive the economy forward

It doesn't take a genius to work that much out. Of course this former copyright boss is just ranting about ridiculous things which are not going to happen. But I don't think it particularly matters... the copyright offices still do a grand job of stopping any "disruptive innovation" in its tracks.

reply to post by charles1952


hi bud good chance to debate here i see

these laws were written before the world wide web was common place,

To minimize any disruptive impact on the structure of the industries involved and on generally prevailing industry practices.

www.techdirt.com...

But he goes much further than that in his argument, even to the point of claiming that with the 1976 Copyright Act, Congress specifically intended new technologies to first apply to Congress for permission, before releasing new products on the market that might upset existing business models:

Under those rules, it's unlikely that we would have radio, cable TV, VCRs, DVRs, mp3 players, YouTube and much, much more. That's not how innovation or the law works. You don't assume everything innovative is illegal just because it upsets some obsolete business models. But that appears to be how Oman thinks the world should act. Stunningly, he even seems to admit that he'd be fine with none of the above being able to come to market without Congressional approval

www.techdirt.com...

he clearly thinks that innovative disruptive (to legacy players) models and tech should get exempted from current copy and patent laws,

this hands innovation decisions into the hands of congress on a case by case, tech by tech style manner,
effectivly allowing entrenched monopoly legacy players to lobbie competition out of the market "before" they have a share of the market, with which they can afford to lobbie from.

IMHO
radio is free to hear,
it acts like advertisment for the musicians,

but do it on the net,
or through a new medium,

and the legacy players get to lobby it to death before it can compete in a local market

i am reminded of a saying,
innovation rearly come from a captive market,

why can i record a song playing on the radio,
and not streaming from the net?
xploder

reply to post by ANOK


i accept your refined definition of capitalism in this contex,
but innovation should compete on its own marketability,
not on existing outdated model protections

xploder

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by XPLodER

 

taking innovation in front of congress first allows monopolies and their lobbies to serpress inovative ideas that would drive the economy forward

It doesn't take a genius to work that much out. Of course this former copyright boss is just ranting about ridiculous things which are not going to happen. But I don't think it particularly matters... the copyright offices still do a grand job of stopping any "disruptive innovation" in its tracks.

these are the people in the TPP (copy rite maximalists)
trans pacific partnership trade talks happining NOW
the ability to innovate is reduced the longer the term of copy rite exists.

in court the "holder" has codifyed "laws" that entrench legacy players at the expense of new tech.

if copy rite is designed in its inception to drive the value of innovation,
why is the law written in favour of suppressing new ideas?

xploder

reply to post by charles1952


while i understand the idea of getting exemptions directly from congress,
when the largest campaign doners are legacy industries, and the most powerful lobbies are legacy players,
there is a direct conflict of interests.

this gives an incentive to block economic expansion of more efficient models.

how can that help anyone

xploder

New technology is what pushes us forward and should always be supported.

Though I think that the technology that can provide better lives for humans should immediately become open source and set free for everyone to use.
Sure, the innovators of those ideas would not get any money, but they will get their names in the history-books, as heroes of mankind.
There will always be people whom are content with that, and I do not think that would be a reason for people to stop trying improving those fields of tech, even if they would not make money from it.

We need to start thinking beyond money.

reply to post by XPLodER

Dear XPLodER,

A debate? A de-BATE? A DE-bate? At nearly 3:30 in the morning? I wish I was drinking whatever it is that you have. Besides, I have a phone that you have to tap the keys three or four times to get a letter. They tell me it's for sending text messages, but I never have tried it. Looks scary. I'm not sure what is meant by "streaming," and at this time in the morning I'm thinking of a large brook and a picnic.

But given all that, let's take a look.

he clearly thinks that innovative disruptive (to legacy players) models and tech should get exempted from current copy and patent laws,

This confuses me, because I thought he was arguing that all new methods of transmission should obey the Copyright laws. (Oh, I made a mistake earlier. He was not the "Registrar" of copyrights, he was the "Register.") It seemed he was saying that if there's a new technology, check it against the law and if it violates the law, your recourse is to change the law.

Oman believes that the law was written in such a way as to include innovative technologies. Here's what he says about it:

.The tension between technology and copyright law in general is not new. It has been with us since the beginnings of copyright law and the widespread use of the printing press. Congress, when it enacted the present Copyright Act, both addressed existing conflicts and anticipated future technological developments. It took pains to ensure that the statute was technology neutral and emphasized that the broad rights it intended authors to enjoy should not be circumvented and infringed by new technologies.

Examples of the concept of technological neutrality that pervade the Copyright Act include the definition of a copyrighted work itself in Section 102(a) (work is distinct from a copy and is protectable when it is fixed in any medium “now known or later developed”) and the definition of a copy in Section 101 (copies are distinct from works and are “material objects . . . in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed”). Most significant, for purposes of this case, Congress adopted a broad definition of a public performance in Section 101 to include transmissions to the public by “any device or process.”

Indisputably, Congress drafted the Copyright Act to prevent the creative efforts of authors from being usurped by new technologies. That core principle is at the heart of the Copyright Act. Congressional intent would be undercut by any decision that would sanction the use of technologies which could be used indirectly to undermine its goals. Congress enacted a forward-looking statute that would protect those who create precisely so they have incentives to create.

My impression of his words is that Congress knew there would be technological changes, but that no matter what the change, these rules would be enforced, and they were written that way.

radio is free to hear,
it acts like advertisment for the musicians,

Yep, you're right. But is it free for the station? I'm guessing that artists ask "How many households do you reach? How many times a day will you play it, and when? How much will you pay me per play?" Then the artist can say Ok, or not.

Is that same freedom to bargain and contract available in this case? I don't know.

You're a great guy XPLodER (Girl? I can never remember. If you tell me I can guarantee I'll forget.)

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by LiberalSceptic
New technology is what pushes us forward and should always be supported.

yes YES yes

Though I think that the technology that can provide better lives for humans should immediately become open source and set free for everyone to use.

a famous american president said something very similar

Sure, the innovators of those ideas would not get any money, but they will get their names in the history-books, as heroes of mankind.

IMHO the innovator should get a percentage of the value,
like 1%, not exclusive rights for 70 years

There will always be people whom are content with that, and I do not think that would be a reason for people to stop trying improving those fields of tech, even if they would not make money from it.

imagine having to get approval from congress "first"

We need to start thinking beyond money.

i think public benefit should override the need for profits

thanks

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER

Dear XPLodER,

while i understand the idea of getting exemptions directly from congress,
when the largest campaign doners are legacy industries, and the most powerful lobbies are legacy players,
there is a direct conflict of interests.

this gives an incentive to block economic expansion of more efficient models.

how can that help anyone

Thank you very much for pointing out what may be the source of some confusion. We seem to be discussing two different things. One is the technology used for copying or transmitting things, and the other is the artist's work itself, the thing that is being transmitted.

My understanding is, that as long as the artist's property rights are protected (thereby giving him an incentive to create more), the technology used doesn't matter, and the guys with soldering guns (or whatever) are free to find newer, better, more efficient technology.

The goal seems to protect and encourage both the artist and the designer.

With respect,
charles1952

You're a great guy XPLodER (Girl? I can never remember. If you tell me I can guarantee I'll forget.)

With respect,
Charles1952

im a guy
and im in nz
must admit to enjoying our chats too

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER

Dear XPLodER,

im a guy
and im in nz
must admit to enjoying our chats too

See, I am tired. I should have known that. I could have picked out the New Zealand from your picture of that fig with eyes and a long stem. (Sometimes I crack myself up.)

And XPLodER would have to be a guy, otherwise you'd be XPLodETTE, or XPLodESS.

I don't know whether to get some sleep or sit here and see how goofy I can get.

With respect,
Charles1952

Thank you very much for pointing out what may be the source of some confusion. We seem to be discussing two different things. One is the technology used for copying or transmitting things, and the other is the artist's work itself, the thing that is being transmitted.

i fully support an artists right to protect their art music stories ect,
(although the time frame is excessive)
i am more interested in the method of transmittion (patent) in this instance,
and how that effects the status of transmitted material (copy rite)

My understanding is, that as long as the artist's property rights are protected (thereby giving him an incentive to create more), the technology used doesn't matter, and the guys with soldering guns (or whatever) are free to find newer, better, more efficient technology.

except the "suggestion" is
any transmition tech would have to have its "platform" individually exempted by congress,
to allow for copy rite material to be "played" or "streamed" to an audience.

in the case of radio its already done and cheep,
for the new tech its not been exempted and overly expensive

The goal seems to protect and encourage both the artist and the designer.

With respect,
charles1952

with copy rite the time frame preserves income without cost to innovation =good
with patent the time frame costs innovative competition in the free market = bad

xploder

Originally posted by XPLodER

Originally posted by LiberalSceptic
New technology is what pushes us forward and should always be supported.

yes YES yes

Though I think that the technology that can provide better lives for humans should immediately become open source and set free for everyone to use.

a famous american president said something very similar

Sure, the innovators of those ideas would not get any money, but they will get their names in the history-books, as heroes of mankind.

IMHO the innovator should get a percentage of the value,
like 1%, not exclusive rights for 70 years

There will always be people whom are content with that, and I do not think that would be a reason for people to stop trying improving those fields of tech, even if they would not make money from it.

imagine having to get approval from congress "first"

We need to start thinking beyond money.

i think public benefit should override the need for profits

thanks

xploder

I am not aware of which president that was, care to elaborate?
Ok, I can agree to a very small percentage, but it should not be the main goal for developing.
The main thing is that we need to start share things, out of our own free will.
**** congress
Indeed, you are correct, that is the cornerstone that we should try to raise. The wellbeing of all humans should come before the wealth of one person. Perhaps it will be hard in the beginning, but when a system like that have been going on for some years, everything will start to fall into place.